Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Debate between Roger Gale and Alison Griffiths(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The House of Lords has identified clear gaps and proposed practical solutions, and has sent improvements back to us. The Lords has acted to put in place clear safeguards, and the Government respond by stripping them out and pressing ahead regardless. Let us take Lords amendment 38. The Lords were clear that they required action to protect children from harm online, including stronger age assurance and a clear expectation of progress within 12 months. The Government have chosen to strip that out, and replace it with a broad power to make regulations at some future point. If the Government agree that there is a problem, and Ministers clearly do, why remove the mechanism that would ensure something is actually done about it?
Similarly, Lords amendment 102 was straightforward. It said that high-performing schools delivering good outcomes and in demand from parents should not have their admission numbers reduced unless that decision is necessary and proportionate. The Government have rejected that safeguard. Instead, they offer 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. 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 that have been put forward are being swept aside by this Government. That is why I cannot support the Government’s position at this stage, and why I urge Ministers to think again.
Sir Roger Gale
I have a very personal interest in this: I have five grandchildren, ranging in age from 15 to nine, and there are another five Ukrainian children in roughly the same age group living with my family. I want to see all of those young people protected. I understand peer pressure only too well. I understand that if one child has a smartphone, every child has to have a smartphone, or they feel left out. However, I know from all the surveys that have been carried out that the overwhelming majority of young people are crying out for guidelines, and for the ban that will make them all feel the same, and not feel excluded.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) said, we have the opportunity in the House of Commons, through this vehicle that is available to us, to take action this day, not in three months’ time, six months’ time or two years’ time. If we do not take this opportunity, a generation of young people will suffer, and we will be responsible. There is no need for that to happen.
Geriatric though I may be, I understand the difference in definition between a smartphone and a brick phone. It is perfectly possible for any child who has to have a phone to have a brick phone, at very modest cost, so that they can communicate on medically essential matters, or if there are caring issues. That is not a problem. We are not talking about brick phones; we are talking about smartphones.
Taxes
Debate between Roger Gale and Alison Griffiths(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Hard-working families and business owners in Bognor Regis, Littlehampton and our villages are feeling the squeeze as never before. Labour stood on a manifesto promise not to raise taxes for hard-working people, yet at the very first opportunity, in the autumn Budget, they raised employers’ national insurance. This is a tax on job security and job creation. It is a tax on growth and a tax on ambition.
The jobs tax—one of the Chancellor’s flagship failures—has wrecked business confidence. It has made it more expensive to hire workers, stagnated the jobs market and threatens countless job losses and business closures. It falls on top of the Employment Rights Bill, which signals the return of 1970s-style employment laws that will further stifle growth, as well as the family business tax, higher business rates and higher wage bills. In small coastal towns like Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, where over 90% of local businesses have fewer than 10 employees, every cost increase and every job loss is keenly felt. Across our constituency, families, small businesses, hospices such as St Wilfrid’s and charities at the heart of our communities face an impossible position.
In their short time in government, Labour has become the party of taxation. The Chancellor has backed herself into a corner, and more tax hikes are undoubtedly on the horizon. That is why I thank the Leader of the Opposition for tabling this important motion. Working people in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and the businesses, charities and hospices that employ them need to be defended from this Government’s tax raids, and that is what I intend to do—to stand up for the people of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton today, tomorrow and throughout this Parliament.