Commons Chamber

Thursday 19th March 2026

(began 1 day, 23 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:34
09:34
09:34
09:34
09:35
09:35
09:36
09:36
09:37
09:37
09:38
09:38
09:39
09:39
09:39
09:40
09:40
09:41
09:41
09:42
09:43
09:43
09:43
09:44
09:44
09:45
09:45
09:45
09:46
09:47
09:47
09:47
09:48
09:48
09:49
09:49
09:50
09:50
09:50
Neil Hudson Portrait Dr Neil Hudson MP (Epping Forest, Conservative)
-
-
bovine somatotropin, the use of growth promoting hormones in livestock and the use of bovine somatotropin are rightly banned in somatotropin are rightly banned in the UK and EU because of serious animal welfare issues and public health concerns. Bovine somatotropin is linked with a 25% increase in mastitis in cows. For increase in mastitis in cows. For the sake of animal welfare, can the Minister give a clear assurance that the UK will maintain our bans that the UK will maintain our bans on hormone treated beef, ractopamine treated pork and bovine somatotropin and dairy, and that none of these standards will be weakened or traded away in these EU SPS negotiations or in trade deals with other countries.

And can she confirm if the Animal Welfare Livestock Export Act 2024, which ended the export of live animals

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for slaughter or fattening, will be retained in this reset? Have the greatest. Respect for more knowledge than

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Respect for more knowledge than anybody in this chamber. But what we can't have is five questions. You know, I've got to get somebody

**** Possible New Speaker ****

else in. I don't know which question to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't know which question to answer. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I just reassure him that as a government, we're absolutely government, we're absolutely committed to maintaining high animal welfare standards and that, as we made clear to the United States when we were doing the deal with them, that we will not tolerate hormone treated beef and other products.
09:52
09:52
09:52
09:53
09:53
09:54
09:55
09:55
09:56
09:56
09:56
09:57
09:57
09:58
09:58
09:59
09:59
09:59
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:01
10:01
10:01
10:02
10:02
10:02
Victoria Atkins Portrait Rt Hon Victoria Atkins MP (Louth and Horncastle, Conservative)
-
-
right hon. Friend for North East Cambridgeshire, consulted on this flag loophole before the election, flag loophole before the election, and we will close the flag loophole when we're back in government. But can I offer some help to the can I offer some help to the Secretary of State? Can I offer some help to the Secretary of State? Because we've been very pleased to Because we've been very pleased to help her with her fly tipping policies this week. I'm pleased to see she's adopted some of our policies to tackle fly tipping.

policies to tackle fly tipping. Will the Secretary of State now adopt another conservative plan and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

close the flag loophole? I think she had.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think she had. 14 years to do what she's just. Talking about. The Secretary of State has had

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Secretary of State has had this sitting on their desk for 18 months, but instead we've had 18 months of damaging the rural months of damaging the rural economy, damaging rural businesses and hurting rural families under this government. And indeed, only this government. And indeed, only yesterday we had yet another example of this, because as fuel prices surge, Labour MPs voted yesterday to make the fuel in our cars even more expensive than it already is. On this side of the House, we know that rural families depend on their cars to live.

This is why we are asking this government why are is this Labour government targeting rural families with ever higher taxes on their cars, their incomes and their businesses, making life harder for us all?
10:04
10:04
10:05
10:05
10:05
10:06
10:07
10:07
10:07
10:08
10:08
10:08
10:09
10:09
10:10
10:10
10:11
10:11
10:12
10:12
10:12
10:13
10:13
10:13
10:14
10:14
10:14
10:15
10:15
10:15
10:16
10:17
10:17
None Portrait Q2. Whether the Attorney General has advised the Lord Chancellor on the potential impact of the Courts and Tribunals Bill on the rule of law. (908356)
-

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer questions two, eight, nine and ten. Together, the government's reforms will focus on delivering faster and fairer
10:17
10:18
10:18
10:18
10:19
10:20
10:20
10:21
10:21
10:22
10:23
10:23
10:24
10:24
10:24
10:25
10:26
10:28
10:28
Helen Grant Portrait Helen Grant MP (Maidstone and Malling, Conservative)
-
-
Helen Grant well, I thank the hon. Lady in what she said about the case of Hudgell and the Child Cruelty Register. It has been an amazing campaign led by Paula amazing campaign led by Paula Hudgell and her little boy, and I'm pleased that we were able to get cross-party support to to, to cross-party support to to, to change the law and hopefully look after children and save lives. But, you know, I it's unfortunate that she just will not answer the very straightforward questions that I am asking.

Jo Hamilton OBE was a victim of the Post Office horizon scandal, and she made it very clear that under government proposals that none of the wrongly convicted 900 subpostmasters would have had the right to a jury trial. And just this weekend, Mr. Speaker, there was a further revelation, this time involving the Prime Minister in a report. He had previously concluded that scrapping jury trials led to unreliable convictions in Northern Ireland in the 1990s. So can the Minister please explain how removing this vital safeguard makes the justice system more fair and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not less? The hon. Lady, be well aware that we are not removing jury that we are not removing jury trials. Jury trials will remain a cornerstone of this justice system. The reality is that the vast The reality is that the vast majority of cases that are heard in majority of cases that are heard in this country are not heard by 90% of cases are not heard by a jury.
10:30
10:31
10:31
10:31
10:32
10:33
10:33
10:34
10:34
10:35
10:35
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:37
10:39
10:39
10:39
10:40
Jesse Norman Portrait Rt Hon Jesse Norman MP (Hereford and South Herefordshire, Conservative)
-
-
by Russia, is now sharing its expertise in Counter-drone defence with nations across the Gulf and elsewhere. I also give thanks for the swift action the government has taken so far to support households, including many in Herefordshire, now facing sharp and unexpected increases in the cost of heating oil. Mr. speaker, as Herefordshire goes, so goes the UK. The events in the Middle East have exposed a hard truth. This country is dangerously exposed on energy and the government's policies are compounding that vulnerability.

Around a fifth of the world's oil and gas LNG passes through the Straits of Hormuz. When that is threatened, prices spike and when prices spike, everything else is hit. Heating, electricity, industry, jobs, every industrialised economy relies on secure and affordable energy. Yet we import in this country around 60% of the gas we use, and we pay far more than our competitor nations. And around three times US prices for it. So when shocks come, the benefits of higher gas prices go to other countries.

But our citizens bear the higher costs and added insecurity that structural vulnerability has built up over decades under governments of all the major parties. But this government is negligently or deliberately making it much worse. They've blocked new North Sea licences and sent a clear signal that domestic oil and gas production is to be run down, regardless of demand. The consequences of these decisions are already visible. The CF fertilisers plant near Chester has closed thanks to high energy costs, so this country now imports ammonia instead.

The Grangemouth refinery is ceasing its refining operations and becoming an import terminal in Aberdeen. Scunthorpe, Teesside investment is falling and companies are failing. Thousands of jobs have been lost and tens of thousands more put at risk. Little wonder a host of businesses and unions, including unite and the GMB, even renewables UK, have expressed their concern. These are not isolated events, Mr. Speaker. They are the predictable effects of policy decisions taken by Ministers without any serious consideration of the economic and strategic consequences.

In the current context, the Energy Secretary often says the problem is global gas prices and that increasing domestic production makes no difference. Of course, that is nonsense, because domestic production actually boosts jobs, public revenues and national resilience while lowering emissions. But that line is also dangerously misleading. Gas prices are regional, not global, because gas, unlike oil, is relatively expensive to ship and store. The energy sector is confusing a global market with global pricing. It is a basic error.

Alas, the Chancellor is no less confused. On Tuesday, she said, and I quote, you see countries like Canada and Norway increasing their production and every country has to play their part. But of course, in her view, that does not include the UK. Her policy is precisely the opposite not to increase, but to reduce oil and gas production. You could not make it up. Shortly, we will hear the Business Secretary make a statement on how the government wants to increase domestic steel production, even while it is stopping the domestic oil and gas on which that steel production relies.

It's an absolute nonsense, Mr. speaker. Cut domestic production in the face of steady demand and imports will fill the gap, but an increasingly import dependent system is forced to rely ever more on pipelines, LNG cargoes and interconnectors. These are vulnerable fixed assets open to damage and disruption from abroad. And there is a further consequence. Modern conflict is determined by industrial capacity. Steel, chemicals fuels supply chains. Yet the government is allowing these national sovereign capabilities to erode. So this is a policy that increases carbon emissions, deprives Britain of tax revenues, worsens the balance of payments, hurts consumers and businesses, and weakens both our energy resources and our national security.

That is quite an achievement, Mr. Speaker. It is hard to imagine a more confused or dangerous approach. I don't want a debate on this topic. We can all see what's happening at some point. There must be a U-turn because Iran is making a fool of the Energy Secretary. Now, I desperately want the Leader of the House to get the Prime Minister to see the madness of this approach and get the policy changed as soon

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as he possibly can. Leader of the House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, Mr. Speaker, can I say that my thoughts are with the friends and family of the young people who have family of the young people who have died and others who are currently unwell as a result of the meningitis outbreak in Kent? I also meningitis outbreak in Kent? I also want to place on record our tribute
10:45
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
to Phil Willis, who was a greatly respected and admired colleague and played a considerable role in modernising the Labour Party, and I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our condolences to his friends and family. Let me join with the Shadow leader in praise of President Zelensky and what he said earlier this week. This week, Mr. Speaker, a new defence pact has been agreed between the UK and Ukraine and by deepening our defence partnerships with strengthening Ukraine's ability to defend itself from Putin's ongoing attacks while ensuring the UK and our allies are better prepared to meet the threats of the future.

We were, as the hon. Gentleman said, honoured Mr. Speaker to listen to President Zelensky on Tuesday, and I must thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the role that you played in organising the event, but also in making clear that this House is unwavering support for the Ukrainian people. I just want to mention another couple of things, Mr. Speaker, if I may, before we get to the comments of the hon. Gentleman. On Monday, the modernisation Committee launched an inquiry into backbench business and petitions debates as part of an ongoing inquiry on how time is used in this place.

Both the backbench business and petitions committees play a vital role in bringing key issues of local, national and international importance to this. House members will have received an online form seeking their views and I would encourage all members to engage in this inquiry. In addition, this morning, the response from the House administration to the Modernisation Committee report on accessibility in the House of Commons was published, and I would like to thank all of those who contributed to the inquiry and the House authorities for the progress they are making in addressing the important matters raised in the report.

And as I committed, Mr. Speaker, the House will have the opportunity to consider this report in due course. Let me turn to the comments by the shadow Leader of the House and first of all, thank him for the support which he has given for what we have already done on the price of fuel oil. And let me reassure his Herefordshire constituents, and indeed the House, that the government keeps these matters in the forefront of our minds and under close scrutiny and if necessary, we will take further action.

I agree with him on one point from the rest of what he said, which is that we should be concerned about potential spikes in fuel prices during crises. But I have to say he made an admirable case for energy independence, and the policy of this government. He also talked about the North Sea as a matter of concern. And it is a matter of concern, not just for the whole country, but particularly for constituencies in the region that I represent. But I have to point out, Mr.

Speaker, that the North Sea is a mature oil and gas area, and therefore, it is not surprising when he quotes some of the things that have happened in that area because it is mature and in that sense, declining. But gas and energy from the North Sea will be part of the energy transition in the UK for some decades to come. And the big lesson that we learned from this particular crisis is that we have to get off the roller coaster of oil and gas, and that means getting off fossil fuels and onto home grown clean power, which is why he talks about the inaction of the government.

That's why we're bringing forward the next auction for renewables, extending solar and accelerating the Warm Homes Plan rollout. But he talks about the loss of jobs in the area. I have to point out that 70% fall in jobs in north in the North Sea came from the during the time of the government of which he was a supporter. And in terms of turning this round, it would take a decade Mr Speaker between starting to explore and to extract oil. Not a single barrel of extra oil extracted from the North Sea today would reduce prices for consumers.

And if he doesn't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker, let him take the words of his conservative energy Minister in 2022 who said, and I quote, Mr. Speaker, more UK production wouldn't reduce the global price of gas. So as the shadow leader said, you couldn't make it up. And on the question of steel, Mr. Speaker, there will be a statement later today about the our steel strategy going forward. So the idea that we don't value these national assets, I'm afraid, is simply untrue.

We have acted already with regard to Scunthorpe, and we will be acting not just on steel, but other matters of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

national importance because they're in our national interest. Kirsteen Sullivan thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kirsteen Sullivan thank. You, Mr. Speaker. Last Saturday, Nicolas Women's Support Group Nicolas Women's Support Group celebrated its first anniversary, marking a year of welcoming women in West Lothian to connect, share experiences and offer a listening ear. Nicola's was founded in memory
10:50
10:51
10:51
Bobby Dean Portrait Bobby Dean MP (Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Bobby Dean Liberal Democrat spokesman. you'll be as concerned as I am about the recent outbreak of meningitis in Kent, and I'm sure the thoughts of the whole House are with the families of those who have lost loved ones already. The the UK lost loved ones already. The the UK Health Security Agency now has a huge job on its hands to get good public health information out there and to work with the NHS on a targeted vaccination programme. And I think it's a reminder of how much faith and trust we put into health professionals in these moments of crisis who are all dedicated to keeping us safe.

It's also a reminder, though, of the dangers of bad information. And it's a sad truth that in this in this country, the take up rates of child vaccination has been declining over the course of the last decade. Some of this has been attributed to misinformation that's allowed to spread freely online, but there are also well organised and well funded anti-vaccination groups. Now that I'm sure we've all come across in time. And unfortunately, it's also been egged on at times by populist politicians.

President Trump in America has appointed a vaccine sceptic into a senior role in the White House and, of course, the Reform Party platform. An anti-vax spokesperson at their own conference recently. And we will all have got stick online if we dare to confront this subject. And I even have protesters in my high street who've stopped me whilst walking my dog to give me stick about the subject. And I think that's made us as a as a political class, a little bit scared to take this subject on.

I think it's about time that we use moments like this to take on those conspiracy theorists. So I wonder if the House could organise for a statement to be made about how we're going to tackle this rise in misinformation, this rise in conspiracy theories,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and ultimately get that childhood rate of vaccination up again. Here, here. Mr Speaker firstly, Mr. Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr Speaker firstly, Mr. Speaker, as I said in my earlier remarks, our thoughts are with the friends our thoughts are with the friends and family of the young people who tragically died, but also others tragically died, but also others who are currently unwell. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about
10:53
10:55
10:56
10:56
Bob Blackman Portrait Bob Blackman MP (Harrow East, Conservative)
-
-
Bob Blackman chair of the backbench committee. business for the chamber for next week. Could he give us early notice of whether we're going to get time after Easter so the committee can allocate time accordingly? In addition, next Thursday there will be a statement from the EFRA Select Committee on their report on coastal erosion in Westminster Hall. Next Tuesday, there will be a debate on sudden, sudden, unexplained death in childhood. On Thursday the 26th, there will be a debate on outcome for patients with Ehlers Danlos syndrome and Craniocervical instability, followed by a debate on potential merits of mandatory body armour for prison officers on Tuesday the 14th.

When we come back, there'll be a debate on hidden credit liabilities and the role of the FCA. And on Thursday the 16th, debates on housing needs of young people, followed by a debate on NHS Federated Data Platform. And I hope that the leader will bring forward the necessary changes to standing orders that he promised. Before we go for, for, for the State Opening of Parliament. Now, Mr. Speaker, in my position as chairman of the all party parliamentary group for British Hindus, I have been in contact with Peterborough Council about the plight of the Hindu Samaj Temple.

This is the only Hindu temple in Peterborough. There are 11 mosques in the area and I wish them Eid Mubarak. As we approach the end of Ramadan. Ramadan. But the council have decided to sell the temple after the trustees of the temple agreed to match any other bid that came forward. They eventually offered £1.4 million. The council, however, chose to to another bid of £1.2 million. This was kept in secret. Now the trustees have taken the case to court and indeed have got to a position whereby the judge has stayed the sale of the site.

Could we have a statement from the Secretary of State next week, or what action he's going to take to make sure we preserve the opportunity for Hindus in Peterborough and across the country to celebrate their religion in proper fashion, in peace and harmony.
10:59
11:00
Andrew Pakes Portrait Andrew Pakes MP (Peterborough, Labour )
-
-
I will now bring in the Member of Parliament for Peterborough Andrew Pakes. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> AM I OK to ask my question? I was going to ask as well. Can I just put on record. I'm deeply just put on record. I'm deeply disappointed as the Member of Parliament representing this constituency where the temple is based, that I've not had a based, that I've not had a conversation with the hon. Member, and he has used parliamentary privilege to state some untruths, something which is subject to legal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

action. Yeah. We we can't use the word

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We we can't use the word untruths. There may have been a misunderstanding, but we certainly don't have untruths. That he stated things which are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That he stated things which are not factual in relation to this. But, Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to say is that one of the great blessings I actually have as a Member of Parliament is joining with communities to celebrate with communities to celebrate things like Diwali, Hanukkah, Versace, and in the coming hours, I'll be joining many members of my community to celebrate Eid, which is coming up. I'd like to ask the Leader of the House does he recognise the divisive, exclusionary, hateful language that some people have been using to describe a community iftar in recent days, which shows that it isn't about British values, it's the antithesis of British values to seek to divide and tie hatred.

And will he join me in wishing well all of those who will be taking part in Eid, in the park, in Peterborough in the coming hours, as showing off the best of my city? And will he make time in parliamentary hours to ensure we can have a debate about the language we use when we talk about social cohesion and bringing our faiths together, rather than dividing them here.
11:01
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for his grateful to my hon. Friend for his clarification on these matters, and I'm more than happy to speak to him afterwards about that. With regard to the statements which he condemns, the Prime Minister was absolutely the Prime Minister was absolutely clear yesterday that the statements, which he refers to by the spokesperson for the opposition, were utterly appalling and only spread poison and division, freedom of religion and the right of peaceful expression are fundamental British values, not the opposite.

These rights should be respected for everyone, and it applies equally to peaceful prayer, protesting or assembly or wherever it happens to be. So I do join with him in wishing everyone celebrating Eid, wherever they are celebrating it. I do wish them well in that, Mr. Speaker, but with the warning

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to all parties in this place, if you get into the gutter in these matters, the public will not forgive you. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Can I just remind members if you are going to mention somebody else's constituency, please give them notice. It's courtesy that should happen. Dame Karen Bradley.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should happen. Dame Karen Bradley. Very much. Mr. Speaker. One of the great privileges of being a member of Parliament is being able member of Parliament is being able to raise constituents concerns directly with Ministers. Unfortunately, far too frequently at the moment, the responses that we receive to be sent to our constituents are coming from officials rather than Ministers. I'm sure the leader would agree with me that our constituents are entitled to hear from the Ministers entitled to hear from the Ministers themselves and would.

Can I ask him to remind his ministerial colleagues of the duty they have to colleagues of the duty they have to ensure that our constituents hear directly from them and not their officials?
11:03
11:03
11:04
11:04
11:05
11:06
11:06
11:07
11:07
11:08
11:09
11:10
11:10
11:11
11:12
11:13
11:13
11:14
11:15
11:15
11:15
11:16
11:17
11:17
11:17
11:18
11:19
11:19
11:20
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:23
11:23
11:24
11:25
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:29
11:29
11:30
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
None Portrait Ministerial statement: International Development
-

Thank you.
12:04
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Foreign Secretary, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-
the written ministerial statement published this morning, I want to update the House on the update the House on the government's revised approach to international development and official development assistance official development assistance allocations. Madam Deputy Speaker, National security is the first duty of government and this country of government and this country faces the most security serious security situation for a generation. security situation for a generation. For too long, under previous governments, our defence investment was cut back. And so last year, this government took the necessary decision to deliver the biggest increase in defence spending since the Cold War, a decision whose importance has been demonstrated again in recent weeks as UK jets fly defensive operations in the Middle East.

While our carrier strike group has been preparing to head to the High North in order to fund the additional defence spending. We also had to take the hugely difficult decision to reduce our development Budget over the next few years, moving to the equivalent of 0.3% of gross national income by 2027, and that was set out by the Treasury in the spending review last year. Allies such as Germany, France and Sweden have made similar choices, and this for us is not an ideological step.

It is a difficult choice in the face of international threats. And the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have confirmed it is our intention to return to 0.7% when the fiscal circumstances allow. Our country has a strong, long history leading on international development across the world. And let me be clear, our commitment to international development remains a central part of our foreign policy, a reflection of both our values and our national interest. It is a fundamental part of our moral purpose to stand up against global disease and hunger, and to support those trapped in crises caused by conflict or climate change.

We also know that preventing conflict, instability and crisis, displacement and migration, supporting security, economic development, growth and trade, and building global partnerships are all the right things to do. But they are also directly in the UK national interest because, as we have seen all too clearly in recent years, instabilities and crises across the world have a direct impact on us here at home. So we've looked hard at what we prioritise and how we work, using the challenge of a reduced Budget to find solutions that increase impact, focusing on what secures best value for money for taxpayers, which reflects UK values and the UK national interest, and what will seize new opportunities to bring real change for people's lives.

So first, we will prioritise support for countries and communities facing the worst humanitarian need, those affected by wars and crises, committing 1.4 billion a year to tackle human suffering in some of the worst humanitarian crises, 70% of all geographic support will be allocated to the most fragile and conflict affected states. That includes fully protecting funds for Ukraine, where people were left in freezing conditions this winter. For Palestine, where civilians continue to suffer immensely in Gaza. For Sudan, the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century and in the light of the current crisis in the Middle East, I've taken the decision this week to add Lebanon to the countries whose funding will be fully protected next year.

That does mean that direct bilateral aid funding for other countries will be reduced. We have taken the decision to withdraw from traditional bilateral funding for G20 countries, countries like Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan will remain humanitarian priorities. They will see direct grant reductions, although we will continue to support multilateral programs which operate in those countries to countries like Pakistan and Mozambique will remain development priorities, but their direct grant funding will be significantly reduced and instead we will run partnerships for investment, including growth funding through British International Investment and investment, to tackle climate change.

Or Lee Barron direct UK expertise to help them improve capabilities and raise funds directly themselves. Secondly, we will focus on areas that maximise impact, transform lives and build stability, creating jobs, opportunities and economic opportunities as the path out of poverty and saving lives and improving health through backing proven global partnerships. Where the UK has strong engagement and expertise. For the. For example, our partnership with Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance where we. Investing over 1.2 billion and which will save the lives of millions of children around the world and investing £800 million in the Global Fund, which is expected to save up to 1.3 million lives, averting up to 22 million new cases of HIV, TB and malaria and investing in climate action that protects people and prevents future crises.

Over the next three years, the UK will aim to spend around 6 billion of Oda as international climate finance, covering mitigation, adaptation and a focus on nature and using different instruments and levers. We will aim to deliver an additional 6.7 billion UK backed climate and nature investments, and to mobilise billions more in private finance, and that includes measures to help countries to recover when disasters hit. For example, as risk insurance in Jamaica enabled rapid payouts following Hurricane Melissa.

Thirdly, we will support women and girls, and we will invest in line with our values, even where other countries have changed their development approach. So I have taken the decision to make support for women and girls, not just a priority for development, but a central theme across the work of the foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. That means work to prevent violence, to champion women's political and economic participation, and to keep children learning even during conflict. So we will continue support for things like help for survivors of horrific rape and sexual abuse, the kind of dedicated funding I announced recently in Sudan for women that have endured the most appalling and traumatic experiences, and at least 90% of our bilateral Oda programmes will have a focus on women and girls by 2030.

And in an age of disinformation, we will also increase our funding to the BBC World Service by £11 million extra a year. Fourth, we will support and help reform international institutions to unlock greater finance for development and the innovation that can go far beyond UK aid and traditional grants. That means backing the most efficient and effective bits of the multilateral system to multiply our investment. Because multilateral development banks are the largest source of development and climate finance, able to lend to partner countries on the most affordable terms.

That includes the World Bank's International Development Association, where each pound we invest unlocks £4 of additional finance, and where we have increased our contribution by 40%. We are also working to double the amount of money that multilateral development banks can provide, listening to partners and backing Africa's institutions to raise far more money at scale. As £650 million contribution to the African Development Fund will allow them to leverage up to £1.6 billion in grants and concessional loans, including issuing bonds on the London Stock Exchange for the first time, and will use our shareholder role, our seat at the table to press for innovation and reform, increasing the voice and representation for low income and vulnerable countries and pursuing debt relief to.

Because the global financial system needs to deliver a fairer deal for developing countries and their citizens. And because the UN must continue to play its indispensable role, but also to be more efficient, effective and coherent. We will refocus on core priorities in line with the UN reform initiative. Fifth, we are transforming how we work, responding to the clear need for partnership, not paternalism. My colleague, the noble Baroness Chapman, the Development Minister, has set out a series of shifts in the way we work to be an investor, not just a donor, because our partners want to attract finance, not be dependent on aid through British international investment.

Our finance institution driving growth and innovation and unlocking private capital. And that's why in Ethiopia, earlier this year, I signed a joint agreement for energy transmission projects worth £300 million, enabled by a British international investment company that delivers UK investment across Africa. The kind of modern partnership that also helps Ethiopians find work at home, rather than considering dangerous international migration overseas. Also reforms to strengthen systems rather than providing services so countries can thrive better without aid, for example, because our partners want to educate their children themselves rather than us trying to do it for them.

Helping support teacher training and curriculum design. And we are moving from providing grants to providing expertise, drawing on the best of British knowhow, mobilising UK strengths from inside and outside government, from world class universities to specialists in the tech sector or the City of London. The Met Office and HMRC, for example. In Ghana, tax expertise helped Ghana generate an additional £100 million in revenue to invest in education, health and priorities. And finally, backing local solutions rather than remote international investment.

International approaches because organisations locally know their populations best and are closer to those in need. Allocating a reduced Budget inevitably leads to hard choices and unavoidable trade offs, so we are focusing aid on the people and places that need it most, and we will still be a major player and expect to be the fifth biggest funder in the world. And we will still use international leadership, such as our 2027 G20 presidency, to shape the global agenda for development, and we will continue to use our other policies and levers so that lower income countries benefit from trade and growth and tackling flows of illicit finance and dirty money, which harm developing countries most and fuel crime on everyone's streets.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this modernised approach to international development and our allocation of Oda reflects our values and our interests because our driving force has been and continues to be working for a world free from extreme poverty on a liveable planet, clear that prosperity and stability in lower income countries matters for outcomes here at home, for the cost of living, for the security of our borders, for the resilience of our economy and upholding our UK values across the world, and clear that the UK's sustained commitment to international development is about delivering both at home and abroad.

I commend this statement to the House.
12:16
Wendy Morton Portrait Rt Hon Wendy Morton MP (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Minister Wendy Morton. >> Shadow Minister Wendy Morton. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker And first of all, let me say I'm grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. for advance sight of her statement. But having listened carefully, what we've heard today will do little to reassure this House, the development sector, or indeed the British taxpayer. After more than a year of uncertainty and delay. 12 days before the start of the new financial year, we still know very little about how Labour is actually going to reform development.

A reduction in funding has to be accompanied by genuine reform, and I remind her that it was a Conservative Party which pushed the government to reallocate funding from development to defence. It was Labour that conceded. Madam Deputy Speaker, we hear warm words about a fundamental change in approach about moving from donor to investor, but the Foreign Secretary has told us what that has not told us what that means in practice. What programmes have been cancelled this year as a result of these reductions? Which partnerships have been scaled back? Which commitments made by this country will no longer be honoured? We on this side of the House are clear.

Development spending must be rooted firmly in Britain's national interest. Our economic security, our national security and, yes, our health security too. That is the anchor. That is the test. The Foreign Secretary talks about moving from donor to investor. Yet almost a decade ago, my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary, set out the UK's first economic development strategy. These subjects, featured in the 2023 International Development White Paper. So what exactly will be new in the government's approach? How will the investor model operate? What metrics will be used to measure return? Not just financially, but in terms of stability, resilience and alignment with UK interests.

What is she doing to going to do to make the private sector much more of that engine in development? She has announced that bilateral aid to G20 countries will end with the exception of Turkey. So let me turn to that, because what specific programs will the UK fund in Turkey? How much will be allocated and what assessment has been made to the direct benefit to the UK? I also want to press the Foreign Secretary on oversight and accountability at a time when spending is being reduced and reprioritised.

There have been briefings about the future of the Independent Commission for aid impact. This body was established to ensure that every pound delivers value for money. Will it continue in its current form with full independence and authority? And if not, what will replace it? Because weakening scrutiny at the very moment of greatest change risks undermining public confidence entirely. The Foreign Secretary says it remains the government's intention to return to 0.7 percent of GNI on development. What are the fiscal circumstances that would allow this and what is their expected timescale? Turning to priorities, the Foreign Secretary has spoken about climate finance.

But at a time when the country faces serious fiscal constraints, constraints driven by this government's own economic choices, can she explain why this remains a central pillar? Should not our first priority be economic resilience and national security, including global health security? On the latter, the Conservatives have a proud record of supporting Gavi and the Global Fund. What will she do to ensure the UK remains a strong contributor? In an era when the Oda envelope is smaller, the multilateral development system needs a complete overhaul.

Given Labour's plans to reduce bilateral aid funding, does the Foreign Secretary have a serious plan to drive reform of the Mdbs? Will she be pushing for much more robust accountability, transparency and conditionality? How will she ensure better outcomes and a stronger focus on delivery? And, crucially, is she working in concert with our key allies, including the US, to drive that reform? The world Bank, under its current president, is undergoing a significant reform programme that could be much more widely rolled out across the MDB ecosystem.

Is she discussing how Britain could support this? Can she update the House on support for Britain for British international investment? This is a genuine success story, mobilising private capital, supporting growth and advancing British interests. And does she have any plans to strengthen it and to ensure it continues to generate very strong returns? And what of Britain's soft power institutions that support our influence around the world? What's her vision for the future of the British Council in this new landscape? Are they being supported or are quietly squeezed? She omitted to mention the Commonwealth at all in her statement.

How is she going to work with the Commonwealth Secretariat and our partners to ensure Britain's partnership offers a much more attractive. So that our friends do not turn to China, which seeks only exploitation. And more broadly, is she exploring the potential for mini lateral partnerships with close security partners? Madam Deputy Speaker As I draw to a close, there are pressing geopolitical questions, not least, how is the government supporting countries vulnerable to Russian interference, including countries such as Moldova? And what role will organisations such as the Westminster Foundation for democracy play going forward? Last week I had the privilege of visiting Ukraine.

This week we welcomed President Zelensky to this House. It's important that we reconfirm, reaffirm our commitment to the humanitarian response to Putins illegal invasion. This House is entitled to answers. The sector is entitled to certainty, and the British people are entitled to know how their money is being spent and why. For decades, UK development policy has delivered transformative results around the world. It works at its best when we're not a charity but ruthlessly focussed on driving genuine outcomes with genuine objectives, rigorous criteria for selecting projects and a clear view on how to play to our strengths.

Thank you.
12:22
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Foreign Secretary, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, the are hon. Lady has obviously a set of questions, but actually it would have been better if she had also taken some responsibility for the situation that we are now in, because it was the Conservatives who hollowed out the investment in defence with a £12 billion cut after 2010 and have failed to respond to the end of the post-Cold war dividend and left our overall public finances in a perilous state.

By the time we reach the 2024 election, a situation that has left us in the position of having to make some difficult decisions and choices, and also to reverse some of the cuts that they made in defence and to keep increasing defence spending and to make difficult decisions in order to fund that. She also asked a series of questions in particular areas, but I would just also gently point out to her that she has said nothing to explain what her approach would be under a Conservative Party policy, which is to reduce development to nought.

Point 1% of GNP, a two thirds reduction on the funding that we are setting out, with no explanation about whether that funding would be cut from Sudan, from vaccines, from the global health support as well. What I can say to the House is that we are honouring commitments such as those to the World Bank's Ida program. The Icai will continue and also we are increasing funding for the British Council, but we are increasing that from outside some of the Oda funding that will come from additional funding as well, because we recognise the hugely important role that it plays across the world.

The new approach that we are taking to support investment and to shift from the approach of the donor to investor, and she was encapsulated in the New Approach to Africa, published by my hon. Friend, the noble friend, the Baroness Chapman Before Christmas, which set out the equal partnership and respect underpinning the new framework in our approach to Africa, which has been strongly welcomed by African countries as well. On Turkey, we are continuing to provide support for refugees, just as we are also providing support which helps the refugees in places like Chad, for example, because we know that providing that support in the region also prevents people making dangerous journeys and the kind of migration that is exploited by criminal smuggler gangs as well.

And there are areas where we are reducing the direct aid, and that obviously leads to difficult decisions, but where we are also working to increase investment through things like the world Bank and through other programmes as well. And that is, I think, the right thing to do in order to ensure that we can both support the defence investment we need, but also continue to challenge champion international development.
12:25
Sarah Champion Portrait Sarah Champion MP (Rotherham, Labour)
-
-
The International Development Speaker. Speaker. >> I'm hoping that my voice lasts for this. Or you might get off for this. Or you might get off really lightly. This was meant to be a statement about the 40% cuts that this government is bringing forward. Instead, the Minister has spoken at length about the policy and direction shifts that she is making, which I think are the right ones to do. But the policy announcements around the cuts we haven't discussed. I've had an embargo copy of the equality Impact assessment, which I'm very grateful for, and I think when that comes into the public domain, will then have the information that we could maybe have an informed debate on, because I fear that the government's decisions have actually been made on a false dichotomy.

We've had defence pitched against international development. And actually, if you ask any military person, they will tell you the best line of prevention and first defence is our development money because it keeps people safe and secure in their homes. It keeps them prosperous, it holds governments to account, and I am very fearful in the world that we find ourselves that taking that first line of defence away is going to have massive consequences. A couple of stats around where we are 61 ongoing conflicts, less than 12% of the global population living under a liberal democracy, the lowest in 50 years, with 5.8 billion people living under autocratic rule.

And over the next 15 years, we're looking at 1.2 billion people reaching working age, with only a projected 400 million jobs. Development spend keeps people fed safe and prosperous. Our aid cuts are going to reduce that. Girls in South Sudan will no longer have education. Polio was surge, civil societies are being abandoned and the poorest will not be fed. Rather than providing solutions, we will see the consequences of the UK stepping away from the international stage to our reputation, also to our influence, but also as the home former Home Secretary well knows, people will be coming to our shores to seek that sanctuary and those opportunities.

And also, can we have a thought for the staff in FCDO who are facing 25% cuts right now, and specifically to the country directors that are having to go to the people that they've spent years building relationships with, to say that we are no longer standing by them financially. So I don't really have a question because I haven't been given the information. But can I say to the Foreign Secretary, these cuts do not aid our defence. They make the whole world more vulnerable.

And can I just please ask that as we go forward? She listens to the Icai report about transparency, about where we are prioritising money and the impact that is happening, rather than just tasting the bottom line.
12:29
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Foreign Secretary, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-
Well, can I thank my hon. Friend >> Well, can I thank my hon. Friend for the points that she has made and also for being such a strong champion for international champion for international development and for its wider purposes as well, and the extensive work and scrutiny that her committee does in this area. The she referred to the issue about the interaction really between the development work and security across the world, and I agree with her that I do think these issues are strongly linked.

But that's one of the reasons why we've chosen to prioritise some of the fragile and conflict affected countries. Exactly because those security issues are so strongly interlinked, but also why the our purpose here is to better link the direct aid that we provide, but with also conflict and atrocity prevention as well. So we link the policy approaches, for example, around Sudan and Sudan is in a country where we are fully protecting the funding for Sudan because of the scale of the humanitarian crisis, but also linking that to much stronger policy interventions, including around women and girls who are facing such crises in Sudan, and also the work to seek to support a ceasefire.

Because the honest truth is that if we could achieve a ceasefire in Sudan, that would have more impact than any humanitarian aid funding that we can provide, because, frankly, too often the humanitarian funding cannot get in because of the conflict in place. So we need to join up strongly those policy issues and those aid support issues as well. She also raised referred to the equalities impact assessment that is being published today. Our intention had been for it to be published by this point, and I understand it is being uploaded at the moment.

Well, I can tell her and I know I will be giving evidence to her committee. I can tell her is that we had an earlier looked at earlier assessments and adapted our decision making based on that analysis to ensure, for example, that we were ending up support doing more to support women and girls and taking account of some of those equalities issues as well. And I agree with that. These issues are interlinked. It's why they must continue to be linked as part of our foreign policy.

We have to both defend our security and also support international development, because fundamentally those things are linked. It is both about our values and about our national interest.
12:31
Monica Harding Portrait Monica Harding MP (Esher and Walton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Monica Harding. asking the Foreign Secretary why this extremely important statement on Britain's commitments overseas is announced on a Thursday when most MPs aren't here? Is it perhaps because the government is ashamed of these cuts and wants them to slip out unnoticed? Something has gone badly wrong when a Labour government has cut the foreign aid Budget deeper than Donald Trump or the last conservative government. This is a shameful moment. Not only a moral catastrophe but strategically illiterate.

The cuts to the bilateral aid Budget will be a direct and severe hit to Britain's long term interests, to our influence, our ability to shape events in regions critical to our national interest and to growth in new markets. A vacuum for Russia and China to fill. The Foreign Secretary makes a great play on defence, but when the world is on fire, we need more work on prevention of conflict, not less. By cutting aid and development, she weakens our security and therefore needs more defence.

Spend down the line. And if she doesn't believe me, perhaps she might like to believe the defence chiefs who have said so, including Lord Richard Dannatt. We Liberal Democrats oppose these appalling cuts and have set out credible alternatives to fund a higher defence spend, including defence bonds and a higher digital services tax. So I ask the Foreign Secretary, does she not see the contradiction in her desire for a world free from extreme poverty on a liveable planet? And these savage cuts? Where is the bravery and leadership? Labour government, the Labour government, previous Labour governments and the coalition government showed to the poorest in the world.

Where has the government's full commitment to address climate change gone? Where are the Labour Party's values? Where did it mislay its moral compass and where is its strategic logic? And when and how will she return to the 0.7% of GNI enshrined in law by the coalition government?
12:33
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Foreign Secretary, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-
Hear, hear. >> Hear, hear. >> Foreign Secretary. >> Again, I would just gently

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Again, I would just gently remind the Liberal Democrat frontbench spokesperson that she frontbench spokesperson that she was part of the coalition which cut the UK's defence Budget by £12 billion. And she wants more independent defence policy. But with no serious plans to pay for it and never confronting some of the difficult choices that responsible governments have to take. As for the the Thursday issue, this is a working day in this Parliament and she ought to take it seriously as that.

And we as a result of all of these changes, we will be. We expect to be the fifth largest funder of international development. As a sign of how seriously we take this. And also many of the reforms that we are leading are also driving, not just the kinds of greater impact of decisions and of policies for other areas and other countries to follow the greater partnerships, the greater focus around investment, increasing capabilities in countries across the world so that they can strengthen it.

Also increasing our work on conflict prevention at a time when we have seen conflict and atrocities escalate across the world. The substantial investment, multibillion pound investment in climate and nature, and also the British international investment, and to prioritising the kinds of reforms to things like the world Bank, which will allow the world Bank to substantially increase its investment in some of the lowest income countries in the world by multiple billions of pounds, so that that can also help improve development, jobs and opportunities.

And working in partnerships with countries, there are difficult choices that have to be made. But when you're responsible in government, you can't shy away from those difficult choices. And that is why we are supporting and championing international development alongside increasing investment in defence.
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:42
12:43
12:44
12:45
12:45
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Foreign Secretary, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-
there is huge humanitarian crisis as we speak. That's why in the last two weeks, we have announced an additional £15 million this year, particularly for Lebanon, but also particularly for Lebanon, but also some of the nearby areas to provide urgent support from additional humanitarian and crisis support this year. And it's why we have also added Lebanon to the list of countries alongside Sudan, which he also raised, and Palestine, where we are protecting the funding next year as well, because this is so important.

And it's also why and he talked about the scale of conflict, why it's right that we target the aid that we spend the the grant funding on those areas that are in the greatest crisis and conflict, but also for other countries where they have governments that we can work with, where we can work with them, for example, to help them raise more taxes of their own, as we are doing in Ghana, for example, or work we can do with British international investment, where we can put investment in growing their economy.

That also helps them raise revenue, that we take different approaches for different countries in different kinds of circumstances. The aim is still the same to provide support for people and their lives, and the long term economic development that they need. But it does have to be done in different ways in different countries.
12:46
12:47
12:47
12:47
12:48
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:50
12:51
12:53
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:57
12:57
12:58
12:59
13:00
13:00
13:01
13:02
13:02
13:03
13:03
13:04
13:05
13:06
13:06
13:07
Peter Kyle Portrait Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP, Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Hove and Portslade, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With your permission, I wish to make a statement on the government's steel strategy. May I government's steel strategy. May I begin by declaring my membership of the community and the GMB trades unions? Mr Speaker resilient economic growth is the main driver of social justice. Steel is essential to both. Steel underpins the key growth driving sectors in our modern industrial strategy. Steel has strengthened and sustained communities in England, Scotland and Wales.

The future of steel in Britain is about ensuring the future strength and security of our national economy. We honour Steel's proud industrial past but we do not live in it. We are ambitious and excited for Britain's future steel sector steel is essential for advanced manufacturing, for clean energy, for construction, for defence and for digital technologies to steel is vital for sustaining thousands of lives and livelihoods, good jobs, apprenticeships and opportunities, and steel is central to communities in Port Talbot, in Motherwell, in Scunthorpe, in Sheffield, in Teesside.

This House will be acutely aware that Britain's steel sector has experienced decades of decline, from failures of Thatcherism that closed concert and Ravenscraig and shrank Corby to the damage done by the Tories to Redcar and to Port Talbot. Steel manufacturing in Britain serves as the starkest possible monument to the failure of Thatcherite monetarism and its record of industrial vandalism. By contrast, Labour has an activist industrial strategy that determinedly targets key industries, technologies and strategically important sectors for economic development, national security and resilience.

In the last five decades, steel, a steel industry employment in Britain, has declined by 90% from more than 300,000 jobs in 1970 to less than 30,000 today. We are closing that decades long chapter of deliberate de-industrialisation and commit anew to strengthening and sustaining Britain as a steel making nation. The high operating costs and global overcapacity have made it much harder for British steel companies to compete. Manufacturers have looked to cheap imported steel to keep costs down. As a result, investment tapered off, capabilities reduced, communities have been let down and crude steel production declined by more than 50% in the last decade.

Faced with these challenges, previous governments failed to present a long term vision for steel. In Britain. They were reactive, not proactive. They intervened to support specific companies at specific times, but failed to improve the general conditions for the industry as a whole. They lacked the necessary boldness, creativity and urgency. This government will not make that same mistake. Far from believing steel decline is inevitable, we embrace a future for British steel manufacturer as a staple of sustainable, resilient economic growth and our national security.

While the industry still faces challenges today, we do. We will do everything we can to help it adapt, grow and succeed into the future, and our actions on steel will be driven by what is best for our national interest. Our steel strategy sets out a series of actions to reverse the failures of the past, to build a strong and resilient steel sector. Backed up with £2.5 billion of government investment, on top of the £500 million that we have pledged for the steelworks at Port Talbot.

Our ambition is for domestic production to meet up to half of Britain's domestic demand. To support that effort, we will introduce a new trade measure to follow the existing safeguard from the 1st of July. Overall quotas for imported steel will be reduced by 60% compared to the safeguard. All steel coming into the UK above those levels will be subject to a 50% tariff. This measure will apply to imported steel products that can be made in the UK. This is not a decision that I have taken lightly.

I have done so to shield Britain's steel industry from the damaging effects of global overcapacity, and to ensure that Britain's steel industry contributes fully to our critical national infrastructure and our defence. To shore up the UK's resilience to global shocks. Now, without this action, the UK steel making capability faces real jeopardy, leaving us reliant on overseas suppliers. I will not let that happen. Steel is essential for our energy security, our transport infrastructure, our industrial strategy and in this volatile geopolitical climate, that kind of dependence is weakness.

Britain's national interest requires the strength of British made steel. The tariff will be implemented once once import quotas have been fully met, and I believe that that is essential for the resilience of sectors reliant on steel imports, including the car industry, construction and for defence. We will review the measure in 12 months to make sure that it is working effectively. Our approach reflects months of engagement between my department, the Steel Council, businesses and trade unions. Now I want to thank the trade unions that have helped us officials in my department, who have poured their heart and soul into this strategy and, of course, to my ministerial team for their contributions and leadership.

And we are and as we continue to engage constructively with the EU to protect vital UK, EU steel trade, given our highly interconnected supply chains. Beyond the trade measure, we are backing electric arc furnaces to shift to greener, decarbonised steel production. As we see at Sheffield Forgemasters electric arc furnaces are the have the technical capability that we need to produce the steel to the very highest of standards for nuclear, for aerospace and for defence. This is important as traditional blast furnaces will eventually reach the end of their operational lives and a managed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order. I want to hear what the Secretary of State has got to say, and I'm certain that our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I'm certain that our constituents also want to hear it's State. No, it's OK, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is everyone shocked to see him in his place? This is an important. As traditional blast important. As traditional blast furnaces will eventually reach the end of their operational lives and a managed transition is vital to a managed transition is vital to maintaining supply. That is why we took control of British Steel last year to ensure a managed transition, and we are currently working with the owner regarding the long term future of that site.

Now I can tell the House that the UK has the opportunity to lead in clean green steel. We are going to seize it with both hands. That is why we are also changing the clean the Clean industry bonus, making it easier for British Steel to be included in British wind farms. Britain can recycle more steel. Making better use of scrap steel is fundamental to the sector's future growth. Millions of tonnes are ready to be recycled. We are building the technology to do it right here in Britain.

We are creating a more competitive business environment for steel two. We are tackling the high cost of energy. Our supercharger is delivering millions of pounds in savings for steel making firms. These businesses will benefit even further next month thanks to the changes that we are making to the Network Charging Compensation Scheme, which will increase the rate of relief from 60% to 90%. We are taking further action to support foundational industries by addressing high electricity costs, with a view to boosting supply chain resilience, and our British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme could reduce bills for further businesses in the sector by providing a discount of up to 40MW per hour starting from April 2027.

Our private sector investment is essential for the steel sector. It is vital to driving up capacity and capability. That is why within ten weeks of taking office, we negotiated a substantially better deal to support the transition to green steelmaking at Port Talbot. So we are welcoming investment from new entrants into the UK market. The National Wealth Fund is there to support them. We will continue to work hand in hand with devolved governments to and steelmaking hubs in Wales and Scotland to bring in that additional investment.

This is the vision of our steel strategy, the one that it sets out government with boldness, certainty and urgency. Industry with enterprise energy and expertise, communities stronger, safer and more secure. Working together, making our steel sector attractive to new investors, innovators, employees and apprentices. Financially stable, internationally competitive and proudly British. Together, the strategy and the new trade measures will help build a stronger, more resilient steel industry. Taking the immediate action that our steel industry needs and providing a plan to help the steel sector prosper into the long term.

Mr. speaker, building a brighter future for Britain's steel has already begun. Today, the UK Export Finance has signed a landmark financing deal with Nigeria. Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think we know who each others are. Forgive me. They are refurbishing two of our major ports. As part of that agreement, British Steel Limited will supply 120,000 tonnes of steel billets for this work. That is £70 million of contract, the largest ever British Steel order that UCF has ever backed.

Strengthening and sustaining Britain's future as a steel making nation. Madam Deputy Speaker, We need steel made in Britain in all of its forms. We need it for the 1.5 million new homes that we are committed to build for the third runway that we have approved at Heathrow, that will require 400,000 tonnes of steel. We need it for our new data centres and gigafactories, such as the Gigafactory in Somerset, 23,000 tonnes of steel have already gone into its construction, all sourced from the UK.

Britain needs a steel industry for our national security, for our economic security and the national interest to secure that that Britain, the security that Britain needs, both internationally competitive and a steel making nation. Not just because our past was built on steel, but because our future depends on it. I commend this statement to the House.
13:19
Harriett Baldwin Portrait Dame Harriett Baldwin MP (West Worcestershire, Conservative)
-
-
Minister. Harriett Baldwin. Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement? We on these benches very much believe in a sovereign steel industry, but what we see today is a multibillion pound shot in the dark and it heralds. Madam Deputy Speaker, the end of primary steel production in the UK. And to set the record straight and to be clear that no longer be any steel production in Wales without action from the last government.

Yes, sir. Today's steel strategy has no plan to make the industry stand on its own two feet. It's risking a permanent state funded drain on taxpayers. Because British Steel was losing £700,000 a day when the government took emergency action last year, and now the taxpayer is losing an estimated £1.3 million a day. It's a subsidy of £110,000 per job to keep the Scunthorpe blast furnace operational. This steel strategy doesn't include any exit strategy, risking a permanent drain on taxpayers.

And now the government is negotiating handing taxpayer's money to a Chinese business, which it said was worth worth nothing while hitting British users of steel with a 50% tariff hike. Now, given the previous Secretary of State said that British Steel had zero value, will this current Secretary of State confirm whether compensation will be paid to Jingyi? How are these new tariffs going to harm the cost of living for our constituents? How much will the tariffs raise? These tariffs are a massive tax hike on our world leading automotive, defence and aerospace sectors that will make building homes, bridges and railways more expensive.

So has the government carried out any impact assessment on these tariffs? Won't jobs be lost in these other sectors? The government says in its strategy that electric arc furnaces are the future, but without competitive energy, green steel will simply become no steel. If electric arc furnaces of the future. When will the blast furnaces at Scunthorpe be decommissioned? How many jobs are going to be lost in that process? Where will the £2.5 billion go? Madam Deputy Speaker, Is it all going into the Scunthorpe blast furnaces? And how is this £2.5 billion spending spree fiscally responsible? What is the Secretary of State cutting to pay for it? The so-called National Wealth Fund is rapidly becoming the national slush fund.

Our Shadow Secretary of State for energy, Secretary and Net Zero has announced our cheap power plan, slashing energy bills for businesses and households. The Conservatives will axe the carbon tax, scrap extortionate subsidies for wind and solar, repeal the Climate Change Act and end the ban on new oil and gas licences to maximise domestic extraction and reduce dependence on foreign energy imports. Could the Secretary of State please copy this approach? Because this is a government subsidising decline, reaching for protectionist tariffs? And after the botched nationalisation of Scunthorpe and the surrender of the Chagos Islands, we can see from this steel strategy that when Labour negotiates, the British taxpayer loses.
13:23
Peter Kyle Portrait Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP, Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Hove and Portslade, Labour)
-
-
Secretary of State. >> Well. >> I am grateful to see her at the despatch box, and it's always an honour to have exchanges with her, honour to have exchanges with her, and it has been for quite some time. She mentions whales, but she seems to have no idea about the breadth and the depth of the steel industry across Wales. She seems to think there is only one steel maker. It's one steel manufacturer, one steel operator. In Wales there is not. She seems to forget all about seven steel in Cardiff, so of course it explains why this government, when they were in government, that they failed to actually support and have a strategy and a vision for steel because they didn't actually know who was making steel and where they were.

This government understands all of the steel assets that we have, and we are now creating a strategy to make sure that all of them are adding up to more than the sum of their parts. And we have a domestic industry which is actually sustainable and secure and growing into the future. Now, she seems to want to exit from British Steel without any more investment whatsoever. That would be the worst of all worlds. She wants to exit into, to straddle into strand an entire community.

We will stand by that community and make sure that that is an industry and a sector that thrives into the future. And on tariffs. Let me just explain to the party that used to be about free and fair trade. But fair trade depends on free trade depends on fair trade. Now fair trade depends on having not having overcapacity. You cannot have overcapacity and fair trade. Therefore, we must actually correct the market and offer protection where overcapacity is in danger of decimating one of our key industries for defence and security and future prosperity.

And let me just finish, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the worst thing that could be done for the British steel industry is to do nothing. And all we have heard from the party opposite is don't do any of the things we're doing with no alternative. That makes any sense. Whatever it is, the do nothing party. And that is the worst of all worlds. Yeah. Matt Western thank.
13:25
13:26
13:27
David Chadwick Portrait David Chadwick MP (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson David Chadwick. David Chadwick. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In 2024, Labour MPs across South Wales stood on a pledge to save our Wales stood on a pledge to save our steel. They promised 2.5 billion for the steel industry. They said they had a plan. They began by saying they would publish the steel strategy in spring 2025. Then autumn 2025 and now finally it arrives in spring 2026. But we still don't know how much of that money is actually going to be spent in Wales.

Will the government confirm that to the House today? In the meantime, British steel production has continued falling and thousands of jobs have been lost across South Wales since the blast furnaces were turned off. I'm not really sure that the party opposite understands the damage that their party's failures are having across South Wales. Wales feels abandoned. Steel is in our blood. It's the backbone of our economy, but we're still losing jobs. Skilled workers like welders are leaving tarmac, companies are struggling to make asphalt and consumer spending is falling.

People in South Wales are fed up with broken promises. South Wales was promised that the electric arc furnace would be up and running by 2027. But now, Madam Deputy Speaker, we're being told it's going to be 2028. Can the Minister update this House on that deadline? We need to see so much more urgency. Wales is desperate for the good jobs that the steel industry can provide. There is still just about if they move quickly, the opportunity to build a home-grown supply chain for the floating offshore wind sector.

The government have told me that they're not expecting to have that sector going until the mid 2030s. That is far too slow, and that lackadaisical approach means that the energy that should be created through offshore wind won't be added to the grid until the mid 2030s. The government must hurry up and deliver on its promises to South Wales.
13:29
13:30
13:31
13:31
13:32
13:33
13:33
13:34
13:35
Peter Kyle Portrait Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP, Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Hove and Portslade, Labour)
-
-
Secretary of State. >> Can I thank his intervention? He mentions Thatcher. I lost my father not so long ago and going through his going through his his belongings. Afterwards, I found a letter that my father wrote in the 70s to Mrs. Thatcher when she was leader of opposition, and the reply came from a private secretary on her behalf, and it was signed one Edward Lee, on behalf. On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition at the time.

So I so I do understand his insight into that particular moment in our in our country's history. And I'm grateful to be having exchanges with it over the Dispatch Box. I wish my father was here to see it. When it comes to Scunthorpe and communities like it. Just look at the intention and I hope he has the time to read the strategy I've released today. And when he when he when he has done so, I will make the time to sit with him and work through it with him, because in there he will see that there is the intent to create sustainable production of steel, that we are the belief and the intention that we will have the production, the capability domestically to produce all grades of steel that is needed by our economy going forward in a way which is economically and financially sustainable into the future.

Those are the things that the people he represents need the most, that the workers in the steel steel sector, in Scunthorpe and right around the country need more than anything else.
13:36
13:37
13:38
13:39
13:39
13:39
13:40
13:40
13:41
13:41
13:42
13:42
13:43
13:44
13:44
13:45
13:46
13:47
13:48
13:48
13:49
13:50
13:50
13:51
13:52
None Portrait Select Committee Statement on the Third Report of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, Political finance and foreign influence, HC 730 (Matt Western) - Alison McGovern to sit on the bench
-

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to present the Joint
13:52
Matt Western Portrait Matt Western MP (Warwick and Leamington, Labour)
-
-
Committee on National Security Strategies, third report of this Parliament on Political Finance and foreign influence, and I am foreign influence, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this. Let me outline why this issue matters. Firstly, the UK's political finance system was political finance system was designed more for an innocent age when state threats were lower and the good chap theory of politics the good chap theory of politics resonated more strongly, both at home and abroad.

The scale of loopholes facilitating the flow of money into UK politics is now recognised. Transparency international UK estimates this runs to tens of millions of pounds. Further, US intelligence has estimated that Russia has spent over $300 million to influence politicians in 24 countries between 2014 and 2022. Here, we've seen a British politician jailed for taking Russian bribes alongside MI5 interference alerts about Christine Lee, who made around half £1 million in political donations. This is all deeply concerning and the government deserves credit for addressing the basic failures through the new Representation of the People Bill, alongside its other work.

But, Madam Deputy Speaker, we established as a committee it needs to go further. We haven't yet seen a collapse in the integrity of our democratic processes, but we worry that a moment of reckoning may be coming. Indications suggest that foreign state threats are growing, and the possibility of an acute crisis can no longer be ruled out. Efforts to influence UK politicians and their positions on critical issues will likely increase between now and the next general election. Democracies around the world are under threat, and as democratic norms erode, so will corporate behaviour, and this will only be made easier by new technologies, which enable firms to evade due diligence checks.

There is also a deepening uncertainty about the trajectory of the current United States administration, which has ambitions to shape the political direction of its allies. Wealthy individuals are a concern to. Elon Musk, for example, has reportedly considered a £75 million donation to a UK political party. And as our political landscape becomes more fragmented, the likelihood of tight and unpredictable electoral races is growing. Adversaries could try to create the impression of having influenced a few races, even if they don't actually change outcomes, simply to make the losers doubt the legitimacy of the process.

Our political finance system is not designed to withstand a major effort by foreign actors to circumvent the rules. And what happens if political actors in the UK decide that they aren't going to respect the rules and constitutional precedents? Presently, I have little confidence that the system would hold. Safeguards and deterrents are completely inadequate. Responsibilities and capabilities are fragmented. Too much problematic activity is apparently allowed or impossible to prove. Thresholds for criminal investigations are too high, prison sentences too low.

The police are under-resourced. The Electoral Commission lacks basic powers to do its job, and the general enforcement toolkit is slow, timid and retrospective. This Madam Deputy Speaker all feeds into a public perception that our politics is open to external influence, a belief that is corrosive. Already, the Electoral Commission data shows that public trust is worryingly low. Now, all this matters right now, because the government has brought forward the Representation of the People Bill. There is much to like, and I commend the government for its willingness to grapple with the politically sensitive topic.

The committee also welcomes the forthcoming Ryecroft review on foreign interference. Madam Deputy Speaker, Our committee concluded on six recommendations for change. First is the need for a new enforcement lead. Presently, responsibilities for foreign financial influence risks are split across MI5, counter-terrorism police, the National Crime Agency, the Metropolitan Police Service, local police forces and the Electoral Commission. This hardly inspires confidence that risks are being investigated proactively with the right expertise, in the right place at the right time. The government should use the police service reforms to create a new centralised political finance enforcement unit, staffed with expert secondees.

Second is the need to fix basic loopholes. For example, the bill proposes a cap on donations linked to UK generated cash, but then allows companies to donate their entire limit hundreds of times over to individual candidates and campaigners. We heard anecdotally that the rationale was to limit reporting burdens to business. This is a little bizarre. It's not hard to recall if you've made a donation. It's a matter of public record. Now. This needs fixing. Third is the need for tougher declarations and penalties.

For example, the government has committed to commencing section 54 A of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which requires donors to declare money that they have received in connection with donation. But why does this only apply? Apply above £11,180 and why such a bizarre figure anyway? Why are the penalties so low, and why is the threshold for a police investigation still so high? We therefore suggest introducing 54 A in the bill instead. That would allow the government to lower the declaration limit to £500, widen the scope and increase maximum penalties to three years in prison.

Fourth, the Electoral Commission needs new powers to do its job. It must be able to require information from financial institutions about the source of a suspicious donation. Currently, the commission faces a catch 22. It can't get that information without a major formal investigation, and it won't have grounds to launch an investigation without that kind of information. The government needs to fix that conundrum so that the Electoral Commission has access to data. Fifth, we must address crypto donations. We heard arguments for and against, but found no democratic imperative to allow crypto donations.

Right now, the risks are way too high, the benefits too low, and the resource burden of trying to implement safeguards is disproportionate. We therefore call for a ban, a moratorium until proper rules are in place, and the Electoral Commission should develop adequate safeguards ahead of the next general election. Sixth, we need to be mindful of resourcing. The government should ensure new National Policing Unit is properly staffed and make sure that the Electoral Commission has specialists and the appropriate tools for complex investigations because they are complex.

Finally, we must ensure that any changes are proportionate. Our report is very targeted and seeks to strike the right balance. It is important to note Madam Deputy Speaker we did not look at other contentious areas. For example, second jobs, think tanks, media outlets and online campaign outfits which also deserve scrutiny. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have tabled amendments aligned to these recommendations. I trust this report is helpful to the Bill committee and to the wider House.
14:01
14:01
14:02
14:03
Layla Moran Portrait Layla Moran MP (Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
and Social Care Select Committee, it is a pleasure to present to this House our report on the subject of community mental health services, community mental health services, and I'd like to thank the backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement. Mental time for this statement. Mental health services are failing too many people, and as MPs, we hear heartbreaking stories from our heartbreaking stories from our constituents every day, individuals who struggle to navigate a complex, who struggle to navigate a complex, poorly resourced system.

Clinicians frustrated they can't provide the level of care they'd like to. Or worst of all, families who have lost they could have been saved. If responsive. This area is also personal to me. My partner Rosie, lives with bipolar, and I've seen firsthand the good, the bad, and the downright absent of the mental health healthcare system. This inquiry looked under the bonnet of community care, especially for those with severe mental illness. We received a wealth of evidence, but the most compelling came from those who we call experts by experience, such as Chris Frederick, who said despite some of the referrals, recommendations and a lot of content on social media, you should try these different techniques.

You really are on your own. There is nobody there to support you. Powerful stories like these drove our 22 recommendations to improve community health provision, and today I only have time to highlight just a few. First, we need proper integrated mental health care in the community. There is an NHS England pilot programme for 624 seven neighbourhood mental health centres and we saw firsthand in Barnsley Street patients able to walk in and receive the treatment and care that they needed.

No complicated referrals, no pathway says no. They were able to take the brave step of asking for help and getting it, and not just with their clinical needs either. In the same building are people who help with housing benefits and more. One staff member said this place helps people feel like a skilled person, not just an ill person. And it makes perfect sense because you are not just your diagnosis and you get better results by taking a more deliberate, holistic approach.

The outcomes of these pilots are emerging, but clinicians told me they are seeing fewer patients in the local A&E in crisis and needing expensive inpatient care. They work for patients, but also for staff and families. And in an unusually bleak landscape, it felt like an oasis in the desert. So we are disappointed that the government rejected our recommendation to extend the pilots by another 12 months beyond April 2026. However, they do agree that the learning should be rolled out nationwide. So I do welcome the £273 million of funding to be made available to Icbs to invest in models like the pilots.

I am, however, hearing from the existing centres that they are deeply concerned about the future with funding ending and their icbs already reprioritizing. What a waste. The committee is also clear on the link between physical and mental health. Someone living with severe mental illness is far more likely to have physical illnesses too, and there is extensive evidence of comorbidities and preventable death. The NHS should reinstate the annual physical health check target for people with severe mental illness, and the government, in its response to our report, recognises the importance and positive impact of the check, but has not committed to reinstating it.

They do argue it will appear in the promised modern service framework. I don't really care how they reinstate it and I reserve judgement. Indeed, much of the government response does signpost to this yet unpublished MSF, and it is undoubtedly going to play a major role in bringing consistency across the country, a problem we heard time and time again. The government wants to drive rapid and significant improvements in quality of care, but a year on from their announcement, we have heard nothing more about it.

So we recommended setting a deadline for the publication of the MSF for 2026, which the government has accepted. This is a crisis of mental health in this country and it deserves these new standards urgently and to achieve the best outcomes. Madam Deputy Speaker We must include voluntary community, faith and social enterprise organisations, but they need certainty to plan and that's why we recommended a move to multi-year contracts. And we are glad that the government accepted this recommendation. But we must be clear on the details of the, quote.

Practical support and accountability, it says, will also be provided. The charity Turning Point says there is a sense of looking down on VFS people as the Gophers who run about. We do all the important work and they just look after people when we aren't there. That culture needs to shift. The committee also recommended recommends then, that they are embedded in the design of services from the off, and we are further concerned by the lack of data sharing and interoperability, which is stifling innovation.

Far too often these organisations have the answers we need and we need to value them more, but with it we also need stronger accountability. The committee is baffled why there are no mental health waiting list standards, which in common parlance is a target in plain speak. Madam Deputy Speaker mental health patients deserve to be seen and treated in a timely manner, just as any other patient might in the NHS. So consider this if your doctor refers you to a consultant to say, treat your bunion, you know that the NHS says you should have to wait a maximum of 18 weeks.

However, if you have bipolar and you are also referred to a consultant for that, the NHS has nothing to say about how long you can expect to wait for and indeed as a result, many people wait years. The committee has found that the lack of national standards is contributing to inconsistent access, and this is a long standing issue. Indeed, waiting time standards have been consulted on. We understand they've been drafted, and in response to the report, the government recognises their importance, but they have no plan to implement them.

So you can understand why we are a bit baffled. We've seen how effective, especially in an area of crisis in the NHS a target can be in driving national change. Gareth Harry, of NHS England, said in general, when mental health the mental health sector has been set a target, historically it's done very well against it, so the committee will not rest until there is a waiting time standard for mental health, just in the same way as there are as there are for elective procedures.

And finally, and indeed, on the subject of parity of esteem, let us turn to the Mental health Investment Standard, the mental health investment standard championed by Liberal Democrat Minister Norman Lamb and introduced in 2016, required the share of ICB spend on mental health to be at least as large, proportionately speaking, as overall increases in local budgets. What this meant in practice is that over nine consecutive years, the proportion of the NHS Budget spent on mental health increased. But this year the government changed the planning guidance to water down The Miz and require spending not on overall proportion, but only on inflation.

And indeed, the Secretary of State recently admitted that instead of the overall share of the NHS spend going up, it will drop for the third year running. We believe this is wrong. The government has underestimated how damaging a signal this De-prioritization De-prioritization has been seen by the sector and while we agree and we do that, there is a conversation to be had about inputs and outputs. Like all parts of the NHS, this area needs to roll up its sleeve and make change.

But the Darzi review was clear. Mental health accounts for 20% of the disease burden, and it only accounts as of now to about 8% of the spend. And this disparity is getting worse, not better. Under this government, rapid change and transformation must happen. But to do it quickly and effectively, some double running will likely be necessary, and we therefore recommend writing the original mental health investment standard definition into legislation so no government can again change it by the back door.

This, alongside implementing those long wanted waiting time standards, would be a significant step to making reality a stated aim of the NHS Constitution itself, that there should be parity of esteem between mental and physical health. So in conclusion, we do believe that this government has the right intentions, but we remain concerned that at the moment it is all talk and not enough action. Much will depend on the efficacy of the modern service framework, and we do look forward to seeing and scrutinising it when it's finally here, because we all know that delivering meaningful transformation requires a fundamental reimagining of mental health care as trauma informed, person centred and rooted in a social model.

This will take bravery, leadership, and unwavering political will, and we ask all members of this House to join us in pushing for it. Deputy.
14:13
Jen Craft Portrait Jen Craft MP (Thurrock, Labour)
-
-
Speaker. >> Speaker. >> And I'd like to thank the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon for her chairship of the Health and Social Care Committee during this Social Care Committee during this inquiry. It was. As someone who has bipolar disorder, it was a really difficult experience at times to sit through as I watched witness after witness after witness speak to what is very much my own experience and I have called myself lucky before in this House to have a support network around me and to have the wherewithal and the ability to build up what I need as a support package, because sadly, I have never really received it from the NHS.

And by sitting through the committee I realised that I am not in fact lucky. I'm quite unlucky and the burden that my illness places on those who care and love me is quite extraordinary. And so basically, will the chair agree with me that in order to really put action behind our words on parity of esteem, the government must take action on the recommendations of the committee, particularly around neighbourhood mental health centres. Something like that in my area would be transformational for me and my family.

It would mean that I would no longer have to rely on my loved ones to provide care for me. It would mean that I would no longer have to build a package of support. It would mean I would be more effective at this job. I would be a more effective mother, a more effective wife, and I would know that I had the support available when I need it and how often I need it. So my plea to the government, who I know the Minister is in this room, and my question to the chair is, will she join me in pleading with the government to personally actually take action on that one specific recommendation and roll out neighbourhood mental health centres nationwide?
14:15
14:16
14:17
14:17
14:18
14:19
None Portrait Backbench Business: General Debate on progress in tackling climate change
-

on progress in tackling climate change. I call Luke Murphy, who will speak for up to 15 minutes. Hey. >> Thank you.
14:19
Luke Murphy Portrait Luke Murphy MP (Basingstoke, Labour)
-
-
>> Thank you. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move the motion in my name on the Order Paper. I'd like to thank the backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate, and I'm also grateful to the members of the all party parliamentary Group for Climate Change, of which I am the chair whose commitment reflects the strength of feeling on this issue, in this House and our constituencies. And I'd also like to thank the APPG Secretariat for their dedication, ensuring we have the evidence and expertise to drive forward meaningful discussion on climate progress.

Madam Deputy Speaker, Some still ask, why does progress on tackling climate change still matter when living standards, economic growth and public services are much higher up the list of public's of the public's priorities. But the truth is that action on climate change is inextricably linked to these priorities. Just in the last few weeks, it has been demonstrated that our energy security and living standards are indivisibly linked to our climate ambitions. Many of our constituents are already feeling or worrying about the severe instability caused by the Iran war.

On prices at the pump, for heating oil, for future energy bills, and on the wider indirect impacts on the cost of things like the food that they put on the table. And of course, that's because this isn't an energy crisis. It is an oil and gas crisis, an oil and gas crisis that comes only a few years after the last oil and gas shock because of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, a crisis which caused household energy bills to soar by 80%, inflation in the economy, in the economy to increase by 11%, and resulted in a bailout of nearly £60 billion by the taxpayer.

But, Madam Deputy Speaker, these crises are not new. History is repeating itself. Since 1970, half of our country's recessions have been caused by oil and gas price shocks. And the truth is, the UK is paying the price for a broken global energy system upon which every household is dependent. Indeed, research has shown that the cost of cutting UK emissions to net zero is less than the cost of a single fossil fuel price shock, and we see the consequences in our communities every day.

Rugby and football clubs across the country are unable to open daily as their energy bills rise. Local pubs struggling to keep the lights on, establish industries and start-ups alike, struggling to cope with energy costs. Yet there are those inside and outside of this house who argue for yet more dependence on this broken system. For us to slow down on our action on climate change, they call for us to slow the sprint to energy, clean, to clean energy, or worse, to hit reverse gear.

They believe that more oil and gas is the salvation to our problems. They ignore the fact that our reserves are heavily depleted, and extracting what remains is far more expensive than in other North Sea nations. They ignore the fact that even if we increased oil production today, it would take 5 to 7 years before any new oil supplies became available. Far too late to help families facing costs right now, and even then, UK produced oil would still be sold into global oil markets, where international supply and demand set the price.

Similarly, increasing gas production would not offer short term relief. Any additional UK extracted gas would also take years to come online, and would represent only a tiny fraction of the global gas market, leaving gas prices effectively unchanged. Of course, oil and gas will be used in the UK for many years and decades to come, but the idea that expanding oil and gas exploration would cut bills or materially improve our energy security is a fantasy. It is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marginal. I will give way. I thank him for giving way. He's giving an excellent speech and I agree with many of the points he agree with many of the points he that he makes. Tackling the climate emergency is extremely important and vital, but that doesn't mean that green energy companies should that green energy companies should be allowed to do whatever they want. So does he. Share. Can you comment if he shares my concerns about the conduct of Bute Energy, a green energy company that has spent energy company that has spent thousands of pounds, at the very least, courting his colleagues in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cardiff. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I don't know the circumstances about that particular circumstances about that particular issue, but I agree that we should. Renewable energy companies, like Renewable energy companies, like all companies, should be ensure that they act in the in the public that they act in the in the public interest. Those who actively oppose the transition to clean energy, the transition to clean energy, such as reform, prefer instead to expose every family, every business and community in Britain to the boot of the fossil fuel dictator, stamping on their neck forever and more broadly, tackling climate change matters because its impacts are no longer a distant threat.

They are part of everyday life across the country. Extreme weather means more patients on hot, hot hospital wards, children struggling to learn in stifling classrooms, and families worrying about how to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protect and ensure their homes from flooding. I will goodbye. I'm extremely grateful to him

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm extremely grateful to him for giving way, and I completely agree with him that this is the exact wrong moment to be turning exact wrong moment to be turning our back on the promises that this house made to the children of this country. He may remember that it country. He may remember that it was the Friday for futures movement who was children literally coming who was children literally coming out on the streets out of school on Fridays, making the case to their elected parliamentarians that they wanted our commitment to net zero.

It would be reneging on their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

futures as well as affecting their presence right now. I thank the hon. Member for her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I fully agree, and I will say more about the impact on future generations later. But it is on them that the burden will be greatest if we do not take action today. As she was saying. Indeed, in my own constituency of Basingstoke, we've already seen the reality of our changing climate. With more than 500 heat related With more than 500 heat related deaths in the South East in 2022 alone. In 2023, extreme weather caused the landslip that severed our town's rail connectivity for days, and in 2024, the South East NHS saw a 13% increase in emergency hospital admissions for a respiratory condition linked to rising temperatures.

Climate change is already affecting our health, our infrastructure, our economy, placing immense pressure on the public services upon which we rely. This Madam Deputy Speaker is even before you get to the other serious economic risks posed by climate change. The Climate Change Committee estimates that unchecked climate change could impact UK economic output by up to 7% of GDP by 2050. Businesses and investors already recognise that climate risk is economic risk. Small businesses are already seeing the impact. Shops on Pontypridd High Street in Wales are finding it impossible to get insurance.

Flooding in Yorkshire and Cumbria is disrupting national supply chains, and whisky distilleries in Scotland are facing water scarcity risks. Failure to manage these challenges today will only increase costs and disruption later. Furthermore, climate change is a critical matter of national security. For decades, and notably in the Pentagon's 2014 Quadrennial Defence Review, security experts have identified climate change as a major threat multiplier. It drives instability, heightens resource pressures and accelerates displacement, and the Ministry of Defence's 2021 own climate Change and Sustainability Strategic Approach document warns that climate change increases the risk of conflict through competition for scarce resources and undermines military effectiveness.

And then there is the impact on nature and our wider environment. There are those who try to separate climate and nature as issues. The Reform Party, for example, claimed to care about nature while planning to tear up legislation, policies and investments to tackle climate change. But this is, of course, a false choice. Climate change is inseparable from the health of our wider environment, the stability of our forests, rivers, soils and seas is inextricably linked to our climate. As temperatures rise, we see damage to biodiversity and agriculture.

The government's own Nature Security assessment warns that on our current trajectory, every critical ecosystem across all regions is heading towards collapse. Yet nature also plays a crucial role in safeguarding us. Our forests and wetlands absorb carbon chalk streams like the beautiful ones we have in Hampshire, support drainage and urban trees, help cool our temperatures. Protecting the climate and restoring nature must go hand in hand, as the resilience

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of one depends on the health of the other. On that. Point, I would give way. I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He's making a really powerful case, as always, about the breadth of issues, which underline why it's so important we act on why it's so important we act on climate change. It's often seen as a future issue, but my farmers are feeling the effects of volatile weather right now, just as some of weather right now, just as some of my households felt the effects of flooding just last year. Given this, does he agree that the land use framework published yesterday is framework published yesterday is going to be a really important document for ensuring we get adaptation and mitigation strategies right when it comes to protecting nature, as well as delivering those really important carbon reduction goals that are vital to ensuring we get our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

climate change action back on track. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I completely agree, and if you'll forgive the pun, the and if you'll forgive the pun, the land use framework is a landmark document, and I think it's a reflection of the fact that the government understands Madam Deputy Speaker, that the public understand many of the threats that we face, many of the threats that we face, and they want to see climate action. Polling shows that 70% of the British public say tackling climate British public say tackling climate change is important to them, with more than two thirds supporting ambitious action.

And for years there was a broad cross-party political consensus on these measures. That consensus stretches back all the way to Margaret Thatcher, who said that the problem of global climate change is one that affects us all. And that consensus delivered. We implemented the world's first climate change Act under Gordon Brown and built on this under Theresa May. The phase out of coal was announced in 2015 for 2025, was brought forward for completion in 2024, and with the closure of Ratcliffe on Soar Power Station, that target was met domestically.

We have more than halved our emissions since 1990, while growing our economy by nearly 80%. Meanwhile, clean energy drives economic growth, with the clean economy growing three times as fast as the rest of the economy, and our leadership has secured action from around the world. The 2008 Climate Change Act inspired nations like Denmark, Mexico, Sweden, France, New Zealand, Ireland and Germany to adopt similar measures and has contributed to reductions in emissions around the world. Successive governments have shaped the global agenda, but that leadership is now at risk.

The current leader of the Conservative Party would scrap this vital legislation, as would reform sacrificing the health of our environment, economy and society at home and Britain's global climate leadership and action abroad. Such action is reckless. We have the capacity to drive meaningful progress at home and abroad, and we must continue to exercise our leadership. So I was really proud to hear the Prime Minister at COP30 to say that the UK is doubling down on the fight against climate change, and I'm pleased that that commitment has been met by decisive action over the past 20 months.

I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will give my. Hon. Member for giving way. Year six pupils from Reigate Park Primary Academy in Mackworth have Primary Academy in Mackworth have written to me in some beautiful handwriting about how concerned they are about climate change. Does they are about climate change. Does the hon. Member agree with me that it is absolutely essential that this Labour Government is committed this Labour Government is committed to tackling climate, the climate and nature crisis accelerating to net zero? And will he agree with me net zero? And will he agree with me that going further and faster on clean energy is also the only way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to secure energy security and cheaper bills? I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I'm so pleased when I likewise get letters from children at schools in Basingstoke, and I'm at schools in Basingstoke, and I'm able to tell them about the ambitious plans and the commitment that the government has to an issue that so many of them are concerned that so many of them are concerned about. And the government has taken action. Great British energy rolling out solar in schools and hospitals, meaning they're no hospitals, meaning they're no longer paying for high energy bills, but instead investing in education and treatment for NHS patients.

We've secured a record breaking offshore wind capacity, meaning more energy than ever, and lower bills, a warm homes plan, £15 billion of investment to upgrade 5 million homes, meaning every household is built for the future. With lower bills 14.2 billion for Sizewell C, providing low carbon electricity for 6 million homes and 10,000 good jobs. We've launched the Clean Energy Jobs Plan to support workers transitioning out of fossil fuels, ensuring that the move to a cleaner economy benefits us all.

We've expanded apprenticeships and technical training so that young people can build careers within Britain's modern economy, and we've introduced the Environmental Improvement Plan to restore nature and meet our legally binding targets so future generations can continue to enjoy our beautiful countryside and nature. In conclusion, current events demonstrate that in its ambitious commitment to clean energy and tackling climate change, the government is on the right track. If anything, we must go further and faster. In an unstable world where energy prices are rocketing.

The most effective step we can take is to get off the fossil fuel roller coaster. Madam Deputy Speaker, sitting in this House is a
15:01
Wera Hobhouse Portrait Wera Hobhouse MP (Bath, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
decision to call for the Climate Change Act to be scrapped critically endangers future generations who deserve a safer planet. Energy security and a stronger economy. The Climate Change Committee frequently warned at the last government was not moving fast enough. Let us not forget that they were defeated twice in the High Court due to their inadequate climate plans. We Liberal Democrats recognise the urgent need to go further and faster on climate change. This generation should be the first to leave the country and the world in a better condition than we found it.

We also recognise the huge opportunities that renewable energy brings to support skilled jobs and economic growth. Previous failure to invest sufficiently in renewable energy and to insulate our homes led directly to the energy crisis, pushing up energy bills for everyone and squeezing family finances. And the situation in Iran has laid bare the state of UK energy security. Prices have shot up because we are so reliant on oil and gas Home-grown renewable energy does not have to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

Its price is not set on the roller coaster of international markets. The Conservatives and Reform have their heads in the sand and adopting anti renewable anti-environmental policies that will leave us vulnerable to more energy crises in the future. The Climate Change Committee has found the cost of net zero by 2050 is less than the impact of one fuel crisis. The Conservatives and reform would have you believe that we cannot afford net zero in reality. The truth is we cannot afford not to get to net zero.

We cannot escape that. The fact that our electricity prices are amongst the highest in Europe. But that is not inevitable. It is a result of a pricing imbalance. Right now, the cost of electricity is set by the price of gas 97% of the time, even though half of our electricity comes from renewables, which are much cheaper. That disconnect is driving our bills unnecessarily. We must break that link. We Liberal Democrats are proposing a practical solution moving older renewable projects of expensive renewable obligation certificate and onto cheaper contracts for difference.

The UK Energy Research Centre estimates that this change alone would save a typical household around £200 a year. At the same time, the select committee's inquiry into the cost of energy has uncovered serious concerns about transparency. We have heard evidence that profits can be obscured within network charges on energy bills. Energy companies must be transparent so consumers can clearly see what they're paying for and where profits are being made. Our constituents deserve energy bills to be fair, affordable and easy to understand.

In Bath Madam Deputy Speaker and that the majority of my constituents are firmly behind climate action and so is my Liberal Democrat Council. I was delighted to hold a pop up surgery at climate at Bath Climate Hub last week. The hub supports people in reducing their carbon footprint via diet, energy use or transportation changes. It also facilitates the meaningful conversation that we must keep up having on climate issues, from action to rewild nature depleted land to community owned energy initiatives, local areas in Bath are making changes that together make a big difference in Bath like the rest of the country, retrofitting our homes through a national insulation program is crucial to lowering carbon emissions and reducing bills.

The programs. The government's Warm Home Plan, unfortunately falls short of the scale, ambition and long term certainty that we would need. An emergency home upgrade programme should have been implemented in the first 100 days of this government. The Liberal Democrats would upgrade our homes, making them cheaper to heat with a ten year emergency home upgrade programme, starting with free insulation for those on low incomes and ensuring that all new homes are zero carbon. We would also provide further incentives for installing heat pumps that cover the real cost.

This would reduce emissions and bills, combating both climate change and fuel poverty. Climate change Madam Deputy Speaker is, after all, a global issue. We must bring together others with us. The UK and European partners must lead the global effort to tackle climate change together. Even more so given the US has abandoned the multilateral approach to international climate policy, one choice the government could immediately take to help global efforts towards net zero would be reversing the cut to the aid Budget and setting up a roadmap for restoring official development assistance to nought.

Point 7% of gross national income. UK aid provides vital support for the most vulnerable people in the world, and it is a key tool in meeting our climate commitments. We Liberal Democrats have also pushed for a long time for stronger marine environmental targets, both internationally and domestically. We welcome the government's decision to ratify Global Oceans Treaty through legislation. However, much more needs to be done to work with our coastal and fishing communities to ensure a sustainable future for fishing and our marine environment.

Public support for climate action remains strong across UK, but we cannot take this for granted. We must continue to bring the public with us throughout the energy transition, and part of that is ensuring that misinformation and disinformation is effectively challenged. That means tackling myths about renewable energy head on and making sure households right across the country actually feel the benefits through lower bills, warmer homes and secure jobs in their communities. The Conservatives and Reform all too often are happy to talk down Britain's renewable, renewable industries.

They would have us scrapping the bottom of the North Sea oil barrel. In doing so, they overlook the remarkable innovation happening right here in the UK. Home-grown green technology companies that are driving growth, creating skilled jobs and shaping a more sustainable future. Even if more oil was extracted from the North Sea, it would be sold on international market at international prices. It would not lower energy bills. Of course, the Conservatives know this, so it is particularly callous to ask for something that would leave our constituents less safe and secure economically.

Our constituents want to tackle climate change. They want lower fuel bills. They want their wildlife and landscapes to be protected. They want a strong economy that supports British jobs. That is what the energy transition must give them. We Liberal Democrats make the case. Keep keep making the case for that. And the urgent away from fossil fuels.
15:08
Harriet Cross Portrait Harriet Cross MP (Gordon and Buchan, Conservative)
-
-
Across. >> Across. >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank and congratulate the Member for Basingstoke for securing this Basingstoke for securing this debate. And while I recognise his and others concerns on climate change and the impacts I do, and I think it won't be a surprise to anyone in this House have a difference of opinion, especially when it comes to the actions we have taken, should take now, and particularly in regards to our oil and gas sector, which I will come to later.

But I will begin by looking backwards. Under the Conservatives, the UK made more progress to cut emissions than any other G7 country, cutting emissions in half from 2022 compared to 1990 levels. Indeed, emissions were cut to such an extent that the UK surpassed the targets that countries like Australia, Canada, Japan and the US set themselves for 2030. Under the previous conservative government, the proportion of the UK electricity generated by renewables increased fourfold from 9.5% in 2011 to over

**** Possible New Speaker ****

47% in 2023. Of course. I thank the Shadow Minister for giving way I to celebrate the giving way I to celebrate the achievements under the previous government. Why then, given that those achievements were were those achievements were were achieved under the framework of the Climate Change Act, which was then recognised internationally and led recognised internationally and led to progress elsewhere, are you now going to throw that framework in the bin? So apologies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the bin? So apologies. It's been over 18 months. Members are still using you as if it were confetti. Please can we all be a bit better?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Luke Murphy apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why is the hon. Member and her party proposing to Member and her party proposing to throw out that framework, which was underpinned all of those achievements, which he is now listing?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

listing? Thank the Member for that, and I won't skip forward a few pages of won't skip forward a few pages of my speech now, but we will touch on that in the coming few minutes. But as I said, the things that we've as I said, the things that we've done are notable. Between 2010 and 2019, the UK government oversaw the planting of 15 million trees and during our time in office, the UK was home to the first, second, third, fourth and fifth largest wind farms in the world.

We, the UK, have done a lot and yet the climate is still changing and that isn't because there has not been enough ambition or enough action from the UK, and it's not because we need to just go faster. It is because firstly and I know there will be wails about this, the UK contributes less than 1% of global emissions and secondly, the countries have not been following

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our lead. Yes. Is she saying that because we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is she saying that because we can't make a big enough impact globally, we should just scrap our impact altogether?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, that's not what I said. No, that is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we have What I'm saying is that we have made huge progress and yet others have not been following our lead. So why would we make our industry less competitive? Why would we ensure that investment goes down in our country just to virtue signal for no one to follow? So as I say, we'll look at what's happening today. And to be very clear, and I think it actually does need saying today, disagreeing with, for example, the Secretary of State for Energy's approach to energy policy, questioning the speed and cost that we're doing to go towards renewable energy does not does not make one a climate change denier that is tedious.

It's a lazy argument made by those who want to close down the debate, those who believe that decarbonisation must always be the number one priority at the cost of all else. And that is the inherent problem with the current debate on climate change, on carbon emissions. This has become a pursuit of what is perceived to be the perfect response, the purist approach to the climate over what is pragmatic and what is practical. It does not prioritise the public or prices or industry or energy security.

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So he's four minutes into her speech. She's talked about the speech. She's talked about the reduction in emissions, which are very largely the result of the dash for gas, which predated the for gas, which predated the conservative. Well, this the last conservative government anyway. It's actually the previous conservative government. So far. conservative government. So far. She said that she talked about her opposition to what this opposition to what this government's doing. She hasn't told us anything yet about what she thinks the next steps in taking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

climate action should be. Is she going to do that? He's obviously very keen to hear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's obviously very keen to hear from me, which is great. But as you say, I was four minutes in and three interventions later, I think three interventions later, I think I do have a couple of minutes to to form my argument, and I will first consider electricity. Our electricity is some of the cleanest electricity is some of the cleanest in the world, but it is also the most some of the most expensive. And that is the issue. Making electricity the cheapest option will make it the preferred option.

Making electricity cheap will encourage the adoption of EVs of the electrification of home heating. It will make the UK more attractive for businesses and for growth markets like AI. Cheap electricity will improve the cost of living for households across the country, and that is why the Conservatives have a cheap power plan, which would cut electricity bills by 20% for everyone, for households and for businesses. And how? By cutting the carbon tax, a tax that makes up a third of the price of our electricity.

But of course, and as people here know, electricity only makes up about 20% of our energy mix. Oil and gas are over 70% of that mix remains central to our energy needs and will for a long time, the Climate Change Committee's own projections include oil and gas in their own 2050 net zero scenario. So why is the government banning new licences from the North Sea? Why is the government taxing companies to such an extent that they pack up and leave? Climate change is a global concern and therefore global carbon emissions must be considered.

So why is the Secretary of State determined to run down our oil and gas production just to increase imports, imports that are four times more carbon intensive than that produced in the North Sea? Imports of LNG have to be extracted, liquefied, shipped regasified rather than just piped from the North Sea directly into our gas grid and similarly permitting, Rosebank permitting jackdaw down the line. Permitting Cambo will mean the UK's emissions from oil and gas, which we will be using in any case, will be lower lower than if those reserves are left in the ground and replaced by more carbon intensive imports.

So based on science, based on emissions, based on the fact that oil and gas will be needed in the UK for decades, no one can reasonably argue that replacing domestic North Sea oil and gas production with imports is the right course of action. It is not. It's not for jobs, investment, growth and security or emissions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fine. Yes. Last time. Does she not recognise that all of that will actually possibly make it cheaper for the oil and gas industry, but it will not make it cheaper for our constituents. The cheaper for our constituents. The bills will be the same wherever the gas is extracted. It might be the oil and gas industry that might

**** Possible New Speaker ****

oil and gas industry that might profit from it being extracted elsewhere. I don't want to misunderstand

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't want to misunderstand the title of the debate, but it was on climate change, not costs of bills, climate change. We're looking at emissions. If we're focusing on emissions, we're focusing on where that carbon is produced. There is less carbon intensity in our domestic oil and gas than imported oil and gas. I know that's not the message that the hon. Lady or others want to hear, but that is the fact. And being wedded to domestic emissions targets while ignoring those produced elsewhere, is causing the industrialisation we are seeing across the UK.

Whether it's ceramics, refining, petrochemicals, oil and gas and many more industries, they are packing up and leaving the UK not because their products are leading less, but because it's unable to sustain themselves here under the weight of industrial energy prices and carbon taxes. And we saw an I won't because I've been I've given away a lot and there's not a huge amount of time. I want to wrap up. The targets of the Climate Change Act are forcing the UK to make decisions through the lens of emissions, not the lens of what's best for industry, for electricity costs or for growth, prosperity or jobs.

And that is why it is right that the Conservatives have committed to repealing it. The carbon tax imposed on our industry through the emissions trading scheme has significantly made it harder for energy intensive industries to do business in the UK. It increases costs for consumers and makes our industries less competitive, and the illogical way which we consider domestic emissions while ignoring global emissions, further undermine UK industry carbon leakage, exporting production and therefore emissions abroad has become a convenient way for the government to reach their emissions at the cost of vital UK industries.

We are offshoring our industries, losing jobs, skills, taxes and investment just to import products at a huge cost on huge diesel chugging container ships from across the world, from countries that still use coal power. It's a complete contradiction to what the government say they are. Emissions ambitions are, to conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, the UK has already done a lot and more than many other countries in reducing emissions, but it cannot and must not be at any cost. Whether it's our electricity prices or North Sea, traditional industries or AI.

The Secretary of State's idealistic approach to energy policy that focuses primarily on domestic carbon emissions is impoverishing Britain for no benefit of global emissions. I thank again the Member for Basingstoke for bringing this debate today, and I ask the Minister the three following questions. Does she recognise the incoherence in the government's determination to shut down North Sea production just to increase reliance on imports, which are more carbon intensive? When will the government make a decision on Jackdaw and Rosebank, and will the government adopt our plan to cut the carbon tax and adopt our cheap

**** Possible New Speaker ****

power plan, immediately stripping 20% off household and business electricity costs? Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker That got a little bit feisty, That got a little bit feisty, didn't it, at the end. But I would like to start off by thanking the like to start off by thanking the hon. Member for Basingstoke for securing today's debate. He is a fantastic advocate for climate and fantastic advocate for climate and nature, both in his constituency and as chair of the APPG on climate change, and I also know that he's been pushing for this debate for a long time.

So I'm grateful for the opportunity to set out the government's position in detail today. Can I also thank the contributions from the hon. Member from Oxford and West Abington and from Bristol Central? I've enjoyed working with you collaboratively. I'm sure you are welcoming our Clean jobs plan, and I endeavour to work with you on a happier outcome. I'd like to thank the hon. Member for Sefton Central, who typically gave an eloquent overview and also pointed out something that's often missing, and I'm afraid is in the opposition's plan around the investment piece that we do have to invest in our energy infrastructure, and we have a choice in terms of where we make those investment choices.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for Bath, who talked as well, who we have worked very closely together on oceans, and we'll I'm glad that you recognise the progress this government has made on oceans. Crucially important, I hope she recognised that our Warm Homes plan is the biggest upgrade in British history. We're always welcomed people for new ideas, but I think recognition of how far we have come is a good one. I'd like to thank the hon. Member for Stafford, who outlined the risks, as well as the opportunities available, and the hon.

Member for Derby North. Since I've taken this role, I've been to Derby North to place at times than anywhere else, and the students from Reigate Park primary, of which I will look forward to reading for, and the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate. I think she must be celebrating our nuclear plans, but I very much recognise her focus on innovation. And finally, can I thank the hon. Member from Winchester I can do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would just I would just like to apologise for my overenthusiasm earlier in extolling the virtues of earlier in extolling the virtues of the of my area, but I would like to ask would she visit the the ask would she visit the the constituency to see for herself the opportunities and so that I can discuss further the barriers we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

face. I very much thank you for that kind invitation. I will consider it and return back to you on that one. And can I finally thank the Member for Winchester, who actually raised some really important issues around
15:21
Katie White Portrait Katie White MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Leeds North West, Labour)
-
-
health? And can I also say you championing the role of science since entering this role? I always thought the science was obviously crucial, but I have to say, British scientists are fabulous and they scientists are fabulous and they are at the heart of telling us what are the problems, but also at the heart of innovation. So I'd like to pay tribute to our incredible pay tribute to our incredible British scientists. I want to assure the House that this government remains totally committed to limiting global committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees, and that doing so is at the heart of our agenda.

As the hon. Member for Basingstoke knows, we've been talking about these issues for more than two decades, which means we can sometimes become desensitised to the urgency of the challenge. But we in this House have a responsibility to be honest about the gravity of what is at stake. And the truth is that the world is getting hotter at an alarming rate. The past decade has seen the ten warmest years we've ever had. The Amazon has seen the worst droughts on record, partly as a result of deforestation in the Arctic and Antarctic.

Global warming is driving geopolitical competition over the resources lying beneath the ice. And I recently spoke to Ministers from the Caribbean who told me about the horrific damage caused by Hurricane Melissa. Here in Britain, we are in no way immune, with recent storms like Goretti flooding homes and cutting off power heavy rainfall costing farmers hundreds of millions, which was referred to by my hon. Friend from Hitchin. An extreme heat waves disrupting almost every aspect of our lives. The office for Budget Responsibility is also clear that rising temperatures pose a huge threat to our economy and could wipe billions off our GDP in the years to come if we don't act.

That's why, as our national security strategy sets out, tackling climate change and nature loss is vital for both global stability and our national resilience. As the Prime Minister has said, there can be no national security without climate security. But let me be clear where we face severe challenges. We are absolutely capable of meeting them. We are the generations with the power and the opportunity to act and build a cleaner, more secure and more prosperous future for our children and grandchildren.

That is why we are stepping up on the global stage once again and showing real leadership with our mission to achieve clean power by 2030 and accelerate towards a zero carbon. Across the economy. The OK by grateful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And of course, we're talking about climate, but the events in Iran are a salutary reminder, Iran are a salutary reminder, aren't they, of the need to take action because of the reliance on action because of the reliance on global prices of fossil fuels? There's a report from Reuters that's just come out that suggests that's just come out that suggests that 17% of Qatar's next five years supply of LNG have been destroyed by the overnight attacks. Doesn't by the overnight attacks.

Doesn't this just remind us how critical it is for the energy security reasons that she set out, as well as climate reasons that we get off the roller coaster of fossil fuels as fast as possible.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for raising this, and exactly, I'm raising this, and exactly, I'm afraid I the way our energy policy and the way we work at DESNZ is by and the way we work at DESNZ is by balancing the trio of emissions and environmental concerns, energy security and price. And it is security and price. And it is within that trio that we operate all of our policies. The transition to clean energy is a historic opportunity to improve people's lives in this country.

It isn't just the route to lower emissions and climate security. As vital as that is, it is also the route to lower bills, warmer homes and cleaner air. It's the best way to revive industrial regions, create good jobs and new opportunities for young people. And as the unfolding conflict in the Middle East reminds us, home-grown clean energy is also the way to ensure our energy independence and protect British people from the impacts of events beyond our borders. Just as we saw four years ago when Russia invaded Ukraine.

As long as our energy costs are set by international oil and gas markets, we will always be exposed to price shocks. That's why accelerating the shift to clean domestic power is a national security imperative, not a nice to have. That's something which the Climate Change Committee has been clear on to its recent advice on carbon Budget seven confirmed that delivering the clean energy transition is the most cost effective path ahead for the UK economy. In fact, their research shows that household bills would rise by nearly 60% from a future fossil fuel spike.

If we fail to deliver on our Clean Power mission. Pursuing this path is therefore,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it's not an agenda. It's not activism. And I can I'm not a purist. It's common

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not a purist. It's common sense. It's also our patriotic and economic duty. And we have made huge progress in the last two years huge progress in the last two years since we've been in power since July 2024. We've seen over £90 billion of investment announced in billion of investment announced in Home-grown clean energy. We've lifted the onshore wind ban in England and approved record amount England and approved record amount of energy. We've launched the Great British Energy, our first publicly owned energy company, for 70 years.

We have kickstarted our new golden age of nuclear with the greatest investments in new nuclear power for half a century, including plans for our first small modular reactor at Wilbur on Anglesey. We also held Europe's biggest ever offshore wind auction, alongside the largest ever procurement of solar projects in the UK, collectively securing enough clean energy to power the equivalent of 16 million homes. At the heart of this mission is a determination to support communities and create the good, clean jobs of the future.

Last week I was visiting the Bridgend Ravens Rugby Club in Wales, who have just partnered with electricity to install solar panels and LED lighting, slashing the club's bills and allowing them to host the first carbon neutral rugby game in the country and a nuclear skills academy in Derby. I was lucky enough to meet and be massively impressed by Gracie, a 17 year old apprentice and the fourth generation in her family, the first female training up to work in the clean energy revolution.

She recognised that she's in the right place at the right time, helping to tackle the climate crisis, drive growth and ensure our energy security. Now, I know there are those who doubt the impact of Britain can have on global emissions, but they underestimate the potential of this country and they forget that we have already made a huge difference. We were the first country to pass a Climate change Act and set up our own independent body on climate change, a move since replicated by over 70 countries.

And can I take a moment to applaud the party opposite for their leadership at Cop26? It is evident that the choices we make in Britain influence the course of global action and in doing so, help to protect future generations here and abroad for the impacts of the climate crisis. Our clean energy mission at home gives us the perfect platform to continue leading by example on the world stage. And people want us to show leadership on this. They see what's happening in the world and they expect us to play our part.

So I'm pleased to confirm that the UK has delivered our commitment to spend at least 11.6 billion on international climate finance over five years by the end of this financial year, and we are working to ensure that money makes a genuine difference for those on the front line of the climate crisis, supporting stability and security across the world. Since 2011, we have helped 137 million people adapt to the effects of climate change. Whether it's creating a renewable powered clean water supply in Mexico or building infrastructure that can withstand extreme weather in the Caribbean.

We have also provided 89 million people with improved access to clean energy, including solar powered cold storage, to help prevent food waste. I will speed up a little. And the cough. So in terms of we have made those commitments, there was more commitments that came out today, a £6 billion commitment to the international climate finance from our aid Budget. On top of that, we will generate an additional £6.7 billion of UK backed climate and nature positive investments, for the reasons that I've laid out to the House today.

Those who still doubt the effectiveness of global climate action. Let me say this before the Paris Agreement in 2015, the world was on track for four degrees of global warming. By 2010, thanks to the commitments made since, we have brought this down to 2.3 to 2.5 degrees now, this is still a terrifying figure, but the difference for millions of people around the world is literally life or death. And it's also a real source of optimism because it shows the ambition is there.

Let me finish by reminding the House that keeping 1.5 degrees in reach is only half the story. The crisis in Iran and the Gulf is yet another wake up call to the fact our energy system in the UK does not work. Our critics like to talk about the cost of transition, but the previous government spent £44 billion on supporting households and businesses after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. So let me end by reminding the House one more time that we are totally committed to clean energy.

We are totally committed to working with partners around the world to keep the Paris goal within reach. And we are totally committed to building a secure, more prosperous Britain for today and for future generations. Hey Luke Murphy very, very, very quickly to wind up.
15:30
15:31
Ian Sollom Portrait Ian Sollom MP (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Cambridgeshire. The IWM, an organisation on the frontline of the fight against child sexual abuse material and one of only a handful of Non-law enforcement bodies worldwide. With the legal power to proactively seek out and remove images and videos of this abuse online. During my visit, they told me that in the past five years, they have taken down more than 1 million web pages that show at least one and often hundreds or thousands of child sexual abuse images. Last year's Iuf annual report revealed that 2025 was the worst year on record for child sexual abuse material.

Their analysts confirmed 312,000 reports, a 7% rise on the year before and most starkly, in 2024. They discovered 13 AI generated videos of child sexual abuse. In 2025, that figure was 3440, a rise of 26,000%. For those interested in numbers, and nearly two thirds of those videos were category A material. The most extreme classification. A little while after my visit, I began to work with the Molly Rose Foundation on the proposal for this motion. At the time, the Online Safety Act had been in law for nearly two years and the protection of children codes of practice that came from it, which promised to dramatically improve user safety, had just been published and implemented.

The text of these codes was heavily criticised both by civil society and even the children's commissioner, who said they would simply not be strong enough to protect children from the multitude of harms they are exposed to online every day. It seemed timely that a motion be brought before the House so that we could scrutinise the Online Safety Act and its resultant codes, as they are now in practice, and highlight to the government the need for action within this Parliament to protect young people.

After those codes were implemented in mid 2025, the Mental Health Foundation published research stating that 68% of young people had experienced harmful content online, describing this harm as the biggest looming threat to young people's mental health. In October 2025, the Molly Rose Foundation found that over a third of children reported that they had been exposed to at least one type of high risk content in the last week, in a classroom of 30 children. That's 11 who are every day are being shown content promoting suicide and self-harm or romanticising depression and eating disorders.

This is the exact primary priority content that the UK's flagship piece of online safety legislation explicitly promised it would protect them from. Just this week, the BBC aired Inside the Rage Machine, which used real whistleblower testimony and evidence to lay bare how social media giants like meta and TikTok are consistently and deliberately pushing harmful content to users. After finding that their outrage fuelled engagement Madam Deputy Speaker. All this is to say that if the motion of this debate seemed appropriate at the beginning of this Parliament, when I first visited the IWM, it is now urgent.

Every week I hear from parents, young people and organisations who are fighting a losing battle against a proliferation of online harms because, despite its noble aims, the current legislation is falling short of what Parliament

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Last week in my constituency and Stafford, I ran a supermarket surgery and I had a supermarket surgery and I had a clipboard up there which asked if people felt that social media should be banned for the under 16 should be banned for the under 16 seconds. And it's rare you get this level of agreement, but I think 78% of my constituents said yes from all ages. Older people, young people, even actually children themselves. What was consistent was the fear that they felt about this space and the the damage it was doing to young people as they grew up.

I'm not 100% sure on my position yet, but does my friend agree with me that the government is right to consult, to work out what the best option is for young people and to protect them with and for from social media.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for their intervention, and the text of the motion is for for a review. And that's certainly what I want to see that's certainly what I want to see through through this motion. And I've not come here today to stir up panic, nor to imply that our panic, nor to imply that our children's, or indeed our adult's well-being is doomed. There is hope, well-being is doomed. There is hope, and we should not have to accept harm as a reality of life on the internet.

As Molly Rose Foundation CEO Andy Burrows noted this week after campaigning pushed TikTok and meta to both rowed back on plans for end to end encryption and direct indirect messaging. Tech firms are not immune to pressure, though pressure on its own is not enough. The government must urgently look at strengthening the Online Safety Act to ensure that this pressure has robust legislative backing behind it, and that Ofcom actually has the power to enforce the regulations that will protect us all from harm.

Online harm comes in three forms. Firstly, there is harmful content, the outright illegal, as well as the extreme posted and peddled by bad actors across social media platforms. Then we have harmful interactions with these bad actors, including grooming, cyberbullying and extortion. I'm sure members across the House will share many stories of the impact of both types of harm today. It is a tragedy just how many there are, but it is the third form of online harm that I want to focus on today.

This is the harm that arises not just from the type of content encountered online, but from the intensity with which it is repeatedly pushed onto young people by the platforms themselves. This week, I was pleased to participate in the Royal Society Pairing scheme, where I was paired with Doctor Lizzie Winston, a researcher from the University of Bristol whose work focuses on how young people use social media and its impact on their mental health. Her most recent research investigates algorithmic recommendation of content as one of the primary mechanisms that shapes young people's digital mental health.

She and others have found that a large part of online harm is structural, arising not just from individual bad actors, but from business models designed at their very core to maximise attention and to profit from provocation. Social media is built to be addictive. Hooking users in and keeping them engaged is at the very heart of almost every platform's business model. These algorithmic models cause harm through both overtly harmful content and also through content, which is harmless. On the face of it, there are attention deficit harms caused by passive screen washing, watching and health harms associated with an increasingly sedentary lifestyle.

Higher social media use has been directly linked to shorter sleep duration and difficulties with sleep onset. Gambling harm is also often overlooked, but a recent Guardian investigation found that meta AI was pointing vulnerable social media users to illegal online casinos and even suggesting ways to bypass UK gambling safeguards. Regulation is clearly not keeping pace with the evolving digital landscape. Often, though, it is directly harmful, even illegal content that is caught up in these algorithms. The shock, disgust and strong emotion inevitably caused by this content creates engagement.

You watch longer, you engage more, and the algorithm takes this as permission to show you even more of it to keep you hooked. Endless scrolling functionalities allow already vulnerable users to fall into a world where there is no escape from this cycle, and members will be aware that we Liberal Democrats have long called for platforms to implement built in caps on social media. Doomscrolling. In 2017, it was concluded for the first time ever that content on social media had contributed to the death of a young person.

When teenager Molly Russell tragically took her own life before she died, she had viewed thousands of suicide and self-harm videos and images on Pinterest and Instagram, some of which were pushed to her without her asking to see them. The word used by the coroner was that Molly was able, even encouraged by platforms, to binge this content. The normalisation of these recommendation mechanisms has created an awful, self-perpetuating cycle. One case study from the University of Bristol described a 17 year old girl who was forcing herself to repeatedly watch graphic content of a gory accident on TikTok to try and desensitise herself to violence.

She knew that she would be regularly exposed to this kind of content online, and wanted to train herself to be able to watch it and not feel sick. We can only assume that due to her increased attention, she was only shown even more of this horrific content recommendation systems in and of themselves are no bad thing. They create a personalised space to explore interests and sometimes do filter out content that a user has no interest in. The problem is that a user's engagement with content does not always indicate their actual interest in it.

Another young person from the University of Bristol study, a trans man, described feeling compelled to intervene in homophobic and transphobic comment sections to try and support his community and challenge prejudice. He was understood by the platform to have engaged and subsequently he was bombarded with more and more of the same hateful content. The tension between knowing that his algorithm would register his intervention as interest, but wanting to actively challenge hateful views was constant source of stress.

Online problems also arise from a lack of transparency. Not only are social media platforms under no obligation to publish their algorithms, but with AI increasingly being used to build and continually iterate on these algorithms, the platforms themselves are often unaware of the exact mechanisms that shape, experience. Harm is occurring as a result of an unaccountable, unaccountable black box. Young people are not entirely passive in this system. They know it is happening, but platform tools provide very limited control over what the algorithm continues to recommend.

Looking at Ofcom's summary of the protection of children codes of practice, we can see how a weak interpretation of the Online Safety Act is allowing such harm to be perpetuated. Volume four, section 17 says that platforms must ensure content recommender systems are designed and operated so that content indicated potentially to be primary priority content that is, suicide, self-harm, eating disorders and mental health content is excluded from the recommender feeds of children. Researchers shows that children were most likely to report having seen harmful content through feeds with recommender systems.

Very few actively seek it out, so the intention behind this measure seems good, but then we see that it only applies to child accessible parts of a service that are medium or high risk for one or more specific kinds of primary priority content. Madam Deputy Speaker in Ofcom's December review, not a single social media platform rated itself high risk for suicide or self-harm content. There is a clear gap between the intention of the legislation and how it is being implemented.

This is because the Online Safety Act and its codes are ultimately built around compliance and not harm reduction. Rules based legislation means that platforms can happily meet their legal duties if measures in the codes are followed, and they are under no obligation to effectively and proactively address the harms identified in their risk assessments, putting only a moral duty on platforms to protect young people from harm. Harm is not going to work. We've seen for years that it does not work.

How can we expect the very same platforms that have been shown to deliberately and knowingly peddle harmful content to young people, to essentially police themselves? Why would they bother when it is so much more profitable to tick already loosely defined boxes? A full review of the current legislation must investigate the barriers that Ofcom says are preventing it from delivering on the intentions of Parliament. These include the safe harbour principle that is allowing platforms to claim compliance and skirt enforcement action on harms that they are already aware of, and the complete lack of any obligation in the act that platforms take active steps to reduce the risk of harm to users.

In practice, this means that a platform can follow Ofcom's codes to the letter, even while its own risk assessment shows it is aware, serious, ongoing harm and face no enforcement consequence for it. Amendments could be passed within months that introduce robust, risk based minimum age limits that we Liberal Democrats have been calling for. Minimum joining ages should be determined by a platform specified by a platform specific assessment of age appropriateness and risk. This will incentivise the market to adopt a lower, lower risk functionalities if they wish to open themselves up to a wider pool of users.

We could argue that a review of sorts has already taken place. Every coroner's report, every tragic story told in this chamber, every investigation by charities and organisations. That is your review. The evidence is plainly there, but the harm is being allowed to continue. We are here as members of Parliament to scrutinise and we have done that. 12 debates with the words online safety in the title. This Parliament. Hundreds of references to online harm, yet little indication that the government is addressing the core issues raised here today are getting closer.

The evidence is plainly there, but the harm is being allowed to continue. We are here as Members of Parliament. Sorry. Repeating myself. I hope that members will use this debate to raise the full range of harms we hear about in our work, and I ask the Minister to specifically respond to this. Will the government examine whether the safe harbour principle is serving Parliament's original intentions, or whether it has become a mechanism? That platform for platforms used to avoid accountability for harms they are already aware of, and will the government commit to ensuring that any new legislation this Parliament brings forward is built around harm reduction and not compliance? Thank you.
15:47
Liz Twist Portrait Liz Twist MP (Blaydon and Consett, Labour)
-
-
The question is, as on the Order >> The question is, as on the Order Paper, and I'll start with a six minute time limit. Liz Twist.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate the hon. Member from for St Neots and Mid from for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and thank the Bank in securing this debate and thank thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. Now, facing harm online is one of the biggest struggles that our young people face daily, from toxic influences trying to push a certain way of life or ideology to those who encourage eating disorders. However, social harms extend beyond this a long way from aggressive algorithms designed to addict young people in particular, trapping them online to forums encouraging self-harm and suicide.

And many members will be aware that I've. This is an issue that I've been raising over a number of years in in this place now. Earlier this month, Madam Deputy Speaker, I chaired a round table with the Mental Health Foundation to look at the evidence on the banning of social media for under 16. And as it happens, it was taking place on the same day that the consultation was launched. And I thank my hon. Friend, the Minister, for attending our meeting.

We heard from mental health experts, affected parents, the Minister and young people themselves. While views on the how we should protect young people are diverse, the consensus on the now was absolute. The status quo is not just failing, it's dangerous. Now there is disagreement about whether a social media ban for under 16 seconds, in the absolute sense is the right answer, or whether. We should also look at a wider range of issues, such as the architecture of the social media platforms and a more nuanced approach to that.

But following the consultation, the government must design any proposed policy alongside young people. We will not find an effective solution without including the young people who operate in this world and who it affects most, and we must look to social media companies themselves to start getting their act right and protecting people. Now, the links between young people using social media and increasing levels of loneliness and poor mental health are well documented. We have a youth mental health crisis, with nearly 1 in 5 children aged 8 to 16 now having a probable mental health disorder.

That's a staggering number. The Maldon Foundation, as we've heard, found that 95% of recommended posts on certain teenage accounts contained content related to suicide or self-harm. Molly Rose, as you know, tragically took her own life at just 14 after social media algorithms continuously failed her self-harm and depression material that created a rabbit hole for her to go down, she saw the 2000 harmful posts in the last six months of her life. Madam Deputy Speaker. The rise of conference is extremely worrying.

These groups encourage extreme forms of violence, self-harm, suicide, animal cruelty and political extremism. They look to target impressionable young people, pipeline sadistic and hateful ideas and content straight to them. UK law enforcement enhanced UK law enforcement identified several cases where perpetrators coerced girls as young as 11 into seriously harming or sexually abusing themselves, siblings or pets. They encourage our black male users into committing serious acts of self-harm or suicide. And one specific Pro-suicide forum has been linked to over 135 deaths in the UK alone.

That's 135 empty chairs at dinner tables. These are extreme forms of online harm, and I'm glad that the National Crime Agency and international partners are taking them seriously. But I ask the Minister, do they have the powers and resources to protect young and impressionable people from serious online harm? So this debate on online harms is not new. We've been talking about how to protect people from the online world over many years in this House, and there's a real danger that we are permanently running to catch up with online operators.

Experts design described the Online Safety Act as a ceiling for safety, not a flaw. In many cases, social media companies are doing little more than their statutory duty. In December last year, not a single platform determined itself to be high risk for suicide or self-harm content. We cannot let them companies mark their own homework. Platforms are systematically downplaying harms. They're incentivised to allow the problem to go on. If advertisers still deem the platform safe, and Ofcom needs to have the power to mark these companies honestly, and if they're failing, then they need to be able to act, and I my question to the Minister is, does he believe that Ofcom have the powers they need to act and for it to be followed through on? Now, I just want to talk quickly about a meeting that the Molly Rose Foundation and other parents affected recently had with Ofcom to highlight significant concerns.

This included strengthening the Online Safety Act and extending it to cover children's well-being. The meeting, they tell me, was very unsatisfactory, and I asked the Minister whether he will agree to meet with me and with those parents to discuss the situation further. It is important to them. They have lost their children and want to do more to protect others. Thank you. Hobhouse.
15:54
Wera Hobhouse Portrait Wera Hobhouse MP (Bath, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the member of St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire for securing this debate and the backbench Business Committee for granting it. There is Committee for granting it. There is no shortage of online harms demanding our attention. I have spoken before about children buying spoken before about children buying illegal drugs, openly advertised on social media about the flood of harmful eating disorder, content, reaching young people and about Ofcom not holding social media companies to account, although they now have increased powers to do so under the Online Safety Act.

But today I want to focus on another deeply disturbing trend men are secretly filming women on nights out and profiting by posting videos online. These accounts mask themselves as nightlife content or Woking tours, but the videos tell a completely different story. They fixate on women in dresses and skirts often filmed from behind, often from low or intrusive angles. These women have not consented. In most cases they don't know they are being filmed and the scale is staggering.

The BBC video found. Videos like these have been viewed more than 3 billion times in just three years, and once uploaded, the abuse begins. Comment after comment. Dripping with misogyny. Look at how these ladies are dressed. No wonder they get attacked, followed by a laughing emoji. They belong to the streets. Easy meat, hundreds of misogynistic comments like this flood the replies beneath nearly every video. This vile practice has victims and the impact is real. Women who have been filmed this way say they no longer feel safe to go out.

They feel watched, exposed, vulnerable, distressed and harassed. They no longer enjoy a night out or being in public. We must be clear. Secretly filming women like this is deeply degrading. It is predatory and it must be stopped. Right now. The law is failing. In 2024, a man was arrested on suspicion of stalking and harassment for this kind of behaviour, but no further action was taken due to limitations with the current legislation. As of now, there is no provision in law to prosecute for covert filming of this nature.

This abuse sits in a legal grey area between several different crimes, including voyeurism and harassment. It has given this type of video the space to grow. Existing voyeurism offences are framed around private acts or taking intimate images. Harassment laws were not designed to address the recording and mass distribution of this kind of content, so perpetrators slip through the cracks and the problem grows. My Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Other place tabled an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill to create a specific criminal offence of secretly filming someone without their consent for sexual gratification or to humiliate or to distress them.

The government's view was that this amendment was too broad. And yes, we must protect the freedom to film in public. We must protect legitimate journalism. But we cannot allow that useful in action because right now women are being targeted, filmed and broadcast to millions without protection. Something must change. We should look at harassment laws, including how the Public Order Act can be strengthened to tackle sex based harassment, both offline and online, because harassment does not stop on the streets, it continues online, often indefinitely.

It should be an offence to record and distribute footage of someone without their consent, where they are targeted because of their sex, and that material is used to objectify, humiliate and objectify them to and subject them to misogynistic abuse. Women should not have to wonder every time they go out, whether they will wake up the next morning to find themselves plastered across the internet in the most distressing and degrading way. It is not beyond the government's power to fix this issue.

I urge them to listen in close this gap in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the law to protect women from this vile, misogynistic harassment. Thank you. Scott Arthur Lauren Sullivan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scott Arthur Lauren Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd like to thank the Member for I'd like to thank the Member for Sevenoaks and Mid Bedfordshire for securing this very, very important securing this very, very important vote. So online harms are systemic, they're scaled and they are producing real world consequences. producing real world consequences. And we've seen that social media is now the environment in which young people grow up. It's almost universal. When children enter
15:58
Lauren Sullivan Portrait Dr Lauren Sullivan MP (Gravesham, Labour)
-
-
secondary school, 81% of 10 to 12 year olds are on social media, according to the DSIT consultation, according to the DSIT consultation, and 86% have accounts. The Youth Select Committee did also a study on youth violence and social media back in 2024, and they found that 97% of 13 to 17 year olds were online, but also 70% of them see real world violence online. 92%. Now, these are a huge amount of statistics, but they really show and demonstrate the the fact that social media is now in every young person's bedroom, in their hand and in their pocket.

When speaking with Professor Sarah Jane Blakemore from the University of Cambridge, she was saying how adolescent brains are highly sensitive to the social environment, and now the digital and social media companies are probably aware of this. During this period in in adolescence, where their brain is heightened neuroplasticity, and this will continue until their mid or late 20s. In this time of adolescence, young people are trying to find identity and belonging. And I fear that the tech companies are exploiting this to their detriment.

So where can we see evidence of harm? Well, the new, which is National Education Union did a did a study called Big Tech Little Victims, where researchers created fictional accounts half an hour each day after a week on Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat and YouTube. And they found that harmful comment content was appearing within three minutes, often immediately, I hear this from talking to young people in my constituency that they will say, I do not want to see this harmful content anymore, and yet they are still shown this.

So what is going on? The hon. Member for Saint NOx and Mid Bedfordshire mentioned Inside the Rage Machine documentary, which I've seen a number of times now, and absolutely horrified at the whistleblowing,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what we what we know. But I will absolutely give way. She's making a really powerful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She's making a really powerful speech and about how young people are really formed or their brains are really formed or their brains are being formed while being bombarded with online content. Could I just let her know that my Could I just let her know that my hon. Friend is actually the Member for Saint Neo and Cambridgeshire? And so when she mentions him again, And so when she mentions him again, she might correct that. Thank you. My apologies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a Mid Bedfordshire at Cambridge Aberdeen South. Thank you. Cambridge Aberdeen South. Thank you. So in speaking about rage inside the rage machine, the amount of the rage machine, the amount of people. That have witnessed this people. That have witnessed this has been remarkable. What they found was that serious exploitation cases were not being prioritised by TikTok. What they found were algorithms being pushed repeatedly. This content. So in turning to the kind of core issues, this isn't a simple we must do banning or not, we need a suite of solutions.

So the core issue, young people are vulnerable. We know this identity forming. They. There are addictive algorithms that are designed to maximise time and engagement and they prioritise provocation instead of the truth. On Netflix. Louis Theroux in his manosphere documentary again, incredibly powerful and timely to this debate where we heard from this gold rush of the Wild West online, where there is a hook identity monetise and this profit that is being driven with streaming platforms like YouTube, rewarding these people who are spouting such abominable things.

So, you know, there is a business model behind this, which I think we are all very much aware of and we need to do something about. So this harmful content spreads across platforms. And so any ban on social media, we need to be very clear what we learned from the Science Select Committee last week, where we look at Australia and their ban, was that actually because they defined the social media companies, other companies were taking the space. And actually.

So we can learn from that. And I think this will be feeding into the consultation by the government. We have to make this stronger. So the limits of bans, they can be bypassed. And we are seeing some of that in Australia. It. But also the fact that it shifts the responsibility to the user. Why can't we be shifting that responsibility to the companies? We should not be banning

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children. We should be banning children. We should be well informed. Oh, happily.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh, happily. I thank you for giving way, and. I support a number of the things that she's saying in terms of the that she's saying in terms of the online harms, especially for for children. What I'm unclear about is children. What I'm unclear about is her position on a ban for those on social media, for those who are under 16, because whilst I accept under 16, because whilst I accept her overall point, which is that social media companies have a responsibility, what would be a really clear signal to them and also protect children would be to bring in an immediate ban for under 16 seconds using social media, and I'm not clear whether she supports that or not.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lauren Sullivan. I welcome the intervention by the hon. Member, and I think the hon. Member, and I think initially there is action that needs to be done. I'm not sure a ban is clear cut enough because there are so many ways to get around it. How will you verify that this person is 16? The emphasis is this person is 16? The emphasis is being put on the person and the young person, the user trying to get in. And as long as that tech company can say we've done all reasonably possible, we've done facial recognition, we've done it doesn't, then the liability is then put on the young person.

It should be the other way around. And there needs to be a demonstrating responsibility on the tech company. And I think he may well agree that the tech companies need to be doing more to monetise it and actually to to regulate it. And this is where the government consultation in strengthening those regulations need to come in. So in conclusion, these are online tasks are not isolated. They are being designed into platforms, they are being amplified at scale and they are shaping the real world.

We are serious and we must be serious about protecting our young people. We must address the systems, the incentives that are driving this harm, and hold these tech companies to account. The question is, should we be banning or barring children from social media, or should we be banning social media from exploiting our children?
16:06
Elsie Blundell Portrait Mrs Elsie Blundell MP (Heywood and Middleton North, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to thank the hon. Member for mid St Neots and Mid Member for mid St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire for securing this crucial debate. Since my election, constituents in Heywood and Middleton North have repeatedly Middleton North have repeatedly raised issues around online harms, especially as they see those who control these platforms seeking to shirk accountability at every turn. And that is why we cannot discount the significance of the Online Safety Act. This critical piece of legislation was a welcome step taken by the previous government and implemented by this Labour government, the first of its kind in putting a range of new duties on social media companies and search engines to mitigate the harms that those online, those online can pose to our constituents, perhaps to a greater extent than in any other area of policy.

We must recognise that the frontiers of online media are constantly expanding, technology is evolving and our daily life is increasingly determined by what takes place on phones, laptops and tablets. The Online Safety Act, though immensely welcome, goes some of the way towards dealing with this complex set of challenges. But it cannot be another 20 years before we come to substantively revisit this topic again. To underscore why our constant adaption to these threats is necessary, I would like to touch on three themes in my remarks today.

The first is the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation, the integrity of our democracy. The tone of our discourse due to our continued belief in facts, evidence and science all are on the line in the war being waged unrelentingly in these digital spaces, spaces where online actors are determined to amplify falsehoods in order to erode a sense of public trust that has taken generations to foster. And the meteoric rise of AI has made this challenge all the more pressing by tracking people's behaviour on these apps and algorithms, responding to them.

Misleading and sensationalist content is being driven into the most impressionable, impressionable, vulnerable and isolated minds, so many of them young people who were growing up without being able to tell fact from fiction. And we also know that adults are susceptible to such trends. This week of all weeks, where we have seen a deeply concerning outbreak of meningitis in Canterbury and East Kent, we see misinformation and blatantly anti-science positioning rear its ugly head once again, as we saw in the Covid-19 pandemic and countless times ever since.

And it's a really obvious thing to say, but the onus is on us to speak with one voice as MPs on such a critical topic of public health, and to confront these harmful narratives at their source, I think a great deal more thinking needs to be done in digital spaces when it comes to misinformation, medical or otherwise, and that requires strength and regulation and real intent between the government, Ofcom and the platforms themselves. I am pleased to see that the Online Safety Act has within it provisions to capture myths and disinformation where it is illegal or harmful to children, but we have much further to go in curtailing the weaponization of online platforms to spread lies, conspiracies and harmful falsehoods to millions across the country.

Moving on, I would like to speak about the protection of children. I have raised the issue of technology assisted child sexual abuse or taxa on several occasions in this place, and this is something that we need to tackle from both sides, the judicial and the digital. And I therefore wholly welcome the Online Safety Act and the wider work of government on this, from stopping companies like X or AI tools like Grock from generating vile sexualised images of children and non-consensual intimate deepfakes, the commitment to ban notification apps and to introduce a legal duty requiring tech platforms to remove non-consensual, intimate images within 48 hours of them being posted, it is clear that this government stands firmly against those who would do our children harm.

With that being said, however, taxa also has further dimensions that warrant serious consideration. It can take many forms, such as the distribution of child sexual abuse, material, sexual harassment, exposure to sexually explicit materials and grooming, to name a few. And despite the prevalence and seriousness of these crimes, there is across our judicial landscape, an overreliance on non-custodial sentences, magistrates courts dominating outcomes and gaps within the unduly lenient sentencing scheme when it comes to these online offences. Let me be clear online or technology assisted child sexual abuse has profound and lasting impacts on children for their whole lives, comparable to that of physical abuse.

And I believe that digital regulation and our justice system must both reflect the insidiousness and seriousness of these crimes. And I would welcome the minister's comments on this when he concludes the debate later on. Finally, I would like to briefly touch on how discourse in digital spaces is increasingly affecting our communities. Following the Manchester synagogue attack last year, the campaign for Countering Digital Hate identified a troubling rise in anti-Semitism online, where violence was celebrated and further encouraged against the Jewish community.

And we only need open X, Facebook or other platforms to see a disgraceful barrage of abuse levelled at our Muslim community too, with platforms giving previously fringe far right voices the means to amplify their dangerous and divisive rhetoric to millions. The harm that these actors can inflict on the capacity of our communities to come together is being played out each and every day, and all too often, they can hide behind anonymous accounts and real people like my constituents and people across the country are having to face the consequences.

I am really proud to represent a diverse constituency, but I do feel the fear, the power that those online have to direct actions and attitudes in real life. And I hope that the Minister can touch on this pertinent topic in his remarks, too, in causing. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do welcome this government's efforts to curtail online harms. Indeed, I welcome the work of any government in doing so. I do believe, however, that the rate at which things are moving is staggering and we cannot therefore view the Online Safety Act simply as a job well done, but rather another rung on a growing ladder to keep our constituents, especially children and our communities, safe, we need to ensure that our thinking is consistent with the expanding nature of these digital spaces.

And that means ultimately recognising that for all of their utility and connecting us with one another, these platforms also have an unlimited capacity to do people harm. And I truly fear the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consequences of failing to do so. Thank you. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Melanie Ward thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And of course, it is an understatement. To say that the internet and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To say that the internet and social media has changed everything. The early optimism of internet pioneers was that we would all pioneers was that we would all benefit from a world in which all information was at our fingertips. In many respects, they were not wrong, and rapid technological advancement has massively improved our lives from significant developments in healthcare and easier communication with friends and family to, for example, online
16:12
Melanie Ward Portrait Melanie Ward MP (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy, Labour)
-
-
banking, which is a real benefit to many people here in the UK. But where I've also seen the benefit where I've also seen the benefit across the world, for example, in humanitarian crises where cash transfers are increasingly used as transfers are increasingly used as part of a humanitarian response, much safer and easier to be able to make those happen, from a laptop to make those happen, from a laptop to people's mobile phones, rather than having to helicopter huge sums of cash around through war zones or cash around through war zones or refugee camps as is, which is what happens without that.

But the fact that the online world has amplified everything means just that almost everything, no matter how sinister or extreme, is now available to us and most distressingly of all, to our children not only is available to us, but algorithms designed to push extreme content mean that violent, misogynistic, racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and other hateful content is winning the battle for our attention and is causing real harm. It is no longer just an ideological echo chambers, but algorithms and the introduction of suggested content that is pushed at the user means that they have permeated youth culture and taken over many of the spaces where young people communicate with each other and the language that they use.

It is now just as easy, if not easier, to tune in to extremist content online than it is to watch cartoons, go to the park or go to a house party. And this has real life impacts in our constituencies. In Cowdenbeath, in my constituency, anti-social behaviour is a real issue. Tomorrow I will hold a second meeting on antisocial behaviour which follows up from an anti-social behaviour summit I held in December. And what we found is that social media is having a real impact in encouraging more extreme behaviour between young people, because it is filmed and shared online, and local headteachers also report the impact of apps like Snapchat as being a real factor in bullying between children in schools, and we know that it is a global problem as well, where radical and violent groups profit from the recruitment of young men, particularly to their causes online, pushing violence and very real threats to our democracy.

From ISIS in the Middle East, the Proud Boys in the United States, or Yun Suk yeol in South Korea, whose misogynistic platform was a factor in his election as president, and the attempted insurrection in 2024, for which he is now serving a life sentence. The truth is that big tech companies are so obsessed with outdoing each other to profit from the attention of our children or other vulnerable people, that they have ignored their responsibility to keep them safe and keep our communities safe, and prevent people being exposed unwittingly to the most horrific material.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am about to mention another hon. Member who is not present, and I just want to confirm that I have notified him in advance. There are too many who have been prepared to sacrifice the safety and cohesion of our communities for the right price. This week, an investigation showed that the leader of reform has been paid to take extreme political positions on the cameo app, according to the Guardian newspaper, the Member for Clacton took money to call for the release of P Diddy to call for the release of a Honduran drug trafficker to support a rioter to to repeat extremist slogans and to endorse a neo-Nazi event.

Members of the public will be able to draw their own conclusions from that kind of behaviour. Too often, action to prevent harmful content is too slow. And in March last year, when new powers in the Online Safety Act came into force, I wrote to Ofcom requesting that action be taken using that act against a website that actively encourages its users to die by suicide. I will not name the site for obvious reasons. Ofcom launched an investigation into that site, but it had still only taken a provisional decision against that site last month.

And I promise you that spending five minutes on that site tells you immediately that it has no place in our country and no place existing online at all. It is shocking that action has not been taken, and since the illegal harms code came into force last year, two more people's deaths have been tragically linked to that site. And can I ask the Minister if he agrees that Ofcom is far too slow in responding to sites like this? And will he please take it up with them? There are so many reasons why I'm glad that our government is taking steps to consult on a social media ban for under 16 seconds.

To be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clear, I support such a ban and Madam Deputy Speaker, I will ensure Adam Jogee. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and she has a number of pieces of paper left, and we're pieces of paper left, and we're enjoying her speech, and we want to hear all of them. But she rightly talks about the the potential ban for under 16 hours at Newcastle Academy just last week, and a number of young people said that they would feel much safer if such

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they would feel much safer if such a ban was imposed. So I'd like to add my support to hers. Melanie Ward. I thank the hon. Member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

giving way. I was actually at a primary school. Sorry you gave way to me. Oh, I thank the hon. Member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh, I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Might I also add, you can see what I've been doing a you can see what I've been doing a lot recently. Might I also add that I was at a primary school in my constituency very recently, and I constituency very recently, and I asked the young people there, you know, how many of them are on social media? It was a class full of ten and 11 year olds. Almost all of ten and 11 year olds.

Almost all of them were. But then when you talk to them about how social media work, everybody had different rules about, you know, what they allowed to what are they allowed to do? When are they allowed to go on social media? And it was really clear that their parents were trying really hard to regulate their children's access to social media. And one of the things, one of the reasons why I want us to act on banning social media for under 16 seconds is, of course, about the impact on young people, which I've tried to lay out, but it's also about the job that parents are struggling to do because social media companies can't behave properly.

And I saw one survey which showed that one third of parents had cried because of the stress of trying to manage their children's access to social media and online content. And so to me, this is about backing parents as well as it is about keeping our young people safe online and in the real world. It was in 1923 when we banned the sale of alcohol to under eighteens, and 1908 when we banned the sale of tobacco to those who are under 16.

And so I very much hope that future generations will look upon our Parliament as the Parliament that finally took action to prevent the public health risk and the real life harm that is addictive. Social media and extremist content in the hands of children, as well as in the hands of so many vulnerable young people. We must act now, for it is the safety and well-being of our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children that is at risk here. Order before we move on to the next speaker, could I just remind next speaker, could I just remind members to use extreme caution when avowing the motives of other members? I think the hon. Lady probably stayed just about the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

correct side of the line. Matt Rodda thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker, and it's a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend from
16:20
Matt Rodda Portrait Matt Rodda MP (Reading Central, Labour)
-
-
to follow my hon. Friend from Cocody. And may I also say that I've been very impressed and moved by the quality of speeches from across the House this afternoon, and I really do appreciate the hon. Gentleman from St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire for securing today's important debate. I wanted to touch on two specific aspects of this. One is to try to explain the awful impacts of some of these cases, based on a case that I've been involved in, of a constituent who sadly was killed in online bullying, and then also to address some of the issues, my hon.

Friend made some very good points about the enormous difficulties parents face, and to perhaps ask the Minister to to hopefully give us some indication of the direction of travel from the government. So just to explain the case in reading, which some of you may know about, but others may not, my constituent, Olly Stephens, was he just turned 13 years old when he was stabbed and brutally murdered by two other boys in a local park just yards from his house on the outskirts of the town.

And this happened through online bullying and an attack which was heavily linked to the sharing of images of knives online, which led to his death and the impact on his parents. You cannot imagine what none of us can imagine what Stuart and Amanda Stevens have been through, and they are now incredibly powerful and determined campaigners against online harms. They've worked with Stuart Russell with many other families, and they've been able to explain some of the horror of what happens in these dreadful incidents.

And perhaps also it's worth explaining a little bit about their views on the point about regulating social media. So in terms of the attack on Olly, I would like to just highlight the the time, the point at which it happened, which is before the Online Safety Act became law. However, some of the same issues still appear to be taking place. So the the two boys who carried out the attack, who were 13 and 14 at the time, happened in 2021, had both seen videos and other images of knives on 11 different social media platforms, and they'd seen these repeatedly.

And none of the companies responsible for those platforms had taken any of these, any of this content down. So these young people have been bombarded with these images and they were sharing them themselves. They were sharing pictures of knives, teenagers playing with knives in bedrooms, sharing these pictures that may have influenced their behaviour. It's the most awful thing. Stuart and Amanda have tried very hard to raise awareness of the different aspects of this, both the huge dangers of knife crime, the dangers of online bullying, the dangers of social media, the effect of social media on young people.

And they. They've. I know them very well, obviously, as constituents. They've talked to me very powerfully about the way in which their son was addicted to his phone. They tried to take it off him. He threatened to run away, and they believed he was being groomed online through all sorts of other things that were happening in the online world. And it's absolutely shocking to see it from their perspective, their experience of this obviously is different to some of the other cases that we've heard today, and we've had some very powerful stories told by other colleagues about issues in their own constituencies or other ones they've come across, particularly my hon.

Friend from Gateshead and her work in relation to suicide. I've also come across this sort of issue as well, which is absolutely appalling. Other issues I had the privilege, but it was a very difficult thing to do of attending an event run by the Molly Rose Foundation, where they showed people videos of some of the content that she'd been exposed to, which is just quite shocking. And the deluge and the repetitive nature of all this through algorithms targeting vulnerable young people.

As my hon. Friend quite rightly said, and the way that young people are particularly vulnerable to this terrible this terrible images. However, I do think we need to think very, very carefully. And the other point I'd like to ask the Minister to address is the difficulty of trying to then respond to this. And I have a lot of interest, and I can totally understand it. Stuart, Amanda's case, they would like to see a complete ban on social media for under 16.

I think that there is a very powerful case for that. I'm not completely convinced because I know that the Russell family take a different view. There's. As my hon. Friend said, practical issues around the risk of companies being able to circumvent some of this, and I hope that when the Minister response will be able to give an early indication of some of the issues that are being discussed in the consultation, this, I should say, is very important work being led by the government. This is extremely difficult.

It's great that Australia and some other countries have already taken some action. Hopefully we can learn from their experience and build on what they've done and take things even further in our country to do even more to protect vulnerable young people and indeed, vulnerable adults. As and the hon. Member for Bath talked about some of the appalling things that are happening and involving adults as well. One specific aspect of this, which I think is particularly challenging for many of us, is that as parents, this area is evolving so rapidly and it is very, very difficult for many parents to keep up with this.

And I thought my hon. Friend from colleagues point about the needs of parents to be reassured that they were doing the right thing and the difficulty of finding the right way forward. That is a very powerful point that we really need to think about how we can help parents and schools, indeed, and other places

**** Possible New Speaker ****

where young people are certainly will. Stafford, I thank you for giving. Way and. Unlike him, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Unlike him, I. Am very convinced of the need for a social media ban, which is why I welcome the leader of the why I welcome the leader of the opposition's stance on this. But on his point about communities and schools and parents, if we're not going to go for a full ban, I think there are some technologies that could be used. I think of Jason in my constituency, who runs a company my constituency, who runs a company called Newbury, and he is looking to set up communities where as a school, maybe it's a class, maybe it's a whole school can set the parameters for usage time, the sites that are used, the apps that are used so that parents don't feel that they're alone, they're part of a wider community, all working together to limit and control the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

social media usage of their children. Would he agree that something like that would help? MAT thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

MAT thank. You, Madam Speaker. I think the hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. The other thing to consider, of course, is that there's a risk to older teenagers over 16 as well if they're banned for under 16 was if they're banned for under 16 was imposed. And I think these we may need to look at a number of complementary but different measures, as my hon. Friend also measures, as my hon. Friend also mentioned. So I thank him for his intervention. I hope the Minister will maybe want to reflect on the.

The work done by the company in his in his constituency. Just to conclude. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's been a pleasure to speak today. It's an extremely difficult, I'm sorry, a privilege to speak today. It's an extremely difficult subject. It's wonderful that the House is able to discuss this in some detail this afternoon, and I look forward to the Minister responding in a little bit more detail. I realise the consultation is underway, and if I could perhaps add that when he does look into this further, if he could take submissions from MPs where we've been carrying out our own local work, I've carried out my own local consultation, which is a mini version of the government's one, and we have had very, very high proportion of people who've responded wanting to see very firm action taken.

There's a range of views on what that might take, but there's certainly there's a serious intent to change things. So thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
16:27
Paul Waugh Portrait Paul Waugh MP (Rochdale, Labour )
-
-
Paul Waugh thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The latest Louis Theroux documentary for Netflix, Inside the Manosphere was shocking, deeply shocking to many of us who watched it, but it was not remotely shocking for the millions of teenagers to whom his subjects are well known. It was not shocking to my three twentysomething sums. It was not shocking to the boys in the playground. It was not shocking to Gen X or Gen Alpha, not shocking for children in primary schools, let alone secondary schools.

And that's why this online harms debate should involve everyone, particularly the young people in whose name, on whose behalf we often make laws in this place. Their synapses are dulled to this stuff, their feeds are full of it, which in turn means the premium for even more shock is higher. Outrage and extremism are hardwired into this business model. Inside the manosphere exposed that many of these social media influencers are themselves deeply damaged boys, often with a resentment about fathers who are either absent or violent or both.

They project themselves as pro men, but in doing so, they feel the need to project themselves as anti-women. And they're not just anti-women. That's a mild term. They're virulently, disgustingly misogynistic. They feed off the pornography that is all too sadly seen by many of our young boys these days. What also shocked me, however, was just how casual as my friend hon friend for Heywood and Middleton North has pointed out, was just how casual was the antisemitism propagated by many of those in the manosphere? We saw a chap called Myron Gain say, and I quote, Louie is a dirty j e w.

Now, Louis Theroux isn't Jewish, by the way. Not that that matters, but at one point another, another manosphere influencer, Harris and Sullivan, imitates Louis Theroux in leers that he is just sat there with his due fingers. Another of the manosphere influencers blames Jews for feminism, for homosexuality, for even, and I quote, vibrations that are going to negatively bring you down in this conspiracy theory ridden rabbit hole of the internet. All this is normalised, and I thank the Antisemitism Trust for their work in exposing just how much this vile racism has exploded online, and Elon Musk and X must share responsibility for much of that.

Yeah, we must need we must take much tougher action against those tech giants who are literally profiting from this hatred. Now, we know that anti-Semitism is often described as the oldest hatred, but we also know that misogyny is just as ancient a hatred, too. So I'm proud to be part of a Labour government that stood up to grok and to mosque when they floated British laws and they put British women and children at risk with those notification apps. I'm equally proud that my party has been calling out reform, none of whose members are here today for its pledge to repeal the Online Safety Act.

I'd like to know which protections for children reform MPs would remove and what, if anything, they'd put in their place. I'd also like to know why George Galloway's Workers Party took £5,000 in a political donation at the last general election, an election in which I partook in Rochdale from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Andrew Tate's brother, Tristan. I just very quickly can I take him back to when he said he's proud him back to when he said he's proud about the action that his Labour government has taken while in opposition for a long time, his colleagues were actually advocating for making misogyny a hate crime. for making misogyny a hate crime. But now, and I assume it is still in the manifesto, I'm not quite clear about it. Why is it that, particularly when he mentions misogyny as one of these vile things that happen all the time on the manuscript, why does he not press this government more for intervention?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd point out that the Minister for safeguarding has repeatedly emphasised the need to crack down on misogyny and to outlaw it, as have many of my colleagues. So I think there's definitely more work to do on that. But it's a key part to do on that. But it's a key part of our violence against women and girls strategy. It was a pleasure to meet the smartphone free to meet the smartphone free childhood campaign last week, including Zac George, aka steel from Gladiators, who many members from Gladiators, who many members would have met too, about why we need further action to protect our kids from the harm that social media can cause.

As for the harm, and as the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire has already mentioned, harm does not only arise from content but from design features such as algorithmic amplification and endless scroll features that go beyond a simple age based ban. We need to help parents who are desperate for support in combating the daily nightmare of wrestling control back from their children's phones and their computers, suicide ideation, self-harm, pornography, animal cruelty, child sex abuse, anti-Muslim hatred, anti-Jewish hatred, all things.

As parents that we're seeing online and our parent and we want our youngsters to be protected from. But we feel powerless in the face of the outrage economy. It's time to stop that sense of powerlessness. I want to also praise, as the hon. Member has, the BBC's recent documentary, Inside the Rage Machine, which reported whistleblowers claiming that meta meta made decisions which allowed more harmful content on people's feeds simply because internal research into their algorithms showed how that outrage fuelled engagement and monetisation.

A TikTok employee gave the BBC rare access to the company's internal dashboards of user complaints, as well as other evidence of how staff had been instructed to prioritise several cases involving politicians, rather than a series of reports of harmful posts featuring children. Rochdale Safeguarding children's partnership does great work. I'd like to promote here today in allowing parents to access the right tools to protect their children, and other councils across the country are doing similarly great work, so solutions are at hand.

The government's new Media Literacy Action Plan should help us all build resilience against hatred, and the Education Secretary's recent guidance to schools to be phone free was very welcome indeed. The government's consultation on social media is another huge step forward in creating a healthy relationship between children and the internet. We need to test all the options presented in the consultation so decisions can be truly evidence based and delivery can be rolled out as effectively as possible. We need to balance the upsides of life online for young people, the friendship groups, their specialised help, the need to protect free speech against the very clear downsides.

But finally, we also need to address the offline issues that are often turbo charged online. For example, why is it that these guys in the manosphere are so popular in the first place? Put aside the provocation, the riskiness, the sophisticated editing, the addictive nature of their output, their justification that it's just jokes and the get rich quick con merchantry of it all. We need to ask how can we provide alternative role models for our boys and young men? How can we help their mental health? How can we repair their trauma? How can we tackle their lack of fulfilling jobs and careers and housing that so often the root of scapegoating, whether that's the scapegoating of women, of Jews, of Muslims, of migrants, or their own lack of opportunities.
16:35
Danny Chambers Portrait Dr Danny Chambers MP (Winchester, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Which brings us to the front benches. Doctor Danny Chambers. >> Madam Deputy Speaker And I thank my hon. Friend from St Neots and my hon. Friend from St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, too, for bringing forward this debate. His. He's very eloquent in his He's very eloquent in his introduction and his. His knowledge of the subject was very evident when I first saw the title of this debate. I'll be honest with the House. I wasn't quite sure what to focus on and where to start and.

Everyone here has brought up different issues. You know, do we start with addictive algorithms, underage children being able to access pornographic content, non-consensual image editing, financial scams, medical misinformation? And my my hon. Friend from Bath pointed out harassment of people being filmed without their consent out in the street. This is an absolute wild West and we haven't even moved on to, you know, intellectual interference from from foreign powers. Part of this Wild West is AI chatbots, which I've spoken about on several occasions in this House.

This is when. It surprised me to learn that a third of adults have relied on an AI chatbot for mental health advice or support, or for advice on a life choice. And it is also concerning that 1 in 4 teenagers have done the same thing. This isn't helped by over a million people being on NHS waiting lists, waiting for mental health treatment, are looking for other options. But the concern is, although these could potentially be useful if designed in the right way at the moment they are unregulated.

The medical advice they're giving is unsafe and it can be dangerous. So we know that some people have eating disorders, are getting advice on low calorie diets and how to access weight loss drugs that are completely inappropriate for them. My hon. Friend for Saint Neots spoke about children using chatbots to be able to get around the safeguards for online gambling companies. This is hugely, hugely dangerous. And then we come back to the general social media that people have been speaking about.

When I'm speaking to people in Winchester, we know that that parents want action on social media. Teachers want action on social media, and even many of the young people I speak to, especially teenagers, say they think social media is dangerous and damaging, and many of them actually want us to take action on it as well. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Liberal Democrats have been working really hard for the last few months on a position on this. My hon. Friend for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, an hon.

Friend for Twickenham as well, have spent months engaging with experts, charities and other organisations to come up with robust, evidence based positions that would help us tackle this issue. Now what we're proposing is to take to look at the. The platforms have addictive algorithms that allow children to make contact with strangers or strangers, make contact with them. To show inappropriate content is to have an age rating like we see with films and video games, because instead of banning specific platforms that mean other ones pop up and you end up in a sort of regulatory whack a mole where you can't keep on top of it all.

If you have a principle based approach that is based on the harm that can be caused, it can be applied to current and future platforms. Now, to be clear, the the the proposals the Liberal Democrats have come up with, if applied today, would effectively result in a social media ban because current social media ban. So current social media platforms would not be suitable for children under 16 years old. But there's nothing to stop technology companies creating online spaces that do not have dangerous, addictive algorithms that do not have an appropriate contact, who do not allow strangers to contact their children so that they could be useful spaces, that children could connect and actually help with their homework.

And, and one reason that we don't support the Conservatives headline grabbing ban on a complete ban on social media is because it would remove the ability for children to use Wikipedia to do homework. It would mean that children under 16 would not be allowed to use WhatsApp, and they'd be kicked out of the family WhatsApp group. We know how many families rely on a WhatsApp group to to run their lives, and we need clever, intelligent, proactive regulation that is fit for purpose, not just chasing headlines and trying to take quick political positions that get hit in the media when it's such an entrenched problem that we need cross-party support and how to tackle this in a meaningful way.

Madam Deputy Speaker, My final point I think we all agree that scrolling is the new smoking because like smoking, we already know the dangers. We knew for decades what the dangers were. We knew they were harmful. We knew it was addictive. We knew it was specifically harmful for children. And yet we know what happens. Risks were downplayed by lobbyists, by the big companies, and the debate ends up being shaped by misinformation and industry lobbying. And it's happening again, because these new technologies that sit in the heart of people's emotional lives are still facing remarkably little scrutiny.

Now, one day, we may look back on this unregulated social media landscape and look back on the unregulated AI chat bots in the same way we now look at smoking, we'll say we knew the risks. We knew that action had to be taken, and we knew we waited too long and people suffered and even died, and it was preventable. Now, these are not abstract concerns. Poorly regulated social media and AI are some of the most pressing emerging public health threats.

And we'd I'd really request that the Minister would agree to a meeting with me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues on the proposals we've come up with. They are backed by organisations like the NSPCC. They are powerful but nuanced enough to have a genuine impact in this area, and they could be implemented immediately. Thank you.
16:41
Ben Spencer Portrait Dr Ben Spencer MP (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
-
-
Doctor Ben Spencer. >> Madam Deputy Speaker So I'd like to start by congratulating the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire for securing this debate on tackling online harms. And as with so many debates over recent months have shown, online harms is a matter of paramount importance to members across both sides of the House and in the other place. And as is typical, I think every single member really focussed on the particular harms.

I think only one member actually mentioned. I think the Member for even mentioned some of the positives of the internet age, but everyone really focussed their speeches on the harms. I'd usually say one of these debates is when the pleasure to to listen and take part in the debate, but actually it really hasn't because it's been a pretty grim debate, because we've just had a sort of a tour de force discussion of all the horrors which younger people and adults are exposed to on the internet, and the importance of how we and how we can start as a society, as a country going about about tackling them.

And on that, I'm very proud of the steps that His Majesty's official opposition, when we're in government, has taken to make the online environment a safer place from bringing forward the world leading Online Safety Act into force, to the commendable and tenacious work of my noble friends and Other place, especially Baroness Owen and Baroness Burton, who are the staunchest of advocates for protections from digital forms of abuse for women and girls. Members will know Baroness Owen secured important amendments to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to criminalise the solicitation of sexually explicit deepfake images.

Baroness Burton's report and campaigning has resulted in amendments being tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill concerning notification apps, and that is by no means the extent of their important work. The aim of the Conservatives Online Safety Act was to build an environment where adults could access legal content freely, and where children enjoyed greater protections. Now I welcome in welcome, in particular, the entry into force last year of Ofcom's Protection of children's codes and the enforcement action Ofcom has already taken under the act to tackle file sharing sites, disseminating child sexual abuse material and pornography sites that have failed to put into place highly effective age assurance assurance measures to prevent children accessing content.

But we know that concerns regarding children's social media use go well beyond content, which is explicitly harmful and subject to restrictions. Under that act, parents across the country are rightly concerned about their children's social and emotional development due to addictive algorithms, which drive excessive use and unhealthy patterns of behaviour. This is why we called for a social media ban for children under the age of 16. Now, regrettably, this month the government voted down amendments to the Children and Wellbeing in Schools Bill secured in the other place by my noble friend Lord Nash, which would have brought this into effect in response to pressure from His Majesty's loyal opposition and other members across the House, the government has now launched its own consultation on measures to restrict access to social media for under sixteens, alongside several other matters concerning online safety.

Now, if the government had accepted our amendment to the Data Use and Access Act last year, such a review would be well underway by now and we would be closer to a solution on this important issue. But we are where we are. Madam Deputy Speaker consultation is not a substitute for action, and I sincerely hope that the government will deliver on the timescales that are set out for responding and bringing in measures. After its consultation concludes in May. Madam Deputy Speaker, as with any rapidly evolving technology, social media and other online tools develop new apps and sites posing novel threats which demand a response from government and regulators.

Most recently, we have seen this in relation to AI chatbots, some of which may fall outside the scope of the current regulatory framework promoting self-harm content to young people. A particular harm that I have raised with Ministers and Ofcom is the increase in disturbing reports of people using AI chatbots to obtain medical advice or other advice that should be sought from regulated professionals. And I note that member from Winchester mentioned this as well in his in his windup speech late last year, the Medicines and medical devices regulator, the MHRA, established a national commission, which ran a call for evidence on the suitability of the UK's framework for regulating AI in healthcare.

That call for evidence closed last month, and I look forward to seeing its conclusions and the government's proposals for dealing with the risks. It will no doubt highlight. Finally, a fundamentally important aspect of online harm that I think has attracted comparably less media attention and debate time in Parliament is the threat to democracy of online disinformation campaigns perpetrated by hostile state actors and their affiliates. The Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee reported last year that online foreign interference and disinformation campaigns are putting UK citizens at risk.

We have also had credible reports last year of Iranian state backed digital interference in the Scottish independence referendum, and the risk posed by this type of activity is intensifying, as artificial intelligence tools provide the capability to generate deepfake content purporting to represent politicians or campaigns, and amplified by foreign hostile, state controlled bot accounts. As people, particularly young people, increasingly obtain their news online, it is more important than ever that we look at the potential of digital watermarking tools that can be used to demonstrate the provenance and authenticity of content published on the internet.

This danger stands to increase as a result of geopolitical tensions. In its report on artificial intelligence and copyright published yesterday, the government recognised the risks posed by digital replicas and deepfakes in spreading convincing disinformation online and committed to explore options to address the growing problem. The government also discussed the need for labelling of AI generated content to make disinformation easier to spot for users. Can the Minister provide timescales for that further work and provide an update on the government's broader strategy for countering AI generated democratic interference material? What role does the government.

What does the Minister consider digital watermarking tools will play in countering the proliferation and impact of deepfake videos and content. Thank you.
16:48
Kanishka Narayan Portrait Kanishka Narayan MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Vale of Glamorgan, Labour)
-
-
Minister Kanishka Narayan. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker And can I first and foremost, thank the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire for bringing Mid Cambridgeshire for bringing this important debate to the House. Madam Deputy Speaker I'm conscious in this debate. A number of hon. Members have mentioned bereaved families, and I want to start by paying tribute to all of them. Ian Russell, who I've had a series of meetings with and indeed met just this morning to Stuart and Amanda Stevens, to Ian Roome and to so many others who have gone through the most horrific of tragedies and, despite it, have consistently fought for appropriate action for other families as well.

And I carry them in my heart and mind when I think about the prospect of online safety regulation doing justice to future generations of children in this country as well. I'm grateful to the hon. Member and to all other speakers for their contributions on this important topic. In the interest of time, I propose to prioritise responses to them individually before talking about the wider context. To the hon. Member who brought this debate, I'd say first and foremost, a thank you for him wishing to carry out a stocktake of progress on the child safety and illegal content duties so far.

He'll be aware that Ofcom is due to report on content harmful to children and progress on that question this year. The understanding I have is that that will be due by October, and I very much look forward to the findings of that in in assessing where we can go further still. And the only other thing I would flag to him is that the consultation we've launched on children's wellbeing nationally does include the question of functionality limitations and in particular the sort of functionalities he talked about, algorithmic recommendations, the structural aspects which make parts of social media particularly harmful to children will be in scope, and I'd very much welcome his submissions on that question as well.

To my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett. Can I firstly thank her for her consistent advocacy on this question for the roundtable she held with the Mental Health Foundation and the foundation as well, which I was glad to attend for not just shining a light on the consistent focus across this House on the scale of the problem, but for flagging the diversity of views in how we most effectively tackle it as well. I have been in schools pretty much every week since the launch of the consultation.

I was with young people just this morning. I'll be in school next week. She is absolutely right to raise the diversity, as well as the depth of views held on this question of how we act, not whether we act as well to her concerns on the suicide forum in particular, which I know I share the on my hon. Friend from Cowdenbeath, Kirkcaldy also mentioned. I will say that I have engaged historically with Ofcom in making sure that they're acting quickly and robustly on this question.

I had a meeting with one of the bereaved families engaged in the particular question just this morning, and I will continue to make sure that one of them does everything with the powers it has, and two, that we continue to look at any further powers required to make sure we're acting robustly to prevent any such incidents happening again. I would, of course, be delighted to meet her to continue the conversation in that in that context as well. To the hon. Member for Bath, who I've had the privilege of engaging with on the particular question of illegal sale of drugs, on which I know she has been very actively advocating, and quite rightly so as well.

She will be aware that on that particular question, it has been deemed a priority offence. Ofcom is closely monitoring compliance. I know there is more to do. She has made that point very firmly to me, and I will also inform her that the National Crime Agency is looking to identify offenders operating online, both nationally and internationally, as well. On her very important point on Covid filming, I very much hope, one, we will take into consideration the points that she raises, but two systems that are designed to remove such content will now have to do so within 48 hours of nonconsensual, intimate images being put up online.

And I will continue to look at the implementation of that once it comes into force as well. To my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham, who raised very important points about the impact of social media usage on brain development. I think that is exactly one of the motivating factors for our consultation, looking at not just acute harms, but the chronic impact over time of engagement on social media as well. I'm grateful for her to for raising the point that there are a suite of options which might be appropriate.

And I share very much her intent that at the heart of it, the action will take would make platforms, not young people, responsible for the harms that are being conducted online. To my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North can I first and foremost thank her for advocating on the particular questions of misinformation and community cohesion in her community and nationally, as well. On the particular question of misinformation, the erosion of public trust, which I know the Shadow Minister made to. There is a foreign interference offence, which is very clearly in the Online Safety Act.

I continue to look at the implementation of that, but alongside that, I serve on the Defending Democracy Task Force with the Security Minister. This has been a priority question that we've been looking at, and I will continue to make sure that we are doing more, both in terms of pressing the enforcement of existing law and looking at where we can go further still on that question, both she and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale raised very important points about community cohesion. The fact that we must use online experiences not to divide our communities, but to unite them.

And in that context, there is both a series of initiatives we've taken on media literacy to support the ability to sift fact from fiction right across our communities, but also the particular provisions on foreign interference in the Online Safety Act are a really key vector of enforcement against the sorts of causes that they're describing as well. To my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy as well. On the question of anti-social behaviour engagements, I'd be very interested in hearing her thoughts on where both head teachers and the young people she has engaged with think we ought to go.

In light of the consultation on the divisive impacts that she has raised, I agree very much with her that we will continue to look at not just illegal content, but where we can make sure that we're empowering users on divisive content, which might individually be legal but collectively ends up being deeply harmful to our community's cohesion as well as to our democratic integrity. To my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central can I first and foremost say he has made the point to me in person previously as well, and and reaffirmed it very powerfully today.

And as I started at the very outset, I would pay tribute again to Stuart Amanda Stevens. They've gone through the most horrific tragedy in their family context, and I'm deeply grateful for their grit and resilience through it as well, and in particular for his advocacy alongside them to. He asked me for a sense of direction on where the consultation is going. I won't pre-empt the substantive content of it, but I will say to him that we've had almost 25,000 responses. I hope and expect this is going to be the most engaged with consultation in the history of British national consultations, including thousands of people, thousands of young people who have contributed for the fact that we have designed a dedicated consultation for young people, a dedicated consultation for parents and carers as well.

I'd be very keen on hearing his views from his engagements, as well as other hon. Members as well. My hon. Friend from Rochdale raised a very important point alongside other hon. Members about the documentary Inside the Manosphere, and in particular the growing cause of misogyny in this country, as well as our particular priority in this government on violence against women and girls. He will be aware that in just December, we had a landmark cross-government violence against women and girls strategy. That has been the underpinning force for why we made cyber flashing a priority offence in this country, why we made intimate image abuse a priority offence in this country, why we banned the creation of new apps, why we banned those who were creating and sharing this content as well, and why we're going further still now in making sure that such content is taken down robustly and quickly, within 48 hours as well.

And on the particular point that both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North raised about the growing prevalence of both anti-Semitism and division online, I will be very much looking forward to an imminent meeting with the Antisemitism Policy Trust to figure out how we can go further, not just in law, but in terms of our awareness of it across our communities as well. To the Liberal Democrat spokesperson in raising his particular point, I have met the frontbench on the Liberal Democrat side to talk about their functionality and age rating based suggestion.

I would, of course, be very happy to continue the conversation and encourage their contributions to the consultation too. And finally, to the shadow Minister, who raises a very important point about chatbots in particular on that particular question. I hope it is very clear that chatbots never ought to replace professional support, and we will continue to look at that. I will update the House when we have specific steps on both labelling and personality rights. They are both features announced just yesterday as questions we're looking at.

I hope to update the house on that soon too. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
16:57
Ian Sollom Portrait Ian Sollom MP (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Ian Sollom to wind up. >> Ian Sollom to wind up. >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker and thank you to all hon. Members for contributing to hon. Members for contributing to the to today's debate. To the Member for Blaydon and Consett. Member for Blaydon and Consett. Just pick out some examples. The the 135 deaths from that pro suicide and 135 people that are with us is really stark and really powerful to share that sort of statistic. My my hon.

Friend the Member for Bath, sharing the stories of sadly new frontiers in misogyny and abuse online, the. To the hon. Member for Gravesham really highlighting the science, as I would expect from the Chair of post, if maybe not quite so hot on geography. To the hon. Member for Heywood and and Middleton North, I thought you made some really powerful points around online discourse and hate and Islamophobia and anti-Semitism and how that's proliferated. The hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and.

I wish her luck with an anti-social behaviour, really highlighting that that link between what's happening in the online space and real, real world anti-social behaviour, how they reinforce each other, it is. It is toxic. And to the hon. Member for Reading Central, thank you for sharing all these Stephen's story again, and I would also pay tribute to Stuart Amanda for the campaigning they do. And to the hon. Member for for Rochdale highlighting the the the manosphere what can we do in the real world to make a difference to the online space? I really appreciate that.

And some also to the Member for Farnham and Baden Borden, sorry for making some some important interventions. I think, you know, it's I appreciate the member's effort, the the minister's effort to respond directly to all members. I think we do need timely action after the consultation because these issues aren't going away, as you've heard today. So let's keep talking about this. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The debate stands adjourned.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

adjourned. I think that this House do now adjourn. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. Luke Akehurst. Thank you.
17:00
17:00
Luke Akehurst Portrait Luke Akehurst MP (North Durham, Labour)
-
-
pension happened to occur before an arbitrary date in a calendar. This isn't good enough. Today, I've isn't good enough. Today, I've called this debate to shed light on the injustice of the lack of the injustice of the lack of statutory increases for pre 1997 defined benefit pension schemes, and to ask the Minister what the and to ask the Minister what the government is going to do about it. Prior to the 6th of April 1997, Prior to the 6th of April 1997, defined benefit pension schemes in the UK were not legally required to increase in line with inflation.

This oversight left pensioners who had worked hard for their whole life to pay into a pension, guaranteeing security and retirement at risk of seeing their hard work outstripped by a rising cost of living, reducing their financial position in retirement. The 1995 Pensions Act sought to address this problem, introducing statutory limited price indexation, meaning these pensions were mandated in law to rise as inflation eroded their real value. However, the change only applied to pension contributions made after April 1997.

Almost 30 years on pre 1997 defined benefit pensions are subject to the same injustice identified and partially resolved by the government all that time ago. It is up to the trustees of these pre 1997 funds to decide the level of pension increases. Granted, I've secured this debate and I'm aware there are a number of hon. Members who will be seeking to intervene to challenge the government to finish. The job started almost three decades ago, of ensuring that every recipient of a defined benefit pension scheme has the dignity and security in retirement.

They have worked so hard for the pre 1997 pension justice campaign of over 400 pensioners, who I pay tribute to for their persistent campaigning on this issue, have informed me of at least 13 companies where this spell of zero increases effectively. Real terms cuts to pensions every year stretches to a decade or more. Top of the list, sadly, is Nissan, which has not increased these kinds of pensions for a quarter of a century. In those 25 years, the price of goods has almost doubled a shopping basket from 2001 worth £100 would now cost £194.

Prior to this 25 year period, the trustees of the Nissan pension had set a precedent that when the pension scheme delivered a surplus, a discretionary increase would be passed on to members between 1992 and 2001, when the scheme was in surplus, increases of between 2 and 3% were granted. This pattern was disturbed after 2001 when the scheme went into deficit, but when, in 2022 the scheme returned to a surplus, the trustees broke with precedent and refused to grant an increase.

The same has happened again every year since, which leads the pensioners to fear that there is a new policy from their trustees that no discretionary increases will ever again be handed to the retired Nissan workers holding these pensions. Yes, I will give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. Gentlemen. Who's making. An.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excellent presentation. Rather curiously, in the case of the curiously, in the case of the ExxonMobil pensioners up until 2023, they got automatically indexed they got automatically indexed uplifts in their pensions. But for some reason from that date onwards, some reason from that date onwards, the company changed its policy and now they are not getting the discretionary uplift. But the trustees there say that they have no power. It's up to the company to decide whether this discretionary uplift occurs.

So isn't one way forward to ask the Minister, perhaps, to give an undertaking that the trustees should have the power to award such discretionary uplifts linked to indexation?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his right hon. Gentleman for his his right hon. Gentleman for his his very useful intervention and drawing attention to that particular anomaly. And I can see that my hon. Friend and neighbour wished to intervene.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wished to intervene. I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way on this, and can I congratulate him on securing this debate and for raising this issue. He will have constituents, as I have, who have been writing to us on this issue and feel very strongly that an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

injustice has been done. I thank my hon. Friend for her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Indeed, I had both written communications and met with constituents who work alongside her constituents, or who used to work alongside her constituents at alongside her constituents at Nissan. Sadly, in the in the case Nissan. Sadly, in the in the case of Nissan and countless others, trustees have proven themselves to not be accountable enough for the decisions that affect those holding pensions. Evidence submitted to the Pensions Ombudsman shows multiple cases where trustees have not even considered key factors when deciding discretionary increases.

I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm happy to give way. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and laying out securing this debate and laying out very clearly the injustice that has been done. But does he have been done. But does he have concerns, as I have, that the make up of the trustee boards really means that it is the company that means that it is the company that is in control, either because their current employees and therefore their promotion will depend on the their promotion will depend on the company or they've been appointed specifically by the company, and therefore even where, as in the case of three M's, the trustees vote unanimously to have a rise, it can be blocked by the company and has been for successive years with these companies.

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I absolutely share that concern. My understanding from that concern. My understanding from the constituent that I met about this issue was that on, on, on Nissan's trustees as a majority of Nissan's trustees as a majority of company appointees who outvote the the trustees representing the the trustees representing the members of the scheme. So key factors have been ignored, from factors have been ignored, from ignoring inflation to overlooking member contributions. For this reason, I believe statutory intervention is urgently required.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm happy to give way. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is making an excellent Friend is making an excellent speech, and may I congratulate him for securing today's debate. Has he also noticed in his work on this issue that in some cases, some international companies are paying inflationary increases in other jurisdictions where they operate, jurisdictions where they operate, but not in the UK. There have been a number of instances of this in my own area, where pensions were own area, where pensions were Berkshire in schemes which are run by international companies, have done exactly that.

So the Irish pensioners, for example, or the US

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pensioners get an increase, but not the British Pensioners UK. I thank my hon. Friend for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for that very useful contribution. I was not aware of that and I shocked. aware of that and I shocked. Actually. I think that that's. A further injustice. If pensioners in the UK are treated differently to the pensioners of the same company the pensioners of the same company in other territories. While the Ombudsman can establish whether procedure has been followed, only politicians can decide whether outcomes are fair. So my first question to the Minister is, could the Minister please set out what scope he sees for his role in ensuring fairness over defined benefit pension schemes? There's another injustice in the way the Nissan scheme is treating its pension holders.

Members across the House will be aware that most people take up the option to take a quarter of their pension as a tax free lump sum. This money is vital to kickstarting retirement, allowing people to pay off their mortgages and other major debts, or make major purchases when they first become pensioners. However, the split between pre and post 1997 pensions means this scheme, which should be hugely beneficial for those retiring, can and is currently being used against them. The Nissan Pension Scheme has been paying out its lump sums from those parts of people's pension funds, where the payments would have increased with inflation and leaving in their pension pot.

The pre 1997 part, where the benefits won't be tracking inflation. The impact of this means that once a lump sum has been taken, the parts of the pension that are left receive lower or no annual increases. This is clearly unjust. Worst of all, this change wasn't even directly communicated with pension holders. Instead, my constituents only knew about this, frankly accounting trick as they noticed their pension increasing less by less than anticipated over the years. Because of this, I was hoping the Minister would be able to set out what the government's position is on which part of these kinds of pensions should be paid out as a lump sum, and whether he will work to protect pensioners from quirks of some calculation being used to deny them the increases they need to keep up with the change in the cost of living.

I want to recognise, and I'm sure that my hon. Friend and neighbour, who also has many constituents working there, would agree with this that Nissan is otherwise an excellent employer and a hugely important contributor to our regional economy in the North East and indeed to British manufacturing industry as a whole. Nissan has not only employed people, it's provided jobs deep into the supply chain as well. It's a real shame, given their status in the region as a very much admired employer, that they seem to be forgetting that their success in bringing employment and regeneration to the North East over the last 40 years comes from their loyal workforce.

These cost saving exercises on the pension scheme are no way to treat employees who work so hard and deserve a decent retirement. Crucially, the discretion in what increases pension holders receive currently lies with the trustees. However, the most common long term target for pension scheme is buying out with an insurer, an outcome which takes decisions of this nature out of the hands of trustees. When a scheme is bought out, trustee discretion disappears entirely, meaning that without legislative reform, thousands of pensioners will lose even the faint hope that the trustees might give them an increase.

Given that the government has made clear its desire to put more power into the hands of trustees of pension schemes, I would appreciate the Minister could set out whether the government has made any assessment of this risk and whether it intends to take any action. For those pension holders affected by insurer insurer buyout. To illustrate the financial impact of this injustice, I'll tell you about a constituent of mine who I have met, Steve. Steve started working for Nissan in 1985, meaning a considerable amount of his pension contributions came before the 1997 cut off.

He retired in January 2016. Since his retirement, CPI inflation has totalled to 40.3%, while Steve's pension has increased by only 8.3%. The. The minimum legally required for his post 1997 contributions. In real terms, Steve's pension has decreased by a staggering 32.5% in just nine years. In that time, since 2016, when when Steve retired, the State Pension has increased by 48%. We are right to be proud of the increases to the State Pension that we have delivered, including £575 this year for the new State Pension.

If we believe in the importance of protecting state pensioners, a belief we backed up with real money out of the door, then why shouldn't we apply the same standard to defined benefit pension schemes? Steve is just one example of someone being short changed by the anomaly. I know that the hon. Members for Hartlepool Blyth and Ashington Blaydon and Consett are City of Durham, Newcastle East and Wallsend. South Shields, Easington, Jarrow and Gateshead East and others have all been advocating for constituents involved in the dispute with the Nissan Pension scheme.

I also want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South, who has been fighting for the hard working people at Nissan as the constituency MP for the site, and I congratulate her on her very recent, well deserved promotion to ministerial office, which unfortunately precludes her from participating in this debate. Nissan is not an isolated case. It's indicative of a much wider problem here, where the state is failing to stand up for fairness and the value of a pension is drastically determined by which side of an arbitrary date cut off contributions were made.

Parliament has already been presented with a clear solution to this matter. I want to commend my hon. Friend the Member for for Caerphilly on bringing forward amendment NC 22 to the Pension Schemes Bill, which would have legislated to address this issue. Disappointingly, the government indicated opposition to the amendment and it was not put forward for a vote. I wanted to ask the Minister whether he would elaborate on why the government was unwilling to support my hon. Friend's amendment. I am aware that Ministers have previously cautioned against retrospective changes to pensions that would go the full way of correcting the injustice.

While I do not agree that we should accept an injustice just because it has already happened, I was hoping the Minister would could also consider whether a statutory increase to pre 1997 defined benefit pensions could be enacted purely from this point forward, even if it could not be retrospectively applied. Earlier this month, I coordinated a joint letter with colleagues whose constituents are missing out on money that we feel they are entitled to. To call on Ministers to address the problem. The problem I am raising today by supporting NC 22 or committing to bring forward similar measures before the Pension Scheme's Bill achieves Royal Assent.

The Pension Schemes Bill now sits with the other place and I am coming to to to my conclusion where I know my predecessor now, Lord Beamish, will be making the case for those adversely affected by this oversight in the law. I'd urge the government to accept any forthcoming amendments on this matter, and commit to working with those of us advocating for constituents on a fair resolution. I understand the Bill is completing its final stages, meaning time is running out for this action. Not only would increases to these pensions benefit more than 1 million, the more than 1 million pensioners in question.

They would also mean greater tax receipts to the state, boosting public services, allowing more investment in communities like the one I represent. I know that already the government has taken limited steps to address injustice for holders of pre 1997 pensions. It has announced legislative changes to allow the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme to start paying inflation linked increases, capped at 2.5% on pre 1997 pensions, something that had been prohibited under previous law. Ministers have confirmed that this change will benefit around a quarter of a million PPF members, improving their payments by an average of £400 a year, with the earliest increases expected from January 2027 once legislation is in place.

I know the government has also stated that reforms to the Pension Schemes Bill, particularly those related to surplus release, are intended to give trustees more flexibility to address this issue in future. I therefore wanted to ask whether the principles that have guided the government in making these welcome adjustments have been applied to the remaining pre 1997 pension holders who have still been left behind. I hope members and I really am coming to my conclusion here. We will agree that there is no justification for why the constituents I have raised today shouldn't receive a pension that keeps up with the rising cost of living.

I know the House is committed to dignity and security in retirement as a key part of the social contract that we exist to uphold. I have even heard anecdotal evidence of pensioners affected by this change having to return to work after they retired or downsizing from their family home to make ends meet. No pensioner should see their dignity and security eroded by an accident of timing. I therefore urge the government to do more to apply these values to the case of pre 1997 pensions.

I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend, the Minister on this matter.
17:16
Jesse Norman Portrait Rt Hon Jesse Norman MP (Hereford and South Herefordshire, Conservative)
-
-
Very briefly. >> Very briefly. >> Jesse Norman thank you very much. >> Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, and let me congratulate the Member for North Durham on his excellent for North Durham on his excellent speech and on securing this debate and all those who have participated in it. And let me also thank the in it. And let me also thank the Minister for allowing me a few words. I will also, if I may, on your behalf, Madam Deputy Speaker, mention your constituent, Steve Torbay, because I know he has been a key campaigner in this important and very difficult area.

It's one in which I first got involved before I became a member of Parliament in 2007, and I'd like to pay particular tribute to the late Roy Harris and Les Collard, because they brought to my attention the injustice that had been perpetrated on the older pensioners at the Special Metals Wiggin Pension Fund, and hundreds of people were affected by it. Many of them, alas, now dead. And those widows, as they almost invariably were, who were left receiving half of a much diminished pension.

They have not received one tiny one single penny in top up payments since that legislation kicked in, and only because the company's trustees have decided not to pay any discretionary bonuses at any point. The result is their incomes are 55% lower than they would have been at that time, and half of that if they were a widow. It is an absolute outrage and a great historic injustice. And as the member says, the fact that historic injustice occurred in the past does not mean it is not important to address it now.

And of course, it was a clear blunder in the legislation. I've raised this over the years in this House. It's a matter of great embarrassment that previous conservative administrations and coalition government did not address it, but the opportunity exists now to do that. The count, the company. And here, I'm afraid I recognise the point that often the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trustees are controlled by the company directly or indirectly, Whether.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whether. independent. The company has not. Paid any bonuses or top ups and of course, they are now owned by a of course, they are now owned by a large American company, IPCC, which is itself owned by Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway. And I have written to Buffett and had him say that he was not willing to help either. And it's a source of great sadness to me that even such a great philanthropist and entrepreneur as him should have failed to do that.

So my question to the Minister is this given that for many of these years that that pension fund has been in surplus, could he not now, as well as considering the question of historic injustice, also consider the question of whether or not those funds, those trustees should be required out of the surpluses. They have to pay top ups to the pensioners that we're talking about, if not retrospectively, and I hope they would consider retrospectively, then, at least in some generous way, that recognises the terrible injustice that has been done and pays proper tribute to Les Collard and to Roy Harris and all of the great men and women of the Wigan pensioners who we justly celebrate and whose injustice we seek to fight.

Thank you.
17:19
Torsten Bell Portrait Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Swansea West, Labour)
-
-
Hey, Torsten. >> Hey, Torsten. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm pleased that the right hon. Member for North Durham has secured Member for North Durham has secured tonight's debate on this important matter and for the thoughtful way he described the impact it has on his constituents. But speaking on his constituents. But speaking on behalf of many other members as well, and particularly those members of the Nissan Pension Scheme, and can I join him in praising the persistent campaigners on this issue? He mentioned one of the organisations in particular, who I've met with and are have been campaigning on this for very many years and haven't shown any let up in their energy in doing so.

During that time, a period of high inflation and the return of many DB schemes to surplus has rightfully put up in lights the situation of members whose pre 1997 benefits are not protected by statutory indexation, and during the passage of the Pension Schemes Bill. This wider debate has rightly featured heavily. It was also discussed by the Work and Pensions Select Committee prior to the last election and as the hon. Friend said, new clause 22, which was debated here at some length with many powerful speeches, including from my hon.

Friend from Llanelli Watford, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire North Herefordshire has been raising this issue, as he says, for many years, and I've also discussed it with the Member for hon. Member for New Forest East. I've met with many scheme members and their representatives, including very recently the Member for my hon. Friend for Caerphilly and three members met in Swansea to discuss exactly this issue in a lot of detail. I was grateful for their time and for her organising that discussion.

Then I've listened and I recognise the difficulties faced by some scheme members who can now see their income, their living standards and the quality of their retirement eroded by inflation, as the hon. Member finished with in his statement. It's particularly understandable that members are disappointed when schemes do not award discretionary increases, where schemes are in a strong funding position, and that is obviously the change that has happened over the course of the last few years. As my right hon. Friend will know, the defined benefit pension schemes have very different approaches to rewarding pre 97 indexation.

The truth is that obviously we won't be discussing these schemes at length today, that most do provide for increases under their scheme rules. Others do not allow it or require it at all. And then a significant number only allow discretionary increases where there is the agreement between both trustees and the sponsoring employer, which are the cases we're mainly focusing on in today's debate. The result is that in some cases, when employers are unwilling to support discretionary increases, even when the scheme is in a strong funding position, trustees can effectively

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be prevented from acting. Of course. I'm very grateful. I won't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful. I won't detain him, but of course, if a group of trustees never pays a group of trustees never pays a discretionary bonus, even though the scheme is in surplus, it does start to look like it is a policy start to look like it is a policy of theirs to discriminate against a subset of their beneficiaries. And I think that's illegal. And I'd be grateful for his guidance on that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I actually think there's a slightly harder case, which is examples where schemes had an established practice of paying discretionary increases. The hon. Member mentioned cases before the Member mentioned cases before the turn of this century in the Nissan case, where there was an established practice of paying those those increases. That was the seen as the norm then for different phases, different. Sometimes when a scheme has slipped into deficit, as scheme has slipped into deficit, as many schemes did, they then stopped and they did not restart when the surplus arrived.

That's the case that's being raised here. In many ways, those are the harder case to understand, and I'll come on to maybe about how we think about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those cases as we go forward. But the pensions regulator absolutely. Understand why the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Understand why the hon. Gentleman thinks they're harder. In some respects. They actually less hard because in those cases, changes have been made reflecting circumstances in the cases I'm talking about. It's a policy to discriminate against a settled discriminate against a settled group of beneficiaries. That's the bit that I think is potentially illegal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

illegal. I hear the point he makes. In general, the the I am I'm not going to comment on individual legal cases, obviously, but the but the basis of the distinction at 1997 obviously reflects the decisions taken in 1995 by a previous conservative administration about wanting to introduce statutory indexation, but not wanting to do that for accruals that had already taken place. That's the 1995 act that brought in the 1997 onwards. Statutory indexation. The as I was saying, we can recognise the underlying reasons for this situation, not retrospectively changing the basis of scheme rules while sharing members absolutely huge frustrations with it.

And that is why I continue to encourage trustees and sponsoring employers to think carefully about the effect of inflation on members benefits when making decisions. The pension regulator, as I said, already sets out the trustees should consider specifically, not just generally, specifically consider the situation of those members and whether the scheme has a history of making such awards. The point I was just making. Pension legislation sets minimum legal standards for all schemes must meet, and they are designed to strike this balance between fair and workable and stable DB landscape.

I completely recognise the case for change that the right hon. Member for New Forest East made today and has made in the past. The challenge, obviously, is that it would be unreasonable to retrospectively change longstanding rules in blanket terms, in a way that would put some scheme stability at risk, either some scheme stability at risk today, by changing fundamentally their funding position or in future where we don't know, you know, what the world looked like. I'll of course give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But that if he would follow the recommendation of at least giving the trustees the full power to make the decision over discretionary awards and taking it away from the company, one can be pretty sure that if the scheme went into deficit, the trustees would act

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deficit, the trustees would act accordingly. Minister. I'll come on to in a second. The point he's making, which is about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

point he's making, which is about where power lies in the system. My hon. Friend Nia Griffith. Minister for his time in meeting us in Swansea, as well as the time he spent on this topic here in the House. He mentions the you know, the disadvantages of making any sort of blanket legislation, but would he not agree that there are ways that you can caveat it, such as when the scheme is in surplus? And does he not recognise that in fact, most of these schemes were actually paying increases until they then stopped, either because of financial crisis or because they realised they didn't have to? So there are options that could be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

explored. Would he be willing to do that? Mr. Well, my hon. Friend has, as I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my hon. Friend has, as I said before, been a powerful campaigner on this, and I absolutely recognise the point she makes about where there was a habit of paying discretionary increases of paying discretionary increases in the past. On on the question of what we do about it, let me come on to my remarks in terms of what the government's approach is, and then maybe offer two reflections specifically on the points that have been raised that we might want have been raised that we might want to continue making progress on.

Even if I can't satisfy all the demands for an instantaneous change. Change today. Now, as I was saying, what are we doing? Well, the reforms introduced in the Pension Schemes Bill will give more trustees of such schemes. The flexibility to release surplus. This will help shape the balance of power between trustees and employers when it comes to well-funded schemes. So there is not nothing we can do, and I think the Pension Schemes Bill will make a difference, particularly in the kind of schemes that are being raised tonight, which are those with a surplus today.

Now, the decision to release surplus will remain entirely with the trustees. This will place them in a better position to negotiate benefit improvements as part of any release. And it is entirely for trustees working with the employer to determine how members may benefit. If. Let me be really clear, if trustees wish to insist on discretionary pre 1997 indexation as a condition for surplus release, they will be entitled to do so. I expect many will. Given the discussions I have had with them, obviously in early stages of that bill, it hasn't passed through yet.

And also employers and trustees are thinking through a world where they suddenly find themselves with a surplus and are thinking about what that means for the future of their pension scheme. In many cases. Cases. Now these reforms recognise both trustees and members understandable frustration with the status quo, but also the diverse circumstances of DB schemes. Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me end with two reflections on the wider contributions that members have made, particularly the hon. Member that has brought us here today.

Firstly, whatever the scheme rules, there is no excuse for employers not to fully engage with trustees on these decisions and these questions, and I've heard too often from members and from trustees that that is not the case. And I will take away to consider what more we can do in this regard to make sure that there is an open consultation and people are clear about what is going on and how decisions are being taken. And secondly, I do recognise, given the importance of this matter, that it would be beneficial to develop a clearer understanding of the circumstances, particularly in the issues being raised in which well-funded schemes are not, are choosing actively not to award discretionary increases, particularly where the employer consent is the binding constraint.

The pensions regulator has been considering how it might build its evidence base in this area, and I will talk to them in the weeks and months ahead about what more we can do in that regard. Let me finish by just paying tribute to my hon. Friend from North Durham and the others that have participated in tonight's debate, but also those members who are not here tonight but have consistently raised this issue with me. I will be meeting other ones of those in the coming weeks as well, who have asked to discuss this with themselves and their constituents.

It's important that we have the chance to discuss these important matters tonight, and I'm glad that we've had the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chance to discuss them. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn as many hours of that opinion, say I. The ayes have
09:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
-

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