Commons Chamber

Monday 9th March 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:34
None Portrait Q1. If he will make an estimate of the potential cost to the public purse of disregarding the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme for the purpose of calculating Pension Credit entitlement. (908142)
-

The The oldest. The oldest. Start The oldest. Start with The oldest. Start with questions The oldest. Start with questions to Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Josh Babarinde.
14:34
14:34
14:34
14:35
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
Pat McFadden Portrait Rt Hon Pat McFadden MP, The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Wolverhampton South East, Labour)
-
-
Secretary of State. is that the party opposite presided over a huge post-Covid rise in the number of young people not in number of young people not in education, employment or training. And they did precisely nothing about it. They also provided presided over a huge rise in the number of young people going on to sickness and disability benefits, and did precisely nothing about it. And they have discovered a thirst for change only after they have left office. They have no credibility and no plan on this issue.

And in contrast to that, we are responding to the Youth Guarantee through changes to the apprenticeship system and through giving young people more hope that the government will actually help

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give them a chance in life. John Milne Madam Deputy Speaker. A recent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A recent. Report from Adzuna, a large job search agency, shows that youth unemployment at an 11 year high in unemployment at an 11 year high in vacancies plummeting job seekers urgently need the new jobcentre in your pocket digital service. Given your pocket digital service. Given current current timeframes suggest it won't be ready until 2028. Will it won't be ready until 2028. Will the Secretary of State assure us that all options are on the table to accelerate delivery? That includes leveraging the private sector technology so we can support job seekers now rather than years down the line?
14:58
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
None Portrait Q9. What recent assessment he has made of trends in the level of child poverty in Bolton North East constituency. (908151)
-

>> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Right Honourable Alan Milburn is making progress on his report.
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
Torsten Bell Portrait Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Swansea West, Labour)
-
-
Mr. >> Well, now that he's got to it, I do thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the shocking news of his age. He's absolutely right of his age. He's absolutely right to highlight both the issues he raised. Pensioner poverty halved under the last Labour government, but it has risen more recently. That is why, as well as increasing the State Pension, it's so important that we've put in place the biggest ever take up campaign for Pension Credit and focussed on the cost of essentials, most importantly energy, where new measures will obviously come into place in just in next few weeks.

But he's also absolutely right to focus not just on poverty, but on isolation. I'm sure all of us on every side of this house, when we're out knocking on doors at the weekend, meet some younger but also some older constituents who are too isolated. They may not be happy to see the particular member who opposite them who comes to knock on their door. But they may be. And the general thing more generally, whatever people think about politicians knocking on their doors, we all have in our constituencies, organisations and charities like Age and Wales, and I'm sure many in his constituency which do important work in tackling, in tackling

**** Possible New Speaker ****

isolation amongst all our communities. Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh. I declare.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare. A similar interest. No no no.
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
None Portrait Q15. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Work Capability Assessment clearance times of over two years on claimants. (908157)
-

Kirsty Blackman. Question 15 please.
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:42
Alex Norris Portrait Alex Norris MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Nottingham North and Kimberley, Labour )
-
-
policy. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, the British public expect and deserve an immigration system with order and control. In November, the Home and control. In November, the Home Secretary announced the most sweeping reforms to tackle illegal migration since the Second World War. And last week, the government War. And last week, the government took concrete steps to implement these necessary changes. I hear very clearly the strong message from the chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and of course, would never mean any discourtesy to yourself or to your colleagues.

Features of the of the steps taken last week include. That refugee status will be now reviewed every 30 months at a 30 month review. Refugees with a continuing need of protection will have this protection renewed, while those who no longer have a protection need will be expected to return home. Further, we are introducing targeted measures known as a visa break to help protect the integrity of the UK immigration system. As such, from the 26th of March, we will refuse applications for specific visa routes from nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan, where evidence shows a consistently high number and proportion of visa linked asylum claims.

This is the beginning and other nationalities may face similar measures in the future. Due to the number of asylum claims from nationals of Nicaragua and Saint Lucia. We have also introduced visit visa requirements and direct HSE transit visa requirements on these countries to prevent visitor visa misuse. These came into force on the 5th of March. We have tabled further legislative changes to revoke the current legal duty to provide support to asylum seekers, instead restoring this to a power to provide support so that those who can support themselves do so.

And we are also amending existing conditions of support legislation to enable the suspension or discontinuation of asylum support. When an asylum seeker is working illegally. And we have started a consultation on our approach to family returns, exploring reforms to the support available to families with no legal basis to remain in the UK, and the approach used when enforcing the returns of families who have not departed voluntarily. Madam Deputy Speaker, After years of chaos and crisis, it has fallen to this government to fix the broken systems we inherited.

I know this country. I know the protection that people want to provide to those who need it. We've seen that with the Syrian scheme. Afghan resettlement, Hong Kong Bno and homes for Ukraine. But we can only do this when there is confidence that the system has order and control these reforms, restore this order and build the system. The British people deserve.
15:44
Chris Philp Portrait Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Secretary of State. government did not come here voluntarily to announce their policies. And I notice there was no apology. But given the scale of their failure, it is not surprising. Since the election, 67,000 people have entered the UK illegally, a 45% increase compared to the same period before. Many of those 67,000 have since committed serious crimes, including murder and rape. In the last six days alone, 900 illegal immigrants have crossed the English Channel and the government's promises lie in tatters.

The gangs are not smashed. The French are not intercepting boats near the shores, as we were promised last year and last year. The so-called one in, one out deal saw 41,000 illegal immigrants come in across the channel and only 300 go out. So the government is now resorting to bribing illegal immigrants with £40,000 per family to leave. That is more than most working people here earn in a year. British workers should not have to pay record high taxes for this government to give their money away to illegal immigrants.

It is frankly disgraceful. Instead, the government should now agree to our plan to leave the which would enable them to deport all illegal immigrants. The crossings would then quickly stop, and there would be no need to bribe illegal immigrants to leave. Let me turn now to ILR. When we proposed a ten year path, the government voted against it. But I'm delighted they've now done yet another U-turn and adopted our policy. Now, while we don't agree with every detail in their plans, we do agree with the substance.

But I'm sorry to hear some of the Ministers own MPs are apparently unconvinced. So let me help the Minister. Given the government appears to need our votes to pass these ILR changes, we will support them. Will the Minister confirm the ILR changes will be made in primary legislation or via the rules? If they do use primary legislation, that will take some time to pass, by which time the 2021 and 22 arrivals will have ILR? So we would also support him to pass emergency legislation if he would accept.
15:47
Alex Norris Portrait Alex Norris MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Nottingham North and Kimberley, Labour )
-
-
That offer. Minister. challenge to be lectured on the need for apologies from the architect of Trussonomics that mean that that my that mean that my constituents month on month pay more on their mortgages. But we've seen more of that mathematics from the right hon. Gentleman there because he says that £158,000 that on average we spend on families in hotel accommodation who have no right now to be here because they have finished their way through the asylum system, that that spending that money is better value than spending £40,000 in order for them to return home and to build their lives again.

I'm not surprised he talks about gangs. Well, he will know there have been a record level of interventions, more than 4000. He talks about our work with the with the French, but he'll know too. There's been 40,000 preventions of crossings. He'll know to he mentioned returns. Will 60,000 people have been returned under this government, a 31% increase under his time when he was in the Home Department. So he offers criticism that the only answer that he offers in lieu is just to tear up international agreements, with no sense of what change that would drive.

It would merely set back that returns work and just leave us back to years and years of debate and no action. I won't do that. He mentions ILR. Of course, that wasn't the nature of the announcements last week. That was a consultation that closed a very important one about earned settlement in this country. We'll be having those conversations with Parliament, and those, of course, will be laid in the usual way in the weeks, months ahead. the weeks, months ahead.
15:48
Meg Hillier Portrait Dame Meg Hillier MP (Hackney South and Shoreditch, Labour )
-
-
Meg Hillier. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if the Minister could update us on the discussions about people who have got leave, that they arrived in a country pursuing leave for five years to get status in the UK, or for whichever period of their visa, who approaching the end of that period. I have a number of constituents concerned their their visa. I will they'll reach this point in April and they're concerned that they will have to start all over again under a new process.

Could you update the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on this issue? Yes. I believe the hon. Member refers to Unsettlement. It has always been to Unsettlement. It has always been the case that the Immigration Rules in force at the point of application, rather than the point of entry to the country, are the ones that are germane with regards ones that are germane with regards to the conditions and individual has to meet. Nevertheless, the hon. Lady will know that we did consult about what transition protections there could be.

That consultation closed last month. There is, you know, an important reality for all colleagues to wrestle with here. But we saw in the last, in the first five years of this decade, unprecedented levels of migration through legal means, the the the open borders experiment by colleagues opposite, which means that 1 in 30 people in this country came in that window of time. That means at the same time, those people will become eligible for social housing, for benefits and whatnot. That, of course, is a significant challenge to the taxpayer and to public services.

But nevertheless, that consultation consultation took place and will be coming back in the usual way. Forster.
15:50
15:51
Alex Norris Portrait Alex Norris MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Nottingham North and Kimberley, Labour )
-
-
Minister I'm grateful for that question. I am surprised the hon. Gentleman doesn't remember the statement in November on these very issues. I can assure him his colleague on the Liberal Democrat frontbench remembers it very well, and I think thinks about it quite a bit on the 30 months. Let's be clear about how the system will work. What we are saying is we do not want people to come to the country and get that good news of their their claim being accepted for refuge, and then be at home and not take part in British life.

We are saying that if people do do that, then their claims will be assessed every 30 months. Instead, they will be offered the chance to move to a protected work and study route, which means that if they are taking part in work, taking part in study, learning the language, not committing crimes, then they're outwith of that. So I don't recognise the points on how many decisions would have to be made or the spend that isn't accurate. But what I also would say, because he talks about quicker decisions, well, last year was the best year since records began in terms of decision making for initial decisions.

So we are operating that system effectively, but nevertheless there are significant demand issues, which means that applications across the EU are down significantly and in the UK are up significantly. And until and unless you address those issues, any process changes simply will be overwhelmed.
15:52
15:53
15:53
15:54
15:55
15:55
15:56
15:56
15:57
15:57
15:58
15:59
15:59
16:00
16:00
16:01
16:02
16:03
16:03
16:04
16:04
16:05
16:06
16:07
16:08
16:08
16:09
16:09
16:09
16:10
16:10
16:11
16:11
16:12
16:12
16:13
16:13
16:13
16:13
16:14
Alex Norris Portrait Alex Norris MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Nottingham North and Kimberley, Labour )
-
-
Minister I gently say to the hon. Lady that we won't be asking those who come to the country have those who come to the country have a protection need, who enter into work and study, who learn the language, who don't commit crimes. We won't be asking them to justify their protection need. I think that that's the right balance between the taxpayer and the individual. I don't accept and I don't recognise those figures in terms of cost. This is about recognising that we in this country support a significantly bigger supported population than we have traditionally.

That number needs to reduce, we have to break that attractiveness. And that's why

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we've proposed the reforms we have. Neil Duncan-Jordan. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. The Home. Secretary last week.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

last week. policy. Needed to be. Based on the idea of fairness.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Based on the idea of fairness. But is it fair to change the rules on indefinite leave to remain for those who are already making a those who are already making a contribution to our society and came here under the old rules? Will the Minister give those individuals the Minister give those individuals some assurance that they will get some transitional protection?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for that question. On the point of fairness, applying the system as it has always been applied. And as I say, that has always been at the point of application, not the point of entry. So I don't accept that that in So I don't accept that that in itself is a lack of fairness. Nevertheless, I've heard the point that he and colleagues have made, and that's why we have the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and that's why we have the consultation in the way that we did. So Julian Smith. I've often. Had occasions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Had occasions. When somebody has leaked in advance the contents or part of the contents of a statement they're going to make to the House of Commons. But this is the first time Commons. But this is the first time that I've had a total revelation in the press of something they had no intention of making a statement intention of making a statement about the House of Commons. Why is that? And what will these measures do to deter people from breaking do to deter people from breaking into this country illegally? And then it being impossible to deport them?
16:16
16:16
16:16
16:17
16:17
16:18
16:18
16:19
16:19
16:19
16:20
16:20
16:21
16:21
16:22
16:22
16:23
16:23
16:23
16:24
16:25
16:25
16:25
16:26
16:26
16:26
16:27
16:27
16:28
16:28
16:28
16:28
16:29
16:29
16:29
16:29
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:32
16:32
16:33
16:33
16:33
16:34
None Portrait Ministerial statement: Middle East — Economic Update
-

the Exchequer,
16:34
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
In the Middle East. Let me begin by paying tribute to our armed forces, and by expressing my concern and and by expressing my concern and sympathy for the British citizens whose lives have been disrupted by whose lives have been disrupted by the conflict so far. I understand the anxiety felt by families and businesses during these incredibly uncertain times, and this conflict affects us all, and we must respond affects us all, and we must respond to it. As I have demonstrated time and time again.

I will take the necessary decisions to help families with the cost of living and to protect the public finances. I am clear eyed about my response to the current situation. My economic approach will both be responsive to a changing world and responsible in the national interest. The economic impact of the situation in the Middle East will depend, of course, on its severity and its duration. The movements that we have already seen are likely to put upward pressure on inflation in the coming months.

But I also want to confirm to the House that our financial markets are functioning, and I'm in regular touch with the governor of the Bank of England. This afternoon, I spoke with G7 finance Ministers, setting out my priorities for the international cooperation needed first calling for immediate de-escalation and a return to the diplomatic process. Second, we must guarantee the security of vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Third, I stand ready to support a coordinated release of collective International Energy Agency oil reserves.

And fourth, the UK will play its part as the global hub of maritime insurance. And I am meeting with the chair of Lloyd's of London later today, where we will discuss how best to support the continued passage of maritime trade. I want to ensure the country that the fundamentals of Britain's economy are strong. Every step that I have taken since the election has built our national resilience, stability in the public finances, investment in infrastructure in both defence and energy security, and reform to our economy.

Last week, I updated the House about our progress in delivering that plan. We have cut inflation so that it is now at 3% a lower base than at the outset of the Russia Ukraine conflict. I have prioritised economic growth to drive up living standards. And I have stabilised the public finances. We have already reduced the deficit by £20 billion since last year, from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP. We are due to reduce borrowing more over the rest of this parliament, and by more than any other G7 economy.

And I have increased our financial buffers, confirmed last week by the office for Budget Responsibility. I know that families and businesses will be concerned about the impact of this conflict on them. And so I want to set out the action we have already taken and will take to protect them. I am prioritising energy security, investing in clean, home grown energy. Our contracts for difference are already protecting consumers, ensuring that generators of low carbon energy pay money back into the system when the wholesale prices are high.

Shielding bill payers from fossil fuel price shocks. I can confirm to the House that in the coming days, we will publish the government's response to the Finkelstein Review of Nuclear regulation to build nuclear power more quickly. For our energy system is now more secure than it was at the outset of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2025. The UK imported 17% less gas than we did in 2021, while gas generation is estimated to have set the wholesale price of electricity in Britain around 90% of the time in the early 2020s.

This has now fallen by around a third. What this means is that we are less reliant on and less exposed to volatile international energy prices than we were at the outset of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. And that is welcome. I recognise the role that North Sea oil and gas will play in our economy for years to come. Last week, I met with North Sea industry leaders to discuss their role in jobs, investment and growth, and in energy supply. The energy profits levy currently remains in place and the electricity generator levy will also be activated if prices remain at high levels.

I have set out the details of our successor regime to the Energy Profits Levy, the oil and gas price mechanism, balancing providing certainty to business with fairly taxing windfall profits from energy companies. I have also taken direct action on energy bills. Our supercharged discount on business electricity is increasing next month, cutting costs for around 500 of the most energy intensive businesses by an additional £420 million per year. We are supporting the lowest income families by investing £15 billion in our Warm Homes plan, to improve the energy efficiency of people's homes and reduce their bills.

And through the Warm Homes discount, taking £150 off bills for 6 million of the lowest income households. That is a doubling of the number of people who will receive the warm home discount, compared with those plans that the previous government had. That is, in addition to the £117 price drop in the price cap that Ofgem have confirmed from next month. Thanks to the wider action on bills that I took in the Budget, I want to be clear to families at home that despite the movements we have seen in energy prices in the last few days, the price cap for domestic bills for April will not change, giving families immediate certainty on their bills until at least the end of June.

However, I recognise that households who use heating oil face unique challenges and so I have asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to lead discussions with officials and with rural and Northern Irish MPs to explore further action that we can take. And those meetings will happen on Wednesday. The current conflict only increases the importance of the action I took at the Budget to reduce energy bills. A rapid de-escalation in the Middle East remains the best way to protect us from rising energy bills.

But as the situation continues to unfold, my priorities will continue to be helping families with the cost of living and protecting the public finances. I am also taking action to ensure that people pay the lowest possible price at the pump. In November, I extended the five MP per litre cut in fuel duty for a further five months and ensured that the fuel duty that fuel duty will not increase in line with inflation this year. Petrol is more than 80 per litre cheaper today than it would have been under the plans that we inherited at the election, and that discount increases to 11 per litre next month.

Once that extension takes effect. For you, the new cheap fuel finder that I confirmed at the Budget is currently being delivered, helping consumers find the cheapest price for their fuel. Almost 90% of petrol retailers have already registered for this, and last week I instructed my officials to accelerate the integration of the cheaper fuel finder with Map applications. This week I am meeting with petrol forecourt operators and I will not hesitate to call out retailers who fail to provide data to the fuel finder.

I am clear that the best way to keep prices at the pump low is rapid de-escalation, and I will continue to monitor prices as the situation develops. I have also asked the Competition and Markets Authority to be vigilant across prices, including essentials like road fuel and heating oil. Let me be absolutely clear. I will not tolerate any company exploiting the current crisis to make excess profits at consumers expense. I am proud to be the Chancellor that is delivering the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the Cold War, and I am committed to giving our military the resources that they need.

That is why I can confirm today that I approved access for the Ministry of Defence to the Special Reserve to deploy additional capabilities in the Middle East, meaning that no net additional costs of these operations will be funded by the MoD, but instead will be funded by the Treasury. Mr. speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker, we do not yet know how long the conflict will last or what further action will be required, but it is my duty to be responsive in an uncertain world and responsible in the national interest to protect the public finances and help families with the cost of living.

That is what the Prime Minister is doing. That is what I will continue to do. And I commend this statement to the House.
16:44
Mel Stride Portrait Rt Hon Sir Mel Stride MP (Central Devon, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride you. >> Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride you. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I thank the Chancellor for And can I thank the Chancellor for advanced sight of her statement and add our firm support for our armed add our firm support for our armed forces? Madam Deputy Speaker, as the Chancellor has made clear, these are very serious and concerning times. And the developments in the Middle East are already having profound consequences for our economy.

Oil prices have surged above $100 a barrel for the first time since the 2022 energy crisis. That alone is enough to have huge knock on effects for households and businesses. Families filling up their car will already have noticed petrol prices increasing. Fixed price energy tariffs have either been increased or pulled from the market, so we are already seeing British households worse off as a result of this conflict. I am grateful to the Chancellor for updating the House on the meetings with other G7 finance Ministers, and I welcome her commitment to support action to ease pressure on global supply by using strategic oil reserves.

That, however, will only go so far, as the Chancellor said the longer this conflict continues, the more likely it is that we will see a sustained period of higher prices. Of course, that, in turn, will also have implications for interest rates and for our cost of borrowing. The longer this lasts, the more likely it is that higher inflationary expectations become anchored. If that happens, monetary policy will need to adjust accordingly, which may mean higher mortgages for homeowners who have only just begun to see some relief.

And of course, gilt markets have already been responding to these events, which could mean that forecasts we were given just last week from the OBR end up looking very, very different. We must continue to monitor developments closely. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, where are we on this side of the House? Clearly differ with the right hon. Lady is in her approach to the economy. In the run up to this crisis, her gross mismanagement has left us far more vulnerable than would otherwise have been the case.

Inflation, to which she refers, was bang on target when we left office. But thanks to the right hon. Lady's choices, it rose back up to almost 4% last year, the highest in the G7, and inflation remains elevated. That is far from ideal, given the threat of a significant further spike in energy prices. And, of course, extraordinarily, the Chancellor has just now reconfirmed that the government will press ahead with a rise in fuel duty later this year, and borrowing is running higher than was forecast when the government took office.

We are spending well over 100 billion a year on debt interest alone. That leaves us far more vulnerable to rising borrowing costs. And the government, of course, is continuing to impose ruinously high taxes on our oil and gas sector and choosing to rely on imports instead of maximising our own domestic energy supply. That is proving to be an incredibly short sighted approach. But as the right hon. Lady has just told us, there will be no change in direction. That is the wrong choice.

And more broadly, of course. Business confidence has hit record lows and unemployment has risen back to pandemic levels. So our economy is weaker as a direct result of this. Chancellor. Now, last week, Madam Deputy Speaker, at the Spring Statement, the right hon. Lady had an opportunity to change course, but instead we got no action at all, just breathtaking self-congratulation and denial. Yes, she had a vital opportunity to come to this House with a plan to get the economy growing.

But she did not do that, not least because this week government have caved in to their own backbenchers who prefer higher welfare spending over fixing our economy. Yeah. So today, let me reiterate our offer to support the government, if even at this late stage, and particularly given the gravity of the current global outlook, they do the right thing, show some backbone and come forward with a proper plan to cut welfare spending and strengthen our economy so we can properly support hard working families through this difficult time.

This is the very least that the British people deserve. Finally, Mr. Speaker, could I ask the right hon. Lady, will she urgently reconsider her decision to implement the first increase in fuel duty in 15 years? Likewise, to urgently reconsider her decision to continue with the crippling taxes being imposed on North Sea oil and gas producers. On the Fingleton review on nuclear, can she clarify if the government is accepting all those recommendations as Ministers previously committed to do? Can she give further details on what additional economic action is under consideration internationally if the conflict continues? What measures is the government considering to support households in the event of a sustained period of higher prices? And what action is being considered as part of the Financial Secretary's work to support those reliant on heating oil? Are the government tracking the Iranian regime's illegal funding sources to ensure UK financial systems are not facilitating funds that are being used to support repression.

And can she confirm that there is sufficient resource available in the Special reserve so that our brave servicemen and women have the support they deserve?
16:50
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Chancellor of the Exchequer. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the right hon. Member for his questions. The government believes that the best way that we believes that the best way that we can protect families and businesses from this conflict is through de-escalation. And we heard nothing in the Shadow Chancellor's response about what the opposition's view is on de-escalation. We believe that it is important that we get back to the negotiating table and do not escalate this conflict.

I am not that sure that that is the view of the opposition party, but we also know that commitment to greater energy security can help guard against shocks. And after inaction and delay from the Conservatives when they were in government for 14 years, this Labour government is committed to investing and building new nuclear. And that is why we are backing Sizewell C and also small modular reactors, both funded at the Spending review, neither funded by the previous government, because this government is backing Britain's energy security.

This Labour government is backing the industry of the future, such as carbon capture and storage, funded at the Spending Review, not funded by the party opposite, because we back Britain's energy security and through the National Wealth Fund, we are investing in floating offshore wind and in our docks, funded in the spending review, not funded by the party opposite because we backed Britain's energy security. In 14 years, the Tories did nothing, so they failed. When we needed new nuclear, they stood by and allowed the loss of gas storage facilities at rough.

They failed to fix the broken planning system to enable us to build renewables, and they had an effective moratorium on onshore wind, which is the cheapest form of energy. We are taking a different approach in the interest of our economy and energy security. On energy bills, I would urge the right hon. Gentleman not to scaremonger the £150 cut to energy bills that I announced in the Budget will continue, as confirmed by Ofgem. We removed the failed Eco scheme and we removed a number of levies off of bills on heating oil.

Those conversations will happen this week and we are working closely with MPs, with colleagues in Northern Ireland to make sure that things are working well. But the Minister at DESNZ met with the heating oil sector on Friday and spoke this morning to the Competition and Markets Authority. There is not currently a problem with supply, but where members have individual issues around supply, they should make sure they get in contact with DESNZ on fuel duty. Fuel duty would have risen by £0.08 compared to if I had used the plans that I inherited.

And we've had two budgets, both of which all of the parties opposite voted against, which extended that freeze in fuel duty. So it's a little bit rich now to hear the opposition saying that they want to reduce fuel duty when they vote against budgets that froze it. And on the energy profits levy. I think the honourable the right hon. Gentleman has a short memory because, of course, he was in the Cabinet that introduced the energy profits levy, and they introduced it for a reason because of the windfall profits that were being made by the energy companies and the need to help consumers with bills, which is exactly what we have done.

On the the public finances, again, I'm not sure if the right hon. Gentleman listened either to my statement last week or my statement today. The deficit has reduced from 5.3% to 4.2% of GDP. It's the first time in six years that the Budget deficit has been less than 5% of GDP. And in fact, in the 14 years that the Conservatives were in office, borrowing was higher than the G7 average. It is now lower than the G7 average, and it is coming down in every year of this parliament and on inflation.

I'm not going to take any lessons from the party that took inflation to more than 11%. To policy supported by the party opposite and on welfare. I've got to say, for the former work and pensions secretary, to say that we should be spending less on welfare, when it would have been nice if it had done something about it when he was in charge. We are reforming the welfare system that they broke and on Fingleton, we commissioned the Fingleton Review because we are determined to build a nuclear power.

Unlike the party opposite on oil reserves, we have 90 days worth of reserves of oil imports and as confirmed by the G7 today, we will be making further announcements of that on gas reserves. It was the party opposite that closed the storage facilities at RAF and National Gas have no National gas have confirmed today that our gas reserves are at a comparable level to last year and the year before that, and that the numbers being reported are utterly misleading because gas comes from a number of sources.

It comes from the interconnectors, it comes from liquid natural gas, and it comes from our storage facilities. So again, I would really rather that the party opposite didn't scaremonger when people want certainty on money laundering. Of course, we have the very strict rules around money laundering and on the Special Reserve for defence. Of course, we will make sure that the Ministry of Defence has all the money it needs for providing the support for our armed forces.
16:57
16:57
16:57
Daisy Cooper Portrait Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
does not include a single concrete announcement and in itself won't provide the reassurance that households and small businesses are looking for as they hear reports of energy bills about to escalate. Last week, the Liberal Democrats asked the Chancellor whether she would consider scrapping the planned increase in fuel duty due in September. Could the Chancellor confirm whether that option is still on the table, and that it has not been ruled out? Last autumn, we Liberal Democrats called for a new energy security bank to roll out low interest loans to households and SMEs.

We welcomed the government's Warm Homes plan in January. But can the Chancellor confirm that it could be extended from 5 to 10 years, that it will have a greater emphasis on home insulation? And for small businesses, could their investment in energy saving measures be excluded from business rates calculations? Madam Deputy Speaker, in the long term, we need energy market reform. Can I urge the Chancellor and her government to intervene to stop these unpredictable fluctuations in the gas market? We need to urgently develop a plan to delink gas and electricity prices and move expensive old renewable subsidies from the Renewables Obligation to the much better and cheaper contracts for different model.

I'm glad that the Chancellor has written to the CMA about keeping an eye on petrol pumps, but last autumn I wrote to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and asked him to instruct the CMA to investigate bad practices in the energy market, affecting hospitality businesses and small businesses as well. The Federation of Small Businesses and UK hospitality have also asked for this investigation. Six months on, it still has not happened. Can the Chancellor please confirm that she will speak to the Secretary of State for Business and Development? And finally, Madam Deputy Speaker on rural homes? We know that off grid homes rely on oil.

They are seeing prices going up already as panic buying spreads. I am grateful that the Chancellor has indicated there will be a meeting on Wednesday. Could the Chancellor also confirm that there will be an announcement forthcoming by the end

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of this week? Thank you. Chancellor.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chancellor. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady talks about energy security, but she has never once acknowledged her party's failure. When they were in government in 2010, her party's leader, Nick 2010, her party's leader, Nick Clegg, justified opposing new nuclear energy on the grounds that
17:00
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
nuclear energy on the grounds that it would take until 2022 to become operational. Well, 2022 has been and gone, but what is here is another example of Britain paying the high price today for the choices of the parties opposite. On the specific questions that the hon. Lady asks on energy bills, we announced at the Budget £150 off energy bills. That comes in in April and it continues until until June. By taking the failed eco levy that the last government presided on over, off of bills and on heating oil.

People on heating oil also use electricity in their homes and also benefit from reductions in their energy bill from April. But as I said, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be meeting with the relevant MPs this week on fuel duty. The hon. Lady walked with her colleagues again through the lobbies to oppose the Budget measures, which included freezing those those fuel duties. So there is a little bit richer for now to say that she wants us to cut fuel duty on ensuring that homes are properly insulated.

At the Spending review last year, I announced £15 billion for the Warm Homes plan, focussed on lower income families on contracts for difference. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the contracts for difference are absolutely crucial in weaning ourselves off imported oil and gas, and we are in a better place because of the auctions and the CFDs that we have been doing and the energy infrastructure which we have been building and can build because of the Planning Infrastructure Act, which the parties opposite oppose.

And finally, on the Competition and Markets Authority, as I said in my statement, they have got an important role in ensuring that markets are functioning properly on heating oil, on on petrol forecourts and for small businesses, and we will make sure that they fulfil that role in making sure that people are not overcharged for the energy that they use.
17:02
17:03
17:03
17:04
17:05
17:06
17:06
17:07
17:07
17:08
17:08
17:09
17:09
17:10
17:10
17:11
17:12
17:13
17:14
17:14
17:15
17:15
17:16
17:17
17:17
17:18
17:18
17:19
17:19
17:20
17:21
17:21
17:22
17:23
17:23
17:24
17:24
17:25
17:25
17:25
17:26
17:27
17:27
17:28
17:28
17:29
17:30
17:31
17:31
17:32
17:32
17:33
17:34
17:34
17:35
17:35
17:36
17:36
17:37
17:38
17:38
17:38
17:39
17:40
17:40
17:41
17:41
17:42
17:42
17:42
17:43
17:43
17:44
17:44
17:45
17:46
17:46
John Healey Portrait Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)
-
-
and I trust the House will understand. I want to start by praising our armed forces, who are praising our armed forces, who are working 24 over seven to protect British lives and British interests British lives and British interests in the region from our 400 strong air defence teams in Cyprus, who I visited last week to our counter-drone specialists in Iraq, our fast jet pilots in Qatar, our command specialists in the Regional Defence Coordination Centres, and everyone working on this crisis abroad and at home.

Iran threatens us all, but it's our forces who feel this most acutely. So I'm sure the whole House will join me in thanking them for their outstanding dedication and for their professionalism, for protecting British lives, for keeping us safe. We want to say to them, you are the best of Britain in action. Yeah. Madam Deputy Speaker, the UK's government approach throughout the current developments in the Middle East is founded on three principles. First, defensive taking the necessary action to strengthen our collective defence.

So we took steps from January, weeks before this current war with Iran began, to pre-position Typhoons F-35s, Counter-drone teams, radars and defence in the region, as well as the additional military capability we've seen since last Saturday when the Iranian retaliatory retaliation attacks started. Second, coordination with allies. We do not work alone, so we're leading and coordinating our response with NATO allies and other partners, including the US, e five nations and the Gulf states, and I'm in daily contact with my counterparts, just as the Chief of Defence Staff is a two and third.

Madam Deputy Speaker, our third principle is legal. We must have a legal basis for our decisions that allows Ministers to make sound choices. It allows our military to operate with the fullest confidence, and our UK action is grounded in these principles to protect British people, protect British bases, to protect British allies. No. Madam Deputy Speaker, in the last week we've seen Iran lashing out with dangerous, indiscriminate and reckless strikes. In the first day alone, they take ten countries with military and civilian targets attacked, including hotels in Dubai and Bahrain and the Kuwaiti National Airport.

British troops stationed at a US base in Bahrain were within a few hundred yards of an Iranian strike, and a small drone hit our base in Cyprus, coming from Lebanon or Iraq. And Iraq has now fired over 500 ballistic and cruise missiles and over 2000 drones. Thank you to the hon. Gentleman. Iran has now fired over 500 ballistic and cruise missiles and over 2000 drones. I'm grateful to him for paying attention to my statement quite so closely.

And even after the Iranian president's apology and promise to the Gulf states over the weekend, Iran still then struck multiple countries with drones and missiles, including Bahrain, where 32 civilians were injured in one attack and a desalination plant was hit in another. We totally condemn these attacks. They are putting hundreds of thousands of people at risk, including British nationals and members of our armed forces. But Madam Deputy Speaker, while Iran's current indiscriminate strikes began last Saturday, this Iranian regime has for decades been a source of evil, exporting violence across the Middle East and beyond, it supplied nearly 60,000 Shi'ite drones to Putin for Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine.

Here in the UK, they conduct aggressive cyber attacks against us and have plotted assassination on Britain's streets. The Iranian regime is a destructive force which has slaughtered protesters in its own streets and inflicts terrible suffering, especially against its own people. We want to see Iran stop their strikes, give up their nuclear ambitions and restart the negotiations. And as defence Secretary, my number one priority is protecting British people, military and civilian alike. Since January, we've moved significant military assets into the region ahead of those first US Israeli strikes.

And those preparations made a real difference. It meant we've conducted defensive military operations from day one, our F-35s destroying Iranian drones over Jordan, our Typhoons shooting down targets heading to Qatar, our Counter-drone units defeating further attacks against coalition bases in Iraq. We acted early to protect British people and British interests, and to support our allies. And as the uranium as the Iranian response became clear from last weekend, we adapted our actions to the changing circumstances, driven at all times by military advice.

So that's why we agreed a new US request for the use of British bases at RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia last Sunday. And that's why I committed further resources to the region last week, including for extra Typhoons, three Wildcat helicopters, a merlin helicopter and HMS Dragon. And I can confirm today that Dragon will set sail in the next couple of days, and I want to personally thank all those who are working tirelessly. Some 22 hours a day, to get that ship ready.

For HMS Dragon will join US Air Defence destroyers to provide additional protection in the Eastern Mediterranean. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me also provide the House with the following operational update from last night. The UK is now conducting defensive air sorties in support of the UAE. Typhoons successfully took out two drones, one over Jordan, the second heading to Bahrain. The third Wildcat has now arrived in Cyprus and we've now deployed additional RAF operations experts in more than five countries in the region, helping coordinate regional, military and civilian airspace and the fragments of that drone that hit Akrotiri are being analysed for foreign military hardware by our experts at Dstl.

British pilots have now racked up over 230 flying hours. We have eight jets in Qatar, including our joint Qatari British squadron who are flying in support of regional allies, and we have more jets in Cyprus than any other nation, and I visited our 400 strong air defence teams at our base in Cyprus on Thursday last week. They're there in addition to the 4000 personnel regularly stationed on the island, I was subjected to the daily air sirens that they face.

I saw the impact that that Iranian Iranian proxy drone had caused. And I asked the commander, British forces, general Tom Buick, do you need anything more from us back in Britain? And he said to me, no, I've been given everything I have asked for. The UK is leading this response to Iranian threats in close coordination with our allies. And Cyprus is head of the National Guard told me last week our military cooperation has never been closer and our support is backed up by our NATO allies, including the US, France, Greece and Germany.

Something I discussed with E5 defence Ministers last week. And I can also confirm to the House that having given the US the go ahead to use British bases for specific defensive operations into Iran last Sunday, the first US bomber landed at RAF Fairford on Friday. And as the PM Prime Minister has set out, this activity is part of, I quote, the collective self-defence of long standing friends and allies and protecting British lives. It is in accordance with international law.

These missions are to destroy Iranian missiles at source. And Madam Deputy Speaker, we are deeply concerned about escalation in Lebanon. Hezbollah is a dangerous terror organisation tied to the regime in Iran. It must cease these attacks against Israel. But we do not want to see Israel expand this conflict further into Lebanon. More than 400 have already been killed and half a million displaced by recent Israeli operations. The solution to these problems to this conflict must be guided by the Lebanese people and the Lebanese government, and we urge de-escalation and the return to a negotiated process.

Now, I know, moving beyond defence, that many of us as MPs, have constituents with friends and family that are caught in the region worried for the safety of their loved ones. And my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the FCDO teams are working as fast as possible to get our people out of the region. Three chartered flights have now taken off, with more to come this week. More than 170,000 people have registered their presence, which has allowed us to get them information and support and advice that they need.

More than 37,000 British nationals have been evacuated since the start of the crisis response. And as the Prime Minister said last week, we will not stop until our people are safe. Madam Deputy Speaker, these are deeply uncertain times while we deal with the immediate crisis in the Middle East, we must also maintain our strong support for Ukraine to deter increasing threats in the High North, fulfil our NATO commitments and ensure our homeland is protected. Our adversaries are watching.

We must manage rising demands on defence, balancing resources to best effect, and we must also deal with the cost of living impact this conflict could cause. Just as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out in her statement, I'm proud of the UK's response, acting at all times in our national interest. We will defend our allies. We will support our armed forces. We will do everything necessary to protect British lives and British interests, to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad.
17:58
James Cartlidge Portrait James Cartlidge MP (South Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I commend. >> Shadow Secretary of State James. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and the briefing I received from his officials this morning? Can I begin by offering condolences on behalf of the opposition to the seven US soldiers killed in action as part of their ongoing action against Iran? I join the Secretary of State in utterly condemning Iran's indiscriminate attacks across the region and expressing my gratitude and that of the opposition to all our brilliant, brave service personnel and their families who are stationed out there.

Of course, the Secretary of State and I will agree that the number one responsibility of any government is to defend its people, and that everything possible must be done to secure our sovereign bases, particularly RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus, attacked by drones a week ago. That is an incredibly serious development. We support the government in taking steps to use the RAF and other assets to protect the airspace and defence, and defend against drone and missile threats to Akrotiri, but also in deploying our air Force to defend allies in the region as an act of collective self-defence.

The problem is this any serious integrated missile defence plan for the Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus would, by necessity, include the presence of one of our highly capable type 45 air defence destroyers. And yet, despite the Secretary of State just saying, and I quote, since January he has been moving military assets to the region. There isn't a single Royal Navy warship present, and our type 45 HMS Dragon hasn't even set sail. Can he confirm that the government only decided last Tuesday to send a type 45 to the Eastern Med, after the US action had already commenced and two days after RAF Akrotiri was attacked by kamikaze drones.

Of particular importance, Madam Deputy Speaker, it has been widely reported that the Royal Navy recommended to Ministers weeks ago to deploy a type 45 destroyer to the region. Is that true? And if so, when did the Navy make the recommendation to send a type 45? And which Minister took the decision to decline that advice from the Royal Navy, and instead choose not to send a destroyer? Who most importantly, why was the decision taken not to send a type 45 until attacks had already taken place against our base on Cyprus? And can the Secretary of State tell us on what date he expects HMS Dragon to be in position to provide air defence in the region? And furthermore, given the Chancellor's promise in her statement just now to reopen the Straits of Hormuz and France is pledged to provide escort ships, what other Royal Navy assets will we be sending to assist Madam Deputy Speaker? It was on the 19th of February that the BBC reported that the United Kingdom would not allow the United States to use its bases to launch an attack on Iran.

We know that three US Arleigh Burke destroyers, their equivalent of the type 45, have for days been based in the Mediterranean, providing Cyprus with defence against ballistic missiles. Doesn't this mean that until the Prime Minister's U-turn a week ago, that this Labour government were displaying the most extraordinary double standards to our closest military ally? On the one hand, denying the US the use of our bases, whilst on the other relying on them to protect ours. Exactly one of the bases in question is Diego Garcia Madam Speaker, absolutely critical for launching US heavy bombers.

Now it's bad enough for the Prime Minister to be u-turning over permission to use Diego Garcia whilst it is still our sovereign territory. How much worse will the situation be once we've started paying billions for the pleasure of Mauritius, a close ally of China, to have a say on whether such action complies with international law? So isn't it the case that when it comes to the Prime Minister's next and 17th U-turn, the best thing he could do is to scrap his crazy Chagos deal and spend every penny on the British armed forces.

But this isn't just about the future of Diego Garcia. Last week, the Cypriot foreign Minister said, and I quote, there are questions about the future of the UK's military bases on the island. Isn't the reality that Greece, France and Spain are all sending ships, and that Labour's failure to deploy the Royal Navy to the Eastern Mediterranean has completely undermined our international standing, not just in the eyes of our many allies in the Middle East, but also in the eyes of those who can now exploit such weakness.

So can the Secretary of State give his cast iron guarantee that UK sovereignty of our bases on Cyprus is not up for negotiation? Madam Speaker, of course it's not just HMS Dragon that everyone is waiting for at a time of war on multiple fronts. We've now been waiting months and months for the government to publish its long overdue defence investment plan. I cannot emphasise how serious this is. Britain urgently needs to rearm. It was right that we gave a huge amount of munitions to support Ukraine, but that has made our need to rearm even more pressing.

So when exactly is the government going to publish the Defence Investment plan? Can the Secretary of State at least say if it will be published before local election purdah commences? That is a key question. Finally, isn't there a simple reason why there's no defence investment plan? And isn't it the same reason that for the first time in almost half a century, there are no Royal Navy warships in the Middle East? Because when it comes to defence spending, this government has prioritised welfare over rearmament.

They've chosen to spend billions more on benefits rather than strengthening our defence in a dangerous world. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, after all the Prime Minister's dither and delay, U-turns and weakness, will the Secretary of State finally demand from his Chancellor what we all know our armed forces need a properly funded plan to get the 3% on defence. This parliament?
18:04
John Healey Portrait Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah, yeah. >> Well, let me start by recognising the fact that he supports the steps that we've taken to put UK defence capabilities into the Middle Eastern region, that his recognition and support for the fact that we did this in advance of the current crisis and these, these these capabilities and our coordination of them have been alongside us allies and have been purely defensive in nature. We have been doing what Britain can best contribute to the protection of British interests, British personnel, British bases and British allies in the region.

He asks me about Dragon. While we've been building up that significant military presence in the Middle East since January, which he for the first time has recognised and welcomed, it is totally right that as circumstances change, so should our military posture. He asks me when this option of dragon was first put to Ministers. As the chief of the Defence Staff said on the BBC on Saturday, he looked at the proposals for Dragon being deployed to the Middle East on Tuesday last week, and I signed them off the same day.

And I say to the right hon. Gentleman, I say to the honourable, if he is unhappy about the state of the British Navy, he should take a hard look at his government's own record. Over 14 years they hollowed out and underfunded our forces. They cut they cut £12 billion from the defence Budget in their first five years. Total frigate and destroyer numbers were cut from 23 to 17, and in 14 years in government, they didn't order a single new destroyer.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we only have Dragon available to go to the Middle East today because the Labour government commissioned it before. Before 2010, and I completely. I am proud. I'm proud of the work our military are doing in the Middle East. I reject claims about the response we've got ahead of the first strikes in the way that we've set, and I've been unable to find any evidence in public or in this House of the shadow Defence Secretary calling at any stage for military assets to be moved to the Middle East before the war began.

Indeed, the shadow foreign Secretary barely a month ago in this House was saying in this chamber calling for our military and I quote, to prioritise or repurpose inventory to contribute to NATO's High North missions. He really is proving himself quite an armchair general, general hindsight wise, only after the event, and I'm really disappointed. He asks about the dip. We're working flat out produced that. He asked about defence spending. He cut it. We invested in defence with the greatest increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War.

This year alone, we're spending £62 billion on defence. That is £8 billion more than the last year of their government. And I'm really disappointed. And I tell you, our forces are disappointed that he did not stand up and offer an apology for what his leader said on Friday. His leaders claim that British forces in the Middle East are just hanging around is totally wrong and deeply insulting. They are working flat out in the face of air raid sirens and warnings to protect British lives, protect British interests, protect British allies.

And it's time the Tories did the decent thing, apologised for her remarks and removed and withdrew them.
18:09
18:10
18:11
James MacCleary Portrait James MacCleary MP (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lib Dem spokesperson James MacCleary. thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement today and echo his praise for the bravery and professionalism of our armed forces putting their lives on their line for us all. The Liberal Democrats continue to have grave concerns about the UK being dragged into Trump's illegal war. However, it is fair to say that the situation has evolved very quickly. So given that it is commonplace for UK personnel to serve aboard US Navy ships, including aircraft carriers like those currently engaged in attacks on Iran, can the Secretary of State provide assurance to this House that no UK personnel are currently serving aboard US Navy ships engaged in offensive operations in the Middle East? Furthermore, there have been serious questions raised about the use of UK bases for US airstrikes.

So, can Secretary of State reassure the House on what monitoring is in place to ensure that US actions from UK bases remain purely defensive? And will the government ensure that any intelligence relating to US strikes conducted from UK bases is provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee for review? And if UK bases were used, if proposed or proposed, to be used for offensive action beyond the government's authority, would the government withdraw permission immediately? Securing these guarantees is essential to ensure that the UK does not become complicit in Trump's unilateral and illegal war.

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, even if the limited defensive actions carried out being asked for, armed forces have exposed, the stretched resources really are. So I must press the Secretary of State to give a clear time frame for the release of the Defence investment Plan. To start the urgent task of plugging these gaps, we must make sure that UK forces are given all the tools they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need to do the jobs we ask of them, both now and in the future. Thank you. Thank Madam Deputy Speaker, as I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said to the House in my statement. said to the House in my statement. All decisions that we've taken, all actions in the face of this current conflict have been defensive in conflict have been defensive in nature and legally well based. That gives a sound foundation for
18:13
18:14
18:14
18:15
18:16
18:17
18:18
18:20
18:21
18:22
18:22
18:23
18:23
18:24
18:24
18:25
18:26
18:27
18:27
18:28
18:28
18:29
18:30
18:30
18:31
18:32
18:32
18:33
18:33
18:34
18:35
18:35
18:35
18:36
18:36
18:37
18:38
18:38
18:39
18:39
18:40
18:41
18:41
18:42
18:42
18:43
18:43
18:44
18:44
18:45
18:46
18:46
18:47
18:47
18:48
18:49
18:49
18:50
18:50
None Portrait Ministerial statement: Protecting What Matters
-

Thank you, Madam.
18:51
Steve Reed Portrait Rt Hon Steve Reed MP, The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Streatham and Croydon North, Labour )
-
-
on the government's action plan for social cohesion entitled Protecting social cohesion entitled Protecting What Matters. Britain has faced global crises at many moments in global crises at many moments in our history, and we got through them by staying strong and united. them by staying strong and united. Today we navigate new threats to our communities and families, and our communities and families, and we must stand together once again against those who seek to divide and weaken us. They want to sow division in our streets, our neighbourhoods, our homes, and in our minds.

They feed off deliberate misinformation, hatred and extremism carried across social media by algorithms and funded by hostile states and rogue billionaires determined to pull our communities apart. Online echo chambers hatred for those with a different point of view, an unwillingness to seek compromise have led to a politics more aggressive, polarised and toxic than we've seen before. Certainly in our lifetimes. As a nation, we are proof that people from different backgrounds can live, work and contribute together.

A multi-ethnic democracy where neighbours look out for each other. But the foundations on which this country was was built have been rocked by the rapid change all around us. Economic shocks and austerity halted the once steady improvement in our living standards. Rapid technological change has transformed how we work and live our lives. Intergenerational unfairness, regional inequality and ageing population, the Tory open borders experiment and the disruption caused by their asylum seeker hotel's policy. All of this has left communities more fearful of the future and more susceptible to siren voices, wrongly putting the blame on minority groups.

Today, through the publication of Protecting What Matters, which we've laid as a command paper in both houses this afternoon, we set out our steps towards a more confident, cohesive and United Kingdom. Patriotism means bringing our country together, never pulling it apart. It's not patriotic to target someone because of their religion or the colour of their skin. We will resist those who peddle that kind of hatred and division. We choose to celebrate our country and all it stands for.

We choose to come together in the best of times and the worst of times. We choose to take on those who seek to divide us. That is patriotism. Our action plan aims to build confident communities that have hope in the future. There is a direct link between declining high streets and a sense that the country is going backwards. People remember high streets from years gone by that were vibrant, buzzy, great places to socialise with friends and family. There's a real sense of anger as well as of loss, that so many have been left boarded up and run down, covered in graffiti, full of dumped rubbish, bleak symbols of the wasted Tory years.

People deserve to feel proud of their neighbourhood, and pride in place is central to our plan to make that happen. We have now committed £5.8 billion to almost 300 constituencies and begun to set up neighbourhood boards so local people can decide for themselves how that money is spent. Fair funding for councils means funding now follows deprivation. Deprivation. For the first time in over a decade, we're offering grassroots organisations £5 million through the Common Ground Fund to tackle division in communities.

We'll focus, too, on protecting young people from those who want to warp their minds with hatred and introduce more effective regulation of home education. The first ever register of children not in school. Stronger oversight where children may be at risk, and piloting a new approach where new safety checks are carried out before a child can be taken out of mainstream schooling. It's important children grow up understanding the diversity of our nation. So we're investing £500,000 to link schools serving different communities to make sure they know and understand each other better.

We will establish a social cohesion measurement framework so we can identify risks early and act quickly. We'll set expectation on integration for new arrivals and the communities that will receive them, with a focus on learning English so people have a shared language, can participate in the local community and have respect for British values, our democracy and our way of life. We will end the Tory Asylum hotels policy and shape an immigration system that is fair and transparent and works better for all communities.

We will not allow hatred to distort the lives and life chances of those who are targeted. Right now, Muslim communities are facing shocking levels of abuse. Anti-Muslim hate crimes are at record levels, and they now make up almost half of all religious hate crimes, way out of proportion to the size of our Muslim population. Mosques, schools and businesses have been attacked, women harassed, families are living in fear. We have a duty to act. But you can't tackle the problem if you can't describe it.

So today we are adopting a non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility. This gives a clear explanation of unacceptable prejudice, discrimination and hatred targeting Muslims so we can take action to stop it. The definition safeguards our fundamental right to freedom of speech about religion in general, or any religion in particular, and ensures that concerns raised in the public interest are protected. I want to thank the members of the Independent Working Group, chaired by Dominic Grieve, who have provided advice to the government on this matter.

They have themselves been targets for abuse because they carried out this work and that is utterly unacceptable. I am grateful for their patience and their wisdom. We will now work with groups across society to consider how this definition can be used most effectively, and what comes next in disseminating it. And we've deposited a copy of the definition in the libraries of both houses. We also remain absolutely committed to stamping out anti-Semitism. We have witnessed murderous, anti-Semitic terrorist attacks, both here in the UK and abroad.

Sickeningly, this led to spikes in anti-Semitic abuse. Since coming to power, this government has taken decisive steps to combat anti-Semitism, with record funding for security at synagogues and schools, millions of pounds to tackle antisemitism in schools and universities, new laws to stop abusive protests outside places of worship. Today, we are going even further to tackle anti-Semitism in schools and colleges and in the healthcare system, and, crucially, clamping down hard on the extremism which so often targets Jews.

First of all, work is underway across government as we continue to root out anti-Semitic hatred from every part of British life. We also hear concerns about hatred and discrimination in the workplace. We're building on protections in our landmark Employment Rights Act, rolling out training across the civil service and working with major employers like the NHS. This will include training to prevent and respond to religious hatred across the entire workforce, confronting extremism in all its forms requires more resilient communities.

We will implement the Anti-extremism policies the previous government announced but never brought into force, embedding the 2024 extremism definition, producing an annual State of Extremism report and improving our ability to monitor and stop extremist influence online and offline. We will introduce a state Threats designation power to disrupt hostile state and proxy organisations will strengthen the Charity Commission's powers to tackle extremist abuse and ban visas for extremists and hate preachers. Our universities should always be beacons of free speech, where students feel safe to learn to disagree and to explore how they see the world.

But in recent years this has been undermined and we will not tolerate that. We are introducing new measures to tackle the rise of extremism on our college and university campuses, particularly since the October 7th attacks. Strengthening monitoring of extremist extremism on campuses, improving oversight of compliance with the prevent duty and taking more robust enforcement action where that's needed. We will also protect people from hate content online. The government will not stand by as rogue platforms push divisive and aggressive hatred on social media.

We are looking at how we can make platforms give their users more control over the algorithms that determine what they see, and we will make full use of powers in the Online Safety Act. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have all grown up in a United Kingdom which by global standards is remarkably cohesive. That cohesion underpins our economic strength, our democratic freedom and our national security. It is a fundamental part of the Britain we love. We have made our choice in place of division.

We choose unity, and we know the people of Britain have made the same choice. The division and hate spewed by a small minority will never reflect our country. The real Britain is where parents put on after school clubs and summer fetes to bring their kids together, where towns come out in the pouring rain to support their local football club with the same passion as they support their country's team. In the World Cup, where neighbours hold street parties, and where they set up mutual aid groups to look out for each other during Covid.

This is a Britain to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proud of. Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this plan to the House. I thank the Secretary of State

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. However, I've had no prior notice that he would overrun over his ten minutes that he's allocated to his statement by more than two minutes. He's actually taken 12 minutes. Therefore, the shadow frontbench. You will get your time extended to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You will get your time extended to six minutes. Shadow Minister. Thank you very much, Madam
19:03
Paul Holmes Portrait Paul Holmes MP (Hamble Valley, Conservative)
-
-
Deputy Speaker. And can I thank the Secretary of State for advanced sight of his statement? Although I wish it was an advanced sight wish it was an advanced sight because this government leaked it on the Friday and his department briefed it to the press yesterday. briefed it to the press yesterday. Parliament should not learn the details of government policy through newspaper reports. This through newspaper reports. This House deserves transparency. Now, there are some measures in this strategy that we welcome. Efforts strategy that we welcome.

Efforts to tackle extremism in charities and universities are important and necessary, and we welcome them. But this strategy lacks ambition and action to deliver tangible change. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Secretary of State spoke for two minutes over his allocated time, which is ironic because there's absolutely nothing new in the measures that the government are announcing this evening. The strategy claims that the government intends to embed the Anti-extremism principles adopted by the previous conservative government in 2024. But if that is the case, why has this government reversed the position on naming extremist organisations? We now have a ridiculous situation where the government claims it has a policy of non-engagement with extremists, but refuses to say who that policy applies to.

Last month, we saw this confusion laid bare when the Home Office was asked whether it engaged with the Muslim Council of Britain. Two different Ministers gave contradictory answers. When asked whether the MCB had given written evidence to the MacDonald review into hate crime, the Policing Minister stated the government's policy of non-engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain has not changed. But just two days later, when asked whether the Muslim Council of Britain was on the list of organisations subject to that policy, the Security Minister replied The Home Office does not comment on specific groups.

So which is it? And this lack of transparency also applies to the review itself. Will the Minister now publish the full report provided to him by the working group? Will he publish a list of every external organisation that the working group met, and every organisation his department has subsequently consulted on that report, and will he confirm whether organisations deemed extremist or subject to the government's policy of non-engagement were permitted to submit evidence? Because so far this review appears to have been to have been conducted largely in secret, the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming, even into publishing an email address so that evidence could be submitted.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this proposed definition still raises serious questions. Jonathan Hall KC, the government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has warned that any definition should include clear examples of free speech that are not considered anti-Muslim hatred. He said it is important that people can still openly discuss difficult but but significant topics such as migration and Islamism, so it risks undermining free speech within the law. It risks hindering legitimate criticism of Islamism, and it risks creating a backdoor blasphemy law now on English language.

The strategy also claims the government wants to promote the English language, but it will not say whether it supports the guidance issued to councils in 2013 by the then Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, which advised against routine translation into foreign languages. Madam Deputy Speaker, we should be investing in English language training, not endless translation. Translation undermines integration, it wastes taxpayers money and it ultimately harms equality. There is no legal duty on councils to translate documents into foreign languages.

Yet too often officials gold plate the Equality Act and do so anyway. Meanwhile, around a million adults in this country cannot speak English properly. This fundamentally limits their life chances, and it perpetuates separate communities. If a government truly believed in equality, it would not turn a blind eye to practices like family voting, where husbands effectively take the votes off their wives. Nor would it tolerate the misogyny and segregation that occur when men prevent women from learning English. And finally, there is the question of if they might want to listen.

Because I'm about to talk about anti-Semitism and I know they've had a problem with that. But on the question of anti-Semitism, will the government challenge anti-Israel boycotts and divestment campaigns in local government, as we have seen recently in Bristol, advocated by a party in this House, such campaigns fuel hostility towards Jewish people and contribute to the rise in anti-Semitism. Local procurement boycotts of Israel are supposed to be unlawful, yet Ministers do nothing to enforce the law. They will not even compile a list of councils pursuing such boycotts.

Added to these fears, separatism is on the rise in our country as the Leader of the Opposition rightly set out. In her speech last week, she said that for too long Britain has been complacent about its own culture and too tolerant of those who weaponise identity politics for their own gain. Britain is a multiracial country, but it must not become a multicultural one. We must reject the absurd idea that culture that was in the Secretary of State's statement. By the way, we must reject the absurd idea that culture is something imported from somewhere else.

For integration to work, people must know what they are integrating into. That means a culture that is confident, a culture that is strong, and a culture that believes in itself. And that is what this government still seems unable to understand and unwilling to defend.
19:09
Steve Reed Portrait Rt Hon Steve Reed MP, The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Streatham and Croydon North, Labour )
-
-
Secretary of State well, I thank >> Secretary of State well, I thank him, I think, for his comments. Now, the reason this is the first social cohesion strategy any government cohesion strategy any government has published for so many years is because they didn't bother when they were in government. And no, there has not been proactive engagement with the MCB in the work that was carried out by the government or the task or the task force. The previous government didn't publish the social cohesion strategy, but they did so division in our communities, their asylum seeker hotel policy that we are having to clean up caused all sorts of problems all over, all over the country.

They actively stripped money out of poorer communities, then boasted about it leaving high streets to fall into decline and the people living in those communities to feel that the country was going backwards and was offering nothing to them. The definition of itself. There is absolutely no question of blasphemy laws by the back door, but we will not do what they did and stand by and simply watch. While Muslim communities face targeted abuse in ways that any decent country would consider to be absolutely intolerable.

And as for English language teaching, they cut funding for it by 60%, and they have the cheek to stand up there and say there's not enough of it going on. Now, when I was a student, I volunteered to teach English to refugees. I suggest he might go out and do the same thing because it's very enriching for the volunteer. It's beneficial for the person. Learning English and speaking the same language is fundamental to social cohesion.
19:10
19:11
Steve Reed Portrait Rt Hon Steve Reed MP, The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Streatham and Croydon North, Labour )
-
-
Secretary of State? question. And many members across the House will recognise the point she is making, which will have been communicated to us by our own communicated to us by our own constituents as well. You know, there are laws against outright discrimination and those must be enforced properly. But how we hope the definition will help is the vast majority of employers, people of goodwill, who may not understand the nature of hostility towards Muslims or people who appear or sound like they are Muslims.

How they are contributing to that kind of hostility. The intention of the definition is to enable those individuals and employers to better understand the circumstances, so that Muslim people are given the same opportunities and chances in life as anybody else.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Liberal Democrat spokesperson Marie Goldman. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statements. Liberal Democrats are pleased to see the government present this social cohesion strategy, partly because we've consistently called because we've consistently called for it for its publication without further delay, which it was promised last year. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, this should not be a political matter. We all witnessed the scenes during the witnessed the scenes during the 2024 riots to suggest that a community cohesion strategy is unnecessary is to be blind to the very real challenges facing our country, challenges that have regrettably been inflamed by certain politicians who really should know better.

With almost 140,000 hate related offences recorded in the year to March 2025, it's clear that action is needed at a national level. But to support community cohesion, we must first build community itself and the kind of community that comes from access to shared spaces, youth clubs, green spaces and the everyday places where, regardless of
19:13
19:13
19:14
19:16
19:16
19:17
19:18
19:18
19:19
19:20
19:20
19:21
19:22
19:23
19:23
19:24
19:25
19:25
19:25
19:26
19:27
19:28
19:28
19:28
19:29
19:30
19:30
19:31
19:31
19:32
19:32
19:33
19:33
19:34
19:34
19:35
19:35
19:36
19:37
19:38
19:38
19:39
19:39
19:40
19:40
19:41
19:42
Olivia Bailey Portrait Olivia Bailey MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Education) (Equalities) (Reading West and Mid Berkshire, Labour)
-
-
I beg to move that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disagrees with Lords Amendment two. It's been. Madam Deputy Speaker, children's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, children's voices are heard rarely in this place and are too often ignored in our society. So may I say at the our society. So may I say at the outset that the opportunity to play my part in the passage of this landmark legislation is truly a landmark legislation is truly a special privilege. This bill is about creating the conditions in which every child can achieve and which every child can achieve and thrive. To ensure safer and more secure childhoods.

To tackle the scourge of child poverty. To deliver high and rising school standards. And today, I ask the House to renew its commitment to that ambition for our children and our country. I extend my thanks to my colleague and friend, the noble Baroness, the Minister for skills, for her skilful stewardship of the Bill. And today I ask the hon. Members to back the government amendments made in the other place, which increased the ambition of this legislation. In part one of the Bill, we have introduced a new duty on local housing authorities to, with consent, notify educational institutions, GP practices and health visiting services when a child is placed in temporary accommodation.

We have also strengthened the government's work to put the voices of children at the heart of decisions about their futures, with amendments on family, group decision making and the kinship local offer. On that point, I'm going to have to make progress. I'm so sorry. There's so much to get through. Turning to part two of the bill on schools, we are taking forward our historic strategy to lift children out of poverty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South set out last year from September, all children in households receiving Universal Credit will be eligible for free school meals.

This will put £500 back in families pockets, support half a million more children with a nutritious meal and lift 100,000 children out of poverty. That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the difference that this Labour government is making for children and families. And we're supporting this, Madam Deputy Speaker, by upgrading the eligibility checking system, making it much easier for local authorities, schools and parents to confirm free school meal eligibility. Finally, the government are also enabling the introduction of academy trust inspection and giving powers to the Secretary of State, where academy trusts are not meeting acceptable standards.

I will now turn to the 13 non-government amendments made in the other place. First, the amendments relating to child protection on Lords Amendment two statutory guidance is already clear that a multi-agency conference should take place to review whether the Child Protection plan should be discharged on Lords Amendment five. Effective multi-agency child protection practices, which prevents tragedies and save lives, needs to happen now. Further delay is unacceptable. In addition, evaluation is already underway and regulations to give multi-agency child protection teams their functions will be subject to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. Just briefly. And there's much positivity in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And there's much positivity in what the Minister and government is bringing forward. Can I ask the Minister and releasing to smartphones and the and back in smartphones and the and back in Northern Ireland, the Minister, Paul Givan, has brought forward a pilot scheme which will take away smartphones out of the classroom for the period of time that children are in school. Has the Minister been able to consider that Minister been able to consider that as a positive? If it is a positive in Northern Ireland, I think it could be a positive here as well.

Thank you so much.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for that important intervention. I will come on to it in my speech in due course on Lords Amendment 44. The government cannot support this amendment on principle. Extending the consent requirement risks discouraging families from seeking or continuing to receive seeking or continuing to receive help or support. It suggests that a child or family circumstances can never change. I'm going to make never change. I'm going to make progress. I'm sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will now turn to amendments relating to looked after amendments relating to looked after children and deprivation of liberty.

Lords Amendments 16 concerns the proposed review of the level of funding for the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund. We all know how important effective support is for the success of adoptive families, and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington announced £55 million for the fund in 2627, and confirmed the fund will continue in 2728. He also announced a 12 week consultation on adoption support, including the ASG. Hon. Members will, I am sure, agree that it is important that we do not undermine the integrity of the consultation by undertaking a separate review.

Lords Amendment 17 intends to strengthen relationships between looked after children and their siblings in practice. It requires local authorities to record in the care plan any contact arrangements made between looked after children and any sibling they are not living with. I I'll give way in one moment, my hon. Friend. I am proud that this government has set out the biggest reform to the children's social care system in a generation. In particular, we are implementing changes to expand, fostering, creating 10,000 additional places for children and resetting the system to back kinship care so more children can grow up safely with people who already know and love them.

And these changes will allow many more children who grow up in care to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spend time with their brothers or sisters. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. Congratulate the government on making kinship central to their policies. But when it comes to policies. But when it comes to brothers and sisters, many children in care experience significant disruption in their lives through disruption in their lives through multiple home moves and school changes. Those relationships are so central to a child's sense of central to a child's sense of identity, belonging, and emotional security. Could she possibly look again at how regulations and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

guidance could better ensure that those relationships are protected? Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with her about the importance of sibling relationships and would just say to her, the amendment before us today does little to actually advance that little to actually advance that cause, but the reforms that we're driving forward in children's driving forward in children's social care will do so. Lords Amendment 19. Madam Deputy Speaker seeks to include integrated care seeks to include integrated care boards in regional cooperation arrangements. The government agrees it's important to include health partners in regional arrangements to look to improve looked after children's outcomes.

But there are already legal requirements on local authorities to do this. These duties will continue to apply to local authorities that form regional care co-operatives in. This amendment is therefore unnecessary. Lords Amendment 21 concerns joint funding arrangements for children deprived of their liberty. Mechanisms for pooled funding already exist and work well in some areas, and legislating now is premature, ahead of pilots that will test effective models. Madam Deputy Speaker, moving on to school uniform Lords Amendments 41 and 42 seek a monetary cap rather than a numeric limit on branded school uniform.

I welcome their Lordships support of the government's aim to tackle the cost of uniform for parents, and our manifesto was clear we will limit the number of branded items of uniform required so uniforms make children look smarter and not make families poorer. However, these amendments would undermine our shared aims. A cost cap risks creating perverse incentives for schools by creating a financial target, many schools could require more branded items, reducing savings for parents. A cost cap would also require government to regulate for wider, unworkable factors, including how many spares parents might buy, cost variations for clothing sizes, and even promotional pricing.

It would also impose new bureaucracy on schools to carry out regular retail price monitoring, often across multiple suppliers. We do recognise concerns about high cost individual items, which is why we will strengthen existing cost guidance. To be clear, that high cost, compulsory branded uniform items should be avoided. Madam Deputy Speaker. Turning to school admissions, Lords Amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can specify a lower published admissions number or Pan, following an upheld objection, every parent should be able to send their child to a good local school, and we want a choice of good schools for all families.

That is why when we bring forward the updated statutory school admissions code, it will make securing a high quality education and high levels of parental choice central factors in any decision on Pan in one moment. However, at a time of declining pupil numbers, schools acting unilaterally in isolation can put that parental choice at risk. And that's exactly why clause 56 unamended is essential to help ensure that all schools and local authorities work together to ensure that place

**** Possible New Speaker ****

planning delivers a choice of high quality schools for all families. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way, and I completely agree with her position that parents should have the choice to send their have the choice to send their children to whichever school they believe is best for their child. Relating to admissions. One of my first cases after becoming an MP was an automatic off rolling of a was an automatic off rolling of a child after she had been absent for 20 days, despite having communicated the absence to the school and and it being extended due to a bereavement.

But she was off rolled with no process, no review and she was out of school for nine months. Would the Minister please consider reviewing this punitive policy to ensure there is a formal review before a child is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

removed from their preferred school? The Minister has been. You need to sit down, Minister. The Minister has been very generous The Minister has been very generous with her time. However, she will be aware there's many members in this debate that wish to speak and as it debate that wish to speak and as it stands, it is very, very difficult given the time constraints. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps if you could write to me about that case, I'd be happy to to look into it for him. But off look into it for him. But off rolling absolutely should not be happening. Madam Deputy Speaker, moving on to the crucial issue of allergies in schools. Lords Amendment 105 seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety provisions for all schools. The government agrees with members across the House who have been campaigning for improved allergy safety in schools, including my hon.

Friend, the Member for Redditch and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford. Last week we published draft statutory guidance, which will be in force in September. This sets out clearly that schools should have a dedicated allergy safety policy, stock, spare adrenaline devices and have whole staff allergy awareness training. At the launch, I had the privilege of joining Helen and Peter Blythe with their wonderful daughter Etta, who's campaigning in memory of their son. Benedict has been both brave and instrumental. We recognise their argument about allergy safety requiring the strongest protections, and that's why I am pleased to confirm with Helen in the gallery here today that we will put Benedict's law on the statute book with our own amendment to require schools to have and publish an allergy safety policy, to have regard to statutory guidance, and to give powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations related to allergy safety.

This protects children with allergies in schools and ensures our guidance can evolve as clinical advice changes. And I am sure the whole House will join with me in thanking Helen once again for her bravery and brilliant campaigning

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for. I'm very briefly, but I'm going to. Thank you. I thank the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I thank the Minister for recognising that we do need to legislate to protect children with allergies in schools. Can you reassure us that both Benedict Life reassure us that both Benedict Life Foundation, Helen and those MPs have campaigned for this will see the amendment before it goes to the Lords? The very earliest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords? The very earliest opportunity, so we can ensure that Benedict's law is delivered in full. I absolutely, and I'm afraid I can't take any further can't take any further interventions. I must get through the last section of my speech. Madam Deputy Speaker. I can give that assurance. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me turn to amendment 37, 38 and 106 on social media, VPNs and phones in schools. I want to start by acknowledging the strength of feeling on these issues, both in this House and the other place.

The Online Safety Act has brought in strong protections, but as a government, we have always been clear that we will build on its foundations. We know that parents across the country worry about what social media is doing to their children's sleep, concentration and mental health. Many, many feel they are fighting a losing battle against platforms designed to keep children scrolling. Many parents in campaign groups have called for an outright ban on social media for under 16 seconds. Others, children's charities, have warned that a blanket ban could drive children regulated corners of the internet or leave teenagers unprepared when they do come online.

That is why last week, the government launched a consultation to seek views to help shape our next steps and ensure children can grow up with a safer, healthier and more enriching relationship with the online world. The consultation will be open until the 26th of May and we will respond in the summer. The consultation already addresses the areas covered by these amendments, but crucially, the consultation goes beyond these amendments and seeks a view on a range of other issues, including children's use of AI chatbot services, mandatory overnight curfews and whether platforms should be required to switch off addictive features, and whether the digital age of consent in the UK, GDPR should be raised from 13.

We are also ensuring that we can act swiftly and decisively on the outcomes of the consultation, and that is why we are proposing an amendment in lieu to allow us to act via regulation making powers. These powers will allow the Secretary of State for DSIT to restrict or ban children of certain ages from accessing social media services, and chatbots limit access to specific features that are harmful or addictive on these services. Age restrict or limit children's VPN use and change the age of digital consent in the UK.

GDPR if the outcomes of the consultation show this is necessary, the specific measures will be shaped by what parents, children and experts tell us and any regulations brought forward will require a vote. A vote in both Houses of Parliament, ensuring proper scrutiny. We I can't I'm so sorry. I must make progress. We understand we need to act swiftly and rest assured, through these powers we'll be able to do so. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me also be extremely clear. It is not a question of if we act, but how.

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me briefly cover amendment 106. We have always been clear that mobile phones have no place in schools, but because previous guidance was not sufficiently clear, we have published strengthened guidance so that there can be no doubt bell to bell schools should be mobile phone free. We are also acting to ensure bands are properly enforced. Our network of attendance and behaviour hubs will provide targeted support to schools struggling. And from April, Ofsted will inspect schools, mobile phones, policies and enforcement.

Our consultation is also seeking views on whether we need to go further to support schools, for example, whether the guidance should be placed on a statutory footing. Madam Deputy Speaker, hon. Members have the chance tonight to vote to keep children safe, on and offline, to vote to tackle child poverty by putting money back in parents pockets, and to vote for a school system which enables every child across all our schools to achieve and thrive. I urge the House to support this vision for our children and our country's future to back our amendments, and I look debate.
19:57
Laura Trott Portrait Rt Hon Laura Trott MP (Sevenoaks, Conservative)
-
-
The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their disagrees with the Lords in their amendment to, I call, Shadow Secretary of State. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'm delighted to be addressing and I'm delighted to be addressing the 13 amendments sent back to us by the Other place this evening. The volume of amendments reflects The volume of amendments reflects the strong feelings in both houses about the deficiencies in this bill. But there is a chance tonight to make change for the better.

At the moment, the government seems to do its utmost to oppose anything it didn't come up with, not on merit, just because it's retreated into a tribal bunker through which only ideas emanating from Labour special advisers or union bosses are deemed acceptable. Might I suggest, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker, that this is not serving the government very well? Here, here. Take the phone ban. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Take the phone ban. The Education Secretary has turned into a contortionist. First she was telling me that a statutory ban on telling me that a statutory ban on phones in the classroom was, and I quote, a gimmick. Then the Prime quote, a gimmick. Then the Prime Minister slammed it as unnecessary. Then the Education Secretary later admitted that there is a problem, admitted that there is a problem, but more guidance can fix it. And finally, she's now consulting on whether to do a statutory ban but refusing to back our amendment, which actually delivers one.

I am flattered by the energy that the Education Secretary is putting into avoiding agreeing with me, but it's getting ridiculous. If the government cannot properly argue the merits of its case, then we get bad legislation. We have this problem with the schools bill when it first came in. The government still cannot justify the rationale for taking away academy freedoms, the very same freedoms which have delivered improved school standards in this country. And indeed we now have the absurdity of the schools white paper, which rightly says that academies are the driving force behind school improvement.

Yet in this bill, they are destroying academies in all but name. This is palpable nonsense. Madam Deputy Speaker, don't try and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make any sense of it. It's not possible. With pleasure. Very briefly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very briefly. I congratulate my right hon. Friend, in making the case for banning mobile phones in schools, banning mobile phones in schools, and indeed for restricting access to social media. We do not need more discussion. We don't need more consultation. We don't need more research because research already research because research already shows the harm that those things are doing. By delaying by prevaricating, we are robbing children of a healthy life chance. And so let's move on.

Let's just do what's so obviously needs to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

done. I congratulate my hon. Friend for making that call here tonight. Hear, hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear. As ever, my right hon. Friend is the voice of reason in this chamber. So now, when it comes to our amendment on pupil ambition numbers Lords Amendment 102, I hope that the government will try and the government will try and actually argue why they think that good and outstanding schools should good and outstanding schools should be made smaller when they are oversubscribed. Because to be clear this evening, that is exactly what the government is asking backbenchers to vote for.

Parental choice has been the great driver of school improvement in this country. It empowers parents to vote with their feet and encourages excellent schools. Yet the government want to turn this principle on its head. They want to cut good school places. This is bad for parents, bad for schools, and above all, bad for children. School standards are on the Order Paper this evening. Madam Deputy Speaker and the government want to vote against them. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way to the hon. Gentleman. For giving way. She, of course, knows that the challenge we have at knows that the challenge we have at the moment is that because of the way that the system works, local authorities can control the number authorities can control the number of admissions to good and outstanding maintained schools, but they have much less control when it comes to academies. So when there comes to academies. So when there are falling pupil numbers, as she knows, there are across the country, and there does need to be work done to make sure we've got the right number of places in the right areas.

The only lever that our local authorities have to pull is reducing admissions to good and outstanding maintained schools. So does she not agree that it is right that this government acts to make sure that we can genuinely make choices, regardless of the type of school, in the interests of children and parents?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In a time with shrinking school places, it is important that it is the good important that it is the good school places that survive, and parents should make that choice, not bureaucrats. The inability of not bureaucrats. The inability of the government to simply admit that they got it wrong in the bill, and there is a better way of achieving there is a better way of achieving the outcome they want, is ever present. Amendment 41 on the cost cap for school uniform is palpably cap for school uniform is palpably better than having a cap on items.

It is the height of insanity to insist that it is illegal for schools to use the football kit that they received for free, because it is outside the item limit. And in case anyone is thinking that this cannot actually be government policy, I suggest they read the guidance that sits alongside the legislation. It literally says, and I quote, all loaned or gifted branded items will be captured within the limit if they are required to be worn. Great praise. Absolutely. This means that they come under the cap.

This makes absolutely no sense. I will give way to the hon. Lady just on that very specific point. I thank her for raising it, but it is clear in the guidance that if that that item can be loaned, as long as it's not compulsory, that's a perfectly reasonable situation which does enable school sports teams to loan uniform items. The whole point is whether it's compulsory or not. That's the whole point of uniform. And I was reading directly from the guidance. It makes absolutely no sense.

How is wearing something you are being given for free going to increase cost for parents? If the not invented here syndrome wasn't running so rampant in the Department of Education, this change would have already been made. The same is true of Lords Amendment 44. We all know the horrific case of Sara Sharif. It was used as a rationale for bringing forward many of the positive child protection measures in this bill. The serious case review published at the end of the year set out multiple failings, which led to Sara falling out of the system.

The review states that while well intentioned, this legislation would not have helped Sara. So we have brought forward amendment 44 to fix that, to ensure that any child who has ever had a child protection plan has to get consent from the local authority to home school. This would mean that the bill would have helped Sara, which is the stated aim of the government. But get lost. Madam get. But guess what, Madam Deputy Speaker, the government is now opposing it. We are diligently doing the work and opposition should to improve legislation, and it is shrugged off by the government, not on its merits, but because they do not want to accept anything from this side of the House.

It is not good enough. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the. Shadow Minister. For raising the case of Sara Sharif from my constituency. What Sharif from my constituency. What she states is that the safeguarding review did highlight failings in Surrey County Council and failings Surrey County Council and failings in the law, but the safeguarding review recommended three quite detailed things. They, they what detailed things. They, they what they recommended is not in the Lords Amendment. The Lords Amendment goes separately. Wouldn't Amendment goes separately. Wouldn't it be better that Surrey was put under special measures, and that the government implemented the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

safeguarding review in full immediately? Yes. The hon. Gentleman is arguing for things that are outside the for things that are outside the scope of this bill. But what we do know is that if we change this specific amendment, it would have helped Sara in a way that it helped Sara in a way that it wouldn't have done at the moment on amendments two and 21. I'm not going to push these to a vote this going to push these to a vote this evening, but I reserve the right to come back to them.

If the government does not engage constructively in the other in the constructively in the other in the other place. And I am grateful to the noble Lady, Baroness Barran, for her brilliant work on this and the and the wider bill moving to phones. I really, really want members to understand how bad things have got with phones in schools and why a statutory ban is necessary. I know the government has issued revised guidance and has asked Ofsted to enforce this, but if you read Ofsted guidance on this, you will see that it still allows phones to be present in schools.

I cannot overstate to members how damaging and dangerous that is. I was thinking about how I can communicate this to most effectively, and I know they're not listening to me. They're not listening to parents, and they listen to teachers. So I thought first hand testimony from a young person might help get through. I warn you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the following account from a former pupil involves some graphic content, which I sincerely wish I didn't have to talk about, but I refuse to shy away from it.

Because if we're exposing 13 year olds to this in schools, then we need to be able to talk about it in this chamber. This is testimony from a girl who was at an outstanding girls school which had a not seen, not heard phone policy common in many schools across the country, and one which counts as a phone ban under the government's definition. The Minister says that children's voices are rarely heard. Well, I hope she listens to this today. When I was around 13 or 14 years old, one of my classmates would at her laptop at lunchtimes.

She would connect her laptop through her phone's hotspot because the school Wi-Fi would block any social media and launch up social media, because some thought it was funny to see how long it took to find an old man. It was never long, or how long it took for somebody to ask them their age, and when they replied with 14, they would send their Snapchat for you to add. The teachers never knew because we were alone in our forms. Some of my friends had access to Snapchat from very young, some even primary school, but I didn't.

I got Snapchat when I was 12 or 13, but I remember before my friends talking about dick pics in the changing rooms, and one said she got at least ten in the morning. She put up her phone and show us by scrolling through them just because it was funny that they would just send it. This happened after she added someone on Snapchat that she didn't know others had them too. Looking back now, I remember pretending to find everything funny just to fit in, but actually I felt really confused and grossed out at some of the content being shared.

All of this happened at school and we probably should have talked to a teacher, but as an 11 to 14 year old girl, you're not going to tell your male form tutor that people were being sent dick pics in school, or that your classmates were sending porn in the form group chat. I didn't even tell my parents until recently because I was embarrassed. Well, maybe because it just seemed normal, but my mum was already pretty strict with my phone usage, and if I told her what was being sent around at school, I felt like I would be in trouble and she'd take the phone away.

The phone was how everyone connected, so I needed to protect it. Over time, all the sexually explicit stuff just became normal. I remind members this is happening at school and in this case, an outstanding girls school. It is so far from being an isolated incident. In fact, it's the opposite. It's approaching a norm.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right hon. Friend. honourable. Member just. To enhance her point, I've been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To enhance her point, I've been running a survey in my constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill, and the vast majority of respondents and parents have said that they support parents have said that they support the concept of a simple age limit to social media, and that's because of these algorithms, these particularly harmful algorithms. So particularly harmful algorithms. So would she agree with me that it's the responsible thing for all of us to do in this House, is to support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to do in this House, is to support our policy of keeping our children safe by putting an age limit on social media. Yes. He's completely right. We need that. And we need the phone ban in schools, because polling out today shows 40% of children are shown explicit content during the school day. That's happening right now. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is an emergency. No more guidance, no more consultations. Legislate. Do something about it. Vote to ban school phones in schools tonight.

And this brings me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the amendments on social media. These amendments received overwhelming cross-party backing. In the other place they were put forward by the noble Lords Nash, Berger, Cash and Benjamin. They have been extensively debated and backed by a number of expert groups and bereaved parents. But in the place of this amendment, we had the farcical situation where the government is asking the House to support its own amendment, which doesn't tell us what it's going to do, or even indeed what it's going to do it.

Absolutely no action is required by the provision put forward this evening. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to it for giving way. And she's been speaking quite a bit tonight about parental choice. bit tonight about parental choice. Until of course, this amendment, when she doesn't believe parents are any more able to decide what their children do, and in fact, she's far better placed, as are many members in the House of Lords who don't know how to take a photo who don't know how to take a photo on the phone to tell everyone how how the parents should parent their how the parents should parent their children.

So does she recognise there are many parents who actually recognise that their children have very positive experience on social media? And isn't it sensible to have a consultation, as the government's already announced, to hear from experts, to hear from children and to hear from all the people who have opinions on this, rather than allowing to legislate great haste and make huge

**** Possible New Speaker ****

difference to many young people's lives. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, this is a safeguarding Gentleman, this is a safeguarding issue, and we've always taken steps when it comes to safeguarding and young people. But let me be clear young people. But let me be clear to members across the House, the government can choose to do nothing based on this amendment. Ministers themselves, so they don't have a view on whether social media should be banned. And they put forward an amendment that does not tell us amendment that does not tell us what they're going to do.

I mean, it's extraordinary. I will give way to the hon. Lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hon. Friend for giving way on this point. This is not about parents being unable to. This is about recognising that social media about recognising that social media platforms are being weaponised by algorithms to make children addicted to them, let alone by addicted to them, let alone by hostile states. It is impossible for parents to protect their children who do not have the children who do not have the critical thinking skills before 16. Having worked in counter-terrorism is critical thinking that stopped children from getting on planes to children from getting on planes to go and blow themselves up in foreign countries.

They cannot have those critical thinking. And as my friend, also agree that this is why we are seeing number one, cause as the number two cause of stroke in women under 40 is being strangled during sex because they have been told on the internet that you can be safely strangled. You cannot. And that is why we have to protect our children, because it is impossible for them to police the critical thinking skills to protect

**** Possible New Speaker ****

internet. Well, sir. The hon. Lady eloquently sums up why this amendment is quite so important. Sorry, I'm just going to make some progress. Although I was make some progress. Although I was going to get in trouble with Madam Deputy Speaker, we have an emergency happening hidden on children's phones. A quarter of children in primary school have children in primary school have seen porn, and the vast majority access it via social media. 70% of teenagers have seen real life teenagers have seen real life violence online, while only 6% were looking for it.

In other words, the social media algorithm deliberately serves it to them. Criminals are using Snapchat and Facebook to groom children. Child sexual abuse imagery crimes are up enormously. Snapchat is flagged in almost half of cases. Meta platforms make up a quarter. I'm sorry, I've really got to make some progress. Sextortion is also a huge issue on social media. In 2022, there were 10,000 reports of sextortion by Snap. Not in a year, in one month. And those are just the ones that we know about.

And most horrifyingly of all, social media is culpable in dozens of children's deaths. To give you just one example, Ellen Rooney's son Jules, she believes, took part in a TikTok blackout challenge. This is where young children and teenagers are encouraged to hold their breath until they pass out. Jules died as a result of this in April 2022, and this was two years after the challenge had supposedly been removed from the platform. When I met Ellen, another bereaved parents, they said. Tragically, their bereaved group just keeps on growing in the face of this.

Do you know what the government's consultation says? That government that children like using TikTok to post dance videos? It is this misguided view that social media is in some way good for children, or outweighs the harms I've spoken about that has got us here in the first place. I've heard. I'm sorry. I've got to make some progress. I've heard government Ministers argue that vulnerable children or children who are isolated need to find their community online. I want to put this argument to rest once and for all.

All the evidence shows that these children are the most likely to be exploited, groomed and harmed by social media. If a child is scared or isolated. Madam Deputy Speaker, the very last thing you should do is put them on social media. This is a terrible argument and one which I hope is not repeated today. The other options the government presents in their consultation simply do not meet the scale of the challenge. A curfew so you can only go get damaged by social media during the day.

It doesn't help time limits. So you still see the content just a few hours. Not good enough getting rid of scrolling? Fine. But how does that help stop children being groomed? So far, three senior Labour figures have managed to grasp the seriousness of the situation the Mayor of Greater Manchester, the Health Secretary and the Labour leader in Scotland. They have judged this policy on its merits. I hope the House manages to do the same tonight because we are in a crisis.

Madam Deputy Speaker, and if members across the House agree, then they need to add their voices and vote for change. A government amendment which does not commit to any action, backed by a consultation which does not recognise the scale of the problem, is simply not good enough. If the amendments I've outlined today were included in the bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, children would be safer, uniforms would be cheaper and school standards would be protected. There is a chance this evening that we can make this bill better, and that instead of doing all that we can to disagree, we can make the changes that have cross-party backing.

Parents are watching how we vote tonight. If you support school choice, vote for it. If you want smartphones out of the classroom, vote for it. If you want children out of social media, vote for it. We can make change. Madam Deputy Speaker, that's what parents want want and that is what we will be voting for this evening.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And with the exception of the Liberal Democrats spokesperson,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Liberal Democrats spokesperson, there will be an immediate four minute time limit to start with. Chair of the Select Committee, Helen Hayes. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on the amendments to this bill, which are most of interest to the Education Select Committee. Following our scrutiny work on the Bill and in relation to a number of other subsequent and ongoing
20:16
Helen Hayes Portrait Helen Hayes MP (Dulwich and West Norwood, Labour)
-
-
other subsequent and ongoing inquiries, I want to welcome the decision to place the expansion of the entitlement to free school meals. On the face of the bill, the Education Select Committee welcomes the expansion of the entitlement, which will increase the number of children who are able to benefit from a nutritious hot meal in the middle of the day. Combined with the rollout of free breakfast clubs, this will substantially reduce the scourge of hunger, which we know harms children's health and holds back their learning.

My committee has recommended that the government introduces auto enrolment for free school meals and the use of Universal Credit data, which the government already holds would make auto enrolment much easier to achieve. So I urge the Minister to ensure that no child misses out on the meal to which they are entitled by implementing auto enrolment. I also welcome the introduction of a requirement to notify health and health and education services when a child is placed in temporary accommodation. I've seen first hand many times in my constituency the destabilising impacts of temporary accommodation on children's lives.

It is usually the worst quality accommodation, most likely to be overcrowded, damp and mouldy, often far away from school and friends with no space to do homework, and with the constant underlying insecurity of not having a permanent home, it can have profound consequences for children's health and education. And the new duty to notify is an important first step in ensuring

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I thank the chair of the Education Committee, of which I declare, because I'm a member, for her really passionate speech. And as a former teacher, I've got it as a former teacher, I've got it into a speech. Would she agree that it's hugely important that teachers are aware when young people in their care are in temporary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their care are in temporary accommodation, because of the huge impact that it can have on their education, as she suggested. I thank my hon. Friend for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I agree with him entirely that so often we hear from teachers that they recognise a drop in a student's engagement or performance, but without understanding the reasons why. I welcome the introduction of the new requirements with regard to allergy safety in schools. As the parent of a child who had unexplained allergies in early childhood, I understand some of the fear and anxiety parents experience when entrusting a child with allergies to a formal setting, anxiety about whether allergens will be properly managed, and anxiety about what will happen if their child experiences an allergic reaction.

These new requirements will ensure more consistency, improve knowledge and better protocols for managing allergies in schools, so that parents and schools can have more confidence. I want to turn now to Lords Amendment 17 on siblings and foster care. The Education Select Committee, in our inquiry last year on children's social care, had directly from young people with recent experience of the care system who told us about the profound impacts of sibling separation. Sibling relationships are so important for looked after children, who often have experienced trauma and broken relationships with their parents and other family members.

Yet far too often, siblings are separated by a care system which struggles due to funding and lack of capacity to deliver child centred care. My committee was shocked to discover that the Department for Education gathers no data on sibling separation, a first a necessary step in seeking to reduce it. I appreciate that the government is not yet content with the wording of the specific amendment on sibling contact, but I want to urge the government to find a way to incorporate stronger requirements for sibling contact to be prioritised and maintained before this bill reaches the statute book.

It is a small change about something which should happen anyway, which has the potential to make a big difference to vulnerable children in the care system. I want with the short time that is left remaining to me, to reference just two other aspects of the bill this evening. The first is the amendment related to school uniform costs for families. I know what a strange school uniform can be for families struggling with the cost of living, and I welcome the government's efforts to limit the costs.

But I want to urge the Minister in responding to this debate, to give further assurance about the risks of the high costs of specific items I encountered in my constituency, an egregious case in which a child from a very, very low income background had been given a place at a school, but was told that she was unable to attend unless she had uniform. The cost had the appropriate blazer, the cost of which was £100. So I hope the Minister can give some indication about strengthening the guidance to schools on this matter this evening, and finally to the measures on social media.

I support robust measures to protect children from social media harms, including the raising the age of digital consent and a ban on some social media apps for under 16 seconds. And I support a statutory ban on schools. But there are differences of opinion. I will not give way because of the time. There are important differences of opinion between stakeholders on the best ways to regulate young people's access to smartphones and social media. So I believe it is right for the government to consult. And I welcome the amendments, which will allow legislation to be introduced without delay.

It would be very helpful if this evening, the Ministers could give some assurances about the timescale for the introduction of legislation following the consultation, which I believe will be necessary, and I'll end there due to time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Liberal Democrat spokesperson Munira Wilson. Thank you very much, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's a pleasure to welcome this bill back to the House of Commons, some 15 months, I House of Commons, some 15 months, I think, after it started its passage at the start of last year. And I'm at the start of last year. And I'm extremely disappointed how little time the government has made actually, to discuss the many Lords actually, to discuss the many Lords Amendments. I'm very grateful to our colleagues at the Other Place for their diligence on this bill,
20:22
Munira Wilson Portrait Munira Wilson MP (Twickenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
and for seeking to strengthen and improve it through the time that they had with this bill. I'm only they had with this bill. I'm only disappointed the government is throwing so many of those amendments out today. So let me amendments out today. So let me start, Madam Deputy Speaker, with Lords Amendments 41 and 42, tabled by my noble friend, the Lord Muhammad of Tinsley. In the other place, this would seek to introduce place, this would seek to introduce a price cap on the amount of branded uniform a school can require parents to buy.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we know the price of uniform causes real hardship for families, particularly in the midst of a cost of living crisis. It often causes genuine, genuine anxiety, as we've just heard from the chair of the Select Committee. Sometimes children being sent home for wearing the wrong item of uniform, disrupting their learning as a result. So whilst we strongly support the government's intention with a branded uniform item cap, I would implore the Minister to look again at the detail. Liberal Democrats have proposed a uniform price cap which would keep the prices down for parents, while giving schools the flexibility to choose their own school, their own uniform policy and how many branded items they wish to include.

The Minister talked about perverse incentives and driving up prices for parents. Actually, a monetary cap would do precisely the opposite, because you would be using the market and incentivising suppliers to drive down their prices. If they if there is a cap monetary cap in place, because obviously they want to be able to sell more items of branded clothing within that cap. Right. And I appreciate that the government points to its manifesto commitment, but there's nothing shameful about changing one's mind, dare I say u-turning, Madam Deputy Speaker, when the evidence demands it, that's something this government should feel pretty comfortable with by now.

On the theme of supporting families, I turn to Lords Amendment 16, which would require the government to review the per child funding in the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund. Following the devastating cuts they implemented last year. This fund provides therapeutic support for some of the most vulnerable children in our society. Madam Deputy Speaker, it allows them to process their trauma and relearn how to trust. Last year's cuts means that many adoptive parents and kinship carers can barely afford to pay for needs assessments, never mind the complex therapy their child actually requires.

Many of these adoptive parents and kinship carers have written to me from across the country about their experiences since the government cut their entitlements, and heartbreakingly, many of them have talked about the threat of adoption breakdown looming over their family. This fund is a lifeline for families, but that lifeline is fraying. We're told that tough choices must be made, but the Department of Education's advertising Budget hit nearly £50 million last year. That's a £15 million increase in the last two years.

Just halving that Budget could restore crucial therapeutic support to thousands of children. So I ask the Minister, will she support our amendment to review the funding for the ASG and commit to restoring individual grants? Or is this government more interested in glossy advertising campaigns than supporting its most vulnerable children? And speaking of vulnerable children, I'd like to turn to Lords Amendment 17, tabled by the noble Baroness Tyler in the other place, who has done amazing work on the issue of sibling contact rights.

This seeks to close a loophole in current regulations so that siblings, when one is in care and the other is not, are able to remain in contact. The amendment would require a child's care plan to include arrangements for promoting contact with all their siblings, whether they're in care or not, as far as that is consistent with the child's welfare. The government has said that there is no need to close this loophole as the duty already exists. But I ask the benches opposite whether they can be content with such an answer when it is clear the system at present is not working.

And we've heard again from the chair of the Education Select Committee and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby about the importance of this issue. I did have permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, to share Abbie's story. Abbie was somebody who grew up in a residential care home and lost contact with two of her sisters, contact which was subsequently restored. But I don't have time to go into that now because we've been so limited today in debate, but I hope we will return to this again if the government insists on doing the wrong thing and throwing out this really important amendment that clearly a number of their backbenchers support.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would also like to address the government's motion on, in lieu of Lords Amendments 37 and 38, that further amends the UK GDPR legislation to tighten control over children's personal data online. Liberal Democrats have been calling for this change for over a year now. And so while we welcome the government copying another one of our proposals, simply granting themselves the power to do something at some point is no protection for children until they act. And action has not been forthcoming.

And this is true for the second part of the government's motion. Again, we have another consultation that appears to be dithering over whether something should be done at all. We have been very clear on these benches with the government. If they want our support, they must make a firm commitment to act and to act quickly. Democrats are calling for a specific implementation timeline and a change to the consultations terms of reference, so that it does actually become a question of how we regulate social media, not if and we have a thought out policy ready to go.

If the government wants to take another idea of ours. We've proposed a harms based approach to online regulation by age, rating user to user services, by the addictiveness of their features, the harmfulness of their content content and the impact on mental health. The solution is practical, future proof, and would provide the incentive to make the online world safer for us all. Unlike the government, our approach ensures that these sweeping powers are not concentrated in the hands of a single Secretary of State.

So I must ask, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the government truly comfortable bypassing full parliamentary scrutiny through secondary legislation? They must consider the precedent they are setting. We are handed handing a loaded gun to any future administration of any political complexion, to decide which websites are harmful and which aren't, for the sake of our children's safety and our democratic standards. I urge the government to think again. And finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, we made a promise on these benches to the campaigners, to the charities, to the thousands of parents who have written to us that we would not play party politics on this issue.

And so, while we may differ in our approach, we will oppose the removal of Lords Amendment 38 because we need the government to hear the voices of thousands of parents and children who are desperate for something to change. Madam Deputy Speaker, every hour this House debates spends debating if we should do something. Another algorithm is being developed to exploit a vulnerable child. By opposing the removal of this amendment, we are sending a clear message that the safety of our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children is a non-negotiable, right? Yes. Emma Lewell-Buck. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will speak very Deputy Speaker. I will speak very briefly to amendment 17. From 2016 onwards. I've used every single onwards. I've used every single parliamentary lever possible to improve survival and contact for children in care by trying to children in care by trying to create parity in the legislation, because whilst the Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to 1989 requires local authorities to allow a looked after child reasonable contact with their parents, there is no such requirement for a looked after child's contact with their siblings or half siblings.

If siblings cannot be placed together, they
20:30
Emma Lewell Portrait Emma Lewell MP (South Shields, Labour)
-
-
should have the same rights to contact defined in primary legislation as they do with their legislation as they do with their parents. Many siblings who come from neglectful or abusive backgrounds often state that they backgrounds often state that they only constant, positive and reassuring relationship is that reassuring relationship is that with their siblings, after all, they have a shared experience. No matter how horrific it is. It's matter how horrific it is. It's something they only truly know about. Can it cannot be acceptable that our legislation currently gives more weight to a child's contact with those who may have, or have caused them significant harm than with their siblings, who are totally blameless.

I know all too well from my former career that removing a child from a family home is deeply traumatic. Having to then explain to that frightened and traumatised child that they are going to be living somewhere else with strangers separate from their siblings, are some of the most painful conversations that I have ever had over the last decade. The response from Ministers has always been that sibling contact was catered for in the guidance, or that they would update the regulatory regulations to reflect what I was asking.

Guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, is never a substitute for a legal duty. And to date, those regulations, despite all the promises, have not changed. Our care system is one that separates siblings, then denies denies them contact with each other. Amendment 17 seeks to address a gap in the care plan and regulations. Something I was promised would be done over a decade ago. However, by adopting instead my amendment from Report stage, this gap would be closed and contact arrangements for all children in care would be strengthened across the board.

I want to thank the Minister for Children and Families for his engagement with me so far on this, but very much like my hon. Friend from Dawlish in West Norwood, when this bill returns to us again from the other place. I sincerely hope that children in care are, at long last, going to be given the right to have the most precious of Kearns.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Amendment 105 is named for Benedict Amendment 105 is named for Benedict Blythe, who was just five years old when he suffered a fatal anaphylactic reaction at school after being exposed to allergens. No child should go to school anxious in the morning that they won't be safe, and no parent should won't be safe, and no parent should fear a drop off that they may never pick up their child again. But that, unfortunately, was the reality for unfortunately, was the reality for Helen and Peter Blythe.

And since that day, they have fought to make sure that every child is safer in school. Benedict's law will ensure that every school has a mandatory
20:32
Alicia Kearns Portrait Alicia Kearns MP (Rutland and Stamford, Conservative)
-
-
allergy policy, hold spare adrenaline medications on site, and every member of staff is trained every member of staff is trained and knows how to protect children. 1 in 3 schools in our country currently have none of these things, currently have none of these things, but we wouldn't have known that if it were not for Helen campaigning for Benedict Blythe Foundation. And for Benedict Blythe Foundation. And that is why this law is needed. Madam Deputy Speaker I want to begin by offering thanks to the government.

The Statutory guidance Committee to is a real step forward and the announcement today that the government will accept our amendment by laying in the government's name is welcome because it finishes the job and it means that full protections will finally be in place. Every measure that protects a child with allergies is a good thing, and I'm so relieved that we've reached this point. I drafted the amendment last September, and I want to pay tribute also to Harry Warren in my team, who with whom I have campaigned throughout this time.

When the amendment was put to the Lords, the government whipped its peers to vote against it. And so I thank every noble Lord who voted for it, because they brought us here today, because the government had told me that legislation was not needed. Yet when the guidance was announced, we welcomed it. But we did say it didn't go far enough and that is why we pushed our amendment to a vote. We're glad the government now recognises the guidance doesn't go far enough, largely because we were determined to push this to a vote, and we will need to see the wording of the amendment as soon as possible, because the Lords, we learnt that guidance can be given and guidance can be taken away.

And there was a view that a threat of losing what little had been offered would deter Helen Blythe, and that misjudged her entirely. I'm willing to draw a line under it, but I put on record now that I want to see the government maintain its resolve and make sure the amendment is laid, because on Tuesday last week, we received a letter telling all of us in this place. The amendment would be voted down and was not needed. And on Friday, that was still the government's position, which is why they missed the deadline to lay their own amendment.

I want to turn to the financing of this amendment. The government does not plan to provide funding to schools for medications needed to protect children having anaphylactic shock. This is not the right approach. It currently costs the taxpayer about £9 million to provide additional adrenaline autoinjectors to children to take into school individually by altering the distribution method, as the Benedict Foundation is recommended. The new measures in Benedict's law could save the Treasury £1 million a year. So just like defibrillators, which the last conservative government funded for all schools, we're asking the government to fund medications to save the taxpayer money.

These savings are before you consider the estimated £1.5 million saved by reducing A&E and hospital admissions, improvements to school attendance and parent workforce participation. So I ask the government to look again as they draft the amendment for the Lords. I want to close by paying tribute to Helen Blythe. Her ask has really been very simple. Benedict's life mattered and his death must matter too. And that is why we come to this place, to protect those who need us. I'm so proud to have been able to stand beside Helen in her fight.

So I ask colleagues today, hold Benedict in your hearts tonight. I know that today is a good day, but a promise is only worthy of him when it is kept and when children become safer in our Al-Hassan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. As a father of two young boys, I want to be clear that I have approached these Lords amendments and in particular, amendment 38, not only as a legislator but as a parent. I as a legislator but as a parent. I have seen first hand the pressures that social media places on children, and I have considered this matter with the utmost care. this matter with the utmost care. To date, I have received 1309 emails from residents across North emails from residents across North Somerset calling for immediate action to raise the age of social media access to 16.

This makes this campaign one of the largest I've seen since my election. The consensus is clear parents, teachers and almost everyone who
20:36
Sadik Al-Hassan Portrait Sadik Al-Hassan MP (North Somerset, Labour)
-
-
works with young people want to see meaningful change, including the gladiator steel, who I'm sure no gladiator steel, who I'm sure no one wants to mess with. Social media was sold to us as a tool for connection, a way to stay close to connection, a way to stay close to friends and family, to find community, to share in each other's lives. That promise has been broken. What these platforms have become

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What these platforms have become driven not by connection. The way the government already had an opportunity to raise the age of digital consent from 13 to 16, with amendments put forward to the data bill by the Liberal Democrats. Yet they are dithering yet again, and children could already have been benefiting from that change.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Why does he think the government is continuing to dither on this issue? I'm going to talk about that in a second, but I appreciate your patience. So social media was sold to us, and these platforms have to us, and these platforms have been driven by connection not and but by engagement algorithms optimised purely for profit and is optimised purely for profit and is something altogether more troubling. Parents like me are locked in a daily battle that they simply cannot win alone. Fighting platforms that have been specifically designed to keep children hooked.

This is not just my experience. A 2024 report found that 78% of young people have experienced at least one form of online harm body shaming, harassment, non-consensual and consensual sharing of sexualised images, or publicly outed as a pharmacist. I know if a drug were causing such measurable harm for 78%, it would be withdrawn, reformulated or placed behind a counter with strict controls on who could access it. We would act because that is what the evidence demanded. The same logic must apply here.

We have an identifiable source. We have overwhelming evidence of harm, and we have the power to act. Big tech companies are billion dollar corporations that have built their business models on capturing the attention of young people for as long as possible. And if we're serious about holding these companies to account, we should go further. I would urge the government to consider a windfall tax on social media companies, so that those who have profited from the exploitation of children begin to pay for the damage that they have caused.

Like the tobacco industry before them, these companies that knew their product was harmful took steps to make it more harmful and more addictive, and then denied responsibility for the consequences. We do not accept that argument from tobacco companies, and we should not accept it from Big tech either. The revenue raised could make a real difference. Youth centres have closed pubs and community spaces that once gave young people somewhere to go and something to belong to have disappeared. Mental health services are overwhelmed.

Education, Health and Care Plan support is stretched, a generation has been harmed, and the companies that profited from that harm should contribute to repairing it. That is why I welcome this debate today and any discussion on raising the digital age of consent, regulating social media and crucially, holding Big Tech to account. I understand this urgent call for action to put our boot on the neck of big tech companies that have hurt an entire generation, and put our children at risk. I share that desire completely, but I also understand that we need to get this right.

It is relatively straightforward to identify what changes needed. The harder and more important question is how we make those changes in a way that is enforceable, durable, and generally genuinely protective of children. A well-intentioned measure that cannot be properly implemented or enforced helps no one. We must learn from Australia's model. The world is watching our teachers, parents and healthcare professionals are watching. Our children depend on what we decide in this chamber today, tomorrow and in the future.

Their opportunities, hopes and dreams are in the balance, so we have to get this right for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them. Wera Hobhouse. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is now overwhelming evidence that addictive algorithms and harmful addictive algorithms and harmful content content are deeply damaging to our children's wellbeing. We Liberal Democrats support Lords Liberal Democrats support Lords Amendment 38, which would ban social media for under 16, although social media for under 16, although our preference is for online regulation of film style age rating of user to user services. While the government dithers and delays, children across the country are
20:41
Wera Hobhouse Portrait Wera Hobhouse MP (Bath, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
being exposed to deeply harmful content every single day. I have content every single day. I have spoken many times about the saturation of eating disorder content that children view on content that children view on social media, but the harms do not stop here. Social media is increasingly acting as a increasingly acting as a marketplace for illicit drug trade. Researchers at the University of Bath have found that up to a quarter of vapes confiscated in secondary schools contained the deadly drug spice.

The government's own data reveals an eight fold increase in young people entering treatment for spice in 20 2425. How are young people getting their hands on these dangerous drugs through social media? Researchers have identified nearly 10,000 accounts involved in the supply and distribution of spice, using TikTok as a means of communicating and advertising to children. Ofcom agreed that the content is priority illegal content. However, they declined to use their powers under the Online Safety Act. So we are facing a shocking reality.

Children right now can buy the most dangerous prison drugs on mainstream social media Snapchat TikTok, telegram. If Ofcom will not step up and the government will not make them, then what choice do we have? But to prevent children accessing these platforms altogether? The government's own amendments in Newark Lords Amendment, 38 and 39 is completely missing the point. As my hon. Friend has already lined up. The government must act now to stop children being exposed to illegal and harmful content online. We cannot allow endless inquiries, consultations and delays to stand in the way.

I will not. I'm sorry. More than 40 charities and experts support this approach. Our constituents have made their views clear too. I've been inundated with emails, the overwhelming majority of which support a ban. Now is the time for action. The government could accept this cross-party amendment and give children an escape from the dark corners of social media.
20:43
Lola McEvoy Portrait Lola McEvoy MP (Darlington, Labour)
-
-
Lola McEvoy. I'd like to talk to the social media element of the Lords Amendments. The argument for stronger protections for children online has been one, not least online has been one, not least because of the appalling harms that have come to so many children because of the lack of use, proper legislation that's working. I'm going to use my time, which is limited on this subject, to make clear what I'd like the government to do and why. I'll be voting down the amendments in front of us tonight.

I want to focus on my steadfast belief that we must age gate functionalities instead of age gating social media, because I think that phrase will immediately become outdated. It is already outdated in schools, it is already outdated amongst peers. And one of the big problems with the Online Safety Act, and how long it took to be able to come in, is that so many technologies are now not covered in that legislation. So we are not it is not evergreen legislation, and I am committed and determined to make sure that my time in this place is used to create evergreen legislation for the issue of our time, which is to protect children from the horrendous and exploitative harms that are coming to.

I want to outline the three harms that I think we could protect using a functionality approach. Number one strangers. There is no way that children under 16 should be able to be contacted by or to contact strangers of any kind, and of you wouldn't allow it in the real world. We shouldn't allow it online. The second one is about dangers from themselves. I keep going back and forth on this because I really wanted to use the opportunity of the online safety campaign to bring young people's voices to the fore, and they said to me and my online safety forum that they really wanted a place online, that they could speak to their friends, but with no weirdos.

And that spoke to me. I thought, they're absolutely right, and we've got to get rid of the the stranger danger online. But also their brains are developing before 16 and 17, and some of them are developed earlier and some of them are developed later. And we have an arbitrary age for when you can drive a car. And that's 17 as a acknowledgement that at 17 your risk appetite and your ability to analyse risk is going to be more mature than at 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17.

So I appreciate that we do need to pick an age, but I do feel very strongly that there are dangers that young people and children are coming to at their own hand, and they're making mistakes that they wouldn't want to have a footprint in a permanent record of for the rest of their lives. It's inappropriate risk tolerance that I don't think we should have. And the final one is the chronic use of devices. And the way that device use an individual device uses filtered into all of our children's everyday life.

So I will give way. Thank the hon. Member for her speech. Would she agree with me that the film style age rating system that the Liberal Democrats have come up with speaks exactly to what she's saying? So, for example, an app that allows children access to strangers or something that is built with an addictive algorithm would have a different age rating than something that is absolutely safe and gated, like a game that could be rated safe for younger children. Yeah. So I thank the hon.

Lady for her intervention, and I'm interested in the idea of licensing functionalities and new developments before they come into children's lives, which is not happening at the moment. It's happening after they're using them for a long time, where sort of retrospectively age analysing and risk assessing them, which seems to be very backwards to me. I agree that we should have a licensing scheme for children's content that's designed for children like Cocomelon, and some of the other content that we know is addictive for very young children.

But obviously that will need to be fleshed out with a proper a proper consultation on publishing rights and who who is going to license that? Because at the moment, self-published content is something that I feel very strongly is inappropriate for under 16. I do not think that content that is not regulated has not gone through any supervision or any, has no legislative, legislative or regulatory framework surrounding it should be allowed to be fed to our children in any way. And I think I'm going to sum up by saying that one of the young people in my latest online safety forum said to me via an anonymous note, I said, I said to them all that they could send me an anonymous note if there was anything they didn't want to say in front of their peers, and they said don't ban it.

But if you do, make sure it works. And I thought it was brilliant because there were the young people are much more savvy than we give them credit for. But I want to make it very clear that at the moment, Ofcom is yet to use its strongest powers, and the Online Safety Act doesn't include AI, and I am determined that this government, whatever this government decides to do, it must do it with the idea of effective implementation of the legislation, because we owe it to the next generation and the generation currently using the digital world, that we get it right and future proof their right to a childhood.

So I think that's because so many of them have been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

badly let down that we must make Blackman. Thank you very much, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, in advance of this legislation, returning from the Lords, only one clause in it Lords, only one clause in it applied to Scotland. Now it is the case that specifically amendment 38 that is coming from the Lord is a reserved power and would apply across the whole of the UK. The changes that are being suggested in relation to the Online Safety Act. relation to the Online Safety Act. I want to focus specifically on those in relation to the comments that have been made about social media.

It is not exclusively social media where there are dangers for children online. It's not exclusively user to user services, where there are dangers to children online. You know, you can download games that are not covered by user to user services that are highly addictive, but would not be covered by either the Conservatives
20:49
Kirsty Blackman Portrait Kirsty Blackman MP (Aberdeen North, Scottish National Party)
-
-
proposals or the Lib Dems proposals because they are not user to user services, they are games. For example. Only they would be. They example. Only they would be. They would only be covered if they have user to user stuff in them. Now there are massive risks online for there are massive risks online for young people, but I don't want us to absolve companies of the responsibility of dealing with this. We have had, you know, there's a sudden feeling that this is dramatically urgent. People have dramatically urgent.

People have been sending unsolicited nude pics online for more than 30 years. This has been happening for significant length of time. It is urgent that action is taken, but it doesn't have to be taken today. It has to be taken correctly. It has to be taken in a way, as the member just said, that works. We need to ensure that whatever we're doing, we've got a clear aim in mind. What is the intention? Are we trying to protect children online, or are we trying to ban children from social media? Are we trying to protect to ensure that young people are not exposed to people who are looking to groom them, to access them to, you know, convince them of something? Are we trying to protect them from that, or are we trying to protect them from obsessively looking at algorithms and videos on TikTok? Maybe we're trying to do both, but we need to be clear about what those aims are.

There is no point in just banning social media. If you don't know why you're banning social media, and you're still allowing access to Roblox, if you're still allowing access to significant number of things where the harm is if you ban social media, if you ban YouTube, what happens when a kid wanders through and watches YouTube on the TV that's on on the PlayStation, right? Who's responsible for that? And how do we sort this? How do we ensure that this works? So I'm clear that whatever comes in needs to work.

I'm clear that whatever happens needs to work. We don't need to just listen to the big tech companies. We need to do as the Minister suggested, which is listen to parents, listen to experts, understand exactly how children consume the internet, how they're accessing it, understand where these individuals are accessing children for nefarious purposes. Understand where they are doing it. It is not only on social media, it is not only on the platforms that are being defined by some people as social media.

So I'm clear that this needs to work, and therefore I'm supportive of the government undertaking a consultation. I've spoken to DSIT officials on it. I've spoken to as many people as I possibly can on it. I'm very glad the government is bringing forward changes to ensure that live streaming, for example, cannot be accessed by young people. I've been pushing for that for a significant number of years, and I am glad that we have got to that place. But there's far wider issues online and functionalities, as the member said, online that needs to be tackled, that are not covered by a blanket ban on social media, and we can't let the companies continue to get away with this.

We can't let them continue to have horrific, harmful, illegal content without cracking down on it and making sure that they are held accountable for the behaviour on their platforms. We can't just say, oh well, ban from social media and absolve ourselves and the companies of responsibility. We need to take real action that will really protect our children. Please everyone, respond to the consultation. Jodie Gosling.
20:53
Jodie Gosling Portrait Jodie Gosling MP (Nuneaton, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise today to speak on the Lords I rise today to speak on the Lords Amendment 105 as the APPG chair for allergies. A long a lifelong allergy sufferer, a former teacher and parent of a lifelong allergy sufferer, I am painfully aware of sufferer, I am painfully aware of the inconsistencies of allergy care and the anxiety and harm it causes. Baroness Coates amendment to this bill aimed to introduce new requirements based on learning. Following the tragic death of Benedict Blyth and others.

Whilst I believe that there is much more that can be done to improve the lives of allergy sufferers, I am pleased that the creation of new statutory advice and the implementation of Benedict's law will vastly improve the situation for children with allergies. All children, sorry, all schools will now be required to stop allergy devices, to have a dedicated allergy policy and to ensure that teachers are trained, meaning that life saving treatments for allergies will no longer be hidden in Tupperware boxes at the back of dusty cupboards.

And no parent will ever receive a phone call, as I did, asking me if my child in their care needed to use their auto injector, knowing full well that if the answer to that was yes, it could have already been too late. I am proud that this government is bringing forward is bringing allergies into the heart of proactive, preventative school planning. Recent approval from the MHRA means that more adrenaline devices are available, including stable, long lasting and less traumatic adrenaline nasal sprays.

I would appreciate if the Minister could confirm to the House that nasal sprays, alongside other adrenaline devices, will be available in schools as part of this new statutory advice. We know that our children in schools are more likely to have a reaction there than anywhere else. 80% of food allergy reactions happen in schools, including a quarter for the first time, which is why it's so essential that schools have devices available even before diagnosis occurs. I would also like to celebrate the work of Baroness Coates for campaigning and the incredible work of Helen Blythe, and the implementation of Benedict's law in full will reduce the risk to our children and ensure that every child starts the school day safe, and reducing the fear of making sure that children also leave it that way, even with allergies.

Thank you.
20:55
Rebecca Smith Portrait Rebecca Smith MP (South West Devon, Conservative)
-
-
It's just two minutes Rebecca Paul here. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, I am incredibly pleased today to be speaking in support of Lords speaking in support of Lords Amendment 38, which seeks to raise the digital age of consent to 16. I only wish we had much more time for this. This debate deserves a lot more time. For years now, parents like me have worried about the harms of social media on our children and the detrimental impact from excessive screen time. We've tried to manage it as best we can on our own.

Felt the sting when we've been told by others that responsibility fully sits with parents, and good parents don't need the state to help them get this right. Yet no one says this about alcohol or smoking or buying fireworks. In all this, all these cases, it is acceptable for parents to be helped by sensible laws put in place to protect children from preventable harm. Yet social media and excessive screen time is just as harmful as cigarettes, alcopops and messing around with fireworks in the street.

So why wouldn't the state step in on this too? I have three children, and it's fair to say they love screen time. If I try to talk to them when they're glued to a YouTube video of someone else playing a computer game, they ignore me, completely engrossed. They don't want to go out in the garden. They don't want to play with their friends in the street. They don't want to play with toys. Instead, if given the choice, they would always choose to stare zombie like at their tablet.

Thankfully, I've kept them away from social media, but there's only so long I can get away with that. Staring at a screen for endless hours isn't healthy. It prevents children from developing the social and cognitive skills they need in adulthood, and it's terrible for their mental health. It is no coincidence that we're seeing a mental health crisis that started at the same time as mass adoption of smartphones and access to social media. This really should be a wake up call. What does the future look like? If our children's most important relationship is with their phone? we all experience it the same.

Social media is not for children. We do not need any more time given over to consultations to confirm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what we already know. You Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You Minister. To wind up Olivia Bailey. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would like to thank members and I would like to thank members from across the House for their varied and valuable contributions. There's been a number of very powerful speeches making really powerful speeches making really important points, and I am very sorry that time means that I am unable to respond to the points unable to respond to the points made in detail, but I will endeavour to those members who ask me very specific question during
20:58
Olivia Bailey Portrait Olivia Bailey MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Education) (Equalities) (Reading West and Mid Berkshire, Labour)
-
-
the course of the debate to try and write to them with the answers. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a bill with opportunity at its heart. Opportunity for every child, no Opportunity for every child, no matter the circumstances, that they are born into a bill that will make are born into a bill that will make children safer on and off line with our ambitious, swift acting action on social media and phones. A bill that helps tackle the cost of living crisis.

With our action on free school meals and the cost of uniforms, and a bill that will drive up standards in our schools, this is a bill that will improve also outcomes for children in care. Tonight, this House has the opportunity to support free school meals for half a million more children for swift action to protect our children online, and for the most significant safeguarding measures in a generation. This is a landmark bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is also a Labour bill because it is ambitious for every single child in this country.

And I urge the House to support Labour's vision for our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children and our country's future. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment to as many as of that amendment to as many as of that opinion, say I of the contrary, no,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the ayes have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She loves. Page five without. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment five. I call the Lords Amendment five. I call the Minister to move the motion. Thank you. Louder. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment five, as many in their amendment five, as many are of that opinion, say I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

I must now order, order! I must now put the questions necessary to bring proceedings on the Lords amendments to a conclusion. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 16. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 16. As many as of that opinion say aye. I
21:00
None Portrait Division
-

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their amendment 16. As many as of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. The Tellers for the ayes are Taiwo Owatemi and Jake Richards. The Tellers for the noes Lincoln

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order! The ayes to the right 309. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 181. The ayes to the right were 309.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 309. The noes to the left 181. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 17. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 17. As many as of that opinion say aye. I Of the contrary, no. no. Division clear the lobby.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that this The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 17, as many are of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion, say. I Of the contrary, no. No. The tellers, for the eyes are Taiwo Owatemi and Jake Richards, the Tellers for the noes Lincoln Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 306. The noes to the left 182.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 306. The noes to the left 182. So the The noes to the left 182. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 19. I call the Minister to move the motion. Before me. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 19. As many as of that opinion say aye. of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it.

The ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 21. I call the Minister to move the motion formally. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 21. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 37. I call the Minister to move the motion. Move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move formally. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 37. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the The The question The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 37. As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

many as of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. No. The Tellers for the ayes are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Tellers for the ayes are Taiwo Owatemi and Jake Richards, the Tellers for the noes, David

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order! The ayes to the right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order! The ayes to the right. 321. The Noes to the left 106. The ayes to the right were 321. The noes to the left 106. So the ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. The ayes have it unlock. Nine.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nine. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 38 I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in House disagrees with the Lords in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 38. As many as are of that opinion say I of the contrary. No, No. Division. Is Is that Is that this House disagrees with the Lords and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their amendment 38. As many as of that opinion say aye. the contrary. No, no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, no. Tell us, for the eyes of Taiwo Owatemi and Jake Richards, the Tellers for the noes Andrew Snowden and David Simmonds.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order Order, order order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order order. The ayes to the right. 307. The noes to the left 173.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 307. The noes to the left 173. For the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. I call the Minister to move amendment A, B, C, and D in lieu of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords Amendment 37 and 38. Formerly move. Formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Formerly move. Formally. The question is that government amendments A, B, C, and D in lieu of Lords Amendments 37 and 38 be made. As many as are of that made. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 41. I call the Minister to move the motion formally.

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 41. As many as of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion say aye. of the contrary. No, no. Division.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Division. Clear the lobby. The question is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clear the lobby. The question is that this House disagrees with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords in their amendment 41. As many as of that opinion say aye. the contrary. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The tellers, for the eyes are Jake Richards and Taiwo Owatemi. The Tellers for the noes, David

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So. Gloucester Gloucester the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. Order. Order. Order. Order. Order. Order. The Order. Order. Order. The ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. Order. The ayes to the right 316. The noes to the left the right 316. The noes to the left 117. The ayes to the right were 316. The noes to the left 171. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 42. I disagree with Lords Amendment 42. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 42. As many as of their amendment 42. As many as of that opinion say aye. are of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it.

We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 44. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 44. As many as of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion say aye. I of the contrary, No division. The question The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 44. As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, no. The Tellers for the ayes are Jade Botterill and Deirdre Costigan, the tellers for the nos David Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 315. The nose. The left 109.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nose. The left 109. The ayes to the right were 315.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 315. The noes to the left 109. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it. ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. We now come to the motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to disagree with Lords Amendment 102. I call the Minister to move the motion. Move forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move forward. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 102. As many as of that no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no. No. Division. The The question The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 102. As many as of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. no Tellers for the ayes of Deirdre Costigan and Jade Botterill, the Tellers for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For. For. The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. The ayes to the right 315. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 315. The noes to the left 163.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 315. The noes to the left 163. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it. ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 105. I call the Minister to move the motion formally. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 105. As many as of that opinion say aye. of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it.

The ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with Lords Amendment 106. I call the Minister to move the motion. Move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 106. As many as are of no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no. No. Division. The The question The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 106. As many as of that opinion say aye. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have the contrary. No. No. The Tellers for the ayes are Deirdre Costigan and Jade Botterill Deirdre Costigan and Jade Botterill the Tellers for the noes David Reed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! The ayes to the right 304. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 304. The noes to the left 177.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 177. The ayes to the right with 304. The noes to the left 177. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. I must now put the question to agree to all remaining Lords Amendments. The question is that this House agrees with the Lords and their amendments one, Lords and their amendments one, three, four, 6 to 15, 18, 20, 22 to 36, 39, 40, 43, 45 to 101, 103, 104 and 107 to 121.

As many as are of that opinion say I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it Minister to move that reasons.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that a committee be appointed, to draw up reasons, to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their disagreeing to certain of their amendments, that Olivia Bailey Jade Botterill Emma Foody, Amanda Martin, Botterill Emma Foody, Amanda Martin, Alan Strickland, Laura Trott and Tessa Munt be members of the Committee, that Olivia Bailey be the chair of the Committee, that there be the quorum of the Committee, that the Committee do withdraw immediately.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. The question is that a committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments to five. 16. 17. 19. 21. 41. 42. 44. 102, 105, and 106. That Olivia Bailey Jade Botterill Emma Foody Amanda Martin, Laura Trott, Alan Strickland, and Tessa Munt be members of the committee. That Olivia Bailey be chair of the Committee. That three be the quorum of the Committee. That the Committee do withdraw immediately, as many as are of that opinion, say I.

Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. That concludes consideration of the Lords amendments to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Motion number three on climate change. Minister, to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are. Of that Paper, as many as are. Of that being said, I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes
22:40
22:41
None Portrait Adjournment: Potential merits of reforming the regulation of funeral directors
-

>> The question is that this House do now adjourn. Dame Carolyn Caroline Dinenage. >> Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I'm afraid to say it is going to be a rather morbid adjournment debate this evening, because the fact is, we spend remarkably little time in our lives thinking about the practicalities of death. It's probably part of human nature that we don't really dwell too much on we don't really dwell too much on the inevitable future fate that awaits us, but that means we put far too much implicit trust in far too much implicit trust in those who take responsibility for our bodies and those of our loved ones.

When we die, we all assume that in death we will be treated with respect and care by professionals. But this evening, I'm afraid I'm going to share some hard truths about the gruesome reality of death. And I should warn anyone watching that I'm afraid what I have to say will be graphic and distressing. And there's no way around this. Last year, Gosport residents and funeral directors Richard Elkin and Hayley Bell were found to have kept 46 bodies entrusted to their care in a completely inappropriate environment and unregulated temperature, describing entering the place to see his mother, one of my constituents said the awful smell is something that will never leave me.

Concerns about what was going on behind the doors of Elkin and Bell funeral directors were first raised by local residents and then by the senior coroner at Queen Alexandra Hospital in Portsmouth. A body had been sent for post-mortem. That was, and I quote, laying in pools of bodily fluids and infested with maggots. The post-mortem also found that the deceased individual had suffered a spinal fracture after death. After a Gosport Borough Council environmental health investigation raised concerns but took no further action a few months later and simply because bills hadn't been paid, bailiffs attended the property where two bodies were discovered putrefying in a room with bloodstained floors, water dripping from the ceiling and broken windows.

One of them was an elderly gentleman who had been left for 36 days, and his body was found in a very badly decomposed condition. It's too much of a cliche to compare this to a horror movie, because this is real life or real death, and when the families of one of those deceased was contacted, they were very surprised because they were under the impression that their loved one had already been cremated. In fact, they certainly had taken payment for it. But I want to tell the Minister, I'm sure he already knows that it was completely legal for Elkin and Bell to keep dead bodies in a room like this.

Elkin and Bell could only be brought to justice by some incredibly diligent work by Hampshire Police, the Crown Prosecution Service and KC John Price, using a variety of different offences including fraud, forgery and a piece of common law that dates back to Victorian times. The crime of preventing lawful and decent burial was actually dusted off from the days when it was used to be used to convict grave robbers, and that's instead of what should have been possible. Sentencing the pair because they had wilfully neglected the bodies in their care and created and treated people's loved ones as nothing more than money spinners.

This case highlighted that the funeral sector is nothing better than a Wild West. This was first brought to my attention. I was incredulous. I was horrified to learn that there is no regulation of any kind governing this sector. In fact, the only law that governs the funeral industry is around the financial transparency of funeral plans. And that was after a CMA investigation in 2021. There are simply no mandatory qualifications, no accreditation, no licensing, no designated working practices or formal inspection and, crucially, no law to fall back on when things go wrong.

I would.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jim Shannon thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, can I commend Our Lady for Gosport for bringing this forward, to bring this and this forward, to bring this and talking to them beforehand? I mentioned Northern Ireland where there we're very fortunate to have there we're very fortunate to have a number of funeral directors of long standing with impeccable reputations and integrity. But on reputations and integrity. But on the whole, funeral directors are not regulated either. But the trade bodies like NAFD and SAIF require members to follow codes of practice.

Many operate within this oversight, though pre-paid funeral plans are FCA regulated. So those are the member. Agree that more must be done to protect the general public and still confidence in a regulated

**** Possible New Speaker ****

system. That's the way forward. Caroline Dinenage. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is is absolutely right. This is exactly what we're pushing for here is better regulation. And in fact, everything needs to be better when everything needs to be better when it comes to the services that the organisations that govern these services. And as he says, and I services. And as he says, and I have to say, at this point, the vast majority of funeral services up and down, these up and down this up and down, these up and down this country work with incredible professionalism, great pride and integrity.

They care deeply about what they do and the families and the individuals that they look after. One funeral technician told me that she doesn't see her work as a job. She sees it as a privilege. It's a business. It's businesses like this and individuals like her who have been silent pillars of our communities for centuries. But I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for giving way. She's making a powerful speech, an incredibly difficult topic on incredibly difficult topic on behalf of my constituents, Cody and Liam Townend, and also Zoe Ward, who had horrific things happen to who had horrific things happen to their babies bodies as a result of the lack of regulation. I spoke the lack of regulation. I spoke with both main professional bodies that cover 80% of the sector and lots of businesses, including the biggest player in the sector, and they are united and that they think that regulation is the answer to restore trust, public trust in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

funeral sector. Does she agree? He's absolutely right, and I'm about to go on to make exactly that point. I'm so grateful to him for point. I'm so grateful to him for for teeing it up so beautifully for me, because as I say, it only takes me, because as I say, it only takes one organisation, one business to do the wrong thing, to erode trust. But unfortunately, the case of But unfortunately, the case of Elkin and Bell is not the only one. There were similar cases in in legacies Independent at Hull and legacies Independent at Hull and Flores army, which I think is the one he's referring to in Leeds, where deceased babies were staged in lifelike positions in a living room.

These are just unspeakable, aren't they? Unimaginable horrors. There have been others as well, where bodies have been found in the most unimaginable condition, but where no further action has been able to be taken by the police or others. Because, simply and quite incredulously, they haven't actually broken any laws. And yes, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the Minister will know this is the second adjournment debate on this issue that he's had to respond to in these last several months. Does she share my concern that, given the share my concern that, given the fact that most of the practitioners want to see regulation, the public want to see regulation, that it want to see regulation, that it does seem strange that the government seems to be very slow on this issue, unless the Minister is going to give us some earth shattering news this evening.

This is too vital and important a set of circumstances just to leave to an unregulated marketplace in in continuation. It does need

**** Possible New Speaker ****

regulation and it needs it quickly. Caroline Dinenage. Well, I'm grateful to to him for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm grateful to to him for his intervention and may I put on record my thanks to him when he was record my thanks to him when he was the justice Minister responsible for this, for the for listening to me when I first brought to his me when I first brought to his attention to this situation. And he's absolutely right. I mean, over the last couple of years, I've met the last couple of years, I've met with the two voluntary trade bodies for the funeral sector, the Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors and the National Association of Funeral Directors, as well as countless reputable funeral businesses and, crucially, many of the families impacted in the case.

I'm so grateful for all of them for the time that they gave me. But as he says, every single one of them has stressed the need for this sector to be better regulated. And I would echo his calls for the Minister in a minute to give us some good news on that, because it's important for everybody, because otherwise all those who do carry out their work with such enormous care and diligence have to operate under the shadow of suspicion. We owe it to them as much as anyone else to get this right.

The Minister knows that malpractice is not uncommon. Quite simply, taboos and sensitivities around death have created effective, effectively, a smokescreen for bad care. And I'm especially concerned about one area which I wanted to talk about, which is the rise in direct cremations. For those who don't know what that is, it's where the loved ones don't actually see their deceased at any point in the journey. So in their cases, there are absolutely no safeguards, no checks and balances. And the key thing here is direct cremations have expanded hugely in the last few years and partly as a result of Covid, from just 3% of funerals in 2019 to now, 20% in 2023.

And we will see the charming adverts on the on the television, an elderly gentleman explaining with a smile that he has arranged for himself a direct cremation. I just didn't want any fuss, he says. It's much easier for my children, but I think if the children knew what a direct cremation might be, and we know again that there are some very reputable and caring businesses that do this, but it might be little better than a conveyor belt in which mum and dad are bundled, bundled into a van, maybe still in their soiled nightclothes, maybe with a catheter still attached without any form of temperature controls? Who knows? Taken to an unknown location and left for days before a slot becomes available at a crematorium in the hands of an unscrupulous company and who knows who which ones they are.

It is all too possible for any human dignity and respect to become a completely unnecessary complication and expense. In this process, the only requirement before cremation to take place is that the body needs to be rid of objects like pacemakers and other medical equipment. And this was another part of my my journey through understanding this process, because I was really shocked to learn that this surgical procedure, carried out by embalmers who also drain the body of blood in order to replace it with embalming fluid, they remove the contents of a stomach.

Now this can be performed without any accreditation or qualification whatsoever, and no minimum standards of care for the body. Now, that's not to say there isn't a form of qualification. The British Institute of Embalmers provide professional training and reputable companies like the Co-operative Funeral Directors require them. They require a level five apprenticeship qualification for their embalmers, but that is not mandated to be able to practice. So in a nutshell, Madam Deputy Speaker, any one of us in this room today, if our political career doesn't work out, could walk out of here, set up our own funeral home in our houses if we wanted to, with no special skills, no accreditation, and nobody inspecting our work.

With this as the starting point, who can ever say for sure that their family member was treated with the appropriate professionalism? So the question for the Minister, and I know he's been hoping that I got to this for some time, is what can the government do to restore trust in this sector? It's unfair on those who do practice with enormous integrity that their professionalism is being called into question. He will know that the fuller inquiry was set up in the wake of the crimes of necrophiliac David Fuller.

Now David Fuller, abused 100 dead women and girls in the hospital mortuary in Kent. These were women between the ages of nine and 90. But in the wake of the cases like Hull and Gosport Sir Jonathan Michael, who led this work into the Fuller report, was asked by the government to prepare stage two of the report and that would consider the wider funeral sector and those working in it. This report was published last July and it includes some very sensible recommendations, Madam Deputy Speaker, including a statutory regulatory regime for funeral directors that invokes a licensing scheme, mandatory

**** Possible New Speaker ****

standards and regular inspection. I will. I thank her for giving way. This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for giving way. This is a really important debate. But while regulation of the funeral while regulation of the funeral sector is fundamental, does the hon. Member agree that it must be hon. Member agree that it must be proportionate? A small, independent home carer for 20 or 30 a year home carer for 20 or 30 a year cannot be expected to mirror the administrative burdens of a large, multi multi-site corporate provider, and does she agree that core standards must be universal, but they must be related to the structure and the scale of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

business? Caroline Dinenage yeah, I mean, I thank you to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I don't think that necessarily size is any reflection of of the professionalism of a business. We know that there are a large number know that there are a large number of small independent funeral services up and down the country who work with incredible professional professionalism. And he's right that there shouldn't be anything introduced which is unnecessarily bureaucratic or costly for them. But if I could just go back to this fuller report, what it what it quotes is, it is important that real change is implemented to ensure the security and dignity of the deceased, and that a specific government department is given responsibility for overseeing this.

So everybody who's involved in this sector recognises that there is a need for this to be properly regulated and inspected and overseen. So I'm asking the Minister if he could set out. Very. Give me give me two minutes, please. So can the Minister set out very clearly what his initial thoughts are on these recommendations from the fuller report, when the government will respond in full and when they do so, will they clearly set out what firm action will be taken and when? Because when they do respond, we've waited so long.

It must be with clarity. It must be with purpose and above all, with urgency. I'll give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tessa Munt the hon. Lady, very much for giving way. I wondered when the Minister is is replying when the Minister is is replying whether he might actually be really clear about whether it is the Department for health, or whether Department for health, or whether it really is the Department for justice who should have some control over this particular area, control over this particular area, this arena, because there seems to be a bit of a wrestling match going on between the two, and I'm sure on between the two, and I'm sure the hon.

Lady would agree it needs to be in one place so that there's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

definite control over this particular sector. Thank you so much to the hon. Lady for raising that. She's Lady for raising that. She's absolutely right. It's crucial to know which government departments are going to take the lead on this and to ensure that it happens, and to ensure that it happens, because while the I think the Minister will be responding to the fuller report, at the same time, we're also waiting on the outcome we're also waiting on the outcome of a Law Commission report, which was kicked off by the previous but one justice Minister, the Member for Finchley and Golders Green in 2022.

That's looking at different laws around what happens to our bodies after death. But it doesn't include the regulation of funeral directors. But my fear, and as the hon. Lady just said, my fear is that efforts to regulate the sector will fall between the silos of government departments and nobody will grip it. So what is required, I think, is a minimum standard of qualification, accreditation or licensing and robust inspection. We've already discussed that a regulator with the powers to withdraw licences and sanction wrongdoers could seem like a very tempting first step.

And Scotland is ahead of England here. They've passed legislation ten years ago to introduce a licensing and inspection regime. However, ten years on, not a single Scottish funeral director that I've spoken to has actually been inspected, and I have concerns that this could be the worst of both worlds. The illusion of regulation masking, the possibility that nothing has changed in practice. Now, a very sensible approach to this would be to extend the scope of the human tissues Authority beyond public mortuaries and actually through the whole death pathway.

Back to the fuller report, he says the HTA should require the organisations it licences to ensure that anyone who provides care to the deceased is suitably qualified, experienced and supervised. If inspections are going to be carried out by local authorities, they need to be significantly better trained and resourced to do so. And of course, this would have to take into consideration the fact that some of them run funeral services of their own, so they can't mark their own homework. Inspections must have public trust.

The regulator can ensure aligning their minimum codes of practice with those provided by the two voluntary trade bodies. We've already heard about Safe and NAFD. I'm also concerned about the existing marketplace in training for sums of money in the thousands of pounds. Professional qualifications are delivered by the bid. The British Institute of Funeral Directors now at face value, that seems quite promising as well. After all, these courses are accredited accredited by the University of Greenwich, Madam Deputy Speaker. So so far I've seen absolutely nothing that gives me confidence in the legitimacy of their work, particularly in light of the fact that Hayley Bell, now sentenced to four years in prison.

Hayley Bell of the Elkin and Bell fame, was in fact one of their examiners. If their own examiners cannot uphold even the most basic standards of care for the dead, what is the value of the qualifications that they are selling people in? Just as important as qualifications is a person's suitability for a job. Surely a lesson of the fuller case is that funeral technicians and embalmers, as well as anyone else involved, should be DBS checked. The death pathway, as we've heard, is open to so much abuse.

And I'm warning the Minister now that the cases I've mentioned can only be the tip of the iceberg, while there's no regulation to tackle them. And that will require a whole system of changes, not just licensing and inspection, but some in some cases, this could be achieved by expanding existing legislation like the Human Tissues Act. And as we've already said, it's got to be done in a way that's not punitive on small, independent businesses. I would also like the government to explore the possibility of a new crime, that of the mistreatment of a body after death, because we can't keep relying on Victorian common law, and we must ensure that the death pathway is so much clearer and that it runs more smoothly to provide a minimum of opportunity for things to go wrong.

For example, I've heard in some cases, bodies are already decomposing by the time they make it to a funeral director, because the lack of medical examiners who sign off death. So what reassurance can the Minister assure me that his department is going to improve standards in this area as well? I also believe that for full accountability and trust in the system, a clear method of tracking the bodies is necessary. One of the most heartbreaking parts of the Elkin and Bell trial was the story of baby Albie, who died after just 11 minutes of life, and his parents still have no clear picture of what happened to his body after it was taken into the care of Elkin and Bell every step of the journey, identification numbers and proof of licence should be shown when a body is passed from one responsible authority to another, and without that, families simply don't have the certainty that their families have been well, that family members have been well treated, and even that they have actually been reunited with the correct ashes.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm coming to a conclusion you'll be pleased to know. But why is this important? We all know some people who say, I don't care what happens to me after I'm dead. I won't know anything about it. And it's a truism that funerals are for the living. And I've been heartbroken by the stories I've heard from families who regret the arrangements that have been made for loved ones. Stories of feeling racked with guilt, unable to say goodbye in the way that they wanted.

Grieving is such an important part of the human human ritual. Regardless of your religion or beliefs. We are elected to Parliament to make things better, to improve people's lives. But today I'm asking the Minister to commit to improving people's deaths, to restore dignity and death, and to ensure that our loved ones are treated with the care, the professionalism, professionalism that they deserve.
23:01
Zubir Ahmed Portrait Dr Zubir Ahmed MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Glasgow South West, Labour)
-
-
Yes. >> I'm really grateful to the hon. Lady, the Member for Gosport, for securing this important debate and for her continued advocacy on for her continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents. As the hon. Member for North Dorset highlighted, I was here at this highlighted, I was here at this Dispatch Box not so long ago on the same topic, responding to the hon. Gentleman, Madam Deputy Speaker, we all recognise the profound importance of ensuring dignity, safety and high quality standards of care for people during life and after they die.

Bereaved families place immense trust in funeral directors to guide and support us through one of the most difficult and distressing times of our lives, and ensure our loved ones are laid to rest with the utmost respect. They rightly expect that high standards, professional conduct and appropriate oversight are firmly in place. However, as these deeply troubling, deeply troubling cases, including the appalling events in the hon. Lady's constituency demonstrate alongside the events in The hon. Gentleman of Leeds South West constituency demonstrates this trust cannot always be assumed.

Although these cases are rare, they have revealed serious weaknesses in our system, as the hon. Lady has adumbrated this evening. Unacceptable and distressing incidents, such as bodies being stored or treated in ways that cause deep anguish were able to occur, and in some instances the police lacked the powers they needed to act. In the case of Elkin and Bell, the two funeral directors and the hon. Ladies constituency charges included intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance, the common law offence of preventing the lawful and decent burial of a body, carrying on a business with intent to defraud creditors or another fraudulent purpose.

The Ministry of Justice is actively exploring options to strengthen criminal law protections for the deceased, including the potential for new offences as outlined in the Law Commission's 14th Programme of Work. This work will identify gaps in the current law and whether new offences are needed to address behaviours that fail to treat a deceased person with dignity and respect. I am pleased to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we have already taken steps to strengthen and improve standards to safeguard the security and dignity of the deceased.

As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, my department is responsible for coordinating the government's response to phase two of the Fuller inquiry. In December 25th, the government published its interim update outlining the progress that has been made against the 75 recommendations. Of those, 11 have been accepted in full, 43 are accepted in principle and 21 remain under consideration. The 11 recommendations accepted in full cover standards, data and operating procedures in the wider health sector. Highlights from these include the Human Tissue Act authority's publication on 1st December, updated guidance to ensure that adverse incidents in the anatomy sector are recorded, and NHS England's agreement to introduce data collection on conveying deceased patients in ambulances for the first time in 2627 since I was last here at the Dispatch Box.

Responding to the hon. Gentleman from North Dorset, the Human Tissue Authority has also issued universal and generic best practice guidance for those responsible for the care and dignity of the deceased, including organisations that are not formally regulated by the HTA. I think this point is particularly pertinent in relation to the hon. Ladies comments about increasing numbers of direct cremations. In addition, the HD has begun reviewing its codes of practice, a process that will continue into 20 2627. This review may lead to changes to the current guidance in light of the fuller inquiry recommendations, and will help us to consider whether the codes could be applied and used by other settings.

Before turning to the discussion about the options to strengthen and improve standards to safeguard the security and dignity of the deceased, I would like to remind the House of how we got here. Following the unspeakable crimes committed by David Fuller. As has been already highlighted, the previous government established an independent inquiry sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Care, to investigate how a member of staff was able to carry out such unlawful and abhorrent acts in hospital mortuaries, and how those actions went unnoticed.

I must make it clear Madam Deputy Speaker crimes like David Fuller are extremely rare. However, that will come as little consolation to their to their families involved. At this point, I extend my deepest sympathies to these families who continue to bear the weight of suffering, and for whom it must also be particularly triggering when debates like this are held in this chamber. Phase one of the inquiry focussed on the crimes committed in the mortuaries at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust.

The phase one report, published in November 2023, identified failures of management, governance, regulation and a lack of curiosity, enabling Fuller to continue his repeat offending. The phase one report set out 16 recommendations for the trust and one for local councils. In February 2024, the trust published an assurance statement on the implementation of the recommendations from the phase one report. Kent and East Sussex County Councils reviewed and confirmed that their contacts, their contracts with the trust require compliance with licensing and regulatory standards to ensure the deceased are treated with dignity and respect.

On 15th July 2025 last year, the inquiry published their phase two final report, which looked at the care of the deceased in both hospital and non-hospital settings. It acknowledged that arrangements for the care of the deceased people are complex and often interconnected. It clearly set out multiple organisations with different governance and operating models who are spread across, who are spread out across a large number of sectors. It focussed on whether procedures and practices in hospital and non-hospital settings, including the funeral sector, are doing enough to safeguard the security of the deceased, and it considered the role of regulators.

But the Inquirys chair, Sir Jonathan Maya Ellis overall recommendation was for government to introduce an independent statutory regulatory regime to protect the security and dignity of people after death in all settings where deceased individuals are cared for, regardless of the institution. This includes funeral directors. 11 of the phase two recommendations relate to introducing statutory regulation, including the funeral sector. These remain under consideration through the Inquiry's Recommendations Programme Board, established in July last year. Work continues at pace with the Ministry of Justice, Department of Business and Trade, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to assess options for the government intervention to improve standards of care for the deceased within the funeral sector and as such, responding to these recommendations, I will Mark Sewards.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful. Grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can you confirm if any meeting has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

taken place between those departments, or if one is going to take place? And when. The hon. Gentleman is clearly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Gentleman is clearly reading my speech so I can, I can I can assure him that meetings have taken place prior to my appointment taken place prior to my appointment as a Minister, responsible for the aspects of the of the of the regulations in relation to the regulations in relation to the Department of Health and Social Care. And I can confirm to the House that further meetings are being taken place at my instruction with the relevant ministries hosted by me in the Department of Health and Social Care, so that we can genuinely move forward.

I know there is consensus across the House that we genuinely and expediently move forward, aligning not only lines of demarcation and responsibility across those departments, but as has already been outlined in this House, that we work genuinely together and show leadership on this issue. And I am happy to keep hon. Members who are interested in this updated on that, in that regard to those meetings when they take place. This is a complex and sensitive matter, Madam Deputy Speaker that requires careful and thoughtful consideration to safeguard the rights and dignity of those who have died, to support their bereaved families, and to ensure that any measures taken are proportionate.

Given the fact that we are working with a number of SMEs to support this work, and continuing to discuss progress in the next steps with relevant Ministers across government, as I have laid out in response to my honourable, hon. Friend, the government is therefore continuing to consider all options to ensure that high standards are consistently upheld across the funeral sector. This includes the possibility of introducing suitable and proportionate regulation for funeral directors. As we discuss these options, we are clear that the approach must maintain high standards, protect the dignity of the deceased, support bereaved families recognising that any additional costs arising from regulation will ultimately also fall on them.

At the same time, we must consider the impact on the funeral sector itself. The funeral sector is 6500 private businesses across the UK, the vast majority of whom, as we have already heard tonight, are on the run and serve their communities with compassion and integrity. 85% are already members of trade bodies that provide guidance, codes of practice and voluntary inspection schemes. The government is also committed to reducing the administrative burdens of regulation on businesses by 25%, and this will contribute to our approach about regulation in this area.

Wrapping up, Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker, while the vast. Sarah Hall is the Minister and other Ministers involved with this other Ministers involved with this fully seized of the fact that this is a very unusual situation in that those professional bodies and the those professional bodies and the lion's share of practitioners are actually calling for regulation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually calling for regulation. This is a very unusual feat. They want to see it Minister. I'm very cognisant of that fact,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very cognisant of that fact, and that will be something we discuss in our interim inter-ministerial meetings on how we can involve the profession early in this regard. Madam Deputy Speaker, while the vast majority of funeral directors already operate with professionalism, the actions of a small minority have undermined public confidence. We are determined to ensure the security and dignity and care of deceased across all settings. This is why we are committed to setting out the government's decision on regulation.

In our full response to the Fuller Inquiry Phase two report in summer

**** Possible New Speaker ****

2026. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as of that opinion say aye. or the ayes have opinion say aye. or the ayes have
14:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Work and Pensions
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page