Commons Chamber

Wednesday 15th April 2026

(began 3 days, 23 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:33
None Portrait Private Business
-

Order, Order, order. Order, order. The Order, order. The clerk Order, order. The clerk will Order, order. The clerk will now proceed to read the titles of the private Bill set down for consideration.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cheltenham Borough Council (Markets) Bill. Third Reading. Now, Mr. Speaker. The question is that the bill now be read a third time. As many of that opinion say, I. The country. No, I think the ayes have it. The No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that the bill now be considered as many Royal Albert Hall Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Royal Albert Hall Bill. Royal Albert Hall Bill Lords Report stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Report stage. Objection taken. Debate to be taken. What day? Wednesday the 22nd.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. Hang on a minute. We've already got one objection. I object

**** Possible New Speaker ****

already got one objection. I object to that. How's that? Sorry. Wednesday, the 22nd of April, Mr. Speaker. Wednesday the 22nd of April. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wednesday the 22nd of April. The presumed. The bill relating to City presumed. The bill relating to City of London. Objection. Two objections. What? Reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary. Permission. What day? Wednesday. The 22nd of April.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wednesday. The 22nd of April. We now come to motion related. Royal Albert Hall Bill. The chairman of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Albert Hall Bill. The chairman of Ways and Means formally. Objection taken. Motion to protect. What day? Wednesday. The 22nd of April.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wednesday 22nd of April. Thank you. Thanks, everyone. Right. Order. you. Thanks, everyone. Right. Order. Before we begin today's proceedings,
11:35
11:36
11:36
None Portrait Q1. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle child poverty in Scotland. (908689)
-

Edwards. Pamela Nash. Sorry.
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
None Portrait Q2. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues through the Pride in Place programme to support regeneration in Scotland. (908690)
-

Irene Campbell.
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:56
11:57
None Portrait Q7. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the Energy Profits Levy on the oil and gas sector in Scotland. (908696)
-

>> Number seven. Mr Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. There we are. I got there in the end, Mr.
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:07
12:08
12:09
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
Prime Minister. >> She was clear in what she was saying. She said we should give. She said we should give verbal support. I suppose that's standing on the side saying get in there. on the side saying get in there. Good luck mate. You've got this. Mr. Speaker. That is her approach. We are reforming welfare and spending more on defence. They did neither. The welfare bill rose by £88 billion. On their watch, it soared by £33 billion under the shadow Chancellor's watch.

We're fixing it. What did they do? They voted against it. They voted to keep the broken system. So taking advice from the party opposite on reforming welfare and defence spending is like asking Liz Truss

**** Possible New Speaker ****

how to keep your mortgage down. This is so poor from the Prime

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is so poor from the Prime Minister. This is this is Labour. MPs are laughing, Labour MPs are laughing. Mr. speaker, this is a laughing. Mr. speaker, this is a moment of profound national seriousness. And what are they doing? They're promoting sex toys doing? They're promoting sex toys in Parliament. That's what they're doing. Mr. speaker, it gives a whole new meaning to fiddling while Rome burns. Mr. speaker, it is being. That's what they're doing. Mr. speaker, let's get back to the issue of the defence investment plan and defence spending.

It is being reported that the Treasury is asking the MoD to make £3.5 billion worth of cuts this year. He won't fund our military because he wants to fund more welfare. That's why he has a welfare plan to 2031, but no defence investment plan at all. Now that the Chagos surrender deal is dead. Will the Prime Minister put the billions saved from ditching Chagos into defence, or is that going into welfare as well?
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:35
None Portrait
-

12:37
12:40
12:42
12:43
12:44
12:45
12:47
12:47
12:48
12:49
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:54
12:55
12:55
12:56
12:57
12:58
12:59
13:00
13:01
13:02
13:03
13:03
13:04
13:05
13:05
13:06
13:07
13:08
Scott Arthur Portrait Dr Scott Arthur MP (Edinburgh South West, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm proud to be part of a government that is building ships in Scotland, whereas our Scottish Government colleagues are building ferries in Poland, Turkey and now China. Quite incredible. Mr. speaker, would be very pleased to hear that I always use security guards at my surgeries. And the young chap who attended my surgery last year in Oxgangs library, he had just left three rifles, and he said he left because he joined some years ago on the promise of travel and excitement.

But he spent a lot of time in barracks because of the lack of funding in our armed services. The last time I visited three rifles, they had just come back from Finland, and some were about to go back there to serve alongside our allies. Some were due to go to Iraq, but I understand that trip may not have happened and they are all now better paid. Outside the barracks site, people can see the homes getting renovated. There's a little bit of jealousy about the quality of the kitchens, I have to say.

And recently, just before the recess, I was able to give a tour from one of our defence primes to a young apprentice who lives in Dubai and Edinburgh South West. And she was very clear, this is not an apprenticeship, it is not a job. It's a whole career before her because of the scale of what's happening in the sector. So when the Minister goes round defence establishments, when he goes round our defence contractors, what is the mood? Do they trust us to deliver against this Budget commitment?
13:09
13:10
13:10
13:11
13:12
13:12
13:13
13:14
13:14
13:15
13:16
13:16
13:17
13:18
13:19
13:20
13:21
13:21
13:22
13:22
13:23
13:24
13:25
13:26
13:27
13:27
13:28
13:28
13:28
13:29
13:30
13:31
13:31
Luke Pollard Portrait Luke Pollard MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Labour )
-
-
I don't know where he's been for most of the time, because I've been very clear, and he's trying to put words in my mouth, and I appreciate him giving it a good go, but he's not going to get away with that, I'm afraid. In relation to this. Look, we live in a new era of threat. I think he knows that as well. We are dealing with hollowed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out and underfunded forces. I think privately he might not be able to put in a SoundBite, but he can concede that the state of the forces he. His government passed over to this Labour government isn't the one that I think. Perhaps in hindsight, that I think. Perhaps in hindsight, he would have liked. So we have to invest in our forces. We have to invest in new stockpiles. We have to invest in new technologies. We to invest in new technologies. We have to retire old kit and equipment that wouldn't work in Ukraine.

That's unsuited to modern combat. And we have to do all of that at the time. As well as addressing the defence housing crisis, the recruitment crisis and the ever falling morale, we've now stabilised morale in the armed forces. We have a plan to improve defence spending, to increase it 5 billion extra in our Budget, moving to 2.53 and 3.5 as I've set out, but also a plan to invest in the latest technologies. I hope in hindsight he'll be able to welcome that investment by entirely understand why he has to have an attacking soundbite for his socials.

In the meantime.
13:32
13:33
13:34
13:35
13:36
13:37
13:38
13:39
13:40
13:40
John Slinger Portrait John Slinger MP (Rugby, Labour)
-
-
Friday the 8th of May. We now come to the ten minute rule motion John Slinger. John Slinger. >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that leave Speaker. I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a bill to make provision about the regular broadcast of news about creative arts and culture, to make provision about duties on the Secretary of State, Ofcom and certain broadcasters in relation to such broadcasts and for connected purposes. First, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me declare an interest.

I'm a classically trained violinist who learnt at Beecham Music Group and benefited from a brilliant musical provision at Newent Community School. I'm also a guitarist, keyboardist and singer songwriter who played in rock bands including Eyes of Eden, Never Home Club ten, Second star on the New loafers and unless you were going to gigs in the late 1990s in Gloucestershire, or you were listening to radio one at one particular moment on one particular evening, you won't have heard of those bands.

I want to ask members of this House, when was the last time you heard or saw news dedicated to culture or our brilliant creative arts? Of course, you will have seen dedicated coverage of a singular creative news story, but what about a bulletin that brings you regular, updated coverage of cultural events happening both locally and nationally? Art exhibitions, concerts, orchestras, dance classes, art groups and choirs. So many great events are happening. They'll be just don't hear about. Due in part to irregular and fragmented news coverage.

Yet we all know when the local football club down the road was relegated or hopefully indeed promoted, people might instinctively think that sport has an enormous audience. And of course it does well. Millions of people attend theatres, galleries, concerts and cinemas every week as spectators. This is not a niche interest. It is a massive, underserved audience. Regular creative arts bulletins would serve that audience in the same way that sports bulletins serve sports fans. But there's another audience Madam Deputy Speaker beyond the spectators, the participants, young and old, in all genres at all levels, professional and amateur elite, and perhaps most importantly, ordinary, ordinary people participating in the creative arts are doing something extraordinary for themselves, their community and far beyond a refrain heard all too often following the regular news programmes is.

And now for the sports and weather. But what if we add one extra word? I hope that my bill might lead to the following

**** Possible New Speaker ****

phrase. And now for the sports culture and the weather. Yeah. It would be a small but important alteration to how we receive news and the value we place on cultural events. My bill in on cultural events. My bill in practice would instruct Ministers and responsible bodies such as Ofcom to engage with and ultimately, if necessary, require, broadcasters who run regular news programmes to who run regular news programmes to complement their sports news bulletins with a dedicated culture bulletin highlighting creative arts events and activities.

By no means would this replace sports coverage or seek to replicate it, since, of course, sports have more competitions and leagues and therefore generate a certain type of interest and therefore news, it would simply level the playing field if you excuse the pun. Or to put it another way, bring things into harmony, ensuring that everyone is playing in the same key now. Thank you for laughing. I love sports, indeed. I represent the constituency of Rugby, probably the only place in the world where a sport was both born in and named after a town.

It is important that sports news is broadcast. It is an important part of people's lives and promotes healthy lifestyles and much more. Regular sports bulletins in broadcast news normalise sport as an important part of community life, but there is no objective reason Madam Deputy Speaker why the same should not be done for the creative arts. I would argue that cultural news items are just as important a fixture in people's lives. After all, who doesn't listen to music, watch films or appreciate artwork or poetry? Cultural institutions, theatres, cinemas, galleries and local venues, and not just physical venues, but also the numerous musical groups such as brass bands, artists groups, creative clubs in schools, colleges and universities, and in civil society host newsworthy events every day.

Yet there is no consistent, recognisable broadcast space where audiences can receive up to date creative arts news. This represents a clear gap in the current provision, cultural events and the creative arts are a massive contributor to our economy. According to the House of Commons Library, in 2024, the latest year available, the creative industries generated 145.8 billion in gross value added, accounting for 5.5% of total UK GVA. In comparison, the sports industry generated 20.6 billion, or 0.8% of total UK GVA.

Exports in 2021 include 9.1 billion in goods and 45.6 billion in services. Madam Deputy Speaker. The economic contribution is undeniable, but the benefits of promoting cultural news items go far beyond the economic creative arts. Engagement improves physical and mental health, cognitive function, recovery and social connection, a DCMS commissioned report found. Grade A evidence that arts engagement reduces depression, improves early years development, enhances mood and life satisfaction, and supports older people's cognitive and, importantly, physical health.

Social prescribing shows a return of approximately £3 for every £1 invested. We often hear how sports participation participation improves discipline, teamwork and confidence. In essence, some important hard skills. But people often have the misconception that the creative arts are all about soft skills. Or, as I like to put it, sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya. Now I've done that. It's lovely, but it's not the only part and I'm not going to do it now, as my hon. Friend tries to induce me to do.

If you learn an instrument or create a painting, it takes massive amounts of hard work. If you play in an orchestra or act in a play, that's discipline. So the creative arts are about soft and hard skills. And we're told that in this age of AI, we need creative thinkers. We're told that, and becoming a spectator participant, or both. It would inspire people, especially young people, to engage in the right kind of AI. Actual involvement. It would broaden the reach of our creative arts to new and more diverse audiences.

It would help stimulate local high streets and local economies and drive job creation, particularly in a sector where it's often too hard for artists to make a living. Despite their talent and hard work. It would help the creative arts to strengthen community cohesion. And how would this work in practice? Madam Deputy Speaker, My bill would legislate for a central pool of news items that organisations can submit to, from which regional and national broadcasters could source their stories. Ofcom would have a duty to amend the Broadcasting Code and all public service broadcasters and others deemed by the Secretary of State to have a significant audience would be required to include regular cultural news bulletins as part of my campaign.

I have launched an online petition to gather support from the creative world, the creative industries and the general public. So don't just take my word for it. More than 250 organisations and individuals already back my idea. Creative arts bulletins featuring in all news broadcasts will elevate and normalise the creative arts, stimulate interest in schools, promote activities at both national and local levels, boost engagement and participation and support town centre regeneration and economic growth. The bill does not require government spending.

It does not subsidise the arts, although I obviously welcome more funding for the arts under this Labour government. It does not displace or denigrate sport, it simply ensures that creative arts and culture are given the visibility, visibility that they so deserve in our national conversation. We have the best creative arts in the world, Madam Deputy Speaker, and one of the most vibrant scenes at all levels of society, particularly in my constituency of Rugby and and the hon. Members.

It's time that more people heard about this, heard about what's going on nationally, regionally and locally, Madam Deputy Speaker, Creative arts bulletins would help bring about the mind shift needed throughout society to normalise, celebrate and promote participation in the creative arts and help embed them

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consciousness. The question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the Member have leave to bring in the Bill, as many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary, no. opinion, say I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Adam Jogee. Jess Brown-Fuller. Cat Eccles. Bambos. Charalambous. Peter Prinsley. Doctor Simon Opher. Doctor. Beccy Cooper. Jonathan Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

John Slinger. Creative Arts.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Creative Arts. And Culture Broadcasting Requirements Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Reading. What day? 5th of June. Madam Deputy Speaker the 5th of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker the 5th of June. Ways and means. Motion June. Ways and means. Motion Minister to move. The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Program

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion to be moved formally. I move formally. The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

day. Pension Schemes Bill consideration of Lords amendments.
13:52
13:53
13:53
Torsten Bell Portrait Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Swansea West, Labour)
-
-
their amendments, which will which we can consider today, and in particular to Baroness Sherlock and to Lord Katz for steering of the Bill in recent months. This is a complex bill, but one with a simple goal higher returns for pension savers. And as I noted at Second Reading, this is a particular responsibility of this House because it is legislative action in the form of auto enrolment that has got Britain back into the habit of workplace pension savings. We must ensure those savings deliver overcoming the challenges of a system that is too fragmented, and where there is insufficient focus on how hard people's savings work to support them in retirement and a complex bill means something else.

Amendments. The government itself has normal brought forward changes in the other place that we today ask this House to endorse. The vast majority are technical, ensuring the legislation works as intended. Of the more substantive changes. I would highlight. Three first, on Superfunds, the government has tabled amendments. In the other place that will help to ensure that Superfunds will not be forced to wind up when they still provide a high level of security to their members. Second, on the Atomic Weapons Establishment Pension Scheme, we are reflecting the reality that since 2021, AWB has been wholly owned by the Ministry of Defence.

It was closely defined. Benefit Pension Scheme is backed by a Crown Guarantee amendments. Therefore, move it on to the same basis as other central government pension schemes. Members accrued rights are, of course fully protected. Finally, on value for money measures, amendments provide for provisions to be commenced via regulations to allow decisions about the introduction of elements of the VfM framework to reflect detailed design, work and consultation. Madam Deputy Speaker Peers in the other place have, as always, provided useful scrutiny of the Bill.

So let me turn to doing justice to their amendments. First, the amendments to the Local Government Pension Scheme Amendment one understandably tries to introduce an explicit prohibition on regulations about investment in specific assets or asset classes, or about the location of investments. This is duplicate, duplicative. You can say that because a 2020 Supreme Court ruling effectively meant that LGPS regulations cannot provide such direction without a specific basis from Parliament, and there is no new provisions in the bill that would allow it to be provided.

Amendments five and six relate to worries about excessive prudence in the valuation of the Local Government pension scheme, and I recognise the intent behind these amendments, given the importance of those valuations for decisions about contribution levels, and I can offer hon. Members some reassurance on that front. The 2025 valuations look set to see the average employer contribution rate in England and Wales reduced by slightly less than 5% on average, a substantial reduction. Amendment five would introduce specific benchmarks for the next valuation in 2028, but the right way to learn lessons from this valuation is via the statutory review by the government Actuary's Department, which will begin shortly.

Amendment six focuses not on the LGPS valuations themselves, but on facilitating employers seeking interim reviews between valuations and. I've heard calls for this from several members over the last few months. However, the government has already committed to consulting on those regulations governing interim contribution reviews, reflecting the requirement in the Public Service Pensions Act to consult on changes to regulations, something this amendment would breach. Turning to small pots, I'm pleased to see there remains a strong consensus on the need to act here, given the cost to individuals, but also to the pension system as a whole of the proliferation of small pots.

This is an area where work was begun under the party opposite. Amendment 13 probes the case for extending the dormancy period for automatic consolidation from 12 months to 36 months, and I recognise the intent here. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, this would be a mistake. It would significantly prolong the period during which a pot remains both small and dormant, with members facing multiple sets of charges and the wider scheme membership continuing to subsidise scheme losses on such pots, which might total around £50 million per

**** Possible New Speaker ****

year. Of course. Joe Robertson probably the fact with the people who give advice here to move in the direction. Then someone else will give them advice to move in another direction. What would the Minister and government do to give the correct support and advice to those people who are hesitant or unsure about what to do with their pension pots at a time? That's really, really important. I think we see many scams here which are happening in relation to it.

So just to make sure that the pensioners in particular have the opportunity to get the advice that they need very, very much. Thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you so much. Well, as always, the hon. Member asks an excellent question. For people who are currently still working. I think it is important to keep the simple advice front of mind, which is people should be mind, which is people should be saving towards their pension in almost all circumstances. Not all, but in almost all circumstances. Saving is the right thing to do. We have strong tax incentives in the system to encourage people to do that. So I think making sure that that.

So I think making sure that message is heard loud and clear, and I'm sure he does make that clear with his constituents. On the harder question, which is the advice for those reaching towards retirement and deciding how to use their pot. And it is often right to take advice. And money and Pensions Advice Service obviously exists to provide that to people. Some others choose to take it from other sources, not least from their providers themselves. But I think it is right that we are leaving currently too much pressure on individuals to manage those decisions alone.

And that's why the default pensions parts of this bill, which again, I think have cross-party support, are important in simplifying that journey for people. So yes, they can do what they want if they choose to do so, but they won't end up with a bad outcome just because they're faced with a kind of confusing situation in front of them. The onus will be on trustees and providers of pensions to navigate that. For those for those individuals. But just just coming back to small pots, I want to make one specific point that was raised in the other place, which was worries about those who are taking career breaks, particularly for maternity leave and maybe seeing a dormant pot for a period of time.

And I want to reassure the House that paid maternity leave obviously does see contributions continue into pension pots rather than the pot becoming dormant. And there is the most important wider safeguard, which is the ability for anyone to opt out of their pot being consolidated exactly for this kind of eventuality, even though that would be in a very small number of cases. Madam Deputy Speaker, I now turn to the bill's reserve power on asset allocation, a reserve power that has one purpose supporting better outcomes for savers and one use case underpinning the industry's collective view that delivering those better outcomes for savers over time is supported by a more diverse asset allocation.

So let me spell out this a bit more. Let me spell this out a bit more, as I'm being encouraged to do so by the frontbench opposite. There is strong evidence, not least internationally, that pension savers interests lie in greater investment diversification than we currently see in the UK DC market. This is why 17 of the UK's largest providers designed and signed the Mansion House Accord, committing to invest at least 10% of their default funds in private markets by 2030. Now, these schemes are not acting.

They are. They're not just talking. They are acting, building up the capacity to invest in a wider range of assets. But while the industry is making progress, they have also spelt out a well recognised collective action problem, an industry dynamic that sees competitive pressure to win and retain employers, driving a narrow focus on keeping costs as low as possible, not on what matters to the employees. The net returns on their savings, which I think is what we all want to see schemes doing now.

This risks a pension provider that is building the diverse investment capability to deliver returns for savers, being undercut by a competitor making a virtue of not doing so even though they know that is not in savers best interest. The industry raises this. The industry itself raises this issue. So it is not an abstract risk because it is already happened. Under the previous government, the Mansion House Compact saw a narrower agreement on the importance of private market signed. It was signed, but it was not delivered.

And the question is why not? Given that we all agreed it would have been good. I'm going to come. Why was it not delivered? Well, the industry has now published their own progress update, spelling out why it was not delivered. What was the single biggest barrier to delivering on their commitment? In their words, it was. Market dynamics continue to focus on minimising cost instead of maximising long term value, and without intervention. To shift that culture, too much focus on cost remains the key barrier.

That is the collective action problem in a nutshell. Solving it, giving the industry certainty that they can do what is in savers interests because the rest of the market will move to is the only purpose of the reserve power. That is why we cannot support the Lords amendments that seek to remove it. To do so would be to let savers down, to ignore the strong consensus about what is in savers interests, and to disregard the barriers we all know is holding back, delivering against that consensus.

A view spelt out, a view, a view spelt out by the previous Chancellor of the party opposite. Now, I have been clear that this is the only reason the reserve power exists to reinforce that point. Our amendments in lieu today spell out the power can only be used to support the industry's view of what is in savers interests. As laid out in the Mansion House accord. They do this in two that the majority of savers contributions are held by schemes that are signed up to the Mansion House Accord.

I've just. I've just explained to the hon. Member why he should be worried. He's happy to carry on with the status quo. We are not. Now we're going to do. We're going to set this out in two ways. Firstly, specifying on the face of the bill that regulations under the reserve power cannot require more than 10% of assets to be held in qualifying assets overall, or more than 5% in the UK, exactly matching the Mansion House commitments. Secondly, our amendments require any regulations to implement the reserve power to be entirely neutral as between asset classes, spelling out that a future government that took a different view to this, one could not use the power to direct investments into handpicked asset classes.

Madam Deputy Speaker. The existing safeguards in the bill also remain the time limit, reporting requirements, affirmative procedure and, most importantly, savers. Interest tests that allow pension schemes not to deliver against the reserve power requirements where that is not in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their interest. Savers interest to do so, of course. I thank the Minister again for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister again for giving way. I've just been sent a request from a person by Coleman. request from a person by Coleman. Can I ask a question directly to me, and can I confirm that the government revived investment government revived investment powers would never be used to direct capital away from Northern Ireland infrastructure and small Ireland infrastructure and small business in favour of national priority projects? Because that's the question I've been asked. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need to ask the Minister. If I understand the hon. Member's questions. What we're ruling out is the ability for the ruling out is the ability for the power to be used for any purpose other than for the broad private asset class. So that would include asset class. So that would include questions of specific asset classes, but it would also include questions of geography. So I hope that gives the hon. Member the reassurance the hon. Member the reassurance that he is looking for.

Now. Madam Deputy Speaker, What is also in savers interest is tackling the savers interest is tackling the UK's fragmented pensions landscape. Scale matters. It reduces costs, opens up a wider range of investment strategy and it enables more active asset ownership. These arguments are ones I think of cross-party consensus, and they lie behind the measures in this bill to require pension schemes to operate at scale in the years ahead. Unfortunately, that policy objective, motivated by ensuring savers get the best returns, would be undermined by amendments 26 and 37, which seek to create more exemptions from the scale requirements for small schemes, and to do so in a way that would create ongoing uncertainty for years.

As schemes, regulators and likely courts debate whether the conditions for such exemptions have been met or not, a process that itself would impose significant costs on savers. Both regulators have also, as a result, expressed their concern that these amendments would be inoperable. I do, however, recognise the case made in this House and in the other place for the importance of both competition and innovation in the market, and that belies behind the pragmatic approach we have taken to achieving scale. Not only are pragmatic.

25 billion starting point, but time for smaller schemes to reach this point. With the transition pathway lasting until 2035, and the new entrant pathway will provide a route for truly new and innovative disruptors to enter the market. This supports the policy Intent of Lords amendments 35 and 43, which require the Secretary of State to have regard to innovation and competition when making regulations that support scale. These amendments are, however, largely duplicative, given that the bill already sets out the regulations under the clauses in chapter four, must take into account the conclusions of the review of Non-scale default arrangements, and that review will consider innovation and competition turning from private to public pension schemes.

Amendment 77 and 85 seek a review of the long term affordability of public service pension schemes, a matter I'm sure that many members are interested in the content of the proposed review, however, almost entirely overlaps with existing mechanisms through which public service pension details are reported, not least the office for Budget Responsibility, their reports and the whole of government accounts, reflecting the years ahead. Madam Deputy Speaker, Lord amendment 78 and 86 turned to the Pension Protection Fund and the potential for them to discharge their existing liabilities to members through a lump sum payment.

I understand the sentiments of those in the Other place who brought forward this amendment in recognition of the absence of pre 97 increases on PPF compensation, but this amendment would not achieve its intended objective of changing the level of compensation members are entitled to. Instead, the government is acting to improve the PPF safety net, with this bill providing for prospective pre 1997 indexation of compensation for members whose former schemes provided for those increases. Turning back to today's savers, we all want to see more engagement with pension savings and I'm an optimist on this front.

As DC pots grow, so will engagement with those savings Lords. Amendment 79 seeks to support that engagement from the perspective of providers, instigating a review of marketing and member communication rules. But instead of another review, the government favours acting to make it easier for pension schemes to give high quality support to their members. That is the purpose of the new targeted support regime, allowing schemes, for example, to suggest appropriate contribution and drawdown rates. In developing that policy, we have considered the interaction with the direct marketing rules contained in the Privacy and Electronic Communications regulations.

As a result, the government has committed to take forward secondary legislation to amend those regulations and we will also return to this issue as we develop default pension regulations through consultation later this year. Madam Deputy Speaker, Let me just close by thanking peers for their scrutiny of the bill and for their discussions I've had with many of them about it. I've endeavoured to do justice to the amendments returned to us, and particularly to the motivations for them. In aggregate, despite the divisions that the lobbies of the House and the Other place exist to facilitate, we all want to see a flourishing pension system that delivers for savers, and this bill plays a major part in making that happen.

Supporting a landscape of bigger, better pension schemes focussed on returns they deliver for members and ultimately the comfortable and hopefully long retirements we all want to see our constituents enjoy. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
14:09
Helen Whately Portrait Helen Whately MP (Faversham and Mid Kent, Conservative)
-
-
The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their disagrees with the Lords in their amendment, what I call Shadow Secretary of State. Helen Whately. >> Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Who knew the Pension Schemes Bill would become so controversial, a would become so controversial, a bill about which there was so much consensus, a bill begun by one party in government now being continued by another, a bill that could have sailed through Parliament. But no, that was not to be because the government had an idea, a bad idea. Labour saw £400 billion worth of pension funds, the savings built up through years of successful auto enrolment, and they were tempted.

We can picture them looking at the pensions piggybank and saying to each other, just imagine what we could do with that money, put it towards some of the energy sector is net zero schemes. Perhaps they have taxed the country to the hilt. They can't bring themselves to make savings on welfare. They've run the Treasury dry. So now they are coming for pensions and they snuck in the power we talk about as mandation, under the auspices of a backstop to the voluntary Mansion House agreement.

Well, well, well, it really did not have to be this way. If only the hon. Gentleman opposite had been a little bit more receptive to suggestions from other parties or, in fact, from the pension sector itself. It is hard to find anyone who supports his mandation policy. Pensions, UK Pensions Management Institute, the Association of British Insurers, Aviva, BlackRock. I could go on but they are all against Mandation and then any number of economists and respected voices, from Paul Johnson to Dominic Lawson, even his former colleague Ed Balls.

In the other place, noble Lords in their droves have sought to expose this policy for what it is. He should have listened to their debate as I did, but listening may be not something he likes to do. He even blocked one respected industry voice, Tom McPhail, on social media, when Tom simply called out Mandation for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what? It is a dangerous power grab by the government. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. My honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, exactly. My honourable. Friend, my honourable. Friend for giving way. Isn't the. Hallmark of every Labour government, is they end up running government, is they end up running out of other people's money, and when they do that, they end up borrowing. When that runs dry, they end up eyeing up our pensions like Gordon Brown did. Now, my constituents and many people contact me are deeply concerned about the Mandation powers in this bill and the impact that will have on their savings.

Does my friend agree that this is a real concern to us, and many people up and down the country are outraged at the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

powers that the government could do with their money? Exactly, exactly. My friend is exactly right. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My friend is exactly right. And sometimes the Pensions Minister talks about this as all technicalities. But the fact is, and the public can see it, this is and the public can see it, this is about the government coming after people's hard earned savings. They think it's a pension pot they can think it's a pension pot they can mess with. We know it's people's own savings and they do not know own savings and they do not know best. Don't just listen to us.

Listen to the noble Lords in the other place, because the Minister has returned to this House after suffering 12 defeats in the Other place 12 defeats. Madam Deputy Speaker, That is what happens when a government puts its fingers in its ears. This situation is entirely of the pensions Minister's own making, because there is a great deal of common ground here across this House. We want pensions policy to move forwards. We have shared ambitions for our pension system, like boosting pension pots through increased pension scheme scale and a greater focus on returns rather than minimising costs like greater transparency and consumer engagement in the size and performance of pension pots, and a system which works better for people with terminal illness.

Despite all the consensus, his bill is still far from the finish line. Madam Deputy Speaker, returning to the First Lords amendment, which the government is seeking to eject from this bill, the Mandation powers. I can say to the hon. Gentleman I have no disagreement with the objectives of the voluntary Mansion House agreement. On the contrary, I want to see more investment in the UK and higher returns for savers in default pension schemes, and there's widespread support for those objectives.

But even he should have realised he couldn't get away with saying this is just a backstop to the Mansion House agreement. When the Mandation power in his bill was so glaringly different back in December last year, I warned him that Mandation wouldn't wash, but he didn't listen. And that's why I fought this every step of the way, along with the pension sector, along with my colleagues on the front bench behind me and the noble Lords across in their chamber, who resoundingly rejected Mandation.

So the Minister is now back here with his tail between his legs and has changed his tune from it's all fine, nothing to see here to the three amendments reluctantly tabled last week. Now I recognise the direction the government is trying to move in, to rein in the power it is taking and to make it look make it look more aligned with the voluntary Mansion House accord. But the fundamental problem remains unresolved because at its core, this bill still gives the government the power to direct the investment of people's pension savings and that, as a matter of principle, is wrong here.

Madam Deputy Speaker. Pensions belong to savers, not the State Pension fund. Trustees are not there to fulfil manifesto commitments or chase political pet projects. They are the custodians of people's life savings. The bill gives the government the power to force people's pension savings to be invested in so-called qualifying assets, irrespective of the judgement of pension fund trustees, irrespective of what this could mean for returns and therefore retirement incomes, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

irrespective of whether it's in the interests of savers. Exactly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now, the Minister may now point to limiting figures 10% in qualifying assets and 5% in the UK, and present this as progress from the previously unlimited undefined power. And it's true, it is a power. And it's true, it is a little less bad. But let me be clear if it is wrong in principle,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clear if it is wrong in principle, doses. Yeah yeah yeah. And there is a further problem. Even on its own terms, the drafting of the amendment may well not do what the government intends as currently written, the amendment refers to assets held in default funds of the scheme as a whole. This may sound technical, but it actually matters. The Mansion House Accord applies only to main default funds, and this wording goes further. That means a 10% requirement could apply to a much broader pool of assets, expanding the policy well beyond what the Minister says he intends.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, what do we have? We have a policy that is wrong in principle, unclear in practice and broader than the voluntary agreement it claims to reflect. And that does go to the heart of the problem. The government is trying to turn a voluntary agreement into something it was never meant to be. And the differences between this bill and the voluntary accord are not minor. They are fundamental. The Mansion House Accord applied only to its signatories, but this mandation would apply across all default auto enrolment funds.

The accord was a two way agreement. Commitments from the sector matched by commitments from the government. But Mandation applies regardless of whether government delivers on its side of the bargain. And most fundamentally, the accord was voluntary. Mandation is not. This will be the law and a voluntary agreement ceases to be voluntary the moment it is backed, even by the threat of compulsion, the industry supported a voluntary accord. It has not supported Mandation. The industry wants more investment in the UK and higher returns for savers, as do we, and so say the government.

Do they? But by forcing pension funds to do this, rather than fixing the underlying problems with UK investability, the government actually risks lowering returns for savers and therefore their future incomes. Once the government has the power of mandation to force investment in the UK, does anyone think they will still be motivated to make the UK a better place to invest in, to do business in? Let's just watch as they look for extra taxes. They can slap on businesses for extra red tape, that they can tie them up in.

Now, the Minister has told the House that he has no intention of using Mandation, that it is merely a backstop, a reserve. But the government's own briefing on this amendment accompanying their amendments tells a different story. It says what will happen not if, but when the government uses the mandation power. I urge him to look at it, look at the wording. It says not if, but when. Madam Deputy Speaker, that is not the language of a government that intends to leave a power sitting quietly unused on the statute book.

In fact, once this power over pensions rests in the hands of Ministers, it will not sit. Idle at every Budget under this Labour government. As growth flounders, unemployment rises and public finances deteriorate. Just watch the Chancellor reach for the mandation lever. The Rubicon will have been crossed. To be clear, if and I say if Labour succeed in forcing this through when the Conservatives are back in government, we will repeal Mandation because your pension

**** Possible New Speaker ****

belongs to you, not the Chancellor. A exactly. Madam Deputy. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. Let me turn to the scale requirement in the Bill and Lords Amendment 26, tabled by my colleagues. In the other place, their amendment makes a simple point size can bring benefits, but smaller, well-run schemes should smaller, well-run schemes should not be forced to merge if they are delivering for members. What matters to savers is performance, matters to savers is performance, not sheer size. That is why the exemptions proposed in the Other place matter. It recognises that good governance, competition and innovation should not be squeezed out by a blunt rule.

I will also turn briefly to Lords Amendment 77, calling for a review into the cost and sustainability of public sector pension schemes. This is not about criticising public servants or taking away pensions that have already been earned, but we should also be honest about how these pensions are financed. Unlike most private sector pension schemes, public sector defined benefit pensions are largely paid from current taxation, not from investment funds built up over time. As the public sector workforce grows and people live longer, the cost of those commitments will inevitably rise.

Yet the true scale of those liabilities is not always clearly visible in our public finances. The OBR estimates the long term liability at around £1.4 trillion. This is why there is a strong case for a serious and transparent review, one that examines long term sustainability and also considers fairness between generations, because the commitments made today will ultimately fall on future taxpayers. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government was defeated so many times in the House of Lords that I will not test your patience by setting out the arguments on every single one of the amendments.

I urge the government to heed the points already made and make the concessions that would improve this bill. And when it comes to the deeply flawed Mandation plan, let's tell the public the truth. Socialists always run out of other people's money. First they came for earnings, then they came for your savings and now for your pension. The principle at stake here is simple. Your pension belongs to you, not the government. It is not a piggy bank for Ministers to raid when they run out of money.

Conservatives see the world differently. Your pension is your hard earned and hard saved money for your retirement. We want higher returns for pension savings. We want more investment in the UK. But the way to do that is not to force the hand of pension funds, but to make the UK a great place to invest in black businesses and grow the economy. So I say again to the Minister, listen to the industry, listen to the other place and listen to us. There is a strong consensus behind much of this bill.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is much to liken it and there is still time to fix it. Yes, exactly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, exactly. I'll now call Debbie Abrahams Abrahams. Thank you. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. And well, I have to say, I'm a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Little bit. Surprised by the opposition frontbenchers contribution. I understand that contribution. I understand that pensions UK have agreed in relation to the asset allocation and have actually welcomed the change that has been announced, in line with the amounts prescribed in the Mansion House Accord. So I really
14:22
Debbie Abrahams Portrait Debbie Abrahams MP (Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
-
-
don't recognise what the hon. Lady has, has, has said. Some of the accusations I have to say about accusations I have to say about about stealing pensioners money by the government, stealing pensioners money are just scaremongering, money are just scaremongering, which which really, which really which which really, which really you've had. Yeah, exactly. So I mean, if if my hon. Friend would like to intervene on me, I'd be very happy if he wants to sort of say how ludicrous that that is.

But but it can't not go. This is scaremongering. It's dangerous scaremongering, I have to say, given the government presided over a doubling of pensioner poverty during their time, I think they should be quite ashamed of themselves really. So I could. My hon. Friend, in his closing remarks, could he clarify in terms of where the where the UK stands in terms of current pension providers, investments in UK assets? As I understand it, we are quite low down the rankings.

So in terms of we are we are one of the countries that is in the 5% range, whereas I think we join Canada and Norway in that compared to, for example, those like Sweden and Switzerland who are investing 10% in their countries investable assets, they are. And then at the high end, we've got Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, 20% or more. So if you see if you see, I think it's my turn to speak. If you if you then compare how we would how we are disadvantaged by that, then then perhaps we, we could reflect on on that.

So I'll be supporting the government. But if you could clarify the the points that have been made, I also. And you won't be surprised. I'll take the. A brief opportunity to mention about pre 1997 indexation. I know it's not in the list that was selected, but it was part of the overall. Amendments that were debated. I know he has done a huge amount already in terms of providing that indexation, but if I could put on the record that the that members of the FAS scheme, the financial Assistance Scheme, a very elderly group, they were particularly disadvantaged by the changes that came in.

And there are fewer and fewer of them. I know it's difficult, but when given the appalling financial circumstances that this government inherited and the difficulties at an international level that we are facing, but when opportunities allow, I do hope he will do the right, right thing by those members. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
14:25
Steve Darling Portrait Steve Darling MP (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I now call the Liberal Democrat >> I now call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson Steve Darling. >> Thank you, Madam. >> Deputy Speaker. >> For many.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For many. People, a pension is their second largest investment against their home. But also we must their home. But also we must reflect there are many people who could only dream of having a private pension, who face the challenges within the lives of the current cost of living crisis. I, for us, as liberal Democrats, we want to make sure that pensions work effectively for those who invest in them. And there is much to be welcome within this bill.

And I would like to share with the chamber a personal reflection, because I know my father. He feared poverty in his pension, pensionable age, and he saved massively because he saw this poverty with his own father. My father was a lorry driver, but sadly he wasn't as fine as financially literate as maybe some other people. And he kept his savings in shares. And then the stock market crashed in 2008, and his money was virtually wiped out of his savings for his pension.

There are greater safeguards now around this, so perhaps that wouldn't have happened. The mis selling that he felt he had at that time, and that poor advice that he received from advisers. But this makes significant steps in the right direction for that. However, as liberal Democrats, we want to see our economy working well and a well working economy is a lack of state interference in direction of investment. It's right that we should, as a state, be encouraging investors where to go and have appropriate schemes to guide them.

But that idea of direction is anathema to us. We have seen almost a nervous twitch from this government repeatedly, whether it is the fraud, error and recovery bill or whether it is facial ID on our streets of giving more and more powers to Ministers, and that disturbs us. We would like, as liberal Democrats. Well, we would not we would like we are planning to vote against the government amendments in respect of amendment one and 15, particularly around Mandation, because Mandation is the dead hand of government on growth for people's pensions particularly.

And it goes against our free economy approach. We would also highlight that whilst the Minister may be a reasonable individual who knows this, this, this, this, this clock is ticking. We spent many hours. So the clock is ticking on this government and it may be 2 or 3 years. And we have a new we have a new government in post in 2 or 3 years, and we only need to look over the at the other side of the Atlantic of what democracy can throw up.

As far as that challenging approach to that mandates that we could be giving a future government that we don't know the colour of. And that reassurance is from the Minister here would not be worth, you know, a candle of those approaches. We fear that going ahead with this would be reckless and dangerous for our pensioners. Another area, and I know my colleague from Wokingham is going to be touching on this a little bit later on, is is pension scandals.

And this was mostly a missed opportunity of of pension scandals to be addressed as part of this big behemoth of a bill. But there is an amendment 78 which the government is sadly opposing on on the a t pensioners. And this is a small step in the right direction for the injustice that these pensioners have suffered. I'd remind people that the PAC Committee drew from the National Audit Office, where they highlighted that civil servants were poorly advised by government.

As far as the the idea of transferring this to the private sector and many of those pensioners have significantly lost out financially. So I would call on the government to reflect on that and just make that small step in the right direction. But we will be voting against the government's amendment. And then colleagues have alluded to size and scale of these pensions. It's mostly to be welcomed, but it shouldn't stifle, stifle innovation and that positive opportunities for people to invest on new projects, those those those disruptors that could change positively for there.

So there are three amendments that we will be voting against the government on a little later on to make sure that there is that opportunity for those disruptors in a positive way to come forward and drive new ways of investing for our pensioners up and down the United Kingdom. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

EIA Neil Duncan-Jordan. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd like to focus my remarks around Lords amendments one and 27, which Lords amendments one and 27, which I believe would seek to limit the government's ability to direct pension schemes away from what I pension schemes away from what I regard as high risk assets, with an uncertain future. Now, Ministers will recall that I put forward a series of proposals as the bill passed through this House, including on the divestment from fossil fuels, which is what I want to focus on this afternoon.

The Local Government Pension Scheme currently invests over £16 billion in fossil fuels, so we can see quite clearly that the voluntary
14:31
Neil Duncan-Jordan Portrait Neil Duncan-Jordan MP (Poole, Labour)
-
-
approach to divestment has failed. Ordinary working people's wages, Ordinary working people's wages, their hard earned savings are being channelled even now, into accelerating a climate crisis that hits the global working class the hardest. These amendments, I believe, would prevent the government from setting down government from setting down binding targets on certain investments, which in turn make it politically harder to bring down investments in fossil fuels. We know there is no retirement for any of us without a liveable environment.

It sounds obvious, but that reality is not reflected in how pensions are currently managed and the government knows this. Ministers, in the other place, acknowledge that investments in thermal coal, one of the most harmful fossil fuels, were high risk, both from a climate and financial viewpoint. It's bad for the planet and bad for pension holders who need stable, long term investments. This country removed thermal coal from the grid in 2024 because it has no future.

But alarmingly, we know that written question from written questions that neither the government nor the pensions regulator has a clear picture of how much is still invested in this soon to be stranded asset. Even funds that are held up as leaders on climate, such as borders to coast and the Universities Superannuation Scheme, have hundreds of millions of pounds invested in thermal coal. That's why we need to get a grip on this issue. There are no existing requirements on schemes to report on any fossil fuel investment, and hardly any do so voluntarily.

The first step is full transparency on these investments, followed by decisive action to phase them out. So I'm asking the Minister today if he will commit to writing to the biggest 50 pension schemes to get more detail on their level of thermal coal exposure, and will he follow it up by setting a time bound expectation for schemes to exit these assets, starting with thermal coal? Now, this may seem to some like a distant issue, but if workers are left exposed to stranded assets in their pensions, they will not forget politicians who chose to look the other way.

Now, this bill was a major opportunity to redirect billions in workers pensions away from arms manufacturers and fossil fuel giants, and into investments that benefit the very people who are paying in. That means green energy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will. My hon. Friend, for giving way. He's making a very eloquent and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's making a very eloquent and and serious speech. Would he agree with me that in addition to fossil with me that in addition to fossil fuels, we have local government pension schemes are exposed to pension schemes are exposed to industries and assets that the constituents rightly consider deeply unethical. In addition to deeply unethical. In addition to fossil fuels, tobacco companies, arms producers that are complicit in genocide, and other companies are exploiting nature or constituents for profit. Would you agree with me that there should be an ethical investment policy that covers all of these unethical investments?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his question. In fact, I raised something very similar when the bill was passing through this House earlier. That means, I think, that the investments that we could make the investments that we could make through our pension funds could go into green energy, which I think is into green energy, which I think is the growth engine of the future as well, as I would argue, affordable well, as I would argue, affordable and social housing, which is so needed in this country.

And it should be underpinned by greater democracy in our pension fund. So workers themselves have a say in where their money is invested. And I believe if that were the case, they would certainly choose not to put it into arms manufacturers or fossil fuels, but into decent homes for them and their communities. Now, the crisis in the Middle East has exposed the fragility of our dependence on fossil fuels. A break in the supply chain thousands of miles away has a catastrophic cascading effect here, driving up costs and deepening the cost of living for our constituents.

Would you like to make an intervention? OK. That is why we must accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, which some on the other side seem to disagree with. We must deliver long term energy security and bring down bills on domestic green with domestic green energy. But not only that, in this moment of deep crisis, the government must pull every lever it can to lift the weight of the cost of living crisis. And that must include gearing our pension funds towards a fairer, more prosperous future.

Thank you.
14:37
Katie Lam Portrait Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)
-
-
Katie Lam thank. >> Katie Lam thank. >> You, Madam Deputy Speaker. As my hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent Member for Faversham and Mid Kent has repeatedly and effectively highlighted, the Mandation power in this bill is a shocking power grab. this bill is a shocking power grab. She is also right to say that regardless of the apparent guardrails that the government has now introduced, this is still totally indefensible. Those in the other place are absolutely right to return this to us to reconsider, and it is in support of their amendment 15 that I will speak today.

The power to direct investments is not just flawed in its implementation, though it is. It is wrong in principle when people put aside money for their retirement and entrust it to a company to manage, they very reasonably expect their savings to be invested by whatever company they've chosen, in line with whatever instructions they've given about their preferences and risk tolerance. Shockingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, this government does not agree. Instead, they think that government Ministers should have the power to direct pension investments.

They want to give themselves the right to direct private pension providers to make decisions which are not in the best interests of their clients. If Ministers think that people's money should be invested in British assets, even if this will leave them with less money in your retirement, this bill will give them the right to force private companies to invest accordingly. You can work hard for a lifetime, save a little at the end of every month and at the stroke of a pen, Ministers will be able to decide where that money goes, even if that means that you will end up with less.

The government is right to identify that British assets are not always the most attractive investments. But the solution is not to just force people to invest in them anyway. It is to make the British economy a better place to operate and grow, to allow people to take risks and to allow businesses to do what they're good at, so that people choose of their own free will to invest here. The money that people earn belongs to them. It is theirs to do with as they wish.

It is not simply a tool that this government or any government can use to achieve their ideological aims. That should be true of every pound that people earn. It is a complete farce to suggest that by limiting the extent to which Ministers can mandate how people's money is invested, the government has addressed concerns about this mandation power. These so-called guardrails will be cold comfort to people across the country who are worried about whether they will have enough money to retire comfortably, and who are worried that their efforts will be frustrated by government Ministers pursuing ideological aims.

I hope that Ministers across the House will reject, and that members across the House will reject this power grab altogether. It cannot be right to punish those who work hard and save what they can.
14:40
Chris Vince Portrait Chris Vince MP (Harlow, Labour )
-
-
Chris Vince thank. >> Madam Deputy. >> Speaker, and I thank the Minister and Shadow Minister for opening this debate, a debate which opening this debate, a debate which I wasn't expecting to be quite so lively. So I'll try and I try and add a bit of animation to what was initially going to be quite a dry speech from me, Madam Deputy Speaker, And I should say, I know, I know hard, hard, hard to believe, I know, but I promise you I will mention pensions in Harlow at least half a dozen times.

To make up for it. I rise, Madam Deputy Speaker, to speak in Opposition of Lords Amendment six and 77. But before I do that, I would just like to say that I welcome this legislation, which will boost the income of pensioners receiving minimum pensions through a workplace scheme by the largest possible amount. One of the many things that this Labour Government are doing to support pensioners in my constituency, Harlow, that's one with rising living costs. This, coupled with fixing our NHS after years of austerity, protecting the triple lock pension, which means the new State Pension increasing by £575 this year, and basic State Pension by around £440, and also launching the largest Pension Credit drive in history, which I think we will all agree is hugely important with regard.

Lords amendment six. This Lords amendment, which I'm sure is, is absolutely well intentioned, requires the government to carry out an interim review of employer's contribution rates and for the Secretary of State to publish guidance. However, as the Minister said in his opening statement, this Lords amendment is redundant because this is something that this government will have already committed to and will do so later in the year. I'm going to make the next bit a little bit more racy, just to entertain people and speak in relation to Lords Amendment 77.

I'll take you back, if I may, to the summer of 2010, when I was in a pub with a friend of mine, I won't mention his name, and he turned around and said to me, you've got a gold plated pension, you teachers. And it always frustrates me when there is. And I'm not saying this is necessarily the intention of this amendment, but I think this is what this amendment absolutely could do. Create a divide between those people receiving public sector pensions and those people receiving private sector pensions.

And I would say that actually those public sector workers, including teachers, I did used to be a teacher. There's the next the Chris Vince bingo card is on the way is going well today, worked incredibly hard and actually contribute a huge amount to their pensions. Now, it doesn't mean, of course, that it absolutely isn't right to review public sector pensions. We have to do that as a government. That's the right and proper thing to do. But I think it's also worth bearing in mind, going back to what I said about Lords Amendment six, that we already do do that.

So I'm sure there is some well intentioned about Lords Amendment 77. However, once again it is redundant and I would really just generally say to people who would be tempted to criticise those receiving public sector pensions, the duty, surely, of a government shouldn't be to make public sector pensions worse, but surely it should be to make private pensions better so that everybody has the opportunity to save and be successful in their retirement to finish. Madam Deputy Speaker, I just want to make a few cheeky requests to the Minister while he's in his place.

I see the shadow Minister Chuntering over there. I'm going to be very nice to him because he's got fantastic hair, and also the fact that I know, I know I and also and also and also Madam Deputy Speaker, last time I spoke in this place, he kindly said, I made a really good point, which was incredibly kind of him. It must have been by mistake. Who knows. But my two requests of the Minister are just really to continue to work with the Secretary of State for health, because actually, the number one thing that pensioners in my constituency, Harlow, I think I mentioned twice in this speech talked to me about, is the importance of our NHS.

And when we talk about Princess Ellen Halesowen Hospital in Harlow and the wait times that pensioners have had to face, I'm delighted that we are seeing those wait times coming down because actually we not only want our pensioners to be able to save, to be financially stable in their retirement, but also to be healthy again. And finally, finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, the other thing I mentioned quite often when we talk particularly we spoke in this House, and apparently I made a really good point about final salary pensions.

I think it's really important and actually a point that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson made, that we have so many people in Harlow who are unable to save for pensions. We all know about the cost of living crisis. I'm not getting into a blame game, but we recognise there are challenges in terms of the cost of living, huge challenges for constituents in Harlow and actually they are living day to day. They can't even begin to think about saving for a pension. So my big request to the government would be to consider how we can ensure that those people who aren't able to save for pension are able to do so, because we don't want to be in a situation.

I've seen this myself working for a homeless charity in Harlow and people who didn't save their pension and having real challenges in later life. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
14:46
Tom Tugendhat Portrait Rt Hon Tom Tugendhat MP (Tonbridge, Conservative)
-
-
Tom Tugendhat thank you. called to this debate and sadly reflects the interest of the House that there are so few of us here in what is actually a debate about one of the most important elements that's going to affect our constituents, our friends, our neighbours, in fact, even our own futures, because pensions are rather more than just a savings scheme, they are actually that thread that binds generations. They are the remarkable invention of our ancestors, who found a way of making sure that the energy and the innovation and the force of the young could be tied to the assets and the education and the experience of the old.

And it's that bond between generations that makes pensions saving so special. And that's why I must say, while I welcome much of what this bill does, I fully align with my right hon. Friend from Faversham on her points on Mandation, because what this bill does in that one small area is repeat an error that was made nearly 30 years ago, and that was an error that was made for very understandable reasons, at a very tense moment in pension savings when we just had the mirror Group newspaper scandal, we just had the Equitable Life scandal, and the government took upon it powers that were entirely reasonable at the time to de-risk some of the private pension market.

Now that de-risking very gently at the beginning moved savings from equities into bonds. Now, right in the early days, it didn't make much of a difference. It took it from 19.1 to 19.3 and so on. As a percentage of bonds in an investment portfolio. Now that was the intention to just very slightly de-risk. But of course, the accumulation of time means that what has actually happened is that the bond market, or rather the bond element of a pension has grown.

So now in the UK, it's roughly 60%, whereas in Australia or Canada, similar economies, it's roughly 20. Now. This is a real problem. And it's not just a problem because it means that pensioners are getting a lower return because they're getting the return based on the debt of the country, not of the energy of young people. It's a problem because young people aren't getting that energy, that lifeblood that they so vitally need when they're starting their lives. Because let's let's look at the difference between equities and bonds.

The truth is bonds are fundamentally dead money. They are money taken by the state or held by the state in ways that payback over five, ten, 15, 20, in fact, a couple of times over 100 years. And equities is something fundamentally different. They're not predictable. That's true. They do have risk. That is also true. But what they are is they are a bet on the energy of the young people in our community. They are that bond. They are that ligature between generations that fundamentally makes a community strong rather than tearing it apart.

And so what we've seen over the last 30, 40 years or, sorry, 20, 30 years is we've seen those bonds erode. And what is the result? The results are a slower growing economy. Why? Because there's no assets to invest. There's no water for the crops if you like. There's no fertiliser for the soil. What else have we seen? We've seen young people moving away because they don't have the opportunity to start their business. Or when they start their business, they don't don't have the opportunity to go to the next stage.

We see an amazing start up culture here in the UK, but immediately you hit series A and B, people go to California, they go to America, they go to a Delaware corp and they go and they get foreign money. And that again and again and again is because the state's very, very understandable reasons, for entirely principled reasons, made a decision to take authority off savers in order to protect them. And I'm afraid that's what the hon. Member is doing again today.

Now, I understand his point. I mean, I do understand why he feels that he needs to take this power, because he feels that the government has a role in making sure that pensioners get a better deal. I get that, and he feels that the best way to do that is for the state to exercise its authority over a market system. I again, I understand that, but the problem that he's got is a very fundamental one, which is actually the only way you achieve the connection between generations and communities, the only way you get that life flow of the living blood of an economy, the equities market, rather than the dead hand of the state through the bonds, the only way you get that is in a free market.

And what he is doing by putting his hand on the tiller, putting his finger on it, on the scales, is he is changing that. And the incremental change over time is going to do much greater damage than he fully appreciates today, despite his best intentions and despite the intentions of this bill. And that is why I will not be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supporting the government today. John Milne thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, can I just give my support for the words of the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth earlier with regard to Saddleworth earlier with regard to pre 97 pensions and that long standing scandal? It's a it's a great injustice. It does feel like successive successive governments, including this one, sadly, are just waiting for the problem to literally, literally die away. But today I would like to speak to Lords Amendment 79, which aims to ensure that pension schemes can offer robust guidance without falling foul of the new regulatory landscape.

This bill will create. The Liberal Democrats remain committed to ensuring that this bill works for individual savers. Of course, it must work for our economy and for industry, but it must first and foremost help the little and less saver that requires ensuring savers have access to decent, relevant guidance on their pensions. Because without guidance, choice does not translate into good outcomes. The reality is that engagement with pension guidance for the average person person is, to put it simply, wasteful and worsening.

Around 90% of defined contribution pots are accessed without any engagement. With pension wise, uptake of the service has fallen by about 4% since 2018. Despite the fact that pension wise is demonstrably successful, nine out of ten users say that they would recommend it to others. That context matters because in 2015, the introduction of pension freedoms represented a significant opportunity to ensure guidance could be offered to far more people. Individual individuals were given responsibility for spending their pension savings, but that was often without a clear understanding of the tax implications or the consequences for later life.

Since then, from 2015 to 25, many, including the Work and Pensions Committee, have argued that this was precisely the period when an auto enrolment style trial for guidance should also have taken place. The government itself recognised the scale of the problem in 2022, when it introduced a stronger nudge towards pension wise. That followed a Department for Work and Pensions report, which showed a marked increase in drawdown products being accessed without guidance, rising from 5% to 30%. That over half of the transfers were out of pension products are often driven by mistrust and that lower income savers were disproportionately negatively affected by drawdown use compared with higher earners.

Yet even then, the opportunity to trial automatically booking guidance appointments something which was backed by the Work and Pensions Committee and Age UK, was not taken. Now the landscape has changed again. This Bill reshapes the regulatory framework in a significant way, including through the introduction of defaults for pot holders. That makes this moment another opportunity to ensure that as many savers as possible receive good quality guidance. But that chance will be missed if guidance is not properly embedded.

Alongside these reforms, defaults will fundamentally affect how savers interact with their pensions. That means that the government must provide urgent clarity not just for savers but for schemes and trustees as well. Schemes need clear and concise guidance on how defaults operate, and on what advice and guidance they can lawfully provide so they're protected from future legal challenge, ambulance chasing or scandal. Equally, savers themselves will need support to navigate what is often a collection of multiple parts with multiple defaults and varying outcomes.

What should not happen is for a default system being put in place without updated and clearly defined guidance alongside it that would risk encouraging passive defaulting. While alternatives are not properly explained or understood, which might act as supercharge the existing problem of disengagement rather than solving it. At the very least, we must ensure people are given the opportunity to engage. And while the Dashboard's imminent introduction might address some of these problems, it is not a silver bullet. The Department for Work and Pensions and the Minister have set out a roadmap for reform, but the big, glaring hole in that roadmap
14:56
14:56
Clive Jones Portrait Clive Jones MP (Wokingham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Clive Jones thank you. >> Clive Jones thank you. >> Very much. Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to speak to Lords amendments I wish to speak to Lords amendments on medication Laws amendment 15 and ultimately, what they still fail to address the long standing injustice faced by almost a million pensioners. The Chancellor's decision last year diverted attention with her announcement of the restoration of indexation to a quarter of a million pensioners in some of the schemes in the PPF, while 250,000 now have their indexation back, 90,000 in the PPF do not.

In addition to the 90,000 who have lost out, there are 139,000 in the financial assistance scheme. Some of these pensioners were once part of the civil service where functions were privatised. I specifically refer to members of the A, e, a technology and Carillion SPS scheme, who were promised that their civil service pensions would be honoured after privatisation. Imagine. Imagine being legally cheated out of your pension by your country's government and then ignored when you plead your case.

And finally, 750,000 in private defined benefit schemes. The pre 1997 pensioners who have also lost out. We're talking about 979,000 people, almost a million pensioners who have lost out on regular increase for the whole part of their pension or part of their pension. The Pension Schemes Bill is trying to paper over an enormous crack in our national pension framework. Ministers themselves have acknowledged the problem for pre 97 pensioners. Most recently, the Minister confirmed that around 17% of defined benefit pensioners have not received discretionary increases.

I would add, in some cases for nearly 30 years. It is not a minor anomaly. Many have lost more than half of the real value of the pensions that they have earned. Many will not live long enough to see any redress, but their survivors will receive a fraction of the pension at a time when food costs are projected to go up by 9% this year alone. And who knows what's going to happen with energy costs? What is particularly difficult to justify is the piecemeal nature and inconsistency of the government's approach.

The government has been entirely willing to mandate how defined contribution schemes invest, yet remains unwilling to mandate even basic fairness for the 17% of defined benefit pensioners whose sponsoring companies are following the law and avoiding doing the right thing. The Lords amendments return us to a bill that makes it easier to extract surpluses from defined benefit schemes. The Minister tells us that the trustees will be in the driving seat, but for the pre 97 pensioners, trustees have never been in the driving seat.

In most cases, trustees cannot compel discretionary increases. They cannot even advocate effectively for those who have already lost out, and they cannot override employer decisions. The imbalance is clear. Employers decide. Trustees administer. Trustees are told that it is not their role to seek to change benefits for pre 97 pensioners. So what's the value of a trustee? Surely not just to be a rubber stamp for boards of directors, usually based in the USA.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member give way. I will. Thank the hon. Member for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the hon. Member for giving way and I appreciate he's very learned in this subject, as are many members on both sides of the House. I just want to ask him, can House. I just want to ask him, can I clarify, is he saying that this bill does not give sufficient bill does not give sufficient protection for pensioners in terms of governance of trustees and equitable distribution of any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

surplus from defined benefit schemes? Clive Jones. Thank you very much for your intervention for the pre 1997 pensioners in companies like Hewlett Packard and many others, the trustees are not able to act on behalf of the pensioners because a board usually in the USA says, no, we're not going to give you a pension increase, even though the trustee are saying you should have it. The board often in the States says, no, I'll try and find where I was operate.

So what's the value of trustees? Surely not just to be a rubber stamp for boards of directors, usually based in the USA, to ease surplus extraction without first addressing this injustice risks locking it in permanently. It's the wrong thing to do. Once surplus is removed, there may be no realistic prospect of restoring the value lost by pre 97 pensions. There won't be any spare cash available to restore their pensions. The spare cash will have gone to the company with the minister's blessing, the Minister said during the German debate on the 19th of March that there was a need to build the evidence base.

But decades have already passed. Why has this not been done before? Pensioners are dying every week at a rate of 15 per week. DeLay at this point is not neutral. It is a choice to delay, deny, wait until they die. These pensioners have families. What message does the pension failure send to young people about the security of pensions? If this House can legislate in detail on how pensions are invested, it can legislate to ensure that surplus extraction does not come at the expense of those who have already borne nearly 30 years of erosion.

So I end with a direct question for the Minister. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that secondary legislation requires that each scheme seeking surplus extraction must have an independent professional examination of the effect of pre 97 pension erosion, and that funds will be withheld to ensure restoration of full pension value for pre 97 pensioners. Thank you.
15:03
Alison Griffiths Portrait Alison Griffiths MP (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
-
-
Alison Griffiths.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker There is a. Simple question running through

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Simple question running through what we're debating today. Who is ultimately in control of people's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pension savings. Exactly. Because when I speak to residents in Bognor Regis and residents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, they assume the answer is straightforward. They assume their pension exists to deliver the best possible outcome for them, not to serve a wider policy aim, not to be steered from the centre. And that is why Lords Amendment one matters. It does something very simple. It removes the ability for Ministers through regulations to require schemes to invest in particular assets, particular sectors or in particular places.

It sets a clear boundary. It says those decisions sit with trustees acting in the best interests of savers. If the government believe in the strength of their growth agenda, they should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make the case for it. Yeah. Yeah, they should create the conditions for investment. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But they should not need a reserve power to lean on pension funds. If that case does pension funds. If that case does not land. Well said. That same concern sits at the heart of Lords concern sits at the heart of Lords amendments to clause 40. Those amendments strip out what is known amendments strip out what is known as the asset allocation requirement.

In plain terms, they remove the mechanism in the bill that would allow Ministers to set conditions on how pension funds, sorry, pension schemes, invest their assets as part of the approval framework. We are told that these are only backstop powers, powers that may never be used, but if that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them? Exactly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Exactly. Why remove amendments that simply take that power off the simply take that power off the table? The government has, in effect, acknowledged the issue by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

effect, acknowledged the issue by proposing limits in lieu caps on how far they might go. For now. But that does not answer the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But that does not answer the underlying question. It just manages it because this isn't about whether the number is 5% or 10%. It is about whether that power should exist at all. Exactly. And there is a broader point here. Bigger schemes and consolidation can bring benefits, but only if they improve outcomes, not if they are driven by a single model applied from the top down. Not if a if well-performing schemes are pushed into structures that do not suit them.

Finally, I want to turn to Lords Amendment 77. This requires the government to publish a full review of public service pension schemes within 12 months. Not just their cost, but their long term affordability, their sustainability and whether they are fair across generations. A point made so well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge. This is not a controversial ask. It is basic due diligence. People in my constituency are thinking about their own retirement, about what they can afford to save, and about the pressures on public finances.

They expect us to be doing the same at national level. So taken together, these Lords amendments do something really quite straightforward. They protect savers from unnecessary interference. They keep decision making where it belongs, and they asked the government to be transparent about the long term picture. I do not think these are unreasonable tests, and I do think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this government is wrong to strip them out. They Minister if you're ready.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They Minister if you're ready. Minister Torsten Bell. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are always ready to engage with exciting debates about pensions and as the right hon. Member for Tonbridge encouraged us to be, he's absolutely right to say that far more members should be enthused more members should be enthused enough to come and talk for as long as possible about about pensions. I think I think, I think I think you did, and we're about to try exactly that.

And I want to thank members from. I want to thank members from across. Not too. I'm hoping not to rise to two hours, Madam Deputy Speaker But, you know, somewhere between close to that to thank members from across the House and indeed from the other place for their thoughtful contributions to an important debate. I'm going to avoid trying the House's patience only with regard to reiterating the reasons why the government does not think that it is right to accept amendments that are either unnecessary or that undermine policy intent.

But instead, let me respond in detail to the important points that hon. Members have made on both sides of the House. Let me start with the Select Committee chair, who asked specifically about what international evidence on asset allocation tells us. Two things stand out. The first is that the UK defined contribution market has a unusually low allocation to private assets. They. For example, compared to the similar schemes in Australia. And the second is the point that she raised, which is they have lower home bias, which I think is also the point that was raised partially by the hon.

Member for Tonbridge. Those two are related. You tend to see higher levels of home bias in investments that are in private assets than you do in public assets, for all the obvious reasons about the comparative advantage that comes from knowing more about your home market. I also recognise the argument she made about the PPF and the FAZ, her powerful campaigning on the issue and raising it through the Select Committee is obviously one of the reasons why we have acted in a way that previous governments and previous pension Ministers have not done, so I'll give way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend, I, going back to the asset aspect of our debate, I the asset aspect of our debate, I just came across a new analysis from New Financial, which showed from New Financial, which showed over the last ten years, UK equities allocation by DC pensions equities allocation by DC pensions has fallen from 25% to just 5%, and they argue that this has helped they argue that this has helped create a self-fulfilling doom loop of lower demand, lower valuations and lower performance.

They argue that an increase in allocation to UK equities would have delivered performance that was broadly in line with, or better than the performance most pension providers managed to deliver. I mean, it really does make his argument for him, but I wondered if he wanted to comment on that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister well. I thank the Select Committee chair for that. The organisation she raises has The organisation she raises has been consistently making these cases. In fact, the opposition front bench, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, has raised their work Wyre Forest, has raised their work in some of those debates, including in a Westminster Hall debate just a few months ago. So it is an few months ago. So it is an important thing to think about. Some of that reflects increasing inter international cross border investments.

But she's absolutely right to highlight that we see a lower level of home bias amongst the UK's defined contribution

**** Possible New Speaker ****

schemes. Of course, of course. The hon. Member for giving way on that very point. One of the on that very point. One of the challenges we've got with defined contribution schemes is he knows is that so many of them are parcelled out in much smaller volumes than out in much smaller volumes than one would have liked. And when one compares them to things like Canada or Australia, again, we get these super funds in certain countries super funds in certain countries and not in the UK.

While he's correct that this means that you correct that this means that you get slightly lower bias, you also get significantly less growth in the UK market because you have less capital flowing. So this is both an argument for young people and old. And I think it's just worth I know you'll understand it, but it's worth making that link because pensions act just as much about funding youth as they are about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sustaining age. Well, I absolutely agree with the last point that he's raised. the last point that he's raised. I'm planning an extensive discussion on his wider points about the investments in equities about the investments in equities versus gilts shortly, if you'll bear with me for five seconds. But I think it's an important one to I think it's an important one to raise and it's important one for us to all make sure, you know, we may not agree, but to make sure that we've aired properly.

The hon. Member for Torbay started with a powerful story about his father that I'm sure will have resonated with many, many, many hon. Members. The point he's making actually makes the case for the diversification that the Mansion House Accord itself is aiming to drive. I know that may not be his intention of his argument, but I think that is the point it makes. I think it also reinforces the importance of default pensions as a way of making sure that we're supporting everybody, allowing people to make their own choices, but making sure that there is a good option for everybody as they approach retirement.

He did, of course, raise Mandation, I'm not going to lie. His words were a combination of disappointing and a bit confusing. Then he said it was anathema to him what was being proposed in the bill. I've got some. He's going to be absolutely horrified if he goes and reads the Lib Dem manifesto from the last election, which required investment managers to direct investments into particular assets. I leave him and his conscience to wrestle with that tension. The rest of us are not surprised by the Lib Dems attempt to sit on a fence and falling off it.

They. He, more importantly in usefully raised the case of a MAT pensioners. I absolutely recognise the argument he made that that particular case. But the more broad set of cases of schemes that have entered insolvency and entered the PPF is exactly why this government has acted in a way, as I say, that previous governments, I'm afraid, including the coalition government, chose not to do so. That was also raised by the hon. Member for Wokingham, who touched. In addition to that, touched on surplus extraction and the question of its interaction with pre 97 indexation, insolvent schemes that are currently not choosing to pay indexation.

I, I absolutely agree with his problem diagnosis and we would and I've met many of the pensioners have been affected. I've gone out of my way to do so both locally and nationally, including with many MPs. All of us would feel the same in that situation. I am less pessimistic than him and specifically I think he underestimates the role of trustees. He is right to say that there's nothing in this bill that gives trustees the power to override employers. That is true. What it does give is trustees a veto over any release of surplus, and trustees that want to put top of their priorities progress on
15:14
Torsten Bell Portrait Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Swansea West, Labour)
-
-
discretionary p197 indexation in those schemes that have not done it, now have that potential in a way they didn't before this bill they didn't before this bill passing. So I recognise the issue he's raising, but I think he's underestimating the change this bill can bring to some schemes. It's important to remember that there are some schemes not paying pre 97 indexation that are not in pre 97 indexation that are not in surplus. And so I absolutely recognise those are different situations that we are we are talking about.

The hon. Member for talking about. The hon. Member for Horsham has been a one active participant in the Pension Schemes Bill debate at all stages, and has appeared not to be horrified by that fact, and I think he deserves credit for it. The. He has consistently raised the issues of engagement and guidance, and I'm glad to hear him welcome the default pensions progress on the basis of that, he's absolutely right to raise the importance of getting that right. And that's exactly why we'll be consulting on the regulations, and I'll be happy to hear from him when we come round to do that over the course of this year.

And we will also be updating the pensions work programme to set out the timeline for all these regulations to come through and the consultations on them in the near future, including this important one. As I say, he also has repeatedly come back to this important issue of guidance, and I look forward to our meeting with him, I think next week on exactly that topic. It is important that we get that right in the months and years ahead. The my hon. Friend from Poole raised the challenge challenges that all investors actually not just pension schemes, face in investing in a world where climate change is a reality and that does pose challenges.

I agree with him on that. I'm less pessimistic than him in some ways. One, because we've already come a long way and you'll see that if you spend time talking to any investment managers in pension schemes, they do take seriously, they do take very seriously the question about stranded assets and the rest that come from the points that he has raised. I'm also more optimistic because we see significant disclosures now being made by pension schemes, partly because of government regulation, but also because they're choosing to do so on their own behalf.

I would say that the ability to invest in a wider range of private assets, that will come with bigger pension schemes of the kind that the Member for Tonbridge has just mentioned and are important, will aid the investment in the kind of infrastructure that he is talking about. But I should spell out for the point of transparency, that the reserve power does not allow the focus on specific projects or sectors that he is encouraging. I know he's aware of that, and he and I can feel his disappointment raining down on me.

But that is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

position of the front bench. Today I'll turn to my own. I always give way to. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way on that point. During my speech, I did ask a very specific question of him, which was whether or not he of him, which was whether or not he would write to the top 50 pension schemes to ask them about the scale schemes to ask them about the scale of their investment in thermal coal, and I wonder if he might consider that in his response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that in his response. I'm not going to commit to writing 50 letters from the Dispatch Box, but I'll happily have a conversation with my hon. Friend about it, as I always I always as I always do right now. Turning to my hon. Friend from Harlow who I was going to welcome but unfortunately spent his entire remarks praising the hon. Member for Wyre Forest hair for showing both questionable judgement. The. No, no, no. I was obviously not some of the finest hair in the Parliament.

We all appreciate that now, slightly more substantively, when he got past the hon. Member's hair, he turned to the division between public and private sector pensions. I think this is an important one to to dwell on. There have been big changes in public sector pensions under the parties. Both parties actually opposite them. What he rightly made the case for, though, is that the priority is making private pensions better. That is what we should be all focussed on. That is what we need to see.

That is what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis didn't quite touch on. We're focusing on levelling down pensions, whereas our ability is to level up to make sure that the younger generations, who are the ones that are invested in our defined contribution system, can be confident that it's delivering a comfortable retirement. I think we all agree about that. That's why we have the Pension Schemes Bill increasing the returns that are available within the defined contribution system. But it's also why we have the Pensions Commission, which again, I think is a party of cross-party consensus to look at the adequacy that that leaves us with into the middle of this century, and to return to the question of how we secure that adequacy, particularly for low and middle, for low and middle earners.

He also rightly mentioned the relevance to pensioners of the NHS, even if not a huge relevance to this bill. The. Because, if we're honest, the biggest betrayal of today's pensioners, not tomorrow's pensioners, is the state of our NHS and that is what this government is in the business of turning around. And that is when we're debating in this House, the question marks about tax rises that the party opposite would not like to see. It is those tax rises and the reforms that the Secretary of State is putting in place, that are seeing waiting lists now consistently falling across the country.

Now, I'll turn to the I promised a discussion on the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells remarks, and I particularly liked his opening to his debate. Not only the point that all MPs should care about pensions, not least because I think we're all planning to either, if we're not already drawing our pension, to hopefully be doing it for as long as we possibly as long as there's there's members of this House drawing several pensions, and they're to be encouraged to do so, working past the State Pension age, contributing with their valuable expertise.

He then focussed on the question about how regulatory changes, partly in the 1990s, have driven changes in the investment behaviours. I think it's important to distinguish between and we've discussed this on a number of occasions. I want to distinguish between a number of points. So the regulatory changes in the 1990s by the then conservative government motivated, as he said, by, you know, good worries about people trying to rip off their scheme. Members will have introduced more of a safety bias into the investment strategies of those schemes at that point, and that will have had an effect over time.

I think it is when we're looking at the defined benefit market, which is the biggest by asset class asset values at the moment. I do think it is important to recognise that that is not what's driving it today. What's driving it today is the stage is the maturity of the defined benefit schemes, the fact that the vast majority of them are closed and therefore they are investing in a different way, and they wouldn't want to be as exposed to equities as I'm sure he is. So the question is about the defined contribution market, which is the future, not of the entirety of our pension system, but the majority of our pension system.

And there the system is the story is not the same. None of the regulations that flow from the 1990s acts relate to the defined contribution system today, and that's why it is important to have the debates that until some of the kind of slightly over the top support views of the front bench, until recently, we've been able to have about what would be the right thing in savers interest, because he's absolutely right. This is about what is the right investment strategy for savers interests for the longer for the longer term.

And that is exactly the debate. So I completely endorse what he said on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. I'm very much will give way. And I'm very grateful. Words. It seems that we rather agree, and I seems that we rather agree, and I do agree with him, that the problem with the defined benefits is that it's addressing an ageing demographic. Let's be frank. There demographic. Let's be frank. There is, however, a challenge, which is that because of those changes and because of the influence that it's because of the influence that it's had on defined benefits, is also had some I wouldn't overstate it, but some influence in the culture that's affected defined contributions and therefore over bond asset heavy, if you see what I mean on on defined contributions in comparison to Australian and, and Canadian markets, not to the degree that I was saying earlier of 60%.

That's clearly that's different. But it does mean that what we've got is we've got a pensions economy that is more geared to an ageing demographic and then over geared in other areas, again, to follow the lead of the defined benefits, which means that you're then seeing that strangling, if you like, that removing of live money and turning live money into dead money, that is a net burden on the whole economy. So I appreciate that. It's not quite as black and white painting yet, but it is a challenge and it's a challenge that's affecting the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

entire economy. I absolutely agree, I agree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I absolutely agree, I agree about the focus he's putting on the generational challenges. I think I think I have a different, slightly different view on what the biggest one is, the biggest issue for younger generations is if they don't have faith in a pension system because they don't believe system because they don't believe it will deliver adequate retirement incomes, that is the most important thing. And that is why this bill, thing. And that is why this bill, that is why that is why this bill will aid the higher returns on those savings through a whole range of measures, but also why the pension commission is so important to show those younger generations that we are looking ahead to their futures, and I think that will help with some of the issues.

He is he is he is raising on the defined contribution side. Again, I agree a bit less there. What stands out in the defined contribution market is less the difference between bonds and equities. Because you see a much wider range, you see a much larger share of asset allocation to equities in defined contribution systems. It's the exposure to private assets versus public assets. But I think there is a question about if you don't have in place what we're trying to put in place with default pensions, you do see some people in defined contribution pensions, lifestyles down, which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

means moving cash from equities into into bonds. Becoming a debate in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Becoming a debate in this chamber, which is so rare. The he is of course, absolutely right. But is of course, absolutely right. But the reason why link the two is because the nature of the defined benefit removing assets from the UK equity markets has led to a much slower growth in the UK stock exchange, which means that the levels of return for UK equities is lower, so defined contribution trustees don't invest so heavily into shares, which means that you then have the knock on when pensions need to have UK asset allocations because they want to have their savings in pounds for understandable reasons.

They are then forced into a situation where they don't get the return off the FTSE 100 or 250, and so they end up being tied into government bonds. So you get that draw in a slightly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

different way. Basically. Yes, I recognise the risks that he is he's raising now. risks that he is he's raising now. I think I should now turn to the shadow Secretary of State because I shadow Secretary of State because I was I was it's not that I was confused, it's that I was worried because she used to be a calm and because she used to be a calm and reasonable person. But something something weird has happened. I fear that she has been in.

I fear fear that she has been in. I fear that she has been infected by the existential angst of the modern Conservative Party and a leader and a leader whose entire political. A leader whose entire political strategy is to focus on being rude rather than being right. And this infection has left the shadow Secretary of State desperately trying to tell anyone that will listen. And it's not many that pensions are being raided and that there's a war on savers. Wow. Those are those are strong words.

There's just there's just two. There's just two problems with them. First, it's nonsense on stilts designed to scare monger good savers. I'm afraid the hon. Member has confused a conspiracy theory with a pensions policy, and that is disappointing. But there's a second problem, which is the lack of consistency and self respect. Because if you really, really thought this bill was as dangerous as we've been told today, you would have thought it in the trenches. You would have opposed it every single step of the way.

Oh, wait and see. You haven't.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm on my feet. Minister very passionate speech, but you mentioned you, and I don't think I was involved in fighting with you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

was involved in fighting with you in any trenches at any point. Just for the. Record. You will. As a point of principle, I never

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As a point of principle, I never fight with the Madam Deputy Speaker. It ends well badly for everyone. I would lose every single, every would lose every single, every single time. So the party opposite would have opposed it every step of the way. They would have been not the way. They would have been not just on the barricades. They would have built them, which is the exact opposite of what she did. What did the right hon. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest tell this House that the Second Reading, the Minister will be pleased to hear that there is cross-party consensus on many of the planned changes.

Well, that was nice. That was nice. Well, no, we got some more. And that was before the conservative front bench. Then, in a less bonkers phase of life, nodded the bill through, nodded the bill through that, they now claim, is some kind of end of days Armageddon. But let's be reasonable. Maybe let's be. I'm going to finish now. I'm going to finish now. Maybe let. Maybe let's be reasonable. I'm going to make some progress. They. Maybe they just needed some. No.

Maybe they just needed some time to think about it. So what happened at Third Reading? Because then we had then we had the pleasure of the shadow Secretary of State on that occasion. Hadn't quite got to the frothing phase of her of her development, she said then at the Third Reading there is a lot in it we welcome. It will help people manage their pension savings and get better returns. And she went on so we will not be voting against this. We're now told Armageddon Bill.

Now I'm going to finish. I'm going to finish now. Now, madam, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Secretary of Shadow Secretary of State was right then and she's ludicrously over the top now. This bill puts savers interests first, as she well knows, and she knows something else that makes this faux crusading all the more embarrassing. Who are the politicians that have lobbied me to actually mandate pension scheme investment decisions? Tories mainly in private, so I'll share their blushes. But one ventured out into the open.

The leader of the opposition's own PPS, the right hon. Member for Salisbury, called me and others to the Westminster Hall just a few months ago. Why? Because he was worried about what he called my effort to hold back Mandation. What was he worried about? That we weren't doing enough to push pension savers into UK investments? That is the truth behind all the froth today. The truth is, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a bill that supports savers, that focuses on driving up the returns on their savings, and even the most overexcited members opposite know it is the right thing to do.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the Minister gave a very passionate speech. When one mentions colleagues in the chamber,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mentions colleagues in the chamber, one is meant to give prior notice. I assume that has taken place. I apologise, Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall contact him as he is on the record. The comments in is on the record. The comments in the Westminster Hall.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The appropriate. Very quickly. The question is that this House disagrees with the law in their amendment one. As many of that opinion say, I, I, I've got to. No,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, Claire. Mr. Mr. Gardner Mr. Gardner may Mr. Gardner may wish to take this battle outside the chamber. The question is, as on the Order Paper I. I of the contrary, no. no tellers for the ayes. I
15:29
None Portrait Division
-

Deirdre Costigan and Nesil Caliskan and Tellers for the noes. Lincoln Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 278. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 158. The Ayes to the right. 278. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right. 278. The Noes to the left. 158. To the ayes have it, the ayes have it unlock. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment five. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their. Amendment five is that opinion say I, I Of the contrary, no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. Observing Observing the Observing the chamber misled beta. The question is, as on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Order Paper that I of the contrary, no. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. OK. Tellers for the ayes Deirdre Costigan and Nesil Caliskan. Tellers for the noes. Lincoln Jopp Order. Order. Order. Order. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 269 the noes to the left. 103.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 103. The ayes to the right. 269 the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 269 the Noes to the left. 103 so the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. The ayes have it unlock. You must be worried about slipping away. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment six. disagree with Lords Amendment six. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment six amend that opinion, say aye. Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 13. I call the Minister to move the call the Minister to move the motion.

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 13. As many that say I, I of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion. Disagree with Lords amendment 15. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 50. As many say, I of the Sir Sir John Sir John said, Sir John said, John, Sir John said, John, when Sir John said, John, when you're ready, we can continue.

Mr. Iqbal Mohamed marvellous. The question is, as on the Order Paper as many say, I of the contrary, no. tellers for the ayes. I Deirdre Costigan and Nesil Caliskan and Tellers for the The The order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 276 the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 276 the noes to the left, 155.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left, 155. The Ayes to the right. 276 the noes to the left. 155. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 16. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment. 16. As many of that opinion say, I Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 17. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 17. As many as that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 18. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 18 as many that opinion say, I.

I of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 19. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that the House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 19, as many that say aye. Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 20. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is if the House disagrees with the Lords and Amendment 20.

As many of that opinion say, I. I of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords amendment 21. I call the Minister to move the motion. We formerly. The question is, the House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 21. As many that say aye. Of the contrary, no. the ayes have Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion. Disagree with the Lords amendment 22. I call the Lords amendment 22. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 22.

As many of that opinion say, I. I of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 23. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment. 23 as many say, I. I know the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 24. I call the Minister to move the motion.

The question is this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 24. As many of that opinion say, I. I know the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 26. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 26 as in their opinion, say aye. Of the contrary, no. know The The chair The chair is The chair is on The chair is on her The chair is on her feet and they should be seated.

That includes you, Sir Julian. The question is, as on the Order Paper say I of the contrary, no. never extraordinary. Tell us what the I's are Deirdre Costigan and Nesil Caliskan Tellers for the noes our Andrew Snowden and Lincoln Jopp. Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 269. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 269. The noes to the left.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

162 Gedling.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

162 Gedling. The ayes to the right. 269 the noes to the left. 162 so the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock. We now. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 27. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment. 27 as Marianap say aye. Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 30.

I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 30. As many of that opinion say, I. I of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 31. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 31 as in that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no.

the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 32. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 32. As many in that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 33. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that the House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 33 as Marianap opinion say aye.

Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 34. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 34. As many that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 35. I call the Minister to move the motion formally.

The question is that the House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 35 as main opinion say I Of the contrary, no. Paying Paying attention will notice that the chair is on her feet. The question is as on the Order Paper is that opinion? Say aye. Of the contrary, no. no tellers for the ayes I Deirdre Costigan and Nesil Caliskan Tellers Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 275. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 275. The Noes to the left 159 six.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noes to the left 159 six. The Ayes to the right 275. The Noes to the left 159. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment. 36. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 36 as in the opinion say I Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 37. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 37 as many of that opinion say, I. Of the contrary, no. The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 38. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that the House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 38, as in their opinion, say I Of the contrary, no.

the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disagree with the Lords amendment motion. The. Formerly. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 39 as many that opinion say, I. I have of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 40. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 40. As in that opinion, say I of the continent.

No. The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 41. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 41, as in their opinion, say I. I know the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 42. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 42 as many that opinion say aye.

Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 43. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 43 as many that say I, I. We now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just Just before Just before she's Just before she's done Just before she's done something.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just before she's done something. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper as many of that opinion say, I. I of the contrary, no. no tellers for the ayes. I Deirdre Costigan and Nesil Caliskan Tellers Costigan and Nesil Caliskan Tellers for the noes. I David Simmonds and All All order. All order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 273 the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noes to the left 159. The Ayes to the right 273. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 273. The noes to the left. 159 to the ayes have it, the ayes have it and not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My. We. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 77. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their amendments. 77 as many say, I. I no. No. Colleagues Colleagues should Colleagues should be seated. Mr. Lavery oh, how much would I have to yell at him to hear? Are they. Well, I could I can still see you. You're looking at me. So it's clear. You know what I'm saying? Thank you. The question is, as on the Order Paper as amended, say I often of the contrary, no.

No tellers for the ayes are Jade Botterill and Stephen Morgan. Tellers for the noes. David Order, Order, order. Ayes to the right. 271. The noes to the left 95. The Ayes to the right 271 the noes to the left. 95 so the ayes have it. The ayes 95 so the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. We now come to the order. Order! I must now put the questions necessary to bring to a conclusion proceeding on the Lords amendments.

We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 78. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 78 as main no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Who's Who's that Who's that behind?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Who's that behind? Who's that behind? The Who's that behind? The question is as the question is as on the is as the question is as on the Order Paper as many say. I of the contrary, no. no tellers for the ayes I Jade Botterill and Stephen ayes I Jade Botterill and Stephen Morgan. Tellers for the noes. David

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And. Order, order. The ayes to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The ayes to the right. 277 the noes to the left. right. 277 the noes to the left. 150. The ayes to the right. 277 the Noes to the left. 150. To the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. We now. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 79. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 79 as main opinion say aye.

Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 83. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 83. As many that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 85. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their.

Amendment 85 is me in that opinion say.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, I. Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 86. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 86. As many that opinion say, I. I contrary no. The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with come to the motion to disagree with the Lords in the amendment 87.

I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 87 as Main.net opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 88. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is this House disagrees with the Lords amendment 88. As many of that opinion say, I. I of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

We now come to the government amendments A, B and C to the words restored to the bill by the Commons disagreement to the Lords amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88 minutes to move formally. Informally. The question is that government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that government amendments A, B and C be made to the words restored to the bill, as the words restored to the bill, as amended, say I. I want to know the ayes have it. The ayes have it ayes have it. The ayes have it under standing order number 83F6. I must put a single question to agree must put a single question to agree to all remaining Lords amendments. The question is that this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments 2 to 4, 7 to 12, 14, 15, 28, 29, 44 to 76, 80 to 82, 84 and 89.

As many of that opinion say, I. I of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Madam Speaker point of order right now,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is it very urgent? Mr. John Glen. Point of order John Glen. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker
17:13
17:13
John Glen Portrait Points of Order Rt Hon John Glen MP (Salisbury, Conservative)
-
-
Thank the right hon. Member for his notice of his point of order. The chair is not responsible for the content of Ministers speeches in the chamber. If only we were. But the Minister is in his place and will have heard what he has said, and if if I haven't finished speaking, if an error has been made, I can. I'm sure that the Minister will seek to correct it as quickly as possible. I can see the Minister will be reflecting on when and how to.

Oh, the Minister wishes to do so right now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. As I've already mentioned to him, I apologise for mentioned to him, I apologise for not giving him advance notice of raising his comments in the Westminster Hall debate. The point I made in the closing speech, which I made in the closing speech, which unfortunately he missed out on, but I know hon. Members on the frontbench enjoyed every minute of it is that he has made the case that there is a challenge about not enough investment in UK equities, and has called for measures to push

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and has called for measures to push in that direction. That's the point I made. Note what he said. We do not want to prolong the debate any further. Both the backbench member and the Minister have put their point on the record. Now, Minister, to move that a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee be appointed to draw up reasons. I beg to move that a committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that a committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their disagreeing to certain of their amendments that Torsten Bell Gen Kitchen Natalie Fleet, David Pinto-Duschinsky, John Slinger, Pinto-Duschinsky, John Slinger, Helen Whately and Will Forster the members of the committee that members of the committee that Torsten Bell be the chair of the Committee that tree be the quorum of the committee that the committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do withdraw immediately. The question is that a committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments that Torsten Bell Gen Kitchen that Torsten Bell Gen Kitchen Natalie Fleet fleet David Pinto-Duschinsky, John Slinger, Helen Whately and Will Forster be members of the Committee. That members of the Committee. That Torsten Bell be the chair of the Committee that three be quorum of the Committee, that the Committee the Committee, that the Committee to withdraw immediately, as many say I.

I no. The ayes have it. The say I. I no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. That concludes consideration of the Lords amendments to the Pension Schemes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

formally. I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper as many that say I. I may say. I, I. Of the contrary, no. the ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. I'll give the frontbenches a moment or two to shuffle over if they wish to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do so. Children's well-being.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I must draw the house's attention to the fact that Lords amendments 38 and 105 engage amendments 38 and 105 engage Commons financial privilege. If either of those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered financial privilege to be entered to the Journal. We will begin with the government motion to agree with Lords Amendment 17 B, with which it Lords Amendment 17 B, with which it will be convenient to consider all other Lords amendments, government motions and amendments as on the notice paper.

I call the Minister to move the motion. Minister Olivia Bailey. Thank you. Bailey. Thank you.
17:17
Olivia Bailey Portrait Consideration of Lords amendments: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Olivia Bailey MP (Reading West and Mid Berkshire, Labour)
-
-
Very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill will cut the cost of sending children to school will drive high and rising standards in our schools, and it represents the single biggest piece of child protection legislation in a generation. Madam Deputy Speaker, This Labour government is ambitious for every single child in this country, and this bill will lift over 100,000 children out of poverty through our expansion of free school meals. It will deliver breakfast clubs in every primary school in England, and it will make our children safer both in and out of school, both online and offline.

And today I ask the House to reaffirm its support for this landmark legislation. As we move through the latest round of parliamentary ping pong, we have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised both here and in the House of Lords, and in response, we are offering, where appropriate, amendments in lieu. I will speak first to the two government amendments made in the House of Lords. Turning first to Government Amendment 17 B on sibling contact, which strengthens the right for children in care to maintain contact with their siblings.

It is a travesty that children in care can end up losing contact with their brothers and sisters, and we want that to change. I want to particularly acknowledge my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, who has been campaigning for this measure for a long time and deserves huge credit. I would also like to thank others who have campaigned on this issue, including the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, for their continued championing of this hugely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

important topic. The Minister give way. I thank the Minister for giving way. I want to warmly welcome way. I want to warmly welcome amendment 17 B, which strengthens obligations to support sibling contact for children who are looked contact for children who are looked after. As the Minister knows, this is often the most important relationship that those children relationship that those children have. Can I pay tribute to the family rights group and become, alongside the campaigners that she alongside the campaigners that she has already mentioned for their important work in this area? The Education Select Committee recommended that the government collect data on sibling separation in the care system in order to drive improvements in this area going forward.

So I wonder whether, as part of the implementation of amendment 17 B, the Minister will commit to data collection so that we can be certain that this measure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is having the intended effect. Minister Bailey. I thank her very much for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her very much for that important intervention and echo her congratulations to other campaigners, including become. On her specific point about data

**** Possible New Speaker ****

her specific point about data collection. My friend the hon. Member next to me is happy to meet to discuss this issue further. Will she give way?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will she give way? I'm happy to give way. I'm grateful. For her giving way, as well as the sterling work that the the sterling work that the Education Select Committee, which I am a member of, has has done on this point. I'm also a member of the Human Rights Committee, which is currently undertaking an inquiry into human rights in the care system. And we held a powerful roundtable with care, experienced young people. And actually, this point was one that was really powerfully made to us.

We've not yet reached the end of our inquiry. We don't yet have recommendations, but I just wanted to put on record my gratitude to them for sharing their experiences. And also my my gratitude to the to the government for making this really important

**** Possible New Speaker ****

change, which I know will make so many lives better. Mr. Bailey. I thank him for his intervention

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for his intervention and for his important work on the Education Select Committee and for his constituents. My hon. Friend the Minister is meeting soon with the Minister is meeting soon with the chair of that particular committee, and we commit to working with them, turning next to with them, turning next to government amendment 105 B on allergies in schools. I would like to thank everybody who has worked to thank everybody who has worked so hard to campaign on this issue, including members from both houses, including the Member for Redditch and the Member for Rutland and Stamford.

And I would like to particularly thank the fantastic Helen Blythe, the Benedict Blythe Foundation and the wide range of allergy safety charities who have engaged with the government on this. As I promised when the bill was last before this House, we have introduced our own government amendment to place allergy safety on a statutory footing for all schools. This requires all schools to have allergy safety policies, review them regularly, publicise and publish them. Schools must have regard to the statutory guidance we have co-produced with expert stakeholders.

Through regulations. We will place specific duties covering the content of allergy safety policies, stocking adrenaline devices, securing allergy awareness, training and incident reporting. Benedict's law, named in the memory of Helen Blythe's son Benedict, is intended to ensure that every child with allergies can attend school safely. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will now turn to Lords amendments 38 and 106 relating to social media and phones in schools. Protecting children online is a priority for this government, and the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for DSIT.

Did I hear? No. I thought I heard somebody trying to give them Secretary Stafford DSIT have made it clear that it is a matter of how the government will act, not if to deliver further protections for children and young people, instead of the narrow amendment proposed in the House of Lords. Our consultation allows us to address a much wider range of services and features. It also allows us to consider the different views about the way forward, and that's why it's crucial that we do not pre-empt the government's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consultation, which will close next month. On that point. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the Minister for giving way, and I welcome the consultation she's doing on this particular important issue. I declare an important issue. I declare an interest. I am actually on the Education Select Committee, but that seems to be the thing we should mention. But I'm also the chair of the APPG for young Carers. Will she ensure that when this consultation. As this consultation progresses, the voice of young

**** Possible New Speaker ****

progresses, the voice of young carers is heard in this. Because it's really important that their context? Absolutely. I thank him for his work and for his work supporting young carers, and I can give him that promise and I'm happy to arrange any meetings he would like with my colleagues in the Department for Science and Technology. The government's amendments to the bill will allow us to act quickly and in direct response to the consultation. There will not be endless rounds of consultation.

The government will act. We have listened to the concerns raised in both houses regarding a desire for swift action,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a more specific power and for appropriate scrutiny. I thank the Minister. For giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. Will the Minister confirm that the consultation was targeted at children, young people, parents and children, young people, parents and consumers of social media? And won't the government won't be taking inputs from the social media

**** Possible New Speaker ****

companies themselves. Minister Bailey. I can confirm that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can confirm that the consultation is targeted widely across everybody with an interest or who is affected by this issue, and I'm happy to write to him with more detail, setting out how that consultation has taken place. I'm going to make some progress, if you don't mind, and I'm happy to come back to you in a bit. We have therefore tabled an amendment in lieu which commits the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on progress within six months of the Bill passing.

We will also share future draft regulations under the Online Safety Act with relevant select committees and opposition spokespeople prior to them being laid before the House. Finally, we have made several amendments to our power, which specifies how it will be used, such as stipulating it can only be exercised for protecting children from harms. The government is committed to taking swift action

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to protect children online. Very briefly, and then I'll make some progress. The Minister has. I'm grateful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister has. I'm grateful for the Minister giving way. She said she wishes to take swift action. Surely the swiftest action action. Surely the swiftest action she could take is to use this bill to ban smart phones from schools to ban smart phones from schools and to banned children under 16 from social media. What extra

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from social media. What extra information does she need to take those steps? Mr. Bailey, I will come on in a moment to talk about smartphones in schools in my speech, so I hope you'll forgive me not addressing that directly. But on the question of the consultation, our consultation allows us to act at real speed. We have committed, with the additions we've made to the bill today, to come back to report to the House within six months, if indeed we haven't acted before then.

And the range of options we are considering in the consultation is significantly wider than the options before us today from amendments in the other place, which allows us to address a much wider range of issues, including critical things like addictive design. Madam Deputy Speaker, Turning next to Lords Amendment 106 on phones, on school, in phones, in schools. I do apologise, I'm going to make some progress. Turning next to Lords Amendment 106 on phones in schools. This amendment is unnecessary. This government is already crystal clear that mobile phones have no place in schools at any point during the school day.

We have strengthened the weak guidance from the party opposite to make it absolutely clear that schools should be mobile free environments by default. We have written to every head teacher in the country to tell them phones should not be in their schools. We have asked Ofsted to ensure phone bans are being properly enforced, and we have rolled out targeted support for every school struggling through our attendance and behaviour hubs to make this ban a reality. Madam Deputy Speaker, The party opposite seems to be deliberately ignoring these facts.

Of course, if the consultation comes back and tells me that making the guidance statutory is going to make a difference, then we will do it. Our amendment in lieu makes that possible, but my honest opinion is that the problem is not whether or not this is on the statute book, it is the clarity of the guidance, the quality of policies and the enforcement of them. And we have already acted to fix all three.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll very briefly give way. I'm very grateful. To the Minister. Will she just confirm for the record that the ban on mobile phones in schools will not extend to alternative and augmentative communication devices, which are. Laura in Taunton has put to use for her son, and it's transformed his life by providing an autistic child with an alternative means of communication

**** Possible New Speaker ****

alternative means of communication in school, and I hope she would join me in congratulating her on her work. Minister Bailey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do congratulate his constituent on her work and can confirm that in the guidance which confirm that in the guidance which she can show to his constituent, there is a provision for schools to make exceptions for exceptional cases and those sorts of cases and those sorts of circumstances. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me turn to amendments on school uniforms and admissions. Turning uniforms and admissions. Turning first to Lord amendment 41 B, I welcome their Lordships support in welcome their Lordships support in tackling school uniform costs.

However, this amendment is unnecessary. It also risks creating uncertainty for schools and parents about the government's intent and the direction of policy at a time when they will be implementing the limit. The DfE has surveyed parents and school leaders extensively over many years on school uniform policies, and we will continue to monitor the impact of this measure, informed by the latest available evidence. We have also already committed to strengthening statutory guidance to clarify that high cost, compulsory items should be avoided and will keep the guidance under review as required with legislation.

We will also conduct a post-implementation review to capture the actual impact of the implemented policy and assess any modifications recommended as a result of the review. I'm just going to conclude my section. But he's very persistent. I have previously been clear on our concerns with the cost cap. A numeric limit is simpler, transparent, enforceable, and overwhelmingly backed by parents. It was also explicitly in the manifesto on which this government was elected. I'll happily give way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to. Generous grateful. To her. I think anyone. Outside this place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Watching in would think that the reason that she won't accept the Liberal Democrat amendment on this subject is because of a sort of subject is because of a sort of pride and inability to change on behalf of government. There's no real argument against against it, real argument against against it, and she hasn't made it. Neither is an argument against having an immediate statutory ban on social immediate statutory ban on social media and her earlier argument as well, about the addictive design being included on social media made no sense either, because if no child under 16 is able to access social media, it doesn't matter how it's designed, it won't be having

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noxious effect it currently has on them. Minister his opinion and grateful for his intervention. His grateful for his intervention. His opinion on the quality of the argument I have made is his opinion and I do happen to disagree with it. and I do happen to disagree with it. Finally, turning to Lords Amendment 102, we have already committed to tighter regulations to make clear tighter regulations to make clear that school quality and parental choice will be central to decisions on Pan. Our amendment in lieu on Pan.

Our amendment in lieu reflects this and will help ensure decisions on Pan give parents a choice of high quality school places close to home. In this age of declining roles. It's important these powers exist to ensure every child has the opportunity to have a great school place. I'll give way to Suella Braverman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know the Minister. Wants the best. For children and she's working hard to achieve that goal, but the hard to achieve that goal, but the government's own guidance makes clear that it's non-statutory. clear that it's non-statutory. Guidance is not to be taken as a complete or definitive statement of the law, nor as a substitute for the law, nor as a substitute for the relevant legislation. And the fact is, is that the evidence is damning about the connection damning about the connection between smartphone usage and children.

Therefore, why doesn't she take this step now and support a statutory ban on mobile phones in schools? Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I would say to her that actually on this point our objectives are the same. Phones objectives are the same. Phones should not be in schools at any point during the day from start to finish. And I say in all good faith, finish. And I say in all good faith, I have looked at this issue and please, I'm in the middle of responding to that one. So you might just want to wait one moment. In all good faith, I have looked in In all good faith, I have looked in great detail at the problem with why these policies in schools were not being enforced properly.

It was a question of weak guidance. It was a question of therefore the schools then not enforcing that guidance properly. There is Ofsted now enforcing it. There are teams of people supporting schools to import it to, to implement it. And I've been clear that if the consultation says that actually this is the silver bullet that's going to solve the problem, then of course. But in my honest view, this. We have already solved the problem of banning phones in schools. I'm going to make progress.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill is something that only a Labour

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. I'll give away because he's looking so aggrieved. I think I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think I Is to say we have already solved this problem. I don't have any other colleagues heard that. Madam Deputy Speaker she quite rightly said she's written to every headteacher in the country. Absolutely the right thing to do, to be in contact with them. I to be in contact with them. I wonder if she's also heard back from any headteachers or headteacher representative bodies headteacher representative bodies who say this would be so much more if it were written into law, because of the difficulties that arise with some parents.

A minority of parents and. And how much easier it would be for that school, for that headteacher and their authority in their school. If this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ban were written into law. Yeah. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. I thank him for his intervention. I have been very clear that actually, to be honest, it seems to actually, to be honest, it seems to me that the party opposite have just had their fingers in their ears and are ignoring the wide range of steps that this party, range of steps that this party, this government, has taken to address. We have very recently changed your weak guidance. We have rolled out. Sorry. I see you. I do apologise, Madam Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think both Mr. Speaker and all of the deputy speakers have made it very clear that not only backbenchers, but Ministers perhaps backbenchers, but Ministers perhaps need to raise their game when they're thinking about the courtesies of this chamber.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

courtesies of this chamber. I sincerely apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the party opposite. I was simply trying to opposite. I was simply trying to point out that it is my view that we have taken every step necessary we have taken every step necessary to solve the problem of why phone bans are not being solved, not being enforced properly in schools. I have been clear that should the consultation tell us that this guidance must be on a statutory footing, we will proceed on that basis because our objective is the same.

There should be no phones in schools from the start until the end of the day, and I share that objective. Madam Deputy Speaker, This bill is something that only a Labour government could deliver, a bill that will break the link between background and success. A bill that will provide opportunity for every child in this country. A bill that will lift thousands of children out of poverty. I urge members across the House to support Labour's vision for our children and get this vital bill on the statute book.
17:34
Laura Trott Portrait Rt Hon Laura Trott MP (Sevenoaks, Conservative)
-
-
The question is that this House agrees with Lords Amendment 17 B Laura Trott. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, since I last stood at this despatch box to last stood at this despatch box to argue again that we should stop ignoring the evidence and act to ban social media for under 1612 individuals in California have done something remarkable. They have begun to turn the tide against children on social media. On the 25th of March, a jury in Los Angeles delivered a landmark verdict.

They found two social media giants responsible for injuries suffered by young women over the course of her childhood. The conclusion was stark. These companies knew that their platforms were addictive. They knew the risks to young people, and they chose not to act. And children have paid the price. The jury did not ignore the evidence, and nor should this House. And this is not an isolated case. It is the beginning of something much larger. Eight further trials are already scheduled in California alone.

Federal cases brought by states and school districts will follow this summer. Behind them stand thousands of claimants waiting to be heard. But here in the United Kingdom, we are still watching rather than acting. This ruling should have made the government stop dragging their feet. It confirms what parents, what teachers and health professionals have been saying for years. Aggressive, addictive algorithms are damaging children's mental health and, in the worst cases, costing them their lives.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right hon. Friend. Give way. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, as she shared with me a Friend, as she shared with me a certain sympathy for the Minister, who's clearly been ordered by the Secretary of State to come and make this preposterous case that on the this preposterous case that on the one hand, the whole problem solved, and then on the other, in a complete logical contradistinction. If the consultation turns out that it does need to be put in statute.

They'll then go about doing it. They'll then go about doing it. Well, what is it? Have they solved the problem which she claimed? Or could the consultation yet tell us? It needs to be legislated for? Clearly, it needs to be legislated for. And clearly the Minister, who is smart and likeable and decent and committed to the welfare of children, has been put in an impossible position arguing a ridiculous case. Does my right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend agree? Shadow Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As ever, the evidence is irrefutable and the government need to get on with it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government need to get on with it. Many senior. On with with delight. John Hayes be grateful to my friend and the evidence is still more profound. Is it not because screen time is now a profound screen time is now a profound problem across the board? This isn't just about phones. It's about all kinds of devices we now know that affects not only children's confidence in communicating, but also their cerebral capacity is being altered over time. So I hope in this consultation, the government will look more broadly at screen time because, as my writer friend said, many parents are yet to understand this as clearly as it absolutely certain.

My right hon. Friend does. And the Minister gradually is coming to terms with. So I hope the government will seize the initiative here and send out very clear message from this place that children and screen time are not a happy bedfellows. And we really do have to get back to a more traditional way of bringing up the next generation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shadow Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend is correct. We are in a profound battle for childhood, and we are doing it against the screens. And the government has made some steps in the right direction. Their recent guidance on under-fives and screens was was very good, but they just was was very good, but they just need to finish the job. They need to do this, they need to get smartphones out of schools and they smartphones out of schools and they need to ban children from social media.

It's the right thing to do. It's what the evidence shows and it really will make a difference. Many senior figures in technology companies do not allow their own children to access the very platforms that they profit from. They know what we know. It's not safe. The children will always try to be on the site for longer, and the social media companies will give them more and more addictive content to look at. Nothing will change unless we act here in this House.

A jury has examined the evidence and reached its verdict. The question before us today is whether the party opposite will have the courage to do the same, and vote to protect our children. If members opposite will not listen to me, then I ask them to listen to the families who are here today, parents who have lost their children because of social media. They show unimaginable courage every single day. They are not fighting for their own children. It's tragically too late for that.

But they are fighting. So this does not happen to anyone else's children. I'm in awe of their strength. Their bravery is why I will keep fighting for change. I wish that they did not have to be here, but they are and I am here for them. I'm here for Ellen. This week, Mark. Four years since she lost her son, Jules, and she continues her brave campaign so that no other family has to endure what she's endured. She believes he died after attempting a TikTok blackout challenge.

I'm here for Lisa, whose son Isaac died aged just 13. She believes he, too was attempting a TikTok challenge. I'm here for Mariano, whose daughter Mia took her own life at 14 after sustained online bullying. And I'm here for George, whose son Christopher was 15 when he died just 50 days after he began receiving disturbing messages online. He was groomed by individuals posing as children. These are just some of the dozen or so parents in the gallery here today.

Every one of them has lost a child prematurely due to social media. Every month the group grows. This doesn't just happen to other people's children. It can happen to any of our children. It must stop and we have the power to stop it today. I urge members opposite to ask themselves why they are still refusing to act. Madam Deputy Speaker, yesterday I was briefed by a former senior police officer about the scale of abuse taking place on platforms such as TikTok.

He described the sheer volume of exploitation affecting UK school children. Young girls are being encouraged to commercialise their bodies and are receiving digital gifts through features such as TikTok rewards. These rewards allow viewers to send virtual items during live streams that can be later converted into real money. In practice, this creates a financial incentive for children to post increasingly provocative material in order to attract attention and income. In 2020, for a global study by Protect Children found that 32% of sex offenders reported using social media platforms for search for, view or share child sexual abuse material.

A separate 2020 study commissioned by Ofcom found that nearly half of perpetrators first encountered this material unintentionally, often through social media or messaging platforms. And this is why the government's consultation is so wrongheaded, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm not even joking when I say their consultation sites TikTok as a benefit for children simply because children can post dance videos. This. The above. As I've stated today obviously renders this absurd in comparison to the harm caused. But Madam Deputy Speaker, even just posting a dance video in and of itself is very dangerous.

So let me just explain why, as the government clearly does not understand, when young girls post dance videos, they learn that the way that they get approval is not internally but externally. Children quickly learn that likes equal approval. They learn that attention brings status, and too often they discover that sexualised content attracts them the most attention of all. This reshapes how young people see themselves and their value. If children spend significant time on social media, especially from a young age posting dance videos, they can begin.

They begin to depend too heavily on the opinions of others rather than their own judgement. Their confidence declines. Seeking approval becomes habitual. Yesterday I spoke to the brilliant Doctor Davis, who leads the charity Papaya Talks, and she explained how over time, seeking external approval can reduce self-esteem and distort how young people understand themselves and their worth. It is not just about dance videos, and to casually put this as a benefit in the consultation really does mean that the government doesn't understand what it is dealing with.

Madam Deputy Speaker. Turning to some of the other amendments, I welcome the amendment 7017 B and the government providing some movement with the amendments in lieu to amendments 102 and 106 on Pan. This is a welcome step and I'm pleased that the government has listened. However, I remain concerned that the adjudicator may only be required to have regard to parental preference and the quality of education provided, but it does not guarantee that that means local authorities will not shrink good schools.

The government needs to strengthen this provision. This provision and put the matter beyond doubt. Turning to phones in schools, the government amendment states that the Secretary of State may, by regulation, require the appropriate person for a school in England to have regard to the guidance. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister did outline the plethora of actions they're taking today. Just put the guidance on a statutory footing for the love of God. I mean, they really are taking all the steps possible to not to agree with us, but the answer is right in front of them.

And on amendment 41 on uniform, all that is being asked for now is a review of effectiveness. I mean, is that really, really so hard? I mean, the government Minister said that she's going to do a review. They're going to keep it under review. So why not? In fact, do a review. And then we can all agree and we can be in a great place. So but the Prime Minister has said that we are going to have a fight when it comes to taking on technology companies.

But sadly, that fight is going to have to start with him. The only person standing in the way of a social media ban is him. He has already asked members opposite to vote against it once, but tonight he's going to march them through the lobby once again. I will keep fighting until the government offers a ban on social media. On

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the face of the bill, one more time. Of course. The John Hayes. Been very generous. My hon. Friend is making a profound point, Friend is making a profound point, and it is that what is occurring, and it should concern every member and it should concern every member of this House across a normal part of divides is that the abnormal is becoming routine. Growing up has becoming routine. Growing up has never been easy. Moving from childhood to adulthood is always a childhood to adulthood is always a challenge.

But when your sense of what is normal is altered beyond recognition, it becomes impossible to navigate the vicissitudes that are inevitable part of maturing. And that is where we are. This house took 25 years to regulate the internet at all. Far too long. Over successive governments. But now the whole house can come together to protect our children from this menace.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Laura Trott. My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As I said earlier, we are in a fight for earlier, we are in a fight for childhood and I will keep fighting until the government offers the ban until the government offers the ban on social media. On the face of this bill, as I said, and gives us a time frame by which they're going a time frame by which they're going to do it. Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm not giving up. And the parents in the gallery will not give up either.

the gallery will not give up either. In the immortal words of Taylor Swift, if you want a fight, you found it. And Labour MPs will find that with parents, teachers and doctors we have the place surrounded. We won't give up

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because children deserve better. Yeah. Emma Lewell-Buck. Thank you very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Emma Lewell-Buck. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. A decade ago, I raised the heartbreak that siblings in the care system that siblings in the care system suffer when they are separated and have no contact with each other. My aim was simply to create parity in legislation where the requirement for a looked after child's reasonable contact with their
17:47
Emma Lewell Portrait Emma Lewell MP (South Shields, Labour)
-
-
reasonable contact with their parents was extended to contact with their siblings or half siblings. What followed was amendments, debates, edms, articles, questions, ministerial meetings and letters. So many, many letters. Every single time I was advised. There was sympathy for my request, but nothing ever changed until now. Madam Deputy Speaker, Under this Labour Government, we are finally putting an end to the cruelty in our care system that separates siblings, then denies them contact with each other.

When I heard my noble friends in the other place move amendment 17 B unopposed, the same amendment that I moved in 2016, I was for once completely lost for words. Because this might seem like a very small change to legislation today, but it is not. It will make a profound difference to the lives of so many children. Children whose lives are already more difficult than many of us in this place can even begin to comprehend. Madam Deputy Speaker, like everything in this place, this was not a solo endeavour.

If the chamber would please indulge me for a moment, I want to thank all those MPs across the House who over the years have supported this change. I want to thank my right, honourable and hon. Friends in our education team. I want to thank Cathy, Ashley and the team at the family rights group who way back, helped craft this amendment with me and my friend, broadcaster journalist Ashley John-baptiste, who powerfully used his experience of the care system growing up, never knowing that he had siblings to help press for this change.

And this, Madam Deputy Speaker, leads me to I want to thank most of all the children I worked with in my former career, whom I promised if I ever made it into this place, I would do absolutely everything in my power to change legislation that causes them further pain and distress.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Lady. Of course. Grateful to the hon. Lady. I just want to say thank you to her for persisting with this and sharing what a backbencher can do by persisting, by keeping going, winning the argument and bringing it round and making a material difference to the lives of people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

difference to the lives of people who, as she said, already suffer enough. I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Gentleman for that intervention. Possibly one of the nicest interventions I've ever had in this place. I sincerely hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, if those children who I worked with are listening now, they will know that I have honoured my word to them. It may have taken me a decade and they will now be adults, but I sincerely hope that they know that this is for them.

And it is they who have made sure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that other little ones will never, ever have to go through what they had to go through. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Liberal Democrat. Spokesperson Munira Wilson. Yes. Thank you very much, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm very pleased that we've got some proper time for debate today. Can I just record my debate today. Can I just record my dismay that our last debate on this bill was cut so short, when we had so many important amendments to consider, spending more time consider, spending more time walking through voting lobbies and scrutinising the laws that we are
17:51
Munira Wilson Portrait Munira Wilson MP (Twickenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
sent here to make. Can I start by talking about children in care and their relationship with siblings, as we've just heard, can be the most important connections they have. Too often these relationships are being strained or damaged by a system that just just does not support them effectively. And to this end, I would like to also commend the work of the charity's become and the family rights group become and the family rights group who've sought to keep siblings connected. And it's for this reason I warmly welcome the government's acceptance of Lords amendments amendment 17.

I would just gently say the Minister said in her speech that it's a travesty that siblings have been separated, yet it was her and her colleagues who made Labour MPs oppose the amendment that came through from the Lords on this issue. At the last round of ping pong for my noble friend, the Baroness Tyler, so I'm glad they've had a change of heart and accepted her approach and put forward their amendment in lieu. And so could I congratulate and thank my noble friend, the Baroness Tyler of Enfield, who has been championing this issue for many, many years.

I want to recognise her tireless work, and I also want to recognise the tireless work of the honourable hon. Member for South Shields, who I know has also been working so hard. As we've just heard on this issue, this amendment addresses a critical oversight in our current regulations, ensuring that the bond between siblings is not severed simply because their care status differs. These relationships are often the only constant in a child's life. Protecting them, protecting them provides a vital anchor of stability amidst the profound upheaval of new care arrangements.

Now, turning to the government's amendments in lieu to Lords Amendment 106, this amendment only asks headteachers to have regard for guidance on smartphones in schools, rather than simply mandating the existing guidance. Madam Deputy Speaker, Young people themselves say they want a break from the stress of social media at school. We all know the impact our phones have on our own concentration and focus. If Ministers and hon. Members in this House cannot resist the temptation to look at our smartphones during a debate like this, how on earth do they expect a 14 year old to ignore a TikTok notification in a double science lesson? According to health professionals, for safer screens, a quarter of children's notifications go off during the day.

I am deeply alarmed that our children's educational attainment should be hindered by an issue that is so simple to solve, and I appreciate the minister's comments about guidance and asking Ofsted to look at this after they made the announcement that they would include this in Ofsted inspections. I met a group of headteachers from my constituency and they said, this is yet another thing. You're piling on to the Ofsted inspection. Please can you ask Ministers to just get on and make this law? Is what they said to me.

Where schools have managed to ban phones during the school day, they've seen real transformation in pupil in pupils going from being glued to screens to chatting, playing Uno at break times. Headteachers report significant reductions in incidents of low level disruptive behaviour, lower in-school, truancy and children are teachers and teachers are reporting being happier at school. However, many headteachers are still battling to get their schools to this place. Our head teachers need proper support to do right by our children, where they're challenged by parents who want to still be able to reach their children even during the course of the school day, and to ensure that children have a healthy and safe education free from distraction.

So I ask the Minister today and the Secretary of State, if she's listening, please just make this guidance statutory. And will she support schools with the tools and funding to manage this transition, to ensure that every classroom is a space where children can focus, can learn and thrive smartphone free unless they have a need for a device, for medical reasons or for special educational needs, or because their young carers. Now, it's a strange irony that government demands endless evidence before reining in big tech, yet refuses a single review of its branded school uniform policy.

Now, by rejecting Lords Amendment 41 B to review the effectiveness of their cap on the number of branded school uniform items, as opposed to the Liberal Democrat proposal of a price cap. Ministers are effectively asking the British public to trust that they have exactly the right answer. The amendment before us today is a significant concession to what we have previously put forward. It merely asks for a review of the policy after 12 months. We all, on all sides of this House have a shared goal of tackling the cost of living for hard pressed families, but Ministers seem to lack the humility to admit there is a chance, their policy prescription to bring down the cost of uniforms may, just perhaps be wrong.

The school wear Association themselves have said that 61% of their members may well increase prices based on this item cap. Now the government was forced to U-turn on winter fuel allowance for pensioners. They were forced to U-turn on welfare reform for those in receipt of benefits. So why won't they accept the offer of an off ramp here to potentially prevent another forced U-turn somewhere down the line? What's to fear of testing their policy in a year's time? But just in case the uniform suppliers do indeed hike their prices in response to this policy, as the industry has repeatedly worn, warned and a basic understanding of market forces would suggest, they cite their manifesto as if it were a shield against better liberal Democrat ideas.

But a manifesto commitment is only as good as its delivery. Parents want action that will actually lower their bills. If the government is so sure they've got it right, they should have nothing to fear at all in a 12 month review. Now, on the theme of supporting families, I'd like to speak to Lords Amendment 38. I must first offer my belated congratulations to the government for accepting the merits of part of the Liberal Democrat position in their amendment.

Having spent an entire year opposing our efforts to ban Big Tech from collecting the data of under 16 seconds, it's heartening to see Ministers finally recognise that we can no longer allow social media giants to treat our children's personal data as a commodity to be harvested for profit. It's also welcome the government has moved towards the Liberal Democrat position of age ratings for social media. By accepting that children of different ages will be affected by the online world in different ways. But the government has still not gone far enough.

Their amendment only says they may make provisions to tackle these issues, not that they will. Their amendment also remains silent on the predatory nature of addictive design. By ignoring the infinite scroll and psychological triggers engineered to hijack a child's attention. The government just simply fails to recognise that this amendment will leave parents, families, children and indeed the government itself fighting against big tech with one arm tied behind their backs. The recent court cases, US court cases against meta and YouTube confirm what we already knew.

These apps are designed to hook, keep our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children hooked. And acceptable intervention. I will happily. Give away.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give away. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend, and I'd like to congratulate her for her work on on this issue. And for her work on on this issue. And she's absolutely right that age, classifications that tackle the social media companies, not going social media companies, not going after the children and their rights is what matters. Would she agree with me that recent research by with me that recent research by Pisa of covering seven internet activities, 15 year olds in 47 countries has now found conclusive evidence that life satisfaction is lower.

Higher rates of social media use for 15 year olds. Doesn't that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make this even more urgent to act upon now? I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I couldn't agree with intervention. I couldn't agree with him more. There is just there is such a plethora of evidence out there that we have to act and we there that we have to act and we have to act now. I really can't, simply cannot understand why the government isn't committing to actually doing something soon. Now, I was talking about the US court I was talking about the US court cases.

Madam Deputy Speaker, one document revealed that meta executives claimed, and this is a quote, if we want to win with big teens, we must bring them in as tweens. Madam Deputy Speaker. That's my 11 year old daughter. Meta is talking about. Another internal memo showed that 11 year olds were four times more likely to keep coming back to Instagram compared compared with competing apps, despite the platform requiring users to be at least 13 years old. This needs to be Big Tech's seat belt moment.

We need to stop treating social media use as a behavioural addiction and start recognising that it is driving substance style, addiction style behaviour, just like drugs and alcohol. That is why we need a ban on harmful social media for under 16 seconds, and that is why we need clear and explicit recognition from the government that they will tackle addictive design, not just harmful content. Finally, we remain particularly concerned that their reporting timeline is a timeline to kick the can down the road.

When parents and families are contacting MPs in their thousands, calling for urgent action. Now, speaking as and on behalf of my of parents in Twickenham in my constituency and the length and breadth of this country, we are not interested in a report in six months time. We are not interested in them maybes. We are not interested in the nuances of whether it needs primary or secondary legislation. We want a clear cast iron guarantee that this government will protect our children and online, and we want to know when they are going to act to do that.

The Liberal Democrats remain ready and willing to work with the government to improve this legislation, but our priority is ensuring that changes are implemented without further delay. This is not a new problem, and the children's Minister himself brought forward legislation to start to tackle this problem early last year. And if the government is interested in poaching more liberal Democrat ideas, and I'm happy to remind the House of our position, we've called for film style age ratings for online platforms enforced by Ofcom, including a ban on harmful social media for under 16 seconds.

This is a sensible approach that doesn't ban useful sites like Wikipedia or TripAdvisor, or important tools for family life like WhatsApp. It doesn't vest huge powers within the hands of one individual. It doesn't write a blank check for an unnamed individual to decide what our children may or may not access, because, after all, we do not know who any given future Secretary of State for Science and Technology may be. Our approach was specifically dismantle the addictive architecture of Big tech, encourage social media giants to regulate the content published on their platforms, and spark a race to the top that prioritises safe, enriching and healthy online spaces not just for children, but for all of us.

Now, before I end, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm concerned that the government has not listened to sector experts regarding their plans for pupil admission numbers. To quote the chief executive of the Confederation of Schools Trust, when she gave evidence to the Bill committee, the powers that the. This bill is giving to the schools adjudicator could would be, I quote, a source of concern due to the, I quote, potential conflicts of interest that could arise when allocating to children's children to schools.

So I asked the Minister today would she be happy to let parents in the I in her own constituency if her local authority asked the schools adjudicator to cut police numbers at a popular high performing school? Now, I recognise there have been some concession in the government's amendment today, but it's too vague and its assurances and open to challenge. And as the right hon. Member, the spokesperson for the Conservatives, said it is only asking the schools adjudicator to have regard to the performance of a school.

We cannot support it. So I implore the Minister today to start listening to parents and carers and indeed young people, whether it comes to school places, whether it comes to the cost of school uniforms, whether it comes to smartphones in schools or access to social media, don't let ideology or pride get in the way. John Whitby.
18:04
John Whitby Portrait John Whitby MP (Derbyshire Dales, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I strongly welcome the government amendment amendments, and I am amendment amendments, and I am supportive of the live consultation on these matters. Social media has unfortunately become central to unfortunately become central to childhood and the negatives are massively outweighing any positives. Even at its most benign, children are spending up to 40, 50, maybe 60 hours a week on social media. And it's intentionally addictive. And of course, since the last time these amendments were debated, we've had a US court make that determination.

It's affecting children's sleep concentration and their well-being. But of course, it's much worse than that with relentless bullying, promotion of self-harm, eating disorders and suicide, sextortion, misinformation, disinformation, envy and comparison, as well as a significant dose of misogyny and porn, it's not a surprise that there's been a 118% rise in children and young people accessing mental health services in England, and that's just in the last decade in all child related matters that we need to listen to the voice of the child.

In a recent Harris poll, 39% of Gen Z respondents said they wished that social media had never been invented. There's a significant rise in 3 to 5 year olds using social media, and according to Ofcom, that's 37%. A group called Little Big Tech Little Victims, in association with the New, recently conducted a social media experiment and have they created for fictional 13 year old accounts that sign them up to the main platforms and had a researcher scroll the accounts for 30 minutes a day for a week and Madam Deputy Speaker.

The results were staggering. These. These fictional 13 year olds were receiving, on average, one piece of concerning content a minute. And to reinforce the point, they put a reel together of the worst bits so that I and other other members could witness the racism, the sexual violence and misogyny that children are witnessing. Madam Deputy Speaker, we are never going to stop violence against women and girls until we stop feeding this hate to our children. Parents up and down the country are in the impossible position of exposing their children to this content, or have their child be the one that is missing out.

So I support the government's ambition to act. It is right that laws keep pace with technology. It is right that we consider whether stronger protections for under 16 are needed. It's right that phones should play no part in school life, and it is right that the government ensures that any legislative changes are legally robust, compatible with existing law and capable of standing up to scrutiny in the courts. I welcome the government's amendment requiring a statement on progress within six months. If no regulations have been made, we need to get on with it.

I urge everyone to complete the consultation and I urge the government to act with haste. Following the consultations closure on the 26th of May.
18:07
Graham Stuart Portrait Rt Hon Graham Stuart MP (Beverley and Holderness, Conservative)
-
-
Graham Stuart thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to take part in this debate, and we've had significant, interesting contributions from all sides of the House so far. I will speak today in support of Lords amendments 38 and 106. As the hon. Gentleman in a very powerful speech has just set out social media too often is toxic in its effect on children and parents who want to act. Exactly. Again, as the hon.

Gentleman has just pointed out, fear isolating their children from their friends who are all online and teachers who want to protect Madam Deputy Speaker spend their days investigating claims of cyberbullying instead of boosting learning, which is their job. And our children struggle to escape the clutches of algorithms designed to be addictive. And that's why I will vote for amendment 38 today to save children from that toxic world and give them their childhood back. As my right hon. Friend said, fighting for childhood.

I think it's a it's a good slogan. Unlike most slogans, I think it has some real heart and substance to it. We need to support parents like John in Beverly, who tells me his children feel constant pressure to be online and compare themselves endlessly with others. And Madam Deputy Speaker John is right. Those of us who are parents know that sometimes the kindest words you can say to a child is no, only to hear the inevitable response, but Billy's mum lets him do it.

It's not fair that parents like John, who are doing their best each day, face that battle alone. Our amendment sets a clear boundary so that parents are not isolated in their decision making. So when John's children ask why they can't go on Instagram, he can say, sorry, but that is the law. And since MPs seem to get blamed for pretty much everything else in this country, if they say it's because Graham says you can't and it's not my fault, then I'll take that.

Because if it if it makes one child happier and healthier as a result, then it's something we could all be pleased with. But parents aren't alone in saying this technology relationship with technology is broken. Teachers say it too. Hannah, a teacher from Henan in my constituency, tells me she deals with the consequences of online harms every single day, and she fears the long term impact on her. Pupils and teachers like her are spending their time investigating where pupils. What pupils have seen on Facebook or X when, as I say, they should be teaching physics or art.

And in too many schools, smartphones are everywhere. Notwithstanding the. I don't mean to be. I never seek to be rude in particular to this Minister, but suggesting that the problem solved. The problem isn't solved. Smartphones are everywhere and too many schools. Meaning students are scrolling, not learning, and staff are policing, not teaching. And that's why I'll also be voting for amendment 106, which would require schools to ban smartphones during the school day. It means that governing bodies, head teachers, parents, whoever have absolute clarity.

I didn't really I didn't really understand the argument of the Minister on this, suggesting perhaps passing this into law, that it wouldn't have effect. I think if we pass a law to ban smartphones in primary legislation in schools, I would be pretty confident that that would mean that schools would not have smartphones during the school day. And it was I know I'm sure you've probably been put up to it by her Secretary of State, who won't let her do the obvious and sensible thing, which is to listen to our colleagues on all sides of the House.

Indeed, the hon. Gentleman who studiously stuck to the party line but nonetheless made a powerful, emotionally powerful argument for action now, albeit just managed to say, well, if you have to do your consultation, get on with it. But the argument from the Minister don't really stack up. And it's it's not a political point scoring. I hope it's not. But children are suffering every single day. So every month that this goes on, if we know that it's wrong, if we know that it's harmful, if we know that it's damaging children's future, their mental health, it we have parents in this gallery who's lost their children as a result of this stuff.

How can we say that we're just being thorough if there aren't any clear questions that that we need an answer to and we didn't get any clear questions set out, but I'll happily give way to the hon. Lady, who, of course, is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an excellent thank. I thank the hon. Member very much for giving way, and I believe there is a consensus across this House both about the harms of social media and smartphones for social media and smartphones for our young people, and about the urgency for action. I've been listening very carefully to the contributions from the opposition benches, and what I have not heard is any acknowledgement that on some of these points of detail, there is genuine disagreement between different important stakeholders, including bereaved parents, in some cases about what exactly the solutions should look like.

The government's consultation is affording the opportunity, for example, for the Education Select Committee, to do some really detailed questioning of those important stakeholders who have differences of opinion, which in my view, will help the government to get to the right and effective approach. We'll at least acknowledge that difference of opinion and the importance of probing it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Graham Stuart the hon. Lady and she's made a. No, again, no disrespect Minister, I think made a disrespect Minister, I think made a stronger case there, but lacking in specifics, it would be important to understand exactly that which it is understand exactly that which it is that the government wishes to find out. Then we could better understand why there would be a cause for delay. I haven't been cause for delay. I haven't been able to understand precisely what that is for. Take the issue of smartphones in schools, and we had smartphones in schools, and we had absolute denunciation from the Minister of the use of smartphones in schools.

And yet this kind of smokescreen thrown up that somehow passing it in law in statute that they can't be in the school day in schools was somehow not the solution? Well, clearly it's I don't again, if there's some reason why primary statute saying that they are they can never be in used in schools during the school day. If there's some evidence to suggest that that that schools will supply, that they'll break literally break the law head teachers up and down the land. Well, OK, let us hear that.

But I that seems like a nonsense to me. So I don't know. I'm happy to give way to the hon. Lady again. What case is there? What is there that we need to know about smartphones in order not to just put it on the face of this bill and as soon as it becomes law, see every single school in the land, ensure there aren't smartphones there with no argument. It's obvious, isn't it? I'd happily give way to the hon. Lady if she's. She

**** Possible New Speaker ****

doesn't wish to come back to me or she can. Helen Hayes thank the hon. Gentleman for so generously giving way. Again, what I would say to him way. Again, what I would say to him is. I think he would find it helpful to listen to the Education Select Committee's evidence session on Tuesday just next week, which will afford two hours of will afford two hours of questioning of experts and important stakeholders in this field. I believe that we will make a useful contribution to helping a useful contribution to helping the government to get to the right, the right and implementable solutions during this consultation process, and I encourage him to tune in to that meeting.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Lady, but it's not like the Select Committee has never looked at this. It's looked at it repeatedly. And I'm just at it repeatedly. And I'm just trying to bring out because if we are being unfair, then just let us know what is it? What is it? That know what is it? What is it? That could be a problem with banning on the face of legislation banning smartphones in schools. And the hon. Lady, although it was an excellent answer, and I accept her offer and we'll make sure I have a look at the the evidence given.

I still don't get an answer as to what it is we're looking for. What we need is a ban. What the hon. Gentleman wants to see is a ban. What we know is that it's harmful and we need to get on with it, because the problem we face about moving on is it is, as I say, the problem we face is not just social media, but it's also smartphones. It's the combination of the two together. Smartphones give children constant access, and social media gives them algorithms designed to keep them scrolling.

We've got a combination there. That's why these amendments must be passed together. One tackles the addictive platforms Madam Deputy Speaker, the other restores classrooms as places of learning. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we would never allow our children to be abandoned in a car park full of strangers. So why are we leaving them alone in chat rooms? Data from the Youth Endowment Fund shows that 70% of teenagers have seen violent content online, 70% of vulnerable children, despite only 66% actively searching for it.

And it's all because of the algorithms children are seeking. X are seeking extreme content, aren't seeking extreme content, it is pushed at them. Knives, pornography, real life violence, all delivered by addictive algorithms designed to keep children scrolling, all in the name of so-called fun. And parents in this gallery and parents across the country looking on, wondering what on earth is keeping you back at a time when there's a kind of disconnect between us, ordinary people and politics? It's obvious we need to act.

We have the opportunity to act. We have the legislation with the slot in parliament to act, and still we're coming up with bogus excuses for inaction. And parents have just had enough. I was the hon. Lady. I'll

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way to the hon. Lady. Caroline Voaden the hon. Member, for giving way. I believe we're talking about two different things talking about two different things here and the the process of of how here and the the process of of how we address social media and banning social media for under 16 seconds. There is a complication there because we've seen what they've done in Australia. We've seen what other countries are doing. We believe our solution is the right believe our solution is the right one because it it is future proofed and it would encompass every platform, every game, every piece of tech.

But the issue of smartphones in schools is much, much, much simpler. We do not want phones in schools. We do not need phones in schools. We know that phones are in schools, and we need the government to act on this because it's simple, it's straightforward, it's quick, and it could be done on the face of this bill right now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and she makes a very fair point about the greater complexity around social media. I would have liked in this debate to have had greater clarity about what answers, what questions needed to be what questions needed to be answered and how that would be pursued. But she's so right on the issue of the smartphones. There's issue of the smartphones. There's literally no reason. But I've been a Minister at that Dispatch Box, and with no disrespect to the excellent civil servants who excellent civil servants who support it, there's a tendency in government, and that includes the civil service to resist all amendments and change.

It becomes a sort of defend the first script regardless, even when it's obvious that it should be changed. And even when there are parents up there who've suffered the most unimaginable loss, and somehow the system still sits there resisting, I'll give way to the hon. Gentleman before bringing myself to a conclusion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hon. Friend, for giving way. Would you agree with me that banning mobile phones in schools banning mobile phones in schools will not harm children, and not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

banning them does harm children? That's a simple logic, beautifully expressed and there is no argument against it, is there? Except smoke, smoke and smoke being blown in our faces. So I know the the Minister is personally better than this, and I hope going out of this chamber tonight, if if debate, if debate in this place is to mean anything, I say this to the government whip, then what we should do is listen. I did have an adjournment debate once.

I remember my first Parliament when we were again in opposition, and the Minister halfway through had his briefing notes, tore them up and said, actually, actually, do you know what I said? I said absolutely that I should resist it, but the hon. Member is right, and I will seek legislation. We will get the opportunity and we will make the change that he asked for, because it's true. And after all, shouldn't we all be trying to deal with what's true and what's right and proper? Recognise where there's complexity, where there is a simple answer, we should simply get it.

I'd better just bring myself to close because I've already taken up too much time, probably in the house. So thanks very much. The government whips in agreement with me. That's that's always nice. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, let's act. Let's listen to the parents. Let's listen to people out there and let's get on with it. And I know the Minister and the Ministers at the despatch box. They don't get up in the morning to make the world a worse place, let alone make to make children suffer.

They're here to try and make their lives better, and there's a real opportunity to do so. And I hope members opposite might consider breaking from the fearsome. And we got it now from a shouting from the from the sedentary position of the government whip fearsome whips to break from that. Tell him. Tell him that he's best ignored and vote with us to make things better for children. Yeah.
18:20
Peter Prinsley Portrait Peter Prinsley MP (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, Labour)
-
-
Doctor Peter Prinsley. So let me start by saying that I do support the government's direction of travel on this bill. The focus of travel on this bill. The focus on children's well-being, both in schools and out, is obviously the right one. But let me address the Lords Amendment 38 about social media access that came back from Lord Nash with a large majority. It has cross-party support and reflects growing concern not just here in Parliament but amongst parents, teachers, professionals working with young people.

This amendment, I believe, is quite simple. It's about delaying access to certain harmful social media services until people are 16. Not a blanket ban, not a restriction on everything, but targeted measures aimed at services that are really not designed with children in mind. Now, I think that distinction matters because some of the criticism has suggested that this would create cliff edges, but we already have age limits in place today. The issue is not whether limits exist, it's whether they're properly enforced and whether they reflect the reality of how the platforms operate.

Now, there's been a lot of debate about whether age verification actually works. The evidence from countries like Australia suggests that where it's not working, it's often because platforms are not properly enforcing the rules, or young people find ways around the ban through VPNs. And that leads to a broader point. The onus must sit squarely with the tech companies themselves to implement the safeguards. Where the law sets a clear standard, platforms must meet

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it consistently and effectively. I certainly. Thank my hon. Friend for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and he's making a very informed speech. Would he agree that the priority for any government, any legislator, is to protect their citizens from harm? And this is an amendment that will And this is an amendment that will protect children from harm? The technical. Implementation of the controlling access should not be a consideration for protecting children from harm. And as he rightly said, this should be the responsibility of the platform owners who have access to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

technology which they refuse to use. I thank the hon. Member for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I agree that we must hold the tech companies to account. They are the ones who are account. They are the ones who are in control of the situation. Now, what is proposed here is a higher what is proposed here is a higher standard, not simply reasonable steps but highly effective age assurance. And this is meaningfully different. Now. We also have heard about movement internationally. Countries such as France and Spain are taking similar steps and others are following.

We ought to be part of the broader shift in how governments are approaching online safety for children. Now, I think it's also right to say this cannot just be about restrictions. Of course, there's a role for education. Children need to understand the online environment they're engaging with, particularly when it comes to the algorithms, the data and the AI driven content. Now, we have heard about the consultation and I support the consultation in principle. But, you know, the scale of the issue is already well evidenced.

There is a question about what additional insights small trials will realistically add compared to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

body of research that already exists. Certainly the hon. Gentleman. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Certainly the hon. Gentleman. I wonder if he would agree with me. Look, there are there are questions that are unanswered actually, about that are unanswered actually, about definitions. What should be in what should be out exactly where the boundary lines are. Parents themselves sometimes talk about themselves sometimes talk about social media in a way that professionals perhaps wouldn't because they would exclude certain messaging apps, for example. And messaging apps, for example. And there are there are questions to be resolved, but the government consultation isn't just about that.

It is about the weather as well as the how. And so what I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would agree with me is. Yes, by all means, let's consult to get those technical points right. So it is bullet-proof and future proof. But today is the day that we could say, yes, we are doing this like all those other countries. He said, we are going to protect our children. Yes, there's still work to be done to work out exactly how that needs to form.

It's not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his point, and I do understand exactly what has been said. My position is this I support the government, I support the bill, but I think the support the bill, but I think the House should take seriously, very seriously what the Lords have asked us to consider. If the government us to consider. If the government is not minded to accept the amendment as it stands, then I believe there's a strong case for believe there's a strong case for bringing forward its own proposal that achieves the same outcome clearly and in a timely fashion, because ultimately this is about setting the right boundaries for children in a digital world that is evolving very quickly.

And on that, there is a clear expectation inside and outside this House that we must act.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Monica Harding thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a mother of four teenage and young adult children, teenage and young adult children, about 50% of my parenting involves placing limits on my children's phones or devices to try and limit phones or devices to try and limit the time they spend on them. And and in so doing, like so many parents in our country and in my constituency of Esher and Walton, I am doing battle with my kids as am doing battle with my kids as proxies to a pernicious, invasive, overwhelming force against whom I can never win because this force has billions and billions of dollars and has the capacity and capability and wants to every day make the content more and more addictive for my children and all children so that they spend more time online.

And the result of this are so many studies show us is a negative effect on our children's well-being, their mental health, their intention in class and at home, and their physical health. Because these tech companies and their algorithmic content are killing kids. This is a public health crisis. And the government, unfortunately, are moving far too slowly to deal with it. My eldest child was born in the year Facebook began, and so my children have spanned the whole Instagram generation, the Gen Z Instagram generation.

My youngest child is part of the TikTok generation, and I can say that the battle for me gets harder and harder with each child. But I count myself very lucky for not having a child who is one of the iPad kids who are receiving devices at the age of two, and the Gen Z children see themselves see this as a pejorative term for younger children who are glued to devices having short attention spans and throwing tantrums when screens are taken away.

These are children of two. The curious thing about Gen Z children and Alpha is that many of them will tell you now that they wish there were more controls over their screen use and time, and that they find algorithmic content too much to deal with and are having a negative impact on their mental health. So the children are asking us to act too. And this is a generation growing up with more anxiety, more exposure to harm, less attentive. Every single day it gets worse and we need to act now.

And in my constituency, Maldon, I have received over 2600 emails from parents asking me to ban social media for under 16 seconds and on the use of smartphones, and I have spoken to the heads of schools about the effect it is having on their children and the strength of
18:28
Monica Harding Portrait Monica Harding MP (Esher and Walton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
the. It's leaving parents completely overwhelmed and feeling completely overwhelmed and feeling completely powerless. And on smartphones in school at University smartphones in school at University of Birmingham, Birmingham, study said that schools are spending. Teachers are spending 100 hours a Teachers are spending 100 hours a week trying to control smartphone use and. I speak to my head. use and. I speak to my head. Teachers and teachers are doing battle with children in class and with parents. The children are picking up their phones to answer calls from their parents and saying, I have to answer this because my parents calling me.

That is time away from learning in the classroom. So unfortunately, the amendment before us does not rise to meet these challenges. It gives us Secretary of State powers to restrict access to certain online services, powers that they may or may not use, and ask only for a six month progress update with no requirements to act and no timeline for doing so. This is not decisive action. This is a license to not do very much, and a delay is being justified through a consultation that may.

Many have pointed out, is flawed. Relying on small scale pilots where much, much larger and extensive studies already exists. It looks very much like a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government who are unwilling to take on the tech giants. On that point. I will, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will, of course. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I asked the Minister giving way. I asked the Minister earlier if tech giants and the providers of social media have access to the consultation, and she will be writing to me with the will be writing to me with the details, but does she share my concern that they have billions of concern that they have billions of pounds of lobbying power, lots of bots and lots of volunteers they could recruit to rig the consultation, and that's why they should not be allowed to participate.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Member for his intervention, I absolutely agree. I intervention, I absolutely agree. I think these tech companies have got billions of pounds. But also the consultation asked children 62 consultation asked children 62 questions. Yeah. I mean, how on earth can a child who's actually attention has been taken by phone to answer 62 questions. So to answer 62 questions. So meanwhile, the world is moving faster than this government. Even if you think we should wait and watch and learn from Australia in the United States, as others have pointed out, which do things differently from us and sue, juries in the United States returned.

And we've heard already landmark verdicts against Meta and Google in New Mexico, against meta, for misleading the public about the safety of its platform and for enabling child sexual exploitation through its design practices, resulting in a penalty covering 75,000 separate violations of state law. In Los Angeles, a jury found both Meta and Google liable for negligence and a failure to warn users about the dangers of their products. In California alone, there are a further 2000 cases pending evidence in those cases included internal documents disclosed by the social media companies involved, explicitly acknowledging that their products are addictive, that addictive behaviours harm children's mental health, and that the design features drive in those behaviours.

Endless scrolling, autoplay notifications, slot machine tactics made not in spite of their damaging consequences, but precisely because of their addictive effects. This is outrageous and yet this government is letting them every day get away with it. So I asked the Minister, what more evidence does the government need before it acts quickly? It is letting our young people down. And the parents in my constituency of Esher and Walton, and they are demanding action, not down the line. But now, if children cannot resist this content through no fault of their own, it means that the government must act for them so that they are not able to access that content.

Time is really not on our side. And so for once with this government, please act boldly and quickly and use this bill's powers to protect all of our children.
18:32
Aphra Brandreth Portrait Aphra Brandreth MP (Chester South and Eddisbury, Conservative)
-
-
It Aphra Brandreth. >> It Aphra Brandreth. >> Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. >> We're now at a point. >> Where it is no longer credible.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To ignore the scale of the challenge posed by social media to children and young people. Platforms and algorithms are designed and deliberately engineered to maximise engagement, to capture attention and to keep users scrolling for as long as possible. As adults, we can take responsibility for our own actions. But for children, for those under the age of 16 whose brains are still developing and who in their teenage years are naturally focussed on social interaction and engagement, we have a responsibility to ensure that their mental health, as well as their physical health, is prioritised.

Madam Deputy Speaker, The harm is happening now, so action is needed now, not after another consultation. Parents are asking for help. There's a mum. I know how hard it is to set boundaries when your child says, but everyone else has a phone or everyone else is on social media. There are also serious safeguarding risks. As we've heard today, predators use these platforms to groom and exploit vulnerable young people. And whilst many of us here use social media and see some of its benefits, it really isn't all harmless fun.

Shockingly, a quarter of primary school children have already been exposed to pornography from violent and sexual content to material that promotes self-harm, misogyny, eating disorders and other harmful behaviours. What young people are exposed to can be deeply disturbing, and the problem is they don't even have to go looking for it. It finds them. And if it's content we wouldn't want to see as adults, we have to ask what is it doing to our children exactly? This, Madam Deputy Speaker, is why I'm pleased to support Lords Amendment 38, which would prevent under 16 seconds from accessing and using social media platforms.

This is not just the view from these benches. Parents, teachers and safeguarding professionals all want to see change and crucially, so do young people themselves. They are the ones with first hand experience of the influence of social media. And according to a YouGov poll, 83% of Gen Z's support a social media age limit. We do not have time to waste on this issue. We must act

**** Possible New Speaker ****

place. For Vikki Slade. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I've spoken to lots of head teachers who are campaigning head teachers who are campaigning for a statutory ban on smartphones in schools. One of the things in schools. One of the things they've said is that where lots of secondary schools in an area or all the secondary schools, if there was a statutory ban, if they all banned a statutory ban, if they all banned phones, children would not be getting smartphones at 11 when they transfer up into year seven.

Therefore, the age at which they would be getting a smartphone goes up to about 13 or 14. Parents are not under pressure at age 10 or 11 to buy their children a smartphone. We are gaining 2 or 3 really valuable years where these children do not own a smartphone. It's not just about the school hours where the phone is banned. It's about gaining that really precious time. So they get phones when they're older. I beg the Ministers to listen to this here.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I'm getting now to a point about why we need to a point about why we need consistency for head teachers, schools, parents and children, particularly with the mobile phone particularly with the mobile phone ban. I want to turn to Lords Amendment 106, which is the measure to mandate schools to prohibit the to mandate schools to prohibit the use and possession of a smartphone during the school day. It's an amendment that could have been written in headteachers offices right across my constituency.

Many schools, as we've heard, already have some form of mobile phone ban, but guidance alone can lead to inconsistency, making it harder to enforce rules and leaving parents and young people navigating mixed messages, especially when children compare themselves to friends from other schools and parents look to each other for advice on what their children are allowed to do. Since my election, I've met with headteachers across Chester South and Eddisbury, and this is exactly the kind of framework they're asking for, one that gives them the clarity and backing to enforce what many are already trying to do.

I recognise that earlier this year, the Secretary of State issued further guidance on smartphone use in schools. But advisory guidance is not enough. It needs to be statutory, clear, robust action that meets the scale of the challenge because without it we are asking teachers to deliver change without giving them the backing to do so. Ultimately, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have a duty to protect our children and that means acting now, not later. Parents, teachers and young people are asking for change.

This House should listen and I urge colleagues to support these amendments this evening.
18:37
Lewis Cocking Portrait Lewis Cocking MP (Broxbourne, Conservative)
-
-
Hey, hey. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My constituents, George and Areti are in the gallery today. Their are in the gallery today. Their story is one that no parent should ever have to go through. Their 15 ever have to go through. Their 15 year old son, Christopher, was an active, outgoing young man with a bright future ahead of him. One night in January 2022, Christopher was in his room playing video games. He clicked on a pop up link and was tricked into sharing personal information about himself and his family.

Just moments later, he began to receive messages from an anonymous stranger threatening to kill his family if he did not complete a series of challenges. Over the 50 harrowing days that followed. These sick challenges got worse and worse. Christopher felt he was being watched constantly, feeling he couldn't tell his mom or his dad what was going on. Fearing for their safety. Tragically, these challenges reached such an unbearable level that sadly, in March 2022, Christopher took his own life.

Since meeting George and Areti for the first time this year, I've been taken aback by their resilience and their determination to make sure this can never happen again. Together, they have set up a charity that works to educate others about the dangers that exist for children online. The Christopher Charity Foundation has set up and has been doing events and activities for kids, where they are encouraged to leave their phones behind and enjoy real life connections. As George and Areti say, their son was murdered by social media.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this is why we should act quickly and swiftly to protect children from online. So please, can the government get on with it? Stop all of the reviews. Please get on and act now. Ban phones in schools and bring in an age restriction of 16 on social media to save lives today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Well, Muhammad. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's a pleasure to speak in this debate today. And I stand to call on the government to support amendments 38 and 106 created in the other place to raise the age of the other place to raise the age of access to harmful social media platforms to 16 and to ban mobile platforms to 16 and to ban mobile phones from schools. There's been extremely well informed and broad range of speeches already made in
18:40
Iqbal Mohamed Portrait Iqbal Mohamed MP (Dewsbury and Batley, Independent)
-
-
the House, so I want to focus on the recent and not so recent the recent and not so recent scientific research that shows the harms of mobile phones and in harms of mobile phones and in particular, social media. So. Social media and, and, and access Social media and, and, and access to mobile phones for children, they reduce attention span and weaker reduce attention span and weaker executive function. Screen time, especially from smartphones, fast paced videos and multitasking apps, is linked to poor executive functions, including sustained attention, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, and working memory.

Neurocognitive explanations suggest that highly stimulating screens promote rapid attentional shifting, weakening the child's ability to concentrate in less simulate stimulating real world environments such as classrooms. It also affects language and verbal, creates language and issues, and verbal delays in early childhood, infancy and toddlerhood represent sensitive. Studies reportedly show that higher screen exposure before age three is associated with smaller, expressive vocabularies, delayed language milestones, reduced conversational turn taking. This effect is largely explained by displacement. Screen time displaces direct adult child verbal interaction, which is essential for language development and, importantly, passive consumption.

And videos and scrolling is significantly more harmful than interactive co used media. This increases the demand on our education system to support the children who are behind in their development. So banning phones will not only protect the children, but will allow them to learn at the rate that human beings are able to learn. Access to mobile phones and social media also alter brain development. MRI studies provide biological evidence supporting behavioural findings. Higher screen exposure in young children is associated with thinner cortical regions involved in language, attention and higher order cognition.

Altered maturation of visual and executive control networks, and reduced structural integrity in the frontal and temporal regions linked to self-regulation. And. Moving on, we have an increase in our society of children with neurodiverse conditions, including ADHD and use of mobile phones and social media, and fast short clip videos. Increase ADHD like symptoms and attention dysregulation. Multiple longitudinal studies, including analyses of more than 10,000 children, link higher screen exposure to increased inattention, impulsivity, and ADHD symptom severity.

Cognitive effects of screen multitasking in adolescence. Frequent mobile phone use, particularly media multitasking, is associated with lower working memory capacity, poorer sustained attention, reduced cognitive control efficiency. Moving on, other important scientific research. So sorry, the scientific consensus shows that well supported adverse cognitive effects from the use of mobile phones and social media, which include weaker attention and executive function, language delays in early childhood, reduced learning efficiency, ADHD related symptoms, atypical brain development patterns. Earlier in the week, I attended the statement by the government to halve the use of knives in our society and in young people over the next ten years, and I welcome those kind of approaches that protect our children and wider society.

And and we've heard about the court cases, recent court cases from the US where we know from leaked internal tech company documents that these social media companies were fully aware of the harm they were causing. They were designing in the addictive nature of their platforms. And they know children want to leave their platforms but feel unable to because of their addictive nature. I would class these companies as virtual drug dealers. They are providing a platform that, when exposed, when people are exposed to particular children, they become addicted and they are unable to wean themselves

**** Possible New Speaker ****

off and the safe. I will give great. Gentleman for allowing me to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. He speaks to the language delays that are created by language delays that are created by these apps. Wouldn't he agree with me that, you know, coming on top of SEN reforms that parents are SEN reforms that parents are already worried about the fact that these additional needs are going to come into the system will just come into the system will just create extra anxiety, extra pressures. I'm going to store up problems for the future. If they're not tackled now.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I do agree. I agree and I do sympathise with the government. There are huge pressures from all policy areas, in particular children's services, education, healthcare and now tech giants. The government rightly introduced age gating for pornographic sites, so people under the age of 18 could not access these sites, and that was absolutely the right thing to do, despite the fact that there are workarounds and technical ways for people to bypass that, it does protect the majority of children from exposure to pornography.

So the government must deal with the virtual drug dealers, and they must in implement laws to protect our children from the harms, but also introduce laws to obligate these companies to change and redesign their platforms to design out these harms. Academic studies have found that 24% of suicides amongst 10 to 19 year olds are linked to high risk use of digital technology. Heartbreaking cases, such as that of the 14 year old Molly Russell, who tragically took her own life in 2017 and whose legacy lives on through the Molly Russell Russell Foundation, have demonstrated that social media use is undoubtedly contributing to rising rates of self-harm among young people.

So this is not some future risk, but a real and present harm. We do not need more consultation, delay or half measures. We need this government to insist on safety by design to protect children from exposure to damaging content and and platforms, and not to implement anything that is around damage limitations. We need this government to listen to our citizens and not to the tech giants. So I once again call on the government and join my honourable and right hon.

Friends across the House to commit to raising the age of access to social media to 16, and to ban the use of all mobile phones in schools, rather than continuing to leave children exposed to systems causing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

irreversible and unnecessary harm. I think. The hon. Gentleman. Knows he's trying his luck.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With me, but I think it's worth reminding members. And you've all been here the best part of two

**** Possible New Speaker ****

been here the best part of two years at a bare minimum, that if. Members wish to contribute to a debate, they are under very clear debate, they are under very clear in the guide under an obligation, not a gentle request, but an obligation to turn up in the obligation to turn up in the chamber for the start of the debate. And I'm not convinced that the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gentleman was here. Minister Olivia Bailey you. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, I thank all members for their contributions made to the debate today, and I think it has debate today, and I think it has been a really useful, wide ranging conversation, and I'm grateful to everybody. And there have been everybody. And there have been really important contributions about safety and opportunity for all of our children. My hon. Friend
18:49
Olivia Bailey Portrait Olivia Bailey MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Education) (Equalities) (Reading West and Mid Berkshire, Labour)
-
-
all of our children. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields made a very powerful speech, and I join her in thanking Ashley John-baptiste and would like to say to her that she has truly honoured her word to the children that she worked with. The Member for Twickenham made a wide ranging speech and on her points about uniform, I would just like to repeat again that we will of course monitor the impact of this change and conduct a post-implementation review on the question of our intention to act on social media, let me be clear, and I will be repeating this lots.

I think during the course of my summation here this evening, that it is not a question of if we will act, but how we act. And the government has been very clear about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales is a passionate campaigner on tackling hate online, and he made a characteristically erudite speech. He demanded haste following our consultation and I can give him that guarantee. We are clear that we will act swiftly following this consultation, which concludes in only a month's time.

The Member for Beverley and Holderness made a very engaging speech, and both his speech and the intervention from the chair of the Education Select Committee reminded me of the broad consensus across this House about the need to act. But what he will not accept is the need to take the time necessary to get this right and to hear a wide range of perspectives. My hon. Friend the Member for. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket and the Member for Esher and Walton made compelling arguments about the dangers of the online world.

The Member for Chester South and Eddisbury reminded us of the challenge faced by parents when tackling these challenges, one that I too identify with and the Member for Broxbourne made a very powerful speech, may I say, and I would like to thank and welcome to the gallery, George and Areti, and thank them for their bravery and strength in campaigning in memory of their son, Christopher. The Member for Dewsbury and Batley made a wide ranging speech, but he talked particularly about early childhood.

And I would like to say that I share his concerns, the research the department has published and the guidance we have recently published do warn that too much time online on screens can have a detrimental impact on key measures for our youngest children, and that is why we have acted with very clear guidance that we have issued as a government, to give parents the support they need to navigate that challenge. I won't, I won't, I'm afraid. And finally, turning to remarks from the right hon.

Member for Sevenoaks, she made a moving speech that reminds us of the urgency of action. And I too have met bereaved parents and their. The toughest meetings and I would like to. To thank them for their bravery and courage. The question we have debated today is not if we act, but how we act. And I would just gently say to her, instead of rushing to a narrow ban from the other place, we need sufficient information, and this government is determined to take action to keep our children safe online.

But we do need to consider all perspectives and a much wider range of services and features. Madam Deputy Speaker I thank members from across the House for their considered contributions this evening. The bill we have before us today will lift children out of poverty, break down the barriers to opportunity and tackle the cost of living for families. And I urge members across the House who share Labour's ambitions for our children to support this landmark legislation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House agrees with the Lords in their agrees with the Lords in their amendment 17 B As many as of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, opinion say aye. of the contrary, no, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to insist on disagreement with Lords Amendment 38 and to with Lords Amendment 38 and to propose amendments A to F in lieu.

The question is that this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 38, and proposes amendments A to F in lieu. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary,
18:54
18:57
19:07
19:29
19:30
None Portrait Consideration of Lords amendments: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Division:Govt motion to disagree with Lords Amdt 106
-

The question is that this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 106, and proposes amendments A to C in lieu. As many as of that opinion, say I. Of the contrary. No, no. Tellers for the ayes as Stephen Morgan and Jade Botterill the Tellers for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! The ayes to the right. 248 the Noes to the left 139.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the ayes to the right for 248. The noes to the left. 139 so the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. We now come to the motion to agree with Lords Amendment 105 B. I call the Minister to move the motion formally. The question is that this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment. 105 B as many as are of that opinion, say I, I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it.

The ayes have it Minister to move that a committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be appointed to draw up reasons. I beg to move that a committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that a committee be appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment. 41 disagreeing to their amendment. 41 b that Olivia Bailey Jade Botterill Amanda Martin Tim Roca Alan Amanda Martin Tim Roca Alan Strickland Laura Trott and Will Forster the members of the committee that Olivia Bailey b the committee that Olivia Bailey b the chair of the Committee that three. B the quorum of the Committee that the Committee do withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

immediately. The question is that a committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment. 41 b that Olivia Bailey Jade Botterill b that Olivia Bailey Jade Botterill Amanda Martin Tim Roca Alan Strickland Laura Trott and Will Forster b members of the committee Forster b members of the committee that Olivia Bailey b the chair of the Committee that three. B the quorum of the Committee that the quorum of the Committee that the Committee do withdraw immediately, as many as are of that opinion say aye.

of the contrary, no, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. That concludes consideration of the Lords amendments to the children's
19:42
None Portrait Remaining Orders of the Day
-

Well-Being and Schools Bill. Motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

number seven on Building and Buildings. Minister to move. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper as many as that opinion say Paper as many as that opinion say aye. Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number eight on energy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister to move. I beg to move. The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary, no. The division is deferred until Wednesday. Next. Motion number nine

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on retained EU law reform. Minister to move. I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number ten on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ayes have it. Motion number ten on local government. Minister to move. I beg to move. The question is as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I. I contrary no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Motion number 11 on local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. Minister to move. I beg to move. The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary, no, I think the ayes have it. The ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number 12 on local government Minister to move. I beg to move. The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper, As many as of that opinion say aye. I the contrary. No. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say aye. I the contrary. No. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Petition Adam Jogee. Thank you very much, Madam
19:44
Adam Jogee Portrait Petition Adam Jogee MP (Newcastle-under-Lyme, Labour)
-
-
Deputy Speaker. The petition of residents of the Constitution of Newcastle-under-Lyme declares that Baldy's field, a green space adjacent to Hoon Avenue and Milehouse Lane, has been used by local people for generations and is valued by residents as an accessible open space used for walking, recreation and wellbeing. Further declares that proposals affecting the site have generated significant, significant concern significant, significant concern across the community and that residents have raised issues relating to traffic congestion in the surrounding area, and have questioned how additional development could be accommodated safely within an already pressured road network.

Further declares that there are concerns about flooding and drainage in the area, including existing problems following heavy rainfall. Further declares that questions remain about how further development would affect the local drainage system and whether the implications have been fully addressed, and further declares that the potential loss of body speeds itself is a major concern. As for many local people who live nearby, it represents one of the few remaining accessible green spaces relied upon by individuals and families for everyday recreation, and for the mental and physical well-being that open spaces support.

The petitioners therefore, request the House of Commons urge the government to work with Staffordshire County Council to ensure that the concerns that have been raised are listened to carefully, to ensure full transparency about the future of the site, and to take all possible steps to protect these fields for the benefit of the community and all the people who live, learn and work in Newcastle-under-Lyme and work in Newcastle-under-Lyme and the petitioners remain, etc.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition Ashfield.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition Ashfield. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. At the end of October 2013, I led a debate on the regulation of Jam, which caused the regulation of Jam, which caused a bit of a stir. It rightly warned of the end of the British breakfast as we know it. 13 years later I'm returned to discuss marmalade. Last July to one of my constituency surgeries, a lady called Vivian Loyd, who'd inspired the debate about jam, actually returned to see me, and hopefully she's in the gallery today, and she told me of her alarm that the arrangements
19:46
19:47
Tessa Munt Portrait Tessa Munt MP (Wells and Mendip Hills, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
it had earned a double page spread. Forgive me for the. It's great, isn't it? No. It's great. I understand that Paddington the understand that Paddington the Musical won seven Olivier Awards this weekend. Paddington, who's the most well known lover of marmalade in sandwiches, enjoys stratospheric popularity, but members and the Minister will be delighted. I am not going to be breaking into song. I look forward to welcoming interventions from hon. Members from the AU conservative. I was going to say conservative seats, but this one, they're not here.

What a disappointment. Anyway, that pun doesn't really particularly work because not just because it's a particularly corny pun, but it's actually that marmalade is in fact a preserve rather than a conserve. And that's exactly the issue I wish to speak about today. The enormous inaccuracy in the classification of jams, spreads and, importantly, marmalade stories explaining the origins of marmalade are full of inaccuracies. One account says Mary, Queen of Scots, was ill and requested a remedy made of oranges and sugar.

Her maid supposedly whispered that mom is marmalade, leading to the name of the preserve. Another story, a credits marmalade to Dundee, where a ship full of oranges is supposed to have broken down, sunk in the port town, resourceful and aliens supposedly devised a way of preserving the cargo to make it last. Unfortunately, both of these are untrue, and quince jams. Jams existed throughout Europe much earlier than these stories. Dated, and French and Portuguese took their word for quince jelly from the Greek meli melon, meaning sweet apple.

But it seems this lack of care for heritage can still be seen in the approach we take to regulating our marmalade market today. As a consequence, preservers and food retailers are selling marmalades that do not comply with the total Sugar and Fruit content regulations as specified in the Jam and Similar Products Regulations and Similar Products Regulations 2003. Marmalade should be 60% sugar. There are rules for the percentage of the total sugar content in this product. Marmalade is 60% or more.

The sugar content for reduced sugar marmalade is anything from 25 to 50%. Now, those who are statisticians and mathematicians among us will have noticed that this leaves products with a total sugar content of 50% to 59% completely uncategorised. This is a loophole that's been exploited by many marmalade manufacturers. However, it's now worth acknowledging recent regulatory changes which shift the nature of this problem. The Breakfast Foods Amendment regulations will come into effect in Northern Ireland in the next few months and make some welcome changes.

I'd be more than happy to give them much.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mike Martin Dudley. First of all, can I command the hon. Lady for Wells and Mendip Hills for bringing this forward? Spoke to you this this forward? Spoke to you this morning to ascertain our thoughts upon this matter. I. We were upon this matter. I. We were brought up in marmalade as back in barley water my mum made marmalade herself home. She's now 94. Not making marmalade anymore, by the making marmalade anymore, by the way. But the fact of the matter is, whilst I am no Paddington Bear, I whilst I am no Paddington Bear, I have to say I love nothing more than a good round of marmalade and toast, and when I say I enjoy that, I mean marmalade and not citrus jam.

So does the hon. Lady. Not agree that my constituents in Strangford across Northern Ireland, with EU labelling interfering with our produce, deserve the very same consideration as her constituency? And that labelling must reflect the hard won distinction of marmalade and not fruit jam or jam, just for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the. The ease of the EU. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I partially agree with the hon. I partially agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have to say that if we were part of the EU, we might well find ourselves in a position where find ourselves in a position where we might be able to influence this a little bit more. But actually the most he's quite right in recognising that our jams and our recognising that our jams and our spreads and our marmalades have a very distinctive characteristic.

And in fact, Madam Deputy Speaker, I I'm aware that actually in countries like Japan and in Australia, it's one of our largest exports because of the quality of our jams and marmalades. So if I may, I'll just say that while the 60% requirement remains in law, these moves. So the the Breakfast Foods Amendment regulation remove the requirement to display the total sugar content as a percentage on labels. Instead, producers will now have to display and I quote, energy value amounts of fat, carbohydrates, sugars, protein, and salt.

Unfortunately, this does nothing to encourage marmalade to be made with 60% sugar content, although I understand the driver behind those particular regulations. This issue matters because the rules governing marmalade are not arbitrary. They're grounded in nearly actually just over a century of scientific research and culinary practice. The requirement for 60% sugar content was not dreamt up by bureaucrats. It was developed through rigorous experimentation in the early 1920s at the University of Bristol's Long Ashton research Station. This facility isn't in my patch, but I'm very proud to consider Bristol University my.

One of my local university's Long Ashton Research station, now closed, is about 15 minutes drive from the boundary of my constituency, and I believe it's also famous for being where Ribena was developed. The scientists were not merely interested in taste, but in consistency, preservation and reliability. Before their work, recipes varied wildly, yields were unpredictable and the shelf life of marmalade was uncertain. What they established was a standard that ensured marmalade would set properly, taste balanced and keep for extended periods.

That West Country connection is not incidental, it's foundational. The work carried out in Long Ashton helped to define what we now recognise as traditional British marmalade. It brought together food science and domestic practice, producing recipes that became a benchmark for generations of home cooks and commercial producers alike. To depart from those standards is not to innovate, it is to move away from a carefully developed and distinctly British product. The 60% threshold in particular is critical. At that level, marmalade achieves the correct gelled consistency, a bright and appealing appearance, a balanced flavour that is neither overly bitter nor cloyingly sweet.

It also ensures a shelf life of up to a year when properly sealed, drop below that threshold and the product becomes fundamentally different. It's looser, duller, less stable and far more perishable. Just refer to the fact that in my debate back in 2013, I described it as gloopy sludge, for which I then had to apologise to the Americans and the French for describing their efforts as that. But I'm not doing that this time, of course. But these are not minor variations.

They are material differences that consumers have a right to understand. Under the new labelling rules, that understanding becomes really hard to access, while full nutritional information will still be provided. The removal of a clear single sugar percentage risks obscuring whether a product meets these long established British standards. An obvious response might be that the reduction in sugar is a good thing. We're rightly encouraged to reduce sugar intake. However, lower sugar marmalades tend to be boiled for longer, which lowers the water content and ultimately results in a higher sugar content following the boiling process.

The right response for those who wish to reduce their sugar intake is to moderate the amount of marmalade we put on our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

toast in the morning. Of course. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I must confess to the House that I prefer English House that I prefer English strawberry jam Madam Deputy Speaker marmalade, but my my wife is a deciduous and loyal orange marmalade fan and often purchases one of the excellent shops at Northern Irish thing in Newcastle. Northern Irish thing in Newcastle. I Madam Speaker, but can I just congratulate the hon. Lady on both an excellent speech and interesting an excellent speech and interesting speech, and for giving voice to the sweet, sweet tastes of Paddington

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bear himself. Trying so hard to avoid more references to Paddington. But you're quite right, and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you're quite right, and. Please forgive me. I made the point earlier in the debate. We've had a scattering of views, both from Ministers, frontbenchers and backbenchers. Hon. Members have backbenchers. Hon. Members have been in this place for long enough to know that they must not do it, and it won't be tolerated by the chair Tessa Munt thank you. Madam Deputy Chair.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to acknowledge the hon. Member's wife's commitment to Member's wife's commitment to marmalade. The critical thing is it's citrus. I myself have been to it's citrus. I myself have been to Fortnum and Mason, and I'll probably have to apologise to them tomorrow morning. Nonetheless, I tomorrow morning. Nonetheless, I have seen strawberry marmalade and all sorts of marmalade. This is rubbish. There's no such thing as rubbish. There's no such thing as those things, but I will. I'm going to carry on, if that's right.

I can't even remember where I was. Right. Okey doke. So. So the. Yes. That's right. I was just going to say the right response for those who wish to reduce their sugar intake is to moderate the amount of marmalade we put on our toast in the morning. And I refer to the fact that. So to add, there's some manufacturers who use the weight of sugar in the recipe to calculate the percentage of sugar. They do that instead of testing the end product in the jar with the refractometer.

So to summarise the situation, consumers are getting a lower quality, higher sugar product that can be made more cheaply than proper marmalade, but can be disguised as the same thing. So to avoid this, I would ask the Minister to ensure marmalades have only 60% or above total content of sugar, as measured with a refractometer. This way, we protect the heritage of British marmalade. Another concern in the marmalade market is the definition of marmalade itself. This is being flaunted in cases where producers are developing creative new preserves.

Now, only these additional ingredients can be used in true marmalade spirits wine liqueur, wine nuts, aromatic herbs, spices, vanilla, vanilla extracts and vanillin vanillin. Every year, Penrith holds the World Marmalade Awards. Recent winners include Nordic fusion, blackcurrant and vodka marmalade. Coffee heaven, marmalade and yuzu passion fruit and apricot marmalade. I had to check what the last one was. No idea. Without clear and enforced regulation, those differences are obscured. Products that fall short of the standards are still presented to consumers as marmalade, trading on the reputation of a product that they do not, in truth, match.

That is not innovation. It is misrepresentation. Recent regulatory changes do attempt to address this by tightening definitions. Marmalade will now be more clearly defined as a citrus product, quite rightly, and combinations of citrus with non citrus ingredients will no longer be permitted to use the term. This is a welcome step towards greater clarity for consumers and towards protecting the integrity of the product itself. The vast majority of Marmalades are already labelled Seville marmalade or orange marmalade, but this will ensure that this applies to all marmalades.

Predictably, colleagues in the Conservative and Reform have leapt on the bandwagon and claimed that due to heavy handed EU regulation, we may no longer call marmalade marmalade. That claim, whilst overstated, reflects a misunderstanding of what is actually changing. Indeed, it's reminiscent of the banana straightening nonsense sprouted in the lead up to the EU referendum in 2016. We are not losing the word marmalade but refining it. But the changes ensure that what is called marmalade is in fact made from citrus fruit.

In a post 2016 referendum context of post Brexit context, this takes on added significance and irony. We were told by some that we would now have the opportunity to define, protect and champion our own food standards rooted in our own scientific and culinary heritage. There is a real risk that by drifting towards looser definitions or adopted elsewhere, we could lose almost a century. Sorry, just over a century of British tradition, accurate regulation, therefore, is not about pedantry. It's about protecting consumers quality and maintaining trust.

It's about ensuring that when something is labelled as marmalade, it meets the standards that generations of Britons would expect. If we fail to uphold those standards, we risk eroding not just a definition, but we risk failing to preserve a meaningful part of our national food heritage. So my request to the Minister is, firstly, it's still unclear what will happen it's still unclear what will happen to the 50 cent to 59% sugar marmalade's. Maybe we should have three categories reduced sugar marmalade, which is 25 to 49% preserve but not marmalade, 50 to 59% and marmalade at 60% and above.

The second request is legislation should require the sugar content be measured with a refractometer. My third request is that we have a defined list of permitted additional marmalade ingredients, as I've mentioned, and that that should actually be enforced. Fourthly, we have removed the requirement to label the sugar content with an understanding that this will be expressed in the nutritional values information. This is doubly problematic for marmalade because, firstly, it's often made by artisan producers who sometimes do not label the nutritional values.

And secondly, as discussed in my speech, 60% sugar content is so critical to producing something that is actually marmalade. My penultimate point is perhaps that legislation should require that, at a minimum, the sugar content is made clear either as part of the nutritional values or just the sugar content on a separate label. And finally, the new rules require that marmalade be labelled citric marmalade or Seville orange marmalade. This is fine, but it leaves the door open to so-called strawberry marmalade or raspberry marmalade.

Please can we ensure that the new legislation permits that only citrus fruits can precede the word marmalade on labels? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Minister well, thank.
20:03
Angela Eagle Portrait Dame Angela Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Wallasey, Labour)
-
-
You very much. >> You very much. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip for calling this debate and providing an opportunity debate and providing an opportunity for me to outline the regulation of the marmalade market. As Paddington Bear wisely reminds us, a wise bear always keeps a marmalade sandwich in his hat in case of emergency. And as hon. Members may notice, I don't have a hat. And I hope we don't have an emergency.

And I certainly don't have a sandwich, so I hope that we won't be getting into any sticky situations. Although I thought we were perhaps getting in some spicy situations. Listening to the hon. Lady's speech after the flurry of media stories over Easter and marmalade. This is a topical debate, but I think Paddington himself would be mildly exasperated at all the marmalade nonsense that has been spread around in the papers. In response to this, I want to reassure members of the House that absolutely nothing will be changing about the composition of marmalade, despite misinformation which has now spread far and wide, there is no requirement for retailers or producers to change.

To change an orange marmalade label to a citrus marmalade label, and in fact, the orange marmalade that sold in the tea room is exactly able to be exported. This and and will be able to be exported once these changes have come into effect into the European Union. Despite all of these things on UK supermarket shelves, marmalade is often already labelled orange marmalade. As the hon. Lady pointed out, this is in compliance with EU rules, past and present, and many British manufacturers already meet international labelling labelling standards voluntarily so their products can be sold overseas.

Now, after our new SPS deal with the EU, we will simply support that trade by cutting unnecessary red tape with our largest markets, we won't be subverting the meaning or composition of marmalade. I'm sure the hon. Member will will welcome that news. It's a product steeped in tradition, as she said, and loved by millions at the breakfast table. It delivers a perfect blend of sweet and tangy fruit preserve made from the juice and peel of citrus fruits simmered with sugar and water.

The well-known version is made from bitter orange, most commonly using Seville oranges, but other citrus fruits, such as lemons and limes, make an equally delightful change and are becoming more popular. Whilst the marmalade we know today is a symbol of British breakfast, its origins actually stem from Portugal, where it was made. As the hon. Lady said, from quince and known as marmalade. It was then imported into England in the 16th century from Mediterranean countries. Modern marmalade has actually existed since the 1700s, when in Scotland water was added to make it less solid, and it was the people of Scotland who then made marmalade a breakfast item and soon after the rest of Britain followed.

Interestingly, the word marmalade in the English language comes from the French, which came from the Portuguese word marmalade, starting, as the hon. Lady pointed out, with the Greek meli melon, which means sweet apple. So actually marmalade is more international, I suspect, than many people who are using it as a symbol of UK patriotism actually understand, as is the case in many of these circumstances, our current domestic rules for marmalade are regulated by the Jam and Similar Products England Regulations 2003, which implemented the assimilated EU directive 2001 113 EC.

These help protect the quality and reputation of these important products and ensure that they meet consumer expectations. Again, as the hon. Lady pointed out, our domestic rules lay down compositional standards for products like jam, jelly, marmalade and other similar products, which means that marmalade and jelly marmalade must contain a minimum amount of citrus fruit. It's 200g/kg of finished product, for which a set amount, 75g must come from the Endocarp. And for those who don't know what the Endocarp is, it's the segments and pulp of a citrus fruit.

The soluble solids are also set at a minimum level. As the hon. Lady pointed out, at 60%, very few other ingredients are permitted and only at restricted amounts. For example, no food colour or colours are allowed. I understand that the right hon. Lady is very familiar with these regulations, because she was particularly active when changes to the minimum levels of sugar in jams were proposed in the UK in 2013, food policies devolved in the UK, but these standards are similarly accepted and set across all the devolved governments.

I'm pleased to say that our domestic UK market for marmalade is buoyant and worth £67 million. Our leading UK brand, Robertson's delivered £9 million in sales in the last year and Mackay is the fastest growing marmalade brand and now the UK's second largest, and Scotland's number one, with 19% of market share in Scotland and 7.6% across the UK. These successful brands are excellent examples of products already referencing orange marmalade in the name, and marmalade is of course synonymous with Paddington.

And in fact, it was reported in 2014 that marmalade sales soared following the release of the Paddington Bear movie, the so-called Paddington Effect. As promised in our manifesto, this government is focussed on resetting our relations with the European Union, our closest trading partners, and we've agreed with the EU to establish a common sanitary and phytosanitary area. And as my right hon. Friend the Defra Secretary of State, the Member for the right hon. Member for Wycombe, said in Paris when she met the French Agriculture Minister, Angela.

Our friendship is built on cooperation, on mutual benefit and on a shared understanding that our security and prosperity are bound together. So, along alongside the Windsor framework, the SPS agreement will make moving goods easier, cheaper and more predictable not just between the UK and the EU, but also within the UK too. Great Britain to Northern Ireland. So this is about more than trade statistics. Short regulated, high standard supply chains between trusted neighbours at the foundation of resilient food security.

We expect the agreement to cover the breakfast rules, which the hon. Lady has referred to in in her contribution, including the jam and marmalade rules that I mentioned earlier. Members may be aware that in 2024, the EU updated its rules on jams and made some minor changes to marmalade provisions. In the EU, consumers use both the term jam and marmalade to refer to jams made from non-citrus fruits. This is what they have always done in order to accommodate different linguistic preferences, the EU adopted its rules to allow the equivalent to marmalade to be used for the term jam, where this was commonplace in their market.

This is an option that a member state can choose to implement to avoid confusion with Jam, the EU updated the reserved term of what we currently know here as marmalade to citrus marmalade, but producers can still simply name the flavour of the citrus fruit, i.e. orange marmalade or lemon and lime, and have consumers understand precisely the very particular nature of that product. The change won't apply to jelly marmalade because there's no provision for jelly to be used interchangeably with marmalade, and so no confusion will arise.

Aligning with the EU rules would mean that a small change to our marmalade description rules would have to be made. But as most jars already list the citrus used, the real world impact would be minimal and consumers are on are not likely to notice any difference.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm happy to give away. Enormously for her explanation,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Enormously for her explanation, and I'm. I'm pleased there's no intention to damage our trade in any way. We should boost it. It's a any way. We should boost it. It's a very well known product and it has its unique qualities. I think my constituent would be particularly concerned about the level of sugar. And I know I've asked some very detailed questions, and I have a copy of those questions for her. So if I may, I'll hand those to her after this debate.

But it is around it's around the amount of sugar because of those old Bristolian standards that were set over 100 years ago that I'm particularly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

concerned about. I think I reflect her views the same. Well, there've been no changes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, there've been no changes to the amount of sugar required for marmalade to be a marmalade in these changes. And if she's hinting, these changes. And if she's hinting, as I think she might be, that there are various nefarious producers are various nefarious producers masquerading non marmalade as actual marmalade in the UK sense of actual marmalade in the UK sense of the word, then she should probably tell me, or at least tell the local authority trade trading standards officers what's going on in the local area so that they can test to see what's masquerading as a as a spread or a preserve masquerading as marmalade.

So I hope that I'm happy to write to the hon. Lady if she if she wants to hand me those questions. But to conclude, the government's committed to supporting and protecting traditional British food products like marmalade. And we do this through meaningful regulation, which supports high food standards. Marmalade will be sort of included in that. And I hope that she knows that given the SPS deal, we will be aligning with some of the EU's rules, as indeed we already do with EU retained law.

And that ought to be make it easier for consumers to know what it is they're buying.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn As many as of that opinion say aye. I the ayes have it.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page