Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Sorcha Eastwood Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I want to put two things on record at the outset. The Labour party does not stand for election in Northern Ireland. We do not have elections next week or the week after, so everything I am about to say has got absolutely nothing to do with a so-called political stunt, and everything to do with the integrity of this House. By the way, I find patronising the idea that we should not be discussing these things because the Government of the day want to get on with discussing the cost of living. I have had two car bombs at the edges of my constituency in the past five weeks, so believe me there are much bigger things that I would prefer to be talking about. However, it is incumbent on everybody in this House to ensure that everything we are doing is completely above board.

Last week, I said that I did not know why Mandelson was appointed. The Prime Minister said it was a mistake, but here is what I do not understand: everything about Mandelson that would have been a cause for concern was open-source material—it was out there. Peter Mandelson would not have survived the vetting for a kids’ football club, and rightly so. Yet we are expected to believe, by those on the Labour Benches, that “There is nothing to see here, we are going to do some process here and there; it’s a bit of a hoo-hah,” as if there has been a bit of opprobrium around the appointment of a local rotary club. This is the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland; and we need to make sure that everything that is done here has the trust and confidence of the people we were sent here to represent.

Something I am really passionate about is people being able to get on in life. The social mobility figures for the UK are declining steeply, which should be a concern for us all. But don’t worry about that—it seems to be “jobs for the boys”, going great guns over the road in Labour. Instead of a meritocracy, it is a chumocracy. That is the nub of this: we cannot get answers as to why this was done.

Today, I am asking: will the real Prime Minister please stand up? Please stand up. Is it the man who wanted to tread lightly on our lives? Is it the man who promised a decade of national renewal? Is it the man who said he was going to do things by the book and better? Because in my nearly two years here, I have not seen that.

I commend the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) for her heartfelt words. This should not be about party politics—it should be about doing the right thing. I am here as the one Member of my party in Westminster, so I am aware that I am speaking from a place of privilege myself. But believe you me: there is a stink here, and the public smell it. If we are serious about getting better in terms of making our constituents’ lives better and proving that this place can deliver, every single person here today has a choice—make the right one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell]

I am going to make some progress, if that is okay—[Interruption.] I am in the flow of things and I am not halfway through yet, so I have a long way to go.

The PM’s PPS flagged that the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein would be gone over with the Prime Minister by his private office, and the principal private secretary noted that after a decision to proceed was made, only then would a decision be made as to when to make any appointment and announce it, and when the new ambassador would take up post, subject to a letter from the Foreign Secretary to the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, followed by approval by the King and then agrément being obtained from the US Administration.

Correspondence from No. 10 to the permanent under-secretary at the FCDO, and from the FCDO PUS at the time, Sir Philip Barton, to the King’s private secretary, was disclosed in the first volume of material published following the Humble Address, which testifies to this sequence of events having taken place. On 20 December 2024, the private secretary to the permanent under-secretary at the FCDO emailed Mandelson congratulating him on his appointment and noting his onboarding, including regarding his “clearance”, which the head of the US and Canada Department of the FCDO noted on 23 December 2024 was an important “first step”.

When Sir Olly Robbins came before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 November last year, he said in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson):

“as is normally the case with external appointments to my Department and the wider civil service, the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance.”

Moreover, Sir Olly confirmed in that very session:

“we also went through the standard UK national security vetting process for DV… I am absolutely confident that UKSV undertook the process in precisely its standard way, doing all the checks it would expect to do, and we had ample time to assess and decide on the basis of its work.”

In reference to the remarks by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), it was worth noting for the record that it was confirmed to the Foreign Affairs Committee that the high-risk concerns in SV were not Epstein-related.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Does that make it better?

[Phil Brickell]

I am correcting the hon. Member on the points mentioned here; I am not here to talk about the process—we will come on to that shortly.

Chris Wormald, the former Cabinet Secretary, noted at the same session on 3 November that

“the normal thing is for the security clearance to happen after appointment but before the person signs a contract”

—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) mentioned—and

“takes up post. If we are recruiting a permanent secretary or similar from outside the civil service, that is normally what would happen: the security clearance process would happen after the announcement of the appointment but before the person takes up post, and the appointment would be subject to the security clearance being granted.”

Mandelson was issued an FCDO employment contract with a start date of 3 February 2025. Section 17 of that contract, entitled “Security Clearance”, was explicit:

“You must obtain the required level of security clearance as soon as possible and maintain the required level of security clearance throughout your employment.”

Dated 30 January 2025, Mandelson’s offer of fixed-term employment with the FCDO confirmed his

“security clearance has been confirmed by Vetting Unit and is valid until 29 January 2030.”

I will not be selective in referring to evidence given to this House that favours one view or another, so let me be clear: Olly Robbins mentioned in his letter of 21 April to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee that the then Cabinet Secretary at the time of Mandelson’s appointment being proposed, Simon Case, recommended—the operative word—in November 2024 that vetting should have been completed before an announcement was made. But in the very same letter of 21 April, Robbins was also explicit in confirming that:

“When the Prime Minister informed the House that the proper process had been followed in respect of NSV, he was correct.”

Moreover, on the topic of vetting, Robbins stood by the letter he wrote with the Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 16 September 2025, in which he confirmed:

“Ministers…are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome.”

He went on to state in his letter on 21 April:

“This position reflected long-standing practice and guidance, and correctly constrained our ability to share information beyond the vetting process then or later.”

He noted that the FCDO

“completed DV to the normal high standard”;

that he, Robbins, met the director for the estates, security and network directorate and was briefed orally that Mandelson was

“a ‘borderline’ case, leaning towards recommending that clearance be denied”;

that the highest risks “could be managed and mitigated”, as recommended by ESND; and that UKSV acknowledged that the FCDO may wish to grant clearance. Robbins also confirmed that UK Security Vetting

“did not ‘fail’ Mandelson and FCDO did not ‘overrule’ their decision”;

that a risk-based decision was arrived at by the FCDO, taking into account the feedback from UKSV as a result of the full vetting process having been gone through; and that

“DV clearance is a risk judgement.”

Sir Olly was clear in his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee recently that no direct communication took place between anyone in No. 10 and himself, that the interaction between UK Security Vetting and the Foreign Office was “entirely standard”, and that clearance was granted subject to mitigations agreed following an FCDO security department assessment that could address the highest risks associated with Mandelson.

Take the remarks from Cat Little, civil service chief operating officer and permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office, in her oral evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee. She was clear in her remarks last week:

“My view is that due process was followed, and if I might explain why I believe that, it is because the process, as I have outlined to the Committee, is that UKSV makes a recommendation and the Foreign Office makes a decision as to whether to grant DV. That is the process, and that is the process that is agreed with the Foreign Office.”

Furthermore, Cat Little was clear about vetting in her oral evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee:

“I do have access to a number of emails that have been disclosed recently to me… What I can see is that there is a senior official from the Government Security Group who goes back to the Foreign Office security team and advises two things: one, that this is a decision for the Foreign Office, and two, that they would advise that developed vetting is sought.”

She went on to say that

“the Prime Minister did not know about the UKSV conclusion, and he did not know which specific risks were identified at the time of appointment.”

Only this morning, former Foreign Office permanent secretary Sir Philip Barton told the Committee that he was confident that the appropriate process was carried out.

Those are not my comments, but those of senior civil servants—a former Cabinet Secretary, two former permanent under-secretaries of the FCDO and the current permanent under-secretary at the Cabinet Office—and they all stand in direct contract with the motion before the House. They are all of the view that proper process was followed. I know whose words I would rather believe. Their remarks chime with those of the Prime Minister, who said:

“for a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment but before the individual starting in post.”—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 24.]

Opposition Members might object to the process—they would be right to do so—but it was set out at the time of the appointment, and it was followed by the Cabinet Office, the FCDO, UKSV and, ultimately, the Prime Minister. As the Minister ultimately accountable for the decision, the Prime Minister has rightly changed the process so that appointments can be confirmed only once vetting has been completed. He has rightly appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead a review of security vetting to ensure consistency across Government in the way decision makers are informed of concerns ahead of appointments.

The Prime Minister has rightly set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission and tasked it with improving processes around lobbying, the revolving door between Government and the private sector, and financial transparency. I commend him for those steps and for his commitment to introducing as soon as possible legislation allowing for the removal of disgraced peers—that is the right thing to do. I trust that the legislation will obtain support from across this House.

Only yesterday, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister confirmed that

“the Cabinet Office will have passed to the ISC all the material it has processed as part of the Humble Address and judged to be prejudicial to national security or international relations. This has amounted to over 300 individual documents. It includes a number that are relevant to the processes of Peter Mandelson’s security vetting, too.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 588.]

We expect the second tranche of documents under the ambit of the Humble Address to be published after Parliament returns following Prorogation.

As mentioned in yesterday’s ministerial statement on progress on the Humble Address, outstanding documents are either with the Government awaiting publication, with the ISC, or with the Metropolitan police, given the ongoing criminal investigation into Mandelson. The last time a Prime Minister’s conduct was referred to the Privileges Committee was during the covid pandemic. Boris Johnson was under investigation by the Metropolitan police for repeatedly partying in No. 10 during lockdown. He then misled the House by saying that rules had been followed when they had not. The police had issued fixed penalty notices for breaches of covid-19 regulations.

I have mentioned the Cabinet Office’s vital ongoing work to review the documents within the remit of the Humble Address, the Intelligence and Security Committee’s work to review proposed redactions, the Foreign Affairs Committee’s public evidence sessions, and the wholly separate police investigation. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is: why bring this motion now? Why bring this motion when we have not had the full disclosure of the documents within the ambit of the Humble Address, including the private messages, WhatsApps, and the additional minutes and file notes that were not published in volume one back in March. Why duplicate the work that is already being undertaken by the Cabinet Office and the ISC under the Humble Address? Why not wait until after Prorogation, when the full documentary evidence is available, to determine whether a Privileges Committee referral is warranted? Why not wait until all relevant witnesses have given evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee? We are only just digesting the evidence given today.

The Leader of the Opposition makes much of due process in her motion. My retort is simple: due process ought also to be followed in getting to the truth. Let all the documents be released, and then let this House determine the facts of the matter. The cynic in me would say that today’s privileges motion is nothing but a bare-faced political stunt by the Conservative party, which, with just over a week to go until the local elections, is clutching at straws. It politicises the important review process that is under way across Government and Westminster. Hard-working and dedicated civil servants are working alongside Ministers to ensure that the Humble Address is fulfilled as quickly as possible. My first obligation is to this country above all else. I owe it to my constituents to outline my rationale and my way of thinking, as I have done. I will vote with the Government today.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Sorcha Eastwood Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier]

The hon. Gentleman highlights an important point in relation to my amendment and others: in this House, we made coercive control illegal in legislation only in recent years. This is such a big issue, and what is different about the Bill—this is why some positions are particularly challenging—is that we are talking about irreversible decisions.

I want to talk a bit about how the teenage brain works. Children and young people are particularly susceptible to being influenced, including into dangerous and risky behaviour. In a number of countries, assisted dying laws have been expanded to allow children and young people to end their lives. We need to be alert to that very real risk. I am impressed by the work of the Children’s Commissioner, who recently published a report into children’s views on assisted dying. It was heart wrenching to read. Those with illnesses and disabilities were particularly concerned about what the Bill means for them. These children have not really had a voice in the debate so far, and there is talk about whether the Bill may apply to children with life limiting or severe progressive diseases.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I, too, am greatly concerned about our young people. I was at an event in my constituency of Lagan Valley the other night, at which it was said that almost all our young people across the UK are having their mental health impacted by social media. If we throw this into the mix, it has the potential to do untold damage. I do not support the Bill, but I applaud everybody who has taken the time today, regardless of their view, to try to make it better. However, I have grave concerns about its ramifications.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. If I have time, I will touch on social media, but I want to put on the record my thanks to some of the professionals who gave of their time to speak to me in preparation for my amendment.

UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms

Sorcha Eastwood Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of digital platforms on UK democracy.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to host this debate today, and I thank the sponsors and Members here present for supporting it. I begin by paying tribute to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, two public servants murdered in the name of hatred—the very hatred and radicalisation that digital platforms fuel. We are failing a whole generation. We are failing young women facing unprecedented levels of abuse and harassment. We are failing young men being radicalised and exploited in plain sight. We are failing democracy itself, as misinformation and intimidation silence voices and distort political participation.

Today’s digital age presents a new, unparalleled threat to our democracy. Social media is not without its benefits. It allows us to connect with constituents and promote causes; indeed, I am sure that all of us would be looked upon very unfavourably if we did not engage in the online space in some shape or form. It has become one of the few ways that young people engage with politics, and it has played a pivotal role in promoting grassroots activism and greater transparency. However, we now face a national emergency of misinformation and digital violence. Families, teachers and even young people themselves are crying out for an overhaul.

Just this past month, we have seen stark reminders of the harm that digital platforms enable. The release of “Adolescence” has rightly ignited a national conversation about online misogyny and radicalisation, exposing the toxic digital culture infiltrating our homes and classrooms. We only have to look at cases like the murder of Brianna Ghey to see the horrifying real-world impact. The reality is that young men radicalised online do not just stay there; they go out into the world and sometimes commit the most heinous acts of violence.

The rising tide of online hate and radicalisation does not exist in isolation. Misogyny, incel ideology and far-right extremism, among others, are not just thriving in online spaces; they are being actively cultivated by algorithms that are designed to maximise engagement and profit. That is a really important point, which I will come back to later.

Esther Ghey, Brianna’s mum, has called social media “an absolute cesspit”, and I am sure that we all agree. She has called for an under-16s ban, and she is right to do so. I want to make it clear that this crisis is not confined to one country, one background or even one ideology. The names change, but the pattern remains the same. Parents are terrified and teachers powerless, and children are being exploited right under our noses. All we have to do is look at the case of Alexander McCartney, a prolific paedophile who sat in his bedroom in County Armagh and abused thousands of children across the world. It is the UK’s largest ever catfishing case, involving a man who used social media to blackmail, torment and sexually exploit children across the world. When I participated in a discussion last year on the safer phones Bill, all the big social media companies were present. After they had boasted about how they self-regulated, I asked them whether they were familiar with the Alexander McCartney case.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate, and on all the campaign work that she is doing. Does she agree that although there are some fantastic examples of social media being used positively to enhance democracy and political participation, this is often reliant on benevolent and honest owners, and that our democratic safeguards should not rest on the presumption of good will or honesty from technology giants?

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Absolutely, and that is a really timely point. We should not outsource our children’s safety to social media companies. Indeed, we heard in a previous statement about the impact of content moderation and how it may or not form part of discussions on trade agreements as we move forward.

When I sat in a room with all the social media companies, only one had heard of the Alex McCartney case. That tells us everything that we need to know about how seriously big tech takes child safety.

It should not take a TV show like “Adolescence” to make the Government wake up to what has been warping our society for years. The actions that they have taken so far have been inadequate. Meeting the creators of “Adolescence” was indeed welcome, but it is simply not enough. Commissioning more reviews, talking about cultural change, and tinkering at the edges will not fix the problem. We must speak to the platforms in the only language they understand: profit and loss. We know what drives this issue: algorithms, content recommendation systems and the financial interests of the big tech companies actively steer vulnerable young people towards ever more extreme content. This is not a side effect; it is their business model.

Fundamentally, this debate is about power: who holds it, who wields it, and in whose name are they acting? Right now, big tech billionaires and online extremists are working hand in hand, shaping our children and democracy, and warping our society. This Government have been too slow, too weak and too captured by vested interests to stop them. Figures like Andrew Tate have built empires by manipulating young men into their worlds of violent misogyny, lies and conspiracy. Tate has ingratiated himself with Donald Trump and Elon Musk, but does he care about men? Not a bit—he exploits them. This is not just an individual person behaving irresponsibly; it is a co-ordinated machine trying to drown out critical voices, spread misinformation and undermine public debate.

Let us be honest: agitators and bullies like the Tate brothers have always existed. What has changed are the tools and the platforms that they have at their disposal, which give them access to young people in particular. Let us be clear: their reach is not accidental. Andrew Tate is amplified, promoted and monetised by the same platforms that claim to be unable to regulate online harm. This is not just about free speech; it is about radicalisation and control. Powerful malign actors—some overseas, and some home grown—are exploiting our young people and our political system for profit. Social media platforms are not neutral: they push extremist content deliberately, algorithmically and at scale.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for the clear way that she is laying out some of the issues that we are talking about today. I am lucky enough to be a vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, and one of our strands of work is on tackling myths and disinformation. One of the calls I have heard is that, at the very least, the social media giants should have a duty to carry out a risk assessment of legal but harmful content, which covers some of the issues that she is talking about. Does she agree that that is the very least the platforms could do?

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I thank the hon. Member for her comments, and I completely agree that that is the bare minimum that they should do.

A report by Hope Not Hate found that almost 90% of boys aged 16 to 18 in the UK have consumed content from Andrew Tate. On Elon Musk’s X, a platform that has dismantled its trust and safety teams, Tate’s videos dominate young men’s feeds. If we allow this climate to continue, we are handing digital platforms the power to dictate political debate, poison young minds and do irreparable damage to our democracy.

Of course, the loudest free speech warriors are the first to silence criticism, as I know from personal experience. After I called out Elon Musk for platforming extremism, Tate’s followers immediately descended on me with a flood of abuse and harassment. That was not random; it was a deliberate attempt to silence an elected representative. I was bombarded with death threats, rape jokes and abuse from accounts both local and international. Then the Tate brothers themselves came after me—two men running from the most serious criminal charges and propped up by the world’s most powerful leaders. They targeted me, an elected representative from Northern Ireland, for daring to speak my mind. It was not even about them—it was about Musk—but it was a calculated attempt to silence an elected politician. I was, in their words, “a nice target”. It was a direct attack on democracy and on this House itself.

This is not just about individuals; it is about democracy. We have seen a deliberate, organised effort to create an online environment where extremism flourishes, where intimidation becomes the norm, and where women, minorities and political opponents are driven out of public life.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this really important debate, and for her passionate speech. She highlights the ripple effect that will be created if we do not challenge social media companies. In the last general election, we saw so many women and black and minority ethnic candidates being targeted online by anonymous social media accounts, and much of that went unchecked. Does she agree that if we do not deal with this issue, we will see fewer people putting themselves forward to stand for public office?

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I am really honoured that she is here today, because her voice is so important. When I was elected to the House last year, I was really proud to be here as part of a diverse Parliament. That diversity is welcomed across the House and is reflected on these Benches. That is good, but I have to be honest and say that we have heard from many parliamentarians—not just here, but across the UK—that if they had known what being an elected representative would bring to their life, they would not have stepped forward. But that is exactly what we need, because the social media companies want those voices to be silenced.

This is not just about our agreeing with the political views we like—absolutely not. I will defend to the hilt the right of people to express views that I absolutely do not agree with, because they need to be heard too. The hon. Member made a really important point, and I thank her for it.

The Northern Ireland Electoral Commission’s report on the 2024 UK general election laid bare that over half of candidates reported harassment, intimidation or abuse; one in ten faced severe abuse; and women were disproportionately targeted, as were minorities, often by anonymous accounts—the point just made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). The consequences were immediate: nearly 40% of candidates avoided solo campaigning and almost 20% avoided social media altogether. This is a system in which intimidation silences voices before they can even be heard. I have heard the same warnings from colleagues across this House, and the chilling effect is real.

It is much bigger than this too. Let us be clear: our democracy is under threat, and the battlefield is not just in Parliament or the ballot box, but online, where rogue states and billionaire tech moguls are manipulating public opinion for their own ends. The recent Romanian presidential election should have been a routine democratic process. Instead, it became a cautionary tale. A pro-Russian candidate who did not debate, did not campaign and supposedly spent nothing suddenly surged to the top of the first round, and the election was then annulled. That was digital interference in action—a warning for every European democracy, including our own.

If Members think that is just happening in Romania, they should think again. Here in the UK, over half of the public said they saw misleading information about party policies and candidates during the last general election. Nearly a quarter of voters say they have encountered election-related deepfakes, while 18% were not even sure if they had. The scale of the problem is staggering. Democracy does not function when voters cannot trust what they see or hear, yet the people in control of these digital platforms are not just bystanders, but active participants.

How is it that Elon Musk, now sitting in Trump’s Administration, owns one of the world’s biggest digital platforms, which has spiralled into a far-right cesspit? Remember when we thought silicon valley’s tech bros were going to make society better—more open and more progressive? Those days are long gone. Now they have tasted power and they are in the White House, endorsing the AfD—Alternative für Deutschland—in Germany, while their algorithms push misogynists and conspiracy theorists to the top of feeds.

This is not a glitch in the system; this is the system. It is a system that rewards the loudest, most divisive voices while drowning out facts and reasoned debate. If we care about democracy here in the UK, we need to stop treating social media giants as neutral platforms, and call them what they are: political actors. If we do not hold them to account, we are not just allowing misinformation to spread, but handing them the keys to our elections on a silver platter.

For online abusers, anonymity is not protection; it is a weapon, and overwhelmingly it is used against women and minorities. For centuries, democratic debate was based on people knowing who they were engaging with. Anonymity once existed to protect the speaker from harm. Now it enables the speaker to inflict harm with impunity. This is not about free speech; it is part of a political strategy; a co-ordinated effort to undermine trust in institutions, silence opposition and create a hostile environment for anyone who dares to challenge the status quo. When those in power let this happen—by dragging their feet on game-changing legislation, by gutting a private Member’s Bill and by potentially scrapping a digital tax, handing more money to the very platforms on which these predators thrive—they are sending a message. It is a message to every woman in public life and every girl in this country that their safety is not the Government’s problem.

What needs to be done? We must deprive these hate figures and predators of the oxygen of publicity. Why is it being tolerated? The Online Safety Act 2023 was outdated before it was even fully implemented. It is too slow and too weak, and the harms it was designed to address have only worsened. Regulators lack the power to challenge big tech, and Ministers are too afraid to stand up to Musk and Trump. Every concession emboldens these extremists, there is no appeasing them, and our children’s lives cannot be collateral damage in a reckless pursuit of growth.

Australia has taken decisive, world-leading action. It has introduced a full ban on social media for under-16s. Meanwhile, the UK’s digital age of consent remains 13. That means children as young as year 8 can legally sign up to platforms awash with violent misogyny, porn, self-harm content and extremist material. What more proof do this Government need? The safer phones Bill could have been a game changer. Instead, it was watered down, gutted and abandoned. Why? It was because this Government prioritised big tech’s profits over our children’s wellbeing. We do not need any more reviews or consultations, but we do need decisive, courageous action. While this Government dither, the average 12 to 15-year-old now spends 35 hours a week—more than a full-time job—on their phone.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a genuinely powerful speech with a really strong argument, and I commend her for it. The Government may be struggling to tackle the digital platforms themselves, but would a useful first step be banning telephones in schools up to the age of 16?

[Sorcha Eastwood]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. This is a huge issue to grapple with, but I think the evidence is clear about what this has caused so far. There is a valid discussion to be had about the use of phones, and school is possibly one of the only places where our children’s devices will be taken off them for a set period, but the issue is what is on the phones when they get them back. For me, that is the point at hand.

To conclude, who would want to be a child growing up in this world today? That question is really distressing and disturbing. It is a world in which radicalisation is just a click away, misinformation spreads like wildfire and people’s reputations are trashed in seconds, and it is one in which those who challenge it are met with a wall of co-ordinated abuse. I know I would not want to be growing up today, with political donations, foreign interference in elections, voter manipulation, online bullying, deepfakes, mental health problems and class disruption—and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Sadly, I do not have time to cover it all, but I do know that we have a moral duty to protect young people and future generations, and I truly believe that everybody in this House genuinely believes that and wants to act on it.

This is now a national security issue. A society in which young men are radicalised against women is a society that becomes more violent, fractured and dangerous for us all. We are at a critical juncture. The question before us is clear: do we allow the likes of Andrew Tate, Donald Trump, Elon Musk and others to profit from poisoning the minds of our young people, or do we stand up for our children, our country, our democracy and the very fabric of our society? The Government must act, and act now. So I ask: what is stopping us? If not now, when? The time to act is today, for the sake of our children and, indeed, our very democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I thank everybody who has contributed to today’s debate, the Backbench Business Committee for giving permission for it, and those who supported the application for it. I also thank the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds)—I was privileged to have her in the Chamber for this debate, and her contribution was really poignant and incredibly moving. I thank the shadow spokespeople, and I thank the Minister for her remarks.

Today should be the start of a conversation and a dialogue. It is clear that everybody in the Chamber is passionate about moving forward on this issue and defending our constituents, our country and our democracy. I look forward to working with everybody across the House on tackling this issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of digital platforms on UK democracy.

International Human Rights Day

Sorcha Eastwood Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Fabian Hamilton]

Yes, and I would be interested to hear from our Minister whether we should join that action, because in some way or another, we really need to draw the world’s attention more clearly, and in a more focused way, to the shocking, appalling and totally unjustifiable treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan—and, indeed, other parts of the world. Until the sexes in this world are equal, we will not have the peace, justice and development that all humanity deserves.

Under this Government, we rightly have a relentless focus on tackling violence against women and girls in our country, but that focus should extend across the world, as I have said. It is simply incomprehensible—I stress this again—that in the 21st century, the Taliban can completely silence Afghan women and girls, almost erasing their very existence and barring them from education and public life. Extremely courageous women who protest against these violations face the most terrifying consequences, including enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and torture.

Just today, I heard an example of how this works on the ground in Afghanistan. I was told by somebody who knows the country well, and who is not an Afghan, that he recently spoke to Afghan doctors and midwives about the problems that many Afghan women experience when giving birth, especially in remote rural areas. Birth complications can lead to all sorts of other horrors, including the death of babies at birth. Under a special exception, the Taliban have allowed women to work as doctors and midwives, thank goodness, but a problem arises if a female midwife or doctor is stopped by, as he put it, a “bearded man” while she walks to work from where she lives. She will be stopped and questioned, and sometimes returned home. As women and girls can no longer get the training or education necessary to become gynaecologists, obstetricians, specialists, doctors, clinicians or midwives, there is a time-bomb ticking in this field of work, among others, in Afghanistan. It is extremely disturbing.

Our APPG is worried about democratic back-sliding globally, and the consequent erosion of political and civil rights, such as freedom of expression, assembly and association. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s democracy index, less than 8% of the world’s population lived in a full, proper democracy in 2023. Almost 40% lived under authoritarian rule—a share that has been creeping up in recent years. I do not need to remind hon. Members that this is happening, because we are all aware of it. Every single day, we hear stories of Parliaments and parliamentary democracy under attack.

Electoral autocracies are becoming more prevalent; sham elections are held, in a largely unsuccessful attempt to provide a veneer of political legitimacy. I will not name countries, but we all know who they are. The increase in violent conflict, as seen in Russia and the middle east, has stifled progress towards more meaningful political participation. It would be helpful to know more about how our Government will continue to promote and support democracy across the world and, closer to home, whether the defending democracy taskforce still has a role to play in protecting the UK’s democratic integrity from threats of foreign interference.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I really appreciate the hon. Member bringing this matter to the House today. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that we do everything we can to stand up for human rights, whether at home or abroad. The need to stand up for democracy, not only in the world in which we live physically but online, is also a real concern for me and many across the House. Does he agree that we need to do everything we can to ensure that elections, not just here but across the world, and the tenets of democracy are protected as we struggle to deal with those who would love to erode the fundamental freedoms and human rights that we hold dear?

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank the hon. Member for making such an important intervention. I would certainly agree that online interference is something we should be deeply concerned about. Indeed, we are deeply concerned about it. We have seen examples of that interference, that hacking and those bots, as they call them, creating posts for non-existent individuals on our social media, urging people to do something or to vote in a particular way, and quoting sham facts and figures that are made up or invented to persuade people to make a decision that would be against their interests or inclinations.

In connection with the latter, I note a growing worry about transnational repression when authoritarian Governments reach across their borders to silence dissent among diaspora communities and exiles, including through illegal deportation, abduction, digital threats, attacks and family intimidation. Indeed, we have heard examples in recent years of BBC World Service correspondents in London having their families intimidated, harassed or even arrested by the authorities in Iran. Those people have nothing whatever to do with the work that their family members are doing here in London, but they are none the less paying the price for that freedom to broadcast, that freedom of information and the brilliant work that the BBC World Service does.

The UK has not been immune to this, as I have just said, and I am pleased that our Government have recognised that. Individuals living here who have left Russia, Hong Kong, China or Iran have been subject to surveillance, attacks, confiscation of their properties and bank accounts in their countries of origin, and even assassination and attempted assassination.

UK parliamentarians have been targeted as well, with foreign Governments imposing sanctions against them for calling out human rights violations. This will need to be more effectively addressed. I am sure I am not alone in the House in finding out that all my assets and bank accounts in Russia, of which I have none whatsoever, have been confiscated or closed down. In recent years, members of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the last Parliament were refused visas to go to China because of what the Committee had said about Hong Kong and Taiwan. This is simply unacceptable, and we need to address it.

As I said earlier, I am the current chair of the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and I would like to commend the human rights work of the IPU, particularly that of its committee on the human rights of parliamentarians—not the one I chair, but the international one—which is doing a lot of work to defend the rights of parliamentarians. The committee seeks to defend them when they are under attack. Every year, MPs around the world face abuse, mistreatment, disappearance and sometimes death. The human rights APPG and the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union work hand in hand in the belief that parliamentarians’ voices must be protected and allowed to be heard, free from the fear of violence or harassment. Parliamentarians are often the so-called canaries in the coal mine. If the human rights of parliamentarians are being violated, the situation of those in that country who do not have wider popular backing or the high profile of a local MP is likely to be far, far worse.

I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to make it clear that this Government will put human rights and peace building at the forefront of our foreign policy once again. That includes a relentless focus on securing the release of arbitrarily detained nationals such as Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori. Anoosheh spoke extremely powerfully and beautifully at last week’s event about his imprisonment in Iran, and I am pleased to call him a friend. He is a delightful man and I am amazed that, after the ordeal he went through, he is still able to campaign in the open and democratic way that he has. He really is a remarkable man. I would like to gain more support for victims of gender-based violence in conflict and modern-day slavery, and to encourage support for the International Criminal Court and the importance of international law.

More specifically, parliamentarians have a key role to play in ensuring Governments’ compliance with human rights obligations, and holding those Governments to account for any violations; in incorporating human rights protections in national legislation; in helping to generate the necessary political will to bring about positive change domestically and internationally; and in engaging with, supporting and validating civil society, human rights defenders and inter-governmental and grassroots human rights organisations. I pay tribute to all Members of the House and the other place for their work on these issues, whether on Select Committees, with all-party parliamentary groups or in their individual engagement with human rights organisations and defenders.

I also pay tribute to my dear friend, Tony Lloyd, who died earlier this year, from whom I took over the responsibility of chairing the APPG on human rights. He was a spokesperson from his first election in 1983, through his time as Minister of State at the Foreign Office in Tony Blair’s Government of 1997, for human rights and for the prominence and importance of human rights worldwide. Not long before he died, he spoke to a friend of mine and said, “In the event of my death, I would like Fabian Hamilton to take over the role.” I found that deeply moving, so I undertake the role not just in the name of all those who are oppressed, whose human rights are not easy or clear, or whose human rights are taken away from them, but in the name of Tony Lloyd, to carry on the work he did.

Governments, of course, have the ultimate responsibility for ensuring their citizens benefit from their rights, and for promoting respect for human rights internationally. I know this Government take that responsibility seriously. Having worked closely with the Foreign Secretary and his excellent team for several years, I can say with the utmost certainty that this Government are committed to protecting the rule of law and the international rules-based order on which our security and prosperity rest.

I therefore welcome the Government’s unflinching approach to calling out serious and systematic human rights violations committed by state and non-state actors and, when appropriate, the imposition of sanctions. I believe it would be beneficial for the Government to consider bringing in legislation on mandatory human rights and environmental corporate due diligence.

Finally, the debate could not come at a more appropriate time. Democracy and freedoms hang by a thread across the world: in Putin’s Russia, there are forced conscriptions for the illegal war in Ukraine; the Iranian regime is clamping down on legitimate protests with the most brutal force; and China continues to lurch towards interference in our democracy, has all but destroyed any semblance of it in Hong Kong, and wishes to attack the democracy that is now evident in Taiwan. Members of the all-party parliamentary group on human rights and I hope to continue engaging on these issues with the FCDO, and I am looking forward to the Minister’s response on this 76th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights.