Commons Chamber

Wednesday 22nd April 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:51
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
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:01
None Portrait Prime Minister's Question Time
-

12:01
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:11
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:37
12:39
None Portrait Urgent question: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the Government’s Modern Procurement Strategy
-

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Every year this country spends around £400 billion of taxpayers money on procurement. And if we're honest,
12:39
Chris Ward Portrait Chris Ward MP, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven, Labour)
-
-
under the current complex system, we do not always spend it as wisely we do not always spend it as wisely as we could. That is why, just before the Easter recess, I announced a major package of reforms to the procurement system, reforms to the procurement system, and I'm grateful to have the chance to update the House today on it. Behind these reforms, Mr. Speaker, Behind these reforms, Mr. Speaker, our three principles. First, the procurement should do much more to protect national security and support British businesses.

Second, that it should deliver a fairer economy, and third, that it should be simpler, fairer and open doors to businesses, small businesses and charities to take those in turn. Mr. speaker, this government believes it matters where things are made and who makes them so. So we will issue new guidance for all government departments to make use of the national security exemptions in the Procurement Act, to direct procurement to serve the national industry. National interest. We will start with four sectors critical to our national security steel, shipbuilding, energy independence and AI.

This will give a clear sign, Mr. Speaker, that this Labour government will back British business and we will use both the weight of our procurement Budget and the powers in the Procurement Act to do so. We will also take two further steps to back British businesses. First, government departments will now be required to confirm whether prime contractors are using UK steel, and they will have to explain why they are not. If so, we will also develop a new shipbuilding framework to restrict government contracts to British firms, where this supports our national security interests.

Mr. speaker, the second principle of these reforms is that procurement should build a fairer economy, and the truth is that for decades, under successive governments, we have had a policy that essentially adds up to outsourcing by default. Well, Mr. Speaker, under this Labour government, the age of outsourcing will end. We will, in line with our manifesto, introduce a public interest test and it will apply to all government departments. They will now be required to assess whether a service can be delivered more effectively in-house, and if it cannot, a clear explanation must be published.

Departments will also, for the first time, be required to publish robust insourcing strategies, setting out how, over the medium term, they will build the capacity to make the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation a reality. Mr. speaker, this marks a step change in how and who our public services are run by and for, and I am proud that this Labour government is delivering it. Mr. speaker, we will also strengthen the role of social value in procurement. Too often this has become a mere tick box exercise and a barrier, not an opportunity for SMEs and start ups.

So working with trade unions, businesses and others, we will create a new definition of social value that will underpin all government procurement. The third principle of these reforms, Mr. Speaker, is to make the procurement system simpler and fairer. I have heard too many times how the complexity, duplication and endless form filling of the current system is among the biggest barriers to SMEs and charities, so we will undertake a rapid review of all existing requirements in the procurement system, and we will see which burdens and duplications can be removed.

If they are not essential, we will scrap them. We will enforce a Telus once principle.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, no you don't. Look at the clock. Look at me and you sit down. It's three minutes. I don't know It's three minutes. I don't know who may have told you differently. There was something going wrong in advice that's being given. It's three minutes. I presume you're now
12:43
12:43
12:43
12:43
12:44
12:44
12:45
Mike Wood Portrait Mike Wood MP (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Conservative)
-
-
Mike Wood Sharon Hodgson. >> Mr. Speaker, and I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this urgent question. I know how rare that is for a government PBS, and I that is for a government PBS, and I welcome the government's ambition to as she's not anymore, sorry, I apologise. I welcome the government's ambition to modernise public procurement, but ambition, as ever, must be matched by delivery. And there are a number of questions the Minister must answer today. The government promised transparency through a new online register of commercial agreements.

When precisely will that register be live and will it be comprehensive from day one? Ministers often speak of backing small business. Will the Minister publish in a single accessible place? Every department's SME target, its latest outturn and whether it is on track or off track, a non prompt payment? How many suppliers have actually been excluded from major contracts for failing to meet the required standards? If this strategy is truly about value for money, why has the government still not resolved the fragmentation, poor quality frameworks and poor use of data and technology that was identified by the National Audit Office on National Security contracting authorities are now required to assess risks not just from the prime contractors, but from associated persons and subcontractors.

How many procurements have been referred for national security consideration, and how many suppliers have been excluded or challenged as a result? What assurances can the Minister give that public contracts are not still flowing into supply chains, with links to hostile states? And what assessment has the Minister made of the EU's emerging Buy Europe policies? Isn't this a protectionist barrier by the European Union? And finally, if social value is now mandatory at 10%, what assessment has been made of the risk that this adds cost and complexity? And particularly for SMEs? I know the House will want clear answers.
12:47
Chris Ward Portrait Chris Ward MP, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven, Labour)
-
-
For those questions. Let me try and answer a few of them. Firstly, on SMEs and department spend. I mean, as I say, part of this package is to try and support SMEs and to make sure they have a greater chance of winning contracts. We did publish the departmental spends the day before recess. I know there was a lot going on, but we have published them. They are there and they show a very ambitious step forward. I believe around £7 billion of government contracts will go to SMEs as a result of those changes.

I'm very proud of what we are doing. It's the first time government have done it and we've helped drive that through. We've worked very hard on that. He asked about Buy Europe. Look, this is not in conflict with any of our international agreements. It's obviously not in conflict also with our negotiations with the EU that my right hon. Friend is is leading on and we work closely on that. But at the heart of this is a recognition that we need to use our procurement Budget within international law and with international regulations to do more to support our industries.

And that is quite the right thing to do, and I hope we can get cross-party support. He also asked me about social value again. I think he was implying that we are making this mandatory. It is already mandatory and it is already weighted at 10% within the contracting system. I'm not changing that here. What I'm saying is I'm changing the definition of social value so it will do more to support communities, and it will do more to make sure that it really works.

And it really supports communities for doing it. So there's no change on that. He asked me a couple of specific questions around national security points. I will get back to him if that's OK. But in general terms, I hope we can get cross-party support on this. The Procurement Act was passed with cross-party support. It was a step forward, but this is the next big step in trying to make sure we do much more with that Budget to support Britain.
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:55
12:56
12:56
12:57
12:57
12:57
12:58
12:59
12:59
13:00
13:01
13:02
13:02
13:03
13:03
13:04
13:04
13:05
13:06
13:06
13:07
13:07
13:07
13:08
13:08
13:09
13:10
13:11
13:11
13:12
13:13
13:13
13:14
13:14
13:15
13:16
13:16
13:17
13:18
13:18
13:19
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Torfaen, Labour)
-
-
secure. But for these principles to be more than just words, they need to be underpinned by rigorous accountability and refusal to accept second best. We recognise that for our public servants, these that for our public servants, these services are the foundation of their financial security and when the standards they deserve are not the standards they deserve are not upheld, the government will not hesitate to act decisively to protect their interests. And it's protect their interests. And it's in that context. I want to give the first update to the House on the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme, following a failure to meet critical transition milestones and a lack of confidence in capitals ability to implement and transition to the new operating model in a timely fashion.

I am announcing today to the House that I have terminated the new Royal Mail Statutory Pension Scheme contract with capita. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker capita had an 18 month planning window to prepare for the transition. They failed to deliver numerous milestones, including a failure to implement the required IT automation. The Cabinet Office repeatedly flagged delays in transition milestones and that IT automation ultimately issuing formal correspondence to reaffirm the mandatory requirements to ensure members are protected. We will ensure continuity of the existing contract, but let the message be clear I will not and we will not tolerate delivery failure from contracted partners.

Public services require high quality delivery, and public money should not be used to fund performance. That falls short of the standards we expect. Madam Deputy Speaker, I also want to address problems in the administration of the Civil Service Pension Scheme. The transition process from the previous provider, my CSP was not satisfactory. We are investigating the respective liabilities for those failures as between capita and my CSP. Given the criticality of these services, the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary and I discussed transition with the Chief Executive Officer of capita.

We sought and were given explicit personal assurances that the transition would be handled with the utmost care and that any backlogs would be managed effectively. I am sorry to say those assurances have not been met, and it is clear, in any event that the delivery of the service to civil servants since the transfer on 1st of December last year, has fallen far short of the required standard. The delays civil servants have faced in accessing their civil service pensions are unacceptable, especially in view of their many years of dedicated public service.

Now that is why I established a specialist Pensions Recovery Task Force led by the second Permanent Secretary at HMRC, Angela McDonald, to take strategic oversight on the scheme's management. That intervention, which, by the way, includes a circa 140 person government surge team to bolster operational capacity, is delivering results because through this intervention, we have helped capita clear 15,000 inherited unread emails and telephony wait times that averaged at over 90 minutes earlier this year, have been successfully brought down to an average of under two minutes.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to say that the stories we have heard of members missing mortgage payments and falling into hardship are distressing and entirely unacceptable. No one should have to face such financial anxiety after a lifetime of dedicated public service. It is why I took immediate action to ensure that no member was left to face these challenges alone. Whilst these service issues are being resolved, so to mitigate the impact on those most affected, we have already provided over £7.2 million in interest free transitional support loans to more than 1300 members.

We are proactively driving the uptake of these loans to ensure no member in need of support is missed, and I encourage all honourable and right hon. Members to ask their eligible constituents to reach out to their civil service employers for these loans so we can provide the support, the vital support they deserve. I can tell the House to that capital was explicitly instructed in July 2025 to prepare for the volumes they are now seeing. They knew the scale of the challenge, but they failed to deliver the IT automation and portal functionality required at Go Live.

The result, I'm afraid to say, is a backlog of around 24,000 outstanding pension quotations. And I say to the House as well, a backlog of over 1500 open MP complaints. Now that is totally unacceptable, and I have instructed officials to speak to capita about how we can ensure that MP correspondence is dealt with quickly and efficiently. Noting the importance of members across the House were all speaking up for their constituents. These are not just numbers on a spreadsheet.

They represent thousands of individuals who are unable to plan for their futures or retire with dignity. I have to say as well, though, Madam Deputy Speaker, service delivery is about more than just speed. It's also about the absolute security of member data and the breach we saw on the 30th of March, which saw personal information compromised on the pension portal, represents a fundamental failure in data protection. And I should be clear with the House, I will not tolerate these lapses. The Cabinet Office has formally notified the Information Commissioner's Office of this breach, and we have written formally to the Chief Executive Officer of capita to demand a full technical account of this failure and a guarantee that it will not happen again.

Madam Deputy Speaker, Across the Civil Service Pension Scheme, we have taken direct action on all commercial levers. We are withholding milestone payments where deliverables have not been met, and we reserve every right to take further formal action with regard to service levels. The Cabinet Office has mandated a clear recovery target. Capita must clear all inherited arrears by the end of this month and restore service levels to standard, contractually required levels by the end of June this year. We will continue to use every lever at our disposal to ensure that these standards are met.

Madam Deputy Speaker, The security and dignity of all those who have dedicated their careers to our civil service and the Royal Mail are not negotiable. They deserve a pension service that is reliable, efficient and secure. So we will, and I will continue to use every lever at our disposal to ensure those standards are met and that members receive the service that they have earned. I commend the statement to the House.
13:26
13:27
Mike Wood Portrait Mike Wood MP (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Conservative)
-
-
the civil Service Pension Scheme, the Minister has come to the House with a statement, rather more with with a statement, rather more with a plan, because it's clear that the current situation, as the Minister did say, is the culmination of a series of entirely unforced errors by Capita Capita's failure to adequately administer the CSPs has caused real, significant financial caused real, significant financial distress to thousands of former public servants. People like my constituent Chris, who's found himself without the pension that he was relying on at just the time that his wife has had to step back from work after a cancer diagnosis.

Now these people worked hard. They planned responsible for retirement, and they did so on the basis that the CSODS would be there for them when they needed it. And captors failures have left them anxious, frustrated, and in many cases, desperately out of pocket. Yet in all too many cases that I'm aware of, capita has been utterly unresponsive. And sadly, the constituents and others from around the country have contacted me about. Capita simply wouldn't recognise the minister's claim of answer times being down to two minutes.

This really isn't the way to reward a career of dedicated public service. Last year, the National Audit Office highlighted the capita had failed to meet three of the six key transition milestones that had been due by March 2025. All these milestones related to scheme design and operational readiness. And in October last year, two months before Ministers had to make a final decision on the transition to capita, the Public Accounts Committee noted capita missed milestones to deliver its IT systems.

The committee called on the Cabinet Office to fully develop contingency plans before making a final decision whether capita should take over administration on 1st December last year, and the minister's department confirmed that four months after the transition was completed, capita still not met three transition milestones, while one is only partially met. It's only at this point that the Minister has brought forward the contingency plans, the same contingency plans that the Public Accounts Committee recommended months before. But the warning signs were there, and they should have been clear and obvious.

Despite this, in November last year, a full year and a half after the government took office, the government wrote to trade unions confirming that Ministers were pressing ahead with Capita's contract. Now, we all agree that it is in everyone's interest that the CSPs operational stability is restored as quickly as possible. Capita, after all, won this contract because of the failure of the previous Mike Tapp contract and a further change would clearly mean more disruption, causing further harm to those who have already been so badly impacted.

But Ministers must ensure the captain meets his contractual obligations consistently, that any penalty clauses in the contract that can be enforced are enforced to allow for compensation to be paid. So the Minister does have some questions to answer on behalf of those missing out because of his failings. Will the Minister unequivocally commit to delivering that functioning service in the time frame he has set himself? Can the Minister confirm that his department has delivered the standardised mitigation letter for CSPs members to share with lenders to explain their temporary financial difficulties? This was promised last month.

Has that been delivered? And I understand that there will be a commercial session to discuss the penalties capita is facing and what officials have called wider commercial position on 28th April. Can the Minister tell the House? Will he be attending in person? Will he commit to update the House at the earliest opportunity following that meeting? And will he elaborate on exactly what his officials mean when they refer to Capitas wider commercial position? And finally, and most importantly, what contingency plans has the Minister put in place for it? If it does become necessary to terminate Capitas contract for the CSPs, as he has done today for the Royal Mail scheme?
13:31
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Torfaen, Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the Shadow >> I'm grateful to the Shadow Minister. I first of all echo his tributes to public servants, including his constituent Chris. I'm very sorry to hear about his wife's cancer diagnosis. I welcome, I think, what was his support for my decision to terminate the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme? But can I turn to the Civil Service pension scheme? He talks about a plan. I've been implementing a plan and I've come here to update the House on my implementation of it.

He also talks about the contract. The contract for the Capita Pension Scheme was awarded by the previous government in November 2023. On a long term basis. That is what I inherited and have been trying to deal with. He talks about the point of transition, what I did at the point of transition was to get in. The chief executive of capita, together with the Cabinet Office permanent Secretary, to go through these different matters and to seek assurances. I'm afraid to say those assurances have not been met.

He talks about not meeting milestones. I can assure him milestone payments have been withheld, and I will not hesitate to use the commercial levers that are under this contract to drive performance. That is why I am being as well absolutely clear about that restoration of service. By the end of June of this year. That is what I am upholding capita too. He also talks about my CSP and what I have said is we are reserving rights under both these contracts, both the backlog that was left by my CSP and then how capita have dealt with it.

Since there are of course in relation to my CSP, there's also an option to pursue a parent company guarantee as well, and he can be assured that I will explore all possible legal options to ensure that the service that public servants rightly deserve, not just on retirement, but in very, very difficult circumstances in their lives as well, like death in service, are actually being dealt with sensitively. He talks about, of course, forthcoming meetings and updates. I will, of course consider appropriate steps for me to take and indeed updating the House and indeed members across the House when they write to me as well.
13:33
13:35
13:36
13:37
13:38
13:40
13:40
13:41
13:42
13:43
13:43
13:44
13:45
13:46
13:46
13:47
13:47
13:48
13:48
13:49
13:50
13:51
13:51
13:52
13:52
13:53
13:53
13:54
13:54
13:55
13:56
13:56
13:57
13:58
13:58
13:59
13:59
14:00
14:01
14:02
14:02
14:03
14:03
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)
-
-
Could I also associate myself with the comments with regard to the our colleague who stands on your left hand shoulder? Madam Deputy Speaker you may recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a number of weeks ago, in my capacity as the Secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary Group, I raised the issue of the allegations of the smearing of journalists by the organisation Labour Together during the period when the Member for Makerfield was the director of that organisation.

At that point, the Prime Minister referred the matter to the ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus. I've been in correspondence with Laurie Magnus after he produced his report to the Prime Minister. Very quickly after the reference, I was in correspondence with Sir Laurie Magnus because I was informed that he failed to call any witnesses during that inquiry, even though written evidence was submitted to him by one of the journalists who was the victim of the smears.

I wrote to him and he informed, because he informed the victim that he had not seen the evidence because his secretariat had not provided it to him. The journalist had written to Sir Laurie Magnus in advance to say he was submitting evidence. He submitted that evidence and it was not provided to him by his secretariat. The Secretariat to this inquiry is the Cabinet officer is the Cabinet Office. I wrote to express my concern to Sir Laurie Magnus that therefore his inquiry could not be complete, as he had not seen that evidence, and therefore urged him to withdraw the conclusions of that inquiry and to consider the evidence that has been provided to him.

He is refused. I've kept informed, but of course the committee cannot take up individual cases. The only route, it appears to me to secure the truth that this whole episode is for the government to set up an independent inquiry. I've requested that now, in correspondence with the Prime Minister, the and others at least five times. We have tried the formal routes. We now need a full inquiry. The reason I raise this on behalf of the NUJ is because smearing journalists in that way destroys their careers.

But for at least one of the journalists concerned, I think it put his safety at risk as well. It's as serious as that. So we have members on the Treasury bench today. I'd ask them to I want to put this issue on the record. But in addition to that, through you, Madam Deputy Chair, I want the Treasury, the Treasury bench to take this back to the Prime Minister and urge them to press upon him the importance of this issue and the need for an independent inquiry.
14:06
14:07
None Portrait Ten Minute Rule Motion: Criminal proceedings (juror absence)
-

now move on to the ten minute rule motion. Sally Jameson. Thank you,
14:07
Sally Jameson Portrait Sally Jameson MP (Doncaster Central, Labour )
-
-
motion. Sally Jameson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a bill to provide that any criminal bill to provide that any criminal proceedings set down for trial may not be adjourned by reason of, absence of, or discharge of a juror, absence of, or discharge of a juror, where the number of members of the jury is not reduced below nine and jury is not reduced below nine and or for connected purposes. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am introducing this bill today that seeks to introduce a gap in our justice system, one that has caused profound and lasting harm to victims.

This bill proposes that any criminal proceedings set down for trial should not be adjourned solely due to absence or discharge of a juror, provided that the number of jurors does not fall below nine. It is a practical and measured reform, but one that is rooted in a deeply human story. The reason for this bill comes from a truly harrowing experience of one of my constituents. While I will not name her today, she has consented that I share her story so that others may be spared the same injustice.

At a young age, she was a victim of an appalling crime, one that no person, let alone a child, should ever have to endure. In time, she came to realise that she was not alone. There were many other victims children who had suffered at the hands of a man in a position of power and trust, a man who abused that trust in the most abhorrent way. Years later, my constituent and others showed immense courage. They made the brave decision to speak out, to relive their trauma in pursuit of justice.

Eventually, a trial date was set. That date represented more than a legal proceeding. It was their chance to be heard, their chance for accountability and their chance for justice. When the day of the trial finally arrived, all the victims attended. It was, as you could imagine, an emotional and deeply traumatic step. They had waited years for that moment. The defendant by then was elderly and in poor health, but he was also present. On the first day of the trial, one juror fell ill.

Despite this, there was still enough jurors for the trial to proceed. And because there was a legal minimum, my constituent recounts that the judge consulted the defendant, who unsurprisingly stated that he did not wish the trial to go ahead. What is far more troubling, however, is that the views of the victims were not sought or considered. They were not asked whether they wanted it to proceed, despite everything they had endured to reach that point. Instead, the judge ruled that the trial would be postponed.

A new date was set, but that was over a year later. But five weeks before that date arrived, the defendant died. In this case, Madam Deputy Speaker, justice delayed was justice denied? My constituent will now never have her day in court. She will never stand to testify to the horrors she endured and when she will never see the man who caused her such unimaginable pain face justice. And she is not alone. Many other victims in this case were also let down.

This bill seeks to ensure that such an injustice does not happen again. The government is rightly working to reduce court delays and progress is made, progress is being made and I congratulate the Minister on the front bench for all the work she is doing to see change in this area. However, as things stand, they remain victims and indeed defendants on remand whose case has been delayed unnecessarily for reasons such as this. And that must change. Of course, there will always be exceptional circumstances in which a judge may need to exercise discretion and delay proceedings.

This Bill does not remove that judicial judgement, but it does establish a clear presumption that where the minimum number of jurors remains, the trial should proceed because at the heart of this issue is not procedures, but people, people who have already waited too long, suffered too much and deserve better from our justice system. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a modest reform, but it carries significant consequences. It's about efficiency, fairness and above all, justice. The question is that the hon.

Member have leave to bring in the Bill. As many as are of that opinion say, I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. They will prepare and bring in the bill. Joe Morris Emma Foody. Anneliese Midgley. Laurence Turner. Shaun Davies. Katrina Murray. Alex McIntyre. Adam Thompson. Jonathan Hinder. Andrew Cooper. Sarah Hinder. Andrew Cooper. Sarah

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Criminal Criminal Proceedings Criminal Proceedings (Juror Absence) Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Reading what day? Friday, 26th of June. Friday the 26th of 26th of June. Friday the 26th of June. The clerk will now proceed to June. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day. Pension Schemes Bill consideration of Lord's message. No. We will begin with the government motion relating to Lord's Reason 88 D as set out in the notice paper, with which it will be convenient to consider all the other Lord's Amendment. Government motions and amendments, I call the Minister to move the motion.

Minister.
14:13
Torsten Bell Portrait Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Swansea West, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank members and peers for and I thank members and peers for the continued scrutiny of the bill before us. Our task today is to focus on the limited outstanding areas of disagreement, although areas of disagreement, although that should not detract from the consensus that sits behind this bill behind the case for a better pension landscape that sees bigger, better pension schemes focussed on delivering stronger returns for savers. On the issues that remain before us, I hope that members and peers will see that we have listened to the points that they have raised, and that we have brought forward amendments that directly address what we have heard while, of course, holding to the core principles of delivering against the Labour manifesto.

That was clear on our policy intent around scale and productive investment. Now, firstly, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me turn to the reserve power on asset allocation. Last week, I set out that the government's case for a power at some length and we will spare the House a full repetition. Today there is a well, I know, I know, I know, but we have. There's so much more to discuss. We won't have time for the hon. Member's hair to be discussed if I offer a full, full statement.

So. But in brief, since he's asked, there is a well evidenced collective action problem in the defined contribution pensions market. Providers want to
14:14
Torsten Bell Portrait Consideration of Lords message: Consideration of Lords Message to the Pension Schemes Bill Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Swansea West, Labour)
-
-
diversify their asset allocations in their members long term interests and in the interests of better pensions for savers. But they are clear publicly and even more emphatically in private, that market dynamics which focus on minimising cost rather than maximising long term value for savers, are the single biggest barrier to doing so. That is not a theoretical risk. It is exactly why so little progress was made against the Mansion House Compact under the last government. The reserve power exists for the sole purpose of solving this problem.

Last week week, we brought forward changes to make this absolutely explicit. Writing the industry set Mansion House Accord targets into the primary legislation through the 10% and 5% caps, and requiring any regulations to operate neutrally across asset classes. These were designed to make clear, on the face of the bill, that the power can only be used in line with what the industry itself has committed to. The Cap prohibits any move beyond the accord targets. The neutrality requirement rules out the possibility that any government could direct investments into a particular asset or asset classes.

But as is plain. However, we have not reached agreement across two houses as yet. Rather than simply restating our position today, the government is bringing forward a further package of changes, first, bringing forward the current sunset date for the reserve power from 2035 to 2032. The Mansion House comm reaching its targets by 2030, and bringing the sun forward aligns the power more closely with that timeline. If the power has not been exercised by the end of 2032, it falls away entirely.

Second, because the power only has one purpose, we are providing that the power may only be exercised once. Third, and I want the House to understand the significance of this we are providing not just for the power, but any effects of it to fully fall away at the end of 2035. That goes beyond the sunset clause I've just described. It means that even if the power has been used, the entire framework and any requirements on schemes fall away at the end of 2035, this timeline reflects that once the cultural shift has occurred and the impacts of the Mansion House Accord are embedded, the collective action problem falls away at that point.

Other elements of this bill greater scale. The impacts of the VfM framework will also help sustain the change. I also want to return to a point made by my honourable, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent. In our previous debate, she observed correctly that the bill referred to assets held in default funds as a whole, whereas the Mansion House Accord applies only to main default funds as the policy is intended to reflect the accord, the legislation would ideally use the same language, so we have therefore tabled amendments to ensure that that is the case throughout the relevant provisions and the percentage cap has been retabled with the same wording, and I'm grateful to the hon.

Member for pressing this point last week. Let me be clear about what the House is being asked to consider today a reserve power that is highly constrained and narrowly focussed on solving a very specific problem. It is capped at the accord targets. It provides for absolute neutrality amongst private asset classes. The government cannot direct investments and it explicitly only applies to main default funds, more explicitly matching the language used in the accord. The powers timeline also matches tightly that of the accord.

It can only be used once and lapses entirely in 2035, if not used, and even if used is unlikely. But even if used, the entire regime is repealed at the end of 2035. And on top of all of that, it remains subject to the savers interest test, the affirmative procedure, and the statutory reporting requirements

**** Possible New Speaker ****

both before and after any regulations are made. Of course. I congratulate my hon. Friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I congratulate my hon. Friend for stewarding this with such expertise, and I very much hope that the cultural change that he is hoping for does deliver a change hoping for does deliver a change that sticks and we don't then just get an unwinding of the repatriation of UK investment, but repatriation of UK investment, but a necessary colliery of what he is proposing is a fiduciary duty and a proposing is a fiduciary duty and a fiduciary code that allows pension fund trustees real clarity in investing in a wide range of investments that are good for the long term health of the savers that whose investments are stewarding.

It was unfortunate that the Other place rejected the government amendment that would have allowed a new statutory code to be implemented. Will he confirm today that the technical Working group that he has set up to revise that code is going to proceed, and will he commit to the House today to bring forward further amendments to future legislation, to actually give effect to the ambition that he set out? In reply to my debate on new clause 17.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank the right hon. Friend for his question. I obviously share his frustration at obviously share his frustration at some developments in the Lords on that place, not least because some of those who chose to vote against the proposed amendments that would the proposed amendments that would have introduced statutory guidance in the way that he set out, are people that have spent years people that have spent years calling for exactly that statutory guidance, but that is for them to answer for.

For the part of the government. We will be proceeding with the work for drafting that guidance. The Technical Working Group is well underway and doing good work to provide that clarity to the industry, and we will come forward with proposals for putting that on a statutory basis in the months and years ahead there. Now, as I was saying, the timeline also matches tightly that of the accord, and I hope everybody can see that this framework is a long way from the characterisation of this power that we have occasionally heard.

I do understand that there are members in this House and peers in the other place who would prefer the power not to exist at all, and I respect that view, but I do not share it because the evidence of the collective action problem is clear. We have lived it, and because I have listened and heard no alternative proposal that would address it, and because of where the consequences of not addressing it fall on pension savers, on the people who are relying on their defined contribution savings for a comfortable retirement, that is not a risk the government is prepared to take.

The elected House is now considered this question twice. On both occasions, it is overwhelmingly endorsed the case for the reserve power to deliver our manifesto commitments in this area. The government has listened to the concerns raised in the other place and has responded not with warm words but with real concessions, changes to primary legislation that directly address the arguments made. I hope now that members here and peers will now accept that the government has moved significantly and provided the assurances they have been seeking.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I turn next to Lords amendments 35 B this would require the Secretary of State when making regulations across the scale measures and those for default arrangements, to have regard to the benefits of competition amongst providers of pension schemes. The government, of course, supports the importance of competition as the market moves towards scale and has done so in the bill's provisions. This is already a highly competitive market, and the new entrant pathway is designed to ensure it remains so.

The same goal is reflected in the scheme's ability to open new default arrangements. However, we have heard the arguments that have been made during debates and I recognise the desire in the other place to see this commitment feature in the Bill. This is why I have tabled an amendment in lieu to 35 B to set out that the Secretary of State, in setting regulations in respect of both the scale measures and those relating to default arrangements, must have regard to the importance of competition and innovation.

This amendment delivers on the proposals from the other place, but with an appropriately holistic approach to the issues which are Secretary of State will need to have regard to in the years ahead. This reflects that all of our all of our ultimate focus is, of course, on delivering the best outcomes for members. Which competition in the market is one important driver of. So under the government's amendment, regulations will need to have regard not just to scale, but to competition and innovation alongside effective governance and the explanatory notes will also make this clear.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I now turn to Lords Amendment 37. B the case for scale has been made, and both houses have broadly agreed with the benefits that it brings. Indeed, all main parties are on record as recognising the key role of scale in delivering better outcomes for savers. We all made those arguments. Recognising that moves towards scale would always mean some schemes exiting the market, because we collectively prioritise the need to deliver for those who work hard to save for retirement, and we must ensure that they are saving into schemes which can deliver better outcomes.

Scale drives, lower costs, better governance, investment expertise and a balance sheet that can provide a more diverse portfolio for their savers, improving overall outcomes in the longer term. This focus on scale was very explicitly laid out in our manifesto, and the evidence for the approach we are taking was detailed in the Pensions Investment Review. The Lords amendment in front of us today pays too little attention to that evidence and to that manifesto. It would also be unworkable in practice. Enmeshing regulators in years of legal proceedings, while leaving providers and savers in limbo.

However, I have listened to arguments in this House and the other place that the innovation for members that some smaller schemes offer should not be dismissed. I absolutely agree, which is why a key reason, which is a key reason why our approach to ensuring a scale is achieved, has been so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pragmatic. Of course. I thank the Minister for giving way. I don't claim to be an expert way. I don't claim to be an expert on pensions, which may be why I made comments about the shadow Ministers hair, rather than focusing on the points last week, but something that I know that pensioners in my. I will do it again because it is fantastic, but I would just say that pensions in I would just say that pensions in my constituents are consistently Harlow are really passionate about ensuring that they get the best returns for their pension.

That's returns for their pension. That's hugely important. But also, as we heard from the Paymaster General in the previous statement, that that that pension is secure. So what reassurance can you give pension in my constituency? Harlow that the provisions that are being set out by the government today and have been previously set out by the Minister in this place, because I was here last week and will give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that best return, but also that secure security to pensions. Well, as always, my hon. Friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, as always, my hon. Friend asks a good question, an important question. And as I said, the entire focus of the bill is making sure that we drive up those returns for that we drive up those returns for savers. I would direct him. I'm sure he has already read the very extensive impact assessment of this extensive impact assessment of this bill, all 200 odd pages of it, which set out clearly that we would expect an average saver on average earner over their lifetime saving in line with auto enrolment levels to see higher returns of around £29,000 to their pension pot at the point at which they head towards retirement.

That is a not inconsequential amount in a world where we want to make sure that future generations can trust a system to deliver them a comfortable retirement in the years, in the years ahead. Let me come on to to what I was saying about how we take forward some of the questions raised, because, as I say, the Lords amendments are unworkable. But but we do need to recognise the importance of innovation. That is why we've taken the pragmatic approach we have, because the evidence suggests that the benefits of scale are achieved once a threshold ranging from 25 to £50 billion worth of assets is reached, the scale requirements in the bill not only target the bottom end of that range, 25 billion, but provide a long timeline for schemes to reach it, especially given that this is a fast growing market.

Smaller schemes only require £10 billion worth of assets in 2030 to qualify for the transition pathway. To provide further reassurance, I have tabled an amendment in lieu to Lords Amendment 37 B to require the Secretary of State to publish a report about the effect of pension schemes, consolidation and the extent to extent to which innovative product designs were adopted or maintained following consolidation activity, as well as any barriers that may exist to preserving those features. The timing of this report, which is required to be published within 12 months, will ensure the government would then be able to take action as needed, in advance of the scale measures being commenced in 2030.

Madam Deputy Speaker, Let me turn to the Lords Amendment 77 and 85. The government agrees with the points made during the bill's passage regarding the importance of transparency around and clear accounting for public service pensions, and I've also discussed these issues yesterday with the Baroness who tabled these amendments. I completely agree with her that it is crucial that the future cost of payments from unfunded pension schemes are understood and taken into account in government decision making. That applies to the Treasury in aggregate, but it also applies in the case of individual organisations making decisions about the nature and the levels of staffing.

We will continue to ensure accounting and budgetary processes support this, and we also invite the House to agree the government's amendment in lieu that we have proposed proposed. This recognises the important principle that Parliament, policymakers and the public should be able to see clearly the long term costs of unfunded public service pension schemes. The amendment requires the government actuary to produce a document within 12 months that sets out their analysis of the long term impacts of public sector pensions, covering both expenditure on benefits and income from member contributions.

This document must be provided to the Treasury and to the office for Budget Responsibility, with the former required to make it available to Parliament. This approach is focussed on the evidence base, using the government actuary to produce impartial numbers to aid understanding and debates on this issue. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope members will have heard today serious engagement with the issues raised by the peers in the other place and opposition parties in this House. We are committed to delivering the policy intent in the Bill, given its crucial role in driving better outcomes for savers and the important place given to these pension reforms in our 2024 manifesto.

But we have brought forward significant amendments to address the specific issues raised, aiming to further reinforce the consensus about this bill that has been on display from its Second Reading in this House, and I hope members will, on that basis, be happy to support our amendments today. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House insists on its disagreement with insists on its disagreement with the Lords Amendment 15 to 24, 27, the Lords Amendment 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88 insist on its amendments 88 A and 88 C to the words restored to the 88 C to the words restored to the bill by that disagreement does not insist on its amendment.

88 B to the words sir restored to the Bill, but proposes amendments A to J to the words sir, restored to the bill. Whately.
14:28
Helen Whately Portrait Helen Whately MP (Faversham and Mid Kent, Conservative)
-
-
EA here. >> What a difference. >> A week makes! >> Last Wednesday, when the hon. Gentleman rose to conclude our debate, he delivered what I can debate, he delivered what I can only describe as a tirade from the Dispatch Box in response to serious and considered concerns, not just mine and my hon. Friend's over this side, but also the noble Lords and many respected voices. And from across industry we were met not with answers but with accusations. We were told that these concerns were nonsense on stilts, he said.

I'd been infected by my party. If by that he means I have strong opinions. I believe in a smaller state that government doesn't have all the answers and often needs to get out of the way. I have to break the news to him. I've held those views for many years. I came to Parliament after a career in business. I knew my views then and I still know them now. I thought he could and should do better and I'm glad since then.

In fact, he has. His tone has shifted and I'm grateful for the discussions the Minister has had with me and my team. His engagement has been constructive and we have indeed made progress. Madam Deputy Speaker, coming to the amendments since our last debate, I welcome the government's commitment on the Local Government Pension Scheme, a faster and wider review of the triennial valuation by the government. Actuary's Department is sensible and significant. If that review is to be meaningful, it must focus on what actually drives employer contribution rates, and we welcome that.

The government has now recognised that. Secondly, today the government has committed in its amendment in lieu of Lady Neville Amendment 77, to examine the costs and sustainability of public sector pensions. That too is welcome. That review should consider questions of intergenerational fairness, long term sustainability and how best to protect the benefits already promised, particularly at a time when demands on the state are rising and taxpayers are being asked to contribute more than ever. Now to the question of scale. The bill, as drafted assumes the schemes offer a strong proposition and good member outcomes.

There is nothing to stop them growing. We disagree. It is not that simple. For instance, it is exceptionally difficult to win new business in today's market if you're not already an incumbent or large insurer. Market structure, capital requirements and regulatory constraints all act as significant barriers to growth. While pursuing the objective of scale, the government must avoid entrenching advantage at the expense of performance that would not serve the interests of members, and it is on that basis that we tabled our amendments.

In the other place, the intention behind the amendments. Indeed, the intention of the Other place was to preserve the government's policy objective, but to connect it to the underlying aim, which is not scale in its own right, but to improve outcomes for members as a means to that end. But not the only means. And size alone does not equal success. Take a football club. A larger club may have greater resources, a bigger stadium, more expensive players, larger crowds. But none of that guarantees results on the pitch.

I am told that one need look no further than Tottenham

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hotspur for. We welcome.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We welcome. The government's amendment in this area so that when regulations are developed, member outcomes will be placed front and centre and returns, not just scale, will count. What the government has brought forward today is not perfect, but it is a significant step in the right direction. The review amendment is also welcome. It introduces a post-legislative reporting requirement on scale, which will allow this House to hold the government to account for the real world impact of these reforms.

Unfortunately, this is where agreement ends, and I suspect the Minister knows that. So let us turn directly to the elephant in the room. Mandation. The Minister has advanced a number of arguments in its defence, and I will take them in turn. First. He said that this is a natural extension of the Mansion House agreement. It is not. A voluntary agreement between willing participants is one thing, a legal requirement imposed across an entire sector is another. Secondly, has said that this is merely a reserved power, one the government has no intention of using.

But a reserve power does not sit harmlessly on the shelf. It shapes behaviour and I think in truth the Minister accepts that he has said as much to me before that the power will achieve its ends without even needing to be turned on, so to speak, because the moment of voluntary agreement is backed by the threat of law, it ceases to be voluntary in any meaningful sense. Which leads us to his central claim that mandation is necessary to solve a collective action problem that while the sector recognises the case for higher return investments, no individual scheme is willing to move first.

Now that is a serious argument. But mandation is the wrong conclusion. He says industry agrees with him on Mandation, but no, the industry agrees with the diagnosis. The problem I've just set out, they don't agree with his solution. A collective action problem is not in itself a justification, a justification for state compulsion. It is a signal that incentives are misaligned. And when incentives are misaligned, the answer is not to override the system, it is to fix it. Make it rational to be the first mover or an early adopter.

And the truth is, part of the solution are in this bill, the pensions dashboard giving savers visibility and with it agency the value for money framework, helping employers choose schemes they can justify to their employees on the basis of returns, not just fees. These are ways to tackle the problem through informed choice, competitive pressure and a market that works not through direction from the centre by the dead hand of the state. Madam Deputy Speaker, today we've also heard the Minister reach for one last defence, strangely late in the day claiming that Mandation was in the Labour Party manifesto.

It was not. There is no mention of Mandation, no reference to reserve power, no suggestion of asset allocation, powers of this kind. The Labour manifesto did talk about adopting reforms to workplace pensions to deliver better outcomes. But let us be clear Mandation does not do that. It undermines fiduciary duty. It puts trustees in an impossible position, forced to choose between their legal duty to members and direction from Ministers, and could lead to lower returns. And if the Minister says in his wrap up that government already intervenes and that there are all manner of regulations shaping trustee behaviour, of course there are, but there is a fundamental difference.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Regulation protects a process. Mandation dictates the outcome. Exactly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is the difference. That is the line this bill crosses. So this cannot be justified. So less cannot be justified. So less legitimised by a manifesto commitment that was in fact never commitment that was in fact never made. Now, I do appreciate the Minister's attempt to offer an olive branch on mandation several olive branch on mandation several olive branches. In fact. Firstly, last week we had an amendment to constrain his originally unlimited and undefined mandation power, a power which meant he could direct up to 100% of default pension fund savings to be invested in assets of his choice.

It was extraordinary. He recognised that and amended it to limit it to up to 10% requirement for e-SIM in private markets and up to 5% in the UK. And he took some steps to limit the government's ability to cherry pick specific sectors or geographies. This week we have a flurry of concessions. We have revisions to the sunset clause 30, bringing forward the date when the mandation power lapses. If it has not been used from 2020 35 to 2032. Secondly, the entire regime will be repealed at the end of 2035.

So as drafted, the Mandation threat won't hang over the sector indefinitely. Though the fact is, once this power is on the statute book, amending it, for instance, to extend those dates is a whole lot easier than if you've never even crossed this Rubicon. He has also introduced an amendment to limit the government to only exercising the mandation power, once giving them just one opportunity to set the asset allocation requirement. I recognise that gives more certainty and less risk of moving goalposts to the industry, and he has also had the amendment from last week updated to constrain the scope of Mandation to Maine default funds, rather than all defaults.

The problem I set out last Wednesday, I believe, was inadvertent and has, he acknowledged in his remarks earlier, has amended. And so I appreciate that. So like last week's amendments, today's amendments again make the mandation power and the bill less bad. They constrain it in terms of timing and scope, but they do not solve the problem because the problem is not the percentage, it's not the threshold and it's not the duration of the power. The problem is the principal. And if something is wrong in principle, it does not become right in smaller doses.

Madam Deputy Speaker Mandation will not guarantee better returns. Contrary to what the Minister continues to claim, it may force trustees to take decisions that are not in his best interests decisions driven not by judgement, not by duty, but by directio fiduciary judgement with political instruction, this way you don't strengthen outcomes. You put them at risk. The Minister and I agree that we want to see more investment by pension funds in the UK, and we want to see better returns for savers.

The industry backs that aim to. That's why they did the Mansion House Accord. But to be clear, when he says he has the industry backing for this. There is a distinction to be made between the industry saying they agree there's a problem and being willing to work to solve it, and the solution he is seeking to impose, he has put the fear into them that this bill may fall and all manner of threats to pressure them to come into line. But I say to him, I will not be cowed by him.

And they have told me to that my face, that the pensions industry industry does not back mandation exactly. So I say to the Minister yet again, pension pots belong to the people who have worked, earned and saved. It is their money, not the government's. Ministers in Whitehall should not have the power to dictate what people's pension savings are invested in. As Ronald Reagan once put it. The nine most terrifying words in the English language I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

This is an extraordinary hill for the Minister to choose to die on. Mandation was never put to voters, never had the backing of industry and should not be forced through Parliament. Now,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I urge the Minister to think again. Yeah, yeah yeah yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! I will now announce the result of today's deferred decision. Draft energy deferred decision. Draft energy prices at 2022. Extension of Time Limit Regulations 2026. The eyes Limit Regulations 2026. The eyes were 380. The nos were seven. So the ayes have it. I call Liam Byrne.
14:40
Liam Byrne Portrait Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, Labour)
-
-
the ayes have it. I call Liam Byrne. >> Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I just want to rise to say a couple of things in support of the Minister, who I think has done a heroic job, and not only laying the intellectual architecture for this legislation out before he got to this House, but for so expertly steering this legislation through while he has been in the House. And I wish him all the very best this afternoon in finishing the job. And there are just three points Madam Deputy Speaker really, that I wanted to make.

The first is that the measures the Minister has set out this afternoon really are essential in. If we are to pursue the long term interests of pension savers in this country because it is in their fundamental interest that they live and retire in an economy that is growing faster in the years to come, the only way in which we are going to collectively achieve that is if we raise the investment rate in this country. Our investment rate has for a long time been the lowest in the G7.

It is now improving. It is now the second lowest in the G7, and it is for exactly that purpose that members on both sides of this House make the argument that we need to repatriate investment saving in this country. The fact is, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we have got to resolve this paradox that on the one hand, we have £3 trillion worth of pension savings, but on the other, we have some of the world's best life science, the best universities, the best entrepreneurs.

But we do not have the investment institutions and systems that connect the long term savings to that brilliant tradition of entrepreneurial genius. And unless we fix that long standing paradox, then this country is not going to grow faster in the country. And that's what I will in a moment. That's not a labour analysis. That was analysis that was first advanced by the former conservative Chancellor. Now, if we manage to get that right, the investment rate in this country will go up and the economy will grow faster in the years to come.

And therefore, there is not a cost to the savings of Britain pension savers. It will actually be to their advantage. But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I give way to the hon. Lady. For giving way. And as I think he will have heard in my speech, there's widespread agreement that there's widespread agreement that we want to see more investment by pension funds in the UK. The debate is about whether Mandation is the is about whether Mandation is the way to achieve that, firstly, but secondly, actually the minister's main argument for the Mandation main argument for the Mandation powers isn't about investment in the UK, it's about solving a collective collective action.

First collective collective action. First mover problem, about trying to improve returns and the risk that that will put up costs to to pension funds and for savers. And that's what he's really arguing, rather than the point that the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gentleman is right on. Gentleman making about investment in the UK. Because the hon. Lady makes my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because the hon. Lady makes my second point for me, which is that it's just not good enough to will the ends and not the means. The the ends and not the means. The reality is that, after all, the heroic work of the former conservative Chancellor, built on conservative Chancellor, built on very ably by the current Chancellor of the Exchequer to advance the Mansion House Accord and the Mansion House Accord and the Sterling 20, the reality is that the repatriation of savings, long term savings into our country is going at a snail's pace and if we want to deliver it by a timetable on which we both agreed, then frankly, we are going to need a little bit of encouragement to the industry, which is exactly the provision that the Minister is proposing, I give way.

For giving way, and he raises so many really, really important points, a lot of which we agree with. And that is why we put forward an amendment to try to understand what the problem was. And this amendment was there at the I think it was a Report stage, which actually specifically went out to ask, why are these pension funds not investing into into the UK? What is it legislative? Is it regulatory or is it cultural? The government voted against that. The government voted against exactly the work that we needed to do to understand exactly what this problem is.

Could he possibly explain why? Response to the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gentleman, my my. Own analysis. Of what is going to be needed, and indeed, this is part of a wider and indeed, this is part of a wider business and trade Select Committee inquiry, which is going to produce a report in a couple of weeks time a report in a couple of weeks time on how we transform the investment environment in this country. But the reality is there is a shared ambition on both sides of the House. ambition on both sides of the House.

In order to ensure that we fix this long standing paradox. My judgement is that the measures the Minister is that the measures the Minister is proposing are absolutely essential if we are to deliver on that by the early 2030s, and it's just not good enough to try and persuade Britain's pension funds through sheer mind powers alone, to repatriate the kind of investment that they are proposing. But by taking the approach that the Minister is proposing, we do stand a better chance. Now, my last point, as I mentioned in my intervention, is to say to the Minister that I am heartened to hear his commitment at the despatch box that we will proceed with reform of that clarification of fiduciary duties, because too many pension fund trustees today lack the legal certainty that they can make strategic long term investments, which are in the best interests of their pension savers and will create a higher return on investment in this country by investing in things like net zero infrastructure and other virtuous investments, good for the long term growth of the economy.

And it is disappointing that Lib Dem peers and others voted against the provision in the other place and prevented the government bringing in the necessary amendments. But I am reassured by the Minister's commitment this afternoon that he will seek a further legislative opportunity at the earliest opportunity in the next session. But with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I add my support to the minister's ambitions this afternoon.
14:46
Steve Darling Portrait Steve Darling MP (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Here. spokesperson Steve Darling. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And Liberal Democrats broadly And Liberal Democrats broadly support the proposals before us today. As far as the bill as a whole, and I know from conversations with residents of mine in Torbay, there are some challenges within the pensions market. And, you know, the bill as a whole addresses an awful lot of those. However, I suggest that the Minister has been studying his Greek history and donned the.

Donned the position of Odysseus and developed a Trojan horse before us this afternoon that he sneaked into this bill, which is. And the Trojan horse is, of course, foundation. And whilst he may have cut off a couple of legs of the Trojan horse, it still remains a Trojan horse that is before us. Clearly, as Liberal Democrats, we welcome that step in the right direction. But what we should be doing and what the government should be doing is shaping the market appropriately through the policies that you put out there so that there are good there is this pipeline of opportunities for investments, and then that goes across to the Mansion House Accord, where the market then has these opportunities and is able then to invest in them appropriately.

I think there's also an element that we need to touch on, which is since 2008, there has been a risk aversion within the market, which then stifles profits. And so we need to be very alive to that. That risk is a good thing when investing. But making sure that you invest sensibly and with appropriate spreads. And this this bill does elements of that. But I do fear that some of the the monitoring of this could actually stifle risk and therefore stifle returns, as liberal Democrats were also keen to make sure that there are opportunities here.

And this is where the government should be ensuring that there are baskets of opportunities to invest in things that matter to our communities, whether it's regenerating our town centres, social rented housing. We know people like Ellen G already lead the market in that those investments, we need to think of how we can enhance those opportunities and also making sure that we're investing in net zero, something we know that is close to a number of parties. Hearts within this House. And again, that is opportunities that the government should be shaping the market in that way rather than dictating.

And it is that whilst there may be a one shot opportunity that the Minister is now alluding to, it is that thin end of the wedge is, I'm sure, what other colleagues are fearful of that we're seeing with that mandate that we've had before us throughout this bill. Finally, I'd like to reflect on the changes that the Minister has proposed, and we welcome those around allowing greater innovation and greater development of the market there. Those are significant steps in the right direction.

However, in conclusion, I would say as Liberal Democrats, we are not prepared to see the dead hand of government directing here, and we continue to oppose mandation in whatever form it may take. Thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the members from across the House who have contributed to the House who have contributed to the debate today. Let me respond to a few of the comments that have been few of the comments that have been made directly. I welcome the Shadow Secretary of State. Much of her remarks. I'm glad that she's
14:50
Torsten Bell Portrait Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Swansea West, Labour)
-
-
remarks. I'm glad that she's welcomed many of the government's amendments, including those on the public sector pensions and around innovation and competition. And I appreciate that. And I hope this these issues are debated in the Lords in the near future. There'll be a similar consensus across that House. She raised the question of scale. And again, I'm glad she's welcomed the review that we've put in place to be take place within 12 months of the bill being commenced on scale. I'm a bit more confident than she is in terms of the role of small schemes to grow, because we can see in the market today very significant growth right across the market, including amongst small schemes, partly because the market itself is growing so fast in the current climate.

But I offer no comment on her pessimism about Tottenham Hotspur. As for others to speak on the. As she, to be fair, set out the main area of disagreement that remains is around the reserve power. She raised the question of the accord and whether or not it applies to the whole industry. She's correct. It doesn't apply to the whole industry, but it does cover 90% of DC assets held within the industry. So we are talking about not just a majority, but the absolute overwhelming majority of the industry.

She raised the question of the Labour manifesto. The manifesto set out two focuses on pensions. One was around the question of scale, to which we have just touched, and I think is a matter of cross-party consensus. And the second, which again, I think is actually a matter of cross-party consensus, is on the importance of delivering change in terms of investment in productive assets in private assets. That is exactly the focus, both of the Mansion House Accord and of the reserve power. She said the power was about directing specific outcomes.

As I've been setting out. It absolutely does not do that. It won't allow any direction of savers into particular assets or into particular asset classes. It offers no ability. It offers no ability for governments to take control of pension savings, pensions. And I think it's actually dangerous leaving members of the public hearing remarks like that when that is categorically not the case. She's right though. And I say this and this maybe gets to the crux slightly of where we are. She's absolutely right to say that the money belongs to savers.

That is what this is about. That is what we all agree about. What we want to see is higher returns to savers. And the industry is telling us that acting and diversifying their range of assets is in is in their savers interest, and they are admitting that they have not done so to date. So there is they have not. It is. No it is. That's what the industry is saying. Savers are not saying because savers do not have that choice, because they're intermediated by providers, some of which have trustees and some of which do not.

That is the underlying point. They're saying they need to see that change happen, and they are saying it hasn't happened and we've seen it not happen. The implicitly, what that is saying is that members are losing out from the status quo. And what I'm not hearing from the party opposite is a serious engagement with that reality that has let down savers. Now I'm going to I'll come. I'll come to the point about his previous amendment shortly. I want to come to the my right hon.

Friend from Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North North because. Not least because he admirably, clearly set out the big challenge facing Britain, which is to turn this country back into a country that invests in its own future. Once again, that does mean higher investment. It is not acceptable that Britain has seen both the second lowest public investment in the G7 under the previous government and by far, by far the lowest business investment in the G7 under the last government, not some years, but almost every single year.

That is the challenge that I think we all want to see addressed. Part of the issue that is being raised about whether this is about UK assets or it's about private finance, I think is overdone because what we see around the world is a higher home bias amongst private asset investments than we see amongst public asset investments. For all the obvious reasons about the comparative advantage of different investors in those situations. But he also rightly, and I think this, again, is part of a cross-party consensus that moving to that higher investment world overwhelmingly is not about pensions.

It's about much wider changes. It's about making sure that actual investment happens so firms can actually get things built. That's why this government has come in, come in and provided the go ahead for solar farms, wind farms, national grid investments, nuclear power stations that have been held up for too long. That's what a higher investment country looks like. That's what we need to be getting on with. And I've got a nugget of good news to bring in on that. If you go and look, and I know everybody in this room is spending their time doing this, but go and look at the investment levels in the national accounts.

And what you'll see is that since the election, Britain has seen the fastest investment growth of any country in the G7. So that is what the starting to deliver, starting to deliver against what we've set out is our core objective, which is turning Britain back into a higher investment country. Now, the Member for Wyre Forest did raise his previous amendment, which was asking for review for the reasons about why schemes say it would be in savers interest and have not done it. The problem is that we have had a lot of reviews.

The Abi has written, some published them explaining why the previous government's attempt with the Mansion House Compact didn't work. So we have the answer. I'm afraid he just doesn't want to engage with what he is being told now. Of course, of course, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The so so on both sides of this House we are going with the grain of what is intended on this. There of what is intended on this. There is a fundamental problem. We all agree there is a fundamental problem. But let's get the issues problem. But let's get the issues out of the way that are blocking it. You can't force people into a minefield if the mines are still there. You've got to clear the there. You've got to clear the mines and allow them to go along and do it.

This is the most fundamental point. The government should not be telling pension fund managers how and where to invest their money if it if there is a problem that they're going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

encounter, get the problems out of the way and they'll go into those those assets. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm afraid the hon. Member has just like revealed his lack of focus on what's actually going on. Pension schemes from around the Pension schemes from around the world are investing in British private assets. It's UK pension schemes that are not. But he the hon. Member implied there were minefields investing in Britain. It's that kind of talking down It's that kind of talking down Britain that is the problem. What we are doing is making sure that there is a pipeline.

We are making sure there is a robust pipeline of investments. There's absolutely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right, of course. Hon. Gentleman. For giving way. But I think we all, on this side of the chamber, all, on this side of the chamber, would be keen to understand if he's so confident that pension funds will invest, why he doesn't make it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will invest, why he doesn't make it a choice rather than a mandate. Exactly. I, I fear the right hon. Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, I fear the right hon. Lady hasn't sat through enough of the sessions. Her own front bench, her own front bench earlier have exactly engaged with some of the exactly engaged with some of the arguments I've made, exactly explaining the point she raised. I would just say go and have a look at what Australian pension schemes are doing, investing in UK infrastructure. Go and look at what is happening when US investors are investing in UK venture capital. Why is that happening? And it's not because of differential tax breaks.

There are very strong tax incentives. No, it is because of a history of not having the collective action problem that we have set out, and the fact that the front bench opposite doesn't wish to engage with that is holding us back. Now. I want to move on to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm going to make some progress now because we're going to run out of time now. OK. Of course. I thank the hon. Gentleman for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It's just on the Abi report that he referred to because he's referred to this before. And yes, the Abi has agreed with the diagnosis of the problem. As I set out the diagnosis, the collective action problem. But they don't do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

action problem. But they don't do not agree with Mandation as the remedy. I think he needs to be clear about that. Exactly, exactly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I think the truth is there's a there's a range of opinion within Abi members about that. But but what there is agreement across the industry is about the need to deliver change. But I want to come to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Torbay, who again, kindly didn't refer to the Lib Dem manifesto. And it's called not just for reserve power but for a call for direction of pension scheme assets into certain asset classes. I do. I do gently say that it's a shame to not see him engage with the substance, rather than taking the easy option of offering kind of high level throwaway comments about a thing that he indeed had in his own manifesto.

But on the plus side, he's right to say that the pipeline to invest in is important, and that is the issue. There is different in different sectors within the infrastructure sector. It's obviously about having a country that is delivering actual infrastructure within venture capital. It's about making sure that there's easier intermediation for pension schemes into a market which they have less experience of. So we are doing exactly that. That is what the Sterling 20 process is doing. I see very good engagement between pension schemes right across the board on that.

Every chief executive I speak to is engaging with exactly those questions that he raises. Madam Deputy Speaker as I said, this bill has received detailed scrutiny over the past year, and it's a better bill for it today. We have brought forward amendments that, subject to delivering the core pension reform programme of the elected government, respond to the detailed points raised by peers in the other place with those improvements, this is a bill that industry worker representatives and charities wish to see passed into law.

The TEC have said it's vital the bill is passed so that workers can start to benefit. Age UK have said the measures in the Bill will help both today's and tomorrow's pensioners, and it's important these can be implemented as soon as possible. Aviva have welcomed today's amendments and said we hope this is enough to build the consensus needed for the Bill to be passed. The Abi have said that they and their members are clear that we want the Bill to pass. They are right and I commend the government's position today to the House.
14:59
15:00
15:02
None Portrait Consideration of Lords Message to the Pension Schemes Bill: Gov't disagrees with Lords Amdts 15 to 24
-

Is Is that.
15:13
None Portrait Consideration of Lords Message to the Pension Schemes Bill:Division: Gov't disagrees with Lords Amdts 15 to 24
-

>> >> Order?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order? Order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order? Order! The ayes to the right. 272. The noes to the left. 149.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right with 272 the nurse to the left were 149. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock. We now come to the motion to disagree with the law in their amendments. 37 B and 37 C for amendments. 37 B and 37 C for proposals amendment A and B in lieu. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendments 37 B and 37 C, but proposes amendments A and B in lieu as many as are of that.

Can you say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords and their amendment 35 B, but proposes amendment A and B in lieu. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 35 B, but proposes amendment A and B in lieu. As many as are of that opinion say aye.

of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords and their amendments 77 and 85, but proposes amendments A to C in lieu. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments, 77 and 85 and proposes amendments A to C in lieu as many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no, I think the ayes have it.

The ayes have it that. That concludes consideration of the Lords message on the Pension Schemes Bill. The point of order.
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
Olivia Bailey Portrait Olivia Bailey MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Education) (Equalities) (Reading West and Mid Berkshire, Labour)
-
-
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to speak on the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill for our third consideration of Lords amendments. The bill we have before us is the biggest single piece of child protection legislation in a generation, and it will put in place a package of support to drive high and rising standards throughout our education and care system, so that every child can achieve and thrive. And today, I ask the House to once again reaffirm its support for this landmark legislation.

Turning first to Lords Amendment 102 on the circumstances in which the independent adjudicator can specify a lower published admission number following an upheld objection. In this age of declining roles, it's important that these powers exist to ensure that every child has the opportunity to have a great school place. But the government has been clear throughout this process that school quality and parental choice must be at the heart of pan decisions as committed to by my noble friend Lady Smith.

In the other place, we have tabled amendments in lieu. Reflecting this, these amendments place a requirement on the face of the Bill for adjudicators to take account of school quality and parental preference before deciding a pan following an upheld objection. They will also require the adjudicator before making a decision to reduce the school's Pan to consult key parties about alternatives to lowering the school's admissions number. Those parties are the admissions authority, the local authority and the Secretary of State, which in practice means consulting the relevant DfE regional director.

We're also taking a power to make clear we can require the adjudicator to consult additional parties in line with commitments in our policy paper. Through this bill, we will ensure a robust decision making framework is in place to protect high quality education and parental choice, and will continue to engage with stakeholders, including the Confederation of School Trusts, on this measure, including proposed changes to regulations and the school admissions Code. Madam Deputy Speaker Now turning to Lords, amendments 38 V to 38 X on children's access to social media, there is a clear consensus across this House on the need to protect children online, but our consultation goes further than these amendments.

Considering a wider set of options, including risks beyond social media such as gaming and AI chatbots, hon. Members should have no doubt that it is not a question of whether the government acts, but how the government acts to deliver strong and enduring protections for children online. And the House should also be clear that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government will act quickly. Can I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for the government's giving way and for the government's work on this very important matter, which is much appreciated by many, many parents. In particular, the work of looking ahead at what further measures might be taken to tackle online harms.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tackle online harms. I thank him for his his important intervention and for all of his work for his constituents in of his work for his constituents in Reading Central. To underline this, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have committed to responding to the consultation by the summer and we have made a legislative commitment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to report to Parliament within six months. I'll give way. I thank the Minister. For giving way. She's been very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. She's been very generous with her time, as always, and I declare an interest as a member of the Select Committee. I hope I don't steal the thunder of hope I don't steal the thunder of the chair of the committee who's sitting next to me. But yesterday we did receive evidence, both from representatives of social media. It representatives of social media. It was hugely disappointing that one social media company didn't provide representation, which we're all very disappointed by, and also by very disappointed by, and also by academics.

Would she agree with me that whatever the government decides when it comes to social media, whether it's restricted or banned or there is an age restriction placed on it, that's hugely important that young people learn about the dangers of social media, and that's something that we must ensure comes into the expanded school curriculum, as discussed in the White Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do agree with him. I thank him for his work and I do agree with him. This is a really important him. This is a really important point. It is a part of our revised national curriculum and also our national curriculum and also our curriculum. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for the engagement of peers and members across the House peers and members across the House on this vital topic, and as a result, we have made a number of other changes which do strengthen other changes which do strengthen our position, including clarifying that this power can only be exercised to protect children from online harm, and that we will share draft regulations with select committees and opposition spokespeople.

I welcome the constructive engagement from Lord Nash and from the party opposite as we come to a solution on our small areas of difference, and I can give the House assurance that we intend to return to these matters on Monday in the other place and put beyond doubt the government's plans to act and to do so swiftly. Moving now to Lords Amendment 106 on our. In one moment on our shared objective of banning phones in schools, I will give way to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hon. Gentleman gratefully. It does seem to me, Madam Deputy Speaker, as though the government Speaker, as though the government is just kicking the can down the road. We have an opportunity in the legislation before us, and particularly in Lord Nash's particularly in Lord Nash's amendment to limit the use of amendment to limit the use of social media outlets to those over 16, which were not being allowed to 16, which were not being allowed to vote on, as I understand it.

And we also have the opportunity to tighten very seriously the regulations relating to the use of mobile phones in schools. But again, there's a loophole. Why are we being so wishy washy about it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for his intervention. I do, Madam Deputy Speaker reject the characterisation that we're kicking this can down the road. In fact, we are having a wide ranging consultation, much wider than the amendments before us that enables amendments before us that enables us to act swiftly and decisively, and we are ensure we will guarantee and we are ensure we will guarantee that we will protect our children from harm. Moving on now to Lords Amendment 106 on our shared objective on banning.

I'm going to make progress on of banning phones in schools. As the House knows, at the start of this year, this government took decisive action to ban phones in schools. We strengthened the party Opposite's weak guidance, including it making it clear and if I may quote directly from the guidance, making it clear that we expect schools to implement policies whereby pupils do not have access to their mobile phone throughout the school day, including during lessons, the time between lessons break time and lunch time.

Madam Deputy Speaker, We wrote to every headteacher in the country to make it clear that the government has their back to ban phones in schools. We asked Ofsted Madam Deputy Speaker to enforce the ban, which they stated, which they started doing this month and we have rolled out a targeted programme of support to ensure any struggling school gets the help it needs so that this ban is fully in place, as the government has consistently said, I'll finish this section, then I'll give way as the government has consistently said, Madam Deputy Speaker, and has, as sector leaders have repeated, this is a challenge of enforcement, and I genuinely believe that the package of measures that we have already put in place will ensure effective bans of phones in schools.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have the greatest of respect for colleagues across the House who have argued that placing this guidance on a statutory footing could support enforcement, and we have made that amendment today, and I am thrilled to see that the Secretary of State has indicated her support for this position. Madam Deputy Speaker, the bill before us today contains vital measures to keep our children safe on and offline. These are measures which are desperately needed. Yet this bill has been languishing for 15 months.

The time has come, Madam Deputy Speaker, to stop playing political games and get this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the statute book. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House insists on its amendment 38 J and disagrees with the Lord's and disagrees with the Lord's and disagrees with the Lords in their amendments. 38 V to 30 8XI call

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. 38 V to 30 8XI call Trott. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
15:26
Laura Trott Portrait Rt Hon Laura Trott MP (Sevenoaks, Conservative)
-
-
And I want to start today with good news. After a year of resisting insisting that a statutory ban on smartphones in schools was, to quote the Prime Minister, unnecessary and the government has finally given in. And we've got what we've been asking for a statutory ban on smartphones in schools. Yeah, because however much Ministers have told me over and over again that there isn't a problem, they said that the vast majority of schools have a phone ban. That the phone ban was, to quote the education secretary, a headline grabbing gimmick.

And at one stage, I was told by an education Minister at education questions, no less, that I needed something better to go on than a smartphone ban in schools. But we've kept fighting because I know and my party knows, that there is a problem that the Department of Education's own evidence says that phones are still disrupting almost half of GCSE classes every day. We know that children are still seeing porn at school on their smartphones, and it is affecting behaviour. We've tried guidance to fix the problem but it hasn't worked.

There is a phones crisis in schools that only making the guidance statutory could possibly fix, after various contortions from the frontbench. I'm glad that they have finally listened in the face of a government that, until recently, refused to accept that there is a problem. I pay tribute to the incredible, campaigners say, for screams Mumsnet parent kind Will or Ewing generation focus health professionals for safer screens, phone free education and smartphone free childhood. Their relentless focus and pressure has helped give voice to the frustrated teachers, parents and students who were desperate for change.

Change that we have now delivered on the face of this bill. But while this is good news today, I want the government to make one thing crystal clear that a not seen, not heard policy is not allowed under these rules, because the statistic that Ministers constantly give that 80% of schools have already have a smartphone ban include schools that have a not seen, not heard policy. These policies don't work. Children still use their phones. They're allowed them in their bags. They still go to the loos and message their friends.

They're still exposed to nasty content on phones in the school day. The real number of schools with a full smartphone ban, where phones are not allowed to be with children at all during the school day, is only 11%, according to Policy Exchange. It is vital that the Minister is explicit that a not seen, not heard policy where children are free to carry their phones in their bags during the school day as long as they're silent, is prohibited under the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

guidance of the education. Oh with pleasure. I'm very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I was intending to hon. Friend. I was intending to speak, but I'm afraid I have to leave by 4:00, so wouldn't be able to be in for the wind ups. So may I to be in for the wind ups. So may I ask my right hon. Friend, isn't this the crux of the matter? That it's all very well saying we are now accepting what we've been now accepting what we've been pushing for, that there will be a ban in schools, but it's simply not good enough to say, and therefore good enough to say, and therefore it is responsibility of the pupil to not do it.

Young people are influenced very easily, and they may well come under peer pressure to keep their phones and communicate with them. As my right hon. Friend has communicated so Madam Deputy Speaker may I ask my right hon. Friend to push the government to say, what are they actually going to support schools? Which is what the hon. Lady said to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ensure this ban can be effective. Laura Trott my right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that's why we need that explicit commitment from the Minister today. I'll be delighted if she's able to do that. That is fantastic. And if there is That is fantastic. And if there is agreement across the House, I think everybody will be very relieved because we've gone through the government guidance. And whilst you government guidance. And whilst you could read that from the government guidance, I think it is important that it's explicit for head teachers because the Education Minister in the other place could Minister in the other place could not give this categorical assurance, and I hope the Minister, the Education Minister in the other place, could not give the categorical assurance.

So it's very important that the Minister does so today, and I'm sure that she will, because what we have shown is that on this side of the House, we can come together in the best interest of children, we can force change and we can make a difference. With pleasure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. I'm just wondering if, given how important the party opposite is, stating this ban is opposite is, stating this ban is why they didn't do it in the 14 years that they had in government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

years that they had in government. So, I mean, the hon. Gentleman will know that actually we put guidance in place, but we've been very explicit that that was not very explicit that that was not effective and that we needed to put it on statute, and that is why we've been fighting for it the whole way through. Turning now to the government amendment on pupil admission numbers, I am grateful that progress has been made in recognising the importance of school quality and parental involvement in decision making.

This is a victory to protect school standards in the face of an onslaught against them in this bill. Parental preference and choice are fundamental to healthy competition and higher school standards, and we welcome the belated acknowledgement of this by the government. It is the right thing for parents who will be dumbfounded at the idea that the local authority could unilaterally cut the places at a high quality, oversubscribed school. At the end of the road. And that is exactly what was originally suggested in this bill.

I should point out here that the government amendment is not perfect. It will still allow good school places to be cut, as the adjudicator is only required to take into account the quality of education provided at the school in question and parental preference. This does not mean Madam Deputy Speaker that school places are protected as they should be. But given the government has moved and taken into account some concerns, we will not vote against this today. But I would appreciate the Minister at the Dispatch Box reassuring parents that as the Secretary of State will be consulted on these decisions.

Successful academies will not be penalised by local authorities merely by dint of not being run by them. Madam Deputy Speaker, I now turn to the issue of social media. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to my right hon. Friend and indeed in my constituency we have the Gorse Academy Trust, who have the Gorse Academy Trust, who had a very firm policy Madam Deputy Speaker on the use of phones. And indeed, there was a security incident last year which put that incident last year which put that school under threat, but no pupil knew that that was happening because their firm policy does. My because their firm policy does. My right hon. Friend agree with me that there are academies and institutions that the government should consult with to understand should consult with to understand exactly how they are enforcing a very strict policy? Laura Trott.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that's absolutely right. And enforcing a very strict policy is what now needs to happen off the is what now needs to happen off the back of this new statutory guidance. But, Madam Deputy Speaker Now we lift our turn to the issue of social media and the government's social media and the government's approach. One of the biggest safeguarding challenges facing children today is social media. If we are serious about protecting children from the extreme and children from the extreme and violent content that they encounter every day online, then the government should do what the Prime Minister says he wants to do and protect children online and vote for change tonight.

Parents are watching and they will not forgive the continued delay. Madam Deputy Speaker, Twice already Labour MPs have voted against a ban. Parents will be forgiven for not only feeling deeply let down, but being quite frankly, baffled by what is going on. They've heard the Prime Minister promise action yet once again, he's preparing to lead his party through the lobbies to vote against it. If the government truly wanted change, they could deliver it today. Instead, they've chosen to vote against a ban for a third

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gentleman. I do thank you for giving way, and I know this is an important subject personally, but Labour MPs have voted against the ban. They voted for a consultation. They voted to listen to parents, voted voted to listen to parents, voted to listen to young people, voted to listen to charities and also to learn lessons from what is happening in places like Australia and now Greece. Surely, based on this policy, evidence is the right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thing to do. I respect the hon. Gentleman, but he will know that the consultation that the government has put out is not on how to implement a social media ban, it's whether to do one at all. That is not good enough. It also says within the consultation that TikTok is good for children because they can post dance videos. I do not believe that is taking it seriously. I do not believe it commits to firm action. And that is why Labour MPs who care about this should vote with us today.

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The right hon. Lady for giving way. Does she not recognise that action and a ban are not necessarily going to be the same necessarily going to be the same thing? This is a really nuanced policy area, and quite recently there was a huge online joint there was a huge online joint letter published by the NSPCC, the Molly Rose Foundation, the Internet Watch Foundation and many others arguing that although, as we all arguing that although, as we all agree, serious action is needed to tackle addictive features, safeguarding problems, violent content online.

As she is saying, a blanket ban does have significant drawbacks. And so it's right that we really look at the evidence,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consult nationally and get this right. There is a huge coalition of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is a huge coalition of charities who are backing a ban, and we have tried to police content online and it hasn't worked. But online and it hasn't worked. But what we know is that policing age will work and it will make a difference. And this is urgent. There is not time for delay. Real There is not time for delay. Real harm is happening. Children are dying. We must act. A ban is the most effective way to do that. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

most effective way to do that. I will get. Oh yes. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. Right. I'm most grateful to my right hon. Friend, let me try again. The question that I put to the hon. Lady on the government front bench, we have the opportunity today to carry a motion tabled in the other House that would introduce the ban. The can is being kicked down the road. This is not about consultation indefinitely. The question on the consultation paper is not.

How do we do this? But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shall we do it? That is not necessary, am I right? My right hon. Friend is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Action this day. That is what required and that is what we are pushing for. I give way to hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to hon. Gentleman. I'm really grateful for you, gentlemen, for your time. I would ask the same question of the ask the same question of the question that I posed earlier. If it was so important, why did they not get around to doing this when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they were in government for 14 years? So the rise of social media really kind of came about in a very serious way in 2015, 2016, with the rise of front facing cameras, we took it through the Online Safety Act, which is a huge act in terms of pushing forward the safety of children. But I would say to him that it has not been effective in terms of policing content. It has not been enough. We need to go further. We now need a social media ban for children.

I say once more. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not give up this fight until the government tells this House what they are going to do and by when. I hope this comes tonight. The Minister indicates that it may come later in the other place, but I won't give up, and neither will the thousands of people who have joined the brilliant Raise the Age campaign, which has been so powerfully speaking for frustrated parents across the country. Of course, I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, and she's absolutely right.

I think all of our inboxes across the House have been filled of parents who feel so passionately that they need the help to be able to control their children's use online. They need to have the government step in to say, you're actually not allowed those apps. Because as parents and I'm a I'm a parent myself with young children, you cannot be over their shoulder all the time watching what they are seeing online. But what we know is that what they are being given by the algorithm is so unsafe.

It's so damaging, it's harmful, and they deserve to be protected from that by this government here. The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I think it speaks to the point that our two parties have been able to come together in the interest of children. It is just the party opposite who is standing in the way, and I know there are members opposite who agree with us, frankly, and want the government to stop promising action and actually start taking some action. Given the events of this week, I suspect many members of the benches opposite don't even trust a word that their own government says.

It is absurd that the government continually promised urgent action, yet all they've laid is an amendment which doesn't commit to any action at all, and gives it an unspecified time frame. This is not good enough. In a terrible week from the government on this side of the House, we have proved politicians can make change by coming together in the interests of children to ban smartphones. We can do the same on social media. The Prime Minister has already made his backbenchers defend the indefensible.

This week. I urge Labour MPs not to let him do the same to them again this evening and vote for change tonight. We owe it to the generation of children being exposed to extreme and violent content every single day. Madam Deputy Speaker. Childhood is short and children are being influenced and impacted by what they are being exposed to right now. Damage is being done now, and months and even years of delay is a childhood lost for some, because once that content is seen, it cannot be unseen.

Once those pressures take hold, they cannot simply be reversed and the consequences can last a lifetime. So this is not about action. At some point in the future, it's about whether we act while there is still time to protect children who are growing up today, not years from now, childhood is short. Madam Deputy Speaker, We cannot give it back to them later, so we must protect it now. I'm surprised.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not to see Mr. Adam Jogee on his feet, considering the level of chuntering he's been doing from a seated position, you don't wish to contribute. Formerly unfortunate Helen Hayes. Thank you, Madam Helen Hayes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd like, first of all, to welcome the government's decision to introduce a statutory ban on mobile phones in schools. I appreciate that the guidance previously proposed was clear and that schools must take account of
15:41
Helen Hayes Portrait Helen Hayes MP (Dulwich and West Norwood, Labour)
-
-
that schools must take account of government guidance. But where an issue is unequivocal and in this case, I think the need for mobile phones to be absent from schools, unless there is a clear need for an exception, is unequivocal. Putting the matter into legislation is the most straightforward way to ensure compliance, and it provides clarity for the public. I want, however, to ask the Minister what approach she will take to the guidance accompanying this ban, particularly with regard to exceptions. There will be children who still need to have a phone in school for a whole variety of different reasons, because they are young carers, for example, or because they rely on phone enabled software to support with a particular disability or special educational need.

In the Education Select Committee yesterday, one of our witnesses made an important point about the implementation of a ban with regard to exceptions, and that is about the need for care to be taken over how the wider issues in the classroom are managed. For children who have an exceptional need for a phone, such as who gets to use the phone, what apps are allowed to be on the phone, and how children are kept safe from bullying. In this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

context. Yeah. I thank the chair of the Select Committee and a local high school Committee and a local high school in my constituency, Chichester High School, have introduced yonder pouches and I imagine there are many pouches similar where the many pouches similar where the children can take the phones to the school, but then they have to put them in these lockable pouches. them in these lockable pouches. They don't have access to them throughout the day, and they can unlock them when they're leaving the school.

Does she agree with me the school. Does she agree with me that that's potentially a solution, especially for those children who need them for health needs or for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for other children that use their devices to make sure that they can be in school. I thank the Member for her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Member for her intervention, and I agree with her that that and indeed, I agree with the opposition frontbencher, that I the opposition frontbencher, that I think the ban must be on the basis that schools are that phones are not in bags during the school days, not in bags during the school days, but but but are absent from the children while they're at school. And the point I was making really was about children who have a need to have their phone with them.

And there will be some exceptions. And how that is worked through in the guidance is important for protecting those children from the pressures that might come with being the only child in a classroom who is able to have access to their phone. I think the question of drawing up a list of exceptions is more straightforward than the question of how those exceptions are managed in a classroom environment, and I hope the Minister can provide some assurance on that point. Turning to Lourdes Amendment 38 yesterday, in the first of two evidence sessions on screen time and social media, which are designed to enable the Select Committee to contribute to the government's consultation.

We heard from three companies TikTok, Meta and Roblox. Next week, we will hear from Snapchat, who withdrew from the session yesterday at very short notice, much to our disappointment. We also heard from academics undertaking research in this area. It was absolutely clear from the evidence the three companies gave us that we cannot continue to rely on those companies whose platforms are causing the problem to regulate themselves out of it. I think parents and carers across the country would have been incredulous yesterday listening to our evidence session, we heard meta say that they did not believe that their apps were in any way addictive.

When they have just lost a court case in the US on this precise point. We listened to TikTok saying that they were horrified that children were coming to harm on their site, as if this was a rare exception, when a police investigation found that this harm is widespread or we and we and we heard from Roblox, who expressed their confidence that exploitation cannot happen on their site. When an independent expert recently said that the risks of children coming to harm on Roblox were so high that children should never be left

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unattended while using it. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend, and that's some really shocking evidence that she just cited. I'll be sure to listen to you later on her comments around meta there and her comments around meta there and then, not believing that their platforms are addictive. Does she agree with me that actually this is a broader problem than just a broader problem than just children? Lots of adults also have these issues in terms of social media addiction, and therefore a social media ban wouldn't necessarily solve that.

We need to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

necessarily solve that. We need to look at broader solutions. I thank my hon. Friend for her feet. We have to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Conclude at 416, and I need to get 5 or 6 members in to contribute, so hopefully she'll be coming to a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conclusion shortly soonish. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I think one of the reasons for the incredulity, listening to the evidence yesterday was precisely because so many of us was precisely because so many of us recognise that addictive nature of social media. It felt, frankly, the discussion yesterday, like a discussion yesterday, like a discussion about tobacco might have felt in the 1940s. The harm is so evident as to be undeniable, but the company's responsible for it.

Continue to argue that they are minimal or non-existent, and that anything in moderation is fine. The need for urgent action. I won't take any further interventions because of the time, if that's OK. The need for urgent action to take children off social media in their crucial formative years is absolutely clear. So I welcome the government's consultation and the measures in the bill to enable a ban and other regulatory measures to be introduced via statutory via Statutory Instrument, with no need for further primary legislation.

In our evidence session yesterday. We also heard from academics about some of the complexity that must be considered if we are yet to get a ban and any further regulatory measures right. For example, we questioned Roblox, who are not a social media company because the primary activity on their platform is gaming. Roblox appeals to very young children on Roblox. Children can contact each other via a trusted friends feature, they can create content, and we have heard examples of some very disturbing content. They can be absorbed on their screens for hours at a time, and we know that there have been examples of children being groomed and contacted by people who want to do them harm.

Roblox is not included in the Australian ban because it is not a social media site, but it seems to me that there should be at least some consideration of the extent to which social media harms also extend to some gaming platforms, and how children can be protected from this. We heard from one of our witnesses a question about whether, in the UK context, 16 is the right age threshold for a ban. Australian young people don't have major exams at 16, and there is a consideration about whether the exact time that our young people are preparing for their GCSEs is the right time to be diving into social media for the first time, or whether a slightly younger or slightly older threshold would be better.

Next week we will hear from parents and parent led organisations including the Molly Rose Foundation and Esther J. The mother of Brianna J. It is important to note that these stakeholders have different views and we will explore their disagreement and common ground through our questioning when, not if, we regulate. To remove the pernicious influence of social media from children's lives, it is vital that our regulation is effective, and I am frustrated at the lack of acknowledgement about that complexity of the debate and the importance of not only acting, but getting it right from the members opposite, I want.

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker to ask the Minister if she will set out a clear timescale for regulation under Statutory Instruments so that parents can be assured that there is an end stop on the debate on this issue and that action, the right action, the effective action that we need to keep our children safe is coming to enable all.
15:48
Munira Wilson Portrait Munira Wilson MP (Twickenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Backbenchers to get in. They'll be on a speaking limit of three minutes and I will come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Munira Wilson, who kindly said that she'll speak for fewer than five minutes. Munira Wilson. I'll try my best. Thank you,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll try my best. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Every family has the ambition to send their child to the best school, preferably close by. So we welcome preferably close by. So we welcome the government's moves to strengthen the duty of the schools adjudicator to take account of quality of educational provision quality of educational provision and parental preference in an area before changing a school's pupil admission numbers, as well as the admission numbers, as well as the duty to consult. We do still remain concerned about how this will work in practice and conflicts of interests, and ultimately, if a high performing popular school has space to expand and there are demands, there is a demand for places.

Ideology should not get in the way of doing so. Now, I'd like to welcome the government's decision to finally ban access to mobile phones during the school day by putting existing guidance on a statutory footing. I joined the Shadow Secretary of State in paying tribute to all the campaign groups and also to my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon for all her work on this issue. After more than a year of parents begging of parents, teachers and pupils begging, this simple change will have a big impact.

I'm just sorry that it didn't happen sooner and it was described repeatedly as a gimmick. Now classrooms are will be a step closer to a place of focus and learning, free from the addictive and demanding world of social media. But they do need the right equipment and procedures in place. So I hope with school budgets stretched to breaking point and some parents not being able to necessarily afford pouches, I urge the government to ensure that all schools have the necessary support to properly ensure every classroom can be smartphone free.

Now, I welcome the reasonable adjustments alluded to in the guidance, but I would welcome clear assurance from the Minister at the despatch box that for those pupils with medical needs or caring responsibilities, schools will be at liberty to make appropriate exemptions and accommodations which are not onerous or discriminatory towards individual children. Similarly, school leaders should have the freedom to ensure those children with SEND who may need assistive technology have appropriate access to a device. I strongly endorse the comments from the chair of the Select Committee on this issue of exceptions.

I think providing clear advice to teachers and head teachers on a regular basis would be very helpful to alleviate those concerns. But while we can celebrate a big victory for smartphones in schools, the damaging impact of addictive social media and indeed addictive gaming and the impact of chatbots, it extends far beyond the school day, and we know that each day more cases of children are coming to serious harm because of social media. While big tech companies come to this place, as we've heard and brazenly deny responsibility for the damage they're causing to the mental and physical health of our children and young people.

Now, social media is encouraging insidious, brain numbing behaviour in all of us. As the hon. Gentleman has said, not just children. Through its infinite scrolling features, frequent dopamine hits and addictive algorithm and algorithms, and through its content, it endangers the people we're here to protect. Just last week, I spoke to a constituent of mine whose child cut themselves after seeing a video on YouTube shorts that said it could help relieve stress. The longer we delay, the more we hear stories like this.

So I urge the government to formally recognise in the legislation that it is both addictive design and harmful content that has created this toxic cocktail, because if we can't accurately identify the problem, how can we tackle it? And I know that Ministers on the benches opposite want to help our children, but we need them to do more. We've been debating this issue Madam Deputy Speaker for more than a year now, and the children's Minister himself put forward his own bill on social media harms more than a year ago.

The time is now. Madam Deputy Speaker, to gut addictive algorithms, ban social media giants from collecting our children's data and make big tech responsible for the harmful content they are pushing on our children. So I urge them in the strongest possible terms, to come forward with a concrete commitment to action and a swift timeline for implementation. I agree with the Minister's comments that we need to go broader than social media to gaming, to to chatbots that wider reach some of that wider remit was actually acknowledged in a in a very positive amendment from the Baroness Kidron in the other place, which the government rejected, we Liberal Democrats have put forward broader, more nuanced amendments beyond just a blunt social media ban in the other place.

But they've been repeatedly rejected. This is not about party politics, as some have suggested. It is. We are all trying to come together towards the same aim, but we need a concrete commitment to a date in any amendments that are brought forward that the government will take action. We can't wait for a drawn out consultation that asks if we should ban social media, not how, because our children, who are affected every single day, can't wait for action to be taken. Thank you Madam Matt Rodda.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to be able to speak briefly this afternoon. I wanted to briefly this afternoon. I wanted to speak about this because we had a tragedy in my constituency in reading, where a young boy who was reading, where a young boy who was just 13 years old, was stabbed and brutally murdered in a local park brutally murdered in a local park after a terrible series of incidents of online bullying. And this is a very serious matter, and I do appreciate the government's work on this and the consultation, which I think has enormous potential.

I really just wanted to pay tribute to Ollie's mum and dad, who've been campaigning extremely hard on this matter, both to tackle the scourge of knife crime and social media and online harms. They've argued very powerfully for a ban at 16. However, I am very
15:54
Matt Rodda Portrait Matt Rodda MP (Reading Central, Labour)
-
-
aware that there are contrary arguments as the the chair of the Select Committee mentioned earlier Select Committee mentioned earlier and the Molly Rose Foundation, for example, other campaigners take a different view. I do hope that these matters can be addressed these matters can be addressed fully in the consultation, and that we can look in great detail into some of these challenges, because these are extremely difficult issues for our society and for parents. And certainly in my own life as a parent, I found it life as a parent, I found it difficult to fully comprehend the level of risk which is out there.

And I think we all face this challenge that social media, gaming and other technologies move very, very quickly. So it is important that we look at gaming a range of other matters as well. And I do look forward to the consultation, exploring this fully and really looking in depth and hopefully answering the pleas from all the parents involved in the campaign is because this is such a serious and important issue. And so I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on this matter and with the government as a whole.

On the matter of phones, I would like to wholeheartedly welcome the government's action on this. And it's important, I think, here to see this from a point of view, both of parents, children and schools that schools have to implement this. And I think, quite rightly, the Minister set out how today's amendment will give clarity to schools so that teachers will understand precisely what is meant, and it will give greater, a greater sort of signposting to taking action on phones in schools and as a result, protect children.

And I think that's hugely important. I very much welcome the government's work on this matter. Thank you, Madam Deputy. I do appreciate that other people want to get in and the time is limited.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Katie Lam thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I was very sorry to hear the story that the hon. Member shared. I'd like to speak about a different aspect of the bill, which is schools and admissions, good schools, and the good teachers who run them are exceptionally precious at its best, a good school truly can transform the lives of its pupils by fostering their natural talents, by helping equip them to talents, by helping equip them to tackle challenges, and by expanding their intellectual horizons.

When good schools are working well, they should be able to grow so that more parents can choose to send their children to a school where their talents can be cultivated and their interests encouraged. This is a simple principle and one that members across the House, indeed,
15:56
Katie Lam Portrait Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)
-
-
everyone everywhere, should be able to agree to. A good education should not only be the preserve of should not only be the preserve of those children who have. Parents who can afford to pay for one, enabling more pupils to attend the enabling more pupils to attend the best schools in the state sector means that kind of education can be offered to more and more children. offered to more and more children. Yet, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks has set out, the powers that this bill would the powers that this bill would create on pupil admissions would achieve precisely the opposite.

They allow the government and regulators to limit the growth of good schools, or even force them to shrink in order to make sure that schools which are performing less well can stay open. The most generous interpretation of this government's intentions would be that this change is being made in the name of bureaucratic convenience. As the number of pupils entering the school system falls, it is true that local authorities will need to make decisions about which schools remain open and where. The government Minister responsible for defending this legislation in the Other place said that these proposals are, quote, very much a function of the time in terms of demography that we find ourselves in.

Yet even if this were the case, it would be completely absurd to tackle this problem by limiting the growth of good schools in order to make life easier for bureaucrats in local government, and for headteachers at schools which are not performing well. Surely, wherever possible, we should be enabling the growth of good schools so that they have the capacity to take on more pupils. If and when schools which are performing less well need to reduce their numbers. If those are the decisions parents make, if that is what they believe is best for their children, who are local bureaucrats, to tell them otherwise.

In practice, limiting the growth of good schools will keep more children trapped in failing schools for longer, deny them the opportunity to flourish and deprive them of the firm foundations for life that a good education can provide. Even if this were being done in the name of bureaucratic convenience, it would be grotesque. But I fear the reality may be even worse. Since this government came to power, we have repeatedly seen the Department for Education take steps which undermine the progress made by the last government in this area, including by making it harder to turn failing schools into academies.

Time and time again, we have seen this government put their ideological instincts ahead of what works in practice. But whether these proposals are motivated by ideology or convenience, the result will be the same fewer children able to attend good schools, depriving them of the strongest start in life.
15:59
Alison Griffiths Portrait Alison Griffiths MP (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
-
-
Here. Alison Griffiths.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alison Taylor. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House of Lords identified clear gaps, proposed practical solutions and sent those improvements back to us. The Lords improvements back to us. The Lords Act put in place clear safeguards and the government responds by stripping them out and pressing stripping them out and pressing ahead regardless. Take Lords Amendment 38. The Lords were clear Amendment 38. The Lords were clear they required action to protect children from harm online, including stronger age assurance and a clear expectation of progress.

Within 12 months. The government has chosen to strip that out and replace it with a broad power and to make regulations at some future point. If the government agrees that there is a problem and the Ministers clearly do, why remove the mechanism that would ensure that something is actually done about it? Similarly, Lords Amendment 102 was straightforward. It said that high performing schools that are delivering good outcomes and are in demand from parents should not have their admission numbers reduced unless that decision is necessary and proportionate.

The government has rejected that safeguard. Instead, it offers softer language, asking the adjudicator to have regard to certain factors but have regard is not a protection. It does not guarantee that parental preference will carry any weight. And so I ask the Minister directly why remove a clear safeguard for high performing schools and replace it with something that offers far less certainty? Why take out measures that provide clarity, certainty and protection and replace them with looser powers and softer language? Once again, we see the same approach sensible safeguards put forward and then set aside by this government.

And that is why I cannot support the government's position at this stage. AM I urge Ministers to think again.
16:01
Roger Gale Portrait Rt Hon Sir Roger Gale MP (Herne Bay and Sandwich, Conservative)
-
-
Roger Gale thank you, Madam Speaker. >> I have a very personal interest in this. I have five grandchildren, ranging from 15 down to nine, and ranging from 15 down to nine, and another five Ukrainian children in roughly the same age group. I want to see all of those young people to see all of those young people protected. I understand only too well. Madam Deputy Speaker, Peer pressure. I understand that if one child has a smartphone, then every child has to have a smartphone or they feel left out.

But I also know from all the surveys that have been carried out that the overwhelming majority of those young people are crying out for guidelines and for the ban that will make them all feel the same and not feel excluded. Today in this House of Commons, we have the opportunity. We have a vehicle that is available to us to. As my right hon. Friend said, action this day not in three months time or six months time or two years time.

If we don't take this opportunity, a generation of young people will suffer and we will be responsible. There is no need for that to happen. I understand the definition geriatric, though I may be between a smartphone and a brick phone, it is perfectly possible for any child that has to have one to have a brick phone at very modest cost to communicate where necessary because of caring issues or other matters that are quite clearly medically essential. That is not a problem.

We're not talking about brick phones. We're talking about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

smartphones. The honourable. Member replied. Yes. The right hon. Member for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The right hon. Member for giving way and I. I hesitate to intervene, but I think he perhaps hasn't but I think he perhaps hasn't understood the nature, for example, of children who have a modern hearing aid where it is an application on a smartphone which cannot be put onto a brick phone, that would necessitate the need for a smartphone in the classroom.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a smartphone in the classroom. I do understand what the hon. Lady is saying. Those cases are very few and far between, and there can always be exceptions where they're medically necessary. I don't believe that that's a problem. What I'm saying to the front bench today is we have an opportunity today to legislate. Do not prevaricate do it.
16:03
Damian Hinds Portrait Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP (East Hampshire, Conservative)
-
-
Patience is a virtue made up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Time to the final speaker gets five minutes. Damian Hinds. Hey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's been a pleasure to. It is a pleasure to have heard those last few speeches with some very, very important points made. But even at important points made. But even at five minutes, time is still short for me. And I'm just going to speak very briefly about a couple of aspects around social media and aspects around social media and mobile phones and on social media. Let's get on with it. We've had this back from the Lords back now multiple times. We can do this.

There is a really glaring logical flaw at the heart of the government's argument why we should not. And we've heard actually from a bunch of Labour MPs as well today. And that is what we can't do this one thing because there are some other things we could do as well that just doesn't hold water. All those other things around gaming, around other types of applications, around chat bots, around addictive features and so on. Those can all be additive to what? To having a ban for children under the age of 16.

They would still, by the way, be very relevant to child safety, because I remind the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, that our duty to children extends to the age of 18, as per the Children's Act, and indeed our commitment to the United Nations. So all those things can be additive. There are things to resolve about a ban, exactly where the lines should be drawn, exactly what is in and what is out. And yes, of course, the government has to consult about those things. It does not need to consult further about the principle of whether or not this country, this House of Commons, wants to have a ban on young people under the age of 16 accessing social media, as so many other countries are coming to that conclusion as well.

I turn now, Madam Deputy Speaker, to mobile phones. And throughout this process of this bill, I've always found it the most remarkable contrast. The government says it wasn't going to do it for so long, wasn't going to do a ban on phones in schools. That should be it should be some discretion for the headteacher, but it is going to tell them precisely how many items of school uniform they're allowed to. They're allowed to specify, and if they're in secondary school, that could include a tie.

But if they're in primary school, for some bizarre reason, it could not. I am pleased that the government has partly seen the light. The Minister, who we all like and respect, said last week that the problem had already been solved. So presumably now it's been resolved as they've come back to it again. But I have to tell you, madam, that is not what children say. It's not what children say both to us informally as MPs, or indeed, when they're answering surveys about the actual use of mobile phones in schools and how often a lesson will get interrupted, or teachers being filmed, or indeed bullying stuff happening at break times and lunch times.

And we need to we need to act. Of course, there can be exceptions by individual for assist and adaptive technologies and and for young carers and other reasons. But the one exception we must not have is on the type of ban. So this critical question is this thing about not seeing not every school in the country pretty much at least has that already, but I'm afraid it is not effective as a ban, because if you've got this thing in your pocket or in your bag, which is just your foot, it is still there and you feel it's present.

If it vibrates, you might actually feel it physically, but even if you don't feel it physically, you feel that compulsion towards it. And the only way to make a school truly free of the scourge of mobile phones is to have them away from the away from the child. So they're not seen, not heard approach does not work. Now, the main argument for saying, well, you have to allow and not see not heard. The main argument for that is costs. And I do understand that.

And pouches, which a couple of colleagues have mentioned do they do have a cost. You don't have to do pouches. There are other ways of doing. I've mentioned the Petersfield School in my constituency who have done their phones away from children, banned by the simple device of the kind of plastic box that can be purchased in most large format Swedish retailers. And then that itself is then locked away in a cupboard, along with a number of other boxes. The. The biggest cost has been the foam inserts with the, you know, the numbered slots where each individual child puts their phone.

But the subtotal is done at very at very reasonable cost. I did want to answer this chap. I'm sorry, I don't know his constituency. He's not. And he's no longer with us, so to speak. But he asked why. Why haven't we done this when we were in government? Perfectly reasonable question. I'll tell you two things. There's two reasons why. It's why it comes back to this. First is that the issue has become more acute, and the second is the attitude of head teachers.

So that has changed more from head teachers and their representative bodies saying, the best way for you to support me in this school is not to impose a national ban to them saying the exact opposite, which is the best way to support schools, to support head teachers, is to have this written into law. So, Madam Deputy Speaker on those two points, I think I would try Madam Deputy Speaker patience on those two points. Today is the day that we can have action.
16:08
Olivia Bailey Portrait Olivia Bailey MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Education) (Equalities) (Reading West and Mid Berkshire, Labour)
-
-
Yay!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hey. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker and thank you to all colleagues for the contributions colleagues for the contributions made in this debate this afternoon, which I found very engaging. I'll which I found very engaging. I'll try and in a few minutes I have to respond to some of the key points that were made, starting with my that were made, starting with my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, who asked some really important questions in her speech, and in particular on the question of medical and other exemptions, and I would.

This is a question to the Member for Twickenham asked me. I would draw members attention to the guidance which is available, which is very clear that schools are able to use their judgement to make exemptions where appropriate, in medical situations or others. And that, I think, is the right and proportionate thing to do. And I, of course, happy to keep the application of this policy under review. And this is obviously a great strength of the nature of statutory guidance that we can obviously keep this under review.

I also would like to say that I agree with her frustration about the unwillingness of those in the party opposite to engage with the nuance and variety of the debate, as in the way that we are doing on social media, because it is correct to say that we are properly and rightly looking at a range of options, and we must do so properly in order to act in the decisive way we are determined to do to keep our children safe online.

The hon. Member for Twickenham also asked me for a clear declaration that we will act, and I feel I gave that in my opening speech this afternoon, but I will just repeat, our consultation is broader than the amendments that are before us today. It enables us to act on a wider range of harms, and I have been extremely clear, and we will continue to discuss this point, I am sure. But I have been extremely clear that the government will act and we will act swiftly.

I'm going to make progress. I do apologise, I'm happy to discuss with the hon. Lady at any time my friend the hon. Member for for Reading Central rightly pays tribute to Olli's mum and dad, and I've had the huge privilege of meeting Olli's mum myself. What they have endured, no parent should have to endure and their huge courage in campaigning in their son's memory is truly admirable. There were several contributions on the proposals on pupil admissions number from the Weald of Kent and member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, and I would just like to be really clear.

We want to see good schools expand. We want a great education for every child, but we have to be realistic. In the age of falling rolls, it is possible that this power may be needed to protect that principle of a great education for every child, and we have been very clear with the safeguards that we have put in place in our amendments to this legislation, that parental choice and the quality of the school will be paramount in this decision making. My friends, the hon.

Members for Herne Bay and Sandwich and East Hampshire discussed the right hon. Discuss the question of phones in schools. I also like the hon. Member for East Hampshire, but I would just gently point out to him, Madam Deputy Speaker, that our guidance was published a few months ago, that Ofsted have started inspecting it this month, and I would just urge him patience on the implementation of the action that we have already taken and ask him to consider that we have already taken that decisive action on phones in schools.

The honourable right hon. Member for Sevenoaks, in her speech. I was grateful for the tone on many fronts. In her speech, in particular the support on our measures on phones in schools. And I would just like to repeat what I said in my opening speech in response to her direct question, that the guidance that we will now make statutory explicitly says the Department for Education expects schools to implement a policy whereby pupils do not have access to their mobile phone throughout the school day, including during lessons, the time between lessons, breaks and lunchtime.

I do not think we could be clearer about our intent for this legislation and it is right, as the Member for East Hampshire has set out, that different schools are implementing this ban in different ways, whether that's a plastic tray in the classroom, whether that's a pouch

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or whatever it may be. And we are very clear on this point. I really. Appreciate the Minister engaging

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Appreciate the Minister engaging with this issue. Some people could interpret it. Some schools could interpret not having access as not allowing children to touch it during the school day, but they can have it in their bag. Can she be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very clear today that that is not allowed under this guidance? Minister I can be extremely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister I can be extremely clear with that as I have just been. We have we are categorically, crystal clear that there is no access to phones at any point during the school day. The guidance says that we have removed from the guidance which we have published, any reference to any kind of not seen, not heard policy in the case studies. We are completely clear no access to phone at any point during the school day. It is not for me to determine how a headteacher enforces their discipline and behaviour policies in their school, and this ultimately is a question of enforcement.

I also would like to gently point out to the right hon. Member that we did have to act to fix the party Opposite's weak guidance, and I further ask that she reflects on the fact that phones and social media were not invented in July 2024, and her party had 14 young, long years to take the decisive action that we have now taken. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, the. I do hope that the time for party political games on this legislation is over.

15 months is too long to wait for the vital safeguarding measures that we need in this Bill to become law. There is agreement across this House that phones have no place in schools, and there is agreement that we must act to keep children safe online. The government is doing both, and I urge all honourable and right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Members to vote with us today. The question is that this House insists on its amendment 38 J and disagrees with the Lords in their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disagrees with the Lords in their amendments. 38 B to 38 X as many that opinion say, I. I.
16:16
None Portrait Division: Children's Wellbeing And Schools Bill, Govt. Motion to Insist on Amdt. 38J, ETC
-

Should Should continue the conversations outside the chamber and should be seated as I am on my feet. The question is, as am on my feet. The question is, as on the order papers that. Are of the contrary, no. tellers for the ayes of Stephen Morgan and Deirdre ayes of Stephen Morgan and Deirdre Costigan Tellers for the noes are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The order. The A's to write 260 The noes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. 161. Very close.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very close. The eyes. The right 260. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The eyes. The right 260. The Noes to the left 161. So the ayes have it, the ayes have it unlock. All the order. I must not put the question necessary to bring to a conclusion proceedings on the Lord's messages. We now come to the motion to insist on disagreement with Lords Amendment 102, not insist on amendments. 102 C to 102 G and propose amendment A to D in lieu. I call the Minister to move the motion formally.

The question is. This House insists on its disagreement with the Lords Amendment 102, but does not insist on its amendments to 102 C to 102 G and proposes amendment A to D in lieu. As many that say I of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to insist on disagreement with the Lords amendment 106 not insist on amendments. 106 C to 106 E and propose amendments A to C in lieu. I call the Minister to move the motion formally.

The question is that this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords Amendment 106, but does not insist on its amendments 160 to 106 E and proposes amendments A to C in lieu. As many say, I. I want to know the ayes have it, the ayes have it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move that a committee. Be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lord for agreeing to the amendment. 38 B, 38 W and 38 X to Commons amendment 38 W and 38 X to Commons amendment 38 J that Olivia Bailey J Botterill J that Olivia Bailey J Botterill Jacob Collier Emma Foody Oliver Ryan Laura Trott and Clive Jones members of the committee. Olivia Bailey b the chair of the Committee that three b the quorum of the Committee, and that the.

The Committee do withdraw immediately. The question is that a committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the law. Two disagreeing in amendments. 38 V to 38 X that Olivia Bailey Jade
16:31
16:33
None Portrait Sitting Suspended-Awaiting message from the Lords.
-

18:40
18:40
18:40
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
Yes. regret that we return to the Lords amendments to this bill. This the elected House has made its views crystal clear on the issues before us. We have already voted twice by substantial margins to reject the Lords amendments. It is time for the considered views of this House to prevail. Let me deal briefly with the two remaining issues before us. In our earlier debates, I have been clear that the government agrees that the enforcement of public Spaces, protection orders and community protection notices must be proportionate.

The issue of fixed penalty notices must never simply be seen as a money spinner for enforcement agencies, but as an appropriate and proportionate means of tackling anti-social behaviour in our communities. We will make this distinction absolutely clear in our statutory guidance. To this end, we have already agreed amendments to provide that the statutory guidance issued under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 must address the proportionate issue of Fixed penalty Notices by authorised persons. I know the Liberal Democrat benches opposite want early action on this, so we have now brought forward a further amendment to provide that such guidance must be issued within six months of royal assent.

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is particularly regrettable that the front bench opposite has returned yet again to amendment 359, albeit in a modified form, an amendment that is simply unworkable and wholly contrary to the approach taken by successive governments to the exercise of the powers in the Terrorism Act 2000 to proscribe terrorist organisations. There is no more important duty on the government than to safeguard this country from terrorist attacks, but requiring the government, in effect, to give a running commentary on whether any organisation linked to the Iranian armed forces should be proscribed does not for one moment add to our security.

Their Lordships can keep insisting on this amendment, but our response will be the same. This is not an amendment. Any reasonable government can or should entertain.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give you. Two in the papers today. There's pictures of six ladies who are pictures of six ladies who are going to be executed by the IRGC because they're in charge in Iran, because they're in charge in Iran, because they. They protested in the streets for for liberty, for freedom, for those six ladies whose lives are on the line, and for all those millions of people in Iran those millions of people in Iran who want freedom, I think this government should prescribe the the IRGC and they shouldn't delay.

I say respectfully to the Minister as they face the realities that we have in this world.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention? Look, none of us would say for one second that we are anything other than appalled by what we see happening in Iran, and none of us support that government none of us support that government and none of us support the IRGC. And we have sanctioned over 550 individuals and organisations, individuals and organisations, including the IRGC, in terms of not being able to come here and obviously taking their assets where we can.

The point is this is not the place in this Parliament for a government to say one way or the other, what it's going to prescribe and what it's not going to prescribe. It's not the way government is done in this country, and it is not the way that we are going to operate now. But I get the gentleman's point for sure. And of course, none of us support the IRGC or anything that they do. And we are appalled by the very significant, awful number of deaths that we've seen over recent over recent times and indeed over many years.

In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are reaching the stage where the issue before this House is no longer the detail of the various laws amendments, but whether the unelected Lords should continue to disregard the clearly and unequivocally expressed views of the House of Commons and delay the enactment of this Bill. We have already rejected the Lords amendments on two occasions, with majorities of well over 100 letters send these amendments back to the Lords, hopefully for one last time. I beg to move.
18:45
Joy Morrissey Portrait Joy Morrissey MP (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
-
-
Yes. >> Yes. >> The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments to H. And Too-j, but proposes, in lieu of those amendments, amendment A to its amendment to F, an amendment B to amendment to F, an amendment B to its amendment to G, I call the shadow Minister. Joy Morrissey. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Those in the other. Place have asked us to reconsider their amendments for 39E reconsider their amendments for 39E and 439F and compelling the Home Secretary to review the prescription of groups linked to prescription of groups linked to the Iranian armed forces. This includes the Iranian Revolutionary includes the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, also known as the IRGC. There can be absolutely no doubt There can be absolutely no doubt about the threat that Iran and its proxies poses to this country and our national security.

In 2015, terrorists linked to Iran were caught stockpiling explosives on the outskirts of London. In 2022, amidst protests in Iran, the IRGC sought to assassinate two journalists on British soil. Just last year, the IRGC was linked to an attempted attack on the Israeli embassy in Kensington, which was foiled by counter-terrorist police. The organisation has been linked to at least 20 credible threats in the UK, and even beyond the direct risk posed by the IRGC terrorism. The organisation is responsible for funding and supporting other extreme groups in this country, and has worked closely with criminal gangs to undermine our national security threat.

We will only be able to combat this threat if we are willing to tackle it head on, using every power available to us in order to do so. To this end, and the very least that we can do is to make it harder for Islamic extremist groups to operate legally in this country. In prescribing the IRGC and other groups linked to the Iranian armed forces, Ministers would be able to protect not only those who are being attacked or. Actually, it's our Jewish community that we are really thinking about at this difficult time.

This can only be a good thing. This amendment would help to strengthen those protections when they were in opposition. Many of those in government benches did agree, and in April 2024, the now foreign secretary called for exactly that. Yet now they are refusing to even review the prescription of these groups like the IRGC, which fuel the Islamic cause and which are directly linked to the Iranian armed forces. I would urge the Minister and their colleagues on the government benches to change their minds and to accept these amendments before us today.

The threat is far too grave to be ignored. By burying their heads in the sand, they will not make the problem go away. They will only put our country and its people more at risk.
18:48
18:49
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
Minister. that we are here for the last time this debating this bill, and I know that on these benches, we earnestly want to see the bill enacted so that we can deliver safe streets for all our communities. Can I thank the Liberal Democrats for not pushing their amendments to to a vote on this occasion? Just on the issue of the IRGC, I have been really clear that no responsible government, which puts the safety and security of the country first, can give a running commentary on whether this organisation is going to be prescribed or not, and it is time to close down this debate.

I would just say that the hon. Lady mentioned the Jewish community and of course, of course, she's absolutely right to do so. We are all deeply concerned by what we have seen happen to our Jewish friends and colleagues across the country, and particularly in London in recent days, and we are doing all we can to make sure they are safe. We are investing as you as, as, as she will know, to make sure we have the protections of synagogues and other Jewish spaces where we need it, and we are working with them to do everything we can.

So she is right, and I want to agree with her on that. But on this matter of whether the government can be told in this place that they have to immediately prescribe organisations, that's not the way this government works. It's not the way any government has worked. And so I respectfully suggest to the other place and this place that the time has come to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

call it a day and let this bill now pass. I beg to move EA. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments to H. And Too-j, but proposes, in lieu of those proposes, in lieu of those amendments, amendment A to its amendment to F and amendment B to amendment to F and amendment B to its amendment to G. As many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to insist on Commons amendments 439C and 439D and to disagree with Lords amendments 439E and 439F in lieu.

I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House insists on its amendments 439C and 439D and disagrees with the Lords in their disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 439E and 439F in lieu. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. no. Clear the lobby.
18:52
None Portrait Division: Crime and Policing Bill, Govt. Motion to Insist on Commons amdt. 439C and 439D, etc.
-

I did that one. insists on its amendments 439C and 439D and disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 439E and 439F

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in lieu. As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary. No, No. The tellers for the ayes of Deirdre Costigan and Stephen Morgan the Tellers for the noes James Wild and Rebecca Smith.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right. 253 the noes to the left.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

143 oh, there we go.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

143 oh, there we go. The ayes to the right were. 253 the noes to the left. 143 so the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock. Minister to move that a committee be appointed to draw up reasons.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that a committee be appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments. disagreeing to their amendments. 439E and 439F that Sarah Jones Stephen Morgan Adam Thompson Alex McIntyre Sarah Coombes Joy Morrissey and Clive Jones be members of the committee that Sarah members of the committee that Sarah Jones be the chair of the Committee that three three be the quorum of the Committee, that the Committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do withdraw immediately. The question is that a committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that a committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments disagreeing to their amendments that. Sarah Jones Stephen Morgan Adam Thompson, Alex McIntyre, Sarah Coombes, Joy Morrissey and Clive Jones be members of the Committee, that Sarah Jones be the chair of that Sarah Jones be the chair of the Committee, that three be the quorum of the Committee, that the Committee do withdraw immediately, as many as are of that opinion say aye.

of the contrary, no, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. That concludes consideration of the Lords message on the Crime and Policing Bill. Order, order point of order. Alex Burghart.
19:06
Alex Burghart Portrait Points of Order Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)
-
-
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder if I could get your guidance on seeking a correction of the record from today's Prime Minister's Questions, the Prime Minister said in response to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, Sir Olly Robbins, was absolutely clear that nobody put pressure on him to make this appointment. It is, I'm afraid, very clear. From Sir Olly's evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that he believed that pressure was put on him. I refer to question 532 when he says throughout January, honestly, my office in the Foreign Secretary's office were under constant pressure.

There was an atmosphere of constant chasing. I refer to to question 580. While I think the department felt under pressure, we were proud of the fact we had not bowed to that pressure to question. 615 Philip Barton's handover to me has contributed to my strong sense that there was an atmosphere of pressure and a certain dismissiveness about the vetting process. I could go on. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think strongly, contrary to the impression the Prime Minister wished to create, Sir Olly Robbins clearly said that his department had been placed under pressure.

And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder if you can help me as to how we might achieve a correction to the record. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Can I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. As Member for his point of order. As he will know, ministerial responses, including those of the Prime Minister, are not the responsibility of the chair. responsibility of the chair. However, he has put his point very clearly on the record. The Treasury bench will have heard it and if a bench will have heard it and if a correction is needed, I am sure one will be brought forward. Petition Laura Kyrke-Smith.
19:08
19:08
19:09
19:10
19:11
Neil Duncan-Jordan Portrait Neil Duncan-Jordan MP (Poole, Labour)
-
-
Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> Petition River Brue and water regulation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

regulation. Petition Neil Duncan-Jordan. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to present a petition in I rise to present a petition in support of my constituents in Poole who are opposed to the threatened closure of Hamworthy fire station. This petition sits alongside an online campaign led by the Fire Brigades Union, signed by over 16,700 people and relates to wider proposed closures across Dorset and Wiltshire. Of eight stations, which risk longer response times for residents and more dangerous conditions for firefighters.

The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons urge the government to work with Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Authority to find a solution that will prevent the closure of Hamworthy fire station, and the petitioners remain. ET cetera.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition Hamworthy Fire station. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. Olly Glover.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now adjourn. Olly Glover. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the United Kingdom, more than 600,000 people, 1 in 100 live with epilepsy, and every day around 80 people are diagnosed. Sudden, unexpected death in epilepsy, abbreviated as SUDEP, is the term used when a person with epilepsy dies suddenly and unexpectedly. At least 21 people die every week in the UK from SUDEP, and even that is an underestimate. With epilepsy epilepsy deaths believed to be under recorded. There are two key themes I want to raise today in this debate.

Firstly, the SUDEP and epilepsy risk communication and understanding gap, and secondly, the inherent systemic failure to prevent deaths following prevention of death reports. I will conclude by outlining my key asks which are needed for lasting and meaningful change. Epilepsy related deaths range from prolonged seizures and accidents to drownings and suicide. However, SUDEP is a devastating worst outcome, accounting for half of all epilepsy fatalities, according to the charity SUDEP Action and the Epilepsy Research Institute. The highest rates of death are in areas of deprivation and among vulnerable groups, such as those with worsening mental health, people with learning disabilities or autism, pregnant women and children.

SUDEP affects all ages, but we know that it disproportionately affects the young, with a peak in people's 20s and 30s, I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm really. Grateful for him giving way and for him bringing this debate tonight, I've been asked to come tonight, I've been asked to come along on behalf of my constituent, James Nichols, who lost a dear friend in just that age group to friend in just that age group to SUDEP and has been a tireless campaigner on this issue ever since. campaigner on this issue ever since. He explained to me that the the really tragic thing about SUDEP is really tragic thing about SUDEP is that it can often come somewhat out of the blue through breakthrough seizures.

After. After an individual has not had seizures for many years, which can make it a particularly traumatic experience for a loved one's family member. Could you perhaps just touch a bit more on on this and what we can do to support family members?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I pay tribute to his constituent and their family. I'm going to be talking quite a lot about what we can do to to prevent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about what we can do to to prevent on. On. That. Point. I give way to the honourable. Jim Shannon Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jim Shannon Madam Deputy Speaker. First of all, can I commend the hon. Gentleman for Didcot and Wantage for bringing this forward and spoke to him beforehand, and and spoke to him beforehand, and the hon. Gentleman, an intervention before. I'm here to represent my people in Northern Ireland, and those who are affected by this. SUDEP affects 1 in 1000 people with epilepsy annually, including many cases in Northern Ireland, and yet many families say that they are not aware of the dangers of these Night-Time tonic clonic seizures.

So does the hon. Member really looks forward to what we need to do and government ways not agree that more must be done to educate patients, family members to ensure that the information is known and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that thereby precautions can take place. Thank you, thank you. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He's absolutely correct to say that awareness raising and increasing understanding are key priorities in understanding are key priorities in dealing with SUDEP and epilepsy. In general, patients with epilepsy carry a risk of premature death, carry a risk of premature death, which is on average 2 to 3 times higher than the general population, as outlined by Frontiers in Epidemiology. What is most Epidemiology.

What is most devastating is the knowledge that 60% of epilepsy related deaths are believed to be preventable each

**** Possible New Speaker ****

year, according to the European Journal of Neurology. With SUDEP accounting for many of these deaths. The hon. Gentleman give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Gentleman give way. I give way to the gentleman. And can I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for bringing this really essential bringing this really essential debate. My my constituent Emma Taylor tragically lost her daughter at the age of 19, and she now tirelessly campaigns for SUDEP action as a policy champion. Does my hon. Friend agree with her on my hon. Friend agree with her on the need for the government to promote proper first aid seizure training?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do very much agree With his constituent, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With his constituent, and I thank her for her tireless campaigning and offer my condolences for her loss. My condolences for her loss. My Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage is the home to SUDEP Action, a charity that is local, national and international in its national and international in its impact. In 1995, five bereaved women came together around a kitchen table to found the charity kitchen table to found the charity in tribute to Alan, aged 27, Matthew, 21, Natalie, 22, and William, 22, and all who had died unrecognised before.

Jayne Hannah, Sheila Pring, Katherine Brooks, Sue
19:17
19:17
Olly Glover Portrait Adjournment: Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy and epilepsy deaths prevention Olly Glover MP (Didcot and Wantage, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
tackling epilepsy deaths as a number one research priority. The key challenge, which SUDEP action is facing is the problem of research insight, which does not research insight, which does not reliably or quickly reach neurology consultations, primary care or social care. Nice Institute National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines exist, but services are inadequately supported to implement them. Jayne Hannah from SUDEP Action told me that my own constituents face nine month waits for a first seizure clinic and 9 to 12 months for follow ups.

She told me that weights of this magnitude, such as we are experiencing in my constituency, are unsafe. Her partner Alan, waited four months and died suddenly five months later. Wakes weights like these aren't just confined to my constituency, but are reflective of a structural problem across the country. Now, free safety tools exist to tackle lack of knowledge and complacency around seizures in SUDEP, but systemic issues are difficult to shift because of poor access, poor medicine management, failure to communicate risk, and poor recording of deaths.

An independent review was named after Clive Tracy. Clive died at 47 in 2017 in a hospital setting where he had lived for ten years. The report on his life is shocking for this country in the 21st century. Now, the Minister may be aware of the debate secured by the hon. Member for Lichfield last year, who I'm very pleased to see in his place and the response from the parliamentary Under-Secretary of state for health, Innovation and Safety. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West, who supported the Clive Betts DC checklist.

I give way to the En bloc Dave Robertson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the hon. Member for bringing to light the checklist? Because it is a really fitting way Because it is a really fitting way to remember, Clive. And I think what's really important, though, is to remember that although it's named after Clive, he's not defined by his epilepsy. He wasn't defined by his learning disability. But he doesn't need to be defined by his doesn't need to be defined by his death. Clive was somebody who loved to paint. He was a really talented gardener, and I think his family are really eager that he is.

His are really eager that he is. His real memory is, is, is those memories that they carry with him. So do want to make sure I take the opportunity to put that on the record. One thing that's also very clear when you look into the checklist is that SUDEP risk for people with learning disabilities and epilepsy is three times higher, so 300%. But the actual risk of SUDEP can be cut by 84% if people have got an annual check-up. And that's part of what the Clive Tracey checklist advises NHS trusts to follow.

So can I again thank him for that and ask him to invite him to do all he can alongside me, and I'm sure many of the members to make sure that every single NHS trust NHS trust introduces and follows that checklist to protect

**** Possible New Speaker ****

some of the most vulnerable people in our societies. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and his tribute to his constituent, and I look forward to working with him and others on this issue in the future. This this issue in the future. This checklist, commissioned by NHS Midlands and developed by SUDEP Action, is designed for commissioners and providers of care. commissioners and providers of care. There is hope that it will be red flagged in annual health checks for people with learning disabilities, as the hon.

Gentleman has said. Despite this high risk cohort, most families like Clive's were unaware of SUDEP and epilepsy risk despite earlier learnings from deaths. They were never given the information they needed, and mistakes of the past continue to repeat themselves. Recent research by the European Journal of Neurology surveyed neurologists found that only one fifth discussed sudep with all patients. It speaks to an unacceptable systemic failure. More than 20 years after national guidance was introduced, young people and their families are still being left in the dark.

So what needs to be done? SUDEP action has developed practical safety tools to empower neighbourhoods the SUDEP and Seizure Safety checklist. The app, an app which helps to understand one's personal epilepsy risks, and the charliecard supporting risk reduction and communication across care settings. We know that where the adult checklist is used, SUDEP conversations have risen from 20% to 80% and risks have fallen. But the challenges are vast. Progress is fragmented, it's far too slow, and at a time of rising inequalities, all too often the risks are getting worse.

The series of prevention of death reports into epilepsy reflect broader patterns. Missed opportunities are SUDEP and epilepsy, risk communication gap, a failure to act and a culture that too often fails to listen to families could mean I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Five years ago, my constituent Nadine tragically lost her brother Trevor to epilepsy, but his Trevor to epilepsy, but his healthcare team at the prison staff at the prison that he was in where had not carried out their duties, which led directly to his death. which led directly to his death. Trevor's death, sadly, is one of many out out that which outline a clear unresolved gap in epilepsy clear unresolved gap in epilepsy care in custodial settings. So this hon. Gentleman agree with me that hon.

Gentleman agree with me that the best way to prevent epilepsy deaths in prison is with education and training to ensure that no life

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is lost to epilepsy due to lack of awareness or understanding. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and he's absolutely right to raise prisoners. Another setting where people are often vulnerable, where more needs often vulnerable, where more needs to be done in relation to SUDEP sepsis, with a similar history of systemic failure, will surely benefit from a modern service framework co-produced with the Sepsis Trust. Meanwhile, neither epilepsy nor neurology is epilepsy nor neurology is explicitly mentioned in the NHS ten year plan.

There is a mandatory national framework to protect unborn children from anti-seizure medication risks, but there is no mandatory national framework to protect people living with epilepsy from SUDEP and epilepsy deaths. Despite 30 years of evidence and repeated calls for action, SUDEP action provides intensive assistance on 60 to 70 investigations of deaths each year and sees the toll of long, drawn out processes and, far too often, a defensive culture by default. It also sees a painful accountability gap where inquests are not even held and families feel silenced.

Complacency around SUDEP seizures and epilepsy first called out by Liam Donaldson as Chief Medical Officer in his annual report in 2021, carries wider harms for communities and persists in too many places. Moving towards my conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to outline some key asks for the Minister. Now. There are hundreds more stories stories from families that I wish I could have shared today, but I always endeavour to be as brief and concise as possible in this in this setting. My thoughts are with all in the brief community who I stand by and will continue to campaign for in order to effectively support the wonderful charities that are doing so much to prevent SUDEP and support families through this.

I put forward for questions to the Minister. Question one Will the Minister commit to developing a modern framework for SUDEP? This would require policy makers working on epilepsy to work with those with lived experience via SUDEP action, and spread good practice with mandatory information on side effects from anti-seizure medicines. There must be a framework for person centred information about sudep and seizure risk, and national training initiatives that support whole system learning. Epilepsy and SUDEP must be included in neighbourhood health, integrated with acute hospitals, social care and community health settings, as well as prisons.

As the hon. Gentleman said, to maximise the opportunity for prevention and there must be safe levels of epilepsy, specialist doctors and nurses in local areas. Improving the quality of the annual check for learning disability to include a SUDEP check for people with epilepsy would be a significant step forward to upskill primary care. Question two Will the Minister today commit to arranging a meeting with SUDEP? Action? Ministerial colleagues have offered engagement on prevention of death reports with the SUDEP action charity, promising meetings in letters sent in January and February this year.

But such meetings have yet to take place. Question three Will the Minister support a national oversight mechanism in the Hillsborough Bill? Families have been campaigning for an amendment to the Hillsborough law so that there can be a single permanent oversight body to prevent the same mistakes across different tragedies such as Grenfell Post Office, horizon scandal, infected blood and others. This would track progress across government departments and public authorities publicly report on failures, delays or resistance to reform and prevent repeated cycles of injustice seen after major disasters and scandals.

Finally, will the Minister accept an invitation to visit my constituency to see the work of SUDEP Action, a charity built by families and clinical champions from grief, sustained by courage and determined to stop deaths. I am grateful for the minister's time in this adjournment debate and look forward to her response. Yes.
19:25
Sharon Hodgson Portrait Mrs Sharon Hodgson MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Washington and Gateshead South, Labour)
-
-
Minister Sharon Hodgson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would like to start by thanking the hon. Member start by thanking the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for securing this important debate. And at the this important debate. And at the outset, I will say I'm very happy to meet with him to discuss all the to meet with him to discuss all the action points he raised at during the end of his speech and where the end of his speech and where that meeting takes place.

We can discuss that. Also. Sudden, unexpected death in epilepsy, or SUDEP for short, is a vitally important issue not only for those directly and tragically affected, but also for many members too. And we must learn lessons when deaths occur and make the changes needed. We must also ensure timely access to the right specialist support for people with epilepsy, including tackling long waits for neurology appointments, and continue to build the evidence base so that innovative treatments such as medical cannabis, where clinically appropriate, are available in a safe and consistent way.

And I will set out the actions we are taking with the NHS and partners to reduce risks, as well as improve outcomes for people living with epilepsy. Firstly, there is a statutory duty for organisations to respond to prevention of future deaths report issued by a coroner when there investigation identify circumstances that create a risk of future deaths and this provides a clear mechanism for organisations to set out the actions they will take to address these risks alongside the PhD process. It's essential that the NHS also continues to strengthen how it identifies and acts to mitigate risk in day to day epilepsy care, and that is why we are working with the NHS and partners to embed structured risk assessments and consistent risk communication for epilepsy and routine practice, so that known risk factors are identified early, addressed where possible, and discussed openly with patients and families in line with best practice and current waiting lists is a key priority for this government, including for neurology services, and we have committed to achieving the NHS constitutional standard that 92% of patients should wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment by March 29th, and we've already delivered 5.2 million additional elective appointments in our first year in government.

Waiting lists overall are coming down, but we recognise they remain too high, with neurology remaining a particularly challenged speciality. And for patients with epilepsy, timely access to specialist advice supported by clear referral routes and coordinated care across primary care, community services and hospitals, is critical to good outcomes. And nationally, NHS England's Neurology transformation programme developed a model of integrated care to support integrated care boards to deliver the right service at the right time to patients as close to home as possible, and for those with refractory epilepsy who need highly specialised input.

NHS England's updated service specification for specialised adult neurology services is clear that specialised neurology centres must include services for the assessment and management of refractory epilepsy. Progress is being made on the treatment backlog and between February 25th and February 26th, the number of incomplete neurology pathways reduced by over 10,000. The average waiting time reduced from 16.5 to 15 weeks, and the proportion of patients seen within 18 weeks increased to 57.9%. And we will continue to work with the NHS to improve access and reduce delays for patients, including those with epilepsy and families.

Research is central to improving outcomes for people with epilepsy, and the department funds research into epilepsy through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, or NIH. And in the five years from April 2020 to March 25th, we committed almost £19 million to 15 epilepsy research projects, and the NIH also welcomes applications on all topics, including epilepsy and on medical cannabis. I fully understand why patients and families continue to press for safe and equitable access, particularly for children with drug resistant epilepsy, and there is one licensed cannabis based medicine, Epidiolex, which is available for prescribing on the NHS where clinically appropriate, following clear evidence of its safety and clinical and cost effectiveness.

Most cannabis based medicines are. Patients are seeking, are unlicensed and have not been assessed for their safety, quality or effectiveness. And until the evidence base improves, the NHS will not routinely fund them and clinicians will rightly be cautious about prescribing. And that is why, through the NHS, NIH and NHS England, the government is investing over £9 million in clinical trials on cannabis based medicines for drug resistant epilepsy to strengthen the evidence and support consistent, safe decision making.

And we also know that around 30% of people with epilepsy have a learning disability. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield spoke of and that the risk of SUDEP is higher for those with a learning disability. The most recent learning from Lives and Deaths report found that epilepsy was one of the most common underlying causes of death for people with a learning disability. Between 2021 and 2023, and this highlights how crucial it is that information and support for patients with epilepsy who have a learning disability is tailored to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their individual needs. Yes, I will. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way and for delineating everything that the government is doing to support people with epilepsy. I was fortunate enough to secure an adjournment debate a couple of months back to talk about the Clive Tracey checklist and our hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West said from the despatch box that he expects every NHS NHS trust that he expects every NHS NHS trust to be following the Clive Tracey checklist. I just wonder if she'd be able to to agree with him on that point and send that message that all trusts must be following that checklist.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank him for that intervention and I welcome the development of the Clive Tracey safety checklist. the Clive Tracey safety checklist. It is an important part of Clive's legacy. Notwithstanding the legacy. Notwithstanding the comments he made also about his legacy being much wider than that also. But we would encourage also. But we would encourage commissioners and service providers to use the checklist and its accompanying guidance as a key tool accompanying guidance as a key tool when designing services for their local populations, and to make sure that the steps outlined in the checklist are followed.

Whenever a patient experiences a significant change in their care. So it is something that we do hope is getting rolled out and is getting followed and used as well. At the national level, there are a number of programs and tools supporting safer, more consistent epilepsy care. Nice guidance recommends that people with the learning difficulty disability have monitoring reviews at least annually, and information should be tailored and adapted, including ensuring access to specialist care and coordinated multidisciplinary support. And for young people transitioning into adult services, Nice is also clear that planning should begin early.

And while nice guidance is not mandatory, the government expects commissioners and service providers to take it fully into account when making decisions on how best to meet the needs of their local communities. NHS England's right care programme has developed an epilepsy toolkit to support commissioners and clinicians to improve epilepsy care and reduce preventable deaths, and the toolkit makes structured risk assessment and risk reduction, including proactive conversations about sudep, a core part of its guidance, and it's signpost practical resources such as the SUDEP and Seizure Safety Checklist to support consistent risk communication in line with nice guidance and health.

Education England, now part of NHS England, has also developed an epilepsy program in collaboration with SUDEP Action, including evidence based training modules delivered through the NHS England e-Learning for healthcare platform, covering practical diagnosis and management, medication adherence and SUDEP risk factors. And alongside this, the government supported frameworks including the National Epilepsy Bundle of care for children and young people are helping to drive more equitable access to timely intervention and rehabilitation. In closing, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank my hon.

Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage for securing this very important debate. It's great to see it so well attended, and I would like to thank all hon. Members who took part in the debate and interventions. And the Member for Bracknell and Strangford, Stroud, Lichfield and Southgate and Wood Green. You made a number of very important points, and if I need to follow up on any of those points with colleagues in other departments, I will definitely do so or within my own department.

I also want to thank those with lived experience of epilepsy, and to the families who have lost loved ones, to Sudep also whose courage in speaking out continues to drive change through the work we do in this place. We will continue to work with partners across the health system to support people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with epilepsy and to reduce the deaths, ultimately from epilepsy. Thank you. Hey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hey. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion say aye. the ayes have
11:00
None Portrait Private Business
-

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