Commons Chamber

Tuesday 24th February 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:42
Tim Farron Portrait Tim Farron MP (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Tim Farron Mr. speaker, I welcome what the Minister has just said in response to my hon. Friend's question, but we start a Friend's question, but we start a long way behind the average in OECD countries that 53% of people with cancer have access to radiotherapy. In England, it is 36% in south Cumbria and Lancashire, the worst in the country just 29%. It's no doubt in our communities in south Cumbria. That is down to the fact that my patients in our communities have to travel three hour round trips to get treatment at Preston every day.

Will she support the new plans? We've got to bring a satellite radiotherapy unit to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kendal, so that people in our communities can have shorter journeys and longer lives. Minister. I thank him for his question and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for his question and we share a part of that ICB because it covers my constituency as well it covers my constituency as well and this is why we've made a commitment in the cancer plan to make sure that coastal and rural make sure that coastal and rural areas are getting services that they need. It's why we're investing more in radiotherapy machines, and more in radiotherapy machines, and it's why we're working with Icbs to work with them, to make sure that they're providing the services that are needed by their communities, and that we're supporting the recruitment of the cancer workforce necessary to be able to go into those particular rural areas as well.
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:08
None Portrait Q11. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of health-related funding for specialist sexual violence support services. (907935)
-

Mr Speaker. Prime Minister has made tackling violence against women and girls a priority across this government, and every public service must play
12:08
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:41
None Portrait Mr Speaker
-

Online services.
12:41
12:42
12:42
Esther McVey Portrait Rt Hon Esther McVey MP (Tatton, Conservative)
-
-
leave be given to bring in a bill to introduce compulsory labelling of halal and kosher meat and products containing halal and kosher meat, and for connected purposes. Mr. speaker, this is a bill about animal welfare, transparency in meat production and consumer choice. It does not seek to ban halal or kosher meat. It seeks to ensure they are clearly labelled. It is important consumers have such information so they can make an informed choice about what they are buying. And currently consumers do not have that information and many are purchasing and consuming halal and kosher meat without their knowledge and without their agreement.

The unique process of halal and kosher meat requires the animal to have its throat slit. In the case of halal meat, the animal is often stunned before it's killed, although it might not be, and for the killing. For kosher meat, there is no pre stunning. This lack of stunning causes the animal to experience severe pain. An individual concerned about animal welfare would want to know if an animal has been stunned prior to slaughter. Likewise, there are many religious groups who want to know what they are consuming too.

And if meat has been blessed by another religion. In all these cases, clear labelling is essential to make an informed choice. Currently, the legislation that regulates animal slaughter is set out in assimilated EU regulation 1099 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, as well as in the welfare of animals at the time of killing. England Regulations 2015. Under these laws, animals must be stunned before killing, but exemptions exist for killing without stunning in accordance with specific religious rites.

Added to that, there are currently no requirements for such meat to be labelled and what was once an exemption to the accepted stunning process of animals has become a growing part of the UK's meat market. The government's own figures show that of the 1.35 billion animals processed in English and Welsh slaughterhouses in 2024, an estimated 214.6 million were slaughtered to produce halal meat. The analysis shows the total meat supplied by Non-stun Slaughter is about four times greater than the population of Muslims and Jews in the UK.

So while government guidance is clear that Non-stun slaughter must be intended for consumption by Jews or Muslims, production is clearly going way beyond that. So much so. The UK is now exporting halal meat abroad. Between 2018 and 19 there was an almost 700% increase in the volume of sheepmeat exported to the UK, all of which is required to be halal. Clearly without compulsory labelling of non-stun meat, slaughterhouses have gone down the route of producing more of it. In effect, a two tier system has been created, one in which some slaughterhouses comply by stunning laws and one in which others don't.

Citing the religious exemption without ever intending to focus their sale on that market. Unfortunately, a driver of this market of non-stun meat is that a step of the process is removed, meaning this meat production becomes cheaper. Supermarkets and food outlets can produce this cheaper meat without ever declaring it to the consumer. And this is not what was intended by legislation. We have seen many examples of this over the last 15 years. Titan's biggest retailers such as Sainsbury's, Tesco's, Marks and Spencer's and Asda have sold halal or kosher meat without informing the consumer, as well as places like Domino's, Pizza Hut and KFC and Non-stun.

Produce is being used by 17 local councils in schools, the majority of which are not Islamic faith schools without parents or children having the first idea about it, as well as it also being served in hospitals and in local councils. So in December, when Labour put forward its much vaunted animal welfare strategy, a document lauded with the aim of preventing animal suffering unnecessarily, which included the banning of boiling of live lobsters, banning the use of carbon dioxide to stun pigs, and steps to ensure the more humane slaughter of farmed fish.

I was surprised and alarmed to see no mention of the more humane slaughter of animals and the labelling of halal and kosher meat. There was a clear opportunity to call for this labelling of halal and kosher meat, and it was missed. Nowhere in Labour's 12,500 word animal welfare strategy was it mentioned. We often hear in the House that the UK holds the status of a world leader in animal welfare, but such a glaring gap shown shows this country can no longer make such a claim.

Food for you Too, which is a biannual official statistics survey commissioned by the Food Standards Agency, found in 2024 that the most common spontaneously expressed food concern was food production method, and in August 2022, the government's call for evidence on labelling for animal welfare found that almost 99% of respondents said method of slaughter labelling should be introduced. Research from the Agriculture and Horticultural Development Board shows that clear halal certification is stated as important for 92% of halal consumers.

So isn't it time we updated our regulations and demanded our meat was clearly and fully labelled so we know what we're buying and eating. Surely that is what consumer choice is all about. And I would wager that the overwhelming majority of animal lovers in the UK expect the House of Commons to support this bill today. Mr. speaker, this bill will provide that insurance assurance to all consumers that they know how their meat was produced. And I would urge all members of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House to support this measure here. The right hon. Member have looked to bring in the bill. The question is the rightful member have leave to bring in the bill. As have leave to bring in the bill. As many of that opinion say, I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. The ayes have it. We will prepare to bring in the bill. Sir. Roger Gale Alberto Costa.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir. Roger Gale Alberto Costa. Dame Karen Bradley. Sir Edward Lee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Graham Stringer. Rupert Lowe. Sammy Wilson. Jim Allister Lee Anderson Sarah Pochin and myself. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very good. Will you?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Esther McVey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Food labelling. Halal and kosher meat. Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Reading. What day? 10th of July. 10th of July. I think I remember your husband doing something your husband doing something similar. Order, order. Before we begin the debate on Andrew Button. begin the debate on Andrew Button. Windsor I. We are all ready. OK, let's try again. Order. Before we begin the debate on on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, I would like to make a brief statement. I understand that there is a huge interest from the public on this matter, and there has been significant coverage in the media.
12:50
12:51
12:52
Ed Davey Portrait Rt Hon Ed Davey MP (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
member of the royal family in this House must, in the words of the previous speaker, be, and I quote, previous speaker, be, and I quote, very rare, very sparing and very respectful. I encountered this respectful. I encountered this first hand back in 2011, when I was asked to respond to an adjournment debate on behalf of Lord green, who debate on behalf of Lord green, who was then the Minister for Trade and Investment. The German was bought Investment. The German was bought by the late Paul Flynn, but even he, an ardent and outspoken Republican, as I'm sure many of us remember, wasn't allowed to raise any actual concerns about Andrew himself.

Paul called it negative privilege, and that's what it was. He said his mouth was bandaged by archaic rules, and that had very real and damaging consequences. And I'm pleased to see the Minister in his place, because I know he was also constrained by those rules when he raised similar issues in that debate. Epstein's name wasn't even mentioned once. There was no chance to debate the substance and standing in for the responsible Minister, I set out the government's position, as it had been for a decade, in support of the Prince's role as the trade envoy.

Looking back and knowing what we all know now, I'm horrified by it. I can't imagine what it must have been like for the survivors and their families to hear Andrew praise like that, as they heard so often all around the world. So I apologise to them, and I'm determined to change things. Mr. speaker, I was struck by the words of Amanda Roberts, Virginia Giuffre sister in law, after Andrew was arrested last week. She said this could be a stain on the royal family for the rest of our history.

Or quote. It could be a moment where they and we decide that this is the time when cultural change happens. And as a staunch supporter of His Royal Highness the King and the Royal Family, I believe we must help to bring about that cultural

**** Possible New Speaker ****

change now. High Peak are most grateful to the leader of the Liberal Democrats the leader of the Liberal Democrats for giving way. He's making a powerful speech, and I'm sure we'll agree that decades of deferential, agree that decades of deferential, frankly sycophantic treatment by Parliament and state authorities are being exposed as having enabled are being exposed as having enabled Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to behave as though he were untouchable. And I'm sure he will untouchable. And I'm sure he will join me in calling on the government to introduce independent oversight of those members of the royal family who undertake official duties and require both transparency and scrutiny over anything from now on, paid for by the state.

Because apparently they work for us.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hi. I'm grateful for that intervention. We must build a culture of transparency and accountability. I think that is essential, and I hope we as a house essential, and I hope we as a house will look at ending the archaic negative privilege rules. Paul Flynn spoke about remove the Flynn spoke about remove the bandages from our mouths. And today, free of those bandages in relation free of those bandages in relation to Andrew, our motion focuses on finally getting the truth out about his role as Special Representative for Trade and Investment.

Give way. I'll give way again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jim Shannon Mr Speaker. Can can. First of all, can I commend the right hon. Member for for bringing in his party for bringing this in his party for bringing this forward. Commend them for the way that he interviewed on TV this morning. And certainly it doesn't just speak for this House. He just speak for this House. He speaks for this nation. And we're all greatly shocked at what has taken place. But does he agree as taken place. But does he agree as well? King Charles, Queen Camilla, Edward, Sophie, William, Kate, our members of the Royal family at this members of the Royal family at this time who also need our support.

And does he agree that perhaps, maybe now is the time to tell them that we in this House love them, that this nation loves them, and that we understand the pain that they are suffering, and our support is with those members of the Royal family who are above this and above this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reproach. Yes. I'm grateful. For the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I think he probably intervention. I think he probably speaks for the whole House. And indeed, the intention of this debate is to bring this House debate is to bring this House together and the changes that we think are necessary would indeed protect the royal family and protect the royal family and strengthen the monarchy, which in some places is being criticised. And I think it's important and that's why we need these reforms.

But, Mr. Speaker, if I can go back to the motion because it focuses at the start of this, at the appointment of the former Prince Andrew to this role back in 2001. We've seen the reporting that the king, then Prince of Wales, expressed his concerns about that appointment. More alarmingly, we have read that Peter Mandelson wrote to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, as his former trade secretary, pushing for Andrew's appointment. One friend of Epstein lobbying for a job for another friend of Epstein, a job that might help Epstein enrich himself.

So we clearly need to get to the bottom of that appointment and the role Mandelson himself played in it. And only the papers demanded by this motion will allow us to do that. We need them published as soon as possible without delay. And then there are the many questions about Andrew's conduct in the role now subject to a criminal investigation. So clearly, Mr. Speaker, as you said, we do not want to jeopardise that investigation with anything we say today. We must let the police get on with their work, especially for Epstein's victims, survivors and their families.

They deserve to see justice done at last. But I would just highlight one example of the way Jeffrey Epstein sought to use Andrew's role as trade envoy to enrich himself. I'm happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. My right hon. Friend talks about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, his role as a trade envoy. When I was working overseas for the British Council, Mountbatten-Windsor came to an Mountbatten-Windsor came to an exhibition that I was putting on about Dolly the sheep, which was a fine example of British scientific fine example of British scientific innovation. Mountbatten-Windsor stood up in front of Japanese dignitaries and business people and said, this is rubbish. This is Frankenstein's sheep.

What my right hon. Friend, agree with me that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that's a very poor example of promoting British trade interests. Well, I'm grateful for my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. It shows that not only some of the scandals that we've heard about are things that we've heard about are things that we need to focus on, but if the trade envoy was actually the trade envoy was actually speaking against British commercial interests, that raises even greater questions. And I hope not just this debate, but other debates in select committees and elsewhere will get to the bottom of that issue. But I was saying I would like to highlight one example of how Jeffrey Epstein sought to use Andrew's role as trade envoy to enrich himself.

Channel four uncovered emails in the Epstein files in which Epstein was trying to meet the Libyan dictator Gaddafi in the dying months of the Gaddafi regime, to help him find somewhere to put his money. I think something that the Minister actually raised at the time. In other words, Epstein looked at the deadly crisis in Libya and saw a chance to make some money, and he thought his friend Andrew could help. And this is what it says in one of the emails, I wondered if PA could make the intro.

A few weeks later, Andrew wrote back Libya fixed. Though the Epstein Gaddafi meeting doesn't appear to have happened. It does show clearly what these relationships were all about. Epstein increasing his own wealth and power. The idea that the role of special Trade envoy for our United Kingdom may have been used to help him do that, to help a vile paedophile sex trafficker enrich himself is truly sickening. And again, I want to pay tribute to the Minister who tried to raise this at the time, like his colleague, the late Paul Flynn.

And it shows again why we need to change the rules of this House that govern debate here

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and Ministers. But I give way. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving way. I pose.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Opposition for giving way. I pose. The question. Democrats. I stand corrected. The leader of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand corrected. The leader of the is coming. I thank the leader of the Liberal Democrats for giving way. I Liberal Democrats for giving way. I asked the question to the Chief Secretary yesterday in this House about the speed of bringing legislation forward. Victims, members of the House, members of Lords. We all need this process to be done as swiftly as possible. I just wonder if you agree that whatever happens with Andrew or anybody else, you also agree that the Chief Secretary's comments that we do need to bring this forward and that we need to keep pushing to get legislation swiftly, not in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

years to come. Well. I'm grateful for the gentleman's intervention, both for his Freudian intervention, both for his Freudian slip and indeed for his suggestion that we do need to speed up action that we do need to speed up action in this area. But if I can begin to conclude, Mr. Speaker, in many ways this is first, the the first truly this is first, the the first truly global scandal from the White House and Silicon Valley to Oslo and and Silicon Valley to Oslo and Paris.

But it's also a deeply British scandal, reaching right to the top of the British establishment, because can there be many people more symbolic of the rot that eats away at the British establishment than the former Duke of York and special trade envoy and the former business secretary, first Secretary of State and ambassador to the United States. Their association with Epstein and their actions on his behalf, while trusted with the privilege of public office, are a stain on our country today. We must begin to clean away that stain with the disinfectant of transparency.

Because whether it is the president of the United States and his Commerce secretary or Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor or Epstein himself, their victims and survivors have seen those responsible evade accountability and escape justice for far too long. I hope, I desperately hope that is ending now, and I hope the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will approve this motion. Yes. The question is on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is on the Order Paper. I called the Minister Sir Chris Bryant. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker. Mr. speaker, let me be clear from the outset we support this motion today. Frankly, it is the least we today. Frankly, it is the least we owe the victims of the horrific abuse that was perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein and others. The Jeffrey Epstein and others. The abuse that was enabled, aided and abetted by a very extensive group of arrogant, entitled and often very wealthy individuals in this country and elsewhere.

It's not just the people who participated in the abuse, it's the many, many more who turned a blind eye out of greed, familiarity or deference. To my mind, they too were complicit. Just as complicit. And I welcome the reckoning that is coming to them now. I doubt there is anyone in this House who is not shocked and appalled by the recent allegations. Colleagues and many civil servants have told me their own stories of their interactions with Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor, and they all betray the same pattern.

A man on a constant self-aggrandising and self-enriching hustle, a rude, arrogant and entitled man who could not distinguish between the public interest which he said he served, and his own private interest. I remember him coming to visit the Sea Cadets in Tonypandy. They were absolutely delighted and excited to meet a member of the Royal family. But he insisted on coming by helicopter. Unlike his mother, who came twice to the Rhondda and always came by car. He left early and he showed next to no interest
13:04
Chris Bryant Portrait Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
in the young people. That is, of course, Mr. Speaker, not a crime, course, Mr. Speaker, not a crime, nor is arrogance. Fortunately, I nor is arrogance. Fortunately, I suppose. Of course, we knew much of suppose. Of course, we knew much of this. Much of what is now in the public domain, actually a very long public domain, actually a very long time ago. And I say very gently, it is all very well for some of us to say, if only we had known then what we know now.

But I'm afraid that with me that doesn't wash. We did actually have plenty of warning. I called on the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, to dispense with the services of the then Duke of York in this chamber on the 28th of February, 2011, because of his close friendship with Saif Gaddafi, as has just been referred to, and the convicted Libyan gun smuggler Tarek Kittani, I was rebuked by Speaker Bercow then for doing so, because references to members of the royal family should be very rare, very sparing and very respectful.

I didn't disagree with the ruling of Mr. Speaker, nor would I ever, as you know, Mr. Speaker, disagree with the ruling from the chair. I heard that over the next few days. I'm taking your advice, Mr. Speaker. I'm just ignoring that over the next few days. Back in 2011, I repeatedly called for Andrew to be sacked in the public domain, on television, on radio and in newspaper articles, citing his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The mysteriously excessive £15 million cost paid for his Sunninghill home, and many other issues besides, I'm afraid, the wilful blindness of far too many at that time was absolutely spectacular, and it still angers me.

The then Prime Minister, the then Home Secretary and many others in government defended Andrew time and time and time again I was repeatedly told off, both in the chamber and outside the chamber. John Humphrys, the broadcaster, actually told me on the today programme on the 7th of March. I think hon. Members will be shocked by this, that Jeffrey Epstein wasn't quite a paedophile. Drawing a distinction between sexual abuse of pre-pubescent and other children. Dominic Lawson, writing in The Sunday Times on the 11th of March, defended Andrew and made the same distinction distinction between Epstein's involvement with teenage girls and paedophilia, since, as he put it, none of the girls was pre-pubescent, although he did at least admit that both were sordid and exploitative.

I gently suggest that that is the least of what we have seen. So let me be absolutely clear. All of this happened after the photograph of Andrew with his arm around Virginia Giuffre, was published in the Mail on Sunday. On the 27th of February 2011. It is after the allegations, not before

**** Possible New Speaker ****

us. Well, I give up. Where? There and then to the chair. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, and I entirely agree with him in relation to the abhorrence of the comments that abhorrence of the comments that were in the media back then. But does he also agree with me that we still have a degree of that problem still have a degree of that problem now, that often in the media we talk about underage girls, where actually what we are talking about is children? And does he agree with is children? And does he agree with me that we should be ensuring that when we talk about Epstein's crimes, we talk about the children that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

were involved? Yes, 100%. And I think we should also be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I think we should also be referring to statutory rape, because that is what it is. And statutory rape is no better than

**** Possible New Speaker ****

statutory rape is no better than any other kind of rape. It is rape. End of story. Of course. Colum Eastwood grateful. To the Minister for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the Minister for giving way. Speaking very powerfully about this issue and as a strong track record, one of the strongest track records in standing up on these types of in standing up on these types of issues, I have asked that the government release the files concerning whatever his new name is Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, when he was a trade envoy. That request has been refused. Can I ask the Minister to review that that decision, and to ask that all of these files, in the new spirit of openness and transparency, that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those files are open for all to see? I of course, I completely respect my hon. Friend, and he's respect my hon. Friend, and he's made this point several point several times, not only in the chamber, but also to me privately. chamber, but also to me privately. And I agree with him. That is the direction of travel that we're going in. And that's why we agree with the Humble Address today as with the Humble Address today as it's been presented. We're not standing in the way.

We will do everything we can to comply with that as fast as we possibly can. I will come on to a couple of caveats a little bit later, but I just want to pursue the the point about what we knew in the past, because the the leader of the Liberal Democrats quite rightly said that on the seventh, that Paul Flynn had a debate on the 4th of May, to which he responded as the not actually as the Minister responsible, but standing in for the Minister responsible.

But actually, Paul Flynn also had another debate on the 17th of March in Westminster Hall, which was granted to him by the backbench Business Committee, which had relatively recently then been set up. And and he concluded, because he was finding it very difficult to make any of the allegations that he wanted to make because of the rules of the House, that there really is no point in continuing with the debate. That is a direct quote from him. And in fact, the then deputy Leader of the House, David Heath, who was another Liberal Democrat member of the government at the time, made the point that as as I think, Mr.

Speaker, has been made both by Mr. Bercow and by yourself, that if there is a substantive motion, of course, we can make these comments in relation to certain members, but it has to be a substantive motion and you have to find a means of being able to table that motion, as indeed we have a substantive motion today. And then following that, Paul Flynn tried to get a substantive motion, which was then the debate, but it was actually an adjournment debate on the 4th of May, which is therefore not a substantive motion again.

And he he struggled again. And this is what he said in that debate. The speaker would quite rightly abide by the rules of the House and tell me I was not allowed to make any derogatory statements that might affect the boy, his personality or his name. It is an illustration of how demeaned we are as politicians and members of Parliament that I am not. I am allowed to make any points about the damage that is done only in an oblique way, by discussing the effects of the holder of his, of the office, his role and the comments that are being made.

And of course he felt furious and angry. He was. He wrote a great book about being an MP, which I commend to all hon. Members and the right hon. Member. As he said, as he knows, he responded to that debate as follows I, for one, believe that the Duke of York does an excellent job as the UK's Special Representative for international Trade and Investment. He promotes UK business interests around the world and helps to attract inward investment. He went on at some length and then added at the end.

He has made a valuable contribution in developing significant opportunities for British business through the role, and continues to do so. I just say gently to him, I think if he'd followed the debates in the public domain at the time, he would have known better than to have made those comments. I won't go any further, but I'm happy to give way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

if you want. Ed Davey. Well, the the Minister knows that. I apologise for that comment. that. I apologise for that comment. Taking a brief from someone else. I really wish I hadn't said those words because I'm thinking about words because I'm thinking about the victims and he I praised him for the role he took. I hope he for the role he took. I hope he will acknowledge that. Two months after that debate, Andrew left that role and that was right that he did.

And the government, I wasn't privy to those discussions, but the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government did get get rid of him. Yes. He left his post in July, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. He left his post in July, I think, of 2011. It could have come soon enough for many of us. And it is a regret, I think to many, that the government wasn't able to listen faster and and to act faster at that time. Mr. speaker, what I at that time. Mr. speaker, what I believe this whole sorry saga shows is that deference can be a toxic is that deference can be a toxic presence in the body politic. Of course, we always seek to respect others.

We look for the best in others. There was another instance in that first debate that shows the generosity we often show, and I have told the hon. Member that I'm going to raise this the right hon. Member for New Forest East, who is a gentleman to his fingertips and is always a very magnanimous fellow, said, does the Minister agree that one reason why the Duke of York has considerable credibility is his distinguished record as a former member of the Fleet Air Arm, who gave valuable service in the Falklands War, that shows a degree of commitment over and above any other inherited responsibilities that he might be considered to have.

Of course, I understand the point that the right hon. Member was making back then in 2011, but of course, the fear is that when deference tips over into subservience, it can be terribly dangerous because the victims don't get heard, respected, or understood in the same way as those with grand titles do. And this, of course, has implications for this House, as the right hon. Member said, Mr. speaker, of course, the conduct of business in this House is entirely a matter for you, and interpreting with the clerks, the Erskine May and the Standing Orders.

I only repeat the words of Paul Flynn in 2011, who denounced what he called censorship on hon. Members, discussing an issue of great importance. I know you too would want to denounce such censorship. I want to issue one caveat about the motion today. The government will, of course, comply with the terms of the Humble Address in full. As I say, we support the motion. But as the House will know, there is a live police investigation into the former Duke of York after his arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

The House will also be aware that following that arrest on the 19th of February, Buckingham Palace issued a statement on behalf of the King. His Majesty emphasised that the law must take its course and that the palace will provide its full and wholehearted support and cooperation. The statement concluded with a commitment that His Majesty and the Royal Family would continue in their duty and service to the nation. Mr. speaker, I am sure that is a sentiment that the whole House will support. As the police have rightly said, it is absolutely crucial that the integrity of their investigation is protected and now these proceedings are underway.

It would be wrong of me to say anything that might prejudice them, nor will the government be able to put into the public domain anything that is required by the police for them to conduct their enquiries, unless and until the police are satisfied? I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

am sure the hon. Member would agree with that point. Yes, of course. I agree. With.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With. Everything you're saying. But I think what's worrying quite a lot of us, and not just concerning Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, but Mandelson as well, is that because Mandelson as well, is that because are these ongoing police investigations and because the wheels of justice grind exceedingly wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow? It might be years, years before we see any of these papers. I just really want to have an assurance from the government that they will do their utmost.

Despite what he just said about the police investigation, to ensure there is full transparency, because actually scandals are made much, much worse

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by any sense of cover up. I couldn't agree more with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I couldn't agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I want to make sure that we move as fast as we possibly can, but I also want to make sure can, but I also want to make sure that justice does happen, and I don't want to do anything that would undermine the the police investigations. I hope that they will be able to move as swiftly as possible, and we will certainly possible, and we will certainly cooperate with them as swiftly as possible. I should just say it's worth bearing in mind that the documents that might be envisaged in this are mostly 25 years old.

Some of them are a bit earlier. They are. They may be substantial in number, and many of them will be in hard copy. So I hate to add to the honourable the right hon. Members fears about the speed with which things may be able to happen, but I think we would all want to make sure that we do do all of this in a proper fashion. All of that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Of course. Giving way. Another point. Of clarification.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of clarification. Regarding the police investigations. He might have seen the intervention of Gordon Brown made on Sunday, asking Constabularies to consider widening the probe on the basis of files the probe on the basis of files that had been released as part of the data dump. One of the questions that's arisen, and I appreciate he that's arisen, and I appreciate he won't be able to comment on what those police forces are planning to do or not do, but that all government departments, including the Ministry of Defence and including the Department for transport, would be fully cooperative with anything that they would need.

Could he give the assurance that every single department, without fear or favour,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will give them whatever they need, investigation? Thank you. We will do two things. First of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We will do two things. First of all, we will seek to comply with the Humble Address as soon as we possibly can. Given the caveat that I've already issued about the I've already issued about the police investigation, we will also make sure that every single part of government cooperates entirely with government cooperates entirely with both the Thames Valley Police and any other investigations by any other police forces, the police other police forces, the police force that there may be on whatever they may be investigating.

It's not for me as a government Minister, to instruct the police what they should or shouldn't investigate or point them in one direction or another. Former prime Ministers have a different set of responsibilities. And so she's quite right. I don't want to undermine the investigation, but I also don't want to delay it in any way. And we will make sure that every department. Yes. I don't want to give way to every single member of the Liberal Democrats, but I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will, of course. I thank Minister greatly. Would he agree with me that it's actually timely right now that the government presses ahead with the government presses ahead with the Public Office Accountability Bill, which allows them the amendment 23, which is blocking everything at the which is blocking everything at the moment, seems to be a way through and to ensure that we have transparency and that there's openness, but there is the security that the government can be assured, as can other members of the House, that anything that is subject to matters of intelligence or security and indeed matters related to the police investigation will not be released.

There seems to be a there's an answer in the government's hands and I, I know not why they are waiting and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

waiting and waiting to get this sorted. I'm not sure if she might have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not sure if she might have to repeat to me what she thinks. The answer that is that I'm that is thus far evading me might be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thus far evading me might be. If I may, I will just say that actually this all relates. I could talk to him also about the talk to him also about the whistleblowing bill and the office for an Independent Office for a whistleblower. It is the matter that people should be able to reveal what they know. They should tell the truth. I think it's shocking that we have to have legislation that people are told to tell the truth, but actually it all of this falls into the same remit in that people should be free to declare exactly what it is.

They know that papers should be released, but you have an independent judge, which is what happens at the moment and is what is in this number 23 amendment, an independent judge, high court judge, says what may and may not be released.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just suggest we shorten interventions rather than making speeches? Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

speeches? Minister. I think I just want to return, Mr. Speaker, to what I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, to what I said earlier, which. The government will be. We will put everything into the public will put everything into the public domain when we can. I don't want to do so at a time, which would make it impossible for the police to it impossible for the police to secure the proper processes that they need to be able to do. I'm not sure that adding an intervening person helps that process, but I'm happy to listen if she catches your eye later on in the debate.

And Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House, I'll be responding to the debate as well. So I'm very happy to answer lots of questions. All right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So specifically. On this point, I'm. Grateful that the. Minister is. Very willing to say that he will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very willing to say that he will comply with the terms of this motion, but is also trying to manage expectations about the speed in which the government may act. He in which the government may act. He will know that there will nonetheless be still be some members of the public who will view that with some suspicion and alarm, that with some suspicion and alarm, they will be worried that the government might be trying to long grass it or put it in the too hard basket.

Could the Minister commit either now or by the end of the debate, that the government will regularly update this House so that opposition parties do not have to repeatedly bring Ministers to the House to Urgent Questions? Could he agree, perhaps to set out by the end of this debate, how often the government would intend to inform this House about regular updates?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very happy to commit now to updating the House as often as I possibly can in a way that is possibly can in a way that is informative to the house, but she's quite right that I am slightly trying to manage people's expectations about timeliness, expectations about timeliness, partly because of the quantity of quantity of material, and because there is a live police investigation, and I just don't investigation, and I just don't want to jeopardise that. I if there are things that I will in a moment, if there are things that are if there are things that are embarrassing to the government, that's who cares.

I want to make sure that we end up getting the proper justice that is necessary for the victims, and that means that we have to have a proper police procedure. If other if there are charges brought, then that has to go through a judicial process as well. And I don't want to undermine that. But of course, I'm very happy, both in a private way and publicly, to update the House when I have anything possible to say. And now I am trying to get to the end of my speech, and people normally like it when I get to the end of my speech.

So I see I've united the House, Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. So. But I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. Sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I understand the concern about not treading upon the police investigation, but surely the investigation, but surely the police investigation is about the conduct of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in the role, whereas this Humble Address is about the appointment and the about the appointment and the process of appointment, is there not a distinction there? Which means that this Humble Address of itself should not unduly impede any police investigation or be hindered by it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm if he doesn't mind, I'm quite happy to explain to him out of the chamber and precisely out of the chamber and precisely why I disagree with him, because I don't. Again, if I were to explain don't. Again, if I were to explain more fully in the chamber, I think that that might not be very helpful to either the police or the to either the police or the criminal process. But I'm very happy to explain to him outside the chamber, and I think he might come chamber, and I think he might come back in and agree with me.

I think he might just sometimes he agrees with me. He agrees. Not very often. But anyway, you know, small mercies and all. Mr. speaker, I also want to make it absolutely clear to the House that the former Duke of York's role as a special trade representative was very different to the one performed by the government's current trade envoys. This has often been confused, I think, in the public and discussion at the moment. Trade envoys today are appointed by Ministers with a formalised set of rules of conduct.

They are unpaid. They work with my department on attracting and retaining inward investment, while supporting UK firms to take full advantage of new trade opportunities. They are all members of either this house or another house, and I have recently emphasised to the to all of those trade envoys the importance of maximising the programme's impact on ensuring that it aligns completely with the goals of our trade and industrial strategies, and they are under the same obligations as Ministers in adhering to departmental restrictions, guidelines and confidentiality clauses, the same ones outlined in the ministerial code.

In some trade, envoys play an important role in boosting economic growth, delivering our industrial and trade strategies and helping British businesses to export our stress. This again Mr Speaker. The role held by Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was not a trade envoy position as we would understand it today, and I'm enormously grateful to the trade envoys today who go beyond the call of duty in promoting UK plc. His Andrew Mountbatten Windsor's role was a separate one, entitled UK Special Representative for International Trade and Investment.

Mr. speaker, there is unanimous agreement across this House that those who may be guilty of misconduct in public office should face the full force of the law that applies to everyone, regardless of who they are or how they were. This was a point made by my right hon. Friend prior to the news of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor's arrest. One of the core principles of our constitutional system is the rule of law. That means that everyone is equal under the law and nobody is above the law.

I share the anger, the disgust expressed by many at the alleged behaviour of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. What we are seeing now is a full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated by the police and in that investigation they will, of course, have the government's unwavering cooperation and support. Sometimes it feels to many members of our country that there is one rule for the rich and famous and another rule for the rest of us. But actually there is only one rule the rule of law.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

To Secretary Alex Burghart. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker. And I'd like. To congratulate. The. Right honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right honourable. Gentleman for securing. This debate. I should say at the outset, the Conservatives support this motion. And he the truth is that the people who helped Jeffrey Epstein, who who helped Jeffrey Epstein, who helped him by supplying him with contacts and information, were the contacts and information, were the people who enabled him to become powerful. And those people effectively enabled him to build
13:26
Alex Burghart Portrait Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)
-
-
his net of influence, his net of his net of influence, his net of abuse, and that network of power, in turn, enabled him to abuse more in turn, enabled him to abuse more and more people. So it is quite right that this House is enabled to right that this House is enabled to scrutinise what went on and how it went on, and I listened to the Minister's remarks, and I Minister's remarks, and I appreciate the way that that he's approached this debate and the way that the government is going to constructively cooperate with the terms of the address.

But I must say that this is the second occasion in only a few weeks when the government has had to be brought here by opposition parties under the terms of a Humble Address, to disclose information that it could quite obviously have disclosed without the need for Humble Address in the first place. And so, whilst I accept the humility with which he's taken the debate, actually the government as a whole could have been much more proactive on this issue right from the start.

And and I also appreciate the the humble way in which he came to the house and reminded us that he had been right all along, very humble. He and you know, and I but I the right hon. Gentleman, the leader of the Liberal Democrats referred to political scandal, a political scandal that is has reached its tendrils into the operation of many governments across the West and indeed the East. And the fact that our allies in Poland have launched an intelligence investigation into Epstein's links with Russia.

The fact that in the published Epstein papers, it's clear that Jeffrey Epstein was supplying people very top end of Putin's regime with sensitive information about the American leadership, shows that this is is an international scandal, and one in which our government and our security services must, must play their part in uncovering things. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a lover of history, so I must gently take issue with his claims that this is the first global political scandal. I think the Dreyfus affair, you know, the XYZ scandal, the Panama scandal.

There there have been there have been many. But this is to take a substantive point, a global political scandal. And I very much like to associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend from Strangford that we can only be, as a general point, very supportive of the Royal family's role in promoting our country. I think those people who have witnessed the best of the royal family using its awesome soft power to support what we do best, can only, you know, be in awe of the vast commitment it makes to public services and to the life of the country.

And and indeed, if it is the case, as reported in the press, that very senior members of the Royal Family expressed concerns about Mr. Mountbatten, Windsor's appointment in 2001, one can only feel enormous sympathy with them about what has subsequently come to light, because these revelations surrounding the relationship between Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Jeffrey Epstein, just as with the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, and the arrest of both men on suspicion of misconduct in public office, make it right that questions are asked and make it right that information is brought before this house.

And if one looks back to 2001, it is possible to identify the hand of Epstein in Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor appointment. It is reported that Peter Mandelson first met Epstein in the summer of 2001. Mountbatten-Windsor had first met Epstein, I believe, in 1999 and shortly after Mandelson's first meeting in October 20th, 2001. Mandelson is appointed as trade envoy. So? So the minute the Minister shakes his head, I'll go through the chronology again for him because it's, you know, there's no there's no harm.

Mandelson Mandelson met Epstein. I well, I Hansard report it may be that the numbers were juggled up in the minister's head that the the summer, in the summer of 2001, Mandelson met Epstein for the first time. And in October 2001, Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as trade envoy. And so it's possible that Mandelson influenced. Now, what I also said is that in 1999, Mountbatten-Windsor met Epstein for the first time, so he was already an associate of Epstein. So I'm glad to have that sorted out.

I can go through it again, but I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sure the Minister can read about it tomorrow. I'm happy to give way to the honourable. Lady. Very grateful to the Shadow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful to the Shadow Minister for giving me, I think by sketching out that that timeline. I think that brings to light the reason why, in our Humble Address, reason why, in our Humble Address, we are calling for information in relation to the actual creation of the appointment, which the Minister the appointment, which the Minister rightly pointed out was a unique role that was created for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Does he, therefore agree with me that we are therefore agree with me that we are right to not only call out that creation of the role, but also to ascertain whether Mandelson had any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

role within it? Yes. Very much so. And as I say, what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very much so. And as I say, what would have been better is if the government had been proactive on this and had not had to be brought this and had not had to be brought to the House by opposition parties in order to release this information. I'm very glad that the Liberal Democrats have learnt the lesson of the Conservatives Humble Address for a few weeks ago. You know that once it's always good that once the Conservatives have, that once the Conservatives have, you know, designed a bandwagon, you know, got it up and running, showed that it can move at high speed.

You know, the Liberal Democrats scramble up and and get on board. But you know better better late than never. The and so sorry is there is there anybody the. And so as we see if we go through the sequencing very carefully, it's possible that there was influence from Epstein, who we must acknowledge was not a had not been arrested or convicted in 2001, but about whom there were rumours and reports and in any case was a highly influential foreign businessman.

And if it was under his influence that Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as trade envoy, then it would be useful to see what the Prime Minister knew when that appointment was made. I will give way to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hon. Lady. Giving way. I think what he's trying to get to is a is a is a trying to get to is a is a is a point that deeply concerns me, which is we need to understand the extent to which the then Prince extent to which the then Prince Andrew was leaning on government for things that he wanted. And an for things that he wanted. And an example of this is in the recent Epstein files, there is an exchange between Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey between Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein about how Andrew had written to the Ministry of Defence in order to allow their plane to land at an RAF base in Norfolk on the 7th of December in 2000, so his influence on government pre-dated his appointment.

And what we want to understand is to what extent was he already trying to influence government as a prince, and what did that lead to in his role as a trade envoy? He agreed that that is incredibly important to get to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bottom of. Yes. And I'm afraid I don't know

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. And I'm afraid I don't know what year that 2000. Well, I agree with her. That's an interesting point. Although I think if one looks at the precise wording of the looks at the precise wording of the Liberal Democrat Humble Address, something like that might not fall within its context. So, you know, she may wish to table an amendment she may wish to table an amendment to her own party's Humble Address in order to get at that. But I look, in order to get at that.

But I look, transparency is is essential in all of this. And that's, you know, why on this side of the House, we very much hope that the government will give us transparency quickly. And I turn to the point that my right hon. Friend Father of the House made that there is a danger that the government uses a police process as a means of not disclosing certain information. And I say that not because of what the Minister has said today, so much as what was said yesterday by the right hon.

Gentleman who is the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, when in the context of our own Humble Address, he said, I can confirm that those documents will be made available. Subject, I'm afraid, to the exclusion of one particular item in which number ten asked Peter Mandelson a number of questions. The Met Police have asked that to be held back, subject to their investigations. That item will therefore have to be published at a later date. But the documents that are not subject to the Met Police investigation be published very shortly.

I think it would assist this House if I think this was a point that my hon. Friend from North Antrim made, it would this House, if the government could explain why the Met Police have asked that that item is held back? And I also think it would be helpful if the government would confirm that there is no bar to it handing that document over to the ISC. And this is a point on which the chair has been very clear. You know, on the fourth of 4th of February, Mr.

Speaker said, yeah, the Metropolitan Police have no jurisdiction over this House. I have no jurisdiction over what this House may wish to do. It will be a matter of whether or not the government provide the information. I want to let members know that the police cannot dictate to this House, that the police cannot dictate to this house. And there is a means that was specifically debated during the original Humble Address which enabled members of this House, i.e. the ISC, to be given this information regardless of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

police investigation. Happy to give way to the hon. Lady. I thank the hon. Member for giving way in what is a very important point that he is making and something which concerns me deeply in this is that my constituents, members of the public, are increasingly concerned that what they see as the tendrils that the hon. Gentleman referred to reaching into government through reaching into government through this debate, and that in the handling of these papers and the release of information, we must at all times be aware of the impact on the reputation, not just on Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor or Lord Mandelson, but on us in this place.

Previous governments and subsequent governments and Parliament. Would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the hon. Member agree. Very much. Sir, and I know that you know, I know that hon. Members or certain hon. Members on all sides will be aware of just how bad it will look if the government does not provide information swiftly as possible. I give an example where that is not give an example where that is not happening, given that the original Humble Address was nearly two weeks ago now. During that debate, I ago now. During that debate, I raised the issue of Palantir and how in February last year, the Prime Minister had an unrecorded meeting with Palantir in Washington, didn't appear in his register of meetings.

He was accompanied on that visit by Peter Mandelson. Peter Mandelson, whose company in which he held a commanding share, you know, was had Palantir as a client and then subsequently, later in the year, Palantir received a direct award from government worth about £240 million, very substantial contract. And, you know, when I raised this in the House, there was concern on both sides, cross-party issue. And the Minister agreed to write to me, confirming or I asked him to confirm that the Cabinet secretary, whoever that turned out to be, would be investigating what is clearly looks like a case of a case of conflict of interest.

And I still have not received a reply. I've not received any reply, despite me bringing it up again at the despatch box at the start of this week and being assured that I would receive a response, I just I just don't think that this is good enough and it's yeah, it's very, very important that the opposition can hold the government to account in a meaningful way. So to the hon. Lady's point, I think it's it's extremely, extremely important that the government should be seen to be willingly providing information rather than having to be pushed every step of the way to do the right thing.

And that's just sort of make an additional point on this score. And whilst we do very much support the Humble Address today, I just ask the government to be clear that nothing in this Humble Address is going to slow down the process of delivering on the original, Humble Address. Nothing at all, because whilst the there is historic interest and contemporary interest in the history of what happened in 2001, what this government did in choosing to appoint Peter Mandelson despite the information that it had at his disposal, is of paramount importance, and this government must come clean and come clean quickly, because, as Buckingham Palace said the other day, no one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is above the law. Rachael Maskell thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unaccountable power must not hide. Privilege must not be protected. Money must be accounted for, and elite networks of men operating here and overseas of men operating here and overseas must meet their reckoning for dehumanising, subjugating, dehumanising, subjugating, exploiting and sexually assaulting women women who must have justice. The web of abuse surrounding Mr. Epstein and his associates must be brought to book, and Mr.

Mountbatten-Windsor, as a known associate, must also be held to account in his role as a special
13:40
Rachael Maskell Portrait Rachael Maskell MP (York Central, Labour )
-
-
trade envoy and for his associations to. We have all been revulsed by the stories that we have heard, and that's why today's have heard, and that's why today's debate must also be about the victims and survivors. I first victims and survivors. I first raise concern, obviously, because my constituency carries the name my constituency carries the name York and the Duke of York's ambassadorial associations with our city caused much concern in my community, and therefore I brought those concerns to the House.

On 21st of February, 2022. And this was just days after the settlement to the lawsuit to Mr. Giuffre, known to be in the region of £12 million. Clearly, my city was very disturbed and as a result of that, a human rights city no less. I sought to see a separation between the title and brought forward later that year, after working very closely with the clerks, a bill in order to remove the title, something which still has not been done, I brought forward another bill just last year for the removal of title, again bringing in the option of removing the title from peerages as well, and having worked through that, still not had a positive response to that.

But the reason I'm speaking in this debate today is because in looking into these issues, I realised that the Humble Address itself is narrow in its scope. But secondly, what do we do with the information once it's been corroborated? Clearly there's the police investigation, which must take its course and I am sure will be deep and thorough because it runs so far. But ultimately, if we're just looking at the appointment, what about the period over that time where he carried out the role and also the implications of to the wider networks? So I don't want this to end up in the court of public opinion or perhaps the media digging deeper and deeper into more and more stories.

But what does it do to this place? What

**** Possible New Speaker ****

does it do to change the way that systems work? I'm happy to give way. I'm very grateful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful. For the hon. Lady for giving way, and I recognise definitely her the work she's done on on titles and work she's done on on titles and holding Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to account. I think she's raising a good point around making sure we good point around making sure we don't have a court of public opinion, but I would like to give my thanks to many of the media outlets. It doesn't matter which outlets. It doesn't matter which one you read, what your political slant is, who have done tremendous work trawling through tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of documents.

And I do think we owe them a debt of gratitude for bringing to light many of the awful things that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is alleged to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have been associated with. Does she agree with me on that point? Yes. I do agree with the hon. Gentleman, because I know that Gentleman, because I know that journalists have been up through the night poring over the Epstein files, digging deep to hold power files, digging deep to hold power to account. And it's a vital role that our media does, and long may that our media does, and long may it continue. Their scrutiny is important for this place and the work that we do here.

But in saying that we need a process of learning from this, and I do believe there should be a judge led inquiry to ensure that the multiple strands of this global network of power are brought into account, so we can learn and we can hold to account in this place any future concerns that we may have around how these associations are formed, the depth in which they infiltrate places like this, or indeed the government and indeed international networks, which we, as we have learned over the last few weeks where sensitive information has been shared, financial information has been shared, issues which impact on our constituencies, markets, trade, and that has an impact on the very people we're here to represent.

And I think for no longer can these powerful men swan around the world having these conversations, gaining more power and exploiting whoever passes their path and not be accountable. And therefore, we need to understand how to bring transparency across all institutions, including all areas of government, even deeper, as we try to do in this place each and every day. As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon says, it's far reaching this inquiry that must pursue.

I recognise that many departments are missing. Missed out in the Humble Address to understand, for instance, how transport has been used. We need to understand not just civil transport but military transport. The missing logs who were on those planes, where were they going to and where did they come from? We need to understand the expensive system that ensued, to how signing off for massages became a duty of the taxpayer. Clearly, individuals questioned it, as we heard, but the reality is people weren't feeling empowered to blow the whistle and to raise those concerns.

So we need to ensure that we institute processes where people can raise concern wherever they see that we don't have the confidence at the moment within the systems that that was undertaken. So how are we going to institute that? Then there's questions about visas. We know that 90 people came in and out of the country during the period that we are looking at today, and of course, rigour in appointment processes. Much has been heard over the last few months around that.

And of course, that comes to the heart of the Humble Address today. But we need to ensure that all those appointments are transparent. And whilst I heard what the the Minister said today, we have 32 trade envoys. I've never seen one post advertised. I'm not aware of the expertise that those individuals have with regards to trade or their particular relations with a particular country and what they actually add, what value they actually bring, how we assess that from this place.

And therefore I do ask that we have a proper review over all of these appointments that we hear about as to what they bring, because surely we should have better accountability. And finally, I just want to raise the intelligence services as well. I cannot believe that our intelligence services were not aware of some of the movements that Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor had had. We bring that to account to, to ensure that that information is also in the public domain. And where are the minutes of all of those meetings? What do they say and how do we find out? So there are so many questions in response to the Humble Address being put today.

But I do think we have to think about what we want to do from this point on as well, not just holding that information, not just examining that information, not just commenting in the the tea rooms and the corridors. What we want to do is to ensure that accountable that power is held to account, and that those with privilege know that they are answerable for the responsibilities that they hold. So I conclude, as the the light is shone deeper into the darkest of these networks of the elite, exploitations, and the systems must be overhauled and reviewed.

May the police do their job and do it well and extensively. And in this place may we focus always on the women who were exploited, gaslit and traumatised and left broken as we seek justice, but also seek to hold

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that power to account? Yeah. Monica Harding. Madam Deputy Speaker and I want

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker and I want to speak today about transparency and accountability in public life and how the system that we find and how the system that we find ourselves in today has been maintained and got us to where we are. In the early noughties, I was are. In the early noughties, I was working overseas, as I said, with the British Council, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor visited us as Mountbatten-Windsor visited us as part of his role as a UK trade envoy. Before his arrival, senior staff in both the embassy and the British Council were rolling their eyes.

His reputation preceded him. I was told it was a containment exercise that overseas missions feared putting me out there in case he said something inappropriate, that he was arrogant and that he wasn't on top of the detail of his brief. Rather than looking forward to his visits as an opportunity to
13:50
Monica Harding Portrait Monica Harding MP (Esher and Walton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
create Britain, instead, it was thought that he would do damage. Moreover, there were rumours about Moreover, there were rumours about him that he refused to stay in the ambassador's residence, would only stay in the Four Seasons or similar stay in the Four Seasons or similar top end hotels, and that he took with him an ironing board overseas when he went. That was a euphemism when he went. That was a euphemism for a massage table. That was all well known amongst many officials. well known amongst many officials.

It even inspired a BBC TV programme, The Ambassadors, in 2013, a couple of years after Andrew was forced to relinquish his role as trade envoy. But this, it seems, was known about in the diplomatic circles. I experienced way back at the start of the noughties, and yet Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor enjoyed another ten years as a trade envoy. But yet, when I questioned why this was allowed to happen, I was met with a shrug. Everyone knows it was, said Andrew, as I have said, came to an exhibition I had put on about Dolly the sheep at the time the pinnacle of British innovation, and we were rightly proud of it.

As an example of UK scientific excellence. And one of my team, a young Japanese woman who worked for the British government as a member of staff of the British Council. Her job we paid her was to promote the UK, showed the then prince around with some Japanese dignitaries. Dolly the sheep, he sneered. It's rubbish, Frankenstein sheep, he said. My team member was deflated and didn't understand why this representative of the British state diminished what she was rightly proud of, and the talk of Andrew and what he was like came to my own personal dinner table.

My late father in law, Air Vice marshal in the RAF, was at a dinner overseas with Mountbatten-Windsor on an overseas trip in the 1990s, Windsor said, in front of many foreign military and diplomatic seniors. No need for a Royal Air Force. My father in law said nothing and that was a problem. You couldn't because of Windsors privileged position. But he raised it with the chief of Air staff and was told it would be raised with the palace. What happened next? Who knows? Did diplomats raise the concern to their seniors and to the very top from early on? Did the Palace do its own internal investigation? If they did, was it shared with the Department for Business and Trade? Where did these concerns all go? And in doing so, did they the system unwittingly or wittingly support protection or cover up because of the way things were done or deference? That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the point of this debate.

Some officials knew or the system seemed to know, but the system seemingly fell to do anything about it for ten years, because of privilege and because of deference. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for giving way. I mean, just on this point around which departments had which papers, does departments had which papers, does she not also think, and I know you know, the Humble Address today. It says departments including but not limited to surely the Royal Household papers in the Royal household that relate to this matter should also come under the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

matter should also come under the scope of this Humble Address. Does she agree? Well, friend, I do agree. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, friend, I do agree. I think here there is a systematic failure and joined up ness that we need to unravel, and I will come back to that in in the course of this speech. And when there was scrutiny after 2011, there was still a failure of oversight. What does this say about our society, how we protect privilege and what we are prepared to accept on behalf of the British state and our representatives? Can rules be broken by some people and not others? Propriety and ethics belong to all those who represent the British state.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we have a parliamentary monarchy. That means that if the palace does not open itself to scrutiny and carry out its own inquiry, then Parliament must. And Madam Deputy Speaker, I have some questions. On what basis was Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor given the role as trade envoy who pushing forward, and was there resistance to it while he was trade envoy? What concerns were raised and with whom? From what date and how were they actioned? Money was put up by the royal family to protect him.

Does Parliament have a right to understand why that money was put up, and that public funds were not used in the civil settlement with Virginia Giuffre? Can we, as Parliament find this out, that not one penny of public money was used in this settlement? Madam Deputy Speaker, I know you will share with me the concern about levels of public confidence in our institutions, all our institutions, and in the people that represent them. Parliament must assert itself in this regard, and I call, along with my colleagues, for the full publication of all documents related to Mountbatten Windsor's appointment as a special envoy and an end to negative privilege, so that MPs in this place can speak freely about the concerns they have and disclose information.

The House of Commons, even if that individual is a member of the Royal family, I will end, as I must, with thoughts of the victims of the Epstein scandal, which has triggered so much of this debate, and all of those who are victims of power and privilege and deference. They are foremost in our minds. As this war continues. It is thanks to their bravery that we know the extent of Epstein's crimes and the wider implications for our own

**** Possible New Speaker ****

establishment. I won't give way. I am very grateful to her for giving way and I'm very conscious. She said she was close to concluding, but her words at the end there for victims are very, very powerful. I co-chair the very powerful. I co-chair the Harrods survivors of Al-Fayed APPG, and we've just started our work. and we've just started our work. But members may have heard a very powerful interview on The World at One a couple of weeks ago, which One a couple of weeks ago, which talked about the fact that that lack of acknowledgement of what had taken place, and also that the police were not properly understanding trafficking.

The shadow Minister described this as a global enterprise. Does she agree with me that we need to do much, much more work around this? And it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is not just about the victims of Epstein, it is about other trafficking victims. I thank my hon. Friend and she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend and she is quite right. This is about systemic failure and we are at the very, very beginning of this. This very, very beginning of this. This is not the end. This is the beginning. And for the victims of Epstein, we must do everything we can to ensure this investigation can to ensure this investigation and inquiry continues into it. On behalf of those victims and on behalf of those victims that are suffering right now from the same thing, we must ensure that the wider system cleans itself up and we must facilitate that.
13:56
Brendan O'Hara Portrait Brendan O'Hara MP (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber, Scottish National Party)
-
-
Brendan O'Hara. >> Brendan O'Hara. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The release of the Epstein files has shone a light where so, so many people did not want a light to be shone. Because even with millions of documents still to be released, what's abundantly clear is that for decades, the rich, the politically powerful and the well-connected have colluded to cover up their utterly appalling behaviours. And that light which has now been shone doesn't just illuminate those who are personally responsible for their behaviour.

It also reveals those who knew what was happening, who enabled it, and who chose to turn a blind eye to it. And the people of this country are rightly furious. And that is why, at the Humble Address yesterday, on the release of the Peter Mandelson Files, I made this point, and I will make it again today, that with trust in the government at an all time low, they really only have one chance to come clean about everything that they know and about everything that they hold pertaining in this case, to the creation of the role of Special Representative for Trade and Investment and the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to that post.

Of course, unlike the Mandelson files which this House demanded be released, the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor did not happen on the current government's watch. But Mr. Mandelson leaves a long trail and there may well be information which relates directly to him and which will cause serious embarrassment to many senior Labour Party figures who were in power at the time. Because let us not forget that author Andrew Looney, in his book entitled details in great detail about how it was a former Trade secretary, Peter Mandelson, who assisted Mr.

Mountbatten-Windsor in landing the role of UK Special Representative, seemingly against the advice of Mr. Mountbatten's brother, the then Prince Charles. So let me repeat my warning from yesterday that these files must be released and they must be released in full, because any attempt to sanitise what is in them and to save face for any government Ministers, past or present, could have serious long term consequences for our democracy. But it is also, Madam Deputy Speaker, the very least, the victims and the survivors deserve.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we know there are serious questions that need answered about the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor as trade envoy back in 2001. Those questions include whose idea was this? Who vetted him? Was he vetted at all? What role did Peter Mandelson play in making this appointment happen? What in his previous life made him uniquely suitable for the position of UK trade envoy? What warnings were given before and during his stint as trade envoy about his character and his behaviour? Who was he responsible to while serving as trade envoy? Who scrutinised his behaviour and his spending? And what warnings were given during his time as trade envoy, and how were those warnings handled? Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to say, in a normal functioning democracy, we would not have to have waited until Andrew Mountbatten had been stripped of his titles, evicted from his royal house and was facing removal from the line of succession before being able to discuss this issue.

There have been serious concerns about Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor for decades, much of it relating to his time as trade envoy. There are reports of him requesting that the public purse cover the cost of his massage services, and when one understandably angry and unhappy civil servant complained, he was promptly overruled by his bosses. That now retired civil servants commented recently, I cannot say it would have stopped him, but we should have flagged that something was wrong. And of course something was wrong.

But what difference would it have made to us in this House? Because as a member of the Royal family at that time, we were not allowed to question or examine what Mr. Mountbatten was doing as our Special Trade envoy. But it wasn't just civil servants who found getting information on Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor all but impossible. The author, Andrew Looney, again has reported that he has had multiple freedom of information requests rejected, including on the grounds that it would be too time consuming for the government department to go through the volume of information, with one rejection actually saying that looking at just one year of Mr.

Mountbatten's time as trade envoy would mean going through 1927 digital files, each containing multiple pieces of information. Yet, until now, and until Mr. Mountbatten's status changed, we in this House were not allowed to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

absolutely. I'm very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. And he's speaking, I think, to the fact that the title Prince has protected Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from greater scrutiny and inspection of his activities. What does he think we should do around ensuring that other titles, whether they be royal or Prime Minister or Secretary of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

State, don't protect powerful individuals? I thank the Member for that intervention. And the answer is quite simple. Madam Speaker, nobody has to be. Nobody can be above the law. Everybody has to be equal in the eyes of the law. And as Paul Flynn, the great Paul Flynn said, we have to remove the bandages from our mouths in this place. And it is a point I will return to. But fundamentally, nobody, regardless of rank or privilege, should be or must be allowed to be above the law.

And and I know that then that's many people will be embarrassed by what has happened. You know, not least, as we have heard, the the now leader of the Liberal Democrats who is Under Secretary for business, Innovation and Skills and I presume, with his fingers firmly crossed behind his back, was forced to come out and stoutly defend the then Prince Andrew, saying, I believe the Prince of York is doing an excellent job. He's a long standing success and he's been great for British business.

But the reality is, as a government Minister, what else could he have said? Because we are not allowed to speak the truth in this place when it comes to certain individuals. And within three months of the right hon. Member making those comments, Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor had resigned from the job in disgrace because of his continued relationship with the convicted paedophile and child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. But it wasn't just his relationship with Epstein that caused the concern. In February of 2011, the Minister at the despatch box today, the right hon.

Member for Rhondda and Ogmore, attempted to raise a question about the Special Representative role and his links to the notorious convicted Libyan arms smuggler, only to be told from the then speaker. References to the royal family should be very rare, very sparing and very respectful. Madam Deputy Speaker. These are key rules make a mockery of our democracy and the situation we face now was always going to occur, particularly when the Royal family can and do have both a constitutional role and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

involve themselves in the political realm. Absolutely. The honourable I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Would the hon. Member agree with me that it is quite extraordinary that we're urging the Parliament of a foreign country, Congress, to investigate this matter, when this is our trade

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this matter, when this is our trade envoy and a. Torfaen that. Is, there is a slight, I think,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is, there is a slight, I think, the hon. Member for that intervention. There's a slight irony, you know, that we are talking you know, we like to, you know, talk ourselves as being the mother of parliaments, the cradle of democracy. And yet when it comes to an issue such as this, we are bound by archaic rules, which means that we cannot hold the most powerful people to account. And let us be honest, when it comes to the royal family, there may be some very, very good ones.

There may be some very, very bad ones. But if you believe in the hereditary monarchy, it's your pot luck. What you get. Madam Deputy Speaker, having seen the rules that have led us to where we are now, it is surely time to review them, because it is beyond ridiculous that someone in a similar position could be appointed to exactly the same job as Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor was. But because they have been lucky in the great genealogical sweepstake, they find themselves born into the royal family and therefore automatically above scrutiny, accountability and therefore above

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beyond reproach. Absolutely grateful to the. Honourable. Member for giving way. I'm listening very closely to what he's listening very closely to what he's saying, but given that Andrew saying, but given that Andrew Windsor is no longer a royal, not really anything stopping us having a judge led public inquiry into his affairs and on all that attends thereupon, does he agree?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thereupon, does he agree? I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Absolutely. But isn't it ridiculous? Isn't it ridiculous that the King had to strip him of his titles, evict him from his home? For us to be able to have this discussion? And I think that is what has to change, so I. In conclusion, I urge the Minister for that great trailblazer, Paul Flynn, the former member for Newport East. I hope that the government not only release everything that they hold pertaining to the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, but they also remove what he described as the bandages on our mouths so that no one, no one is above the law and no one behaviour is beyond scrutiny by members of this House.
14:07
Anna Sabine Portrait Anna Sabine MP (Frome and East Somerset, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Anna Sabine thank you, Madam >> Anna Sabine thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. A lot has been said on the the nature of being a trade envoy and the fact that a special trade envoy role was created for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. And quite rightly, the Minister pointed out that we wouldn't recognise trade envoys today as they were then. He also mentioned the excellent parliamentarian David Heath, who represented Somerton and Frome, which covers part of my constituency. David was a trade envoy when he served in government and when he was the trade envoy to Nigeria and Angola.

The government wouldn't pay for his yellow fever jabs in case he went somewhere else with yellow fever when he wasn't on government business, and he derived some private benefit from the jabs and he had to pay for his own. His wife, Caroline tells me the only thing he got out of his chips was food poisoning. And so I think that while it would be nice to think there wasn't one rule for some and one for the other, there clearly was. And it's really important that we understand the nature of the brief that Prince Andrew Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was given when he became trade envoy, because the others certainly weren't getting massages on the taxpayer.

But while this debate concerns Mountbatten-Windsor, it's not about one man. It's really about the structural sexism that is embedded in our institutions. Violence against women and girls doesn't persist in this country for a lack of speeches in this chamber. It persists because structurally, it's still not treated as foundational to our policy making. There are many members across this House utterly committed to tackling violence against women and girls. Many have dedicated their political lives to this cause, often in the face of horrific abuse. This isn't a party political issue, nor is it about individual commitment.

It's about whether the system itself is designed to prioritise women's safety, and too often it's not. Defence is seen as core business, the Treasury is seen as core business, infrastructure is seen as core business. But violence against women and girls is too often siloed, assigned to one Minister and under one strategy, as though half the population safety is a niche concern, rather than a central test

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of whether the state is functioning. A sure. I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she not does she not agree with me that a powerful illustration of the point she's making is that women inequalities, making is that women inequalities, ministerial questions in this place gets just 30 minutes each week, and a very compressed one just before Prime Minister's Questions each

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time. Agree with my hon. Friend, and I'm actually just coming on to give I'm actually just coming on to give another example of the way in which this sexism is embedded. I recently wrote to both the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls to ask why the recent draft National Planning Policy framework made no mention of women and girls safety. Bearing in mind that this document sets out how we design and build the spaces and places we live in, the response from the MHCLG was jaw dropping.

They said, and I quote, the NPF is a planning document that sets out guidelines for house building and planning in England. The VAWG strategy is about protecting women and girls from violence and misogyny. It's unclear as to why anyone would expect the two things to be combined. If it's unclear to the department responsible for planning why violence and women and girls should be considered in their work, then we have a structural problem. And this is where structural sexism becomes inseparable from power, because who makes the decisions matter in this country, a remarkably small circle of people, disproportionately male, disproportionately drawn from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

same networks, still make the most thank. My hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend for giving. Way when she's making an extremely important point. And on the issue of structural

**** Possible New Speaker ****

violence. Against women. And. Girls, would my hon. Friend agree with me that it is women and agree with me that it is women and young girls who are the most vulnerable in the face of climate change and those disasters, natural change and those disasters, natural disasters as a result, and exposed to violence, rape against young women and girls. Envoy Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor toured golf boardrooms, met alongside shell executives, energy conglomerates. And that was, you know, ermine royal access diplomacy.

So just as in his personal life, he showed no conscience towards those women and young girls of victims and survivors of a convicted paedophile. Epstein, in his role as trade envoy. Nor did he think about those who were exposed to structural violence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of women and young girls. Also. I totally agree, I couldn't have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I totally agree, I couldn't have said it better. The people in these circles appoint one another, they defend one another and they rehabilitate one another. And rehabilitate one another. And sometimes they do so in ways that many women looking on in that situation would not. And when the same small group repeatedly decides what reputationally survivable, what's politically convenient, and what's worth overlooking, women's what's worth overlooking, women's confidence in our institutions erodes. Which is how this circles back to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, because the issue, the issue isn't only his personal conduct, it's about cultures of deference, it's about protective networks, and it's about systems where rehabilitation for powerful men can move faster than justice or safety for women, which is precisely why transparency matters when decisions are taken within small, powerful circles, sunlight is not a luxury, it's a safeguard.

If Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed and maintained as a special trade envoy, then the public is entitled to understand how that decision was reached, what advice was given, what risks were assessed and who signed it off. We cannot say we are serious about accountability while withholding the very documents that would allow this House and the public to scrutinise how power was exercised. Releasing all correspondence, risk assessments and internal advice relating to his role as trade envoy is not about political point scoring.

It's about restoring trust because transparency is the antidote to institutional deference, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

without it, structural sexism continues to operate behind closed doors. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Helen Maguire. So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So. Are you sure you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. As I. Start to contribute to this debate, I do have to pause to pay debate, I do have to pause to pay tribute to all the young women who have risked so much to stand up and push for justice over the vile and corrupt web around the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and the
14:13
Siân Berry Portrait Siân Berry MP (Brighton Pavilion, Green Party)
-
-
crimes and abuse they suffered as children. But turning to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and the motion Mountbatten-Windsor and the motion before us today, transparency about the workings of an organisation is a key way to prevent corruption. a key way to prevent corruption. Sunlight really is the best disinfectant and appreciating that there is an ongoing police investigation that mustn't be jeopardised. Green MPs support the motion in the name of the Liberal motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats, whilst noting the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton apology for defending Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor as doing an excellent job whilst in office in 2011 and the reasons he gave for that.

This is when Paul Flynn, the formidable late former MP for Newport West, held his debate in the House in 2011 that other members have referred to. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Royal family is sheltered from scrutiny in too many ways and it's very, very clear now what a risk this can pose. We have heard many examples of MPs facing restrictions and limits on what we can ask about royal activity, but it is reasonable and right that we should scrutinise any work they do on the country's behalf in the fullest way possible.

And we look at how these restrictions can be removed and others. Now, as I understand it, section 37 of the Freedom of Information Act exempts communications between relevant authorities and members not just the king, but wider members of the royal family. From being released under Freedom of Information requests. Now, that really is one rule for the rich and powerful, and one rule for the rest of us. As the Minister condemned earlier. And I believe this is a serious transparency loophole for royals that must be closed.

For example, it could mean that if positions such as trade and trade envoy are filled by members of the royal family, it would be predictably, significantly harder for the press, public and MPs to make sure things are above board and much harder to get details when things go very, very badly wrong. One example of the effect of this on transparency is is in today's Guardian, where there's a profile of the author, Andrew Lang, who's the author of a biography of Andrew called entitled, and he talks about the stacks he has of rejected freedom of information requests from different government departments.

This is why this honourable, this Humble Address is so important as it would uncover whether these restrictions in the FOI act were in fact part of the equation in making the appointment, I have tabled an Early Day Motion 2769, which now has support from MPs of six political parties, calling for the King to release all communications between members of the royal family and the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. But obviously that is just the start of what is needed. I'm very grateful for the motion today.

If reports are correct that the Royal family were aware of concerns about Andrew's financial dealings ahead of his appointment, there are serious questions about whether and how that knowledge matches the King's statement following Mountbatten-Windsor. S arrest, suggesting he had only recently learned about his brother's misconduct. And it is reasonable to raise these questions to and find out what advice was given from the Palace at the time, including, as suggested by the current King, for or against the appointment.

And I want to add that reactive cooperation with any investigation cannot be enough on the Royal family's part. That suggests waiting to be asked by the police, whereas the royal family could be proactively checking its records and visitor logs, it could be speaking to Palace and Royal Lodge staff to encourage them to share information with the authorities. And it could be making sure there is an effective whistleblowing policy within the Palace. We also need to be able to scrutinise the exact provenance of the £12 million payout from Andrew to the late Virginia Giuffre.

So to conclude, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should never have been a trade envoy for this country. But that is not the only matter that requires urgent transparency. His relationship with the child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein has turned the nation's stomach, and we also need to know who in the royal household knew what and when, as well as what he did when he was trade envoy. As part of ensuring that. I hope the Minister will make it clear today that royal freedom of information exemptions that have for too long allowed their power to act in the shadows, concealing important truths from MPs and the public, also need to go Helen Morgan.
14:18
Helen Morgan Portrait Helen Morgan MP (North Shropshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you very much, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. I'm one of a handful of MPs. On

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm one of a handful of MPs. On the Liberal Democrat benches and on the current government benches, who is elected in the wake of a is elected in the wake of a political scandal and in my case, in December 2021, a financial in December 2021, a financial scandal followed by a cover up by the then conservative government the then conservative government trying to get one of their own off the hook. And then in the midst of that byelection, there was revelations about Partygate, where it emerged that the Prime Minister had concluded at the time, the Prime Minister of the time had concluded that there was probably a number of rules that the people in this country that were subject to that didn't apply to him.

And I can remember very, very clearly knocking on doors during that byelection and feeling the anger of my constituents that a small group of elite people had concluded that there was rules that applied to them that didn't apply to the people at the top of our society. And I think they would have described that as entitlement. And that's why this debate today is so important, because we must to restore the trust of the people who voted for me and for those other people who were elected in the wake of by elections following a scandals and the wider British public.

We need to tell them that we've learned those lessons about political scandal, about cover up, about entitlement, and are taking actions to restore their trust in what this House is up to and what the wider establishment is allowed to get away with. It's so important to hold the powerful to account. And since then, we've had a number of other scandals which have destroyed trust in politics. We've had the VIP lane for Covid contracts. We've had the treachery of Nathan Gill, and we've had the the concerns surrounding the appointment of of Peter Mandelson.

Now Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was intimately involved with Jeffrey Epstein. And we've learned in recent weeks that the relationship was probably much more deep than we first thought, and continued much longer than maybe we first thought. And this association with one of the most despicable paedophiles in history at the heart of the British establishment is absolutely poisonous. The victims and survivors of Epstein's crimes must have been retraumatized many times over the year, by the complicity of all those who were closely, closely associated with him and did nothing to bring his crimes to public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

awareness and bring him to account. I will give one. I thank. The hon. Member for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member for giving way. She makes a really, really important point about victims. People who are victims of of crimes People who are victims of of crimes perpetrated by people in the public eye, because it's particularly difficult for them, because it's almost like the trauma is repeated almost like the trauma is repeated again and again when these things come to light. And obviously there in the press and the media, would she agree with me that we need to she agree with me that we need to particularly support victims who are who are victims of crimes of this nature?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

An excellent point, and I can't imagine what it must have been like to be one of those victims and one of those survivors, and to see repeatedly over the years the establishment closing ranks around establishment closing ranks around those that knew him and telling us everything was OK. And he's entirely right. This, this whole, entirely right. This, this whole, this whole process must be extremely painful for everyone involved. And we should put them at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the first and foremost of everything we do as we go forward. On that point. I'll give. One to my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend for giving way. One of the things that I've been struck by is that as we hear more and more is that as we hear more and more and more revelations, I think it's quite difficult for some members of the public to keep up. And for many the public to keep up. And for many of them, particularly a number of women, they'll want to turn away from what they see on their screens. from what they see on their screens. Does my hon.

Friend agree with me that as we see what is unfolding in front of our eyes, is a conspiracy of silence where horrific acts were allowed to take place in the shadows? And increasingly we are seeing the arms of the British state were either protected, protected, facilitated or colluded with these horrific acts by people in power. Does she agree with me that this House must make the boldest statement it can, that we will not rest until every single stone is unturned?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Helen Morgan. Well, I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and she puts it better than I could. and she puts it better than I could. She's entirely right, because what She's entirely right, because what we have seen here is complicity by people at the heart of the British establishment, who we are in the right place to hold to account. But right place to hold to account. But people in as part of the internationally, the international establishment, either turning a blind eye to the act of Jeffrey Epstein or possibly being implicated by them.

We don't know that for sure yet, but those who did turn a blind eye must have known. They must have known what was going on. It isn't normal for an older businessman to be surrounded by young teenagers all of the time, to be receiving messages on all sorts of other, as we know, terrible involvement, and for other people to think that that was somehow normal or acceptable or even admirable as we suggest, as we heard Donald Trump say, some of those girls were on the younger side as if that was something to be applauded.

It was appalling. Those people must have known, and if they chose not to look, they are part of the problem. The decades long cover up, as I've said, must have compounded and worsened the trauma that those women, they were children at the time compounded the trauma that they suffered. So first and foremost, let's put the victims first and let's allow the police investigations to go ahead. But we need to look at the wider elements of the scandal as well as we've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

heard. I will. I'm extremely grateful to her. My does she share my worry though, My does she share my worry though, that as it currently stands, the potential for human trafficking, potential for human trafficking, which is, at its core, what those victims would have been the victims victims would have been the victims of, is actually not subject to a of, is actually not subject to a police inquiry currently. And would she recognising, of course, that the police will make their own decisions? That is absolutely right.

Does she not agree that it is for this government to make sure they've got all possible resourcing that they might need, so that if they wanted to go down that particular rabbit hole, and I would urge them to do so actively, that they wouldn't be stymied by any lack of resource in that. Well, my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hon. Friend makes a really important point. Actually, I will. Urge hon. Members not to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Urge hon. Members not to speculate about what the police might or might not be investigating.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. I thank the Minister for that, that reminder. I have been astounded, I have to say, have been astounded, I have to say, by the brilliance of the British media and the journalists who have sifted through thousands and sifted through thousands and thousands of documents from the Epstein files and uncovered a scandal within a really, really short period of time that has rocked the British establishment to its heart and has got everybody in this place acting to try and uncover the appalling rot at the heart of the at the heart of the Epstein circle.

And yet other jurisdictions who've been sitting on those thousands of documents for potentially decades have apparently had no curiosity whatsoever. And that in itself, I think, speaks volumes. I was going to say that the Polish government has launched an investigation into Epstein's links with Russia, and his links with both Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor must be causing enormous concern in the light of that development. And so I think it is right now that we seek transparency into the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to this role because, as my hon.

Friend has just said, this wasn't about one mistake that led to an individual in an inappropriate position. This has been about a failure of an entire establishment to exercise curiosity, to undertake due diligence, and to put aside its. As an accountant, we would call it our professional scepticism to put that aside and carry on with that appointment regardless, because that was an entitled person who needed a role. And so it's really, really important now, and I'm pleased that the government have agreed to comply with the request in this Humble Address and publish those documents.

It's really, really important because the public need transparency. They need to understand quickly what happened and crucially, what can be done in future to prevent such an appointment happening again. They need to have their trust restored, and they need to have their trust in this place restored. That we care enough to hold those powerful people to account and to make sure that we are always improving public life and not slipping backwards. The Humble Address itself seeks answers as to how a man with such a questionable reputation came to be appointed to represent the British state, but the debate today has highlighted the impenetrable networks of privilege that for decades have protected a paedophile, and those who surrounded themselves with him, possibly for their own gain and with total disregard for the victims of his crimes and the wider public, to whom they were apparently indifferent.

The government, when it came to power, promised to clean up British politics. There is a real moment of opportunity for them to demonstrate now that they are serious about that mission, and I hope they take that opportunity and I hope they do this job properly.
14:28
Ian Sollom Portrait Ian Sollom MP (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
And solemn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By any measure, an extraordinary one in British public life. Within one in British public life. Within five days, two people have been arrested on suspicion of misconduct arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. One, a former member of the royal family, the other a veteran Labour politician other a veteran Labour politician who was simultaneously, we now understand the man who championed understand the man who championed the First's appointment to his public role in the first place. Now, this motion is not an attempt to prejudice a police investigation.

We are clear. Let the police do their work. That investigation must proceed on its own terms, free from political interference. But the criminal law and parliamentary accountability are not the same thing, and they have never been mutually exclusive. Parliament has its own duty to scrutinise public appointments, to follow public money and ensure that the institutions of state are answerable to the people they serve. That duty did not disappear when Thames Valley Police opened their case files.

So let us ask the question that this House should have been asking for years. How did Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor come to be appointed as Britain's special representative for International Trade and Investment in 2001, and what did those responsible for that appointment know? Because here is what we do know. His appointment was, by multiple accounts, controversial from the start. Concerns were raised within government, within the Foreign Office and reportedly within the royal family itself. And yet he was appointed.

For a decade. He travelled the globe on the public purse, meeting heads of state and billionaires, with expenses described by former officials as lavish and poorly scrutinised, effectively given a rubber stamp, and all the while his relationship with Epstein deepened a relationship that the Epstein files now suggest may have been entangled with his official duties in ways that potentially breach both his duty of confidentiality and even the Official Secrets Act. The documents that might answer these questions should by now be in the National Archives under the 20 year rule.

They are not. Every available exemption has been deployed to keep them sealed. National security, international relations and more. Some, we are told, are locked away until 2065. Most of us in this chamber would not be here to read them if they were. As the Member for Argyle and the Member for Brighton Pavilion, who is no longer in her place, have already raised the historian Andrew Landry has spent years attempting to access these files through the proper channels.

When asked what he made of this, he said simply, every single reason has been deployed to stop these papers getting out. You have to ask why. Madam Deputy Speaker, we are asking why now? At this point, some may ask if Parliament has had the tools to scrutinise this through a substantive motion. Why is this happening only now? And it's a fair question. No party in over a decade successfully used the parliamentary mechanisms available to force this issue properly, not because the rules prevented it, but because the cultural gravitational pull of deference was so strong that sustained that sustained rigorous scrutiny of a public figure who happened to be a member of the royal family felt to too many people like it simply wasn't the done thing.

The unwritten convention was as powerful, if not more powerful, than the written rule. That aspect is not a procedural failure. It is a failure of political culture. And it is precisely that culture that this motion challenges today. Now, I came to this place with a background in science and in any field of systemic inquiry, there is an important principle you cannot correct a failure. You refuse to examine. Institutional failures do not disappear when you look away from them.

They compound the question of how Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor came to be appointed, against objections reportedly raised from multiple directions, and how he was then allowed to operate for a decade with expenses, rubberstamped and minimal oversight is not ancient history. It is the context in which every subsequent failure of public appointment standards must be understood. Beyond this motion, the Liberal Democrats are calling for structural reforms that match the scale of what has been revealed so far. We want a genuinely independent ethics adviser able to initiate investigations, not waiting for permission from the Ministers they are supposed to scrutinise.

We want an office of the whistleblower with real legal protections, so that the civil servant who was overruled when they tried to question an expenses claim, has somewhere to go. We want a rigorous, transparent, confirmatory process for all significant public appointments with proper parliamentary involvement from the outset, not as an afterthought, not after the damage has already been done. And we want to see an end to government by WhatsApp. All official business on the record. All lobbying published.

No more deals done in the dark. Madam Deputy Speaker, deference is not respect. Silence is not discretion. And secrecy in public life is not safety. It is the condition under which misconduct flourishes. The documents we are asking for today should have been in the public domain years ago. This House has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the power and the responsibility to require their release, and it should do today. Thank you. Hear, hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear. Luke Taylor know you in a lot of pain, Luke. Thank you very much. Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. Madam Deputy Speaker, and you'll have to forgive me for my dancing around to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forgive me for my dancing around to aid my pain. Back power tends to. Corrupt, and absolute power
14:36
Luke Taylor Portrait Luke Taylor MP (Sutton and Cheam, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
>> Corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Roz Savage full quote from 1887 by British historian Lord Acton. And it explained how power in its most essential form, inevitably corrupts. And I think we discuss here today how that absolute power, that feeling of invincibility, has led to the behaviour that we are all so utterly disgusted about around the chamber. I speak on behalf of all residents who've been in touch with me over the last few weeks.

Whether you are a republican, a a, a monarchist, a ambivalent to the general principle, what we see is a scandal that is not just engulfing Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, but also dragging in the integrity of the wider royal family because, as has been raised by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion so correctly, we have to ask who knew what and when, what was known about the £12 million that was paid out to the Virginia Giuffre in 2022? And how was that allowed to be used to settle a civil suit of allegations of Andrew's offences? Alleged offences, I should say.

How was that allowed to happen in the first place? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton has already said, we've seen one friend of Epstein lobbying for a job for another friend of Epstein and then a 12 year relationship that benefited them both financially and has now resulted in the two arrests for misconduct in public office. This Humble Address talks about how that began, and I think it is absolutely the right place to start as a politician coming here trying to convince the public that we are there to serve, we are there to represent them, that the conspiracies they read and the darker reaches of the internet are nonsense, and that there isn't a elite paedophile ring that runs the world's institutions, becomes increasingly difficult to maintain.

When actually we see these links in the files that go directly from the Kremlin to the White House and everywhere in between, including the British royal family. We talk about standards in public life. We talk about integrity. It very difficult to maintain, if not only that, that is known. And the information in those files is understood by the public, but that then we're unable to scrutinise, we're unable to bring people to this place to ask questions about what has happened.

So, as discussed, this Humble Address becomes quite a narrow set of papers surround the appointment as the special envoy to the UK trade and Industry. However, I think we've all discussed as well the parliamentary gymnastics that has been required to get a discussion of outrageous misdeeds allegedly conducted by that man to be discussed in this chamber. And it's those parliamentary gymnastics that I think we have to call out as being so outrageously outrageous, impediment to what our jobs are in this very chamber that we need to dispel from this place entirely.

We talk about, as well, the implications of Andrew and his line, of his position in the line of succession. I think at the time that the photos were published of him walking in New York with Jeffrey Epstein in 2011, he was fourth in line to the throne. Like we talk now of his position, but at the time of that scandal was occurring, how close he was. To the throne. It's disgusting. I think I'm going to ask the Minister specifically if he can give us an update on legislation that the government might bring forward to remove Andrew from the line of succession we speak about.

I think he's eighth in the line now and maybe not such a worry, but the principle of that position two our head of state is obnoxious in the extreme, and I'd like to hear if he's got any update. Absolutely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think people just find this. We understand we have a living, breathing, constitutional democracy breathing, constitutional democracy that grows as society better understands things. But it just makes no sense, does it, that if makes no sense, does it, that if the King doesn't want him to be a prince, it makes no sense that we have to still Bristol East have to still Bristol East legislation in order to strip him of his dukedom and his earldoms, and equally that he remains in the line of succession and could potentially be a king.

Now, yes, we've got plenty of other things we need to be getting on with, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there's a certain logic here that just needs tidying up. If nothing else. I thank my hon. Friend for for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for for her intervention and I completely agree. I also want to thank the Minister for his very early acknowledgement of the support for the Humble Address today, and I, the Humble Address today, and I, and I also think that he has engaged constructively with engaged constructively with comments about its scope, about exactly what it says. And I think that that has been done in and broadly around the chamber, very much a supportive attitude. So I do thank him for that.

I'm just going to return to the point about the negative privilege that we cannot speak freely and have had to use this gymnastic approach to get to the point that we're at today. I've submitted a number of UQ requests to the speaker's office who has absolutely, understandably not managed to get to justify a discussion of the scandal as it has unfolded. But the necessity that we've had to take to phrase it in the sense of a an examination of the Prince's arrangements and his use of property and all sorts of confusing attempts to not then discuss it.

As we've as we've mentioned around the chamber today, has precluded us from doing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To this anguish. But there is a convention in the House that we don't refer to, urgent question requests that we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

urgent question requests that we put through to the speaker. And I will apologise for breaking that, but I think it is a breaking that, but I think it is a useful demonstration. However, rightfully and with such utter wisdom, that we will never question that the speaker chooses again. It's that challenge to raise issues It's that challenge to raise issues of this type in the chamber. I will move to to to close. Thank you. So specifically now, and I think the Liberal Democrat benches have been pretty clear on this throughout the afternoon.

We have to have a full statutory inquiry into the whole Epstein affair and the tentacles that it has inserted into our public life. We must allow those criminal investigations to be completed, but that investigation must be able to compel witnesses and require to give evidence under oath, and to produce documents and other evidence. This must be used not only to punish those who have been complicit and have been involved in the heinous crimes that we've heard about and seen about in the media, who again, and I will reflect other colleagues comments about the incredible work that the media and journalists have done in investigating these crimes and poring through those files.

I really do think that that can cannot be overstated at the effort that they've taken on that. So just to conclude, we do have to ensure that the events that have transpired over the last 20 or 30 years from Epstein's scandal can never be repeated, and that the investigation must allow us to fireproof our Constitution from similar events ever happening again.
14:45
Olly Glover Portrait Olly Glover MP (Didcot and Wantage, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I was going. wanted to do that next. But I'll call Olly Olly Glover.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, this motion is first and foremost about the victims of the appalling crimes of victims of the appalling crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his many associates, as well as the importance of protecting people importance of protecting people from abuse of power. But it also has significant implications for has significant implications for wider political culture. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire articulately outlined this and previous governments have been wracked by scandal of many kinds, and this whole Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor affair adds to that by making a very significant contribution to already severe erosion of trust in our politics and institutions, and that is why we are calling for a public inquiry into all aspects of UK and British citizen involvement with Jeffrey Epstein over many years.

Now, that inquiry would include, of course, taking account of police and criminal investigations, disclosure and publication of relevant

**** Possible New Speaker ****

documents. But we must go further. I give way to my. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Many people are talking about the different elements that could be examined during an inquiry. I've even heard some people saying that an inquiry could become too big and take too long. Would he agree with me that long. Would he agree with me that there is precedent in this country of having public inquiries in two or more parts, and that that is a or more parts, and that that is a particular structure that the government and government Ministers who I hope will be listening, would consider in order to make sure that some parts of the inquiry that we need to be urgently looked at could

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happen sooner rather than later. Olly Glover I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I think she makes a very practical think she makes a very practical proposal for how an inquiry could be conducted efficiently with appropriate prioritisation, so that the most urgent matters get looked the most urgent matters get looked at, rather than being bogged down in something that would take much longer. But we must go further. We longer. But we must go further. We must also toughen the penalties for breaching the ministerial code.

We breaching the ministerial code. We must create an office of the whistleblower to both protect and to empower and encourage people with valuable information to come forward and to speak up. I also support our calls for an end to negative privilege protections, which have prevented criticism of individuals in the Royal family in this House, for the reasons that we have heard today in this debate, I give way to my hon. Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to him for giving way. What strikes me as as I've listened to this excellent I've listened to this excellent debate, actually this afternoon, is that everything that our establishment sort of depends on is establishment sort of depends on is that the people at the heart of it are nice, trusted, good sorts who won't step out of line. And we don't have the mechanisms in place to challenge when that doesn't turn out to be the case. Would you agree out to be the case.

Would you agree with me that the points that he's outlining about duty, about office of the whistleblower and other statutory bodies to to put a code around our our behaviour in this place and in wider public life is so important so that we don't just rely on people being good blokes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Olly Glover. I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and I very much agree intervention and I very much agree there is far too much in British political and wider culture that does rely on taking things on trust and assuming that good, good, good motives and good intentions will motives and good intentions will win the day. Very sadly, the whole affair of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor shows that we cannot necessarily rely on that and cannot necessarily rely on that and that we do need strong processes and procedures and protocols to make sure that we have the highest standards in public life.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we all hope that the necessary changes to prevent a repeat of the whole Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor affair, an
14:49
Ben Maguire Portrait Ben Maguire MP (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Madam Deputy Speaker, before I turn to the wider implications of this debate, it's really important to acknowledge why the Liberal Democrats have pressed for full transparency today. Serious allegations have been raised about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, his Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, his conduct during his time as the UK's trade envoy, including reports that he claimed taxpayer funded expenses for so-called massage services and other inappropriate costs. Former senior officials have described a culture of deference in which such claims were barely even questioned, expenses were rubber stamped and scrutiny was effectively absent.

I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will give way. Hon. Friend, for giving way. We rightly say that no one in the country is above the law, and recent weeks have reinforced that principle. Surely it must also be true that no one is above our true that no one is above our democratic. So do you think the government should now consider bringing the royal household within the scope of Freedom of Information

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the scope of Freedom of Information Act, to strengthen the confidence in our institution? I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for making that powerful point, and I think it's a really important consideration. I hope the Minister is listening to and can respond to today. These concerns naturally lead to further questions. What did those around Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor know? What did police protection officers, civil servants, officials who accompanied him and travelled with him were present during these official duties? What did they observe? What did they record? What did they raise? And crucially, what was dismissed and what was ignored? These are not just trivial matters.

They speak directly to how an individual in public office was able to behave in ways that would never be tolerated from anyone else, and how the institutions around him

**** Possible New Speaker ****

act. Just on that. Point. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. And just on this point about what the protection officers about what the protection officers knew, for example, does it not show the outrageous power imbalance the outrageous power imbalance between a royal and an employee and how the the fact that you have someone in that situation who then has to and we're talking about whistleblowing, we're talking about reporting what has been seen. Does it just show how outrageous that even the prospect of having someone in that situation is, that they are then being held to account for not calling out the behaviour of someone whose position, whose privilege, whose who's who's kind of birthright has put them into such a position.

Does does he agree that this just shows how how our Constitution and our structure has put us into such an outrageous twist, and how difficult it's going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to be to unwind that. Friend for that intervention. And I completely agree with him, and I suspect this is just a small start on something that's much, much wider. And I imagine there's probably much more information on probably much more information on that to come. As the House turns its attention to the matter of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, I also Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, I also want to use this moment to refocus our minds on those who have been most consistently forgotten. most consistently forgotten.

Throughout all of this, the victims and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and the justice they've been denied for far too many years. It's only because of their bravery in coming forward that we know the true extent of Epstein's crimes, and the deeply troubling implications that those crimes hold for our own establishment, as has just been mentioned. Madam Deputy Speaker, when we talk of these survivors, we must confront an uncomfortable truth. Many UK victims are simply too afraid to come forward right now.

Their fear is well documented in UK reporting, which describes a greater sense of fear and reticence among British survivors. Fear of stigma, fear of being disbelieved, fear of the powerful networks that have long silenced these women and girls. And yet abuse did happen here in the UK. Epstein carried out wrongdoing during extensive and repeated trips to London. These weren't distant or abstract harms. They took place here on UK soil under UK jurisdiction and so they demand a UK led response. But instead of justice here at home, victims were effectively steered and are still steered Madam Deputy Speaker into a US justice system.

They're told to seek redress through the Epstein Victims Compensation Program and a fund that ultimately paid $120 million to around 135 survivors and did so more quickly and confidentially than litigation could. Now that programme has been opened internationally, and victims here in Britain could apply without needing a lawyer, making it less costly and less traumatic. But Madam Deputy Speaker, what does it say about our own UK justice system when British victims who are abused here on British soil are left seeking justice 4000 miles away? When we asked traumatised people to navigate foreign bureaucracies because we here in the United Kingdom have nothing equivalent to offer them.

And what does it say that only less than a handful of UK victims even approached a solicitor? Not because abuse didn't happen, we know that it did, but because the absence of any UK prosecution meant they didn't feel empowered to speak. We can draw a stark contrast between figures like Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, Peter Mandelson, who have allegedly allegedly enriched themselves through their associations with the survivors who were left fighting for justice. What the Epstein Files reveal is a powerful network of wealthy people colluding with Epstein, using their privilege to silence and dismiss survivors, a pattern which has been highlighted by the End Violence Against Women coalition.

This exposes how powerful men evade consequences while their victims struggle even to be heard, reinforcing the very fear that continues to keep British survivors in the shadows. Surely the role of this house of any democratic institution worth its name is not simply to just reinforce that silence, but to finally break it. And that's why today we call clearly and firmly for the UK to open criminal prosecution and survivor led inquiries into London based offences. These alleged crimes fall squarely within the UK jurisdiction.

The offender's nationality is irrelevant. The victim's nationality is irrelevant. What matters is the harms occurred here and those harmed deserve justice here. Justice for British victims must not be outsourced abroad. Justice must not be dependent on the bravery of a handful willing to defy enormous pressure. Justice must not be conditional on navigating a foreign compensation scheme. Justice should be delivered transparently, confidently and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

compassionately here in Britain. Would my hon. Friend give way? I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Would he agree with me that having a public inquiry would be a very public way for the British authorities, for the state to show those survivors that they to show those survivors that they have been the victim of some heinous crimes, and that it would give them more confidence to come give them more confidence to come forward. And we know that survivors of all kinds of sexual abuse and rape across this country, whether it be part of some big scandal like Mohamed Al-Fayed or Epstein, or whether it be something much more local and and and individual, all of them will be being retraumatized again and again and again by seeing this splashed across the front pages of the papers and all over the media, day after day after day.

And we have to make a stand and say, enough. We will not tolerate this in this country, and we have to stand up to these powerful men who silence their victims and ensure that they have to fight for justice every step of the way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention, and I couldn't agree more that a public inquiry is very much needed to inquiry is very much needed to expose all of the harms that have been done to these victims, and how the establishment of our country have seemingly played such a have seemingly played such a central role in that. Madam Deputy Speaker, if our government is sincere when it speaks of a fairer, sincere when it speaks of a fairer, safer and more accountable society, it must now show leadership rather than continued deference.

It must than continued deference. It must show survivors they will be believed, protected and heard in the UK because at the heart of this matter are not titles, reputations or institutions, but people survivors whose lives, like the victims of domestic abuse, have been shaped by fear, by silence, and by power, wield against them rather than for them. They deserve far better. They deserve a justice system that will fight for them. And now is the time for immediate action. So please, will the Minister consider not redacting any of the documents which don't relate to the ongoing police investigation? Will the government look at, as my hon.

Friend has just suggested, a public inquiry, a full public inquiry into Epstein and his links to the British establishment? And finally, will the Minister please go away and look to end the appalling negative privilege which prevents MPs in this House from speaking freely about members of the royal household? This is a disgusting symptom of the deference we have shown to those in positions of power, at the cost of victims. Our constituents should no longer be silenced in what should be our proud British democracy.

Thank you.
14:58
Lisa Smart Portrait Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson Lisa Smart.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very much indeed. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we've had an extremely powerful debate today, extremely powerful debate today, and I'll address a number of the points that have been raised. But I want to start by talking about how the revelations of recent weeks and recent months have been shattering for the British public and deeply, for the British public and deeply, deeply distressing for many of those directly impacted. We've listened to the gut wrenching listened to the gut wrenching stories of abuse enjoyed by endured by vulnerable women and girls, and we were reminded by my colleague, the Member for North East Fife, that we are in many cases, talking about children here.

We've learned of the arrogance and cruelty of rich, powerful men who felt that no rules applied to them and who made a mockery of our values and our laws. And we have seen laid bare the hollowness of a political establishment that was manipulated so easily, and who treated state secrets like cheap gossip. Public trust has been catastrophically undermined by the Epstein saga, and we are now at a crossroads in our public life. If Parliament does not act with courage, faith in our institutions will suffer even more permanent harm and will remain under intense public suspicion and unease.

To start to repair the damage, we must uncover the full and unvarnished truth. Critical to that process is demanding that every relevant department comes clean and shares what was known about Mountbatten. Windsor's appointment as special representative for Trade and Investment, about what concerns were raised ahead of his appointment, if his suitability came into question, and what risks were identified throughout that process. The British people deserve to know what behaviour was tolerated and by whom, and they deserve to.

I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way because on that point I have a constituent who contacted me who played a public role in the who played a public role in the Middle East, and during that role, they said they had to go through incredible checks, background checks, etc. and obviously the release of these files would enable us to see actually if the same background checks are applied to background checks are applied to people in public life. You know, citizens like us are also applied to the royal family.

Does my hon. Friend agree?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend agree? I am grateful to my hon. Friend's intervention also to her constituent who contacted her about this really important point. My view and the view of the Liberal Democrats is that we should get to the bottom of how this role was created, the vetting that was done before the appointment to understand the extent of that vetting or the lack of the extent of that vetting. If somebody is being paid by the public purse, they should be held to an extremely high standard, and there should be transparency about their role and the creation of that role to begin with.

So I very much agree with her. And the public deserve to know if sections of their government of its time put in place systems to shield Mountbatten Windsor from accountability, even at a cost to the national interest. Now, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, the police must undertake their work unimpeded. And of course, anybody who has committed a crime should face justice if they are found to have committed that crime. But a police investigation, no matter what prosecution it leads to, is not enough.

It is essential for the strength of our Constitution and our social fabric, that we go further and clean up the broken

**** Possible New Speaker ****

system that facilitated this scandal in the first place. On that point. With pleasure. I am.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am. Grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and one of the points giving way, and one of the points that has been raised this afternoon is that even whilst the police go ahead with their investigations, there is still a job for this House there is still a job for this House to do. And it strikes me that some of the most basic principles that we assume in this place and when we come to this place, are really being questioned.

I just wonder if she would agree with me that it is worth restating, for the record and for the public, that there are certain principles in public life that this case is highlighting. We have to make sure remain in place, that no one is above the law, that taxpayers money and public office must be used for the public interest and not for private gain. That Parliament has not just the right, but the duty to hold the powerful to account, and to pursue all means of transparency, and that ultimately all powerful people must

**** Possible New Speaker ****

face a reckoning if they were involved in this scandal. Yeah. I wholly agree with my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. She's made a number of very powerful interventions throughout this debate, and this whole sorry saga repeatedly brings up arrogant, saga repeatedly brings up arrogant, greedy men, mostly men who have behaved in a way that has sought to enrich them further and increase their power. Just on that point,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with pleasure, I. I hope this adds to her point, because does she find the irony because does she find the irony that the only person who has been imprisoned as part of the Epstein

**** Possible New Speaker ****

scandal is a I he is not the only person to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I he is not the only person to refer to structural sexism in this debate. And I think particularly my colleague and hon. Friend, the colleague and hon. Friend, the Member for Frome and East Somerset made an extremely powerful speech about how we could, should we choose to do so as a Parliament embed looking at sexism and violence against women and girls in our policy making, in our thinking, in a way that would benefit the whole of society. And I'm grateful for him raising the point that there remain many people for whom the hand of justice is yet to seek them out with the full vigour with which it should.

And we should be pulling back the curtain. On Andrew's use of the special envoy role and the whole system around him, on the power he had in an official, state sanctioned position, and on the many opportunities missed for scrutiny and accountability. Not least, Madam Deputy Speaker, in this place, a number of members across both sides of the House have talked about the importance of pace and of speed. I think the Member for Sherwood Forest made a very good point that I think he raised earlier this week to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister about making sure we get on with some of this.

And indeed, the Father of the House reminded us that the wheels of justice often grind slowly. And my friend, my deputy leader, indeed, and the Member for St Albans gave some really practical solutions about how we can make sure progress continues at pace, and to make sure that one thing isn't holding up another. And indeed, the Shadow Minister reminded us that that police involvement in this should not unduly delay the whole of the process. It is, of course, an absolutely vital part that the police should be free to do their job and do it well, but that should not unduly hold up the release of the information we are seeking.

We Liberal Democrats very much welcome support from across the chamber for our motion today, including from the Treasury bench. And I wonder when he's winding up, if the Minister could confirm, like in when the government was responding to the previous Humble Address that we discussed in this place, that information will be released, released when it is available. That is, any information will be released when it's available, only holding back that information that is directly relevant to a police investigation. And I'd be grateful if you could do that when he's on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his feet in a few moments. And on that point. Please go ahead. I'm grateful to my hon. ahead. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend. A few moments ago, she made reference to a comment I made earlier in the debate. I'm mindful that the Minister was not in his place at the time, so I wonder if I may be indulged. No, no, no. It's a separate point that I made later, when you were out of the room for a second. Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the points I made earlier in the of the points I made earlier in the debate was that because there are so many things that could be examined during a public inquiry, I had wondered whether Ministers would consider having an inquiry made of 2 or 3 or more parts, given there is precedence for such a thing, and I just wondered whether that might be an answer to make sure that some things that need to be examined earlier in the debate earlier are not delayed too long.

I just wonder whether whether the Minister is now in his place, whether she would agree with me that that is a point on which we might hear from the Minister in his winding up. In closing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful for her reminding us all of the very insightful comment that she made. I think we on the Liberal Democrat benches have been fizzing with ideas. We have got a real opportunity to improve our opportunity to improve our processes, improve our systems, and if the bravery of the women who have come forward to talk about their horrific abuse and their experience can reach its full potential, it is to improve the potential, it is to improve the system so that things like this don't just keep happening.

A number of colleagues on both sides of the House have talked about a conspiracy of silence. They've talked about the role of deference. And indeed, the leader of pride talks used the word sycophancy. And I think she was absolutely right to do so. And this comes from the whole establishment. Over several decades, a number of colleagues have talked about the role of journalists, which I think was a really interesting point. Madam Deputy Speaker and a number of colleagues have talked about those who can be rightly proud of the role they have played in bringing transparency, bringing accountability, bringing the public's understanding up.

But I think the Minister was also absolutely right to talk about some of those people who minimised child abuse, who minimised statutory rape, who whose comments have not aged well, and who should reflect upon the roles of some of what was said at the time. We've also this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker, spoken about our own procedures in this place, and my colleague and hon. Friend, the Member for Sutton and Cheam used the phrase parliamentary gymnastics, which is one I'm not going to spend too long thinking about, but that the role of some of our predecessors, Paul Flynn, has been talked about a lot, and the role of negative privilege not really being fit for purpose in this day and age, we need processes and procedures that enable us to do our job.

We should be holding the powerful to account. We should. There should be. Power within Parliament to hold the powerful to account and to scrutinise before decisions are made, as well as after decisions are made. I will give way to my hon. Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to her for giving way. The scandals surrounding Jeffrey Epstein is surrounding Jeffrey Epstein is reminiscent of other similar scandals, perhaps not on a similar scale, but certainly of similar magnitude in terms of their impact on their victims. I'm thinking the one that comes to mind is the Jimmy Savile scandal, where people who knew what was going on didn't feel able to speak up, didn't feel able to break that conspiracy of silence, and therefore victims didn't feel able to come forward either.

Does she agree with me that by hopefully embracing this opportunity to change the way we do things in Parliament, we can create a culture where people do feel empowered to come forward, where we can break that conspiracy of silence, and people who have observed things that they knew they should have reported don't feel constrained in their ability to report them and and ensure that these terrible scandals don't happen in the future.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful to her. She's made a number of very good points this afternoon, reminding us of previous afternoon, reminding us of previous scandals and and of making sure that we learn from previous that we learn from previous scandals. I think in the piece of Mandelson debate on which I sat in Mandelson debate on which I sat in the same place a few weeks ago, the hon. Member, I think she's the hon. Member for Bolsover, talked about shame, needing to change sides. And shame, needing to change sides.

And I think that references some of the cultural changes that we need to bring about and that we as parliamentarians have a role to lead on bringing about the cultural changes we need to see so that anybody who is a victim or survivor knows that the stigma is not with them, it's with the perpetrators, and that anybody that turns a blind eye know that the stigma should absolutely be with them for doing so. Because nobody should be above the law and nobody in public office or in receipt of public funds should be out of the reach of parliamentary scrutiny and with pleasure.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful for her giving way. And I'm reminded of the debate that we did have. The conservative benches brought on Lord Mandelson and the proverbial parliamentary knickers twisting that had to happen to work out that the way to deal with the issue of intelligence services was issue of intelligence services was indeed to allow the Intelligence and Security Select Committee to and Security Select Committee to look at those papers. The issue, isn't it the case that we do have the mechanisms in this place to scrutinise most things, but when it comes to the royal family, we don't.

And even if a Select Committee wanted to do something on these matters, we self-censor by the own conventions that we apply to ourselves. Only we can change that. What I'm curious to know is what is the government going to do? What's the facilitation mechanism by which we change those conventions? Because they're clearly the nub of scrutiny.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. This one. Nobody should be above the law and nobody should be above scrutiny. and nobody should be above scrutiny. I think when good people get together, there is a willingness to together, there is a willingness to embrace creativity and and sufficient nerdery of parliamentary procedures. Madam Deputy Speaker, procedures. Madam Deputy Speaker, so that we can find a way through to get to the truth that we need to get to, because trust in our get to, because trust in our politics is vital and trust in our institutions every time we have one of these debates is further eroded.

And my colleague, the member, the hon. Member, and my friend from Edinburgh West, talked about the impact on the reputation of this House and talked about the vital role of trust in politics. There are too many people, Madam Deputy Speaker, involved in politics, who, for whom a lack of trust in politics is really useful for them. That stoking of division, that stoking of mistrust, means that there is space for voices that, in my view, are not welcome and we should reject.

It is in all of our interests, in our whole country's interests, for there to be some trust in our institutions, some trust in our political setup. And we were reminded of the need for proper processes to be in place because, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire reminded us, not everybody can be relied upon to be a good bloke, and I think many of our systems are based on gentlemen's agreements and just expecting people to be a good bloke.

And that, as has been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

repeatedly proven, is simply not the case. I will give way. I'm grateful. To our friend for giving.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To our friend for giving. Way in serving for a number of years as senior civil servant, I experienced in Whitehall the impression that the monarchy should impression that the monarchy should be protected and that nothing should be done to embarrass the royal family. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would agree that hon. Friend would agree that hopefully the materials that we are seeking the release of through this, through today's Humble Address, through today's Humble Address, will ensure that we can scrutinise whether, indeed, that impeded the scrutiny of civil servants.

In order to check whether or not Andrew Mountbatten Windsor was an appropriate person to be a trade envoy and shed light on the relationship that should exist between Whitehall and the monarchy in the future.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I very much agree with my hon. Friend and I think we've seen some press reports, Madam Deputy Speaker, about civil servants who were doing about civil servants who were doing their job absolutely rightly questioning some of the expenses that were that were tried to put through, but were but were overruled. And that clearly is not good enough, is clearly not acceptable and is not what we should expect from our institutions should expect from our institutions and from our establishment.

I completely agree with my hon. Friend of the importance of being clear about what we expect when somebody takes on a public role at the cost to the taxpayer. We should have very, very high standards. And we should, as the Member for York Central mentioned, talk about how we can ensure those with power are held to account. She was entirely right in some of the points she made about, well, what do we do with this information? Where do we go with it? How do we build from here? And my friend, my hon.

Friend, the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire made a really strong speech. I thought, where he gave some very constructive suggestions to the Minister about some of the things we Liberal Democrats would support in terms of bringing about the change to the system that we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need to see. We're calling as part. Give way. I would give way. I'd like. To thank her for for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To thank her for for giving way. She'll be aware, of course, that this is we're in the week of Saint David's Week, a terribly important David's Week, a terribly important day for all of us in Wales. And in terms of accountability, she'll be terms of accountability, she'll be very aware of the long standing policy stance that the Liberal policy stance that the Liberal Democrats have taken on the Crown Estate, which in Wales, regrettably, still has not been devolved. Its powers and its funding have been Bishop.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be seated. Has the member just arrived? Has he been here for a while? Members should not be just traipsing in and intervening once traipsing in and intervening once the speech is taking place, so I'll just allow miss spots to continue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just allow miss spots to continue. I'm going to stick more within the tramlines of the debate that the tramlines of the debate that we've all enjoyed today. Madam Deputy Speaker, although I think devolution is a very good thing, of which there should be more, Parliament is calling today for transparency and the public deserves answers, not further silence, because cleaning up public life means acting quickly, openly and honestly. And because this goes to the heart of public trust. Sadly, this what we're talking about ultimately is not an isolated incident.

There has been a drumbeat of scandals, and we've had mention of Partygate in other debates recently. We've talked about Nathan Gill's treachery. Peter Mandelson has also been mentioned, and all of these further shatter trust in our politics. It is obvious that the current system is broken, and so it's beholden on all of us. To take action, we need to clear out the rot, and we will keep pushing as liberal Democrats until corrupt and criminal behaviour is stamped out and the muck cleared out of our democracy.

We are campaigning, as a number of colleagues have mentioned, for a public inquiry into Epstein and his relationship with the British establishment. A number of contributors this afternoon referenced the Polish government's investigation into Russian links of Epstein. And I think that would be very interesting to see what that investigation turns up. We are asking, as the Humble Address is very clear, that we want the publication of all of the relevant documents relating to the appointment as a special representative for Trade and Industry, we should be seeing an end to negative privilege.

We should have it so that MPs can speak freely about concerns they have and disclose information in this place, even if the individual in a post, in a public post is a member of the royal household, we should go further. We should have criminal sanctions for public figures who fail to whistleblow my colleague, my hon. Friend, the Member for Wells, talked about the importance of an office for the whistleblower, and we should have new legal protections for whistleblowers and a dedicated office of the whistleblower.

Please go ahead.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again, to be very generous. We Democrats have had this policy for a very long time this policy for a very long time about having an office of a whistleblower. We hope very much that the government takes that proposal up. We've tried a number proposal up. We've tried a number of times in other pieces of legislation in the other House to introduce it into legislation in this session, but there will be this session, but there will be people at home listening to this debate who themselves may have information.

They want to volunteer information. They want to volunteer it. They don't know who to. They don't know whether to write to their MPs. They don't know whether there's a formal way in which they can bring that information forward. We've had examples just this afternoon from some speakers of information that they heard or that intelligence officials, you know, just knew something. I wonder if she has any thoughts on that and whether she thinks that we might perhaps hear from the Minister about what the government's message is to those people and who they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should contact. I'm very grateful to her, and I,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to her, and I, I think she's entirely right that a inquiry is the best way to bring to inquiry is the best way to bring to light a number of the issues that we're talking about today. There is it is increasingly clear that there were people who were silent when they should have been loud. There are people who knew things, who are people who knew things, who didn't share them. And there are people in our country today who will know information that could usefully contribute to getting to the bottom of what happened, who knew what, when, and importantly, how we can stop this from continuing to happen in our system.

So I think she's right to encourage anybody out there with information that they can usefully contribute. We've heard from colleagues who have worked internationally in different roles, and that's just this sample who's been in the chamber today. There will be countless others across the country, and she's entirely right to encourage people to come forward, because the people who have led to us being here today are the victims and survivors of Epstein and his cronies. My colleague, the Member for Frome and East Somerset, talked about structural sexism and talked about how people weren't listening to and other colleagues have referenced as well, how victims and survivors were often not believed or thought they wouldn't be.

Importantly. And that stops us from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

getting to the bottom of things like this. I would. On the on the point about structural sexism. It wasn't so structural sexism. It wasn't so much about, although it's absolutely right that people should be listened to, it was more about the fact that we have this problem the fact that we have this problem in government at the moment, particularly where there's a small a small group around a leading figures in government who tend to figures in government who tend to be comprised of men.

And actually, if you don't have women in those places and spaces, a lot of these places and spaces, a lot of these issues don't get picked up or they don't get treated in the way in which they might do if there were men and women in the room. And I wonder if she might agree with me that it's it's good news to see that the Prime Minister certainly has currently some chiefs of staff that are women, and that we would be pleased to see more women in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

senior roles, kind of key advisory roles, not simply as Ministers and Secretaries of State. Yes. I think she's entirely right to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think she's entirely right to make that point. I think we've seen the tone of some of the briefings about government Ministers, about Secretaries of State being notably different when it's a woman who holds that office. And I think all of the evidence shows that the best decisions are made by teams that decisions are made by teams that draw on a broad range of experiences, and there is a balanced team. If everybody went to the same school or had the same the same school or had the same experience, they're not.

They're going to be missing an awful lot. So she's entirely right to talk about elected members and Ministers, but also the officials who are working with them and advising them and supporting them. And it is an extremely well made point. It is something that we should strive to, that only when we have elected as many mediocre women to this place as we have mediocre men will. We have achieved equality? But, Madam Deputy Speaker, it should not have taken the bravery of victims, speaking up about their experience and seeking justice over years.

For Epstein, cycle of cruelty and criminality to finally be interrupted. Where would we be if victims of Epstein, like Virginia Giuffre, had never come forward? If the right photograph hadn't been taken at the right time, we are left to wonder if Andrew might easily have remained a special representative today, operating without proper scrutiny and continually disgracing his office. So we urge the government once again to commit to a statutory inquiry into Epstein's links to our establishment, including Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, so that we can develop a full understanding of how it served him, so that we can understand what networks were formed that facilitated a prolific paedophile, and how widespread the complicity goes.

Crucially, it can point us to what must change to protect people in the future. But I also urge the government and members here to bring any further vital information to light right now, and ensure there is no delay to essential scrutiny and transparency. Andrew's role as an envoy, and the engagements he undertook, were determined by those at the very highest levels of political power, including the Downing Street of the time, and it's increasingly clear that he was protected, even while he betrayed public trust in his position as special representative, he was protected by outdated rules that forbid members of this place from raising concerns about any member of the royal Household in Parliament in most debates, and I fear he was protected by powerful friends and allies repeatedly, and by a number of people failing to raise the alarm.

Today we can start to set that right. If we really believe that nobody is above the law, then it must surely follow that no appointment is above scrutiny, that no one's abuse of their public office should be hidden from the public gaze, and that no truth is too uncomfortable to come in to the disinfectant of daylight.
15:24
Chris Bryant Portrait Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
Is I call the Minister, Sir Chris Bryant. Chris Bryant. >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. By leave of the House, I spoke earlier, so I need to be sure that the House is happy for me to speak again, and I'm not going to speak at great length again. I've united the House twice today. That's a great comfort to me. First of all, can I commend the Liberal Democrats on the debates that they've held and and on bringing this to us? I lots of people have made very powerful speeches, both on both sides of the House, including the hon.

Member for York Central, my friend the Member for Esher and Walton, the Member for Argyll Bute and Southern and South Lochaber, the Member for Frome and East Somerset, the Member for Brighton Pavilion, the Member for North Shropshire, for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, for Sutton and Cheam. For Didcot and Wantage. For North Cornwall and for Hazel Grove. And I appreciate that the the shadow spokesperson, the Member for Brentwood and Ongar isn't able to be here now. He sent me a kind note to say why he can't.

And Madam Deputy Speaker, it is the government's intention to comply with this motion. As I said right at the beginning of my speech, as soon as is practicable and possible within the law. As I've said from the beginning, my only caveat is that I will work, my department will work, and the whole of government will work for maximum transparency and timeliness. But I do have to just say that where documents may speak materially to the offence of misconduct in public office or any other offence that may be considered by the police, we will have to follow the advice of the prosecuting authorities.

I don't think anybody disagrees with that. And and it's a different point from some of the other points that have been raised in relation to other humble addresses, but I think that's an important one. I hear the calls that have been made by several hon. Members for a public inquiry. One of the other things that I was engaged in in 2011 was a big row about phone hacking at the news of the world, and we demanded a public inquiry, and we ended up with a two part public inquiry.

And the second part of the public inquiry wasn't going to happen until the police had completed their investigations. And then, of course, it never happened because so much time had elapsed. So I'm somewhat cautious about this process of seeking multi-part public inquiries in relation to this. I do want the police to be able to do their work as effectively as possible. And I and the one other thing I always issue. Just a word of caution around is I was also in the House when members understandably used the privilege of this House to talk about solely on Britain, and it turned out that many of the things that were said at the time were completely and utterly untrue, and people have been misled by somebody.

And I think we always have to just be cautious about the way we use our, our privilege in this house. I'll come on to the bigger point of what others have referred to as negative privilege in a moment, if she will allow me just a moment. We are very keen that to work with the prosecuting authorities and as as fast as possible, and but in the end, the timetable for that is set by them, not by us. We do want them to do their job without fear or favour.

And I think the one message that has come from today, I think, to the whole of society and to the prosecuting authorities, will be that they must proceed without fear or favour. Nobody is above the law. And and of course, I give way to my hon. Friend, I was hoping to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

complete my remarks soon. I'm really grateful. And for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm really grateful. And for what the Minister has said. Whilst the prosecuting authorities will clearly clear up the criminal clearly clear up the criminal matters, there are implications which go way beyond that. And therefore I just wonder what thought the Minister is, is giving thought the Minister is, is giving to how they are dealt with. For instance, the closing of the loopholes around our airports and loopholes around our airports and our access into the country, visas, and obviously the privileges held

**** Possible New Speaker ****

within decision making at the heart of government. Well, I hear the points that she makes and of course I sympathise makes and of course I sympathise with them. However, it is actually remarkably difficult to disentangle some of these from possible some of these from possible prosecuting issues and possible offences that might be brought. So offences that might be brought. So I'm somewhat cautious in this area, as you will hear, and she will know as you will hear, and she will know that sometimes I can be as vociferous as her on some of these kind of issues.

But I think at this particular moment I want to be cautious in this area. I want to talk about the issue of negative privilege that several members have referred to, because I don't think we I fully understand the point, and I made it myself back in 2011. I had a bit of a row with the Speaker, Bercow, about it, and and I fully understand the point that people are making. I don't think we should have excessive deference. Of course, it's a matter for the House, for Mr.

Speaker and the Deputy Speakers and for the Procedure Committee and others, whether we want to change the accepted conventions of the House and hon. Members, those are two backbench committee. If people want to take those issues to the Procedure Committee, they should think of doing so. But I don't think we should overstate the case, because if at any point any of the political parties had wanted to bring a motion to the House on a substantive motion, when in whether in opposition or for that matter, in government, anybody would have been able to do so.

And but but all of us chose not to is the truth of the matter. Now, whether that is because of deference or not, I cannot judge. But it is certainly true that it is available to us to use a substantive motion to consider these matters. I'm not just for one moment. If the hon. Members don't mind. We do enjoy freedom of speech in this House, and it is a precious thing. And it's, as hon. Members will know, article eight of the Bill of rights says that no proceeding in Parliament shall be impeached in any court of law or any other place.

That means that we can say things in here without threat of being prosecuted anywhere else. That is a really important and precious privilege, which I think we have to guard quite carefully. And that's why we have a subjudice rule, which the speaker has decided doesn't apply in today's debate, because no charges have been brought yet. It's quite specific when the sub judice rule applies, but I do think we need to guard that privilege quite carefully because we have a separation of powers.

We don't think that we should have acts of attainder anymore. Where the House decides by a bill that somebody is guilty of some offence or some crime or other, that is a matter for the prosecuting authorities and the person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Now, I think the hon. Gentleman with the bad back wanted to say something. I thank the I don't know whether I do thank him or not, just to push gently back on that, and I'd be interested in his response.

Does not the fact that we've had 15 years since Andrew resigned in disgrace and that hasn't come to Parliament, demonstrate that there is a reluctance, there is a whether if it is indeed a true misunderstanding of process that that just hasn't come before the House to discuss and to really get into the weeds on this. Does he not see that as a demonstration of a need for a change in the process, or at least an acknowledgement that we need to be digging deeper into

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these sorts of issues? Well, yes. And I also think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, yes. And I also think probably we need more. Paul Flynn's is the truth of the matter. We I've always been a bit sceptical about always been a bit sceptical about independent MPs, but I've always been very much in favour of independently minded MPs. And I think that that's one of the think that that's one of the backbones of making Parliament really function effectively. I love the whips, of course I love the the whips, of course I love the whips, but.

But, but but, but, but but now the hon. Lady. And then I really do want to try and stop my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remarks. Scepticism over, over public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scepticism over, over public inquiries. But the reason why the more this debate has gone on, the more I've felt this is an issue of more I've felt this is an issue of culture. There are going to be things that are material to how we've ended up where we are. That we've ended up where we are. That won't meet an evidentiary threshold, that haven't, haven't contravened that haven't, haven't contravened any laws but do clearly need changing. And the thing that needs changing is the overall culture that we have in our establishment itself.

If it isn't a public inquiry that needs to examine this in the round on the basis of everything we know. If it isn't that, and I understand his arguments for why it shouldn't be that, then what is it? How do we do this?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, I mean, I made all those arguments myself in 2011 about arguments myself in 2011 about phone hacking, and and a chunk of us had to persuade our own political party to be brave on the political party to be brave on the matter at a time when it wasn't easy, because the whole of the media was not in favour of us moving on that. So the point I would make is, I think the single most important thing for a member of Parliament is that they should of Parliament is that they should feel able to speak without fear or favour.

It's one of the instructions I'm all the Lib Dems are now trying to intervene on me, and I'm trying to make a very short speech, which was meant to be five minutes and is now already nine minutes, so I'm failing miserably.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All right. Whatever. I'm grateful to the Minister for giving way. I want to press him on that point. Again. There are some that point. Again. There are some specific allegations that an inquiry might want to look at. But there is this broader point about culture, which my hon. Friend mentioned he will know very well, both in the context of phone hacking, but also looking at the culture of the Metropolitan Police. There are many examples in not that distant history in our recent history where where an inquiry has history where where an inquiry has looked separately at the culture of an institution as opposed to specific allegations, and what specifically went wrong.

If he is concerned about a two part or three part inquiry, a second or third part being cancelled in the future, that simply requires a small amendment to the Public Inquiries Act. But I do think it's important to press the Minister on this point that there is a cultural issue here, and we do want this cultural issue to be looked at. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely agree that there is a cultural issue that needs to be looked at that my. The only thing looked at that my. The only thing is, I I'm certainly not able to commit the government here today to a public inquiry. And I think all hon. Members accept that I'm not hon. Members accept that I'm not going to do that. But I'm also not entirely convinced that a public inquiry actually often ends up inquiry actually often ends up changing culture. Culture change changes because we choose to.

I note that the whips have got a note that the whips have got a terrible coughing case, so I just want to end with a few more short points. The first is it relates to trade envoys. I do want to praise the work of our present trade envoys. They are helping us win contracts around the world, not just from the Labour Party, not just from this House. They are all accountable through the Minister for trade and through the Department. I would quite like there to be more questions about trade envoys at business and Dtx questions which are coming up in the near future on the act of succession, which one hon.

Member asked me about. We are working at pace on this, and we intend to be able to bring forward legislation when we can. I can't commit to a particular date on that, but I note that Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music, sang, I have confidence that spring will come again, and so I have confidence that the actor's succession will come round at pace. The the one hon. Member said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The the, the the cultural point I make is that actually this wasn't about power.

This was about influence. And actually influence can be just as pernicious in the body politic as anything else. And that's one of the things that we need to address, because it can lead to corruption. And then the hon. Member, I'm going to end with this point. Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, let's make sure that this never happens again. Of course, every single member of this House would hope that the the horrific abuse that happened under Jeffrey Epstein and the concatenation of different forms of abuse that that were created by people's complicity from so many different sectors, people turning their blind eye and people participating, whether because they loved wealthy people or they loved a wealthy lifestyle or whatever it may be.

Of course, I would dearly, dearly love to be able to stand at this despatch box and say it will never happen again, but I would bet my bottom dollar that there will be young people today who are being abused by rich, wealthy, arrogant, entitled people and it will continue. Yes, we must do everything in our power to make sure that the the deference and influence and complicity does not allow that to happen. But in the end, the only recourse we have is the court of law to make sure that those who abuse their position of trust face the full rigour of the law.
15:37
15:37
15:38
Munira Wilson Portrait Munira Wilson MP (Twickenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move the motion tabled in my and to move the motion tabled in my and my hon. Friend's names on the Order Paper on protection for children Paper on protection for children from Online harms. Madam Deputy Speaker, this afternoon is an opportunity for the House to come together to take urgent and meaningful action and legislate meaningful action and legislate within weeks, not within months, not within years, but within weeks, to keep our children and our young people safe online.

Whether that's protection from harmful social media with AI chatbots or addictive gaming, it's clear that we are at a tipping point now with widespread public and indeed cross-party support for a for a cross-party approach for decisive action. Every parent across this country knows the threat social media poses to our children, to their mental health, to their physical health, to their sleep and to their concentration. They have written in their thousands to every single MP in this House, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the 1500 or so parents and carers in my Twickenham constituency who have written to me, and they are begging for a change in the law so that they can better protect their children.

They are not abdicating parental responsibility, as some would like to suggest, but they are pleading with the government for help in providing the tools and the safeguards they need when faced with the might and the business models of enormous tech companies profiteering from our children's attention. Now for me, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is personal. My husband and I fight the daily battle at home with our children aged 11 and seven on screen time, on what platforms and what games they can access.

Peer pressure is overwhelming for children, especially those just starting out on their secondary school journey. As my daughter recently has, desperate for belonging and connection. Parents are torn. We are torn between ensuring our children are not left out of online spaces that we all too often struggle to understand ourselves, and protecting our children. I believe. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's time we sent a message loud and clear to Musk, to Zuckerberg, to the other big tech giants. If your platform spreads harmful content or relies on addictive and harmful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

algorithms, you should not be allowed anywhere near our children. Yeah, well said.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, well said. And that's why liberal Democrats have introduced a bill today that would bring forward a range of protections for children from protections for children from online harms, including restricting access to harmful social media. Now, access to harmful social media. Now, before I set out what we Democrats would ideally want to include in would ideally want to include in that bill, I want to emphasise that if this House were to support the motion before us on the Order Paper today, we would want to work cross-party to bring forward workable and effective legislation quickly, given there is support for action on all sides of the House.

This is not about one party winning or owning this issue. This is about us as politicians, as policymakers and as parents coming together to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protect our children, their safety and their wellbeing. Amen.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd be delighted to give way Derek Twigg. First of all, can I commend the hon. Lady for for bringing this hon. Lady for for bringing this forward her her devotion to this. This subject is is well known in the House and we thank her for it. the House and we thank her for it. Does the hon. Lady also agree that perhaps when it comes to the role of education in schools and principals in Northern Ireland, the principals in Northern Ireland, the Minister, Paul Givan, has introduced a pilot scheme to to have phone free schools.

I had an event in my constituency on that very thing, but it's a stop children school from from being harassed and from understanding things that they should not be doing. So does the hon. Lady agree? When part of the policy and part of what the Lib Dems are trying to do, that should be part of it. Phone

**** Possible New Speaker ****

free schools to help our children as well. Munira Wilson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's always a pleasure to give way It's always a pleasure to give way to the hon. Member for Strangford. First up on his interventions in this debate. I agree with him this debate. I agree with him entirely and I was going to touch on the point about phones in schools later, and I believe we'll schools later, and I believe we'll be having a chance to actually vote on on that specific measure shortly.

When the Children's Wellbeing and When the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill comes back to the House. So I'm just going to turn now. I've talked about the fact that we want to approach this in a cross-party way, but obviously I will turn now to what we on these Liberal Democrat ventures would ideally like to see in that legislation. Yes, of course, thank you. And I thank the hon. Lady. And she makes the case very personally and passionately about the harms to young people's mental health that we see from these predatory algorithms that the tech giants have created to create addictive content for children.

And I think there is cross-party agreement, as she says, for us to look very carefully at how we protect children. I was on a call today with the campaign group, 36 months from Australia, about how they're approaching this in Australia, but does she not agree that the right approach is to have a full public consultation, as is proposed, so that parents, schools, that we can get this right and make sure that we're learning from evidence, learning from places like Australia to protect our kids.

Lady. And I hope she won't mind me calling her my hon. Friend, even though we're on opposite sides of the house for that intervention. And I take that point, and I've heard that point expressed by the government, and I agree, we do need to consult, but I think it's we should be consulting on how we implement some of these things, not whether we do or what we do, because I think there is general consensus. You look at every opinion poll out there, certainly when it comes to things like banning social media for under 16 and other measures, there is overwhelming public support and there is there is cross-party support in this House.

And as we've seen recently in the House of Lords as well, in the other place, I should say. So for me, if there is a consultation, it should be how how it's implemented, how these things are implemented, not whether we do it or which ones we we seek to implement. But I will I will touch on the government's approach towards the end of my speech. So we, we Liberal Democrats would introduce a film style classification system with social media rated as at 16 as a default, and give Ofcom the powers to back up such a framework.

This echoes the film and video classification system established in the 1980s, adapting a trusted framework for the digital age, companies would be required to age gate their platforms based on the harmfulness of their content, the addictiveness of their platform design, and the impact this can have on a child's mental health. I'll just make, say, the next sentence and I'm very happy to give way. The onus would be on social media companies to stop children from getting on to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their platforms and take steps to make their apps safer. In the meantime, I very happily give way. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'm grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. And I'm sympathetic to all of the arguments she is to all of the arguments she is making. But it does appear that we're about to have a Second Reading debate on an as yet Reading debate on an as yet unpublished bill when the motion on the Order Paper is actually about whether or not we have a day for that Second Reading debate. I'm that Second Reading debate. I'm just conscious because I've been to the vote office.

The bill itself is not actually available yet. So. So what are we actually debating this afternoon and what is it? What is it that we intend if we were to vote with the hon. Lady this evening, what bill are we actually going to be asked to look at on the day in the future?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So it's very simple. As I've said, I want us to come together to have a cross-party consensus on have a cross-party consensus on what what should be in that bill. I've heard what the Conservatives have to say. I know I'm about to have to say. I know I'm about to set out what the Liberal Democrats have to say on this. I'd be keen to hear what government Ministers have hear what government Ministers have to say in terms of what they should be on the bill.

That's why we don't have a bill yet, because we think that there's an opportunity to work that there's an opportunity to work together on this, because there's been suggestions that there is party politicking on this issue. I don't think it's a party political issue. I think we all agree children's safety and children's well-being is a cross-party priority. So the idea is that we agree to move forward, to come together, to work cross-party on a bill. We can all agree on that. Hopefully we can get through Parliament very quickly and on to the statute books starting to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protect our children as soon as possible. Yes. I don't wish to make this a procedural debate, Madam Deputy procedural debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Lady did introduce a bill today for first reading. We're being asked to reading. We're being asked to consider that bill for Second Reading on a future date. That bill is not available. So whilst I is not available. So whilst I absolutely respect the hon. Lady's approach for a cross-party consensus to design the Bill, as I understand it, the Bill is already written and we're being asked today to give over government time in order for that bill to be debated on Second Reading.

So again, what is what are we debating today if the bill is not available but is written and we're not going to have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Reading debate until sometime in March. So we are debating today the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So we are debating today the principle of bringing forward legislation quickly. I know the government is saying that they want to bring forward legislation at to bring forward legislation at some time in the future. We don't know when that is. I'm trying to put a time frame on it because we put a time frame on it because we know that what's going to come, what's going to come back shortly from the other place in the children's wellbeing in schools, children's wellbeing in schools, bill is not going to be accepted by this House.

So that's why I'm trying to find an opportunity for us all to come together, to be able to get to a point that we all agree on. So this is about agreeing the principle that we should have legislation, primary legislation, sooner rather than later. And we I'm happy to make time in my diary tomorrow to start those discussions. Thank you. Yeah. The other hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gentleman wanted to give. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank way. You for giving Look, she's making a You for giving Look, she's making a really passionate case and spoke movingly about the debate she has movingly about the debate she has within her own family and how to protect her own children. I recognise that I have two young children myself. I think very children myself. I think very carefully about what they look at online, and I worry about when they get older and how how we're going to deal with that.

She talks about to deal with that. She talks about age gating as as the principle behind with which she wants to work. Work. And what I'm concerned about is that we know that these algorithms are addictive. We know that they reinforce people's worst prejudices. What evidence is there that that stops at 16? Is she not concerned that by simply focusing on age gating, that the pressure on social media companies to open up these algorithms, and for us to be able to have a look at how that affects society more generally will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

diminish. So I thank him for that intervention. I mean, I haven't said we should only focus on age said we should only focus on age gating. And as I continue through my speech, you'll hear about the other range of things that I think should be in any legislation that's brought forward quickly to to protect our children age, gating of protect our children age, gating of certain platforms based on their harmfulness is is is a key principle that is part of would be part of this legislation and part of our proposals, but so are various other things that I will talk about in terms of tackling the addictiveness of algorithms that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are so damaging to our children. So where was I. The hon. Lady?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Lady? Yes. Happy to thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On the point that she was Speaker. On the point that she was making before the other two interventions, I wanted to ask her about the register and the ranking about the register and the ranking of age appropriateness for content, because I have grave concerns. I know we've sat opposite each other know we've sat opposite each other on many occasions discussing this about who is going to register those individual self published bits of content and who's going to manage it, who's going to pay for it, how would it actually work in practice?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It was just coming on to further expanding on that before I took the two interventions from her hon. Friend. So if she'll allow me to continue, and if I haven't addressed her concern, she could perhaps intervene on me again. So perhaps intervene on me again. So now, if the if the platforms don't want to play ball, Ofcom would be given the powers to force them to given the powers to force them to do so or face serious consequences. And we we believe this would mean a ban on harmful social media for ban on harmful social media for under 16.

But family friendly services such as Wikipedia or TripAdvisor would be available at a lower age because those sites fall under the user to user definition that's currently in the Online Safety Act. But we know that the most harmful sites are those that host violence and pornography. Even 16 could be too young to access those sorts of platforms. That's why our proposals would allow what we think are really harmful platforms, such as X to be age rated and age gated up to 18 now, and harms based approach like the one we're proposing today.

Madam Deputy Speaker is supported by 42 charities, including the likes of the NSPCC, Molly Rose Foundation and others, and would protect children from the worst of the web without breaking the parts of the internet that families actually rely on. And, crucially, it is future proofed and could be applied to chatbots and games and other emerging technologies. Now, I welcome that the conservative opposition day motion a few weeks ago, which we were unable to debate, moved towards the Liberal Democrats nuanced approach to keep away from harmful social media.

So I hope that they can support our motion today and this approach going forward, when unfortunately, they were unable to do so in the in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

other place, which is just a month ago, I'm very happy to give way. I thank the Member for giving way. And she's right that we did bring a opposition day motion in conservative time on the subject. But the difference between our But the difference between our motion and her motion is that there was a motion with proposals, and this afternoon she's asking us to debate a motion that does not mention the topic that's in the mention the topic that's in the title of the bill, but merely to give the Liberal Democrats control of the Order Paper on March the 9th.

So why did she not choose to bring a bill forward and allow this House to look at her proposals, have a solid and principled debate on it. Before she asked us to give her control of the Order Paper on March

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the 9th. Munira Wilson whilst you'd be giving me or the Liberal Democrats control of the Order Paper, I've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

control of the Order Paper, I've made it abundantly clear that we would work together to bring forward legislation. In the next few days.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the next few days. So we, the Conservatives, have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So we, the Conservatives, have proposals. The government is consulting on something I'm not quite sure what, because they haven't published consultation yet, haven't published consultation yet, and we put forward proposals in the other place which his party chose not to support, unfortunately. But I don't think we're actually that far apart. So we have published proposals in the other place. We would use that as a basis for discussion. The technology secretary has already told me and my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, she'd happily work with us on our proposals.

So there are proposals out there in public domain. This is about the principle of legislating soon and quickly to bring forward legislation that we can all agree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on to protect our children. I am grateful to her genuinely for giving way, but I have to push for giving way, but I have to push this point again that she has outlined that she has or her party have published proposals in the have published proposals in the other place, but her party are called the Liberal Democrats, and this is a democratically elected this is a democratically elected chamber that should be debating a proposed bill from the Liberal Democrats on the day of their Democrats on the day of their opposition day debate.

I agree with her that we need urgent legislation, but why is she depriving members on all sides of this House detailed proposals that we can vote on, instead of giving them control of the Order Paper? In a procedural motion that she's published on the 9th of March.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I all I could do. I can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I all I could do. I can all I can do is repeat myself again that the thing is, is that I know if I put forward if I had published if I put forward if I had published all of these things that I'm laying out as a piece of legislation, probably all sides of the House probably all sides of the House would have voted it down. I have told you all. I've told the House that I am happy to come forward, in a spirit of cooperation, to draft something up together.

That and so I'm going to I'm going to try and move on now because as I say, I'm going to make some progress because I think we've we've tested the procedural approach to death. Now, it's important that we reach a consensus on our approach and reject unworkable blanket bans that have been proposed elsewhere that put enormous powers in the hands of an individual politician. Now, I don't think any of them are here, but given the Reform Party wants to scrap the Online Safety Act altogether, I shudder to think what potential future Ministers might deem acceptable for our children if they are allowed to choose what our children and young people can access, which is what the amendment that is going to be coming through in the children's Well-Being Bill from the other place would allow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Secretary of State to do. Now we look, I'm happy to give Peterborough. In amongst the discussion around procedure, which is important in this place. I do fear we're missing kind of the nub of what she's trying to get to, which is that this is a nuanced space. This isn't a blanket. We say no to everything, a blanket. We say no to everything, and there are some people who are arguing that we should do nothing, and that it should be just down to parents to do it.

But she agree parents to do it. But she agree with me that actually this thoughtful way that she is putting across, trying to get us all to come around this with the public is the way we're going to create something that is future proof, because so much of legislation in this area is chasing our tails. And this is a this is an opportunity for us to get ahead of it. For once.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. And that is indeed what we're trying to do, because what we're trying to do, because actually, just trying to do trying to put forward a blanket ban on a to put forward a blanket ban on a particular list of social media sites determined by any given Secretary of State at any given Secretary of State at any given point in time, is necessarily acting after the fact, is not acting after the fact, is not future proof, and not particularly effective, I would say, and subject to politicisation, which is why our harms based approach, which is what I would want to negotiate to try and get into legislation soon, would be future proof and work to act on things like chat bots and games.

And and I know from the discussions we have at home how addictive games such as Roblox, for instance, can be. Now, we Democrats have long been pressing for a suite of measures that would make the online world safer and healthier for all. Now, one measure that could be implemented overnight would be to ban tech companies profiting from our children's attention by raising the age of digital data consent from 13 to 16. Now, this would end the hold that addictive algorithms have on children.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr Speaker. Point of order. Gareth Snell. Because whilst the hon. Lady is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because whilst the hon. Lady is making an excellent point on the substance, it bears no resemblance to the motion on the Order Paper. to the motion on the Order Paper. So as the as the chair able to give me guidance on what is up for debate this afternoon, and if the debate this afternoon, and if the hon. Lady can point me to what she's debating now and where that sits in the motion in front of us.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sits in the motion in front of us. But for his point of order, what is clear is that there is a motion on the Order Paper on which members will presumably be asked to divide in due course. However, what that does not give is any detail of the proposed bill, but the motion on the Order Paper is orderly, and it will be up to members to decide how they wish to vote on that. Madam. Holmes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, I'm grateful for your indulgence, and I know I suspect I will get I get the same answer as the hon. Gentleman before answer as the hon. Gentleman before me, but I have never in my seven years in this House, been in a situation where a motion outlines situation where a motion outlines the timetable for a bill on Monday the 9th of March, the timings of proceedings and questions to be put proceedings and questions to be put on Monday the 9th of March on consideration of Lords amendments and messages on a subsequent day of and messages on a subsequent day of a bill that this House has not seen.

So how can members in this House vote for a motion that allocates separate procedures around a bill that hasn't been tabled at this House? Madam Deputy Speaker, I want my constituents to know what the Liberal Democrats are proposing in this space. And the hon. Ladies now elaborating on the floor of the House what she wants her policies to be. But she's asking us to vote for a bill that has not been tabled before this House. Madam Deputy Speaker, therefore, can I have your advice on whether this motion should be going ahead? If the House has not got a substantive bill to debate these procedural motions on?
15:59
None Portrait Points of Order
-

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. The motion that is on the Order Paper is perfectly orderly, so members will be invited orderly, so members will be invited to vote on that, not on the substance of any bill that might come on the 9th of March. And I do think it is important that the House is clear on that. Point of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order. Two more. Thank you for. Allowing this point of order. So it's further to that point of order it's further to that point of order in terms of how I can assess what is orderly in my contribution in is orderly in my contribution in this debate, given that the the this debate, given that the the substance of the motion is about process. And to be frank with you, I don't want to speak about process. I don't want to speak about process.

I want to speak about protection for children.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Especially to give consideration to. So the motion is to give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So the motion is to give consideration to a bill on the specific matter which has been specific matter which has been outlined on the Order Paper. Very clearly, protections for children from online harms. So can I from online harms. So can I reassure the hon. Lady that any contribution she chooses to make on that matter would be in order? Munira Wilson, thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And that's why what I'm setting out is what I would want to put forward as suggestions for that bill.

And but as as she has helpfully pointed out, we would be dividing on whether there should be a bill very soon. On the broad subject of protecting children from online harms. Now, the the other thing that I would, would want to bring forward in any legislation would be a doomscrolling cap, which would end the infinite scroll feature on short form online platforms for young people, limiting the amount of time for which children are pushed to TikTok style video content to two hours, and for health alerts on social media platforms for under 18 seconds.

Now, just like cigarettes or alcohol, these addictive products carry well-documented risks, especially for young people. The evidence is clear that excessive use of these apps exposes children to mental health issues, to anxiety, sleep disruption and to real harm to attention spans. And don't they deserve to know that when we pick up a packet of cigarettes, we expect, we expect to be told about the harm that product will pose to our health? So why is social media a key driver of a crisis in our children's, in our young people's mental health? Any different now? And given that young people themselves are saying that they want to break from the stress of social media at school, and given the impact of phones on children's concentration and focus.

Will the will the Education Secretary finally listen to her own children's Minister and put the government's guidance on mobile phones in schools into law to give teachers and headteachers the backup and, crucially, the resources they need in order to restrict their use. That is also, I think, something that could be part of this bill. If the government refuses to accept the amendment that will be coming from the other place in the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Now I recognise the Technology Secretary has announced a consultation on children's online safety, and also that she will be tabling an amendment to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill to enable further legislation to come forward on something at some point in the future, all as yet to be determined.

Frankly, they're kicking the can down the road. And to quote Baroness Kidron in the other place, who's an expert and a campaigner on children's safety online, she said about the government's consultation it does not concern itself with the gaps in provision or enforcement of the Online Safety Act, nor the emerging or future threats that we repeatedly raise. It does not seek to speed up enforcement or establish why non-compliant companies are not named in Ofcom research, or while they are being
16:03
None Portrait Points of Order: Gareth Snell, Paul Holmes and Chi Onwurah
-

investigated. The consultation is entirely focussed on two amendments that this House might send to the other House, which its backbenchers might agree to. The consultations purpose is to stave off a backbench rebellion. It is not about child safety or governance, it is about party management. The UK's children deserve better than that. Now that's not my words, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is the esteemed crossbench peer Baroness Kidron. In

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the other place. Now I'm very happy to give way. I thank the honourable. Lady for giving way, and I had

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady for giving way, and I had understood that her party was keen on public consultation, and there's clearly a lot of public concern clearly a lot of public concern over the very real problem of online harms and the need to protect children from it. So I am puzzled by the fact that she is seeking to control the parliamentary agenda in just a parliamentary agenda in just a couple of weeks time, without any substantive proposals, and rush through legislation without any consultation.

If she's concerned about the scope of the consultation that the government has announced, why not try to amend the scope of that consultation, and why not emphasise the importance of parents, in particular, having their voices heard rather than rushed through potentially probably quite flawed legislation? If there is not sufficient time to ensure that everybody's voices are heard in this conversation, it feels like politicking to be honest rather than a substantive engagement with the details of the issue.
16:05
Caroline Nokes Portrait Deputy Speaker Rt Hon Caroline Nokes MP (Romsey and Southampton North, Conservative)
-
-
I'm sorry she feels that way because we genuinely we've brought forward a lot of these proposals previously, so it's not politicking. previously, so it's not politicking. We've long been committed to this We've long been committed to this issue. We and and because a number of these things could be done tomorrow, they don't need to be consulted on the age of digital consulted on the age of digital data. Consent could be raised tomorrow without any further consultation. It's just it's something that was set by European law.

There was flexibility in what age it was set at. UK chose to set it at 13. A number of other countries have recently raised their age. Unfortunately, amendments to the data bill were rejected to do just that. I think the bit that probably does need consultation in how it would work would be how any sort of ban or restrictions on harmful social media would work, but I think we could legislate for the principle and consult on the operational detail of that.

I don't think that's a problem. And I think on her point about making sure parents and young people's voices are heard, I think they have been heard loud and clear up and down the country. They have been pushing and pushing and pushing for this. And they are concerned. They are concerned that the consultation is just going to delay action further. Parents, teachers and young people are crying out for urgent action. Now we need a smart approach that allows young people to benefit from the best of the internet, whether that's learning or staying connected with their friends and family online while properly tackling the harms it can cause.

I have given way to him a couple of times. I'm going to just I'm just coming up to to completing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will she just on that? It was just specifically on the proposals just specifically on the proposals that are being put forward by the the Liberal Democrats, because I'm confused as to what they are. The confused as to what they are. The proposals that have been laid out by the hon. Lady are not the proposals that were moved in the House of Lords. The House of Lords House of Lords. The House of Lords only talked about user to user services. It did not talk about addictive online gaming.

For addictive online gaming. For example, are we discussing a bill that is the proposals that were laid out in House of Lords, or are they some new proposals that the hon. Member is putting forward? I do not understand what this bill is going to be, because I was expecting, when it was put forward today, that we would actually see it so we could discuss it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you for giving way. So the the approach that we've taken the the approach that we've taken on this harms based framework that we proposed in the other place would apply to, to chat bots and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would apply to, to chat bots and gaming as well, but the. User to user services.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

User to user services. But the point is. The point is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But the point is. The point is as I as I as I have already laid out, we would come together and and come forward with proposals that we can all agree on. Now, the as I've said already, the only consultation that should be taking. I'm very grateful that he wishes to help me out, but I suspect he doesn't have my best interests at heart when he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

says. I'm happy, I'm happy to take him on. Then the honourable. Member, the Honourable the hon. Lady, is being characteristically, characteristically courteous in the way in which she's giving way. And I always have her best interests at heart. But she's right in her speech that she said that people are keen to be heard loud and clear, are keen to be heard loud and clear, and she is in her own way, in a in her rightful way, setting out her position on the floor of the House today about legislation that she would want to see come before the House.

But if she thinks that people have been heard loud and clear, can she tell this House whether the things that she has outlined today are in a drafted bill that is sitting somewhere within a safe, somewhere within Liberal Democrat HQ? And why she chose not to publish that this afternoon so that we could have a principled debate on her policy proposals.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Munira Wilson. Sorry. No, no, no, no, I wouldn't expect the hon. no, I wouldn't expect the hon. Member to try and help me out. No. Look, all of the things I have mentioned, we have put forward at mentioned, we have put forward at various points in both houses as amendments. So they have been tabled and drafted, albeit I am happy to admit, they haven't been happy to admit, they haven't been put together in one bill that I've presented today, for which I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on that procedural point, which I can see has has upset many members.

But all of these proposals that I've outlined today have been tabled in both this House and the other place as amendments to various bills, whether it's the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill or the data Bill last year, or indeed both. So, and just to reiterate on the consultation point, I made this point before, but I reiterate it. I think the only consultation that we should be focusing on now is how these restrictions might work in practice, not whether they are needed at all, because I think the public has made their views pretty clear on that already, as have all the campaign groups, whether they oppose or whether they support or oppose a blanket ban.

I think there is real consensus, which is why, although I have been criticised for the way I've come forward without a bill, the whole point was I was trying to come forward to say, let's work together, because I think there is real cross-party

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consensus on this. So. On that point, I. I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. There seems to be great confusion in the chamber today, even though the Liberal Democrats have set out their proposals quite have set out their proposals quite clearly time and again in different places. And I find it fascinating that we've got opposition party that we've got opposition party today accusing us of politicking when they probably agree with us on the substance of what we're proposing today, but are contorting themselves to find a way to not support the motion today.

This motion is about urgency and about acting much more swiftly than the government is proposing. And I, for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one, think that is a good thing. And I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because that's exactly what we're seeking to do. exactly what we're seeking to do. We're trying to discuss the substance of this issue, because it's been a long time since this it's been a long time since this chamber has had a proper debate on these issues. And I think in a few weeks time, we will be discussing weeks time, we will be discussing amendments that that that suggest a particular party's way view forward, particular party's way view forward, way forward.

What we're saying is let's all come and discuss what we think are the right proposals and then go away and come forward with a piece of legislation that that meets those needs and requirements of the public, of our children, of our young people and their their parents and carers. So we on these benches say once again to Ministers and to the official opposition, we have a set of solutions. We'll work with you in the best interests of children. We need to act now.

Vote with us today. Make time on the legislative agenda for this bill. If you don't want to make it a time if if the government doesn't want to make time for our bill, then perhaps they'll make time for their own bill. But we need one quickly. We stand ready to work cross-party, to create a safer future that our children deserve. I was literally about to finish, but I will give, give way to the hon. Lady I thank and I will call her my hon.

Friend for giving way. And on her last sentence and she's, you know, she's made a powerful case for working cross-party, for hearing different perspectives and for bringing forward change quickly. But I really would urge that is the point of a consultation. How are we going to do this? Let's get all those views of parents, of schools and everyone else in, in through the consultation and come out with something that we can take forward implement that will be effective in the long term. Not like the Online safety Bill, which took for far too many years, but also not this proposal, which is bouncing us into something we don't even know what we're voting for.

So with huge respect for my hon. Friend, please

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this. I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I just say gently to intervention. I just say gently to her that look, although the Prime Minister has promised us legislation at some point following legislation at some point following this consultation, first of all, it will be secondary legislation which will be secondary legislation which gets far less scrutiny than primary legislation. Secondly, I'm afraid legislation. Secondly, I'm afraid his track record for u-turning on commitments is not great. Let's face it, I have tried to be as consensual as possible and and not make political jibes.

But I mean, we've had 14 U-turns. He had said just a few months ago that he didn't want to bring in any sort of ban on harmful social media for under 16 seconds because of his teenagers experience. And then last week, he made a speech saying because of his teenagers, he did want to do that. So I'm not entirely sure which version of the Prime Minister's comments to to believe. And so I this is why I would like to try and press this issue to get the government to bring forward legislation sooner rather than later, and I think it needs to be primary legislation that we can all discuss, debate, amend and look at thoughtfully.

But we need a clear and strong

**** Possible New Speaker ****

timetable on that. Now, one final intervention, then I shall shall finish and sit down. Thank you. We all want to find a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. We all want to find a solution to online harms for children. We all want to protect children. I think in this house, we wouldn't be in this debate today if wouldn't be in this debate today if we didn't care about children and protecting them. But the way to do that is to bring a bill forward that is to bring a bill forward outside of the chamber. We all consult on it. We have a long consultation period, and then we come forward with a bill.

This is come forward with a bill. This is not the way procedurally, that any bill is debated or given merit, or even taken through the different stages of making it law. If if the Liberal Democrats want to take this seriously, they should do it in the spirit of procedure in which a bill is taken forward, which we can all debate, which there is a long consultation process, and then we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can take it forward together. Munira Wilson I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention once Lady for her intervention once again about procedure. I say to her gently that but her party and other gently that but her party and other parties in the past have used this mechanism to try and force governments to come forward with legislation on a on on a particular issue. I'm not going to give way again, because I think we have again, because I think we have tested this particular argument to death.

I understand her concerns about procedure. It is not unheard of. The the the Labour Party did something similar on fracking when Liz Truss was was Prime Minister a few years ago. I remember it well. I was in this place. She was as well. And we were we we all voted on that. There was no substance to that bill and they wanted to bring forward legislation. I'm going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

come to an end now. The point of order, Doctor Ben Spencer. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a procedural question, given that the long title of the bill is not within this motion, bill is not within this motion, does that mean that effectively, any subject or theme can be subject to the bill if do other papers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the bill if do other papers seized on this day? Can I thank him for that point
16:16
16:17
16:18
Paul Holmes Portrait Points of Order Paul Holmes MP (Hamble Valley, Conservative)
-
-
For. >> Point of order, Paul Holmes. >> Speaker, I'm grateful to you allowing me to make this point of order, and members might be a bit order, and members might be a bit jaded by me doing so, but I am a Democrat. I am, and I do like this chamber working properly. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you clarify for me the procedural basis of the Member for Twickenham asking the government to make government time for the space for this legislation? Yet despite asking for government time, the consequences of voting for this motion to be accepted, and should this motion pass, the government won't be able to pick a time to which they would give this legislation.

The Liberal Democrat motion would take over the Order Paper and force the government to accept their legislation on March the 9th, with the procedures that are outlined. And also, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I ask you your guidance on the motion in question, which states that which makes a number of amendments to the Order Paper on that day, which is that no dilatory motion shall be made in relation to proceedings on the Bill to which this order applies. The question on any such motion shall be put forthwith, and that only a designated member would be able to make any decision on the order in which a bill was to be taken, and that designated member is under.

Under paragraph 19 A, the leader of the second largest opposition party, and b any other member acting on behalf of the leader of the second largest opposition party. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, despite the protestations of the Liberal Democrats that they want this to be a cross-party approach. Actually, this is the Liberal Democrats taking over the Order Paper, giving their leader carte blanche to table what they like on that day, on March the 9th, and does not give the government the opportunity to table legislation on a cross-party basis at a time of their choosing.

It has to happen under the
16:20
Caroline Nokes Portrait Deputy Speaker Rt Hon Caroline Nokes MP (Romsey and Southampton North, Conservative)
-
-
jurisdiction of this motion put forward by the Liberal Democrats, doesn't it? Madam Deputy Speaker? motion to Liam Byrne. Can I thank the hon. Member for his very long the hon. Member for his very long point of order? Yes. He's made the point that he's trying to be helpful. Can I just clarify? Firstly, it's the House's time, not the government time, but the powers given as set out in this motion are as he has outlined them. Could I further highlight that it is not without precedent for a debate on a motion taking over the Order Paper for a bill without the bill having been published, and I think last occurred on the 6th of February, 2024, when there was an opposition motion tabled to take over the Order Paper to discuss ministerial severance reform.

And that was a bill that had not yet been published. So it is not without precedent. However, he is absolutely correct in his understanding of what this motion would do were it to be passed by the House today. The question is, as on the Order Paper. I hope we're all clear on that. Can I call the Minister Kanishka Narayan?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to this debate, not least to further my debate, not least to further my education in my personal passion area of parliamentary procedure. Let me begin by responding to the Let me begin by responding to the motion itself, and then I will turn to the substance of the debate. The hon. Member for Twickenham will hon. Member for Twickenham will accept that no government could accept a motion such as that proposed by the Liberal Democrats
16:22
Kanishka Narayan Portrait Kanishka Narayan MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Vale of Glamorgan, Labour)
-
-
proposed by the Liberal Democrats today. The motion goes against the standing orders of this House, which state that the government, as elected by the people, controls the Order Paper apart from specific exceptions such as opposition days, the motion would give the Liberal Democrats free rein to schedule the business. On the 9th of March, they introduced a bill today still not available to members across the House, and are asking the House to hand them control of the business to complete all stages within a day.

That is no way to make complex changes to the law in this area. It is not just a procedural outrage, but Madam Deputy Speaker, more than that, I'm sorry to say the Liberal Democrats join yet again the Conservative Party in their usual coalition of putting political desperation on this question ahead of the interests of British children and families. I would urge the Liberal Democrats to forget this approach and to take part in the government's consultation, a true attempt at engaging across parties and across the country so that we can find the right solution for children and parents across the country.

This government I barely started. I'm happy to give way shortly. This government has already set out a way forward which considers these vitally important issues in a responsible way, and which allows for swift action in response. This is how we will give children the childhood they deserve

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and prepare them for the future I'm happy to give away. Wera Hobhouse.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wera Hobhouse. But my inbox has been inundated with families, parents calling for with families, parents calling for action. We are responding to the request of our constituents to take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

request of our constituents to take action. Is the government not seeing the urgency in which we need to take action? Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. And in response to the hon. Member, I would simply say that the government is seeing both urgency and responsibility in the correspondence we're receiving and the consultation we're engaging on, not the desperate lurch to a specific answer that the Liberal Democrats are exemplifying in this instance. I want to take this opportunity to set out the approach we are taking. I am happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Really appreciate it, Minister giving way. And I would just say gently that I do believe if you gently that I do believe if you look back at our track record over the last few years, we have worked really hard to actually put forward really hard to actually put forward concrete proposals around putting online safety first. But but no, but there are really we have tried but there are really we have tried to push that agenda. It's not like social media came yesterday.

It was 20 years ago, 22 years ago that 20 years ago, 22 years ago that Facebook was launched. And and it was actually the pressure from across the House that the government had put the consultation forward. So I just ask the Minister, gently say, actually, we are trying to work together and to continue

**** Possible New Speaker ****

working together in that vein. Well, I thank the hon. Member for that point, and I take very for that point, and I take very much her point on wanting to work together. That is exactly what the government is committed to, not a government is committed to, not a question of whether we act, but how specifically we implement changes to secure our children's future. I would encourage her and the entire Liberal Democrat Party to engage with the consultation, and to ensure that I might make a slight bit of progress, having given way bit of progress, having given way twice to the Liberal Democrats in the short succession of one sentence.

I want to be absolutely clear. It is crucial that we allow for a short, sharp consultation to allow the different parts of the debate to be heard, including, crucially, from the voices of children themselves too often underrepresented in this debate. This is a complex area and it is vital that we get it right. We have already announced that we will act both with speed and appropriate scrutiny to legislate based on the outcome of the consultation. Last month, the Secretary of State set out to this House.

The technology has huge potential for good to create jobs, to drive growth, to transform our public services and so much more. However, we have also been clear that in order to harness the potential benefits, parents need to have confidence that their children can benefit from the opportunities that the online world offers. Ensuring that technology enriches children's lives, not harms them. Most children report benefits from being online, such as interacting with their peers, finding useful information, or learning a new skill. But we also know that there are concerns about children's online experience.

This government has always been clear that the protection of children online is our top priority. The Online Safety Act introduced one of the most robust systems globally for protecting children from harm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

online last year. I'm happy to give way. I very much thank the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I very much thank the Minister for his remarks and I would hope as part of the consultation also be listening to research. The Born in listening to research. The Born in Bradford study is a huge cohort study, and they've recently looked study, and they've recently looked at social media use of 12 to 15 year olds in the Bradford district, 3.36 hours per day of of social media use and real associations with increases in anxiety and depression. So will the Minister make sure that those harms that we already know about from social media, and that research will be factored in as he makes decisions following the consultation, to act

**** Possible New Speaker ****

swiftly to protect our children from harm. Mr. Madam Deputy Speaker, can I firstly commend my hon. Friend for firstly commend my hon. Friend for her consistent commitment to evidence based policy making in this place and much beyond it, too. this place and much beyond it, too. And I commit to her absolutely that both the specific studies she mentioned, the born in Bradford study, and the wider point she makes on engagement with research makes on engagement with research will be very much front of mind for the government as well.

I'm happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to give way. I thank the Minister for giving way. I'd just like to ask him, could he tell the House when the consultation is going to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

launched? Madam Speaker, we will be very glad to come to the House as soon as the consultation is launched. It as the consultation is launched. It will be very soon indeed. As we have said, as we have said, members, have said, as we have said, members, members will expect not just not just not just a consultation. Well, I haven't committed to be debating the consultation today prior to the consultation today prior to having published it. And so and so. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats can take a lesson from that and follow take a lesson from that and follow appropriate procedure in this place.

Madam Speaker, the illegal content and child safety duties came into effect last year. These duties represent a major milestone in protecting children from illegal and harmful content online, as well as helping them have age appropriate online experiences. I'm happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the hon. Member for giving way. Consultation and timeframe is absolutely key here because whilst absolutely key here because whilst we procrastinate online, harms is continuing. Our children are being put at risk and I only have to just put at risk and I only have to just think of the statistics around online pornography and the fact that up to 50% of boys aged 11 to that up to 50% of boys aged 11 to 13 have already viewed pornography. How this is influencing their minds on a daily basis with regards to relationships and how they conduct their business, can he give this House an assurance that the consultation will come very, very soon to this place? And can he give timeframes thereafter following the consultation as to when we will see legislation brought before this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House? I can firstly confirm to the hon. Member that the government has committed to acting robustly by the summer. This is about a short and sharp as a consultation can get, and I would also encourage her, instead of procrastinating on this question, to engage intensively with the process of consultation and the national conversation. To and the national conversation. To Madam Speaker, I mentioned illegal content duties as well as child safety duties. For example, under those services now must conduct those services now must conduct highly effective age assurance precisely on the hon.

Member's point to prevent children in the UK from encountering pornography, as well as content that encourages, promotes or provides instructions for self-harm, suicide or eating disorders. Platforms are also now legally required to put in place measures to protect children from other types of harmful content. This includes abusive or hateful content, bullying content, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

violent content. Thank the Minister for giving way and I thank him for the decisive action. He took over the decisive action. He took over the incident that we had very recently, but just given the scope of the consultation and when we're talking consultation and when we're talking about online harms, I just wanted to flag the issue around content we have on YouTube, which is which is have on YouTube, which is which is a video sharing platform that's not necessarily a social media platform, and the type of content on there and the type of content on there that our children are consuming, whether it be the quick succession of images that is not not very good for child development, and rather than the slow paced stuff you get when you're watching a broadcaster, will the consultation look at the quality of content on those platforms? Because not all screen time is equal, some screen time can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be quite dangerous for child development in general. Keir Mather well, can I thank my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Keir Mather well, can I thank my hon. Friend for that point, because both the points she's raised, the scope of how we look at particular platforms, and the functionalities platforms, and the functionalities that we look at, but are not just considered by the consultation, but deeply important. I was engaging with the Australian Minister on this just last week, understanding both their experiences on this and the uncertainty of getting those the uncertainty of getting those two rights. That is exactly why the consultation has been an appropriate approach in this context, where Madam Deputy Speaker Services fail to comply with the duties in the act, Ofcom's enforcement powers include fines up to £18 million, or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue.

Ofcom has indicated it has issued financial penalties to six companies under the Online Safety Act, amounting to over 3 million. And I can confirm to the House that just yesterday, Ofcom announced that they have found a porn company £1.35 million for failing to introduce proper age verification on its website, the largest fine levied so far under the Online Safety Act. I welcome the strong action to protect children online. We have also always been clear that whilst the Online Safety Act provides the foundations, there is more to do to ensure that children live enriching online lives.

Like all regulatory regimes, it must remain agile. This is all the more critical given the way dealing with fast moving technology. That is why this government has already taken a number of decisive steps to build on these protections. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's first act was to make online content that promotes self-harm and suicide a priority offence under the Online Safety Act. This means that platforms must take proactive steps to stop users seeing this content in the first place. If it does appear, platforms must minimise the time it is online.

As well as this, both intimate image abuse and cyber flashing are now priority offences under the Online Safety Act. Last month, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State stood in this chamber and made it clear that the creation of non-consensual deepfakes on X is shocking, despicable, abhorrent. She confirmed that we would expedite legislation to criminalise the creation of non-consensual intimate images. I am pleased to confirm to the House that these have now come into effect earlier this month. This will also be designated as a priority offence under the Online Safety Act, and complements the existing criminal offence for sharing or threatening to share a deepfake intimate image without consent.

Alongside this, it was also announced that we will legislate to criminalise nudification tools to make it illegal for companies to supply tools to be used as generators of non-consensual intimate images. And last week we have gone further still. We have announced that we will now introduce a legal duty requiring tech companies to remove non-consensual intimate images within 48 hours of them being reported. These measures will provide real protection for women and girls online. However, we recognise the strength of feeling up and down the country right across this house, shown not least in the debate today, we share the concern of many parents about the wider impact of social media and technology on children's wellbeing.

The rapid growth of grassroots campaigns like smartphone free Childhood, highlights how concerned parents are about the pull of these technologies and what that means for their children. This includes the potential impacts on mental health, on sleep and on self-esteem. We have set out our commitment to supporting parents and children with these issues. We want to find solutions that genuinely support our children's well-being and to give parents the help they need as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they guide children through online away. Any chance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way, and I've received contact from hundreds of parents in my constituency and indeed some young people sharing their huge concern about harm caused by engagement about harm caused by engagement with social media, online harm. And so I fully understand the sense of so I fully understand the sense of urgency in the chamber today and the desire for quick action now, the government said in January they would consult. They reiterated that commitment ten days ago in February, and I understand the consultation is due to start in March.

The Ministers talked about bringing measures through before the summer. Can he commit to acting with real urgency? Bring that consultation forward. What is the delay and will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he commit to bringing legislation by the summer? The hon. Lady has repeatedly made very. Long interventions. It would always have been open to her to attend the opening of the debate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to attend the opening of the debate and speak in it. Minister. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I totally agree with the hon. Member totally agree with the hon. Member in asking for urgency and can I assure her that one the government will act by the summer and robustly responding to the consultation? Two responding to the consultation? Two of course, we have been focussed on getting the consultation right, not just for the wider public, but ensuring it's designed for young people's engagement, which requires particular design features.

And three, that we are not waiting for. The launch of the consultation for the National Conversation. I have been in schools, I've been with parents, the Secretary of State has, Ministers across government have as well. And so the conversation has very much started. The consultation I'm sure is imminent too. Madam Deputy Speaker, whilst there is consensus that problems remain, there is not yet consensus on the best way to address them. That is why last month, the government announced that we will be launching our short, sharp consultation and national conversation on further measures.

We recognise that while some people support age restrictions on social media for children, there are diverse views both on the what and the how. Prominent voices in this debate. The Molly Rose Foundation the NSPCC, are concerned that blunt age limits might not be the right approach and risks doing more harm than good. And even among those who support age limits, there are differing views on the ways to do it, including which service restrictions should apply to these views are worthy of consideration, but we need to consider them properly and responsibly.

We owe that to our children. That is why the consultation approach is the responsible path forward. To look at these issues, considering in a swift and evidence based way, the full range of implications, the most effective way of protecting children and enhancing their lives. Online, we will consult with Paris, the organisations representing children and bereaved families, tech companies and, crucially, with children and young people themselves. None of this will be allowed under the motion being considered today. This consultation, backed by the National Conversation, will identify the next steps in our plan to boost and protect children's wellbeing online.

The consultation will include the exploring of options of banning social media for children below a certain age, but as well as a range of other measures. This will include gathering views and evidence on options such as restricting access to addictive functionalities, understanding what we can do better to support parents in navigating their children's digital lives, and we will also explore if we should raise the digital age of consent to give parents more control of how their children's data is used and how

**** Possible New Speaker ****

existing laws arranged around age verification could be better enforced, I'm happy to give away. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. He making lots of observations about about the consultation that's going to go go ahead and what's going to go go ahead and what's going to be in it, how long it's going to take. What we do not know is what when will he commit to is what when will he commit to bringing legislation to this House to act against social media?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to act against social media? Well, I'm happy to repeat to the hon. Member the commitment of this government, which is that we will act by the summer. This is about as short and sharp as a consultation period gets. The Online Safety Act took seven years. This is a quarter that we're simply asking for to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make sure that young people, parents, families are properly heard across the country. I thank him for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Again, I understand the consultation, but what about actual legislation? Are you going to do it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are you going to do it? I will, I will simply repeat the point I've made, which is we are going to act by the summer. We've already sought permissive powers to already sought permissive powers to ensure that the government is able to act through, through rapid legislation on the outcome of the legislation on the outcome of the consultation. I hope the combination of those two commitments gives the hon. Member some assurance Madam Deputy Speaker the the engagement of the consultation will take place alongside working with counterparts and monitoring developments in Australia on their social media ban for under 16 seconds to share learnings and best practice.

We are steadfast in our belief that the right way to deliver the next steps to protect our children online is to be led by the evidence through

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our short, sharp three month consultation last week. I'm happy to give way. The Minister just said they'd already sought permissive powers. I already sought permissive powers. I understand that they're going to move an amendment in lieu to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. I am not aware that that has been published yet, not least sought from the House. When will sought from the House. When will that be published? So that we can see what those permissive powers are supposed to be?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are supposed to be? I thank the hon. Member for that point. I commit her, we're going to try and do that as soon as possible. You should be aware that the legislative process there is very tight already given the process is going through. And so I will come back to her in the house with the wording of the motion as soon as possible as well. Last week, the Secretary of State confirmed, as I just mentioned, that we will take new legal powers to allow us to act quickly on the outcomes of the consultation, delivering on our promises to parents.

And as I just mentioned, we will make sure that the wording of that is presented to the House at the earliest opportunity. We also recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and the expertise that parliamentarians in both houses provide. We have already committed that when regulations are brought forward, they will be debated on the floor of the House and there will be a vote in both houses ensuring proper scrutiny. We're clear that it is not if we will act, but what type of action we will take, ensuring that we do so effectively in lockstep with our children and in the interests of British families.
16:39
Julia Lopez Portrait Julia Lopez MP (Hornchurch and Upminster, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Secretary of State Julia Lopez. Lopez. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Now today we're debating something that's very important, a vital that's very important, a vital subject, the protection of children from online harms. And I commend the hon. Lady for Twickenham for what I think was a very heartfelt speech. But I fear that her good intent has been rather thrown under the bus by her party leadership. Setting aside the importance of this subject, let's look at the method. And it's a point that's been raised rather expertly from across the House today.

The Liberal Democrats are doing what they do best slightly nutty stunts with the menace of Captain Mannering. They are attempting to seize control of the Order Paper and effectively declare themselves not only government for the day, but rulers of the internet with their Online Services Bill, which is very, very loosely defined. It is a gimmick. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's the parliamentary equivalent of bringing in the chamber from a giant bungee, though the hon. Lady for Twickenham has put a little bit of flesh on the bone in her speech, the motion itself simply requests the power to barge through this house with a blank check bill for which we have no details, and in so doing, let the government benches clean off the hook.

And it's all gone a bit. Benny Hill. And it's a great shame, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it's a distraction. Given that the moment of truth on social media for children is coming to us imminently, and they know that from the panicked recess briefings that the Prime Minister has been caught on the hop on an issue that is of deep concern to families, children, teachers and communities across this country. Before too long, the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill will return to this House and members will have the chance to vote on a credible proposition.

An amendment tabled by the noble Lord Nash, that no child under the age of 16 should have access to harmful social media. Certainly, if this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the conservative stance given the online safety Bill went through so long in consideration, it was so long in consideration, it was even referred back to committee, which no bill had been done in 20 which no bill had been done in 20 years. Why did they not ban social media for under 16 seconds in that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill when they were in government? Well, Julia Lopez. It's a conservative amendment in the Lords which has actually gained cross-party support. So it will be cross-party support. So it will be coming back to us. But she raises an important point about why why it was not brought in in the Online Safety Act. And that was an act that tried to do many, many things. In many ways, it took so long because it risked becoming a Christmas tree bill and many good causes were hung off it, and that did cause challenges.

I think that as the debate has moved on, we've realised that it is not just about illegal content that children are being exposed to. It's not simply about some of the things that the Online Safety Act was trying to change. There is an issue in general about children being in this space. There are addictive algorithms. This is not just about, as I say, illegal material. It's about the fact that it's changing how they are thinking, it's how changing how they're interacting. And maybe we have to stand back as a society and say, this is simply not the right place for children to be.

We can create adult online spaces, and for children, we think that there are other ways in which they should be interacting with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

world. Certainly you're talking about the Online Safety Act. Do you think the fact that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do you think the fact that the leader. Sorry, apologies. And the hon. Member talks about the Online Safety Act and what happened under the Conservatives? Do you think the the Conservatives? Do you think the fact that the leader apologise? Does she think that the fact that the Leader of the Opposition the Leader of the Opposition actually tried to water down that bill and talk about the fact that we do not legislate for feelings, has anything to do with the fact that she's been kicked down the can, and we are where we are and haven't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

made the progress that we need to. Julia Lopez there were very. Real and important debates that were going on in the passage of that bill about legal but harmful material, and whether people should be able to speak freely in the passage in the online environment passage in the online environment and what we are seeking to do in the way in which we are approaching this issue, is to create space where adults can speak freely, but where adults can speak freely, but to accept that children should not be in some of these spaces.

And that was the point that the Leader that was the point that the Leader of the Opposition at the time was trying to make. We were moving very dangerously into the realms of free speech, and it is not for an online regulator to start telling people what they can and cannot say online, when it is not something that is illegal to speak of in the real world. And that was the challenge that we had got ourselves into as a government, and that's why we changed some of the approach that we were taking to the Online Safety Act, and I appreciate that the concerns have been raised.

I'm trying to answer them as honestly and straightforwardly as I can, but it's at the point, as I say, when it comes to the amendment in a few weeks time, that this House will have its opportunity to make an unequivocal statement of principle, that when we believe that something is harming children at scale, we accept that it is insufficient to leave the status quo unchallenged or simply to commission a consultation especially. And it's a point that's been made, a consultation to which this government has provided absolutely no political direction or view, a consultation that has been much trailed but still not actually launched, because, in truth, this consultation wasn't ready.

It was a mechanism to get the Prime Minister out of another of his tight fixes. Now, the tech secretary may be very good at emoting, at telling us all how impatient she is for change, about how she cares, and indeed for how many years she has cared. But when she made her statement on social media for children in this chamber a few weeks ago, she said nothing about what the government would actually do beyond seeking more time to take a position. And I commend the hon.

Lady for Twickenham for pointing this out, and I do have sympathy with why she is trying to to bring this mechanism here today, because we are all trying to eke out what the government is actually seeking to do. And it was extraordinary listening to the government speaker, the government Minister who who said with great sincerity, we will act robustly in responding to a consultation. What does he actually believe? What does the government think we should actually do on this issue? Because nobody has a clue.

They're talking about a huge range of things that could possibly be done, but there is no it is for a government to provide political direction. It is not for a government to seek consensus. What? It is for a government to take a position, to take a view, not to try. It's a government to take a it's for government to have opinions. It's for government to have policy positions. It is not for a government to try and make sure that everybody in this House agrees.

I think it's pathetic to see the Labour benches getting all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out of their tree about this. I thank her for giving way. When

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for giving way. When we talk about the consultation, it's not about necessarily seeking consensus in this place. It's seeking consensus with the parents seeking consensus with the parents and the children, the people outside of this place. And just on the idea of banning social media, I the idea of banning social media, I think, you know, I think that is a good approach. But this isn't just about that, is it? It's also about about that, is it? It's also about the screens that our kids are on, the time that they're spending on it, and the quality of that.

And that's what this is about. It's about having a digital childhood that we can all get behind and support, because.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can agree with that. The point I'm making is that this government is trying to suggest that a consensus can be found on all of consensus can be found on all of this. In the absence of the government having a policy position, it is talking about consultation. it is talking about consultation. What on earth is it consulting on? Nobody has a clue. They have not been able to say anything about been able to say anything about what they actually want to do, because this is a Prime Minister who has no opinions, and this is who has no opinions, and this is why he's in such deep trouble.

And if and the Labour benches can get all up out of their tree and all uppity about it. But the this this. No, no no no, the Prime Minister is being blown around like a paper bag on this issue. Everybody knows it. You know, first of all, he was saying that his children didn't want to to ban social media. Now he's saying his children are the reason he wishes to ban social media. He said there's going to be a consultation. One hasn't materialised. What does this man

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually think? Certainly. I'm glad that the hon. Member has been very clear that her position is the Lords amendment that is coming through, that is suggesting to ban social media. Is she aware that it wouldn't apply in she aware that it wouldn't apply in Scotland? The Lords amendment that is written that's coming here does not apply in Scotland because the Children's Wellbeing in Schools Bill. Territorial extent, apart from one clause, does not apply to Scotland. So I take it her position is that she only wants a social media ban for children who don't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

live in Scotland. Well, the I'm sure that the the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, the I'm sure that the the the applicability of this legislation in Scotland is something that can be debated when we have the opportunity, when the we have the opportunity, when the Bill comes before the House now to give them credit, many Labour MPs give them credit, many Labour MPs understand the fact that there is an absence of any position from the government and they're not going to government and they're not going to be taking their foot off the pedal. I suspect many may have the guts to speak out today, although perhaps not.

Those MPs recognised immediately that a consultation is a mechanism for delay, a delay that goes beyond a summer and into another parliamentary year before the sniff of legislation. And that holding position is now falling apart, as we've seen from the Minister here today. And now it's the threat of a very large group of Labour MPs backing the Conservative Lords amendment that is pushing this government into action. It's government by rebellion. So please, we ask of the Liberal Democrats, let us not be distracted from that moment of truth which is coming up when we hope there will be cross-party support for the noble Lords Amendment.

For too long, the internet has been treated as a space that cannot be governed. It is function like a pioneer society with extraordinary opportunity but minimal rules. But pioneer societies are improvising. Customs eventually retrofit themselves with rules to sustain societies, often after hard won experience and dispute. That is the process through which we are now going. And we are realising that as that online society was built, we were not vigilant enough when it came to protecting childhood. We weren't we did not recognise that this new territory would bleed into the old world.

The Minister shouting from his chair that I'm embarrassing myself. I, we, we as a government have brought forward the Online Safety Act, but there are gaps in there and we've taken a clear position now as a, as an opposition party, that we think that children should not be on social media. And he's looking very angry. But what is his view? Can he stand up here and tell us what his personal view is? As the Minister with responsibility? What does he think should be done on this before he launches his consultation with such earnestness? Someone tell us, would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you like to tell us? Could could I just be helpful?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There's been a. Lot of help this afternoon. The Minister hasn't asked to intervene. Minister hasn't asked to intervene. The hon. Lady can't force him to intervene on her Julia Lopez.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

intervene on her Julia Lopez. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out that the Minister has no manners. He wishes to shout from his sedentary to shout from his sedentary position. And, you know, I sat there listening and waiting to see if I could decipher in his very long and self-regarding diatribe whether he actually has any opinions. But it turns out he doesn't. He's very comfortable to sit on the bench and and and chant her away at me. See? He says it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

again. I'm such an embarrassment. Certainly. Gareth Snell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gareth Snell. Thank you for a moment. I because I've listened to what she said, but I was talking to what, said, but I was talking to what, 115 year old last week who said to me, we have no youth clubs. If I go me, we have no youth clubs. If I go on the street, I don't feel safe and I get told I'm a nuisance. So I come home and I interrupt my come home and I interrupt my friends online and I'm told I can't do that.

So I'm not sure what the right answer is. And I sometimes think not knowing the answer is is as good sometimes as having absolute certainty all the time about everything. So what would she say to that 15 year old about what? What the outcome is for her? Because. Because she's asking what she can do, how can she say with her friends and and we don't have an answer to that yet. So what is the party opposite offering?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Julia Lopez I don't think the answer, and I suspect his intervention for its politeness, I intervention for its politeness, I don't think the answer is to is to suddenly encourage all children who are finding it hard to find are finding it hard to find purposeful and meaningful activities in the real world to to retreat to their bedrooms. And I think this is one of the challenges think this is one of the challenges we've seen, that the children have felt that the online space is is the is the most stimulating for the is the most stimulating for them.

And unfortunately, that has led to an even greater retraction from the real world. And I think that we can all recognise that that has been a negative for society. And and sorry for. OK, so I, I shall move on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Certainly where I think she's being very clear that she wished the government had just charged the government had just charged forward in some direction. I've had hundreds of constituents email me about this from various different perspectives and with various perspectives and with various different workability concerns about certain solutions. I'd like to listen to them, and I think it would be really helpful if the opposition parties could try to do likewise, engage with this process,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rather than just kind of criticise whatever approach we try to take. Julia Lopez I appreciate where he's coming from. I don't think it's wrong to to seek evidence to to ask people for views. I don't think that's wrong. But the Prime Minister should be honest about what he wants to do. And the problem is, is that he has been floating around with various different opinions, and he's been buffeted by by Labour MPs and by opposition and by others. And if he doesn't think that this is the right approach, then he should she should feel confident in saying so.

He said a whole range of different things about this. And and the government is seeking to launch a consultation. But what precisely is being consulted on? Nobody actually knows. And I think if Labour MPs were honest with themselves, they would recognise that this. It's the very reason why I suspect in in rooms with, with party whips, there are very serious conversations going on saying, well, actually we would like to know what the Prime Minister does think about this issue because we're not convinced by this consultation.

We think it's we think it's kicking an issue into the long grass. We're worried about the length of time that that's going to mean in terms of before we get legislation to protect children from, from various different challenges online. And that's the very reason why the Minister is standing before you today saying, actually, we are probably going to do something very definitely, maybe in the summer. And the reason he's saying that is because the pressure is growing amongst Labour MPs. Now, this is this is what's being briefed out that actually the they're going to actually bring forward amendments to the bill because they're being buffeted into it.

And this is the problem. Nobody knows what this Prime Minister believes. And this is why on every single issue that's happening with the government at the moment, despite the very large Labour

**** Possible New Speaker ****

majority, this Prime Minister is being buffeted around, that is a problem. Certainly. I'm very much enjoying her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very much enjoying her speech and I'm wondering why she cannot.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Support our motion this evening. Julia Lopez I, I think I said clearly at the beginning of my speech where I don't think we can support the motion, which is effectively a blank check. Nobody actually knows, notwithstanding the fact that the lady, the hon. Lady, has tried to set it out in her speech, nobody actually knows what the Lib Dems are trying to do here. They they what the the the proposal before us at the moment is that the Liberal Democrats take control of the Order Paper and then can say whatever they might like on internet governance.

I'm sorry, I don't think that is the way to conduct yourself in Parliament. I think they have to be clearer

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proposals, certainly. Because I agree on this point, the hon. Lady. The other problem is, the hon. Lady. The other problem is, if you read the motion, it caps the amount of debate at four hours, two hours for the Second Reading debate, and then two hours for the commencement of committee and Third Reading. Now, this presumably is going to have to be a meaty, meaty going to have to be a meaty, meaty claws bill to deal with a complex issue as on internet governance regulation, all of which will be unamendable by this place because unamendable by this place because of the timescales available, all of which the line by line scrutiny won't happen.

That would happen in a Committee stage, and most of those amendments that get tabled will fall because there won't be time for members to propose them. So this isn't some sort of solution that brings consensus. This is a Lib Dem railroad of a really complex issue with policies that they can't get through in conventional manners.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Julia Lopez naturally, I agree with him wholeheartedly on the with him wholeheartedly on the points that he makes. But it's true that until now, we have implicitly decided that childhood must simply adapt to an environment that we as adapt to an environment that we as adults find totally overwhelming, undermining of our own sense of self and completely irresistible. And we have been exposing our And we have been exposing our children to this place of no social, settled social rules, where that exposure is constant and the boundaries are porous and responsibility is diffuse behaviour that would never be tolerated.

Offline is normalised, monetised and then algorithmically amplified. Now the Online Safety Act, which we've discussed already, has been a step forward in trying to wrest back control. But it is, of course, an imperfect one. It focuses primarily on illegal content. It seeks to keep the most extreme material offline. It introduces age gating for pornography and other over 18 content. And that work does matter. But the problem before us today goes well beyond illegality and explicit material. And there are also too many concerns about the complexity, both in the implementation and in intent when it comes to policing content.

So the central question is not just what children see, it is how social media works. Social media platforms are addictive by design. Their algorithms are engineered to maximise engagement and stickiness. They reward outrage, comparison, emotional intensity, competition and repetition. They draw children away from purposeful activity and into feedback loops that erode attention and resilience. Now, not all platforms operate like this globally. Funnily enough, the Chinese version of TikTok is time limited and feeds children content of scientific or patriotic value. In the West, it is emotional arousal that is fed to our kids.

Children are not simply consuming content, they are being shaped by the environment itself. It's happening when their brains are still developing, their impulse control, their emotional regulation, their ability to assess risk are not the same as adults. We recognise this everywhere else in law, in alcohol limits, in safeguarding rules and in age of consent protections. Yet online, we decided to suspend that logic and the consequences are increasingly visible. Certainly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Natasha Irons thank you for giving way and I'm new to this place and clearly still learning, place and clearly still learning, but I was just wondering why then were things in the online safety bill watered down things around bill watered down things around around designing out harm? But the things you're talking about, she is talking about about designing out harm at source because we're absolutely right. We're creating these online worlds, and they should be designed in a safe manner, should be designed in a safe manner, just as we would design clothes for children to not have toxic materials in them, we'd hope the spaces inhibitor life also don't have toxic materials.

So why didn't we strengthen that in the bill that the opposition passed when they were in power?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Julia Lopez I've said that before, what we were trying to achieve with the Online Safety Act and why certain things were in it and why certain things were in it and why why they weren't. So I won't want to go over that, that same material. But I think the same material. But I think the consequences of some of these design things are increasingly visible, which is including rising anxiety and low mood, poor sleep, shredded attention spans, cyber bullying that follows children home.

Did somebody certainly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Did somebody certainly. Grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way? When I was growing up, social media was genuinely social. You would spend your time on it to speak to your peers, to your classmates. I remember MSN first.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arrived. And it's evolved to become this kind of addictive, content driven kind of addictive, content driven thing where you're fed information. Does she not think that perhaps we should see a difference between different types of social media, different types of social media, ones that are genuine peer to peer interactive, that help young people and those that just feed content to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and those that just feed content to them. Julia Lopez. Well, thank you for that intervention. I went off on a slight sort of nostalgia trip in my own brain, thinking about there was a certain, you know, MSN chat rooms and all the rest of it. I think that was a time when people weren't really aware of of the power of the internet. And I don't think that potentially some of the the predatory behaviours that we subsequently saw started to become a very much normalised and industrialised.

And I think that whilst it might be tempting to want to try and go back to that place, whether we can actually get there, I don't know. I think it's certainly something that we can aim towards and aspire to. And I think he makes an important point that the essence of social media is, is not does not have bad intent. It is the way in which it is being manipulated and changed over the years to amplify negative behaviours, that it is the genuine, the problem that we are seeking, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think, to to solve here, certainly. On the basis of what? Of what the hon. Member has just said. It the hon. Member has just said. It sounds like she might actually be supportive of the Liberal Democrat policy, which would be to age rate policy, which would be to age rate social media platforms, and perhaps we would see a new ecosystem of genuine peer to peer, lower harm products. That would be be a good thing for young people as well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thing for young people as well. We think the priority at the moment is to make sure that under 16 are off harmful social media policy, but but platforms. But I'm sure that there is space over time for a market to develop where you're not seeing those sorts of negative algorithms and activity and that there there is a way, a world in which new products can be developed that would retain the essence of of positive social interaction, certainly. Is the hon.

Lady not. Concerned that if you simply ban of social media platforms, that on the one hand, you leave the opportunity for new ones to develop, which are a problem, and at the same time you don't allow existing ones to develop in ways that will be less

**** Possible New Speaker ****

harmful. Julia Lopez. The question. Of functionality.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of functionality. Oh, right. Sorry, the question was a list of functionality, and I'm sure that that is an issue that I'm sure that that is an issue that potentially can be explored as time goes by. And I think it's important to say this is not a moral panic. This is a structural problem. Today, the Leader of the Opposition gathered a panel of grieving parents who had lost their children parents who had lost their children where negative online activity had been weaponized with real world and utterly tragic consequences.

Their children have been drawn into dangerous challenges, coercive relationships, bullying and bribery. And they all created despair in those young minds. And it showed us plainly why the pioneer phase must now come to an end, at least where children are concerned. Pioneer societies don't remain lawless forever. Eventually, they are retrofitted with rules and boundaries and protections for the vulnerable. And what is striking is this. Madam Deputy Speaker, after years of the problem building, countries around the world are reaching the same conclusion with remarkable synchronicity.

Not because it's fashionable, because governments are copying one another, or because anybody thinks this is going to be particularly easy to impose and enforce. But because the evidence has accumulated to the point where denial is no longer credible, if social media were broadly harmless for children, this would not be happening. But governments have very different political traditions, are acknowledging the same reality that when it comes to children, some control must be wrested back. And I suspect that this trend will be reflected vividly in the chamber today, with examples from across the nation of what is happening in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the real world. Because of that laxity in the online one. Certainly Kirsty Blackman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Certainly Kirsty Blackman. I asked her government to ban suicide forums that encourage young people to harm themselves. I asked her government to ban eating disorder forums, which encourage eating disorders, and her government refused to do that. Her government refused to do that in government refused to do that in the Online Safety Act, despite us asking for that to happen. How can she stand there now and take a moral high ground on this? When they refused to ban the worst, most egregious, most harmful platforms?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They don't have a moral high ground on this Julia Lopez. I'm not seeking to to occupy a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not seeking to to occupy a moral high ground, seeking to to set forward a way forward in relation to keeping children off social media platforms under the age of 16, because trying to. age of 16, because trying to. Legislate for specific different activities is very challenging. And I think that's what we saw with the I think that's what we saw with the Online Safety Act, that there are very good causes, there are very important activities that we sought to to try and stop online.

But actually turning that into a workable law is a very large challenge. And that's one of the reasons why we think that it's important that you actually take a whole of society approach, which tries to shift the debate, to say that online spaces, certain types of online spaces for people under the under the age of 16 are simply not appropriate. And I think that that's trying to take a sort of principles based approach to governing the online world, which which tries to steer away from some of these very difficult debates about how you write implementable law to try and stop very nasty and negative behaviour.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Certainly I do thank the Minister. He's been very generous. But but because I get, I confess But but because I get, I confess that I am not my mind up on this. If there was a blanket ban that said anybody under the age of 16 said anybody under the age of 16 was not allowed to access things, how does she see that being enforced? Does that sit with the parents? Ultimately? And if parents parents? Ultimately? And if parents aren't able to, what's the criminal liability on parents? Because there are genuine challenges about what children can access and and who you make ultimately responsible for enforcing this very simple approach,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but could be quite complex to implement. No, I would not envisage that parents would be responsible for that. There are there are that. There are there are mechanisms to make sure that the platforms would be the ones that would not be permitted to provide would not be permitted to provide accounts to under 16 year olds, and that there are they would have to that there are they would have to have a highly, highly effective age assurance techniques. And I've spoken very recently to a major spoken very recently to a major platform who said that they have actually very, very effective techniques in relation to being able to test whether somebody's trying to open an account is actually the age that they say they are.

I'm afraid I won't take further interventions for a little while just so that I can make progress. I know that other people will want to speak now. There are serious arguments against this approach, and some of them have been heard, and they deserve to be addressed and not dismissed. And we will likely hear further of them today. And those doubts must be listened to respectfully. I hold some of those anxieties and reservations myself. The first is that a ban would be unworkable, that teenagers will find workarounds through VPNs, foreign platforms or fake credentials.

And of course they will. Teenagers have always tested boundaries, fake IDs, sneaky booze, underage rule breaking are traditional parenting challenges. But we do not abandon age limits simply because they are imperfect. We impose them because they change norms, they shift behaviours, and they give parents reinforcement rather than resistance. Of course, the mandatory age limit will not remove every child overnight, but it will remove a critical mass. And that does matter. Now, some fear that such a ban would require de facto compulsory digital ID, undermining, undermining anonymity and civil liberties.

And that's again a concern that must be taken extremely seriously. But as I've just suggested to the hon. Gentleman, age verification does not require a single state mandated digital identity system. Other jurisdictions have explicitly prevented platforms from requiring accredited digital ID, and instead mandated multiple verification techniques. Responsibility is placed on the platforms, not on the citizens. And as I say, I was speaking to a major tech platform very recently that set out some of those techniques that can now be used very accurately to assess a user's age.

But we must be clear, we do not have a surveillance state simply because 13 year olds are kept off Facebook. A third argument is that social media provides vital support and connection for many children, particularly those who feel isolated offline. Again, a point that's been made, and that can be true, but it is not an argument for leaving the entire system untouched. This is not about banning the internet. It is not about banning banning messaging, educational platforms, health support or professional development services.

Those spaces can and should remain accessible. Indeed, that is happening in other jurisdictions. This is about a specific category of platforms whose business models depend on maximising attention and emotional arousal, and which are demonstrably harmful at scale. Another concern is unintended consequences that children may be pushed into darker corners of the internet, and these issues do need to be included in the government's consultation when it eventually sees the light of day, particularly whether there needs to be a parental consent required for the downloading of certain apps.

But doing nothing already leaves children exposed just in plain sight on platforms that we know are optimised against their wellbeing. Protection will never be perfect, but neither is inaction benign. Doing nothing is not neutral. It leaves parents despairing schools, firefighting and children navigating a digital frontier with no one by their side. There's also a broader freedom argument here, which is that by keeping children off adult social media platforms, we can restore freedom to adults online. We no longer need to contort those digital spaces to be universally child friendly, which is where I think some of the challenges have come in.

And finally, this is about leadership. Madam Deputy Speaker, a consultation, as I have said earlier in my speech, a consultation without direction is not leadership and a consultation that pushes real change 18 months down the line is, in truth, a decision to do nothing. Now Labour MPs know that, which is why the coming moment will not be on this rather nutty Lib Dem takeover attempt, but on the amendment when this House will have a clear choice to accept that the pioneer phase is over, to recognise the sanctity of childhood childhood that deserves clearer rules.

To acknowledge that giving parents support is not the same as the state stripping them of their ultimate responsibilities. They will always, they must always be the first line of defence. But to conclude, when harm is real and growing, leadership requires a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decision even when the answers are not perfect. So as members. Will know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will know. This debate has to conclude by 7:00. There are slightly more than 7:00. There are slightly more than ten people bobbing, so I plan to move to the wind ups at 20 to 7, move to the wind ups at 20 to 7, which should leave you all plenty of time. Dame Chi Onwurah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of time. Dame Chi Onwurah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to the Liberal
17:09
17:09
17:09
Chi Onwurah Portrait Dame Chi Onwurah MP (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, Labour)
-
-
what measures they are proposing, but it is a debate which is happening up and down the country, in homes and at school gates, in homes and at school gates, indeed, wherever people gather. So it is right that we debate it here. it is right that we debate it here. If the Conservatives had done something during their critical 14 years of power, our children would be better protected now. But they did not. So it falls to us to take action. And I'm going to speak about three things.

Online platforms, their history and approach. The work of my Select Committee on Algorithms. The work of the Committee on Digital Childhood, all within the context of protecting children from online harms. Now, the key online players range in age from pre-teen. Tick tock was founded in 2016 and late 20s. Google was founded in 1998. So in human terms they are just entering or leaving adolescence and it shows now. Hon. Members on both sides may have heard me mention that I am an engineer, chartered as it happens.

Thanks for asking. And my last job was as Head of Telecoms technology for Ofcom, and I remember meeting with a US platform who shall remain nameless around 2005, and the company executive commented that they had come to the UK from Silicon Valley on a six month contract to sort out government affairs, and couldn't understand why. Two years later, discussions were still ongoing. Didn't didn't we realise government had no role in what they did? I say that to illustrate the the tech platforms origins in a libertarian small slash no government tech bubble which has spread globally.

TikTok is a Chinese company is a different background, but public accountability is not necessarily part of it. And unfortunately for all of us, the Conservative Lib Dem government of 2010 and its successors shared that view, shared the view that government should not be a part of this, which is why we arrived 20 years later in 2024 without online harms regulation, while at the same time the use of social media and life online had exploded. And that is why I consider the Tory position in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debate a superb example of hypocrisy. Happy to give. Monica Harding member for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Monica Harding member for giving way as you make a powerful speech about the evolution of social media platforms. I have four children. platforms. I have four children. The first one was born in 2004, the next one the last 1 in 2011. And next one the last 1 in 2011. And they have they have spanned the evolution of that. 2004 is when Facebook began, and now you have Facebook began, and now you have TikTok in 2016. So but my point is, in the evolution of that, I feel like if it's an industrial revolution, we're at the kind of spinning Jenny stage of it and AI chat box are the next destination and they are terribly dangerous for our children.

So we need regulation now of the chat bots. And that should be within the Online Safety Act.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Lady for that information, because I do agree that AI and chatbots are a further evolution, and I think we should learn from the lack of effective learn from the lack of effective regulation under the Conservatives for the critical evolution period for the critical evolution period of the internet in how we approach AI. And I do agree with her that AI chatbots should be brought under the regulatory regulatory environment of the online harms

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. Happy to give way. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend, the chair of the my hon. Friend, the chair of the Select Committee is making an excellent speech, and I think her background in this area is really showing in the detail that she's showing in the detail that she's exploring some of the issues. Part of the challenges, I believe, are that for parents ourselves, we are struggling to catch up with this struggling to catch up with this revolution, which is gaining speed all the time.

And perhaps she wants to highlight some of the challenges to highlight some of the challenges that parents face. For me, part of the importance of the consultation is to allow parents to think more deeply about this very difficult issue, where they're often different opinions. For campaigners

**** Possible New Speaker ****

who've experienced this in the most painful way. Yeah. Thank you. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and it is exactly excellent point, and it is exactly for that reason that I support a consultation, because this is part consultation, because this is part of a debate, and we all do. We all need to improve our understanding of the impacts of this technology, of the impacts of this technology, and parents are in a very difficult position. I don't believe that parents should have to be parents should have to be technology experts in order to give their children the best start in life, but unfortunately, there is so much pressure on in the online harm in the online world that that seems to be the case right now, and that is why it is right.

The government take action and consult in the action it takes. When I, I think an important part of this evolution is also to remember that when when I joined Facebook in 2005, I had to use my university email address to, to log to log it to join. So I had to be over 18, 20 years later, 13 year olds and younger are having their lives and their brains formed by almost uninhibited access to social media. In the UK, social media users went from practically 0 to 4 fifths of the population, and having worked with the Molly Rose Foundation, a charity established by the Russell family after their daughter Molly took her own life at the age of 14 following exposure to self-harm content online.

Having spoken to the bereaved parents of children bullied to death online. Having spoken to the Internet Watch Foundation about the horrendous images their staff see of child exploitation, the fact that the Conservatives did nothing in all those years is, in my view, a form of political negligence of the highest order. Now, as part of my committee's inquiry into social media and algorithms, Google, meta, TikTok and X told us that they accepted their responsibility to be accountable to the British people through Parliament, which I have to say I thought was quite a step forward from previous from previous utterances and ongoing utterances by some tech billionaires who shall remain nameless.

But our our inquiry found that our online safety regime should be based on principles that remain sound in the face of technological development. Social media has many important and positive contributions, helping to democratise access to a public voice and connect people far and wide. But it also has significant risks and those risks can evolve with technology. We spoke about AI as an evolution, and so one of the main failings of the online Safety Bill is that it regulates particular services rather than establishing principles which remain true and which can be part of a social consensus.

As technology evolved, an input. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have to. Thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She's making an excellent speech. Should one of those speech. Should one of those principles not only be related to content, but also to the addictive content, but also to the addictive nature of these platforms? Because one of the changes that I've witnessed in social media over time witnessed in social media over time is, is that quality, the algorithmic addiction, where the greatest minds in the world now are working out the circuitry of our brains and driving content towards us so that we look at the screens longer so they can sell more ads.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that is that would you agree with that? Really? Thank the hon. Member for that intervention, because that for that intervention, because that is exactly one of the recommendations of our inquiry, recommendations of our inquiry, because, as he says, the the advertisement based business models advertisement based business models of most social media companies mean that they promote addictive content regardless of authenticity. And regardless of authenticity. And this spills out across the entire internet via the unclear Underregulated digital advertising market, incentivising the creation of content that will perform well on social media.

As we saw during the 2024 unrest following the horrendous Southport attacks. So it is not it's not, you know, just a social media problem, though. It's a systemic issue that promotes harmful content and undermines public trust. And so the committee identified five key principles that we believe are crucial for building public trust and keeping the public safe. And and what the first one is public safety. Public safety matters. Hopefully that's not necessary to debate that. The second is that free and safe expression.

That's also very important. The third is responsibility for the platform. So right now they have no legal responsibility for the content they amplify just to follow their own processes. In certain specific cases. Our fourth principle is control. And the fifth and final principle is transparency. So we made detailed recommendations I do on on regulating the advertising based business model so that the amplification was not incentivised in the way the hon. Member outlined. We also recommended a right to reset.

So the right to remove your data from the algorithm or from any algorithm. Now the government and I think the our report came out not long before the Minister took his, took his position, but the government accepted all our conclusions, but none of our recommendations. So I urge the government to look again at our recommendations and to consider implementing, or at least consider implementing them, or responding to me as to why they are still not to be implemented.

Now, I do welcome the government's recent actions and interventions and its readiness to intervene. And as I said, I think the consultation is a really critical. I recommend I, I welcome the, the the desire to promote a a consensus and also that taking the measures to to ensure a swift delivery of the consultation conclusions through the children well-being and school bills, the measures, the measures, the consideration of including AI chatbots is really important and also addressing the risky features and the risky features in certain models.

And of course, support for bereaved parents. The the, the committee, the committee looks forward to to working with the government to try and achieve what are the government's aims. We need to we need evidence to drive policy and, as I have said, regulation based on principles, principles the public can have confidence in. So certainly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for giving, giving, giving, giving way just on the point of principles and the point point of principles and the point you made around content and responsibility. I worked for channel four before I came into channel four before I came into this place and we were regulated by Ofcom. But channel four was not did not create its own content, but was responsible for the authorisation of that content. But it was beholden to certain standards. Do we think that perhaps, would you agree with me that we should be holding these now, not new media companies.

These now are legacy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

media companies just as responsible for the content that they put out broadcaster. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and the insight that she brings from her career in that she brings from her career in the media is really is critical here. So for many years, and whilst the platforms were sort of just the platforms were sort of just that, just platforms on which other people placed content, there was an argument that they should not be should not be regulated and they should not be regulated and they did not have a responsibility for the content, but they are at the very least active curators of that content.

Now. They create the content and in the way in which algorithms form effective sort of digital twins of individual, and then they drive content, individualised content at people. And I think that does that does require a responsibility. And I do think the time is right, as our committee, as a committee recommended to to ensure that platforms have responsibility for their commitment. Now, I just want to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the committee, the science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee, will be holding a one off session on social media age restrictions on the 11th of March to feed into the government's consultation on measures to keep children safe online and to hear from the social.

The social media companies progress, if you like, in the last year, and we will also be gauging the strength of the evidence for and against an age based ban on social media, as well as any evidence relating to proposed alternatives to a ban. In doing so, we will hear from experts in and represent and representatives of those with direct experience of harms. We want to hear from both sides of the debate in the UK, and will be seeking evidence from Australia on the first few months of the ban, which is already in force.

There we'll be hearing from major social, social media and technology companies in a follow up to our algorithms and misinformation inquiry and we will ask for their their views on the proposed age limits. And finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, the work on social media age restrictions will feed into a larger inquiry we will launch in the coming weeks on the neuroscience of digital childhood. We want to find out how spending their formative years online affects young people's brains, and what the government should do to protect them from any negative impact there should cover.

This could cover the impact of social media and other screen time on brain development, behaviour and physical and mental health, whether positive or negative. This could also cover the physiological impact on eye development, the impact on socialisation and what action governments should take. This is there is there is not yet a consensus on what there's a consensus on the need to do something, but not on what needs to be done. And that is why we are seeking to provide evidence to support that.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I always say to the platform companies that the opposite of regulation is not no regulation. It is bad regulation. More regulation is coming. We have seen us several US states, such as California, bringing in new regulation on Big Tech. The Spanish Prime Minister has called social media a failed state where laws are ignored and and crimes are or are tolerated. There was also the significant issue of technology, sovereignty and whether we are too dependent on foreign companies for our online environment.

I call myself a tech evangelist and I am, but I also know how much an engineer costs the starting salary of an engineer, if you can find one, is a well over £100,000 per year. Tech companies are not going to put them to work on protecting and keeping safe our children. Unless this House puts the right incentives in place. And with all due respect to the Minister and the Online Safety Bill, which she inherited, we do not have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them in place now. Doctor Danny Chambers. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, this week is eating Disorder Awareness Week and so on that note, I'd like to specifically pay tribute to the amazing staff at Lee House in Winchester, which is an inpatient unit for people with eating disorders, and it cares for
17:26
Danny Chambers Portrait Dr Danny Chambers MP (Winchester, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
disorders, and it cares for Winchester and the people around that area. And we know that eating disorders existed before social media. We also know that they are possibly one of the most serious mental health conditions people can suffer from, and the most frustrating to treat and care for. But we also know that social media is certainly making this more difficult. It's, you know, the body images that young people, teenagers and younger are being exposed to the normalisation of of AI altered images that are presented as normal and aspirational and impossible to attain, is hugely unhealthy.

And we also know that AI chatbots are often integrated into social media, giving people mental health support and advice. And they're really I'm really concerned about reports that patients with eating disorders are managing to get advice on how better to lose weight, or even how to gain access to weight loss drugs, which would make their condition so much worse. And so for my reason for bringing this up in this debate is, is to ensure that the specific problem with AI chatbots, where we know some research has shown that children do not recognise that a chatbot, which is often presented within social media as a companion, a friend, a cartoon character, they do not recognise that this does not have feelings.

It is not another person. It does not care for their their health and well-being. So it is very possible that with the right regulation that AI and AI chatbots at some point in the future could provide part of of extending mental health care to people in the community. At the moment we know it is dangerous, it is unregulated and people are accessing it. We are not even aware that the information is giving us potentially harmful to their health.

This is something that I don't want to fall through the cracks of regulation. Whatever we come forward with, whether it's specifically social media, whether it's broadcasting licences, and it's where the bringing forward principles rather than either banning or regulating very specific social media platforms or specific chat bots, it's going to be very unhelpful because of the speed at which these things are developing. And it's a bit like whack a mole, because once you regulate one, another one pops up and I sort of draw everyone's attention to the US guard act, which came out last year, which specifically regulates AI.

Chatbots at very unusually had cross-party support and that very fractious politics in the US at the moment. And what it does is ensure that there is that the chatbots remind the users that they are not a real human, and that they're not qualified to give medical advice on a regular basis. It ensures that chatbots are not allowed to provide anyone with sexual content, or have sexual discussions or grooming type discussions, and ensures that they cannot end up believing that they're speaking to a therapist.

So I hope that we can ensure that, especially now when we're eating Disorder Awareness Week, that it can really focus our minds onto the potential dangers of young people believing that a chatbot, which was possibly presented to them as a friend or a cartoon character, as giving them medical medical advice, what they believe is medical advice and it can be hugely harmful to their health. We can, and I'd urge this House and the government to move with extreme speed on addressing this problem, because about 2 or 3 years ago, most of the general public hadn't really heard of ChatGPT.

Now we hear that around over 50% of professionals use it regularly. Over 1 in 5 people are using it on a daily basis, and 1 in 3 adults have already turned to chatbots for mental health advice or emotional support. That is a huge and sudden change. It's penetrating our culture, it's penetrating daily use, and we need to make sure we don't look back on this as we did with smoking, where for years we knew the damage that smoking was doing to people.

Action wasn't taken, evidence was obfuscated, lawmakers were lobbied, they delayed, and people died needlessly. We need to get ahead of this and we need to take action as quickly as possible.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Emily Darlington Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Emily Darlington Deputy Speaker, I just want to start my remarks by saying, absolutely, this week is International Eating Disorder Week, International Eating Disorder Week, and we really do need to remember the damage and the acceleration the damage and the acceleration that online is doing. We've heard some horrific accounts where the some horrific accounts where the ChatGPT will actually give young people 600 calorie a day diets, which is just appalling. We know the pain that is suffered through seeing images through the hashtag Anna or or Thinspiration or the other hashtags that should be absolutely gone from anywhere.

And my hope and my pressure on Ofcom at the moment is it is now a category one offence to promote this, and they should be weeding out this content and it does need to be extended to bots. You are absolutely sorry. The the member is absolutely right. I also want to thank the hon. Member from Newcastle, my hon. Friend from
17:32
17:32
17:32
Emily Darlington Portrait Emily Darlington MP (Milton Keynes Central, Labour)
-
-
session, and we have done a lot of work on it. And I would reiterate her recommendation to government Ministers that you that they look again at the recommendations from our algorithms and misinformation, our algorithms and misinformation, because it goes well beyond misinformation. It goes into how the damage is being done in some of these. And so protecting our young people and children online is extremely important. And the Online Safety Act was an important step forward, but it's not been fully implemented by Ofcom.

It's not proactive enough and is too dependent on what social media companies themselves are telling Ofcom yeah, I, in the spirit of consultation, which I know we are getting to, I have done my own consultation in Milton Keynes with over 514 to 16 year olds across my constituency of Milton Keynes Central, 91% of 14 to 16 year olds have a phone, 80% have social media profiles. But what will be surprising to this house is what young people consider social media profiles.

We consider it to be Facebook and Instagram. They consider it to be YouTube and Roblox, two organisations not covered by the Australian model, 74% of those 14 to 16 year olds spend 2 to 7 hours online a day, 2 to 7 hours online a day. Now, let me remind you that in that time, the brain development of young women is close to being finished, the brain development for young men is nowhere near it, because their brain development doesn't finish until they're about 25.

And we know that from science. This is not this is this is not this is not it is not this is not an opinion, just to be clear. And it's not a statement. But we know that brain development and young women and young girls happens differently. And therefore, should we have different rules for young women and young girls, if we look at young girls and young men, 59% of them have been contacted by strangers. Over a third of that was through roadblocks not covered by the Australian social media ban.

33% have been bullied. A third of those were on roadblocks, again not covered by the Australian band. So when we talk about the Australian social media ban, which I assume is what the party opposite is talking about when they say they're in favour of the ban, that does not cover YouTube and does not cover Roblox, and it doesn't even look at whether or not the ban is effective. A ban is a blunt tool which essentially raises the flag of surrender to social media platforms.

It declares that there's no way of making social media safe. Essentially, what they did in the passing of the OSA, the Online Safety Act, they said, oh, we can't go far, we're going to roll back. It's about free speech. No, it's not about free speech, because freedom, freedom of speech was written into law in this country and spread around the world. We understand both how to protect free speech and where to limit its harm. It was a missed opportunity and a bill that took seven years to get through this House.

And we do not have seven years to wait. A ban is also full of unintended consequences. I had the pleasure of meeting Ian Russell the other night, and we had a really powerful, powerful discussion. And I can only my heart reaches out to him as one parent to another, of what his family has been through, yet he doesn't jump to the easy solution of a social media ban. And the Molly Rose Foundation has done a brilliant briefing paper which every MP should read about.

Why they don't. It's not about they don't want, they don't want the online world to be safe for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children. It's that a ban doesn't make it safe. My friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and I would like excellent speech and I would like to commend her work in reaching out to young people. I think it sounds absolutely superb, and maybe a lesson to all of us to do exactly lesson to all of us to do exactly that. I'm running a survey myself. She mentioned the Molly Rose Foundation, its work, and I have met with some of their colleagues met with some of their colleagues and discussed that.

I also have a family in my own constituency in reading who suffered a terrible incident. Their son was murdered in an incident of online bullying. They have a different view. Does she agree with me that part of the challenge here is trying to listen to those families? It's so important that we do that properly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and just consider the different views. As part of the consultation. I absolutely do, and and I full

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I absolutely do, and and I full sympathy goes to the family in his constituency. It is the worst thing constituency. It is the worst thing in the world for a parent to lose a child. But we have to get this right and that's why our right and that's why our consultation is the right way to go, because it's not any good to any because it's not any good to any child to jump to a conclusion that might not actually protect children. So while I maintain an open mind, my worries about a full, full ban are are coming now.

There are children that rely on social media for connection, often those that are exploring their sexuality, the LGBTQ plus or or divergent and the consequences to them could be devastating. Could be we need to consider their views. If young people get around the ban as they are in Australia, they're less likely to report when they see harmful content or are being targeted on social media because they're worried they'll get in trouble for breaking the law. It creates a cliff edge at 16.

So no matter their maturity, and we've already talked about the brain development of young women versus young men or their skills or what they've been taught. There is a Cut-Off at 16. All of a sudden it doesn't matter, and they go into a world that is not safe. And younger children don't have their own social media profiles. They're using their parents devices, and they're often starting with a video of Peppa Pig. And all of a sudden it ends up who knows where.

And a ban does not address this. So what is the solution? As doing nothing is not an option, and I think the whole House can agree on that. Having discussed with experts,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sorry. I was very interested in the hon. Member's survey and I have done my own very unmathematical scientific survey of young people, and all of them seem to want some form of regulation. So with that in mind, we must hurry up with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mind, we must hurry up with the hon. Member. Agree. I absolutely do agree. Young people, particularly those in the people, particularly those in the and in the mid teenage years, absolutely understand this issue in a way we I think sometimes don't because quite frankly, our experience online is completely different from theirs. And if you want to test that, open even an app like Pinterest and look at what's being fed into your Pinterest boards versus your child's Pinterest boards, it is completely a different experience.

And if you don't have children, ask your younger members of staff. Open the same app on your phone versus their phone and you will see a completely different world. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There was a local organisation in my constituency called Cyber Safe Scotland, and they did a survey of children about what they survey of children about what they were being fed on TikTok. There is a road in my constituency called North Anderson Drive. Children on one side of North Anderson Drive one side of North Anderson Drive were being fed different content. Children on the other side of North Anderson Drive. So it's not just an Anderson Drive. So it's not just an age thing, it's really specific and we cannot understand what each individual person is seeing because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

individual person is seeing because it's different for everybody. Emily Darlington I think that's a very important point. And this actually points to how sophisticated the technology has gotten. So when we ask companies to take action to stop outcomes, the technology exists to do so. We are not asking them to invent, reinvent the wheel. We're not asking them to change. We're to we're not asking them to to come up with new technology. It already exists because they are micro-targeting, you know, even two different sides of the road.

So having discussed with experts, parents and most importantly, young people themselves, what do I think we need to consider in this? First of all, we need to fully and properly implement the Online Safety Act. That has to be done at speed. That requires nothing in this house. It has been a request of the Secretary of State, a request of the Minister. I would recommend Ofcom get on and do it as quickly as possible. We need to make safe spaces for children online.

And how do we do that? Well, part of the answer is ensuring that content is related to the ratings we already understand as parents, and the BBFC ratings are ones we do. I've been asking you to what rating is YouTube kids for about a year now. Is it rated you? Is it 12? Is it 15? They can't tell me because they don't do it on that basis. Now, as a parent, I want to know before allowing my children on it because parents have a role in this as well, and all apps should be rated like video games.

Roblox has a nine rating, which doesn't exist in video game ratings. Nine you see four plus, nine plus. These are made up nine plus rating. Oh no, sorry, five plus rating and nine year old at my parents forum that I did after the survey that one of the parents was there and said she walked in on her nine year old playing guns versus knives and nine year old on an app that's rated five plus. Literally, these ratings on apps mean nothing.

Yet we have video game ratings that we understand as parents. Why aren't they used? And should in-app purchases ever be allowed for young children? What is the age at which in-app purchases should be allowed in a game? Three we need to consider the time limits for the different stages of brain development. We have guides that are out there recommending to parents five a day fruit, vegetable, others. You know, we all know that schools use the same language. We use the same language.

We have nothing to support parents in deciding how long a child should be online at different stages of brain development, and that is something I hope that the evidence that we collect on the Science and Innovation and Tech Committee will help inform. We need to change addictive and radicalising platform algorithms, and in order to protect children from child sexual abuse images, we need to talk to our iOS and Android to stop the creation of self-generated child sexual abuse images.

And we need to stop end to end encryption site from sharing it, because 70 to 80% of child sexual abuse images are self-generated. We need to stop. We have and we have the technology that can do that. And we should always keep the ability to to ban in our pockets. But a ban should be for particular apps. We should not ban our children and young people from having an online experience. That Hobhouse.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Across the country, the dangerous Across the country, the dangerous synthetic drug spice is being brazenly marketed to children over brazenly marketed to children over social media. Many vulnerable young people believe they're buying the less harmful, though still illegal, drug THC, only to discover too late drug THC, only to discover too late that what they have been sold is a far more potent and unpredictable
17:45
Wera Hobhouse Portrait Wera Hobhouse MP (Bath, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
substance in schools. The consequences are already visible. 1 consequences are already visible. 1 in 6 vapes confiscated from pupils now contains spice. 1 in 6 walk through parts of our towns and cities and you will see the human cost. Spice users slumped in doorways, trapped in a semi-conscious state, stripped of dignity and control. So how terrifying that this drug is no longer confined to our streets and prisons. It has entered our classrooms. Children are collapsing in school corridors.

Some are rushed to intensive care. Others begin to battle with addictions that may follow them for life. Spice is not simply another illegal drug. Its extreme potency and addictive grip is a fast track to exploitation and criminality. It is always a tragedy when someone falls victim to substance abuse, but when it is a child misled, uninformed and targeted over social media, it is not tragic. It is a profound failure to protect. I have raised this issue in this House and with this government repeatedly over the past year and a half, but in that time, the situation facing vulnerable children has not improved.

It has deteriorated. Gone are the days when a young person had to meet a dealer in a dark alley to buy drugs. Today, a child can purchase them from their bedroom with a few taps on a phone. The marketplace has moved online and our children are paying the price. But do not just take my word for it. The Metropolitan Police have warned about children accessing illicit vapes through social media platforms such as Snapchat, Snapchat and Telegram. A recent BBC investigation revealed how effortlessly an illegal vape laced with spice can be purchased over Snapchat.

And this is not a few small scale individuals. We are dealing with a global industrial supply chain with major chemical suppliers in China providing materials to markets in the UK, EU, the US and Gulf states. Researchers at the University of Bath have identified nearly 10,000 accounts involved in the supply and distribution of spice, many using TikTok to advertise and communicate. I have met with a number of Ministers about this issue, most recently with the Minister for Online Safety who is in his place, who I now understands the scale of the problem and is sympathetic to our concerns.

But words are not enough. We need action. This is already a priority offence under the Online Safety Act. Ofcom has a statutory duty to enforce it. Yet despite clear, sustained evidence that these substances are being openly advertised and sold online, we have not seen the decisive enforcement that the law requires. Instead, the burden is falling on members of the public to report these accounts, effectively asking individual citizens to do the regulator's job for them. And what happens when an account is removed.

Within hours, a near identical profile reappears in an account named spice. One is reported and taken down, only to resurface as spice two, then spice three, and so on and so on. The name changes slightly, the branding shifts marginally, but the criminality remains the same. This revolving door of reactive takedowns is not a strategy. It's an admission that the current system is not working. If a shop in bath were openly selling drugs to its front window, the police would intervene immediately.

There would be no hesitation, no suggestion that the public should simply keep reporting it. So why, when the shop front is digital, when the customers are children, are we not treating this with the same seriousness? It is time we confronted the reality. Social media companies have developed incredibly sophisticated algorithms. As we have already heard this afternoon, capable of targeting advertisements to individuals with remarkable precision. They know what we want, but they know what we watch, what we like, what we linger on.

So it cannot be beyond their capability to deploy artificial intelligence to detect and prevent the sale of illegal drugs on their platforms. Proactive detection must replace endless reactive reporting. The technology exists, the resources exist. The evidence is overwhelming. What is missing is political will and enforcement. It is time to hold social media companies to account because the safety of our children demands nothing less. I therefore much yeah, I'm just about to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue finishing, but yes. Friendly intervention. I'm reading this because I know the reading this because I know the hon. Member from Bath does a lot to champion and support people with eating disorders. I wondered if it completely changed the subject completely changed the subject slightly, but whether she thinks the rise of social media online platforms has had an increased platforms has had an increased impact in, you know, those people with eating disorders.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for that intervention. I could go on forever about the harm of online harm, particularly on eating disorder, but it is Eating Disorder Awareness Week and we are having a debate and I hope you will attend that debate and then you can raise it there again today. I'm talking about spice and I'm talking about the responsibility of social media platforms and how we protect children. I therefore much support the provision to bring in a bill on protecting children from online harms, as proposed by my hon.

Friend. It is time for action. As I said before, we cannot no longer dither and delay and I do not accept all the debates around processes. That and the other, if you really mean it, if you're really serious about this, we need to act now. And I'm pleased that my party is, is, is is prepared to act

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and show the public that we want change. Thank you. Sam Carling. Thank you very much.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. Madam Deputy Speaker, and can I commend the hon. Member for Twickenham on bringing forward the debate today, which I think is a debate today, which I think is a really valuable opportunity to talk about this issue. I also want to thank the many hundreds of my own constituents that have written to constituents that have written to me on this from a variety of perspectives, and if I have not got back to them yet, I will be doing back to them yet, I will be doing so shortly.

Social media has rightly been described as a Wild West, and I come to this debate as someone who has grown up with it, who has had it in my life for all of my life, but who thoroughly
17:52
17:52
17:52
Sam Carling Portrait Sam Carling MP (North West Cambridgeshire, Labour)
-
-
we're talking about online harms. The way I see it, there are three main categories. Firstly, harmful main categories. Firstly, harmful online content itself. Algorithms are feeding people things they never asked for, and the evidence that misogynistic and other extreme that misogynistic and other extreme and deeply wrong content is being pushed on people is overwhelming. Secondly, we have the online grooming of children. Everyone knows how serious an issue that is, particularly on some online gaming platforms aimed at younger children like Roblox, which has been mentioned previously.

It is so bad and the relevant companies reaction so poor that there are now vigilantes active on some of these platforms conducting sting operations to catch paedophiles. And appallingly, Roblox responded to one such user who has a YouTube channel under the name Schlepp, who got six child predators arrested by banning him from their platform and threatening legal action. Clearly, we can't encourage vigilantism, but if that is the platform's response when someone is trying to deal with their own failures, something is deeply wrong.

There's also the problem of addictive content. This has gotten far worse in recent years, with the rise of short form content and the algorithms which fuel it. Apps like YouTube can, in some circumstances, automatically default to their short function when opened to be maximally addictive. Another addictive features are rampant, too, like Snapchat streaks, which encourage children to open the app first thing in the morning and last thing at night to keep that going. And as the hon. Member for Bath has just talked about, there are rampant drug dealing problems on Snapchat, some of that due to the way it recommends friends to people.

There are accounts with the most obvious pseudonyms you can imagine, things like snow for sale that is clearly meaning, you know, add this account if you want to buy drugs from someone, and there is so little action being taken on it. And it's not the only platform. Instagram is rampant with it as well. I remember quite recently, actually, I was on Instagram myself and I came across an account that was, again, so clearly selling marijuana infused food, and I reported it in Instagram, did absolutely nothing.

So there is a real complacency and lack of willing to act in these companies that we have to deal with. I also want to reference the rise of AI generated fake content designed to mislead people, or keep them hooked through showing fantastical things that don't work in reality. There's also the related issue of faked content more generally, and there are horrendous examples of viral fake cooking recipes that don't work and could cause serious harm to people through encouraging them to, for example, use a microwave in a way that could create something explosive.

There are online content creators like Ann Reardon, who is an Australian YouTube creator that are doing amazing work to call that out and try to educate people. But the platforms don't have their backs and in many cases are actively undermining their work because exactly the content they are trying to deal with is what is generating those platforms the most money due to the addictive nature of it. And I was impressed very much with an online video put out by the Member for Bangor Aberconwy just the other day, exposing if I can.

If memory serves a situation where people working for an estate agent were going and recording videos in the homes of people who are from ethnic minorities and then packaging them to look like they're asylum seekers and going around claiming, look at the great lives asylum seekers have. So I'd encourage anyone to have a look at that video. It's atrocious the way that that's been able to to propagate online. I'm so glad that my friend has been able to call that out.

All of these issues point to a situation which cannot go on. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central in front of me, I am concerned that trying to solve those problems in one fell swoop with a ban for young people won't work, and could make some of them worse. Young people are incredibly digitally literate and digitally agile, and I'm afraid to say that when a platform becomes unavailable to them, they can rapidly switch to another. In a recent letter, which I was glad to see the Minister mentioned in his speech signed by the NSPCC, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, the Molly Rose Foundation and a long list of other child safety experts raised exactly this concern and referred to blanket bans as and I quote a blunt response that fails to address the successive shortcomings of tech companies and governments to act decisively and sooner.

End of quote. So taking a named platform approach to a ban, in my view, is unworkable. I fear that young people and Ofcom will end up in a perpetual game of whack a mole, with children moving to other apps as Ofcom tries to follow and shut them down. And I know which side I'd have my money on in that game. Our regulator is nowhere near quick enough. I spoke in this chamber in March last year about an app I was aware of others using from when I was a teenager that functioned essentially as a dating app for children, but masquerades as social media.

The app I refer to has finally now had its age limit increased to 18, but it took ten years. And this is not just about Ofcom either. I don't just wish to criticise Ofcom. Regardless of how quickly a regulator moved, I guarantee our country's children would move more quickly. Their digital literacy is far higher than is often given credit for, and that will make it much harder to regulate platforms and deal with the harms. It would likely become easier for groomers to hide and find victims.

It will be harder to regulate addictive features. It will be harder to take action on harmful content. And even if this turns out to be less of an issue than I fear, arbitrarily setting the age at 16 just shifts the cliff edge that we already have to deal with. It doesn't teach people to deal with and recognise the problems, and frankly, the problems that social media creates are by no means limited to young people. I talked previously about AI generated and fake content. It is primarily older people that are struggling to identify that and are not equipped with some of those skills.

And blanket bans also risk serious damage, in my view, to children aged 13 to 16, for whom the ability to connect with others online is particularly important. Let me give a very personal example. Around the age of 13, I started to realise that my sexuality wasn't like those around me. I wasn't straight, but I was living in a rural community where there wasn't really anyone else to talk to about that who would understand. And it was made worse by some of my early childhood being immersed in a deeply homophobic religious community.

So finding people with similar experiences online to talk to you about that and be able to provide mutual support was incredibly valuable for me, as it is for other LGBT people and also for neurodiverse children as well as others. So what do I believe is the solution? We need a functionality based approach through limiting certain functions and features. I am of the view that we can deal with harms without creating a situation where children who are going to seek out ways to connect online, regardless of the law, move on to less regulated platforms.

We should, in my view, look to restrict addictive functionality on those platforms that might be linked to age, or it might be something we want to consider for people of all ages because, as I said, it is affecting people of all ages. The explosion of addictive, algorithmically driven, short form content over the past few years, as well as features actively designed to keep people hooked like Snapchat, streaks, provide no discernible benefit to society, and social media companies have proven unwilling to act on that front.

So we must, and we need to enforce existing age restrictions much better. We all know plenty of people under 13, which is accepted as the current limit, usually are already using social media platforms that they shouldn't be. And someone forgive me, but I've forgotten who mentioned earlier the example of children on their parents accounts, which is so widespread. It's my friend. And there's a definitional problem about what social media actually is. Are we counting online gaming platforms like Roblox? You can join that from five years old.

There are ways to prevent children from accessing chat functions. Parents can prevent that for younger children, but with a continuing prevalence, prevalence of child abuses on the platform, those measures clearly aren't working. So we need to be very clear on what we actually mean by social media because of how much definitions differ. So I'll conclude by saying that I really agree with the government's approach to open a meaningful consultation and national conversation on how we tackle those online harms, where the pitfalls in workability are that we can identify and deal with.

And I look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward to engaging with that further alongside my constituents. Here. Members will have realised that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Members will have realised that time is knocking on so they could guide, use as a guide 5 to 6 minutes for their contributions. We minutes for their contributions. We should be able to get everybody in Claire Young. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. As a society, we are raising the first generation of children who spend less time outdoors than spend less time outdoors than prisoners. Ministry of justice guidelines state that all prisoners in the United Kingdom should have a minimum of one hour in the fresh air each day. Yet research tells us that a worrying number of our children do not meet that threshold, not because they're confined by bars and locks, but because they're confined by screens. Astonishingly, the centre for Social Justice found that up to 800,000 children under the age of five are already using social media, and the Association of Play Industries has released a report that highlights just how little children are moving their research places.

Adolescent social media use 3 to 5 hours every single day, a figure that has grown by 50% in under a decade. They socialise through social media. They form their identities through social media. They build their understanding of the world through social media, and what they find there is not a safe or nurturing space. Children on Tik Tok encounter harmful content every 39 seconds. By the age of nine, 1 in 10 children have already been exposed to pornography. By 11, that figure rises to more than 1 in 4.

This is not accidental exposure. It's predictable consequence of placing children in unregulated digital environments and hoping for
18:01
Claire Young Portrait Claire Young MP (Thornbury and Yate, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
the best. And beyond the content itself, the very act of compulsive itself, the very act of compulsive scrolling is taking a toll. Children are exhibiting the hallmarks of addiction anxiety when separated from their devices. Declining attention spans, disrupted sleep and a growing inability to engage with the world inability to engage with the world in front of them. Because every hour spent staring at a screen is hour spent staring at a screen is an hour not spent outside, not spent running, exploring, falling over, getting back up, not spent in the kind of unstructured, unstructured play that builds resilience, creativity, and social intelligence in ways no algorithm can replicate.

This was beginning to happen when my own children were young, and at that time, a significant push factor was the fear that children weren't safe roaming freely in the physical world. It is a sad irony that the very social media platforms that are providing an ever increasing pull factor have created an online environment that puts children at risk of harm. Stranger danger is now online. A 2025 University of Exeter study of 2500 children aged 7 to 12 found that 34% did not play outdoors at all after school, on school days, and 20% that's 1 in 5 did not play outside on weekends either.

So many children don't even get the hour promised to prisoners. The years that children spend outside are crucial to replace that with an unregulated and harmful social media environment is to actively harm our children. That's why I support stopping under 16, accessing harmful social media, and why it is crucial that we get this right. Getting it right means focusing on reducing harm. A blanket approach risks removing children's access to helpful user to user platforms like Childline, and we must also ensure we don't let young people loose at 16 on a wild west of social media, without any training in the safer foothills.

These are concerns that charities like the NSPCC have raised, and which are film style age rating would address. It also means ensuring this flexibility to deal with future developments, such as AI chatbots, which have already been mentioned by a number of members. We've got into this situation because the pace of change in the tech world has far outpaced both our ability to adjust as a society and our legislative processes. That is why I welcome the careful, collaborative approach being put forward.

The 643 constituents who have written to me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on this issue would expect nothing less. Sojan Joseph.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sojan Joseph. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is an issue that I have taken This is an issue that I have taken close personal interest. I spent my previous 22 years working in mental health services in NHS. During that health services in NHS. During that time, I have seen a gradual increase of mental health increase of mental health conditions, especially among young people, and I don't want to put it as this is all because of social media. It could be various reasons, like 14 years of austerity and cutting NHS services or closing down the youth hubs.

But I believe, and many studies shows that social media has got a role to play in the reason for increasing mental health conditions, mental health illnesses among young people. It's not just because of the online content. It's also like as many other members said, it's a screen time and that
18:05
Sojan Joseph Portrait Sojan Joseph MP (Ashford, Labour)
-
-
takes away young people's natural interaction, social interaction interaction, social interaction with the rest of the society. And also particularly the higher rates of depression and anxiety caused by cyberbullying and exposure to dark side of the internet, to which our children have almost totally unfiltered access through the devices in their pockets. I pay tribute to the work that has been done in schools across my Ashford constituency. In my visit to local school, I've seen how effective measures such as students locking their phones away in sealed pouches at the start of the school day, ensure that mobile phones do not disrupt learning, and some of the studies done locally in schools shows that the academic.

Work has been improved, their behaviours has improved, especially their attitude towards the teachers and colleagues has improved. I'm happy to give away.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He's making a really important point there about restriction of phone use at schools restriction of phone use at schools and particularly talking about pouches. I met Naomi from Dorset smartphone Free Childhood just last week, and she has concern about pouches because, she says, it reinforces the idea that a child reinforces the idea that a child can have a smartphone at school. But although the access is mediated, it still accepts that smartphone it still accepts that smartphone can be there.

She would prefer a brick phone. If a child has to take a phone to school, would he comment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on that? Thanks for that intervention. And yeah, what the local study And yeah, what the local study shows that looking away, the smartphone that the students feel like it's not taken away from them, they were still able to hold on to their phone in their pocket, but they were not able to use it. Well, I agree with my hon. Friend's I agree with my hon. Friend's suggestion that it may be having a brick phone. Maybe also another option where the children still can make contacts or text messages while they're not able to access the online content.

So I think these sort of things need to come out in, in the consultation where which works and which does not work. That's why it is important to have that consultation. So as I said this, this the local studies there showed that have helped improve students ability to concentrate, learn and socialise during the school day and they have been welcomed by teachers and by the overwhelming majority of students. Last year I went to see a performance of a play by young people in Kent.

The play generation FOMO explores the impact of smartphone and social media on young people, with a script drawn from interviews with people aged between 10 and 17. It's a powerful and moving piece of work, highlighting some of the harms associated with smartphone and social media, told by young people themselves. Generation FOMO has been performed in schools across the country, and I know it has been incredibly well received by teachers and people and parents after seeing the impact the play has had locally, I was delighted to bring the cast to Parliament at the start of January so that they could perform it to the parliamentarians and other policy makers in Westminster.

And following that performance, I joined many of my colleagues and written a letter to Prime Minister asking the government to take some steps to look into this area. The letter set out why it should be technology firms, not parents or teachers, who take responsibility for preventing underage access to their platform. So I therefore welcome the government's announcement of a consultation on what further measures are needed to keep children safe online. Ministers have been clear that the consultation is not about whether the government will take further action, but about what the next steps should be.

So I'm particularly pleased that, alongside the formal consultation, the government will run a national conversation to ensure that the views of parents, teachers and young people themselves are placed at the centre of future action. While I want to see the further measures introduced, I believe that to be truly effective, they must be evidence based. As the consultation takes place. It is right that Ministers look at what. Look at what the other countries, particularly Australia, are doing to protect their children. And some of our members have already mentioned about some of the loopholes or how the children work around.

So it will be an opportunity to look what working there and what is not working there. So that can we can get it right from from the beginning. In the meantime, the government last week announced immediate action to make the online world safer for children. This includes crackdown on illegal content created by AI, and some of the members talked about AI chat box, where young people and other other other public been accessing to get mental health help, which is dangerous. So I just want to make sure that we all want to see our children grow up healthy, confident and safe.

And that means ensuring that the digital world they now inhabit is built with their wellbeing in mind. The actions that have already been announced by this government are welcome, and I look forward to Ministers coming back to the House soon with meaningful, evidence based measures that will further strengthen the protections on the platforms that shape so much of young people's lives.
18:11
Liz Jarvis Portrait Liz Jarvis MP (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you Liz Jarvis. by thanking the hundreds of parents from my constituency who have written to me about this important issue. For too long, tech companies have treated children as data to be mined rather than young people to be protected. We cannot let social media bosses off the hook for the way in which they have normalised harm, prioritised profit and ignored warning signs. We cannot keep allowing them to act with impunity, putting our children at risk or continue to escape scot free.

While the consequences of their business models are borne by families, schools and already overstretched public services. Madam Deputy Speaker, as we have heard, harmful content and addictive algorithms are taking a profound emotional and psychological toll, contributing to rising levels of anxiety, depression and self-harm. The dangers cannot and should not be underestimated. It beggars belief that the tech companies have been able to operate without proper regulation. At the heart of this debate must be the children and young people who have been subjected to appalling online harms.

ChatGPT has reportedly given extremely harmful answers to young people experiencing a mental health crisis. While other AI chatbots possess the capabilities to foster intense and unhealthy relationships with vulnerable users and validate dangerous impulses. As we have heard, it has also been reported that ChatGPT and chatbots are advising children with potential eating disorders on dangerous meal plans of just 600 calories a day. This is terrifying. While I recognise the difficulties in policing everything online, will the Minister consider establishing a cross-government approach to ensure mental health support is expanded and to equip public services to respond effectively to social media related harms? Can the Minister also clarify if Ofcom is being given the resources to meet the scale of the challenge and oversee the rapid evolution of online technologies? Jim McMahon I'm going to carry on.

My constituent, Anne, who is a teacher, told me that she sees the mental health ramifications and the impact on education of mobile phone usage in schools, and believes the only way to protect the future of children is to ban their exposure to harmful apps. After meeting with a local headteacher a few weeks ago, I asked the Secretary of State what interim measures the government is considering to help schools manage pupils access to social media on mobile phones. The Minister stated in her response that phones should not be used in schools, but schools do need support to enforce this.

Without stronger enforcement tools, clear national standards and practical support, it will be very difficult for schools to get a grip on social media use during the school day without spending money. They simply do not have. We must also be clear eyed about the potential shortcomings of age verification schemes. Early reports from the Australian scheme have highlighted issues around security and privacy. Teenagers can still migrate to smaller apps, borrow credentials or find ways around age verification technology, all of which pose risks to their online safety.

Can the Minister confirm that the government's consultation will rigorously examine how systems can be designed to minimise data collection and safeguard the privacy of young people? Social media and online content have changed what it means to be a young person today. One constituent told me that her 11 year old daughter travels to school every day with fellow pupils. But because those girls have smartphones and like to scroll on the journey, she feels they are not interested in becoming friends with her, resulting in low self-esteem, isolation and not having local friends.

She dreads the emotional impact smartphones will have on her other child when he starts secondary school. Madam Deputy Speaker, The owner should not be on children and young people to protect themselves from online harms. It should be on platforms to prevent it in the first place. As long as the owners of tech companies allow harmful material to flourish, children are essentially being asked to build resilience and environments engineered to expose them to harm. We can teach children about online safety, respect, decency, courtesy and healthy relationships at home and in the classroom.

But that work is actively undermined online by algorithms, algorithms that reward extreme content, and by platforms that are too slow to remove illegal and abusive material. Ofcom should be strong in enforcing clear regulations that protect users. Liberal Democrats were the first to call for a ban on harmful social media, alongside a future proof style age rating system that focuses on the harms platforms pose. The widespread consensus in this House and across the country that something urgently needs to be done to stop children from accessing harmful online content, reflects a Preston desire for the government to get a grip of this crisis.

We must act now to protect children,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hold tech giants to account and ensure all children are safe. Online. Gareth Snell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gareth Snell. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I can, I will constrain my comments to three constrain my comments to three themes. I want, I want to start with the policy themes, and that's the fact that this has been the fact that this has been actually quite a very interesting and wide ranging debate today. We've heard from many speakers across the House who I think have across the House who I think have genuinely articulated some of the heartfelt and thoughtful concerns that all of us have about the way in which social media and its pervasive ways can influence our children, our friends, our families and young people in our society.

And I am the parent of a 15 year old. I know what that battle is like. Hearing that chirp of a Snapchat going off seconds. It sounds like some weekends as my daughter and her friends communicate in the modern way, understanding what she is doing on Roblox and the game that she is playing and who she might be interacting with, and the other platforms which frankly, are alien to me. As someone who is past the age where that stuff makes much more sense or of interest.

What I worry about is that the simple answer would be to say, we should ban it all, just just lock them all away until they're 16 and it will be fine. And it will be, and it'll be good. But actually, I worry about her walking down the street. I worry about who she's going to meet when she's walking to school. I worry about what what her interactions are in the physical world and simply saying, right, you're in your bedroom until you're 35, which, you know, occasionally discuss.

But but keeping them in the house is not a solution to those real world problems. Part of it is about how we we help young people understand the misinformation and disinformation that they're coming across, and about the way in which we regulate the platforms, in the content that they share, the part that we've missed today, I think in the many, many wonderful contributions from across the house is not just the platforms that share that content, but the creators who make that
18:18
Gareth Snell Portrait Gareth Snell MP (Stoke-on-Trent Central, Labour )
-
-
content in the first place. The people that go online to sow the seeds of hate and division, the homophobic content, the homophobic content, the Islamophobic content, the anti-Semitic content that all too often is passed off as criticism of often is passed off as criticism of of, of an Israeli government. The fact that we have many far right fact that we have many far right commentators in this country that put out toxic masculine culture commentary as though it is a reasoned point of debate.

And I don't understand when the when the Conservative Party talk about the free speech. But we've always been a country in a society where it isn't consequence free speech. There are consequences to things that you say and the actions that you do. And that is how we come to a society where we understand what the social norms are, and we seem to have sort of, sort of abdicated our responsibility in the online world to that. The second point about it is, and again, I talked about the the 15 year old, which was in fact my daughter, and she's now given me permission to to to out her in that sense.

But but, but the facilities that that I enjoyed when I was in my teens simply don't exist anymore. My daughter's world is as much her online friends and sphere of activity as it is the physical world in which we live, and disconnecting people from that because we think it's unsafe is a disservice to them. I'm also very slightly worried about the impact of the fact that we are soon to legislate. I understand and hope on a policy which I think will get mainly cross-party support about allowing 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote.

Now, I like to think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the political literature that I pushed through letterboxes in my constituency of such compelling interest that every young person is going to snatch it from the letterbox to read it, to think, that's what I'm going to vote for, vote for Gareth at the next election. I'm sure the Lib Dem focus has had the same impact on young people in their constituencies. The reality is young people don't read the emails that we send out, they don't read the leaflets we put out.

Not in that, not not as much as they should do. And so actually, lots of young people derive their information and their information and their news and their views from social media. And if we just say, you know what, we're going to cut it off. Where do we force those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

young people to go to? I'll happily give way to my friend. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I haven't mentioned Harlow yet today, so I feel I should. Yeah. When I spoke to some young people in Mark Hall School in my Chris Hinchliff Harlow there, my Chris Hinchliff Harlow there, I've done it about the potential social media ban. It's really interesting to hear what they had to say. Their view was we don't to say. Their view was we don't care about Facebook because only old people use Facebook, but they wouldn't want us to to ban platforms like WhatsApp, for platforms like WhatsApp, for example, which I didn't even think of necessarily as being social media.

But I suppose it is. So I wonder, would he agree with me that actually, as part of the government's consultation, it's really important that we do hear young people's voices to understand their views on this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely. And, you know, my hon. Friend, I understand, was a teacher in a in a previous career, teacher in a in a previous career, which. And so but that's exactly which. And so but that's exactly right. So so for me, when I think of social media, I think of the Twitter account that I have that's Twitter account that I have that's dormant and has been for years. My Facebook account, which I use for, you know, the clips in this place that we are all obliged to put out that we are all obliged to put out and deal with the comments that come underneath and and my WhatsApp, which, you know, seemingly every political party has to run with because without it we'd all stop talking to each other.

But for my daughter, it is her Snapchat account. And it's. And so I now have a Snapchat account with just one friend, which is her, and we use that as our communications. When I'm here and she's at home, it does mean that I get the voice notes and the little videos, and that's how we communicate and continue to keep our, you know, the conversations that we have on the weekends going of the week. And I think we've got to understand that. Where do we draw the line on some of this? Because I've the point about the YouTube, the access to YouTube, my daughter will freely use YouTube to help with her homework.

My daughter goes to a school where they are an iPad all school, so actually a lot of their homework is about screen time. As part of this consultation, there is a genuine thing to think about. We're going to tell you you can't use your phone. Your phone is the worst possible thing to have. But here's an iPad to look at for six hours a day. And if you get stuck on question six, go to YouTube video four and follow through the methodology. And I think we are going to think about what are the what are the points in this discussion where we are, on the one hand, giving one message and on the other it is an inconsistent approach to how we want.

And let's be honest, all of our children, all of the young people we're talking about the next, the first job they're going to have is going to be based on using AI, using some form of assistant, whether it be co-pilot or whatever, to do the job they do. And it's going to almost, almost entirely depend upon using technology. And so we are going to have to think about how we integrate that sort of future proofing into whatever regulation that we have. And my final point, Madam Deputy Speaker, is about the procedure.

And I'm very sorry to go back to the procedure, because actually, we've had a really good debate this afternoon, an excellent debate. I think I went to the public office. There is no bill that's referenced in here. It's completely blank. I understand the intention of the Liberal Democrat, should this be passed, is that there will be a consensus process to come up and write a bill in the next two weeks that we can then debate and pass in one day. As I said earlier, the complex nature of the things that we've heard today, whether it be from the the hon.

Gentleman from Winchester who talked very eloquently about the perils of eating disorders, and the hon. Lady from Bath who talked about the ability to sell drugs online, or whether it be the hon. Gentleman and lady on my side of the House who have talked about, and particularly from Milton Keynes Central, that talked about the way in which young people interact. This is going to be a complex piece of legislation. The idea we're going to do a Second Reading debate in two hours, and the full committee on Third Reading stage in one day of two hours, where there will be amendments and discussions, is simply impractical.

So whilst I genuinely hope that the content of the discussions that we've had today will lead to better legislation as part of the national consultation that my friends leading to do it in such a truncated way, in a single motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on a single day, I think would be bad legislation. Very briefly. I do thank you for giving me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do thank you for giving me. It's not just impractical, it's also anti-democratic, isn't it? Because I think as bills proceed through this place, we get through this place, we get interaction from our constituents. They want to influence how we're thinking, how we're voting. So it is important we have time to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

discuss these things with our constituents as well as within the chamber. I agree with you. I wouldn't say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with you. I wouldn't say it's undemocratic because and I'll be very clear, I don't like the principles of the of opposition taking over the Order Paper. I didn't like it or vote for it and my party tried to do it. We're in opposition during the Brexit years. I won't be supporting and doing it now. I would say though, the next time a Minister stands up and says we're moving at pace, I might pull my hair out what's left of it because.

Because what we need is some actual timescales about when things are going to happen. Sorry. Because otherwise we are going to find ourselves simply talking about this in circles. But, but, but I do think that what we've been able to establish today is where the core principles are that we all agree on. That is a good thing. And I hope that when the Minister is summarising the debate, he is able to give a little flavour as to when the consultation will start, how we can all get involved.

The hon. Member for Stafford and I are going to be doing events across our constituencies with our colleges to try and make sure that those views are harvested, that fed in, and what is a complex and nuanced issue gets the right hearing it deserves. So we get the legislation right first time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And we have three more speakers left. On starting from bench speeches at 20 to. So if we start speeches at 20 to. So if we start with a five minute time limit. Susan Murray. Thank you very much,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Susan Murray. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have all. Learned that if an online

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Learned that if an online service is free, then we are the product. That's the business model used by the social media giants. used by the social media giants. They track what we watch, what we click, what we like, what we fear. They then build detailed profiles of our behaviour, and they turn that behaviour into data and advertising revenue. These platforms platforms don't just host content, they actively shape what we see. They promote material, target adverts, 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 well-being. They feed on outrage, division and shock
18:26
Susan Murray Portrait Susan Murray MP (Mid Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
to keep, to keep us scrolling so users are pushed towards more users are pushed towards more extreme content. Not because it's true, not because it's healthy, but true, not because it's healthy, but because it's profitable. And we can see the consequences in the real world. Young people in particular are vulnerable as 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

quickly in a defined timeline to protect children and young people on that point. I thank the. Member for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member for. Giving way because last. Week, the CEO of. Meta took to stand in. Los Angeles as part of a landmark.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Angeles as part of a landmark. Trial examining Instagram's impact on the mental health of young users. And this really highlights the confusion about who is responsible for what. The online space. We know that we need government legislation, but we also need clarity on what social media companies are responsible for. So, companies are responsible for. So, does my hon. Friend agree with me that it's 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.

I absolutely agree with that. So thank you very much for making that point. It's really important that it is clear who is accountable for the harms that occur. And that's 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 so clearly laid out, this helps parents and carers to keep children safe. We already accept this in other areas of life. Not every film is suitable for every age group, so we rate it.

Not every game is suitable for every child, so we rate it. Social media should be no different. If a platform unasked can expose a child to violent content, misogyny, self-harm content, or extreme or extremist propaganda, then 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've heard, it can help people stay in touch with friends and family again.

As we've heard, it can open up access to information, support and communities that people might not otherwise find. But those benefits don't cancel out the harms. We're not trying to get rid of social media, but we must take a sensible approach to ensure that multi-billion 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, and we have a responsibility to regulate here.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. This makes me more frustrated than just about anything frustrated than just about anything else in this place. The level of ignorance and stupidity and hypocrisy there is from so many hypocrisy there is from so many people in here, specifically about the access for children to social the access for children to social media. The Lib Dems position I intended fully to support the Lib Dems position in the longer the Lib Dem spokesperson spoke, the less I wanted to support their position because I.

I don't believe that the government's position on this is 100% right. I'm glad that they're having a consultation. I do not like the way that they're amending the Children's Wellbeing in Schools Bill, which is a devolved bill to change the territorial extent of that. In order to bring this into scope, a bill which we have not scrutinised because it's a devolved bill and will now have a reserved section in it, it does not apply to Scotland apart from one clause at the moment.

Now it will apply to Scotland because it will include this. We have not had the opportunity to scrutinise it and therefore have not been involved in that process. I do not think that it is right that this amendment should come forward in this way. I appreciate why the government is doing it, and that is why I'm asking for the amendment to be shared with us as soon as possible, so that we can see it, because we've not had a chance to look at this bill as it's gone along in terms of the Lib Dems position.

Again, Lib Dems have said that they made their position clear during the Online Safety Act. I can so far find three amendments that were put forward by Lib Dems. One of them was put forward by the Lib Dem spokesperson, who asked for in 12 months time, an independent evaluation of whether or not more platforms should be subject to child safety duties. The Lib Dems, who are currently accusing the government of kicking the can down the road despite the fact that they
18:31
Kirsty Blackman Portrait Kirsty Blackman MP (Aberdeen North, Scottish National Party)
-
-
asked for a 12 month evaluation on an independent basis. There's hardly anything in the Lib Dems previous positions that makes me understand what their current position is. The Tory party's position is. The Tory party's position is totally incoherent. They refused my amendment on on They refused my amendment on on reducing, habit forming and algorithmic features. They refused my amendment on that. They refused my amendment on that. They refused my amendments on live streaming. By the way, live streaming had been mentioned before the minister's dear colleague letter.

Live streaming had been mentioned 53 times across the two houses of this. A third of those mentions were by me. A third of them were me talking about how live streaming for children should be banned. Before today, Roblox had been mentioned 32 times across both houses. 15 of those mentions were me saying Roblox is not a safe platform for children. I am massively in favour of improving the online world for children. I think social media should be about looking at videos of cats.

Love videos of cats are absolutely brilliant. That's what it should be for. I think it's a great place for children to interact with one another, but I have been making the case, and some other people in this chamber have been making the case that there are dangers on social media that can easily, easily be tackled by changing the Online Safety Act. Right. We could have got rid of those algorithms, algorithmic features for children. We could have got rid of live streaming. When I put the amendment in for that, we could have got rid of private matching and allowing children access to private messaging features with people that they don't know.

We could have got rid of that, which also was an amendment that I put in during the course of the Online Safety Act. I do not like the way this is being done, though, because it's an amendment to Children's Wellbeing in Schools Bill. And then we will have secondary legislation which will possibly amend the Online Safety Act. I'm not 100% clear about how it's going to go. I appreciate that there needs to be a consultation previously in this place, before this Parliament, before the 2024 parliament, there was about three people in this entire place who had any grip of what the online world might have been like for children.

One of them was the hon. Member for Newcastle, who talked about some of these things. I asked the Minister about fortnight whether it would be included in the in the scope of the Online Safety Act, and the Minister said if there's text chat, text chat in Fortnite, it's an online game, right? There's not enough expertise in this place to ensure it not. And you know, much as I hugely appreciate the people that work on writing bills, which is a hugely appreciate the work of some of the experts at Ofcom, they are not experiencing the online world that children are experiencing.

That's why we need to listen, to ensure that any changes that are made are tackling the most harmful behaviours, are tackling the most harmful places on the internet, are tackling most harmful functionalities and I appreciate that the government is trying to take action on this now. However, one of the first things, one of the few things that has made me cry in frustration at this place, one of the first things the government did when it came in was put the secondary legislation in order to categorise platforms.

It refused to include the small, high risk platforms that had been added in the House of Lords. It said we are only categorising as category one platforms like Facebook that meet a certain threshold. I was so frustrated by this choice by the government. There needs to be more listening, learning where the actual dangers are and taking action on the actual dangers. Please do it in consultation with those of us who do understand this. Please listen to experts on this Caroline Voaden.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's clear all of us in here today want to see legislative today want to see legislative change to protect our children online. There's no doubt about that. The only debate left is how we do it. And we liberal Democrats do it. And we liberal Democrats do want to see some urgency. Yet more than a month on from when the than a month on from when the Secretary of State announced the consultation, we have seen absolutely nothing from the government, and the Minister today failed to answer my question from the Dispatch Box about when we could expect to see that consultation now, given how the government put pressure on the hon.

Member for Whitehaven and Workington to water down his Stafford phones bill back in 2024, they will forgive me for having little confidence that they are genuinely serious about legislating for this any time soon. But Madam Deputy Speaker, I think there is a disconnect in our society where we assume that as soon as our children come home through the front door, they are safe. Safe from whatever harms exist in the outside world. They can just happily hop onto the computer, boot up the PlayStation, or relax and scroll on their phone.

But in reality, the harms that children face online are far more significant, constant and pervasive than any that they face outside. In the real world, children and particularly vulnerable children are at greater risk of grooming, seeing something violent or harmful, forming an addiction, or damaging their mental or physical health from being online, and they are from playing outside. A 2020 survey by Internet Matters found that two thirds of children say they experience harm online. 1 in 5 had encountered violent content, and over a quarter of children have been contacted by strangers online.

And I think it's probably safe to say that there are far more paedophiles sitting in a dark room in their underpants on a screen these days than waiting in the local park for a child to walk by. When Charlie Kirk was shot in the US, children as young as eight were watching that video within hours here in the UK. And the bottom line is that parents are simply not
18:36
Caroline Voaden Portrait Caroline Voaden MP (South Devon, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
aware of the dangers that their children are being exposed to online. We've talked a lot in here, online. We've talked a lot in here, some brilliant contributions about the lack of socialising outside, playing outside, the damage to playing outside, the damage to physical and mental health, the impacts on eating disorders, buying drugs online and far more. And I've talked a lot in this house about my belief that we should have a ban on belief that we should have a ban on phones in schools, and one of the reasons for that is that the evidence shows where a secondary school has a total ban on on schools, on having a phone in school or bringing a phone into school.

It means that parents of the feeder primary schools are not under pressure to buy their children phones at the age of 10 or 11, they're delaying it till 12, 13, even 14. So we are giving children precious extra years where they can grow up a bit in the real world before they are given a device, and I think every single year counts at that age. I don't know if a lot of time, but very quickly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is exactly what is happening in Tunbridge Wells. The secondary schools in Tunbridge Wells have moved together to make smartphone free schools, and now the primary schools are talking about it. In a conversation with the parents.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the parents. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. So the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Democrats are calling on the government to ban harmful social media for under 16 year olds by introducing age ratings similar to introducing age ratings similar to film classifications, so that we can rate platforms. And we've talked a lot about this according to the harm they present. And the Member for Milton Keynes Central raised the issue of Roblox, as has my hon. Friend behind me.

I can't remember her seat, and Roblox is clearly a clearly something that we need to be aware of. The harms and our approach would include all user to user platforms such as forums and online gaming, including Roblox, to ensure that children are properly protected from harm wherever they are engaging with others online. Now, I just want to say one thing about the importance of the online world to children. Back in 2003, my husband died and I was a very young widow and I didn't know any other young widows.

And I joined an organisation which had a chat room. So this is back in the dark, the, the, the dark old days where you had a very static chat room. Some of you are too young young to even know what that is. But late at night, when I was on my own, that place was a real lifeline and and a real connection for me with other people who'd been through the same tragedy. And my children got to know other children who had lost a parent who'd been bereaved.

And I know that the charity I later became chair of now has forums, online forums where those bereaved children can speak to each other. Now, you're probably the only kids in your school at age 5 or 6 whose dad has died, so it's really important to be able to have those conversations with other children. You know, we talk a lot about the LGBT community, but I know from my personal experience that my kids would really have benefited from being able to stay in touch with those other kids that they met occasionally on weekends away, if they could have chatted to them online.

So I absolutely know the value of these online spaces for children, but I also am aware of the danger. Our approach is supported by 42 charities and experts that work with children, violence against women and children, and online safety. We believe it's a really valid proposal. We want everybody to come together in this House. We want to work cross-party. We believe we know we need to legislate and we want to do this together because we owe it to our children. We are the adults in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

room. We have to protect them and we have to do it now. Well. Collins.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Collins. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'd like to start by saying I've actually been quite shocked at some of the procedural discussion around this for several reasons. The first this for several reasons. The first thing is we're acting like this has just come up recently, even in the House of Commons under this mandate. House of Commons under this mandate. So there was the the Member for South Devon mentioned the fact that the Safer phones bill was put forward in 2004.

As Liberal Democrats, we put forward amendments to change the age of data, consent to ban those addictive algorithms. There's also been calls to action on Doomscroll caps. We have highlighted the harms on AI chatbots, but yet we're at a point and I, I absolutely respect what the member from North Aberdeen was saying about actually the we have a consultation put forward, but then actually we we don't know what is coming from that from the government. That consultation was put forward over a month ago.

We still don't know the details. And there are things going through the House of Lords, which again, we don't know the details. At the very least, what we're trying to do is Liberal Democrats is today we gave the space for that discussion is to say, yes, we need to start putting forward that legislation if there's another chance to debate that, what is the harm in that? Because this is such a crucial issue. And that brings me to my second point, which
18:41
Victoria Collins Portrait Victoria Collins MP (Harpenden and Berkhamsted, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
is this is not an issue that turned up yesterday as the Member for Newcastle Central was talking about Newcastle Central was talking about was that this has been harms that have been happening for years when it comes to social media, when it it comes to social media, when it comes to Facebook, that's been over 22 years that that's been there. We have had and I'll go on to a little bit more of that in a moment. But also other countries around the world are taking leadership on this world are taking leadership on this and saying that we have to act now, the point being that at the very least, a consultation could have been launched earlier.

This is not something new in Parliament of this Parliament. And we're saying actually action needs to be taken. But most importantly, the parents, the children, the experts who are watching this debate, they want to see us taking that issue seriously and they are watching. But for me, it really is the children and young people at the heart of this. And so for me, I think back to the first time I met some of the sixth form students at Ashton School in Berkhamsted, and I will never forget sitting around that table with one sixth former, let's call him James.

Today he told me about his fears about mental health of his friends. He warned about the self-harm that he was seeing amongst his peers that his teachers weren't even aware of, and he talked about the role of social media. A few weeks later, I was pulled to one side at Saint George's School in Harpenden, where some young women shared with me their concerns about the growing misogyny that was lived out by young men, but had started on social media. But since then, I've then carried out a safer screen tour of young people, where students have talked about brain rot, about seeing the extreme content that the algorithm continues to push to them even when they try and block it.

And the Member for North West Cambridgeshire talked about that as well. And one of the students said it is addictive, as addictive as a drug. And they they see the harms of it every day. And so this is the tipping point, and I am surprised that many members think it isn't. I do think there was a debate of actually highlighting that this is that moment. But parents, teachers, experts and even young people themselves are crying out for action and have been for a long time to tackle the social media giants who have no care for their mental health.

And as I said, this tipping point has been years in the making. So Facebook was launched 22 years ago, and indeed a Netflix documentary from six years ago has started to highlight the warnings from people who worked in tech about social media. And one expert said that it's it's they're using their psychology against you. And having worked in tech myself, I've read the books. I've received the training of how how those social media giants get us hooked. It is really part of what's been built into that, and that awareness is growing.

And I'd like to thank organisations like smart Smartphone, Free Childhood, The Health Professionals for Safer Screens, Molly Rose Foundation, Internet Watch Foundation, Online Safety Act network and projects that Digital Nutrition Project and member for Milton Keynes talked about it being a kind of online diet. There is, you know, that analogy has been made by others and the work has been to say, actually, what are what is the guidance around that? And that's just to name a few who have worked tirelessly to ensure these voices are heard.

And I'd also like to thank pupils in my constituency, like from Roundwood Park, Saint George's to John Laws, Berkhamsted School, Ashlyns and students who have openly shared their experiences. But their hopes and their concerns about the online world and their concerns are not just about content. As has been mentioned. This is also about addiction. And so let me be clear. Like the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire mentioned, the core of this issue is that this is the attention economy. So we our children are the product.

It is their attention, their focus and their time that is being sold to line the pockets of tech billionaires. And as I said, finally, governments around the world are taking action. And it's that seat belt moment where we say enough is enough. And the Member for Stoke on Trent talked about actually really trying to get this right. And I and I respect that. But I often think if we were able to walk down the street and have a kind of 3D version of actually what young people were seeing in their online world, action would have been taken so much sooner.

And indeed, the Member for Eastleigh talked about holding those tech companies to account. We need to start unpacking what children are seeing and finally take that action. The Online Safety Act has done great work, but it doesn't go far enough. It sets out illegal harms and a code for inappropriate content for over 18. So children are that over 18, but not a framework of legal harms or age appropriate content. And the age of social media of 13 is actually based on data processing, which is managed by the Information Commissioner's Office and has nothing to do with actually what is age appropriate in that content.

And Doctor Caitlin Rayner, who also who's the author of Smartphone Nation, talks about how it's reactive and not proactive, and it leaves it up to the user to report problems rather than putting the burden of safety on tech giants. And we must ensure that we build on the OSA and we learn the lessons from Australia. And indeed, the Member for Milton Keynes also talked about this, where, for example, in Australia, we see there's a wide definition of social media, which has been left to a small group to decide what's appropriate.

But this is meant we have a situation where YouTube has been banned, but YouTube kids under 16 but YouTube kids hasn't, with no real framework of why that is, apart from they deem that YouTube kids should be safer. But we also see that WhatsApp has not been banned and that is possibly the right thing. But it's legislators are left to play then whack a mole. As new social media apps pop up and and it doesn't give a framework of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

harm for new for from AI, I will very briefly give way. I want to give them the time. On that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that. It's also just bans them holding accounts. It doesn't ban them using any of the platforms. They can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

still use YouTube. They just can't have an account. Absolutely. And YouTube is everywhere, is embedded in in almost every website that will have a video. But also so the Member for Aberdeen North asked about AI Aberdeen North asked about AI chatbots. And so in the proposals that we've put forward in the Lords, the user to user services are the AI chatbots. Now, we highlighted for a long time what the potential harms from AI chatbots are not covered. That is absolutely the case.

But Ofcom have clarified that AI chatbots are the user to user service. It is the harms such as AI psychosis. And the Member for Winchester alluded to that it is those harms that are not. And that is why the harms based approach that we're putting forward is so important. And so, as the Member for Twickenham opened up with, the Liberal Democrats have been leading the work on online safety in Parliament. In this Parliament, we were the first party to push a vote on banning addictive algorithms.

We've called for those health warnings and a doom scroll cap. And then today we're calling for a vote about the age of social media and online harms. And we are calling for that ban of harmful social media based on a film style age rating. And that harms based approach holds the tech companies to account and sets a world pioneering approach to online standards, and prepares for that future that has already arrived today. About AI, chatbots and games like Roblox. When it comes to that offline world which has already been discussed, you have.

If you're buying a toy for young children at this point, we would expect you have age ratings. You know it's appropriate. You know that it's safe when you watch films. There have been age ratings for over 100 years, actually, and yet we haven't had that in the online world. And this harms based approach is backed by 42 charities and experts who work to protect children, stop violence against women and girls, and make the internet a safer place. But we are also calling for a reset because enough is enough, including a minimum age of 16 for social media and real accountability for tech companies.

But with that age rating, film style, age rating, to say, we need to make sure that we get the best out of the internet for young people and protect them from those harms. And for me, so it comes back to James, his friends, those young women I spoke to, the the young children that I've spoken to around the constituency, we do not have time to waste. That is why we are pushing forward these motions, these bills, because we're calling for action. And I do call on MPs across the House to put children before politics, because we did exactly that in the Lords, that amendment in the Lords, which is a potential blanket ban.

We're uncomfortable with that approach. We much prefer ours. But we knew that the future of children came first. And for young people who've spoken out and shared their concerns and horror stories, we must help the next generation to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

get the best of the online world and protect them from the worst. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Madam Deputy. Speaker, thank. You very. Much indeed. Can I thank the party opposite for securing this party opposite for securing this debate? I am slightly disappointed that the way in which it has been done, but I will not concentrate on the procedural issues. But it seems the procedural issues. But it seems to me the argument is to give the Liberal Democrats freedom of this House, to bring a piece of legislation that they want to work on, but have all the answers that would go into that already.

And I think the the procedural way in which this debate has really serious debate has been brought is rather unfortunate. And I think you've seen that through the strength of feeling that is demonstrated in the debate today. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, I reflect on this, that I am completely, utterly split. The the
18:50
Ian Murray Portrait Rt Hon Ian Murray MP, Minister of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Edinburgh South, Labour)
-
-
shadow Secretary of State asked us to give an opinion on what we thought, but I do not really know thought, but I do not really know what is the best thing to do here. I have a five year old girl and a one year old girl, and the jobs one year old girl, and the jobs that they will do when they're any of our ages have probably not been invented yet, and how I want them invented yet, and how I want them to be able to live their lives and exploit and experience and enjoy social media and what new tech has to offer.

But I want them to do that safely. So denying them that opportunity might not be the answer, but that is why the consultation is put in place. And I do appreciate that. The Member for Twickenham, who opened up this debate mentioned her own children and that daily fight between screen time and online and trying to do something else. I am sure I had the same fight with my parents to try and turn the television off at night. So this isn't a new a new battle, but it is a battle that parents will win.

I can assure you that we would require to negotiate on that, or treat them with sweets or something else, but it does highlight the importance of the approach that we are taking, which contradictory, which is why I think the consultation and national conversation is really important. 99% of 12 to 17 year olds reported benefits from being online, and half of parents think that the benefits outweigh the risks their children being on social media. But just 3 in 10 parents think the benefits outweigh the risks. And if you see all of that data and there are whole host of data in that context, you think there is a really difficult issue to try and resolve, and then you come to the child sexual exploitation issues and abuse that we have 41,000 obscene publication offences in December 2024, and 860% increase in a decade.

And in September 2025, there were 42,000 obscene publication offences and nearly 1,000% increase. Since 2013. 91% of child. I'll just come to you in a second. 91% of child sex abuse material found online is self-generated, often under pressure from manipulation. And let us just be quite clear in this House that this Dispatch Box because some of the members in this House who are not present do not actually get this, but it is illegal to possess or distribute child sexual abuse images, including those generated that are AI, regardless of whether it depicts a child or not.

It is already against the criminal law, and the Online Safety Act requires in-scope services to assess the risks to the users. For child sexual abuse material that cannot be clearer. I am very happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am truly grateful to the Minister for giving way. And of course, he's right. There is all kinds of evidence about online activity, but what's plain and activity, but what's plain and truthful is that academic evidence suggests not only are the risks the kind that he's just described, the kind that he's just described, the risk of abuse and exploitation and so on. But children's very consciousness is being altered. There are socialise, there is to learn their ability to comprehend.

So that of itself requires the government to act for a generation of children are being exploited by heartless tech companies who are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

careless of the damage. They do. Appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's intervention and I'm sorry to upset my hon. Friend, but sorry to upset my hon. Friend, but we, the government, are acting. We are acting at pace, but we want to act in the right way and we have to act in the right way, because this is such a complex and serious issue, because it is important. We know it is important that children can seize the opportunities that being online can offer. We heard that from some schools that are iPad only and parents must be confident only and parents must be confident and parents, this is a key issue in terms of parents must be confident that they are safe.

We do not want to exclude children from services which are age appropriate or which benefit their well-being. We need to act on the evidence, making sure that we strike the right balance between protecting children's safety and well-being, and enabling them to use technology in positive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and empowering ways. Very happy today. I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he share my disappointment that in this debate on on child protection, the protection of children from some of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the most obscene abuse, not one member of the Reform Party is present here? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the Reform Party want to dismantle the Online Safety Act with all its potential imperfections that we are trying to resolve and get implemented and take this forward through the consultation. They want to scrap it. And I've already said that anybody who thinks that the illegal possession and creation of child sexual images is acceptable under the banner of free speech, it does not deserve to be sitting in this House, in my opinion. Let me just run through, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I do only have a few minutes and many people have made some superb contributions.

But I do say to the shadow spokesperson, in terms of the contribution she made, I have no idea if she now supports this or not. I don't know if she puts Online Safety Act. I don't know if she supports taking this forward in terms of a consultation, but we do have to be evidence led because we share the same thing. We want to keep children safe online. And she politicised the whole issue. It is not contradictory to want your children to have access to social media and benefit from it, but also to protect them.

That does not seem to me to be contradictory at all. In fact, it is the way in which most members have spoken. Lots of Liberal Democrat members in particular have asked about timelines. Let me just say to you, there is not too many sleeps to go before you see the consultation. But crucially, the government will table amendments to the Children's Wellbeing in Schools Bill to allow us to implement the outcomes of the consultation quickly through secondary legislation within months. So before the summer, as my hon.

Friend said, there is a legislative primary legislative vehicle there already for us to put the secondary legislation in. And I do understand the Member for Aberdeen North who says they have not scrutinised the legislation. That's the that's the position of the SNP that does not scrutinise legislation that is that is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. But that is the decision that you make and not the decision of this House in terms of its procedures. Can I just mention the chair of the Select Committee and the members of it and thank them and pay tribute to them for all the work that they are doing in this? They are experts in this, and I have enjoyed listening to what they have said, but also in terms of what they are doing.

One of the issues I wanted to raise is the amplification and advertising that were mentioned by the Member for Bath in terms of drugs policy as well, and can I assure you, as our joint Minister for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, I chair the Online Advertising Task force and that is dealing with these issues and trying to deal with these issues in terms of that online advertising, working with the Home Office in terms of that fraud strategy. So we're trying to make sure that the online advertising spaces is well regulated and is well looked after as not the Member for Aberdeen North.

She is absolutely right to talk about eating disorders and she is absolutely right to talk about suicide. I have heard some absolutely horrific stories, the most unimaginable stories that nobody could even write in their wildest dreams about what is happening online with grooming of some mainly, mainly young girls, mainly from platforms where they're already vulnerable in terms of eating disorders. And that has to be dealt with. Live streaming of suicides is something that is creeping up and we'd have to do something about that.

And that is what this consultation is about. The Member for Winchester raises huge issues in terms of that eating disorders on AI chat. That is why chat bots will be included in the consultation. Milton Keynes Central there is a lot of work on this. She is one of the pioneers in here in terms of bringing these issues to the house. Algorithms will be part of the consultation as well, but young people do have to see what social media is. Social media to me is a 50 year old is Facebook and WhatsApp.

Social media to younger people is not that. In fact, they frown when I talk about Facebook because they think it's old technology like slates and and and chalks. My hon. Friend from North West Cambridgeshire says that the platforms must do better to police themselves, and they do have to do more, and talks about the addictive features, as many hon. Friends and hon. Members have addictive features will be part of the consultation as well, so please do get involved in that consultation.

The Member for Ashford raises the issue, as many other hon. Members did, about mental health and the correlation with mental health. The Department of Health and Social Care has a key role to play in this, and that was mentioned to two by the hon. Lady from the Liberal Democrats. And in terms of schools, 98% of primary schools and 90% of secondary schools already have policy on no phones in schools. But we are clear that the current guidance is not strong enough, and that is why the Department for education has published updated guidance on the use of mobile phones in schools.

And we because we want to be as clear as possible to schools, to parents and to young people that phones should not be so. And my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, who uses Snapchat to communicate with his one and only friend on Snapchat, which is his daughter. I hope she does not unfriend you after that contribution. Or you have. No, but but he's he's right to talk about the procedural motion in this. This is such a serious debate that we have to make sure we get that right.

Let me finish by talking about what many hon. Members have mentioned in terms of the international social media ban announcements from previous countries. We recognise the international efforts being made to tackle this challenging issue. Nobody has the right answer as yet, including the recent social media age limit for under 16 in Australia. We are working closely with them. And in closing, Madam Deputy Speaker, protecting children online and ensuring that online life is as fulfilling as that offline is one that a responsibility that this government takes incredibly seriously.

No child should have to navigate unsafe digital spaces or experience negative impacts on their health and wellbeing. And no parent should feel alone in making decisions to protect and support their children. Please get involved in the consultation and that is what the consultation is there to give us proper consideration on the most effective ways forward to deal with these problems that will be short and be sharp. It will last for three months and we have a legislative vehicle to take forward

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the proposals from that answer. The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I of the contrary, no. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary, no. Know Tellers for the ayes Tessa Munt Bobby Dean Tellers for the noes Nesil Caliskan
19:01
None Portrait Division:Online Harm:Child Protection
-

19:12
None Portrait Online Harm:Child Protection:Division
-

Order. Order. Order! Order. Order! The Order. Order! The ayes Order. Order! The ayes to Order. Order! The ayes to the Order. Order! The ayes to the right 69. The noes to the left 279. The ayes to the right with 69. The noes to the left with 279. So the noes have it. The noes have it unlocked? Yes. We must now take the motion relating to deferred divisions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. To move. I beg to move. The question is that the motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the motion related to deferred divisions, as many as are of that opinion, say I many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Point of order. Gregory Campbell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point of order. Gregory Campbell. Next week I. Madam Deputy Speaker, we mark Saint David's Day and the relevant flag flies within and the relevant flag flies within the parliamentary estate. Similarly, the relevant symbols fly on Saint George's Day and Saint Andrew's Day. This doesn't, however, happen on Saint Patrick's Day, which occurs in three weeks time. I have raised this on numerous occasions, both inside the chamber and outside. Mr. speaker kindly responded to my latest letter to him and he responded and said that responsibility in regard to this issue rests with both DCMS and the FCDO.

I have written to both departments and I am awaiting a response. I want to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, if the speaker has received any indication from either Department of their intention to come to the House in advance of March 17th, to indicate that this issue will be remedied as soon as possible, and what I might do if they have not done that are done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I have received no notice from I have received no notice from Ministers that they intend to make a statement on this matter. Ministers on the front bench, Ministers on the front bench, however, will have heard the hon. Member's point of order. The hon. Member is, of course, free to pursue this matter through other means, including through parliamentary questions on which he may want to consult the table may want to consult the table office.

We now move to the motion on Charter for Budget Responsibility. Minister to move. Minister.
19:15
Torsten Bell Portrait Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Swansea West, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I beg to move that the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, that motion relates to the UK's fiscal framework. It is a framework that matters. It guides fiscal policy, and it provides both transparency and accountability. Since coming to office, this government has reformed the fiscal framework and, more broadly, set the public finances on a sustainable footing at the autumn Budget. That included doubling the buffer against our fiscal rules, providing more certainty and stability for taxpayers and for businesses.

This is a core part of a wider economic strategy, including Budget measures to reduce inflation, pushing down on the cost of living. All this helps to push down on interest rates and give businesses the confidence to invest. This is the right thing, the right plan and things are moving in the right direction. Just last week, we learned that January saw a £30.4 billion public finance surplus, the highest monthly surplus on record. Madam Deputy Speaker, that is all supported by our reforms to the fiscal framework.

We have reset the fiscal rules to reprioritise public investment and introduced a fiscal lock to ensure governments cannot sideline the office for Budget Responsibility. As we sadly saw under the last Parliament, we are also committed to delivering one fiscal event a year, delivering on our manifesto and bringing the UK into line with the vast majority of advanced economies. At the Budget, the Chancellor announced plans to strengthen that commitment. We are doing so by drawing on recommendations from the IMF. In their article four report last summer, the IMF made the case that fiscal policy stability would be aided by ensuring that the fiscal rules would only be assessed once a year.

We agree. So this government is legislating to ensure this is the case. To deliver this change, we are updating the two core parts of the fiscal framework. First, updating the primary legislation, the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act, 2011 via the Finance Bill. Clause 251 of the Finance Bill provides for one fiscal rules assessment per financial year. We are also updating legislation, the charter for Budget Responsibility. This is the subject of debate. The updated charter reinforces the Finance Bill change.

It makes no changes to the fiscal rules, but ensures that those rules should only be assessed once per financial year, specifically, removing the requirement in chapter four of the charter for the OBR to conduct a fiscal rules assessment alongside any forecast. This ensures we can reduce the number of fiscal rules assessments a year without any reduction in fiscal transparency. This government is absolutely committed to the OBR's independence and its vital role in providing regular assessments of the economy and the public finances.

The OBR will continue to publish a second five year forecast in the spring. This will aid transparency and inform the Debt Management Office's financing remit, but the government will not normally respond with fiscal policy. I look forward to seeing a few more hon. Members of this House for the next of these forecasts. The spring forecast a week today. Madam Deputy Speaker, I recommend the House approves the updated charter, and I commend the motion to this House.
19:18
Richard Fuller Portrait Richard Fuller MP (North Bedfordshire, Conservative)
-
-
The question is, as on the Order Paper, shadow Secretary of State.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. And may I thank the Minister for a succinct opening speech? Madam Speaker, the charter for Budget Responsibility charter for Budget Responsibility seeks to confer the important attributes of stability and attributes of stability and credibility to a government's management of public finances and the wider economy. Stability and the wider economy. Stability and credibility are not exactly the first two words that spring to mind to describe the current government's management of the economy through its own incompetence, it has provided presided over a chaotic year that has shredded any remaining confidence in the Chancellor and her team and, more importantly, has done lasting damage to the life chances of so many young people who now cannot find work.

And as the Chancellor prepares her spring statement, we have a Prime Minister living on borrowed time. This government is painfully lacking in real world economic experience, and it desperately needs help. So will. So we will not be opposing the measures this evening. Very happy to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the Minister share the concerns that many and probably all MPs from Northern Ireland have? And MPs from Northern Ireland have? And that's in relation to how this Budget is, by the way, can first of all, should have welcomed the the good news that there has been in recent to the tax surplus to the the that's good news. I mean who the that's good news. I mean who wouldn't who wouldn't be churlish not to welcome that as for benefit of us all but just to say this and of us all but just to say this and and it comes to Northern Ireland and to the Northern Ireland Executive, the Northern Executive are find it incredibly difficult to make ends meet.

They make the Budget balance, they make the books balance. And one of those things that we look back on is the Barnett consequential. And it's been promised for many times over a number of years that the Barnett consequential would be addressed. Now, that hasn't happened. But every time the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee have said it, individual MPs have said it. MPs, I'm sorry, governments, conservative government and this government have said they would look at it, but nothing has happened. Does the Minister believe it's now time to get things right for Northern Ireland? The Budget to help us to govern and deliver the goods as the government is doing here? Thank you.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank my right hon. My hon. Friend, for his his intervention. I think his issue about Barnett consequentials one directly for the Minister to reply. directly for the Minister to reply. But the United, the Conservative and Unionist Party, as you know, has a very strong as he knows, has a very strong support and kinship with our citizens in Northern Ireland. As to his comment about Ireland. As to his comment about the the revenues that the government received in January of this year, I would just point out to my hon.

Friend that that in large part was due to self-assessment returns in the year and capital gains returns that we filed in that year. And in fact, I think when we tease through the data, we will see that a lot of that came from people making what in the long run, were not economic decisions in their own interests caused and made because they were of the uncertainty that was brought into the economy through the Chancellor herself, confusing the people for an entire year.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, to illustrate the chaos in the last year, let me remind the House what the then chief Secretary said in this equivalent debate on the Charter last year, the then chief Secretary said, quote, growth is the primary mission of this government. But since then and comparing the OBR forecast from 2024 and 2025, growth is down in each year of the forecast period. In 2026, it's down to 1.3% from 1.8%. It's down in 2027, it's down in 2028, and it's down in 2029.

The Chief Secretary that last year said, quote, the Chancellor's autumn 2024 Budget put the public finances back on track and we will keep them there. But no, since that statement, the Chancellor has brought forward proposals to cut £5 billion from welfare. Then she reversed them. She said that she would stick to the two child benefit cap. Then she caved in to Labour backbenchers. The Chancellor has been forced to U-turn on her removal of winter fuel payments to pensioners. She's turned on her plans to cut to tax at pubs out of existence, and she has U-turned on her damaging plans on the family farm tax and the family business tax.

And after having said that she would not be coming back for more taxes, she did indeed come back to whack the British people again. With tax increases amounting to over £26 billion. And when this government came to office, the forecast was that the government would need to borrow 77 billion this finance fiscal year. But under this Chancellor, that level of borrowing has ballooned to 120 billion so far, and it's forecast to reach £138 billion by the end of the year, according to November 2025.

OBR public sector net debt will continue to rise over the forecast period, despite labour raising taxes to record levels, debt rising from 93.6% of GDP to 97% by the time of the next general election in 20 2829. If this government lasts that long, given the wreckage it has caused in the general economy, Labour's spin doctors have started to claim the government has the fastest deficit reduction plan in the G7. But that is only because this government has spent so recklessly in its first years, and achieving this remarkable reduction rests on the credibility of the government's plans to raise taxes ahead of a general election, and on their ability to rein in public spending in the out years.

Plans, surely, which they're skittish backbenchers will stymie if that government lasts that long. Madam Deputy Speaker, there are two changes I would like to note in this revised charter. The first is the decision to change the definition of the current Budget being, quote unquote, in balance. The previous charter in clause 3.6 said dot dot dot, where balance is defined as a range in surplus or deficit of no more than 0.5% GDP. The current charter does not include this condition.

I'd like to ask the Minister, why has the decision been made to remove that flexibility? And also, I'd be interested in what he thinks of the Institute of Fiscal Studies recent report which stated, quote, the UK's fiscal framework is based around a set of pass fail numerical fiscal rules. The fiscal debate is overly fixated on the amount of headroom the government has against the most binding of these rules. The system incentivises the government to operate with the smallest amount of headroom possible, with policy often fine tuned according to the central point of a highly uncertain forecast from the OBR.

The IFS report recommended that the UK would be better served by a new framework based around a set of fiscal traffic lights. The government appears to have gone in the opposite direction to these recommendations by stressing the importance of pinpoint accuracy, and I would just be interested in the Minister's views on that. Now to the most significant change, Madam Deputy Speaker, the removal of what in the previous charter was clause 4.27. The removed clause said, quote, at the same time as the forecast, the OBR will produce its assessment of the extent to which fiscal policy has delivered or is likely to deliver the fiscal mandate, unquote.

So the government has removed the opportunity for an independent assessment by the OBR ahead of the government's spring statement. Yet last year, many of the OBR, the OBR, significantly revised many of its previous assessments ahead of the spring spring statement. Then the OBR wrote that they were expecting GDP growth of 1%, half the rate of October forecast and CPI inflation to rise from 2.5% to 3.2%, 0.6% to rise from 2.5% to 3.2%, 0.6% higher than forecast in October.

I. I've been called kiddo for a while. It is exactly right. Exactly right. So it is important. This is an important point. I hope my my friend the the whip understands on our side understands. This is an important point to make. It may have taken me some time to get there, Madam Deputy Speaker, but this is the this is the important, important point. So the issue here is why make this change now? The Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 is clear that the OBR must prepare fiscal and economic forecasts and assessments at least twice a year.

Clause 251 of the finance number two bill, while retaining the requirement for the OBR to prepare forecasts twice a year, seeks to remove the requirement in the 2011 act for the OBR to provide their assessment twice a year. So perhaps the Chief Secretary can confirm that the reason we are debating. Sorry. So perhaps the Minister, the wannabe Chancellor. So perhaps the Minister can confirm that the reason we are debating today a revised charter, the now excludes an OBR forecast just ahead of the spring statement, is specifically to preclude the OBR doing its own assessment on the imminent spring statement.

Madam Deputy Speaker we we're supporting the measure tonight, but not with any confidence in this government's handling of the economy. In lacking that confidence, we are not alone. According to the latest survey of Business Confidence, business confidence fell again in the last quarter of 2025, with record concerns about the tax burden on business. In its December 2025 survey, YouGov found that 80% of the British people thought the government was handling the economy badly. It is a sorry, sorry state for our great country.
19:29
Charlie Maynard Portrait Charlie Maynard MP (Witney, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Perhaps. Spokesperson Charlie Maynard. Maynard. and. >> I will not burden the House with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will not burden the House with too long a speech. There are a lot of issues with the government's and the country's economic policy the country's economic policy making process, but I think there is some good argument for reducing the number of fiscal events which create artificial cliff edges. But I also note the concerns, including from the IFS, that it looks more like a way to reduce scrutiny of the government's economic record. Fundamentally, if we are serious about the responsible management of public finances, about tackling our high levels of debt and about getting our economy growing again, then I am most interested in how we scrutinise our government's tax and spending plans.

The current situation where we have months and months of speculation and then approve hundreds of billions of pounds worth of government tax and spending with just a few hours of debate, with no one permitted to see what the Chancellor is proposing in the Budget until it is being announced as a fait accompli in Parliament is exceptional by international standards and a key source of uncertainty and instability. If the government truly wants to improve market confidence and this is where they should be looking to make reforms, we could look at Sweden, for example, where following a Budget crisis in the early 90s and soaring debt, they introduced proper parliamentary debate to the government's Budget, where alternatives and amendments are made before it is finalised.

It then gets a subsequent period of scrutiny and accountability. The fact that Sweden has seen years of strong growth, high living standards and that his debt has now dropped from 80% of GDP to 30%, is a positive endorsement of this approach. The reality is that incredibly important choices are made as a part of the Budget process. These choices impact the day to day life of each of our constituents, whether in Witney or any of our constituents that you all represent. The members all represent.

The people have a right to have the fullest possible picture as to how the government are going about setting their taxes, spending their money, and managing the economic picture. And this step will not achieve that alone. The government needs to foster stability and manage the public finances responsibly. That hinges on getting growth back into our economy and not pencilling in unfair tax rises in a last minute fashion at the end of the forecast period. Just to stick to the letter of the fiscal rules.

However, until the government grasps that nettle on much more fundamental reform of our Budget process, I do not think this will be achieved. And more critically, I do not think the dial will move on either economic growth or market confidence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you to the two front and thank you to the two front bench spokespeople, one of whom spoke admirably quickly, just briefly on the Lib Dem spokesman. I won't repeat the case for these changes given I think we've heard from both opposition parties that they're happy to support the government's changes to the charter today. So just directly on the questions raised from the Lib Dem
19:32
19:32
Torsten Bell Portrait Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Swansea West, Labour)
-
-
think that is important, and that's why we're maintaining the two forecasts a year, despite the one fiscal event. Turning to the opposition spokesperson, he asks, why make these changes now? The answer is that in our manifesto, we committed to one fiscal event a year, and the IMF have come forward with sensible recommendations to reinforce that. And we are just responding to the IMF's recommendations. He asked about the question about the the range that was contained in the previous charter that is being removed, because that only applied at the spring forecast.

And we're no longer carrying out a fiscal assessment at the spring forecasts. He asks about the IFS report on suggesting a a dashboard rather than the fiscal rules. I can tell him there'll be no change to the fiscal rules, although I obviously always enjoy reading any think tanks reports. And I'd point out that we've already doubled the headroom against the fiscal rules. But more importantly, I was just sad to hear the opposition spokesperson's remarks more generally because I always enjoy normally his perkiness at least outside of this chamber, but he has turned into a Gloucester the he has a total gloom store.

He's totally ignored the record monthly service surplus for the public finances. He's ignored the fact that wages are up, business investment is up. The GDP has grown the fastest of any European G7 economy. He's ignored the fact that GDP per capita has grown in 2025, after flatlining in the last year of the Tory government and falling in the parliament. Before that, he ignored inflation falling, interest rates falling. So I think it is right for the Gloomsters to be gloomy about his party's prospects, but not to be gloomy about the UK economy.

And on that basis, I commend this motion to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I. I. Know I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now move on to the petition. We'll give we'll give the front benchers a few moments to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to clear. Thanks. For that. Petition, Adam Jogee.
19:34
Adam Jogee Portrait Petition Adam Jogee MP (Newcastle-under-Lyme, Labour)
-
-
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The petition of residents of the constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme declares that there is growing concern in Madeley about proposals that would limit public access to College Fields, a green space that has been used by the community for many years, further declares that the prospect of fencing and restricted access has caused significant local opposition, and raised questions about how decisions affecting the site are being made. Further declares that College Fields is an important part of community life in Madeley, providing space for informal recreation, wellbeing and outdoor activity, and therefore losing or limiting access to this field would have a real impact on local people.

Further declares that local people have been clear that they want College Fields to remain open and accessible, and that any decisions about its future must be taken transparently and with meaningful community engagement. It further declares that imposing changes without proper consultation risks undermining trust and damaging a valued local asset, and notes that an online petition on the same issue has reached over 1000 signatures from people who live, learn and work in Newcastle-under-Lyme. The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons urges the government to encourage Staffordshire County Council in the strongest terms, to commit to protecting College Fields, to allow the erection of permanent fencing or other measures that would restrict public access, and to work constructively with Madeley Parish Council and the people of Madeley and other local stakeholders to agree a future for the site that reflects the needs and priorities of our community and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

petitioners remain, etc. Thank you.
19:36
None Portrait Adjournment: Potential implications of the judgment in the case of Advocate General for Scotland v Mr Charles Milroy
-

Madeley. >> I beg to move that this House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that this House do now adjourn. The question is that this House do now adjourn. Gavin Robinson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now adjourn. Gavin Robinson. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I through you thank the speaker for selecting this topic for our adjournment debate. And I'm very grateful to the Minister who is in her place. And it's the first time, I think, since she's been in this role, that we can engage in this way. So I look forward to that exchange. I do truly hope that we won't get 15 minutes elongation of the answer to the parliamentary question I got, which is that they do not wish to engage in this discussion at this time, but we shall see.

There's plenty of time for it to develop. Madam Deputy Speaker, when you look at the title, the potential implications of the judgement in the case of Advocate General for Scotland and Mr. Charles Milroy, I know there'll be some asking the question, what has this got to do with the Northern Ireland MP, or what has this got to do with the colleagues of mine that have kindly stayed in the chamber this evening? I can say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I don't know Charles Milroy, though I know of his service.

This afternoon I had the opportunity to speak with him for the first time, and I can recognise him as somebody who has served our country well over more than three decades. He joined the Territorial Army in 1982, was commissioned in 1983 and retired having served his time as a reservist as a commissioned officer, retired major in 2015, and when he retired, he sought to attain what
19:37
Gavin Robinson Portrait Rt Hon Gavin Robinson MP (Belfast East, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
his co-workers successfully already had, which was a pension, and in had, which was a pension, and in 2015, this House will remember the work of the former Armed Forces Minister, the right hon. Member for Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, who introduced a pension for reservists. introduced a pension for reservists. But Mr. Milroy was not entitled. He But Mr. Milroy was not entitled. He was told to a pension and for almost six years now he has been highlighting the legal entitlement that he has and he has been pursuing that legal entitlement through the courts and the law that lies behind that, as the Minister and colleagues will know, was the part time workers prevention of Less Favourable Treatment Regulations 2000, introduced into our domestic law by the previous Labour government, an entitlement that puts together somebody who works in part time basis, somebody who works in a full time basis and assesses is the part time worker being treated less favourably than their full time counterparts.

And now, on two occasions, Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Through the judgement of Lord Fairley in 29th of January of this year, have ruled that yes, he was being treated less favourably than his full time counterparts. And the reason that I'm raising this, and the reason I think it's important to raise, having served in our Defence Select Committee for eight years, over the course of a number of parliaments, and taking an interest in defence issues, and raised and championed cases not just for an individual but for the collective endeavour placed in service in this country.

I raise it because of the fundamental, important principles that lie

**** Possible New Speaker ****

behind this singular case. Of course. First of all, can I commend my hon. Friend and colleague, the Member for Belfast East, for for bringing this forward? As I met the bringing this forward? As I met the Pension Society guys on on Monday, I didn't know that my colleague and friend had actually got the friend had actually got the adjournment debate on this, but but whenever I showed it to them, they were incredibly interested and they were incredibly interested and they want to put on record their thanks to the hon.

Member for doing this. They're my right hon. Friend, understands much better than I would in Northern Ireland. Has identical legislation, provides the same protections for part time workers, and subsequently this will have a huge impact on Northern Ireland reserves. I declare an interest Madam Deputy Speaker as one who served in the and the part time as a part time soldier for some 14.5 years. Those are my member not agree with me that we must ensure that this process is handled quickly.

Urgency is of the importance to ensure that we rewrite the wrong stand with our ex-service personnel, who should never have to fight their government, their Minister, for that which has rightly been theirs.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend, and I do want to come on to the scope of this in a moment, the scope of this in a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I don't disagree with the points that he has made. When I mentioned earlier that I had a brief conversation that I had a brief conversation with Mr. Milroy this afternoon, I recognised him in the way he engaged with me and the way he outlined his experience in this. To be a true gentleman.

I recognised be a true gentleman. I recognised him as somebody who, for the last six years has fought to assert what is a legal entitlement now accepted by two courts within this land. I also recognise him to be a gentleman who was more interested still, having served as a senior military leader, more interested in those who lay beneath him, those who he led, those who he still holds a pastoral and benevolent support for. And he indicated that over the last six years of this quest, having won two years ago and won again in January, that three of his colleagues, comrades,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

individuals that he led have died. The hon. Member. Yes. Thank the hon. Member for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the hon. Member for giving way. Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair, way. Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair, in terms of this judgement, would the hon. Member agree with me that the hon. Member agree with me that with over 40,000 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and half of those, about 20,000 were part time those, about 20,000 were part time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment? And in light of this ruling, does he believe that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should be entitled to a pension as well as I believe they should be? Thank you. We'll come back to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. We'll come back to the point of scope, which is what I mentioned to hon. Member. I do appreciate the point that the hon. appreciate the point that the hon. Member for North Down has made, but I do lament the fact that I was outlining that somebody who has been campaigning on this issue, particularly in personally and with colleagues for six years now, has colleagues for six years now, has lost three comrades in the process never to attain the legal entitlement that they have.

The legal decision set by Lord Fairley. As I said, the president of the Employment Appeals Tribunal across England, Scotland and Wales, somebody of legal standing and an issue that I imagine is engaging not only principally individuals in Ministry of Defence, but also those who are engaged in finance, because there is a scope issue here. Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand entirely and I will always champion those who served in Northern Ireland, be it in the Royal Irish Regiment more recently and Home Service Battalions, particularly until their disbandment in 2007, or indeed the Ulster Defence Regiment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

But we cannot assert legal time. My right hon. Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right hon. Friend. And the Ulster Defence. Well, the Ulster Defence Regiment disbanded in 1992, some eight years disbanded in 1992, some eight years before this legislation was brought in in the United Kingdom. Now, particularly because we can look at those who have served as reservists those who have served as reservists from 2000 or 97 right through to 2015, we can look at the scale of that. We know that in 1997, there were 130,000 reserve personnel in the United Kingdom, in 2000 110,000 in 2015, 85,000.

We know at the time. In 1997, for example, when this legislation was introduced on a European basis, that the 870 reserve or part time members of the Ulster Ulster Defence Regiment, but we also know this. That's not the case before the Mod today. The case before the Mod today is one of principle in major Milroy, and those of his co claimants that are already in the system. The Minister should also know well that there will be impediments through statute of limitations to further and future claims, and there is an opportunity for the Minister to consider this case, and I will come back to it in a moment.

Once I take this intervention to consider this case, and those who have travelled alongside Major Milroy, rather than worry about a scope which could be exponential. But for time, sadly has already passed, I'll give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way and also bring this debate today. Whenever I wrote to the relevant Whenever I wrote to the relevant Minister a year ago, the Mod confirmed that there were at least 310 people in Northern Ireland that 310 people in Northern Ireland that fell within the scope of this. But I do agree entirely on a point of law that there is absolutely no law that there is absolutely no point in the government deciding to fight this, or to seek in any way to curtail this, and should indeed to curtail this, and should indeed now accept that they have lost on this point of law and therefore allow anyone eligible to benefit.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I'm very grateful for that intervention. I think the time is coming, at least that we might not coming, at least that we might not hear it this evening, that the Ministry of Defence need to engage in the reality of what has been in the reality of what has been asserted in the courts, and the Ministry of Defence is going to have to accept that at a time when have to accept that at a time when I and my colleagues and others throughout this chamber are raising throughout this chamber are raising issues around support for veterans, particularly in light of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and particularly in light of the challenges that the Minister knows well and has engaged with me and debate on some of these issues in the past, will know that I personally challenged that this Labour government is not bringing forward safeguards for veterans, was told that they were was then told that I was right in the Minister.

The Prime Minister was going to bring forward amendments to their own bill, which they already said had protections. We haven't seen those amendments. We haven't seen the nature of those amendments. But stand here tonight and there's yet another example of how this government has an opportunity to demonstrate the recognition for the service of reservists and veterans, has an opportunity to demonstrate that whilst they recognise there will be a financial implication, there is a moral impediment to honouring a legal commitment that a previous Labour government brought through and applied in this country.

In recognising we hear internationally all the time from the Labour government about the need to adhere to international laws. But what about adhering to the ones brought in by themselves in our own country and honouring and recognising the sacrifice and the service of so many? As I know, the Minister served herself of recognising so many who have served our nation. So that is one of the challenges. Second challenge, I think more clearly, is that the Minister will need to, if not today, give an outcome to this process, but today indicate.

I think the Minister does need to indicate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Ministry of Defence are interested in a particular analysis and implications of this case, that they have a fair understanding as to how they're going to deal with it, and they will work towards a resolution. The last thing this Labour government wants to do is to appeal to the Court of Appeal and an appeal to the Supreme Court and give not only the impression, but the actual fact that they will exhaust every opportunity to deny a legal right that is there and has been asserted on behalf of our veteran reservist community.

It would be an indictment on this Labour government if they were to exhaust ad nauseam every appeal mechanism and opportunity to frustrate the legal entitlements of our service veterans. I don't think they will be able to stand here today and honourably say that's the position they wish to adopt, or stand here in three weeks time and talk about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and how much protection they afford to veterans when they can't get the basics right. I know the Minister is not responsible for what's gone before, but she has the opportunity to address not only the perception, but the reality that has been faced by Major Milroy and by his co claimants, and by those who have a legal entitlement that they are asserting an opportunity to redress the harm that has been caused over the last six years, an opportunity to ensure that this Labour government does not pursue endlessly appeals to thwart entitlement.

And it's similarly true if the McCloud judgement. The McCloud judgement applies to the Ministry of Defence. The McCloud judgement is still being worked through Unsatisfactorily and unsuccessfully. So. So I raise this this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the earnest hope but limited expectation that the Ministry of Defence, through the Minister this evening, will at least give some certainty that this won't be a dragged out endless process through each and every subsequent court. There can be Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

I understand it's under consideration. I understand there will have to be an assessment as to what to do. That should not happen until there is a full understanding and analysis of the implications of the judgements thus far, and the real prospect of any successful appeal. There won't be entitlements. There has been asserted in so many other spheres and sectors and asserted here. In these cases. And I can tell you very clearly, and I heard it this morning from from colleagues on other benches where they said, but these guys didn't serve for a pension.

Yeah. No, they served under the leadership and guidance of the Ministry of Defence of their senior command. And this is an example where they're saying, well, hang on a second, maybe in service. I took the orders I was given, but in retirement I'm at least going to ask, are they lawful? Do the laws apply to us to do we have legal entitlements and protections that we can avail of? And I think this is the opportunity for government to say we recognise your service, we recognise all you did for us and we will not throw hook or by crook, deny you the legal entitlements in the recognition of your service that you so richly deserve.

Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for and I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate and for the contributions that have been made by him and across the House. I know and can see and hear. He's a very passionate champion of veterans and reservist rights. And as a veteran myself, I thank him for his commitment and very hard work on behalf of those who have served so behalf of those who have served so much and contributed so much to our armed forces.

As he notes, the case of Advocate General for Scotland versus Mr. Charles Milroy does raise important questions not only in law, but in how we recognise and support those who serve and have served our country, including through reservist service. So let me set out the government's position on the 29th of January, 2026, the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Scotland handed down its judgement in Advocate General for Scotland versus Mr. Charles Milroy, and it upheld the earlier tribunal's findings in relation to Major Milroy service and the application of employment protections to reservists.

That judgement is being carefully considered by this government. What I will do this evening is explain the principles guiding the government's approach, the work already underway and the position we are taking to support reservists and employers. So firstly, on our commitment to reservists. Reservists are of course integral to the effectiveness of our armed forces. They bring vital expertise into defence, strengthen operational resilience and provide specialist skills that can't be generated or sustained within the regular forces alone. As the Secretary of State has said during the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill last month, our reserve forces are crucial to Britain's security and, if necessary, to achieving a sustainable, effective and rapid transition to war.

Their contribution directly enhances Defence's capability. The government's position is clear reservists must be treated fairly, lawfully and with proper regard to both their military service and their civilian employment, and that principle underpins our policies and will continue to do so. Secondly, on pensions and the historical context is important to place the pension issues raised by this case into the correct historical context. The questions before the tribunal relate to an earlier policy framework, and since 2015, reservists have had access to the same pension scheme as their regular counterparts.

Moreover, reservists have long been entitled to pension provision during periods of mobilisation, recognising the fact that they may be placed directly into harm's way while serving on operations, and that protection remains firmly in place today and should not be lost in the wider public discussion of this case. Third, on the judgement and the government's considerations of next steps, we must be clear about the particular facts of this case. Before the tribunal, it was found that aspects of major Milroy reservist service engaged employment protections in a way that had not previously been recognised.

Both the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal expressly acknowledged that the level of service days in question was atypical, that finding raises legitimate and complex questions about how certain forms of reservist service are characterised in law, and how they interact with employment related rights, including questions of pay and pensions. In this individual case. As such, the government is carefully considering its implications for the judgement that work is ongoing and it is being carried out, while the case remains within the statutory period during which an appeal may be brought.

It would therefore not be appropriate for me to prejudge the government's final position at this stage.
19:55
Louise Sandher-Jones Portrait Louise Sandher-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (North East Derbyshire, Labour)
-
-
The hon. Lady for giving way. I know she has served herself and comes at this from very much a service background. Time is of the essence. The hon. Member for Belfast East made a powerful point. About three members of the McElroy. Reservist having passed away. So today I'm not hearing a clear timetable for implementation. I'm not hearing that sufficient funding has been allocated, and I'm not hearing that the government are in the process of actually bringing forward an impact assessment report detailing the number of affected reservists, the estimated financial liability and the department's actual plan for redress.

Can she go further and give hope to those reservists that the government is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually going to do something on this? Well, sir. Wouldn't be appropriate for me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on the details, but I can assure her we are considering the implications of this judgement very closely, and I'm very mindful very closely, and I'm very mindful of the point that both she and others have made about the need for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

speed on coming to this judgement. Of course, the government is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course, the government is considering whether or not to appeal. I trust it doesn't, but if it doesn't, and this is the end of the legal road on this, then the government is faced with the next stage, which is which is what is the remedy model it's going to develop for this case. Could I appeal to the Minister that in arriving at that model, they do not make it tight and narrow specifically to this case, but they base it on the emerging and very strong principle of this case, that there has to be acceptance, that part timers should have pension rights.

That's the fundamental principle in this case. And therefore, if the government seeks to avoid that by focusing only on this case and on the reservists, but ignoring the wider category of individuals who are equally part timers and denying them what they will have to give to this applicant, then wouldn't that be a very wrong headed approach?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his point and his comments have been noted, and as soon as I do have further details, I will update. Several members have spoken about the importance of confidence the importance of confidence confidence amongst reservists that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their service will be supported. Madam Speaker can I commend the hon. Lady? She's a gallant lady and hon. Lady? She's a gallant lady and we understand that she's a an intention personally to try and make things better. But whenever I met the pension people on Monday, they were saying that there are many part time soldiers, aren't aware of their of their rights, aren't aware of the fact that they might be able to to claim is government and the Minister in particular, making any efforts to try and contact all of those soldiers to ensure that they will be aware of their rights and can claim that Dawn Butler Belfast East referred to.

The longer it goes on, some people will die, pass away on the opportunity, and an opportunity for money should also go to their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relatives. Should be retrospective. I thank the Member for his point, and I'm not in a position to give and I'm not in a position to give details at this point, but I'm absolutely taking into account his comments and make sure that they will be considered and note his will be considered and note his concerns. Commons amongst reservists that their service will reservists that their service will be supported. Confidence amongst employers that the framework within which they operate is clear and which they operate is clear and predictable.

The government's objective is a framework that supports reservist service, provides clarity for employers and is fully consistent with the law, where the Milroy judgement indicates that greater clarity is needed, we will address that where it confirms existing arrangements, we will state that plainly. Finally, on the wider message to those who serve reservists across the United Kingdom, make a substantial and valued contribution to our national defence. This judgement, and the debate it has prompted, reinforced the importance of ensuring that our systems reflect the realities of modern service and continue to command confidence.

So in closing, Madam Deputy Speaker, the government will give full and proper effect to the Judgement and Advocate General for Scotland versus Mr. Charles Milroy. We are considering its implications very carefully engaging with stakeholders and will act where action is required. We will do so in a in a way that is lawful, proportionate and firmly grounded in fairness. I again thank the hon. Member for bringing this matter before the House and to everyone

**** Possible New Speaker ****

who has contributed to this important debate. Thank you. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion, say I. I the ayes
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page