House of Commons
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we begin today’s proceedings, I know that the House will wish to join me in acknowledging that today marks the fourth anniversary of the war in Ukraine. This House has always stood with the people of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. We must not forget their continuing fight to stand up for their ideals, which underpin a peaceful, stable and democratic world. Our thoughts are with the people of Ukraine, as well as with our colleagues in the Ukrainian Parliament.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Government and Labour Members, may I associate myself with your remarks? Members from right across this House will share those sentiments. As the Prime Minister made clear at Cabinet this morning, and as the Foreign Secretary is making clear in Kyiv, we will stand with Ukraine, whatever is thrown at it, until it has the freedom and security that it deserves.
This Government are restoring the founding promise of the national health service: to bring quality healthcare to all, regardless of how much they earn or where they live. New funding for GPs is being prioritised for areas where the need is greatest, and we are sending more cancer specialists to rural hospitals. As we modernise the health service, the NHS app and NHS Online will bring world-class healthcare to the most remote corners of our country at the touch of a button—lots done, and lots more to do.
Torcuil Crichton
In places like Na h-Eileanan an Iar, going the extra mile to provide care is part of the job, and I pay tribute to the carers in my constituency who travel miles in darkness and bad weather to deliver support for the elderly. In some parts of the Western Isles, and indeed across rural Scotland, there simply is not the working-age population to provide that care, and immigration cannot solve that problem entirely. Does the Minister agree that it is only by increasing wages and paying social care staff properly—something for which Scottish Labour has been calling for some time—that we will increase the number of carers in rural areas, and provide a proper care service?
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. This Labour Government are introducing the first ever fair pay agreement for care workers. That is better pay and conditions for care workers, and more people recruited into the profession. It is backed by £500 million, and Scotland will receive extra funding through the Barnett formula. The question for the SNP is: where is the money going, and why is it not going into the pockets of Scottish care workers, as Jackie Baillie has demanded?
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
On Friday, I visited Young Devon, an early support centre in the heart of rural North Devon, where I met young people who told me heartbreaking stories of how they felt left out and let down by the system. Young Devon was quite literally a lifeline for them. It has an open-door, person-centred approach. I am delighted that its funding has been continued for one more year, but it is only one year, and those who run the centre told me that this makes it incredibly difficult for them to plan. Can the Secretary of State clarify what the longer-term plan is for these early support hubs, how they sit alongside Young Futures hubs, and how he can help organisations like Young Devon thrive into the future?
Wes Streeting
I join the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee in paying tribute to Young Devon and the work it is doing. As she will know, I have enormous sympathy for the challenge she raises about medium-term certainty on funding. As was demonstrated on the Floor of the House yesterday by the Education Secretary, my Department and the Department for Education are working closely together to make sure we are better joining up education, health provision and support for young people. There is more to do. I accept the challenge that she sets down around medium-term certainty on funding; that is why we are doing more through, for example, the medium-term planning framework. I accept, in the spirit of this exchange, that there is lots done, but lots more to do.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Last year in Shropshire, which is a fairly typical rural area, 158,000 patients waited more than a month for a GP appointment. That is not surprising, given that, like many other rural areas, we have 50 fewer qualified GPs than we did a decade ago. Meanwhile, already busy GPs are trying to develop integrated neighbourhood teams, but they report that they have not received any dedicated Government funding, and still do not have the model neighbourhood framework. Will the Secretary of State act to ensure that GPs have the resources and guidance that they need to develop those neighbourhood health teams, and ensure that everyone can access an appointment within seven days, or 24 hours if it is urgent, particularly in rural areas, where provision is poor?
Wes Streeting
We have 2,000 more GPs now than when Labour came into office, but the hon. Lady is right to say that we need to ensure that that provision and increased capacity are reflected throughout the country. Because general practices serving more deprived areas receive 10% less funding per needs-adjusted patient than those in wealthier parts of the country, we are reviewing and reforming the Carr-Hill formula to ensure that we can direct the right funding to the areas in greatest need, recognising that amid our rural communities, there is obviously not just plenty of affluence, but enormous pockets of disadvantage and deprivation. Whoever people are and whatever their background, the support and care that they need must be received in the right place and at the right time.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
The national cancer plan, which I launched about two weeks ago, will end the postcode lottery. Wherever people live, they will receive high-quality cancer treatment. We have already invested £70 million in 28 new cutting-edge radiotherapy machines, reducing waiting times and providing 15% more treatments. This allows 27,500 more patients to be treated every year, which means more equal access and better outcomes for cancer patients across England.
Grahame Morris
I applaud the ambitions in the cancer plan, but my question was about improving access to advanced therapeutic radiotherapy. Almost half the cancer centres in more urban areas in England have experienced a staff recruitment freeze, and the figure rises to 60% in more rural and deprived areas such as mine in east Durham. What steps is the Minister taking to end such recruitment freezes and ensure that cancer patients, irrespective of where they live, have access to the lifesaving care that they require?
Ashley Dalton
I commend my hon. Friend’s continued advocacy for radiotherapy. I have met the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and the other members of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy to discuss how the Government will improve outcomes for cancer patients. While trusts retain responsibility for recruitment, we are continuing to increase our cancer workforce: between November 2024 and 2025, it grew by more than 4%. In the cancer plan, we have committed to ensuring that we have the staff where and when we need them, and we are rebalancing cancer training places targeted at trusts in rural and coastal areas—such as east Durham—to improve patient outcomes.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I welcome what the Minister has just said, but we start a long way behind. In OECD countries, the average proportion of people with cancer with access to radiotherapy is 53%. In England the proportion is 36%, and in Lancashire and South Cumbria it is the worst in the country, at just 29%. There is no doubt in our communities in South Cumbria that that is because patients must take three-hour round trips every day to obtain treatment in Preston. Will the Minister support our new plans to bring a satellite radiotherapy unit to Kendal, so that people in our communities can experience shorter journeys and longer lives?
Ashley Dalton
The hon. Gentleman and I share part of that integrated care board area. In the cancer plan, we committed to ensuring that coastal and rural areas receive the services that they need. We are investing more in radiotherapy machines, and we are working with ICBs to ensure that they are providing the services that their communities need, and that we are supporting the recruitment of the cancer workforce who will be able to go into those rural areas.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Cancer is the canary in the coalmine for the NHS. For far too many cancer patients, under the Tories, the NHS was not there when they needed it. Under Labour, an extra 213,000 patients have been diagnosed, or have received the all-clear on time. Much has been done, but there is much more to do. I pay tribute to the leadership of the Minister for primary care and prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), and to her national cancer plan. She has poured her heart and soul into that plan, all while living with and being treated for cancer. We are investing an extra £2.3 billion in diagnostic capacity to deliver 9.5 million more tests by the end of this Parliament. Catching cancer earlier, treating it faster and preventing it is how we will save more lives.
Douglas McAllister
I welcome the focus of the national cancer plan on diagnosing cancer faster. That is needed across all cancers, but particularly for leukaemia. Research by Leukaemia UK has found that one in four patients face an avoidable delay in their diagnosis, and that 37% of patients are diagnosed in an emergency setting. How will the implementation of the plan address delays in leukaemia diagnosis, and what steps will the Department take to reduce the proportion of patients who are diagnosed through an emergency route?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is right that leukaemia patients are disproportionately diagnosed too late. We are working with GPs to ensure that they are better prepared to spot symptoms or concerning blood test results, so that we can cut out avoidable delays. The real difference, however, will come with the introduction of genomic testing at birth. That will allow the NHS to leapfrog rare cancers such as leukaemia, so that they can be caught early, or even prevented. Lots done, certainly lots more to do.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
When I met Big C in King’s Lynn recently, I heard about the anxiety caused; only 52% of local patients are treated within two months, whereas the national average is 71.9%. What action is the Department taking to support the Queen Elizabeth hospital trust in improving its performance for patients?
Wes Streeting
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; this is about not just diagnosis but faster access to treatment. We are meeting the faster diagnosis standard; performance was at 77.4% in December 2025, and we aim to improve that to 80% by the end of March this year. We have to go a lot further, a lot faster, on the commencement of treatment. Although I will be forthcoming about, and proud of, the progress that we are making and the targets that we are hitting, where we fall short—we are still falling far too short, when it comes to access to cancer treatment—we will acknowledge that, address it and make sure that we make more progress, more quickly.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
Mental health issues affect all ages, and the support is not always there. We are determined to change that. We have hired almost 8,000 extra mental health workers since we came into office and increased investment in mental health by an additional £688 million this year. We are also transforming services through community-based 24/7 mental health centres, providing open access to treatment and support for adults with severe mental health needs, expanding NHS talking therapies, and rolling out mental health support teams in more schools.
Dame Meg Hillier
The NHS’s work on this is vital, but I also draw the Minister’s attention to Mind in Hackney, which is pioneering a new approach to make sure that people get two sessions of mental health support within two weeks. They can get more later on, but that is what they get, rather than waiting in a queue for six months for long-term support. For many people, that, along with a long-term treatment plan, is enough. May I urge the Minister to come and visit? It is only half an hour up the road from Westminster; he could fit it in before Prime Minister’s questions.
Dr Ahmed
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s invitation. She is right: we need to think of innovative ways of attacking the mental health issues that face our country, and particularly our young people. Those include digital and face-to-face therapies, both of which we are expanding at a rapid pace. I am delighted to pass on her invitation to the Minister for Mental Health.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Has the Minister had any opportunity to form conclusions about whether excessive involvement with social media and other online potential harms has contributed to an apparent significant increase in the levels of mental health disorders?
Dr Ahmed
The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this very live issue. As a doctor, a parent and a Minister, it is live in my mind, as it is in the minds of hon. Members across the House. It is important that we follow the evidence, and act safely and proportionately in response to that evidence. The right hon. Gentleman will know this Government’s ambition, and the direction that we want to set to ensure that young people are kept safe online.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Analysis by Rethink Mental Illness of the latest NHS waiting time statistics shows that people are eight times more likely to wait over 18 months for mental health treatment than physical health treatment. Does the Minister agree that waiting 18 months for such treatment is totally unacceptable? What steps will the Government take to cut adult mental health waiting times?
Dr Ahmed
Absolutely; it is unacceptable that there is still a disparity between mental and physical health when it comes to investigation, diagnosis and treatment. That is why this Government are proud to put record amounts of funding for mental health into the NHS. We are also making available £473 million of capital funding for encouraging and establishing 24/7 mental health centres, alongside other capital priorities, so that people can get the right support at the right time, closer to home.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
After my young constituent was left in limbo between child and adolescent mental health services, health services and neurodevelopment pathways, with nobody claiming responsibility for her healthcare needs, her mum called 111 to get some advice. The advice she was given was, “If you’re not happy with the service, contact your MP.” With all mental health and emergency services stretched to breaking point, what tangible action are this Government taking to address the mental health crisis in our neurodiverse population, so that nobody else in my constituency is failed like this young lady?
Dr Ahmed
I think we are all distressed to hear stories like that. It is what motivates us to keep going and ensure that the NHS becomes a match-fit service for the 21st century. To reassure the hon. Lady, in addition to the investments I have already highlighted, we are also investing £13 million to pilot enhanced training for staff, so that they can offer more support to young people with complex needs, such as those she has described.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It should not be so difficult for women to get a diagnosis for a condition that every single one of us goes through. That is why this Government took a landmark step forward by including menopause in the NHS health checks for the first time ever. It is assessed that this will benefit around 5 million women. We are going further next year, when menopause will be one of the first conditions treated through our revolutionary new digital hospital, NHS Online.
Ruth Cadbury
Women in my constituency experiencing symptoms of perimenopause and menopause tell me of very varied experiences of going to their GP—some excellent, and some, frankly, alarmingly poor. I have been particularly concerned to hear about the experiences of south Asian women with perimenopausal and menopausal symptoms. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that all GPs receive thorough and regular training that is appropriate for all London’s communities?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that many of us will, unfortunately, recognise. We need to address variability in training, through the NHS health checks and training that is being rolled out by both the General Medical Council and the royal colleges. We need to go further. There are some great examples, both in London and across the country, of multidisciplinary teams helping with training for specialist services, and of initiatives like menopause cafés to support women. We need to take those best examples to the rest of the NHS.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Hormone replacement therapy is a godsend for many women experiencing menopause, but there is a dire shortage of HRT implants. These are unlicensed medicines, but they are absolutely essential for treatment, particularly for women for whom other treatments do not work. There are women in my constituency who are suffering very badly with poor mental and physical health impacts as a result. I have submitted a number of written questions and received responses from Ministers, in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). We really want to know when action will be taken on this, and when we can get the implants that these women so desperately need.
Karin Smyth
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about supply and availability across the country, which is something we monitor regularly to ensure that if there is a shortage of a medicine in an area, there are alternatives available. We will continue to keep that under review, to ensure that women have the services and the medication that they need.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
We know that dentistry was left in crisis by the Conservatives, but this Government are determined to ensure that everyone can access a dentist when they need one. We have recently broadened access to dental appointments, so that patients who need more serious and ongoing treatment no longer miss out. Between April and October 2025, we delivered 1.8 million more treatments than in the same period before the general election.
Callum Anderson
I have a constituent who is awaiting a root canal and crown treatment to save her tooth. She has been quoted £400 for NHS treatment with a 60% chance of success, and £1,300 for private healthcare with a 90% success rate. Hopefully the Minister agrees that this mismatch risks undermining confidence in NHS dentistry. What steps is he taking to reform the NHS dental contract, so that constituents like mine can receive timely and high-quality care that is within financial reach?
Stephen Kinnock
I am very sorry to hear about the plight of my hon. Friend’s constituent, and I would be more than happy to look into the specifics of her case. The sad reality is that after 14 years of Tory neglect and incompetence, we have ended up with a two-tier dentistry system. This Government are determined to ensure that high-quality NHS dentistry is available to everyone who needs it. The 2026 reforms that I announced on 16 December will help patients who have complex needs by creating a new care pathway, backed by tariffs for dentists of between £250 and £700, which could save patients up to £225 in fees. Our 2026 measures, combined with long-term contract reform, will indeed enable timely, high-quality treatment that is within financial reach.
Natalie Fleet
Fourteen years of Conservative rule has consequences for the children in my constituency. A quarter of them have tooth decay—[Interruption.] Conservative Members can shake their heads as much as they like, but this is the real-world impact of the decisions that they made. Those children are some of the most deprived in Derbyshire, and the integrated care board has found that they are more likely than wealthier constituents 3 miles up the road to have tooth decay. I am pleased that we are fixing dentistry. We are getting more urgent dentist appointments and we have the roll-out of supervised toothbrushing in schools, but we need to do more. What more are this Government doing to address this inequality and help the children in my constituency who are in pain?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Conservatives failed our children’s health; tooth decay is the most common reason for hospital admissions for five to nine-year-olds. That is a truly shameful, Dickensian state of affairs. We have provided Derbyshire county council with £82,000 for this year’s supervised toothbrushing programme, with further funding agreed till 2028-29. I am delighted that, of the 42,000 increase in the number of treatments in the Derby and Derbyshire ICB area, 19,000 were for children, and by extending the soft drinks industry levy we will protect kids’ teeth from decay—a policy that is emblematic of the shift from treatment to prevention that is at the heart of our 10-year plan.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
My constituents continue to find it very difficult to get an appointment with an NHS dentist. What steps is the Minister taking to encourage dentists in rural areas, so that my constituents can have access to an NHS dentist?
Stephen Kinnock
We come to this Chamber month in, month out for these oral questions but we never hear an apology from those on the Opposition Benches for the mess in which they left NHS dentistry. For the Conservatives, sorry really does seem to be the hardest word.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s question, we have delivered 1.8 million additional appointments between April and October 2025, compared with the same period before the general election. I would be happy to furnish him with the precise numbers of how many more have been provided in his constituency and his ICB area. He can watch his post box for that information.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The Daily Mirror reports that of the nearly 1 million urgent dental appointments that have been commissioned by integrated care boards since April, 900,000 have not been taken up because of strict rules around the scope of treatment. Meanwhile, in my constituency and around the country, too many people are going without the treatment that they need. Will the Minister update us on when the Government expect to meet their targets on urgent appointments?
Stephen Kinnock
Our manifesto commitment was about improving access to urgent dental care, and that is precisely what we have done by commissioning hundreds of thousands of additional urgent treatments. It became clear as we were working through that process that the clinical definition was too narrow and out of step with the common-sense interpretation, so we acted on the advice of the chief dental officer and broadened the definition. From this April, urgent care will be embedded in the contract, and of course we continue to work with the sector on long-term contract reform.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Everyone in this House knows that NHS dentistry was allowed to fall apart under the Conservatives, resulting in DIY tooth extractions, people being forced to go to A&E because they are in pain, and children suffering in every corner of the country. Last year, 38,000 children in Shropshire did not see a dentist. In Surrey, that number was 100,000 and in Sussex it was 133,000. That is a disgrace. The Government promised an extra 700,000 urgent appointments to fight this crisis, but that promise looks set to have been broken in the previous year. Will the Minister today highlight in black and white how many extra urgent appointments were actually delivered last year, rather than simply commissioned?
Stephen Kinnock
As I have just pointed out to the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), we have broadened the definition, because the clinical definition of “urgent” was simply not in line with the common-sense interpretation. People removing their own teeth in DIY dentistry were not fitting into the classification of “urgent”. We have changed that categorisation. As a result of that, I am pleased to confirm that we have delivered 1.8 million additional appointments and treatments this year compared with the same period last year—April to October 2025. We will continue to work on that basis of embedding urgent care into the contract, as I announced on 16 December, in the 2026 reforms that we are carrying out.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
We now have ambulances arriving faster, but we know there is much more to do. We have taken action to reduce handover delays by introducing release-to-rescue 45-minute handovers, supporting ambulances back on to the road to respond to patients faster. We have invested in an extra 500 ambulances. I am pleased to announce that as a result of this Government’s investment and modernisation, West Midlands ambulances are reaching patients with conditions such as suspected heart attacks and strokes almost seven minutes faster this winter than last winter.
Sureena Brackenridge
I thank the Minister for her update. I welcome the progress made on ambulance response times and handovers. I recently visited Willenhall ambulance hub to thank the incredible staff and to hear about winter pressures, local handover delays and the strain of late finishes on their family life and childcare. What action is being taken to tackle systemic bottlenecks in A&E departments, high bed occupancy and pharmacy delays to protect staff wellbeing and ensure high-quality patient care?
Karin Smyth
I commend my hon. Friend for visiting her ambulance service, as many hon. Members do, to understand the pressures they are working under. It is a useful visit to understand those wider issues, as she says. She raised an important point about handover delays impacting staff as well as patients. Reducing these delays will ensure that staff are no longer stuck outside emergency departments. On the wider issue about the front door, NHS England’s model emergency department will set out core principles and pathways for high-performing emergency departments, which will improve patient experience and flow with lower waiting times and less overcrowding. We are committed to improving rest facilities to support staff wellbeing.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
In November, I joined a local ambulance crew and saw at first hand the great work they do for our community, but services are under huge strain. Will the Minister designate ambulance stations as critical infrastructure to protect them from closure and set up an emergency fund to support them?
Karin Smyth
I commend the hon. Member for going out with her crews. One of the reasons we have been so successful this year in improving the services is by looking at things such as where ambulances are located and how they operationalise their services. We will continue to work with NHS England on the best model for local constituencies.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
We inherited a broken NHS dental system in which many people were unable to access a dentist when they need one, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but we are making real progress, having increased the number of NHS treatments by 1.8 million between April and October 2025 compared with the same period before the general election. As a result of this nationwide increase, I am pleased to report that 89,000 more NHS dental treatments were delivered between April and October last year in the Lancashire and South Cumbria integrated care board area, which of course includes my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Lizzi Collinge
One of my constituents contacted me because their spouse is bedbound and cannot get dental care at home, so he gets no routine care. He recently waited three months for an emergency extraction—something he could have had on the same day if he was not disabled. What work is going on to help my constituents access the care they need?
Stephen Kinnock
I am sorry to hear about the plight of my hon. Friend’s constituent. I will, of course, be more than happy to meet her and look into the specifics of the case. Specialised dental services have a vital role to play in providing dental treatment to vulnerable people in settings such as care homes. In many cases, this is about teamwork and integration, ensuring that primary dental care is working in lockstep with adult social care. There is clearly some room for improvement in some areas. I would be happy to work with her to ensure that this issue gets resolved.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
The 10-year health plan announced ambitious measures to make the healthy choice the easy choice. They include tackling the obesity epidemic through mandatory healthy food sales reporting, business targets to increase the healthiness of products sold and restrictions on junk food advertising.
Naz Shah
In Bradford West, more than one in five children begins primary school overweight or obese. By the time they leave primary school, that figure rises to one in three children. Will the Minister set out how this Government’s world-leading new ban on junk food advertising will help parents to give every child the best and healthiest start in life?
Ashley Dalton
I thank my hon. Friend for outlining the very real crisis of childhood obesity. It is a problem that robs children of the best possible start in life and sets them up for a whole lifetime of health problems. It is why this Government have come down hard and delivered our commitment to restrict advertisements for junk food on TV and online. That action will remove around 7.2 billion calories from children’s diets every single year.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
As the House will know, pharmacies are an important part of the system to prevent ill health. Last week, I raised the challenges that pharmacies in my constituency of South West Hertfordshire and across the country are facing due to rising costs and a lack of funding support. I wrote to the Minister for Care last April and have followed up several times since. How can I arrange a meeting with him to discuss these concerns further?
Ashley Dalton
The Minister responsible runs a regular ministerial surgery and would be more than happy to meet the hon. Member.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I declare an interest as a consultant paediatrician in the NHS. Prevention of ill health is crucial. It is particularly important in children, perhaps most especially when one is trying to prevent ill health in children caused by doctors. I have expressed concerns previously about the puberty blockers trial, as have many in both Houses. The trial has now been paused due to a Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency letter. When were Ministers first aware of that letter and when were they first aware of the concerns described within it?
Ashley Dalton
The regulators are doing their job. This is a perfectly ordinary occurrence in certain research trials. As the hon. Member has made the House aware—I am sure it was already aware—the trial has been paused. We will leave the regulators and the clinicians to do their jobs to ensure that all the trials, including this one, are done in an appropriate fashion.
Dr Johnson
That is a very interesting answer. Before Christmas, the Secretary of State had confidence in an allegedly vigorous and rigorous process. Fertility preservation techniques have not deteriorated over the last few months. The ages at which children reach the Tanner stages of puberty have not changed over the last few months, but the MHRA’s view has. Why? Given that this is such a scrutinised trial, does that not call into question the MHRA’s wider competence and due diligence? Will the Minister publish the MHRA’s letter from November referred to in the more recent correspondence published on Friday?
Ashley Dalton
What the hon. Member highlights is part of this rigorous process. That is what happens. Why the MHRA has changed its view is a question for the MHRA, but it is up to the MHRA to raise these issues through the process. That is why we run such trials. [Interruption.] It is an independent regulator.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
The Prime Minister has made tackling violence against women and girls a priority across the Government and every public service must play its part. In the NHS, we will be supporting GPs to identify, support and refer victims and survivors to specialist services. That will include a specialist support worker for every GP practice to draw on and training GPs to spot the signs of domestic abuse and sexual violence. As part of the Government’s VAWG strategy, the Department will provide an additional £5 million for victim support services and up to £50 million to roll out specialist services for child sexual abuse victims.
Calum Miller
I recently had the opportunity to visit the dedicated staff at Survivor Space, a centre for victims of sexual violence in Oxford that serves my constituents. I was shocked to learn that victims and survivors of sexual violence may wait up to two years for a counselling session. I was further appalled to learn that at least one survivor had been advised that they could not access NHS mental health services until they had first had counselling from Survivor Space. Does the Secretary of State agree that no survivor should have to wait two years for treatment, and would he or one of his Ministers meet me and representatives of Survivor Space to discuss how to get dedicated healthcare funding to the frontline in order to support such services?
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member. The voluntary and community sector provides, and should continue to provide, support for victims. The voluntary sector does a brilliant job, in an environment that often feels safer and more inclusive, and we should welcome that. However, the existence of voluntary sector provision does not excuse the NHS from performing its duties. One change that I have led in the leadership culture of my Department is the recognition that investment in services for victims and survivors is a responsibility of the NHS and the DHSC, not of the Home Office, Ministry of Justice or others. We must take responsibility for meeting the needs of everyone. There is of course more to do on waiting times. I would be delighted to ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets the meeting that he asks for.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
We are revolutionising our country’s health and wellbeing through our 10-year health plan, which will deliver the three major shifts, boost life expectancy and improve mental health for everyone, everywhere. We are shifting from prioritising the tackling of sickness to prevention, including through action in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill to create a smoke-free generation.
Dr Cooper
It is great to hear that wellbeing is being built in through the shift to prevention in our national health strategy. Does the Minister agree that we should now champion health in all policies, starting with the mandatory use of the wellbeing indicators available for the Treasury Green Book, which are currently used sporadically at best?
Ashley Dalton
My hon. Friend will know that that is a question for Treasury colleagues. However, we are a mission-led Government committed to healthy outcomes across Government, not just in the DHSC.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has compared GPs’ salaries to that of the Prime Minister. I can understand why he is taking a keen interest in how much a Prime Minister is paid, but can the Government assure the House that the GP contract will include an increase in GP funding over and above inflationary pressures? [Interruption.] They are on the frontline of ensuring that national wellbeing indicators in this country improve.
Ashley Dalton
I am not entirely sure what any of that has to do with wellbeing indicators—
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me do my job and I will let the Minister do hers. Try to answer the question—I did add a caveat to it.
Ashley Dalton
Sorry, Mr Speaker; I did not hear you. I can confirm that a written ministerial statement will be tabled at 4 pm in which the contract for 2026-27 will be laid out.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
Every child with a disability should have the opportunity to reap the health and wellbeing benefits of being active. We are working across health, education and sports to break down barriers to physical activity, including for children with Down’s syndrome. That includes ensuring that they have access to inclusive, sensory-rich activities that they can enjoy with friends, families and carers.
Dr Pinkerton
I recently had a meeting with British Gymnastics, the charity Stepping Stones, and Prime Acrobatics, a wonderful and inclusive gymnastics centre in my Surrey Heath constituency. They told me that young people with Down’s syndrome are routinely prevented from taking part in physical activity and sport because of concerns about neck stability. Might the Minister be willing to take this case on, work with GPs, the NHS and other relevant bodies to review guidance in that area, and remove the barriers that can all too often prevent young people from engaging with the physical and sporting activities that are so vital to their physical and mental wellbeing?
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Member is not the first colleague to raise that issue. Clearly, the safety of patients and children is paramount, but it must be proportionate and led by evidence. I would be very happy to explore this further with him.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her work on raising the profile of this underserved area. It is simply unacceptable that disabled women are at higher risk of neonatal and perinatal mortality and stillbirth, and that they continue to experience adverse outcomes relative to the general population. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has launched an independent maternity investigation, which will help us to understand the systemic issues behind why so many families, including disabled women, experience unacceptable care.
Dr Tidball
Too often, disabled women’s bodies are deemed not to count. In the last year, I have met two incredible disabled women: Carly, a Paralympian, and Sarah, an occupational therapist. Neither found out that they were pregnant until their second and third trimesters respectively because none of their clinicians considered that they might be pregnant. But we are making babies, we are having babies—against the odds; we have a 44% higher likelihood of stillbirth—and we are being brilliant mothers. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss ensuring that inclusive maternity care for disabled women is at the heart of our women’s health strategy so that our womanhood is no longer invisible?
Dr Ahmed
We are so lucky to have my hon. Friend in this place, challenging us to be better—and we can be better. We need to be bolder, and we need to take decisive action to close the gap on inequalities to ensure that all women receive safe, personalised and compassionate care. We know how important inclusive maternity care is for disabled women. I note that my hon. Friend has previously had meetings with the Minister for maternity, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be delighted to meet her.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
A matter of weeks ago, a power cut plunged parts of Eastbourne district general hospital, where I was born, into darkness and forced our maternity unit to temporarily close, particularly affecting disabled women. People had to use their iPhone torches to see. Despite that power infrastructure failure, we are way at the back of the queue for new hospital funding. Will the Minister commit to accelerating the unlocking of that cash, so that women can have the services they deserve—
Mr Speaker
Order. I have spoken before about trying to drag in a supplementary question that is not relevant to the main question. I call the shadow Minister and welcome him to the Dispatch Box for the first time.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Seven months ago, the NHS 10-year plan promised a maternity taskforce. May I ask the Minister how many times it has met?
Dr Ahmed
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it has not met yet, but we are establishing it and it will be meeting soon.
Gregory Stafford
The fact that the taskforce has not even met, seven months later, tells us everything we need to know about how urgent and important the Government consider this issue. In Leeds, families are losing faith in the failing maternity services. The Secretary of State said that he takes the matter “extremely seriously”, yet Donna Ockenden—who exposed the failings in Nottingham, has the support of families, and has said that she is ready and willing to lead the inquiry—has not been appointed. If the Minister and the Secretary of State take this issue extremely seriously, why have they not appointed a chair yet?
Dr Ahmed
I see that the brass neck of the hon. Gentlemen’s predecessor has been transplanted to him. He talks about seven months, but what about the last 14 years, through which the Conservatives presided over the decay and decline of our NHS? They failed our patients and the clinicians who serve them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in regular contact with maternity families and, like me, he takes the matter extremely seriously. He will report to this House on the outcome of his deliberations on a regular basis.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
Through our 10-year health plan and the shift from hospital to community, our new neighbourhood health service will benefit millions. It is underpinned by 120 new neighbourhood health centres by 2030, alongside the supercharging of community diagnostic centres, which will deliver faster, more accessible care, with over 100 sites open 12 hours a day, seven days a week. This massive expansion will transform community access for millions of patients, regardless of postcode.
Alison Griffiths
I am delighted to hear the Minister’s response. Zachary Merton hospital in Rustington was closed temporarily, but that closure became permanent and the site is being progressed for disposal. More than half of residents in Rustington are elderly, and rely on intermediate and step-down care. They have not been consulted on the permanent closure, despite assurances from Sussex community NHS foundation trust and NHS Sussex integrated care board. Will the Minister confirm whether he considers that a substantial variation in NHS services? Will he consider exercising his call-in powers before the site is irreversibly sold?
Stephen Kinnock
I am not familiar with the details of that case, but if the hon. Lady writes to me I would be more than happy to take the issue up. These matters are determined by the ICBs and trusts, and the Government are not in the business of micromanaging what is happening out there in the field. We believe that people who are closest to our citizens are the best people to take those decisions, but we do expect the right outcomes. I would be happy to work with the hon. Lady on that basis.
Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Women with the painful and incurable condition of endometriosis have suffered stigma and ill health for far too long, and despite the condition impacting one in 10 women, a diagnosis takes over eight years on average. Will the Minister make sure that the new women’s health strategy includes stronger training, better awareness, and faster support for women?
Stephen Kinnock
This is a vital issue. Endometriosis is a serious challenge for so many women across our country, and I confirm that it is an integral part of the strategy. I am sure she will be pleased to see the outcome of that strategy as it moves forward.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
The health PFI programme between 1992 and 2015 delivered 126 new acute facilities for the NHS, and over £12 billion of investment in the estate. NHS PFI contracts are held by individual trusts, and the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority publishes annual data on them, including the costs of all those PFI projects. The last PFI contract was signed in 2015. We are not bringing back PFI; we are bringing forward a new public-private partnership model that will draw on lessons learned from the past, to ensure that we deliver the commitments of our 10-year plan.
Ian Byrne
Alder Hey children’s hospital NHS foundation trust in my constituency faces significant financial pressure due to its private finance initiative deal. That is because over 50% of its total PFI payment is going towards interest charges, with Alder Hey still owing £380 million by 2045 for the PFI investment of £189 million. That is nearly £200 million being drained out of Alder Hey over the next two decades, because of the now discredited PFI system. That money should be spent on making sick children better. What assessment has the Department made of the potential impacts of the use of PFI to fund the recently announced neighbourhood health centres?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend highlights an important example, where something is clearly not going well. The Department is working with the team at Alder Hey to help rectify some of those problems. That is why we will not be using that PFI model in future. We have learned those lessons and we will take forward a new PPP model for our neighbourhood health service that will transform care for people in his constituency and across the country.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Today we are publishing a new GP contract. Backed by new funding, it will recruit more GPs and cut waiting times for appointments. The changes and modernisation will diagnose thousands more cases of lung cancer, protect children by boosting vaccination rates, and provide more people with weight-loss jabs on the NHS. That follows an extra £1.1 billion that we have invested in general practice this year, and builds on the 2,000 more GPs that we have recruited since the general election. After 14 years of decline, the Government are fixing the front door to the NHS, bringing back the family doctor, and ending the 8am scramble. Lots done, lots more to do.
Harriet Cross
Inverurie medical practice in my constituency saw its national insurance bill rise by £75,000 thanks to this Government. That has put huge pressure on the practice, which was already operating with one GP for 3,000 patients, which is three times higher than the British Medical Association recommends. When did the Secretary of State last meet the Chancellor to discuss the impact of the NICs rise on GP practices, and what are he and his Department doing about the pressure—
Wes Streeting
I see the Chancellor most weeks. That is why record investment is going into our NHS, which is improving patient satisfaction with access to general practice, cutting waiting lists, and improving ambulance response times—all to fix the mess that the Conservatives left behind. And people should be in no doubt: given the chance, they would do it again. They opposed the investment, they opposed the reform, and they can never be trusted with our NHS.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
We acknowledge the important issue of the potential negative impact that gambling advertising may have on children and young people’s health. My officials continue to work closely with officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and I will be discussing the issue with the Minister for Gambling, who is responsible for gambling advertising policy. We continue to keep the public health evidence under review, and to consider suitable action to protect individuals and communities from gambling harms.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
In the plan for change, the Government committed to meet the 18-week standard for routine operations, but the latest data suggests that the Government are not on track to meet that commitment by the end of the Parliament. In December, fewer people were treated within 18 weeks than in the previous month. Will the Secretary of State now accept the reality that patients are experiencing and, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned, that the Government will not deliver their commitment on their key milestone to deliver the 18-week standard?
Wes Streeting
I will never surrender to the tyranny of the low expectations of the Conservative party. We have cut waiting lists by 330,000 since we came to office; they are now at their lowest level in three years. We made progress despite strikes, we made progress despite winter pressures, and we have made progress despite every bit of investment and modernisation being opposed by the Conservatives. Instead of criticising our record, the shadow Secretary of State should apologise for his.
Stuart Andrew
Another leadership ambition, I see.
On 29 September, I wrote to the Secretary of State regarding the late Dr Susan Michaelis’s campaign for better research into lobular breast cancer, but sadly I still have not had a reply. She established the Lobular Moon Shot Project and the last Government committed to support its aims. However, despite meeting the Secretary of State, representatives from the project say that they still have no clarity on how the project and research will be expedited. Will the Secretary of State confirm now Government approval for the funding required for this research, which is critical for so many women in this country?
Wes Streeting
I apologise to the shadow Secretary of State for not having replied to his letter—let me make sure that I do that. There is no disagreement across the House on the substance of the issue. I am absolutely supportive of the project and I want to fund the research, but we have to make sure that the research proposal meets the standards and has the confidence of our funders. We are working with the team to try to get the proposal over the line, but that is the only obstacle here—it is certainly not a political decision.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
This UK Labour Government, at least, are spending billions of pounds upgrading the digital architecture of the NHS in England. That means that over 90% of GPs now offer appointments online, and by 2029 we will have a single patient record for patients and their clinicians to access all their information. That is in contrast with the digital desert that exists in Scotland, which is why it is time for Analogue John to move over and make way for Anas Sarwar as First Minster to save Scotland’s NHS.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Wes Streeting
The hon. Member highlights a real challenge that we have inherited: the disconnection between undergraduate education and training, and the jobs that are available. We are addressing that through our workforce plan. I want to place on the record my thanks to South Western Ambulance Service, which in December improved ambulance response times by just under 30 minutes for category 2 calls. There are still big challenges in the south-west, but the team deserve real credit for the improvement they have led.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
My hon. Friend highlights an important point about the need to have further roll-outs of CDCs, particularly for communities such as hers. We are expanding those and expanding the time available for them. We are also expanding access through the front door through the NHS app and digital. Our new online hospital service will improve the sorts of issues that she mentions so that we bring services closer to her patients and do not expect them to have to travel.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Karin Smyth
I understand the issues that the hon. Gentleman and many other Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), have raised in Grimsby and the Lincolnshire area. It is important that the clinical mapping for their new services is supported by clinicians and local people, and I am happy to continue to talk to the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and others about progress with that. I am in touch with the NHS England team, and it assures me that it is continuing to do that. I also understand the additional difficulties—
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend makes a really important point about how important DEXA scans are for osteoporosis, particularly for women. We have already expanded DEXA scans across the country this year; we have also allocated more capital funding for such capital investment, and we will announce the allocations in due course.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Ashley Dalton
As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, this Government’s cancer plan, which I launched just over a week ago, is the first ever cancer plan to have a section on children and young people with cancer and to commit to supporting children holistically throughout their cancer journey. I am more than happy to have a conversation with him about the issues that he has raised.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Dr Ahmed
Glasgow is a great place to get medical care—I can attest to that—but people should not have to travel 200 miles to get medical care. My hon. Friend and I have had many discussions on this topic, and I am very glad to continue those discussions. She knows that treatment along the border is subject to service-level agreements in both English trusts and Scottish health boards, but it should be much more porous and accommodating than it is. I am happy to take these discussions with her further later.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Catherine from Redbourn has shared that she has to wait weeks for a GP appointment, yet her village faces an increase in residents of up to 70%, which means thousands of new patients. Some of that is through speculative developments. Does the Minister agree that councils should have the powers to ensure that planning approvals are dependent on first securing healthcare to serve those new residents? Will he commit to ensuring that NHS planning cycles are aligned with housing developments to ensure that communities do not have to wait for weeks, months or years?
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
On the subject of GP access, I am delighted that 75% of patients now say it is easy to contact their GP, which is a sizeable increase of 14 percentage points since July 2024—that is a really positive development that I am sure the hon. Lady welcomes. Turning to planning, it is very important that the integrated care board, the council and the developers are joined up together, and we need to ensure that happens. There is also the primary care utilisation and modernisation fund, which the hon. Lady’s constituents may be interested in.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Dr Ahmed
Mental health support teams provide innovative early support for children and young people in schools and colleges, and I am pleased that these are working well in Bracknell Forest, too. Up to 900,000 additional pupils will have access to that support by the spring, and we are accelerating the roll-out to reach full national coverage by 2029.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Several weeks ago, I received a jaw-dropping email from a local Bromsgrove GP, who told me that a 10-month-old child nearly died after ambulance delays. Worse, the same day, another patient—a 66-year-old driving instructor—suffered a cardiac arrest during a driving lesson and died while being driven to the hospital by his wife. My constituents demand a better service and better response times. What are the Government going to do about this, and will the Secretary of State meet me and the concerned GP who wrote to me to address this issue?
Wes Streeting
Nothing is more sobering than hearing experiences of the life-and-death difference between the NHS being there for people when they need it and it not being there when they need it. People will be aware of a tragic case over the weekend involving a woman in her 90s in the Isle of Wight, which we are looking into. Ambulance response times are improving, but I do not pretend that they are good enough; we have done a lot, but there is a lot more to do, and the hon. Gentleman has painfully and powerfully underscored what happens when the NHS is not there for people when they need it. That is the NHS we inherited, and it is the NHS I am determined to change.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Crawley A&E’s closure was accompanied by a commitment to a 24-hour urgent treatment centre, a commitment that the trust is now breaking. Can the Minister meet me to discuss how local services can be preserved and improved?
Karin Smyth
I am happy to discuss that issue with my hon. Friend. We are determined to have co-located UTCs; I know that that is a matter for the local commissioner, but I am happy to talk about it further.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Vista is a 160-year-old charity serving people in Leicester and Leicestershire who are suffering from visual disabilities. Last year alone, it served 21,000 people, but sadly, it faces imminent closure if it cannot raise £2 million by the end of March. If that happens, the devastating effect on the national health service and the social care service will be unimaginable, so will the Minister meet me and other local MPs, as well as representatives of University Hospitals of Leicester, to discuss what we can do to save Vista?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and pay tribute to Vista for the outstanding work it is doing. Improving IT connectivity is a vital part of what we are doing, and the single point of access project is of relevance in that context. I would be more than happy if the hon. Gentleman wrote to me so that we can look at the issue he has raised.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
In Rochdale, we need more midwives to provide the safe staffing levels that our mums-to-be rightly expect, but newly qualified student midwives often find it difficult to find jobs when they qualify. Can the Minister explain exactly when the NHS workforce plan is due so that they can give reassurance to those newly qualified midwives that they will have a career in the NHS?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. The NHS workforce plan will be published in the spring. I recognise the challenge he has set out, and we are determined to address it—we desperately need more midwives, and we certainly need good clinical leadership in this area. That is what the Government are working towards.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Minor injuries units are being phased out in urgent treatment centres such as the brilliant one at West Cornwall hospital in my constituency—its hours were cut under the Conservatives, and have not been restored. Those units clearly help to take the pressure off ambulance and emergency services, so what will Ministers do to ensure that those services are reinforced rather than reduced?
Wes Streeting
One rationale for both the 10-year plan and the medium-term planning we are doing across the NHS is to ensure better integration, with the principle of people receiving the right care in the right place at the right time. Decisions about local configurations are matters for local leaders, but we keep these things under review, and if the hon. Gentleman has concerns, he should certainly write to us.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State knows, Darlington Memorial hospital is part of the County Durham and Darlington NHS foundation trust, which has recently been marred by the scandal of over-operation in breast services. We know that many women came to harm as a result of those failures, but we are yet to find out how many and the full extent of the harm because the trust has not completed the comprehensive look-back. Will the Minister meet me to ensure that our trust has all the resources it needs to learn the lessons necessary to ensure that no women—whether in my area or across the country—have invasive and painful clinical procedures that they do not need?
Dr Ahmed
My hon. Friend and I have had discussions regarding this matter before. Patient safety is of paramount importance, especially when it comes to surgery, including breast surgery. I am happy to meet her to discuss this further at a ministerial surgery.
Points of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to correct the record in relation to something I said during the last Defence orals. On 2 February 2026, I said that the Prime Minister did not work with any of Phil Shiner’s organisations and that his role was limited to working with the Law Society on points of law. However, since then it has been brought to my attention that in 2006 the Prime Minister was instructed to represent an individual by the law firm for which Mr Shiner was the principal solicitor. I would like to take this earliest opportunity to apologise to the House and correct the record.—[Official Report, 2 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 12.]
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order and for placing the correction on the record.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not giving you prior notice, Mr Speaker, but during Health questions this morning the Minister said that for the first time ever there will be a children’s cancer strategy as part of the cancer strategy. However, the Government scrapped the children’s cancer strategy that we had put in place, so should the Minister not come and correct the record for having misled the House—
Mr Speaker
Order. That is not a point of order, and we are not going to carry on the debate. It is not for me to say whether there was right or wrong. The hon. Member has certainly got the point on the record. I am sorry we did not get you in for a question—it might have saved us the point of order.
Bill Presented
Online Services (Age Restrictions) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Munira Wilson, supported by Victoria Collins, Ed Davey and Wendy Chamberlain, presented a Bill to make provision to restrict access to online services, including social media, by children in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 9 March, and to be printed (Bill 391).
Food Labelling (Halal and Kosher Meat)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce compulsory labelling of halal and kosher meat and products containing halal and kosher meat; and for connected purposes.
This is a Bill about animal welfare, transparency in meat production and consumer choice. It does not seek to ban halal or kosher meat. It seeks to ensure that it is clearly labelled. It is important that consumers have such information so that they can make an informed choice about what they are buying. Currently consumers do not have that information, and many are purchasing and consuming halal and kosher meat without their knowledge and agreement.
The unique process of halal and kosher meat requires the animal to have its throat slit. In the case of halal meat, the animal is often stunned before it is killed—although it might not be—and for the shechita killing for kosher meat, there is no pre-stunning. This lack of stunning causes the animal to experience severe pain. An individual concerned about animal welfare would want to know if the animal has been stunned prior to slaughter. Likewise, there are many religious groups who want to know what they are consuming too and whether the meat has been blessed by another religion. In all those cases clear labelling is essential to make an informed choice.
Currently, the legislation that regulates animal slaughter is set out in assimilated EU regulation 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, as well as in the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015. Under these laws, animals must be stunned before they are killed, but exemptions exist for killing without stunning in accordance with specific religious rites. Added to that, there are currently no requirements for such meat to be labelled.
What was once an exemption to the accepted stunning process of animals has become a growing part of the UK’s meat market. The Government’s own figures show that of the 1.035 billion animals processed in English and Welsh slaughterhouses in 2024, an estimated 214.6 million were slaughtered to produce halal meat. The analysis shows that the proportion of meat supplied by non-stun slaughter is about four times greater than the proportion of Muslims and Jews in the UK. Although Government guidance is clear that meat that results from non-stun slaughter
“must be intended for consumption by Jews or Muslims”,
production is clearly going way beyond that, so much so that the UK now exports halal meat. Between 2018 and 2019, there was an almost 700% increase in the volume of sheep meat exported to the United Arab Emirates, all of which is required to be halal.
Clearly, without compulsory labelling of non-stunned meat, slaughterhouses have gone down the route of producing more of it. In effect, a two-tier system has been created, whereby some slaughterhouses comply with stunning laws and others do not, citing the religious exemption, though without ever intending to focus their sale on that market. Unfortunately, a driver of the market for non-stunned meat is the fact that a step of the process is removed, meaning that production of non-stunned meat is cheaper. Supermarkets and food outlets can purchase that cheaper meat without ever declaring it to the customer, which is not what was intended by the legislation. We have seen many examples of this over the last 15 years; Britain’s biggest retailers—such as Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Marks & Spencer and Asda—have sold halal or kosher meat without informing the consumer, as have Domino’s, Pizza Hut and KFC. Non-stunned produce is being used by 17 local councils in schools, the majority of which are not Islamic faith schools, without parents or children having the first idea about it. It is also being served in hospitals and local councils.
In December, Labour put forward its much-vaunted animal welfare strategy, a document lauded for its aim of “preventing animals suffering unnecessarily”, which included the banning of boiling live lobsters, banning the use of carbon dioxide to stun pigs, and steps to ensure the more humane slaughter of farmed fish. I was surprised and alarmed to see no mention of the more humane slaughter of animals and the labelling of halal and kosher meat. There was a clear opportunity to call for the labelling of halal and kosher meat, but it was missed. Nowhere in Labour’s 12,500-word animal welfare strategy was it mentioned. We often hear in the House that the UK holds the status of a world leader in animal welfare, but such a glaring gap shows that this country can no longer make such a claim.
Food and You 2, which is a biannual official statistic survey commissioned by the Food Standards Agency, found that the most common spontaneously expressed food concern in 2024 was “food production method”. In August 2022, almost 99% of respondents to the Government’s call for evidence on labelling for animal welfare said that method-of-slaughter labelling should be introduced. In research from the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, 92% of halal consumers state that clear halal certification is important, so is it not time we updated our regulations and demanded that our meat was clearly and fully labelled, so that we know what we are buying and eating? Surely that is what consumer choice is all about, and I would wager that the overwhelming majority of animal lovers in the UK expect the House of Commons to support this Bill today.
This Bill will give all consumers assurance that they know how their meat was produced. I urge all Members of the House to support this measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Esther McVey, Sir Roger Gale, Alberto Costa, Dame Karen Bradley, Sir Edward Leigh, Graham Stringer, Rupert Lowe, Sammy Wilson, Jim Allister, Lee Anderson and Sarah Pochin present the Bill.
Esther McVey accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 July, and to be printed (Bill 386).
Opposition Day
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we begin the debate, I would like to make a brief statement. I understand that there is huge public interest in this matter, and there has been significant coverage in the media. It is and always has been possible for the House to properly debate these matters within the framework of our existing rules, and there has been no change of convention in that respect. While matters relating to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s recent arrest are currently not sub judice, Members will be aware that there is an ongoing police investigation. I therefore gently say to Members that it would be helpful if they exercised a degree of restraint. I know the House would not wish to do anything that risks prejudicing any possible prosecution. Of course, any comments on the King or the heir apparent would not be in order. I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House all papers relating to the creation of the role of Special Representative for Trade and Investment and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment to that role, including but not confined to any documents held by UK Trade and Investment, British Trade International (BTI) and its successors, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister’s Office containing or relating to advice from, or provided to, the Group Chief Executive of BTI, Peter Mandelson, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister regarding the suitability of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for the appointment, due diligence and vetting conducted in relation to the appointment, and minutes of meetings and electronic communications regarding the due diligence and vetting.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your statement ahead of this debate.
The appalling crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates have rightly stunned the whole world. The scale of Epstein’s operation was shocking—selling human beings for sex, turning hundreds of young women and girls into victims and survivors—and those women are at the front of our mind today as we finally seek transparency, truth and accountability.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor shamed our country and the royal family, but for too long, Members of Parliament were barred from even raising criticisms of him, let alone properly scrutinising his role as trade envoy, because of the outdated tradition that mentions of any member of the royal family in this House must, in the words of the previous Speaker, be
“very rare, very sparing and very respectful”.—[Official Report, 28 February 2011; Vol. 524, c. 35.]
I encountered this at first hand back in 2011, when I was asked to respond to an Adjournment debate on behalf of Lord Green, who was then the Minister for Trade and Investment. The debate was led by the late Paul Flynn, but even he—an ardent and outspoken republican, as I am sure many of us remember, was not allowed to raise any actual concerns about Andrew himself. Paul called it “negative privilege”, and that is what it was. He said his mouth was “bandaged by archaic rules”, and that had very real and damaging consequences. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, because I know he was also constrained by those rules when he raised similar issues. In that debate, Epstein’s name was not mentioned once, and there was no chance to debate the substance. Standing in for the responsible Minister, I set out the Government’s position, as it had been for a decade, in support of the prince’s role as trade envoy. Looking back and knowing what we all know now, I am horrified by it. I cannot imagine what it must have been like for the survivors and their families to hear Andrew praised like that, as they did so often all around the world, so I apologise to them, and I am determined to change things.
I was struck by the words of Amanda Roberts, Virginia Giuffre’s sister-in-law, after Andrew was arrested last week. She said this could be a stain on the royal family for the rest of our history, or
“it could be a moment where they, and we, decide that this is the time when cultural change happens.”
As a staunch supporter of His Royal Highness the King and the royal family, I believe we must help to bring about that cultural change now.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The leader of the Liberal Democrats is making a powerful speech. I am sure he will agree that decades of deferential and, frankly, sycophantic treatment by Parliament and state authorities are being exposed as having enabled Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to behave as though he were untouchable. I am sure he will also join me in calling on the Government to introduce independent oversight of those members of the royal family who undertake official duties, and in requiring transparency and scrutiny of anything paid for by the state from now on, because apparently, they work for us.
Ed Davey
I am grateful for that intervention. We must build a culture of transparency and accountability; I think that is essential. I hope that we as a House will look at ending the archaic “negative privilege” rules that Paul Flynn spoke about, and remove the bandages from our mouths. Today, we are free of those bandages, when it comes to Andrew. Our motion focuses on finally getting out the truth about his role as a special representative for trade and investment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I commend the right hon. Member and his party for bringing forward the motion, and for the way that he interviewed on TV this morning. Certainly, he speaks not just for this House, but for this nation. We are all greatly shocked at what has taken place, but does he agree that King Charles, Queen Camilla, Edward, Sophie, William and Kate are members of the royal family who need our support at this time? Does he also agree that now is perhaps the time to tell them that we in this House love them, and that this nation loves them? We understand the pain they are suffering, and we support those members of the royal family who are above reproach on this.
Ed Davey
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I think he probably speaks for the whole House. Indeed, the intention of this debate is to bring this House together. The changes that we think are necessary would protect the royal family and strengthen the monarchy, which in some places has been criticised. That is important, and it is why we need these reforms.
The motion focuses on the start of this—on the appointment of the former Prince Andrew to this role back in 2001. We have seen reporting that says that the King, then the Prince of Wales, expressed his concerns about that appointment. More alarmingly, we have read that Peter Mandelson wrote to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, as his former Trade Secretary, pushing for Andrew’s appointment—one friend of Epstein lobbying for a job for another friend of Epstein, and a job that might help Epstein enrich himself. We clearly need to get to the bottom of that appointment and the role that Mandelson played in it, and only the papers demanded by this motion will allow us to do that. We need them published as soon as possible, without delay.
There are many questions about Andrew’s conduct in the role, which is now subject to a criminal investigation. As you said, Mr Speaker, we clearly do not want to jeopardise that investigation through anything we say today. We must let the police get on with their work, especially for Epstein’s victims, survivors and their families, who deserve to see justice done at last. However, I would highlight one example of the way that Jeffrey Epstein sought to use Andrew’s role as a trade envoy to enrich himself.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
My right hon. Friend is talking about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s role as a trade envoy. When I was working overseas for the British Council, Mountbatten-Windsor came to an exhibition I had put on about Dolly the sheep, which was a fine example of British scientific innovation, but he stood up in front of Japanese dignitaries and business people and said, “This is rubbish. This is Frankenstein’s sheep.” Would my right hon. Friend agree with me that that was a very poor example of promoting British trade interests?
Ed Davey
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, which shows not only that we need to focus on the scandals we have heard about, but that even greater questions are raised if the trade envoy was actually speaking against British commercial interests. I hope that not just in this debate, but in other debates, and in Select Committees and elsewhere, we will get to the bottom of that issue.
As I was saying, I would like to highlight one example of how Jeffrey Epstein sought to use Andrew’s role as trade envoy to enrich himself. Channel 4 uncovered emails in the Epstein files in which Epstein was trying to meet the Libyan dictator Gaddafi in the dying months of the Gaddafi regime, to help him find somewhere to “put his money”—something that the Minister raised at the time. In other words, Epstein looked at the deadly crisis in Libya and saw a chance to make some money, and he thought his friend Andrew could help. This is what he said in one of the emails:
“I wondered if Pa should make the intro”.
A few weeks later, Andrew wrote back, “Libya fixed.”
Although the Epstein-Gaddafi meeting does not appear to have happened, this shows clearly what these relationships were all about for Epstein: increasing his own wealth and power. The idea that the role of special trade envoy for our United Kingdom may have been used to help him do that—to help a vile paedophile sex trafficker enrich himself—is truly sickening. Again, I pay tribute to the Minister, who tried to raise this at the time, like his colleague, the late Paul Flynn. It shows again why we need to change the rules of this House that govern Ministers and the debate here.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving way. [Interruption.] Sorry, the leader of the Liberal Democrats—I stand corrected. [Hon. Members: “More!”] It’s coming.
I asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister yesterday in this House about the speed of bringing legislation forward. Victims, Members of this House and Members of the Lords all want this process to happen as swiftly as possible. Does the right hon. Member agree with the Chief Secretary’s comments and that whatever happens with Andrew or anybody else, we must keep pushing to get legislation brought forward swiftly, not in the years to come?
Ed Davey
I am grateful for both the hon. Gentleman’s Freudian slip and his suggestion that we need to speed up action in this area.
Let me begin to conclude. In many ways, this is the first truly global scandal, from the White House and silicon valley to Oslo and Paris. But it is also a deeply British scandal, reaching right to the top of the British establishment. Can there be many people more symbolic of the rot that eats away at the British establishment than the former Duke of York and special trade envoy, and the former Business Secretary, First Secretary of State and ambassador to the United States? Their association with Epstein and their actions on his behalf, while trusted with the privilege of public office, are a stain on our country.
Today, we must begin to clean away that stain with the disinfectant of transparency. Whether it is the President of the United States and his Commerce Secretary, Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor or Epstein himself, their victims and survivors have seen those responsible evade accountability and escape justice for far too long. I hope—I desperately hope—that is ending now, and I hope the House will approve this motion.
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
Let me be clear from the outset: we support this motion. Frankly, it is the least we owe the victims of the horrific abuse that was perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein and others—abuse that was enabled, aided and abetted by a very extensive group of arrogant, entitled and often very wealthy individuals in this country and elsewhere. It is not just the people who participated in the abuse; it is the many, many more who turned a blind eye, out of greed, familiarity or deference. To my mind, they too were complicit—just as complicit—and I welcome the reckoning that is coming to them now.
I doubt there is anyone in this House who is not shocked and appalled by the recent allegations. Colleagues and many civil servants have told me their own stories of their interactions with Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, and they all betray the same pattern: a man on a constant self-aggrandising and self-enriching hustle; a rude, arrogant and entitled man who could not distinguish between the public interest, which he said he served, and his own private interest. I remember him coming to visit the Sea Cadets in Tonypandy. They were delighted and excited to meet a member of the royal family, but he insisted on coming by helicopter, unlike his mother, who came twice to the Rhondda and by car. He left early, and he showed next to no interest in the young people. That is, of course, not a crime, nor is arrogance—fortunately, I suppose. [Laughter.]
Of course, we knew much of what is now in the public domain a very long time ago. It is all very well for some of us to say, “If only we had known then what we know now,” but I am afraid that doesn’t wash with me. We did actually have plenty of warning. I called on the then Prime Minister David Cameron to dispense with the services of the then Duke of York in this Chamber on 28 February 2011 because of his close friendship with Saif Gaddafi—Gaddafi was just referred to—and the convicted Libyan gun smuggler Tarek Kaituni. I was rebuked by Speaker Bercow for doing so because
“references to members of the royal family should be very rare, very sparing and very respectful”—[Official Report, 28 February 2011; Vol. 524, c. 35.]
I did not disagree with that ruling, nor would I ever disagree with a ruling from the Chair, as you know, Mr Speaker.
Chris Bryant
I am taking your advice, Mr Speaker: I am just ignoring that.
Over the next few days back in 2011, I repeatedly called for Andrew to be sacked in the public domain—on television, on radio and in newspaper articles—citing his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the mysteriously excessive £15 million paid for his Sunninghill home and many other issues besides. I am afraid the wilful blindness of far too many at that time was absolutely spectacular, and it still angers me. The then Prime Minister, the then Home Secretary and many others in government defended Andrew time and time and time again. I was repeatedly told off, both in the Chamber and outside it.
The broadcaster John Humphrys actually told me on the “Today” programme on 7 March 2011—I think Members will be shocked by this—that Jeffrey Epstein was “not quite a paedophile”, drawing a distinction between sexual abuse of pre-pubescent and other children. Dominic Lawson, writing in The Sunday Times on 11 March, defended Andrew and made the same distinction between Epstein’s involvement with teenage girls and paedophilia, since, as he put it,
“none of the girls was pre-pubescent”,
although he did at least admit that both were “sordid and exploitative”. I gently suggest that that is the least of what we have seen.
Let me be absolutely clear. All of this happened after the photograph of Andrew with his arm around Virginia Giuffre was published in The Mail on Sunday on 27 February 2011—it is after the allegations, not before.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I entirely agree with the Minister on the abhorrence of the comments made in the media back then. Does he agree that we still have a degree of that problem now, because often in the media we talk about “under-age girls” when actually we are talking about children, and we should ensure that when we talk about Epstein’s crimes, we talk about the children who were involved?
Chris Bryant
I agree 100%. I think we should also be referring to statutory rape, because that is what it is. Statutory rape is no better than any other kind of rape. It is rape—end of story.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Minister is speaking very powerfully about this issue and has one of the strongest track records in standing up on these types of issues. I have asked that the Government release the files concerning Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, or whatever his new name is, when he was a trade envoy. That request has been refused. Can the Minister review that decision and ensure that, in the new spirit of openness and transparency, those files are open for all to see?
Chris Bryant
I completely respect my hon. Friend. He has made that point several times, not only in the Chamber but also to me privately, and I agree with him: that is the direction of travel we are going in, which is why we agree with the Humble Address presented today. We are not standing in the way, and we will do everything we can to comply with that as fast as we possibly can. I will come on to a couple of caveats a bit later, but I just want to pursue the point about what we knew in the past.
The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) rightly said that Paul Flynn had a debate on 4 May 2011, to which he responded, standing in for the Minister responsible. However, Paul Flynn initiated another debate, on 17 March in Westminster Hall. It was granted to him by the Backbench Business Committee, which had been set up relatively recently. Because he was finding it very difficult to make any of the allegations that he wanted to make because of the rules of the House, he concluded that
“there really is no point in continuing”.—[Official Report, 17 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 156WH.]
The then Deputy Leader of the House, David Heath—who was another Liberal Democrat member of the Government at the time—made the point, which I think has been made by both Mr Bercow and you, Mr Speaker, that if there were a “substantive motion”, such comments could be made. It would be necessary to find a means of tabling such a motion, like the one that we are discussing today.
Following that, Paul Flynn tried to secure a substantive motion, but managed to secure only a motion for an Adjournment debate, on 4 May. He struggled again, and this is what he said:
“The Speaker would quite rightly abide by the rules of the House and tell me that I was not allowed to make any derogatory statements that might affect the envoy, his personality or his name. It is an illustration of how demeaned we are as politicians and Members of Parliament that I am allowed to make any points about the damage that is done only in an oblique way, by discussing the effects of the holder of the office, his role and the comments that are being made.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 647.]
Of course he was angry: he was furious. He wrote a great book about being an MP, which I commend to all hon. Members.
As the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton knows, he responded to that debate. He said:
“I, for one, believe that the Duke of York does an excellent job as the UK’s special representative for international trade and investment. He promotes UK business interests around the world, and helps to attract inward investment.”
He continued at some length, and concluded:
“He has made a valuable contribution in developing significant opportunities for British business through the role, and continues to do so.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 649-650.]
Let me say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that if he had followed the debates in the public domain at the time he would, I think, have known better than to make those comments.
Ed Davey
The Minister knows that I apologised for making that comment, having taken a brief from someone else. I really wish that I had not uttered those words, because I am thinking about the victims, and I have praised the Minister for the role that he took. I hope he will acknowledge that two months after that debate Andrew left the role, and it was right that he did. I was not privy to those discussions, but the Government did get rid of him.
Chris Bryant
Yes, he left his post in, I believe, July 2011. It could not have come soon enough for many of us, and it is a regret to many that the Government were not able to listen faster and act faster at that time.
What this whole sorry saga shows is that deference can be a toxic presence in the body politic. Of course we always seek to respect others, and we look for the best in others. There is another instance in that Adjournment debate that illustrates the generosity that we often show. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), whom I told that I was going to raise this, and who is a gentleman to his fingertips and always a very magnanimous fellow, asked:
“Does the Minister agree that one reason why the Duke of York has considerable credibility is his distinguished record as a former member of the Fleet Air Arm who gave valuable service in the Falklands war? That shows a degree of commitment over and above any inherited responsibilities that he might be considered to have.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 650.]
Of course I understand the point that the right hon. Member was making back then, but the fear is that when deference tips over into subservience it can be terribly dangerous, because the victims are not heard, respected or understood in the same way as those with grand titles, and that—as the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said—has implications for this House. The conduct of business in the House is entirely a matter for you, Mr Speaker, interpreting “Erskine May” and the Standing Orders with the Clerks. I only repeat the words of Paul Flynn in 2011, when he denounced what he called
“censorship on hon. Members discussing an issue of great importance”.—[Official Report, 17 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 156WH.]
I know that you too, Mr Speaker, would want to denounce such censorship.
Let me issue one caveat about the motion. The Government will of course comply with the terms of the Humble Address in full—as I have said, we support the motion—but, as the House will know, there is a live police investigation of the former Duke of York following his arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The House will also be aware that following that arrest on 19 February, Buckingham Palace issued a statement on behalf of the King. His Majesty emphasised that
“the law must take its course”,
and that the Palace would provide its
“full and wholehearted support and co-operation”.
The statement concluded with a commitment that His Majesty and the royal family would continue in their duty and service to the nation, and I am sure the whole House will support that sentiment.
As the police have rightly said, it is absolutely crucial that the integrity of their investigation is protected, and now that these proceedings are under way, it would be wrong for me to say anything that might prejudice them. Nor will the Government be able to put into the public domain anything that is required by the police for them to conduct their inquiries unless and until they are satisfied. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will agree with that point.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything that the Minister is saying, but what is worrying quite a lot of us, in relation not just to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor but to Mandelson, is that because of the ongoing police investigations and because the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly, it may be years before we see any of these papers. I would like an assurance from the Government that—notwithstanding what the Minister has just said about the police investigation—they will do their utmost to ensure that there is full transparency, because scandals are made much worse by any sense of a cover-up.
Chris Bryant
I could not agree more. I want to ensure that we move as fast as we possibly can, but I also want to ensure that justice happens, and I do not want to do anything that would undermine the police investigations. I hope that the police will be able to move as swiftly as possible, and we will certainly co-operate with them as swiftly as possible. It is worth bearing in mind, however, that most of the documents that might be envisaged are 25 years old—some are a bit more recent—they may be substantial in number, and many will be in hard copy. I hate to add to the right hon. Member’s fears about the speed with which things may happen, but I think we all want to ensure that we do all this in a proper fashion.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
May I ask for some clarification in respect of the police investigations? The Minister may have noted the intervention made by Gordon Brown on Sunday, when he asked constabularies to consider widening the probe on the basis of files that had been released as part of the data dump. I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to comment on what those police forces are planning to do or not to do, but one of the questions that have arisen is whether all Departments, including the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Transport, would co-operate fully with them in relation to anything that they might need. Can he assure me that every single Department, without fear or favour, will give them whatever they need if they wish to widen the investigation?
Chris Bryant
We will do two things. First, we will seek to comply with the Humble Address as soon as we possibly can, given the caveat that I have already issued about the police investigation. Secondly, we will ensure that every single part of Government co-operates entirely with Thames Valley police and with any other police forces, in respect of whatever they may be investigating. It is not for me, as a Minister, to instruct the police on what they should or should not investigate, or to point them in one direction or another. Former Prime Ministers have a different set of responsibilities. So the hon. Lady is right: I do not want to undermine the investigation, but I also do not want to delay it in any way.
Chris Bryant
I do not want to give way to every single Liberal Democrat Member, but I will, of course, give way to the hon. Lady.
Tessa Munt
I thank the Minister greatly. Does he agree that it is timely, right now, for the Government to press ahead with the Public Office (Accountability) Bill? Amendment 23, which is blocking everything at the moment, seems to present a way through, and to ensure not only that we have transparency and openness but that the Government, and other Members of the House, can be assured that anything that is subject to matters of intelligence or security—and, indeed, matters relating to the police investigation—will not be released. There is an answer in the Government’s hands, and I know not why they are waiting and waiting and waiting to get this sorted out.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Lady might have to repeat what she thinks the answer that thus far evades me might be.
Tessa Munt
I could talk to him about the whistleblowing Bill and the independent office of the whistleblower. People should be able to reveal what they know and should tell the truth. It is shocking that we have to have legislation to tell people to tell the truth, but all this falls under the same remit: people should be free to declare exactly what they know, papers should be released, and there should be an independent High Court judge—that is what happens at the moment and that is what is in amendment 23—who says what may and may not be released.
Mr Speaker
May I suggest that we shorten interventions, rather than make speeches?
Chris Bryant
I return to what I said earlier: we will put everything into the public domain when we can. I do not want to do so at a time that would make it impossible for the police to secure the proper processes that they need to be able to carry out. I am not sure that adding an intervening person helps that process, but I would be happy to listen, Mr Speaker, if the hon. Lady catches your eye later on in the debate. With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate as well, so I will be happy to answer lots of questions.
Daisy Cooper
Specifically on this point, I am grateful that the Minister is willing to comply with the terms of this motion and that he is trying to manage expectations about the speed with which the Government may act. None the less, he will know that there will still be some members of the public who will view that with some suspicion and alarm, worried that the Government might be trying to long-grass it or put it in the too-hard basket. Will the Minister commit, either now or by the end of the debate, to the Government regularly updating this House so that Opposition parties do not repeatedly have to bring Ministers to the House to answer urgent questions? Will he agree to set out, by the end of the debate, how often the Government would intend to inform the House in regular updates?
Chris Bryant
I am happy to commit to updating the House as often as I possibly can in a way that is informative to the House. The hon. Lady is quite right, however, that I am slightly trying to manage people’s expectations about timeliness, partly because of the quantity of material and partly because there is a live police investigation and I do not want to jeopardise that.
Chris Bryant
I will in a moment.
If there are things that are embarrassing to the Government, who cares? I want to make sure that we end up getting the proper justice that is necessary for the victims, and that means that we have to have a proper police procedure. If there are charges brought, that has to go through a judicial process as well and I do not want to undermine that. I am very happy, both privately and publicly, to update the House when I have anything possible to say.
I am trying to get to the end of my speech. People normally like it when I get to the end of my speech—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I have united the House, Mr Speaker, but I will give way to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister).
Jim Allister
I understand the concern about not treading upon the police investigation, but surely that investigation is about the conduct of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in the role, whereas this Humble Address is about the appointment and the process of appointment. Is there not a distinction there, which means that this Humble Address of itself should not unduly impede any police investigation or be hindered by it?
Chris Bryant
If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not mind, I will quite happily explain to him outside the Chamber precisely why I disagree with him. Again, if I were to explain more fully in the Chamber, that might not be very helpful to either the police or the criminal process. I am happy to explain to him outside the Chamber and I think he might come back in and agree with me.
Chris Bryant
I think he might. Just sometimes, he agrees with me, but not very often. Small mercies and all.
I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that the former Duke of York’s role as a special trade representative was very different to the one performed by the Government’s current trade envoys. That is often confused in the public discussion. Today, trade envoys are appointed by Ministers with a formalised set of rules of conduct, they are unpaid and they work with my Department on attracting and retaining inward investment, while supporting UK firms to take full advantage of new trade opportunities. They are all Members of either this House or another.
I have recently emphasised to all those trade envoys the importance of maximising the programme’s impact and ensuring that it aligns completely with the goals of our trade and industrial strategies. They are under the same obligations as Ministers in adhering to departmental restrictions, guidelines and confidentiality clauses, which are the same ones outlined in the ministerial code. In sum, trade envoys play an important role in boosting economic growth, delivering our industrial and trade strategies, and helping British businesses to export. I will stress this again: the role held by Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was not a trade envoy position as we would understand it today. I am enormously grateful to today’s trade envoys who go beyond the call of duty in promoting UK plc. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s role was a separate one entitled UK special representative for international trade and investment.
There is unanimous agreement across this House that those who may be guilty of misconduct in public office should face the full force of the law. That applies to everyone, regardless of who they are or how they were appointed. This was a point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister prior to the news of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest. One of the core principles of our constitutional system is the rule of law. That means that everyone is equal under the law and nobody is above the law.
I share the anger and the disgust expressed by many at the alleged behaviour of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. What we are seeing now is a full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated by the police and in that investigation they will, of course, have the Government’s unwavering co-operation and support. Sometimes it feels to many members of our country that there is one rule for the rich and famous and another rule for the rest of us. Actually, there is only one rule: the rule of law.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) on securing this debate. I should say at the outset that the Conservatives support the motion.
The truth is that the people who helped Jeffrey Epstein by supplying him with contacts and information were the people who enabled him to become powerful. Those people effectively enabled him to build his net of influence, his net of abuse. That network of power, in turn, enabled him to abuse more and more people, so it is quite right that this House is enabled to scrutinise what went on and how it went on.
I listened to the Minister’s remarks. I appreciate the way that he has approached this debate and the way that the Government will constructively co-operate with the terms of the Humble Address. However, this is the second occasion in only a few weeks when the Government have had to be brought here by Opposition parties under the terms of a Humble Address to disclose information that they quite obviously could have disclosed without the need for such an Address in the first place. I acknowledge the humility with which the Minister has approached the debate, but the Government as a whole could have been much more proactive on this issue right from the start. I also appreciate the humble way in which the Minister came to the House and reminded us that he had been right all along.
Alex Burghart
Very humble.
The leader of the Liberal Democrats referred to this as the first global political scandal. Indeed, it is a global political scandal whose tendrils have reached into the operation of many Governments across the west and the east. The fact that our allies in Poland have launched an intelligence investigation into Epstein’s links with Russia and that in the published Epstein papers it is clear that Jeffrey Epstein was supplying people at the very top end of Putin’s regime with sensitive information about the American leadership show that this is an international scandal and one in which our Government and our security services must play their part in uncovering things. However, I know that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is a lover of history, so I must gently take issue with his claim that this is the first global political scandal. I think of the Dreyfus affair, the XYZ affair and the Panama scandals—there have been many—but this is, to take his substantive point, a global political scandal.
I associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that we can only be, as a general point, supportive of the royal family’s role in promoting our country. The people who have witnessed the best of the royal family using their awesome soft power to support what we do best can only be in awe of the vast commitment they make to public service and the life of the country. Indeed, if it is the case, as reported in the press, that very senior members of the royal family expressed concerns about the appointment of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor in 2001, one can feel only enormous sympathy with them over what has subsequently come to light.
The revelations surrounding the relationship between Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Jeffrey Epstein, like those surrounding the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, and the arrest of both men on suspicion of misconduct in public office make it right that questions are asked and information is brought before the House. If one looks back to 2001, it is possible to identify the hand of Epstein in Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment. It is reported that Peter Mandelson first met Epstein in the summer of 2001; Mountbatten-Windsor had, I believe, first met Epstein in 1999. Shortly after Mandelson’s first meeting in October 2001, Mandelson was appointed as trade envoy.
Alex Burghart
The Minister shakes his head, so I will go through the chronology again for him—there is no harm in doing so.
Alex Burghart
Well, Hansard will show it—it may be that the numbers were jumbled up in the Minister’s head.
In the summer of 2001, Mandelson met Epstein for the first time; in October 2001, Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as trade envoy. It is possible that Mandelson influenced that. As I said, Mountbatten-Windsor had met Epstein for the first time in 1999, so he was already an associate of Epstein. I am glad to have sorted that out—I can go through it again, but I am sure the Minister will be able to read about it tomorrow.
Wendy Chamberlain
By sketching out that timeline, the hon. Gentleman brings to light the reason why we are calling in our Humble Address for information about the actual creation of the appointment, which, as the Minister rightly pointed out, was a unique role created for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that we are right not only to call out the creation of that role, but to ascertain whether Mandelson had any role in it?
Alex Burghart
Very much so. As I say, it would have been better if the Government had been proactive on this and had not had to be brought to the House by Opposition parties in order to release the information. I am very glad, though, that the Liberal Democrats have learned from the Conservatives’ Humble Address a few weeks ago. It is always good that once the Conservatives have designed a bandwagon, got it up and running and shown that it can move at high speed, the Liberal Democrats scramble up and get on board—better late than never.
If we go through the sequencing very carefully, we can see that it is possible that there was influence from Epstein, who, we must acknowledge, had not been arrested or convicted in 2001, although there were already rumours and reports about him, and who was, in any case, a highly influential foreign businessman. If it was under his influence that Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as trade envoy, it would be useful to see what the Prime Minister knew when that appointment was made.
Layla Moran
I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to get to a point that deeply concerns me, which is that we need to understand the extent to which the then Prince Andrew was leaning on government for things he wanted. There is an example of this in the recent Epstein files, which contain an exchange between Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein about how Andrew had written to the Ministry of Defence in order to allow their plane to land at an RAF base in Norfolk on 7 December 2000. Andrew’s influence on government predated his appointment. What we want to understand is the extent to which he was already trying to influence government as a prince and what that led to in his role as trade envoy. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is incredibly important to get to the bottom of that?
Alex Burghart
Ah, 2000. Well, I agree with the hon. Lady—that is an interesting point. If one looks at the precise wording of the Liberal Democrats’ Humble Address, however, I am not sure that something like that falls within its context. She may wish to table an amendment to her own party’s motion in order to get at that.
Transparency is essential in all this. That is why the Conservatives very much hope that the Government will give us transparency quickly. I turn to the point made by the Father of the House: there is a danger that the Government will use the police process as a means of not disclosing certain information. I say that not because of what the Minister has said today so much as what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said yesterday, when, in the context of the Conservatives’ Humble Address, he said:
“I can confirm that those documents will be made available, subject, I am afraid, to the exclusion of one particular item, in which No. 10 asked Peter Mandelson a number of questions. The Met police have asked that to be held back, subject to their investigations…That item will therefore have to be published at a later date, but the documents that are not subject to the Met police investigation will be published very shortly.”—[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 44.]
As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said, I think it would assist the House if the Government could explain why the Met police has asked that that item is held back.
It would also be helpful if the Government could confirm that there is no bar to them handing that document over to the Intelligence and Security Committee—a point on which Mr Speaker has been very clear. On 4 February, Mr Speaker said:
“the Metropolitan police have no jurisdiction over what this House may wish to do. It will be a matter of whether or not the Government provide the information. I want to let Members know that the police cannot dictate to this House.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 375.]
There is a means that was specifically debated during the original Humble Address that enabled Members of this House—that is, the ISC—to be given this information regardless of the police investigation.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. What concerns me deeply in this matter is the fact that my constituents and members of the public are increasingly concerned that what they see is the tendrils—as the hon. Gentleman referred to—reaching into government through this debate. In the handling of these papers and the release of information, we must at all times be aware of the reputational impact not just on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor or Lord Mandelson but on us in this place, as well as on previous and subsequent Governments and Parliaments. Would he agree?
Alex Burghart
Very much so. I know that certain hon. Members across the House will be aware of just how bad it will look if the Government do not provide information as swiftly as possible.
I will give an example of where that is not happening. When we debated the original Humble Address—nearly two weeks ago now—I raised the fact that the Prime Minister had an unrecorded meeting with Palantir in Washington in February last year. He was accompanied on that visit, which did not appear in his register of meetings, by Peter Mandelson. Palantir was a client of the company in which Peter Mandelson held a commanding share. Later that year, Palantir subsequently received by direct award a very substantial contract from Government worth about £240 million.
When I raised this in the House, there was concern on both sides—it was a cross-party issue. I asked the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office to confirm that the Cabinet Secretary, whoever that turned out to be, would investigate what looks like a clear case of conflict of interest, and he agreed to write to me. I still have not received any reply, despite the fact that I brought it up again at the Dispatch Box at the start of this week and was assured that I would receive a response.
I just do not think this is good enough. It is very important that the Opposition can hold the Government to account in a meaningful way. To the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), I think it is extremely important that the Government should be seen to be willingly providing information, rather than having to be pushed every step of the way to do the right thing.
I will make one additional point on this score. While we do very much support the Humble Address being debated today, I ask the Government to be clear that nothing in it—nothing at all—will slow down the process of delivering on the original Humble Address. While there is historic and contemporary interest in what happened in 2001, what this Government did in choosing to appoint Peter Mandelson, despite the information they had at their disposal, is of paramount importance. They must come clean, and come clean quickly. As Buckingham Palace said the other day, no one is above the law.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Unaccountable power must not hide, privilege must not be protected, money must be accounted for and elite networks of men operating here and overseas must meet their reckoning for dehumanising, subjugating, exploiting and sexually assaulting women—women who must have justice. The web of abuse surrounding Mr Epstein and his associates must be brought to book, and Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, as a known associate, must also be held to account for his role as a special trade envoy and for his associations. We have all been revulsed by the stories that we have heard, and that is why today’s debate must also be about the victims and survivors.
I first raised my concern because my constituency carries the name of York and the Duke of York’s ambassadorial associations with our city were causing much concern in my community. I therefore brought those concerns to the House on 21 February 2022, just days after the settlement of the lawsuit to Ms Giuffre, known to be in the region of £12 million. My city—a human rights city, no less—was clearly disturbed, and as a result of that I sought a separation between the title and the city. Later that year, after working closely with the Clerks, I brought forward a Bill to remove the title, but that still has not been done. I brought forward another Bill just last year on the removal of title, this time bringing in the option of removing the title from peerages as well, but I have still not had a positive response.
The reasons I am speaking in this debate today are: first, that in looking into these issues, I realised that the Humble Address was narrow in its scope; and secondly, to ask what we should do with the information once it has been corroborated. Clearly the police investigation must take its course, and I am sure it will be deep and thorough because it runs so far, but ultimately, if we are just looking at the appointment, we must also ask about that period of time when Mr Mountbatten-Windsor carried out the role and the implications to wider networks. I do not want this to end up in the court of public opinion, or perhaps with the media digging deeper and deeper into more and more stories. But what does it do to this place? What does it do to change the way the systems work?
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I recognise the work that the hon. Lady has done on titles and holding Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to account. She makes a good point about making sure that we do not have a court of public opinion, but I would like to give my thanks to the many media outlets—it does not matter which one you read or what its political slant—that have done tremendous work, trawling through hundreds of thousands of documents. Does she agree that we owe them a debt of gratitude for bringing to light many of the awful things that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is alleged to have been associated with?
Rachael Maskell
I do agree with the hon. Gentleman, because I know that journalists have been up through the night poring over the Epstein files and digging deep to hold power to account. Our media have a vital role in this, and long may it continue. Their scrutiny is also important for this place and the work that we do here.
We need a process of learning from this, and I believe that there should be a judge-led inquiry to ensure that the multiple strands of this global network of power are brought to account so that we can learn and hold to account in this place with regard to concerns about how these associations are formed and the depth to which they infiltrate places like this, the Government and international networks. As we have learned over the last few weeks, sensitive financial information has been shared, and this can impact on our constituencies, markets and trade. That in turn has an impact on the very people we are here to represent.
No longer can these powerful men swan around the world having these conversations, gaining more power and exploiting whoever crosses their path without being held accountable. We therefore need to understand how to create even deeper transparency across all institutions, including all areas of Government, just as we try to do in this place each and every day. As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) says, this inquiry must be far-reaching and it must pursue all these issues.
I recognise that many Departments have been missed out in the Humble Address. We need to understand, for instance, how transport has been used, and not just civil transport but military transport. We need to see the missing logs to find out who was on those planes, where they were going and where they had come from. We also need to understand the expenses system that ensued and to find out how signing off for massages became a duty of the taxpayer. Individuals questioned this, as we have heard, but the reality is that people did not feel empowered to blow the whistle and raise those concerns. We need to institute processes where people can raise concerns wherever they see them, but at the moment we do not have the confidence that that was undertaken within the systems. How are we going to institute that?
There are also questions about visas—we know that 90 people came in and out of the country during the period that we are looking at today—and of course there must be rigour in appointment processes. Much has been heard about that over the last few months, and it lies at the heart of this Humble Address. We need to ensure that all these appointments are transparent. I heard what the Minister said today, but we have 32 trade envoys and I have never seen one post advertised. I am not aware of the expertise that those individuals have with regard to trade or to their relations with a particular country. What do they actually add? What value do they actually bring, and how can we assess that from this place? I therefore ask for a proper review of all these appointments to assess what they bring, because surely we should have better accountability.
I also want to mention the intelligence services. I cannot believe that our intelligence services were not aware of some of the movements of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor. How do we bring that to account, to ensure that that information is also in the public domain? Where are the minutes of all those meetings? What do they say? How do we find out? There are so many questions in response to the Humble Address being put today, but we have to think about what we want to do from this point on as well. This must not be about just holding and examining the information and commenting in the tea rooms and the corridors; we must ensure that power is held to account, and that those with privilege know that they are answerable for the responsibilities that they hold.
As the light is shone deeper into the darkest networks of the elite’s exploitations, and as the systems are overhauled and reviewed, may the police do their job well and extensively and may we in this place always focus on the women who were exploited, gaslit, traumatised and left broken as we seek justice and seek to hold that power to account.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I want to speak about transparency and accountability in public life and how the system we find ourselves in has been maintained and got us to where we are.
In the early noughties, I was working overseas with the British Council, as I have said. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor visited us as part of his role as a UK trade envoy. Before his arrival, senior staff in both the embassy and the British Council were rolling their eyes—his reputation preceded him. I was told that it was a “containment” exercise, that overseas missions feared putting him out there in case he said something inappropriate, that he was arrogant and that he was not on top of his brief. Rather than looking forward to his visits as an opportunity to promote Britain, it was instead thought that he would do damage.
Moreover, there were rumours about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor—that he refused to stay in the ambassador’s residence, that he would only stay in the Four Seasons or similar top-end hotels, and that he took an ironing board with him when he went overseas. That was a euphemism for a massage table. That was all well known among many officials. It even inspired the BBC TV programme “Ambassadors” in 2013, a couple of years after Andrew was forced to relinquish his role as trade envoy.
It seems that this was known about in the diplomatic circles that I experienced way back at the start of the noughties, and yet Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor enjoyed another 10 years as a trade envoy. Yet when I questioned why this was allowed to happen, I was met with a shrug. “Everyone knows,” they said. As I have said, Andrew came to an exhibition I had put on about Dolly the sheep. At the time, it was the pinnacle of British innovation, and we were rightly proud of it as an example of UK scientific excellence. One of my team was a young Japanese woman who worked for the British Government as a member of British Council staff. Her job—we paid her—was to promote the UK. She showed the then prince around with some Japanese dignitaries. “Dolly the sheep,” he sneered, “It’s rubbish. Frankenstein sheep”. My team member was deflated and did not understand why this representative of the British state diminished what she was rightly proud of.
The talk of Andrew and what he was like came to my own dinner table. My late father-in-law, an air vice-marshal in the RAF, was at a dinner with Mountbatten-Windsor on an overseas trip in the 1990s. He said, in front of many foreign military and diplomatic seniors, “No need for a Royal Air Force”. My father-in-law said nothing, and that was the problem. People could not because of his privileged position. My father-in-law raised it with the Chief of the Air Staff and was told it would be raised with the Palace. What happened next? Who knows? Did diplomats raise the concern to their seniors and to the very top from early on? Did the Palace do its own internal investigation? If they did, was it shared with the Department for Business and Trade? Where did these concerns all go? In doing so, did they—the system—unwittingly or wittingly support protection or cover-up, because of “the way things were done” or because of deference? That is the point of this debate. Some officials knew, or the system seemed to know, but the system seemingly failed to do anything about it for 10 years because of privilege and deference.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
On this point about which Departments had which papers, I note that the Humble Address uses the words
“including but not confined to”.
Surely papers in the royal household that relate to this matter should also come under the scope of the Humble Address. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Monica Harding
I agree. There is a systematic and joined-up failure that we need to unravel, and I will come back to that in my speech.
When there was scrutiny after 2011, there was still a failure of oversight. What does that say about our society, how we protect privilege and what we are prepared to accept on behalf of the British state and our representatives? Can rules be broken by some people and not others? Do propriety and ethics belong to all those who represent the British state?
We have a parliamentary monarchy. That means that if the Palace does not open itself to scrutiny and carry out its own inquiry, Parliament must. I have some questions. On what basis was Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor given the role of trade envoy? Who put him forward and was there resistance to it? While he was trade envoy, what concerns were raised and with whom, from what date and how were they actioned? Money was put up by the royal family to protect him. Does Parliament have a right to understand why that money was put up and that public funds were not used in the civil settlement with Virginia Giuffre? Can Parliament find out that not one penny of public money was used in that settlement?
I know you will share with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, the concern about levels of public confidence in all our institutions and the people who represent them. Parliament must assert itself in this regard, and I, along with my colleagues, call for the full publication of all documents related to Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment as a special envoy and for an end to negative privilege, so that MPs in this place can speak freely about their concerns and disclose information in the House of Commons, even if that individual is a member of the royal family.
I will end, as I must, with thoughts for the victims of the Epstein scandal, which has triggered so much of this debate, and all those who are victims of power, privilege and deference. They are foremost in our minds as this furore continues. It is thanks to their bravery that we know the extent of Epstein’s crimes and the wider implications for our own establishment.
Wendy Chamberlain
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am conscious that she was close to concluding, but her words about the victims are powerful. I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group for the survivors of Fayed and Harrods. We have just started our work, but Members may have heard a powerful interview on the “World at One” a couple of weeks ago, which talked about the lack of acknowledgement of what had taken place and the fact that the police did not properly understand trafficking. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), described this as a global enterprise. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do much more work around this and that it is not just about the victims of Epstein, but other trafficking victims, too?
Monica Harding
My hon. Friend is quite right. This is about systemic failure, and we are at the very beginning of this, not the end. For the victims of Epstein, we must do everything we can to ensure that this investigation and inquiry continue. On behalf of those victims and those who are suffering right now from the same thing, we must ensure that the wider system cleans itself up, and we must facilitate that.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
The release of the Epstein files has shone a light where so many people did not want a light to be shone. Even with millions of documents still to be released, it is abundantly clear that for decades, the rich, the politically powerful and the well-connected have colluded to cover up their utterly appalling behaviours. That light which is now being shone does not just illuminate those who are personally responsible for their behaviour; it reveals those who knew what was happening, who enabled it and who chose to turn a blind eye.
The people of this country are rightly furious. That is why I made the point yesterday, and will make it again today, on the Humble Address on the release of the Peter Mandelson files that with trust in the Government at an all-time low, they only have one chance to come clean about everything they know and they hold pertaining, in this case, to the creation of the role of special representative for trade and investment and the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to that post.
Of course, unlike the Mandelson files which this House demanded be released, the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor did not happen on the current Government’s watch. But Mr Mandelson leaves a long trail, and there may well be information which relates directly to him and which will cause serious embarrassment to many senior Labour party figures who were in power at the time. Let us not forget that the author Andrew Lownie explains in great detail in his book, “Entitled” about how it was former Trade Secretary Peter Mandelson who assisted Mr Mountbatten-Windsor in landing the role of UK special representative, seemingly against the advice of Mr Mountbatten’s brother, the then Prince Charles.
Let me repeat my warning from yesterday that these files must be released and must be released in full, because any attempt to sanitise what is in them and to save face for any Government Ministers, past or present, could have serious long-term consequences for our democracy. That is also the very least that the victims and survivors deserve.
We know that there are serious questions about the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor as trade envoy back in 2001 that need answers. They include: whose idea was it? Who vetted him? Was he vetted at all? What role did Peter Mandelson play in making that appointment happen? What in his previous life made him uniquely suitable for the position of UK trade envoy? What warnings were given before and during his stint as trade envoy about his character and behaviour? Who was he responsible to while serving as trade envoy? Who scrutinised his behaviour and spending? What warnings were given during his time as trade envoy and how were those warnings handled?
In a normal, functioning democracy, we would not have had to wait until Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had been stripped of his titles and evicted from his royal house, and was facing removal from the line of succession, before being able to discuss this issue. There have been serious concerns about Mr Mountbatten-Windsor for decades, many of them relating to his time as trade envoy. There are reports of him requesting that the public purse cover the cost of his massage services. When one understandably angry and unhappy civil servant complained, he was promptly overruled by his bosses. That now retired civil servant commented recently:
“I can’t say it would have stopped him, but we should have flagged that something was wrong.”
Of course something was wrong, but what difference would it have made to us in this House? As Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was a member of the royal family at that time, we were not allowed to question or examine what he was doing as a special trade envoy.
It was not just civil servants who found getting information on Mr Mountbatten-Windsor all but impossible. The author Andrew Lownie has reported that he has had multiple freedom of information requests rejected, including on the grounds that it would be too time-consuming for Departments to go through the volume of information. One rejection actually said that looking at just one year of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s time as trade envoy would mean going through 1,927 digital files, each containing multiple pieces of information. Yet until Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s status changed, we in this House were not allowed to discuss that.
Freddie van Mierlo
The hon. Gentleman is speaking to the fact that the title of prince has protected Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from greater scrutiny and inspection of his activities. What should we do to ensure that other titles, whether that is Prime Minister, Secretary of State or royal titles, do not protect powerful individuals?
Brendan O’Hara
The answer is quite simple: nobody can be above the law. Everybody has to be equal in the eyes of the law. As the great Paul Flynn said, we have to remove the bandages from our mouths in this place, and I will return to that point. Fundamentally, regardless of rank or privilege, nobody should be above the law.
Many people will be embarrassed by what has happened, not least, as we have heard, the now leader of the Liberal Democrats, who, as Under-Secretary for Business, Innovation and Skills, and, I presume, with his fingers firmly crossed behind his back, was forced to stoutly defend the then Prince Andrew. He said:
“I…believe that the Duke of York does an excellent job”.—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 649.]
He called him a “long-standing success” and said he had been great for British business, but what else could he have said as a Government Minister? We are not allowed to speak the truth about certain individuals in this place. Within three months of the right hon. Member making those comments, Mr Mountbatten-Windsor had resigned in disgrace because of his continued relationship with the convicted paedophile and child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
It was not just Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s relationship with Epstein that caused concern. In February 2011, the Minister attempted to raise a question about the special representative role and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s links to a notorious convicted Libyan arms smuggler, only to be told by the then Speaker that
“references to members of the royal family should be very rare, very sparing and very respectful”.—[Official Report, 28 February 2011; Vol. 524, c. 35.]
These archaic rules make a mockery of our democracy. The situation we face now was always going to occur, particularly as the royal family can and do both have a constitutional role and involve themselves in the political realm.
Monica Harding
Does the hon. Member agree that it is quite extraordinary that we are urging the Parliament of a foreign country—Congress—to investigate this matter when it concerns our trade envoy and a member of the royal family?
Brendan O’Hara
There is a slight irony here. We call ourselves the mother of Parliaments and the cradle of democracy, yet when it comes to an issue such as this we are bound by archaic rules that mean that we cannot hold the most powerful people to account. Let’s be honest: there may be some very good members and some very bad members of the royal family, but if we believe in the hereditary monarchy, it is pot luck what we get.
I have seen the rules that have led us to where we are now and it is surely time to review them. It is beyond ridiculous that someone in a similar position could be appointed to exactly the same job as Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was, but, because they have been lucky in the great genealogical sweepstake and found themselves born into the royal family, be automatically above scrutiny and accountability and therefore beyond reproach.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I am listening closely to what the hon. Member is saying. Does he agree, given that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is no longer a royal, that nothing is really stopping us having a judge-led public inquiry into his affairs and all that attends them?
Brendan O’Hara
Absolutely; I could not agree more. Isn’t it ridiculous that the King had to strip Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor of his titles and evict him from his home for us to be able to have this discussion? That is what has to change.
In conclusion, I hope the Government not only release everything they hold pertaining to the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor but remove what that great trailblazer, Paul Flynn, the former Member for Newport West, described as the bandages on our mouths so that no one is above the law and no one’s behaviour is beyond scrutiny by Members of this House.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
A lot has been said on the nature of being a trade envoy and the fact that a special trade envoy role was created for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. The Minister quite rightly pointed out that today we would not recognise trade envoys as they were then.
The Minister also mentioned the excellent parliamentarian David Heath, who represented Somerton and Frome, which covered part of my constituency. David was a trade envoy when he served in Government. When he was the trade envoy to Nigeria and Angola, the Government would not pay for his yellow fever jabs in case he went somewhere else with yellow fever when not on Government business and derived some private benefit from the jabs, so he had to pay for his own. His wife Caroline tells me that the only thing he got out of his trips was food poisoning. Although it would be nice to think that there was not one rule for some and one for others, there clearly was. It is important that we understand the nature of the brief given to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor when he became trade envoy, because the others certainly were not getting massages on the taxpayer.
Although this debate concerns Mountbatten-Windsor, it is not about one man; it is really about the structural sexism embedded in our institutions. Violence against women and girls does not persist in this country for a lack of speeches in this Chamber, but because, structurally, it is still not treated as foundational to our policymaking. Many Members across this House are utterly committed to tackling violence against women and girls. Many have dedicated their political lives to this cause, often in the face of horrific abuse. This is not a party political issue, nor is it about individual commitment; it is about whether the system itself is designed to prioritise women’s safety. Too often, it is not. Defence, the Treasury and infrastructure are seen as core business, but violence against women and girls is too often siloed—assigned to one Minister, under one strategy—as if the safety of half the population were a niche concern, rather than a central test of whether the state is functioning.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
A powerful illustration of my hon. Friend’s point is that oral questions to the Minister for Women and Equalities is compressed into just 30 minutes before Prime Minister’s questions every few weeks. Does she agree?
Anna Sabine
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I will come to another example of the way in which such sexism is embedded.
I recently wrote to both the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls to ask why the recent draft national planning policy framework made no mention of the safety of women and girls, as that document sets out how we design and build the spaces and places in which we live. The response from the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government was jaw-dropping. It said:
“The NPPF is a planning document. It sets out guidelines for housebuilding and planning in England. The VAWG strategy is about protecting women and girls from violence and misogyny. It is unclear as to why anyone would expect the two things to be combined.”
If it is unclear to the Department responsible for planning that violence and women and girls should be considered in its work, we have a structural problem.
That is where structural sexism becomes inseparable from power. It matters who makes the decisions. In this country, a remarkably small circle of people—disproportionately male and drawn disproportionately from the same networks—still make the most consequential choices.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an important point. On structural violence, women and young girls are the most vulnerable in the face of climate change and natural disasters, because they are exposed to violence and rape when they are displaced from their homes. As trade envoy, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor toured Gulf boardrooms, and met Shell executives and energy conglomerates. That was ermine royal access diplomacy. Just as he showed no conscience in his personal life towards the women and young girls who were victims and survivors of the convicted paedophile Epstein, he did not think in his role as trade envoy about those exposed to structural violence against women and young girls.
Anna Sabine
I totally agree—I could not have said it better.
The people in those circles appoint, defend and rehabilitate one another. Sometimes they do so in ways in which many women looking on would not. When the same small group repeatedly decides what is reputationally survivable, politically convenient and worth overlooking, women’s confidence in our institutions erodes. That is how this circles back to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor: the issue is not only his personal conduct, but the culture of deference, protective networks and systems in which rehabilitation for powerful men can move faster than justice or safety for women. That is precisely why transparency matters. When decisions are taken within small, powerful circles, sunlight is not a luxury; it is a safeguard.
If Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed and maintained as special trade envoy, the public is entitled to understand how that decision was reached, what advice was given, what risks were assessed and who signed it off. We cannot say we are serious about accountability while withholding the very documents that would allow this House and the public to scrutinise how power was exercised. Releasing all correspondence, risk assessments and internal advice relating to his role as trade envoy is not about political point scoring, but about restoring trust. Transparency is the antidote to institutional deference, and without it structural sexism continues to operate behind closed doors.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I pay tribute to all the young women who have risked so much to stand up and push for justice in relation to the vile and corrupt web around the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and to the crimes and abuse that they suffered as children.
Let me turn to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Transparency about the workings of an organisation is a key way to prevent corruption—sunlight is the best disinfectant—although I appreciate that a police investigation is ongoing and must not be jeopardised. Green MPs support the Liberal Democrat motion. We note that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) apologised and gave his reasons for saying—when he was in office in 2011—that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was doing an excellent job. That was during the debate held in this House by the late Paul Flynn, the formidable former MP for Newport West, to whom other Members have referred.
The royal family is sheltered from scrutiny in too many ways, and it is now very clear what a risk that poses. We have heard many examples of MPs facing restrictions on what we can ask about royal activity, but it is reasonable and right that we should scrutinise fully any work that they do on the country’s behalf, and consider how those restrictions might be removed. As I understand it, section 37 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 exempts communications between relevant authorities and members of the broader royal family—not just the King—from being released under freedom of information requests. It really is one rule for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of us, a situation which the Minister condemned earlier.
I believe that that serious transparency loophole for royals must be closed. It could mean, for example, that if trade envoy positions are filled by members of the royal family, it would—predictably—be significantly harder for the press, public and MPs to ensure that things are above board, and to get details when things go badly wrong. One example of the effect on transparency is demonstrated in The Guardian today. In a profile piece, the author Andrew Lownie, who wrote the biography “Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York”, talks about stacks of his freedom of information requests being rejected by different Departments. That is why the Humble Address is so important: it would uncover whether those restrictions in the FOI Act were part of the equation in making the appointment.
My early-day motion 2769, which has the support of MPs from six political parties, calls on the King to release all communications between members of the royal family and the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. Obviously, that is just the start of what is needed, which is why I am very grateful for this motion. If the reports that the royal family were aware of concerns about Andrew’s financial dealings ahead of his appointment are correct, there are serious questions about whether and how that knowledge matches the King’s statement following Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest, in which he suggested he had only recently learned about his brother’s misconduct. It is reasonable to raise those questions and find out what advice was given from the palace—including from the King—for or against the appointment.
The royal family’s reactive co-operation with any investigation cannot be enough, because it suggests that they are waiting to be asked by the police, rather than proactively checking their records and visitor logs, speaking with palace and Royal Lodge staff to encourage them to share information with the authorities, and ensuring that there is an effective whistleblowing policy within the palace. We also need to be able to scrutinise the exact provenance of the £12 million payout from Andrew to the brave, late Virginia Giuffre.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should never have been a trade envoy for this country, but that is not the only matter that requires urgent transparency. His relationship with the child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein has turned the nation’s stomach. We also need to know who in the royal household knew what and when, as well as what he did when he was trade envoy. As part of that, I hope that the Minister will make it clear today that royal freedom of information exemptions—which have for too long allowed royal power to act in the shadows, and to conceal important truths from MPs and the public—also need to go.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I am one of a handful of Liberal Democrat and Labour MPs who were elected in the wake of a political scandal. In my case, in December 2021, it was a financial scandal followed by a cover-up by the then Conservative Government, who tried to get one of their own off the hook. In the midst of my by-election, there were revelations about partygate. It emerged that the then Prime Minister had concluded that a number of the rules that people in this country were subject to did not apply to him. I can remember very clearly knocking on doors during that by-election. I felt my constituents’ anger about the fact that a small group of elite people had concluded that rules that applied to us did not apply to the people at the top of society. I think they would describe that as entitlement. This debate is important because we must restore the trust of the people who voted for me and others elected in by-elections in the wake of scandals. We need to tell the wider British public that we have learned the lessons from the political scandals, cover-ups and entitlement, and we are taking action to restore their trust in what this House is up to and what the wider establishment is allowed to get away with. It is important to hold the powerful to account. Since then, a number of other scandals have further destroyed trust in politics, including the VIP lane for covid contracts, the treachery of Nathan Gill and the appointment of Peter Mandelson.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was intimately involved with Jeffrey Epstein. We have learned in recent weeks that it is probable that their relationship was deeper and continued for much longer than we first thought. That association with one of the most despicable paedophiles in history, at the heart of the British establishment, is absolutely poisonous. The victims and survivors of Epstein’s crimes must have been retraumatised many times over the years by the complicity of those closely associated with him, who did nothing to bring his crimes to public awareness and hold him to account.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady makes a really important point about the victims of crimes perpetrated by people in the public eye. It is particularly difficult for those victims, and almost as if the trauma is repeated again and again when these things come to light in the press and the media. Does she agree that, in particular, we need to support victims of crimes of that nature?
Helen Morgan
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I cannot imagine what it must have been like to be one of those victims—one of those survivors—and to see repeatedly over the years the establishment closing ranks around those who knew Epstein and telling us that everything is okay. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that this whole process must be extremely painful for everyone involved, so the victims should be foremost in everything we do.
Daisy Cooper
One of the things that I have been struck by as we have heard more and more revelations is that it is difficult for some members of the public to keep up, and that many of them—particularly a number of women—want to turn away from what they see on their screens. Does my hon. Friend agree that what we see unfolding before our eyes is a conspiracy of silence? Horrific acts were allowed to take place in the shadows, and we are increasingly seeing that the arms of the British state protected, facilitated or colluded in horrific acts by people in power. Does she agree that this House must make the boldest statement it can that we will not rest until we have turned over every single stone?
Helen Morgan
My hon. Friend puts it better than I could; she is entirely right. We have seen complicity by people at the heart of the British establishment—we are in the right place to hold them to account—and the international establishment. Either they turned a blind eye to Jeffrey Epstein’s acts, or they were possibly implicated in them—we do not know for sure yet. But those who turned a blind eye must have known what was going on. It is not normal for an older businessman to be surrounded by young teenagers all the time and to receive massages from them—as we know, there were all sorts of other terrible acts. People thought that was somehow normal, acceptable or even admirable. We heard Donald Trump say that some of those girls were “on the younger side”, as if that were something to be applauded. It is appalling. Those people must have known, and if they chose not to look, they are part of the problem.
The decades-long cover-up must have compounded the trauma suffered by those women, who were children at the time. We must put the victims first and allow the police investigations to go ahead, but we need to look at the wider elements of the scandal too.
Layla Moran
Does my hon. Friend share my worry that human trafficking, of which those women were victims, is not currently subject to a police inquiry? It is absolutely right that the police will make their own decisions, but does she agree that the Government must ensure that they have the necessary resourcing so that, if they want to go down that rabbit hole—I urge them to do so actively—they are not stymied by a lack of resources?
Chris Bryant
I urge hon. Members not to speculate on what the police might or might not be investigating.
Helen Morgan
I thank the Minister for that reminder.
I have been astounded by the brilliance of the British media and the journalists who have sifted through thousands and thousands of documents from the Epstein files and, within a really short period, have uncovered a scandal that has rocked the British establishment to its heart, and that has got everybody in this place acting to try to uncover the appalling rot at the heart of the Epstein circle. Yet other jurisdictions have been sitting on those thousands of documents, potentially for decades, and have apparently had no curiosity whatever. That in itself speaks volumes.
The Polish Government have launched an investigation into Epstein’s links with Russia. His links with Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor must be causing enormous concern in the light of that development. It is therefore right that we seek transparency about the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to this role. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) said, this is not about one mistake that led to an individual being in an inappropriate position; it is about the fact that the entire establishment failed to exercise curiosity and undertake due diligence. People put aside what accountants call professional scepticism and carried on with the appointment regardless because an entitled person needed a role.
I am pleased that the Government have agreed to comply with the requests in the Humble Address by publishing the documents. That is really important, because the public need transparency. They need to understand quickly what happened and, crucially, what can be done in the future to prevent such an appointment from being made again. Their trust needs to be restored, including in this place. We need to show that we care enough to hold powerful people to account and ensure that we are always improving public life, not slipping backwards.
The Humble Address seeks answers about how a man with such a questionable reputation came to be appointed to represent the British state, but this debate has highlighted the impenetrable networks of privilege that for decades protected a paedophile and those who surrounded him, possibly for their own gain, and who totally disregarded the victims of his crimes and the wider public, to whom they were apparently indifferent.
When the Government came to power, they promised to clean up British politics, and they have a real opportunity to demonstrate that they are serious about that mission. I hope that they take the opportunity and do the job properly.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
By any measure, this past week has been an extraordinary one in British public life. Within five days, two people have been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office: one a former member of the royal family, and the other a veteran Labour politician who we now understand to be the man who championed the first’s appointment to his public role.
This motion is not an attempt to prejudice a police investigation. We are clear that we must let the police do their work. That investigation must proceed on its own terms, free from political interference.
Criminal law and parliamentary accountability are not the same thing, and they have never been mutually exclusive. Parliament has its own duty to scrutinise public appointments, to follow public money, and to ensure that the institutions of state are answerable to the people they serve. That duty did not disappear when Thames Valley police opened their case files, so let us ask the question that this House should have been asking for years: how did Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor come to be appointed as Britain’s special representative for international trade and investment in 2001, and what did those responsible for that appointment know?
Here is what we do know. The appointment was, by multiple accounts, controversial from the start. Concerns were raised within Government, within the Foreign Office and, reportedly, within the royal family itself, yet he was appointed. For a decade he travelled the globe on the public purse, meeting Heads of State and billionaires, on expenses described by former officials as lavish and poorly scrutinised. He was effectively given a rubber stamp. All the while, his relationship with Epstein deepened—a relationship that the Epstein files now suggest may have been entangled with his official duties in ways that potentially breach both his duty of confidentiality and even the Official Secrets Act.
The documents that might answer those questions should by now be in the national archives under the 20-year rule, but they are not. Every available exemption has been deployed to keep them sealed—national security, international relations, and more. Some, we are told, have been locked away until 2065, and most of us in the Chamber will not be here to read them if they are. As the hon. Members for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) and for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry)—she is no longer in her place—have said, the historian Andrew Lownie has spent years attempting to access those files through the proper channels. When asked what he made of that, he said simply:
“Every single reason has been deployed to stop those papers getting out…You have to ask why”.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are asking why.
Some may ask why, if Parliament has had the tools to scrutinise this issue through a substantive motion, it is happening only now. That is a fair question. No party in over a decade successfully used the parliamentary mechanisms available to force this issue properly. That is not because the rules prevented it; it is because the cultural gravitational pull of deference was so strong that to too many people the sustained rigorous scrutiny of a public figure who happened to be a member of the royal family felt simply not the done thing. The unwritten convention was as powerful, if not more powerful, than the written rule. That is not a procedural failure; it is a failure of political culture, and it is precisely that culture that the motion challenges today.
I came to this place with a background in science, and in any field of systemic inquiry there is an important principle: we cannot correct a failure that we refuse to examine. Institutional failures do not disappear when we look away from them; they compound. The question of how Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor came to be appointed, against objections reportedly raised from multiple directions, and how he was then allowed to operate for a decade with expenses rubber-stamped and minimal oversight, is not ancient history. It is the context in which every subsequent failure of public appointment standards must be understood.
Beyond this motion the Liberal Democrats are calling for structural reforms that match the scale of what has been revealed so far. We want a genuinely independent ethics adviser who is able to initiate investigations, not to have to wait for permission from the Ministers they are supposed to scrutinise. We want an office of the whistleblower, with real legal protections, so that the civil servant who was overruled when they tried to question an expenses claim has somewhere to go. We want a rigorous, transparent confirmatory process for all significant public appointments, with proper parliamentary involvement from the outset, not as an afterthought, and not after the damage has already been done. We want an end to government by WhatsApp, with all official business on the record, all lobbying published, and no more deals done in the dark.
Deference is not respect, silence is not discretion, and secrecy in public life is not safety—it is the condition under which misconduct flourishes. The documents we are asking for should have been in the public domain years ago. This House has the power and responsibility to require their release, and it should do so today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Luke Taylor—I know you are in a lot of pain.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. You will have to forgive me for dancing around to aid my pained back.
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
That quote from 1887 is of the British historian Lord Acton, and its explains how power in its most essential form inevitably corrupts. Today we are discussing how that absolute power, that feeling of invincibility, has led to the behaviour that Members across the Chamber are all so utterly disgusted by.
I speak on behalf of all residents who have been in touch with me over the last few weeks, whether they are a republican, a monarchist or ambivalent to the general principle. We see a scandal that is not just engulfing Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, but dragging in the integrity of the wider royal family. As was said correctly by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), we must ask who knew what and when. What was known about the £12 million that was paid out to Virginia Giuffre in 2022, and how was that allowed to be used to settle a civil suit concerning allegations of Andrew’s alleged offences? How was that allowed to happen in the first place?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) has said, we have seen one friend of Epstein lobbying for a job for another friend of Epstein, and a 12-year relationship that benefited them both financially, which has resulted in two arrests for misconduct in public office. This Humble Address refers to how that began, and it is absolutely the right place to start. As a politician, trying to convince the public that we are here to serve and represent them, that the conspiracies they read in the darker reaches of the internet are nonsense, and that there is no elite paedophile ring that runs the world’s institutions becomes increasingly difficult when we see links in the files that go directly from the Kremlin to the White House and everywhere in between, including the British royal family.
We talk about standards in public life and integrity, but that is difficult to maintain if such things are known about and the information in the files is understood by the public but we are then unable to scrutinise it or to bring people to this place to ask questions about what has happened. As discussed, the Humble Address covers quite a narrow set of papers about Andrew’s appointment as the special representative for UK trade and industry. However, we have also discussed the parliamentary gymnastics required to get a discussion in the Chamber about the outrageous misdeeds allegedly conducted by that man. We have to call out those parliamentary gymnastics as an outrageous impediment to our performing our job as MPs and we need to dispel them from this place entirely.
We have talked about the implications of Andrew’s position in the line of succession. When the photos of him walking in New York with Jeffrey Epstein were taken in 2011, he was fourth in line to the throne. When that scandal was occurring, he was very close to the throne—it is disgusting. Will the Minister give us an update on legislation that the Government might bring forward to remove Andrew from the line of succession? Andrew is eighth in line now, meaning his position may not be such a worry, but the principle of his being in the line of succession to become our Head of State is obnoxious in the extreme, so I would like to hear an update from the Minister about that.
Layla Moran
People understand that we have a living, breathing, constitutional democracy that grows as society better understands things. If the King does not want Andrew to be a prince, it makes no sense that we still have to bring in legislation to strip him of his dukedom and his earldoms, or that he remains in the line of succession and could potentially be King. There are plenty of other things that we need to be getting on with, but there is a certain logic in this instance that just needs tidying up, if nothing else.
Luke Taylor
I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
I thank the Minister for his early acknowledgment of support for the Humble Address. He has engaged constructively with comments about its scope and exactly what it says. I thank him for his supportive attitude, as there has been across the Chamber.
To return to the point about negative privilege and the fact that we cannot speak freely and have had to use a gymnastic approach to get to the point where we are today, I have submitted a number of requests for urgent questions to the Speaker’s office, which completely understandably has not managed to justify a discussion of the scandal as it has unfolded. By necessity, we have had to phrase the motion as an examination of the prince’s arrangements and his use of property, and there have been all sorts of confusing attempts not to discuss certain matters, which, as has been mentioned, have precluded us from doing so.
Chris Bryant
I hate to add to the hon. Gentleman’s anguish, but there is a convention in the House that we do not refer to requests for urgent questions that have been made to the Speaker.
Luke Taylor
I apologise for breaking that convention, but it is a useful demonstration that, however right the Speaker is in acting with such utter wisdom that we will never question, it remains a challenge to raise issues like this one in the Chamber.
During the debate, Liberal Democrat Members have been clear that we have to have a full statutory inquiry into the whole Epstein affair and the tentacles that it has inserted into our public life. We must allow the criminal investigations to be completed, but the inquiry must be able to compel witnesses to appear, require them to give evidence under oath, and produce documents and other evidence. The inquiry must be used to punish those who have been complicit and have been involved in the heinous crimes we have heard about in the media. To echo the comments made by other hon. Members, the media and journalists have done incredible work investigating the crimes and poring over the files, and their effort cannot be overstated.
To conclude, we have to ensure that the events that have transpired over the last 20 or 30 years as part of the Epstein scandal can never be repeated. The investigation must allow us to fireproof our constitution from similar events ever happening again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I was going to call Olly Glover, but I was not sure whether the Minister would want to do that, given his earlier intervention.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
This motion is first and foremost about the victims of the appalling crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his many associates, as well as the importance of protecting people from abuse of power. It also has significant implications for wider political culture.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) articulately outlined, this and previous Governments have been wracked by scandal of many kinds, and the whole Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor affair adds to that by making a very significant contribution to the already severe erosion of trust in our politics and institutions. That is why we are calling for a public inquiry into all aspects of UK and British citizen involvement with Jeffrey Epstein over many years. The inquiry would of course take account of police and criminal investigations, disclosure and the publication of relevant documents, but we must go further.
Daisy Cooper
Many people are talking about the different elements that could be examined during an inquiry, but I have heard some people say that an inquiry could become too big and take too long. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is precedent in this country for having public inquiries in two or more parts? The Government and Government Ministers, who I hope are listening, should consider that structure, so that issues that need to be considered urgently could be looked at sooner rather than later.
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend makes a practical proposal for how an inquiry could be conducted efficiently with appropriate prioritisation, so that the most urgent matters get looked at, rather than being bogged down in something that would take much longer.
We must go further. We must toughen the penalties for breaching the ministerial code. We must create an office of the whistleblower to protect, empower and encourage people with valuable information to come forward and to speak up. I support Liberal Democrat calls for an end to negative privilege protections that have prevented criticism of individuals in the royal family in this House, for the reasons set out during the debate.
Helen Morgan
As I have listened to this excellent debate, it has struck me that our establishment depends on the people at its heart being nice, trusted, good sorts who will not step out of line, and we do not have mechanisms in place to challenge when that turns out not to be the case. Does my hon. Friend agree it is important to have an office of the whistleblower, and to have other statutory bodies that put a code in place regarding our behaviour in this place and in wider public life, because such bodies will mean that we will not just rely on people being “good blokes”?
Olly Glover
I agree that far too much in British political and wider culture relies on taking things on trust and assuming that good motives and good intentions will win the day. Very sadly, the whole Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor affair shows that we cannot necessarily rely on that and that we need strong processes, procedures and protocols to make sure that we have the highest standards in public life.
We all hope that the necessary changes to prevent a repeat of the whole Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor affair, which is an abomination, and the wider Epstein disgrace can be made within the structures of our current system of constitutional monarchy. Should that prove not to be the case, then we risk calls for a change to our constitutional arrangements growing louder and more compelling.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Before we turn to the wider implications of the debate, it is important to acknowledge why the Liberal Democrats are pressing for full transparency today. Serious allegations have been raised about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s conduct during his time as the UK’s trade envoy, including reports that he claimed taxpayer-funded expenses for so-called “massage services” and other inappropriate costs. Former senior officials have described a culture of deference, in which such claims were barely questioned, expenses were rubber-stamped and scrutiny was effectively absent.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
We rightly say that no one in the country is above the law, and recent weeks have reinforced that principle. Surely it must also be true that no one is above our democracy. Does my hon. Friend think that the Government should consider bringing the royal household within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to strengthen confidence in our institutions?
Ben Maguire
I thank my hon. Friend for making that powerful point. That is a really important consideration; I hope that the Minister listened and can respond to it.
These concerns naturally lead to further questions. What did those around Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor know? What did police protection officers, civil servants and officials who accompanied him, travelled with him and were present during official duties observe? What did they record? What did they raise? Crucially, what was dismissed and what was ignored? These are not trivial matters; they speak directly to how an individual in public office was able to behave in ways that would never be tolerated from anyone else and how the institutions around him seemingly completely failed to act.
Luke Taylor
Does the point about what the protection officers knew not show the outrageous power imbalance between a royal and an employee? We are talking about whistleblowing and reporting what has been seen. Is the prospect of having somebody in that situation—whereby they are being held to account for not calling out the behaviour of someone whose privilege and birthright have put them into such a position—not outrageous? Does my hon. Friend agree that this shows how the structure of our constitution has put us into such an outrageous twist and how difficult it will be to unwind that?
Ben Maguire
I completely agree. I suspect that this is just a small start, and that this issue goes much, much wider. I imagine that there is much more information to come.
As the House turns its attention to the matter of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, I want to use this moment to refocus our minds on those who have been most consistently forgotten throughout all this: the victims and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and the justice they have been denied for far too many years. It is only because of their bravery in coming forward that we know the true extent of Epstein’s crimes and the deeply troubling implications that those crimes hold for our own establishment.
When we talk of these survivors, we must confront an uncomfortable truth: many UK victims are simply too afraid to come forward right now. Their fear is well documented in UK reporting, which describes a
“greater sense of fear and reticence”
among British survivors: a fear of stigma, of being disbelieved and of the powerful networks that have long silenced these women and girls. Yet abuse did happen here in the UK. Epstein carried out wrongdoing during extensive and repeated trips to London. These were not distant or abstract harms; they took place here on UK soil, under UK jurisdiction, and they demand a UK-led response.
Instead of justice here at home, victims were effectively steered, and are still steered, into the US justice system. They are told to seek redress through the Epstein victims’ compensation programme—a fund that ultimately paid $120 million to around 135 survivors, and did so more quickly and confidentially than litigation could. That programme has been open internationally, and victims here in Britain could apply without needing a lawyer, making it less costly and traumatic, but what does it say about our own UK justice system when British victims who were abused here, on British soil, are left seeking justice 4,000 miles away? We are asking traumatised people to navigate foreign bureaucracies because we in the United Kingdom have nothing equivalent to offer them.
What does it say that less than a handful of UK victims even approached a solicitor? That is not because abuse did not happen—we know that it did—but because the absence of any UK prosecution meant that they did not feel empowered to speak. We can draw a stark contrast between figures such as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson, who have allegedly enriched themselves through their associations, and the survivors, who were left fighting for justice.
The Epstein files reveal a powerful network of wealthy people colluding with Epstein, using their privilege to silence and dismiss survivors—a pattern that has been highlighted by the End Violence Against Women coalition. The files expose how powerful men evade consequences while their victims struggle even to be heard, reinforcing the very fear that continues to keep British survivors in the shadows. Surely the role of this House and of any democratic institution worth its name is not simply to reinforce that silence, but to finally break it. That is why we call clearly and firmly today for the UK to open criminal prosecution and survivor-led inquiries into London-based offences.
These alleged crimes fall squarely in the UK’s jurisdiction. The nationality of offenders and victims is irrelevant; what matters is that the harms occurred here, and those harms deserve justice here. Justice for British victims must not be outsourced abroad. Justice must not be dependent on the bravery of a handful who are willing to defy enormous pressure. Justice must not be conditional on navigating a foreign compensation scheme; it should be delivered transparently, confidently and compassionately here in Britain.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that having a public inquiry would be a very public way for the British authorities and the state to show survivors that they have been the victim of some heinous crimes and to give them more confidence to come forward? We know that survivors of all kinds of sexual abuse and rape across this country—whether they are part of some big scandal, such as those of Mohamed Al-Fayed or Epstein, or something much more local and individual—are being retraumatised again and again by seeing this matter splashed across the front pages of the papers and all over the media, day after day. We have to make a stand and say, “Enough. We will not tolerate this in this country.” We have to stand up to these powerful men who silence their victims and ensure that they have to fight for justice every step of the way.
Ben Maguire
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention; I could not agree more. We very much need a public inquiry to expose all the harms done to the victims and how the establishment in our country has seemingly played such a central role in that.
If our Government are sincere when they speak of a fairer, safer and more accountable society, they must show leadership rather than continued deference. They must show survivors that they will be believed, protected and heard in the UK. At the heart of this matter are not titles, reputations or institutions, but people—survivors, whose lives, like the victims of domestic abuse, have been shaped by fear, silence and power wielded against them, rather than for them. They deserve far better; they deserve a justice system that will fight for them.
Now is the time for immediate action. Will the Minister please consider not redacting any of the documents that do not relate to the ongoing police investigation? As my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) suggested, will the Government look at a full public inquiry into Epstein and his links to the British establishment? Finally, will the Minister go away and look to end the appalling negative privilege that prevents MPs in this House from speaking freely about members of the royal household?
This matter is a disgusting symptom of the deference that we have shown to those in positions of power at the cost of victims. Our constituents should no longer be silenced in what should be our proud British democracy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
We have had an extremely powerful debate. I will address a number of the points raised, but I want to start by talking about how the revelations of recent weeks and months have been shattering for the British public and deeply, deeply distressing for many of those directly impacted.
We have listened to the gut-wrenching stories of abuse endured by vulnerable women and girls. We were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) that we are, in many cases, talking about children. We have learned of the arrogance and cruelty of rich, powerful men who felt that no rules applied to them and who made a mockery of our values and laws. We have seen laid bare the hollowness of a political establishment that was manipulated so easily and that treated state secrets like cheap gossip.
Public trust has been catastrophically undermined by the Epstein saga, and we are now at a crossroads in our public life. If Parliament does not act with courage, faith in our institutions will suffer even more permanent harm, and they will remain under intense public suspicion and unease. To start to repair the damage, we must uncover the full and unvarnished truth. Critical to that process is demanding that every relevant Department comes clean and shares what was known about Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment as special representative for trade and investment. What concerns were raised ahead of his appointment, did his suitability come into question, and what risks were identified throughout that process? The British people deserve to know what behaviour was tolerated, and by whom.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
On that point, I have been contacted by a constituent who played a public role in the middle east. They said that during their time in that role, they had to go through incredible checks—background checks and so on. Does my hon. Friend agree that the release of these files would enable us to see whether the same background checks that are applied to citizens like us in public life are applied to the royal family?
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, and to her constituent who has contacted her about that important point. My view, and the view of the Liberal Democrats, is that we should get to the bottom of how this role was created and the vetting that was done before the appointment, in order to understand the extent—or lack of extent—of that vetting. If somebody is being paid from the public purse, they should be held to an extremely high standard and there should be transparency about their role and the creation of that role, so I very much agree with my hon. Friend.
The public deserve to know whether sections of their Government at the time put in place systems to shield Mountbatten-Windsor from accountability, even at a cost to the national interest. Of course the police must undertake their work unimpeded, and of course anybody who has committed a crime should face justice if they are found to have committed that crime, but a police investigation—no matter what prosecution it leads to—is not enough. It is essential for the strength of our constitution and our social fabric that we go further and clean up the broken system that facilitated this scandal in the first place.
Daisy Cooper
One point that has been raised this afternoon is that even while the police go ahead with their investigations, there is still a job for this House to do. It strikes me that some of the most basic principles that we assume when we come to this place are being questioned. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is worth restating, for the record and for the public, that there are certain principles in public life that we have to make sure remain in place, as this case highlights? No one is above the law; taxpayers’ money and public office must be used for the public interest, not for private gain; Parliament has not just the right, but the duty, to hold the powerful to account and pursue all means of transparency; and ultimately, all powerful people must face a reckoning if they were involved in this scandal.
Lisa Smart
I wholly agree with my hon. Friend, who has made a number of powerful interventions throughout this debate. This whole sorry saga repeatedly brings up arrogant, greedy men—mostly men—who have sought to enrich themselves further and increase their power.
Luke Taylor
I hope this intervention adds to my hon. Friend’s point. Does she find it ironic that the only person who has been imprisoned as part of the Epstein scandal is a woman?
Lisa Smart
My hon. Friend is not the only person to refer to structural sexism in this debate. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) made an extremely powerful speech about how, should we choose to do so as a Parliament, we could embed looking at sexism—at violence against women and girls—in our policymaking and our thinking in a way that would benefit the whole of society. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for raising the point that there remain many people who the hand of justice is yet to seek out with the full vigour it should.
We should be pulling back the curtain on Andrew’s use of the special envoy role and the whole system around him, on the power he had in an official, state-sanctioned position, and on the many missed opportunities for scrutiny and accountability, not least in this place. A number of Members from both sides of the House have talked about the importance of pace and speed; the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) made a very good point about making sure we get on with some of this work, which he also raised yesterday with the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister; and the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), reminded us that the wheels of justice often grind slowly. My deputy leader and hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) presented some practical solutions for how we can make sure progress continues at pace, so that one thing does not hold up another, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), reminded us that police involvement in this matter should not unduly delay the whole process. Of course, it is vital that the police should be free to do their job and do it well, but that should not unduly hold up the release of the information we are seeking.
We Liberal Democrats very much welcome support from across the Chamber for our motion, including from Members on the Treasury Bench. When the Minister winds up in a few moments, I would be grateful if he confirmed—like when the Government responded to the previous Humble Address that we discussed in this place—that any information will be released when it is available, only holding back that information that is directly relevant to a police investigation.
Daisy Cooper
A few moments ago, my hon. Friend referred to a comment that I made earlier in the debate. I am mindful that the Minister was not in his place at the time, so I wonder whether I could be indulged. [Interruption.] No, it was a separate point that I made later, when the Minister was out of the room for a second. Because there are so many things that could be examined during a public inquiry, I wondered whether Ministers would consider having an inquiry made up of two, three or more parts, given that there is precedent for such a thing. Might that be an answer, to ensure that some things that need to be examined earlier are not delayed too long? With the Minister now in his place, does my hon. Friend agree that we might hear from him on that point when he winds up?
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us all of that insightful comment. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches have been fizzing with ideas. We have a real opportunity to improve our processes and our systems, and if the bravery of the women who have come forward to talk about their horrific abuse and their experience can reach its full potential, it is by improving the system so that things like this do not just keep happening.
A number of colleagues on both sides of the House have talked about a conspiracy of silence and the role of deference—the leader of Plaid Cymru, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), used the word “sycophancy”, and I think she was absolutely right to do so. This has come from the whole establishment over several decades. A number of colleagues have talked about the role of journalists, which was a really interesting point. Some have talked about those who can be rightly proud of the role they have played in increasing transparency, accountability and the public’s understanding, but the Minister was also absolutely right to talk about some of the people who minimised child abuse and statutory rape, whose comments have not aged well, and who should reflect on some of what was said at the time.
This afternoon, we have also spoken about our own procedures in this place. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam used the phrase “parliamentary gymnastics”—that is not a phrase I am going to spend too long thinking about. We have spoken about the role of some of our predecessors—Paul Flynn has been talked about a lot—and about negative privilege not really being fit for purpose in this day and age. We need processes and procedures that enable us to do our job. We should be holding the powerful to account, and there should be power within Parliament to allow us to do so and to scrutinise decisions before they are made, as well as afterwards.
Helen Morgan
The scandal surrounding Jeffrey Epstein is reminiscent of other, similar scandals—perhaps not on the same scale, but certainly of a similar magnitude in terms of their impact on the victims. The one that comes to mind is the Jimmy Savile scandal, where people who knew what was going on did not feel able to speak up and break that conspiracy of silence, so victims did not feel able to come forward either. Does my hon. Friend agree that by embracing this opportunity to change the way we do things in Parliament, we can create a culture where people do feel empowered to come forward and break that conspiracy of silence, and where people who have observed things that they knew they should have reported do not feel constrained in their ability to report them, to ensure these terrible scandals do not happen in the future?
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention; she made a number of very good points this afternoon reminding us of previous scandals and the importance of ensuring that we learn from them.
In the Peter Mandelson debate a few weeks ago, in which I sat in the same place, I think it was the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) who talked about shame needing to change sides. That alludes to some of the cultural changes that we need to bring about. We as parliamentarians have a leading role to play in bringing about the cultural changes that we need to see. Anybody who is a victim or survivor must know that the stigma is not with them but with the perpetrators, and anybody who turns a blind eye should know that the stigma is with them for doing so.
Nobody should be above the law, and nobody in public office or in receipt of public funds should be out of the reach of parliamentary scrutiny.
Layla Moran
I am reminded of the debate brought forward by the Conservatives on Lord Mandelson and the proverbial parliamentary knickers-twisting that had to happen to work out that the way to deal with the issue of the intelligence services was indeed to allow the Intelligence and Security Committee to look at the papers. Is it not the case that we have the mechanisms in this place to scrutinise most things, but when it comes to the royal family we do not? Even if a Select Committee wants to do something on these matters, we self-censor with our own conventions that we apply to ourselves. Only we can change that. I am curious to know what the Government are going to do and whether there is a mechanism by which we change those conventions, because they are clearly the nub of the issue when it comes to parliamentary scrutiny.
Lisa Smart
Nobody should be above the law, and nobody should be above scrutiny. When good people get together, there is a willingness to embrace creativity and the nerdery of parliamentary procedures so that we can find a way to get to the truth that we need to get to.
Trust in our politics is vital, and trust in our institutions is further eroded every time we have one of these debates. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) talked about the impact on the reputation of this House and the vital role of trust in politics. There are too many people involved in politics for whom a lack of trust in politics is really useful. The stoking of division and mistrust means that there is space for voices that, in my view, are not welcome and we should reject. It is in all our interests and the whole country’s interest for there to be trust in our institutions and our political set-up.
During the debate we have been reminded of the need for proper processes to be in place. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) reminded us, not everybody can be relied on to be a good bloke. Many of our systems are based on gentlemen’s agreements and just expecting people to be a good bloke—and as has been repeatedly proven, it is simply not the case that people will be.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
In serving for a number of years as a senior civil servant, I experienced in Whitehall the impression that the monarchy should be protected and that nothing should be done to embarrass the royal family. I hope the materials we are seeking the release of through today’s Humble Address will ensure that we can scrutinise whether civil servants’ ability to check whether Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was an appropriate person to be a trade envoy was impeded, and will shed light on the relationship that should exist between Whitehall and the monarchy in the future.
Lisa Smart
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We have seen some press reports about civil servants who were doing their job and absolutely rightly questioning some of the expenses that were being put through, but they were overruled. That clearly is not good enough and not acceptable, and it is not what we should expect from our institutions and establishment. I completely agree about the importance of being clear about what we expect when somebody takes on a public role at cost to the taxpayer.
We should have very high standards. We should, as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, talk about how we can ensure that those with power are held to account. She was entirely right in the points she made about what we do with this information, where we go with it and how we build from here.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) made a really strong speech in which he gave very constructive suggestions to the Minister of measures that we Liberal Democrats would support in bringing about change to the system.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
My hon. Friend will be aware that we are in the week of St David’s day, which is a terribly important day for all of us in Wales. In terms of accountability, she will be very aware of the long-standing stance that the Liberal Democrats have taken on the Crown Estate, which in Wales regrettably still has not been devolved. Its powers and funding have been devolved to Scotland, but not—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Can I just check whether the Member has been here for a while or just arrived? Members should not be intervening after traipsing in during a speech. I will allow Ms Smart to continue.
Lisa Smart
I will stick more within the tramlines of the debate that we have all enjoyed today, though I think devolution is a very good thing of which there should be more.
Parliament is calling today for transparency. The public deserve answers, not further silence. Cleaning up public life means acting quickly, openly and honestly. This goes to heart of public trust. Sadly, what we are talking about today is ultimately not an isolated incident. There has been a drumbeat of scandals. We have had mention of partygate, and in other debates recently we have talked about Nathan Gill’s treachery. Peter Mandelson has also been mentioned. All those things further shatter trust in our politics. It is obvious that the current system is broken, so it is beholden on all of us to take action. We need to clear out the rot, and we will keep pushing until corrupt and criminal behaviour is stamped out and the muck is cleared out of our democracy.
We are campaigning for a public inquiry into Epstein and his relationship with the British establishment. A number of contributors this afternoon referenced the Polish Government’s investigation into Russian links with Epstein, and it will be very interesting to see what that investigation turns up. The Humble Address is very clear that we want the publishing of all the relevant documents relating to the appointment as a special representative for trade and industry. We should see an end to negative privilege. MPs should be able to speak freely in this place about concerns that they have and disclose information in this place, even if the individual in the public post is a member of the royal household.
We should go further: we should have criminal sanctions for public figures who fail to whistleblow. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) talked about the importance of having an office of the whistleblower. We should have new legal protections for whistleblowers and a dedicated office of the whistleblower.
Daisy Cooper
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. It has been a Liberal Democrat policy for a very long time to have an office of the whistleblower, and we very much hope that the Government take up that proposal. We have tried a number of times to introduce it through pieces of legislation in the other House in this Session.
There will be people at home listening to this debate who themselves may have information and want to volunteer it but do not know how to—they do not know whether to write to their MPs or whether there is a formal way in which they can bring the information forward. We have heard examples this afternoon from some speakers about information that they have heard or about intelligence officials who knew something. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has any thoughts on that and whether we might hear from the Minister what the Government’s message is to those people about who they should contact.
Lisa Smart
My hon. Friend is entirely right that a public inquiry is the best way to bring to light a number of the issues that we are talking about today. It is increasingly clear that there are people who were silent when they should have been loud. There are people who knew things who did not share them, and there are people in our country today who will know information that could usefully contribute to getting to the bottom of what happened—who knew what and when and, importantly, how we can stop this from continuing to happen in our system.
My hon. Friend is right to encourage anybody out with information to come forward and contribute. Today we have heard from colleagues who have worked internationally in different roles, and that is just the sample of Members who have been in the Chamber today; there will be countless people across the country who may have information, and she is entirely right to encourage them to come forward.
The people who have led to us being here today are the victims and survivors of Epstein and his cronies. My hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset talked about structural sexism and how people were not listened to, and other colleagues have referred to how victims and survivors were often not believed or, importantly, thought that they would not be believed. That stops us getting to the bottom of things like this.
Anna Sabine
On the point about structural sexism, it is not so much about the fact that people should be listened to, although that is absolutely right; it is more about the fact that we have a problem at the moment, particularly where there is a small group of leading figures in Government, who tend to be men. If we do not have women in those places and spaces, a lot of these issues do not get picked up or treated in the way in which they might do if there were women in the room. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is good to see that the Prime Minister currently has some chiefs of staff who are women and that we would be pleased to see more women in key advisory roles, not simply as Ministers and Secretaries of State?
Lisa Smart
My hon. Friend is entirely right to make that point. The tone of some of the briefings about Ministers and Secretaries of State is notably different when it is a woman who holds office, and all the evidence shows that the best decisions are made by balanced teams that draw on a broad range of experiences. If everybody went to the same school or had the same experience, those teams will be missing an awful lot. My hon. Friend is entirely right to talk about elected Members and Ministers, but also about the officials who are working with them, advising them and supporting them. That is an extremely well-made point. Only when we have elected as many mediocre women to this place as we have mediocre men will we have achieved equality. [Laughter.]
But it should not have taken the bravery of victims in speaking up about their experience and seeking justice over years for Epstein’s cycle of cruelty and criminality to finally be interrupted. Where would we be if victims of Epstein, like Virginia Giuffre, had never come forward and if the right photograph had not been taken at the right time? We are left to wonder if Andrew might easily have remained a special representative today, operating without proper scrutiny and continually disgracing his office.
Once again, we urge the Government to commit to a statutory inquiry into Epstein’s links to our establishment, including Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, so that we can develop a full understanding of how it served him, what networks were formed that facilitated a prolific paedophile, and how widespread the complicity goes. Crucially, an inquiry can point us to what must change to protect people in the future. I also urge the Government and Members present to bring any further vital information to light right now, to ensure that there is no delay to essential scrutiny and transparency.
Andrew’s role as an envoy and the engagements he undertook were determined by those at the very highest levels of political power, including in the Downing Street of the time, and it is increasingly clear that he was protected, even while he betrayed public trust in his position as a special representative. He was protected by outdated rules that forbid Members of this place from raising concerns about any member of the royal household in most debates in Parliament. I fear that he was protected by powerful friends and allies repeatedly, and by a number of people failing to raise the alarm.
Today we can start to set that right. If we really believe that nobody is above the law, it must surely follow that no appointment is above scrutiny, that no one’s abuse of their public office should be hidden from the public gaze, and that no truth is too uncomfortable to come into the disinfectant of daylight.
Chris Bryant
I spoke earlier, so I need to be sure that the House is happy for me to speak again. I am not going to speak at great length. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I have united the House twice today. That is a great comfort to me.
First of all, may I commend the Liberal Democrats on the debate that they have held and on bringing this issue to us? Members on both sides of the House have made very powerful speeches, including my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and the hon. Members for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara), for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). I appreciate that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), is not able to be here; he sent me a kind note to explain why.
As I said right at the beginning of my opening speech, it is the Government’s intention to comply with the motion as soon as is practicable and possible within the law. As I have said from the beginning, my only caveat is that my Department and the whole of Government will work towards maximum transparency and timeliness, but I have to say that where documents may speak materially to the offence of misconduct in public office or any other offence that may be considered by the police, we will have to follow the advice of the prosecuting authorities. I do not think anybody disagrees with that. It is a different point from some of the other points that have been raised in relation to other humble addresses, but I think it is an important one.
I hear the calls that have been made by several hon. Members for a public inquiry. One of the other things in which I was engaged in 2011 was a big row about phone hacking at the News of the World, and we demanded a public inquiry. We ended up with a two-part public inquiry, and the second part was not going to happen until the police had completed their investigations. Of course, it never happened, because so much time had elapsed, so I am somewhat cautious about seeking multi-part public inquiries in relation to this issue. I want the police to be able to do their work as effectively as possible.
I will issue another word of caution. I was in the House when Members, understandably, used their privilege to talk about Sir Leon Brittan. It turned out that many of the things that were said at the time were completely and utterly untrue, and people had been misled by somebody. We always have to be cautious about the way we use our privilege in this House, and I will come on to the bigger point about what others have referred to as “negative privilege” in a moment.
We are very keen to work with the prosecuting authorities as fast as possible, but the timetable for that is set by them, not us. We want them to do their job without fear or favour. The one message that we have sent today to the whole of society is that the prosecuting authorities must proceed without fear or favour. Nobody is above the law.
Rachael Maskell
I am really grateful to the Minister for what he has said. Although the prosecuting authorities will clear up the criminal matters, the implications go way beyond that. What thought has the Minister given to how they are dealt with—for instance, the closing of the loopholes around our airports, access into the country, visas, and obviously the privileges held within decision making at the heart of Government?
Chris Bryant
I hear the points that my hon. Friend makes, and of course I sympathise with them. However, it is remarkably difficult to disentangle some of those from possible offences on which prosecutions may be brought, so I am somewhat cautious in this area, as she will hear. She will know that I can sometimes be as vociferous as her on these issues, but at this particular moment I want to be cautious.
I want to talk about the issue of negative privilege, which several Members have mentioned. I fully understand the point, which I myself made back in 2011, when I had a bit of a row with Speaker Bercow about it. I fully understand the point that Members have made, and I do not think we should have excessive deference. Of course, it is a matter for the House, for Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, and for the Procedure Committee and others, whether we want to change the accepted conventions of the House. It is a Back-Bench Committee, and if Members want to take such issues to the Procedure Committee, they should do so.
However, I do not think we should overstate the case, because if at any point any of the political parties had wanted to bring a substantive motion to the House, whether in opposition or in government, anybody would have been able to do so, but the truth of the matter is that all of us chose not to. Whether that is because of deference, I cannot judge, but it is certainly true that using a substantive motion is available to us to consider such matters.
Chris Bryant
I will continue for a moment, if the hon. Members do not mind.
We do enjoy freedom of speech in this House, and it is precious. As hon. Members will know, article 8 of the Bill of Rights says that no proceeding in Parliament shall be impeached in any court of law or any other place, which means we can say things here without the threat of being prosecuted anywhere else. It is a really important and precious privilege, and one that we must guard carefully, which is why we have a sub judice rule. Mr Speaker has decided that the rule does not apply to today’s debate, because no charges have yet been brought—when the sub judice rule applies is quite specific.
I do think that we need to guard that privilege quite carefully, because we have a separation of powers. We do not think that we should have Acts of attainder, with the House deciding by a Bill that somebody is guilty of some crime or other. That is a matter for the prosecuting authorities, and the person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
I think the hon. Gentleman with a bad back wanted to intervene.
Luke Taylor
I thank the Minister—I am not sure whether I do thank him—but I want to push back gently on that, and I would be interested in his response. Does not the fact that we have had 15 years since Andrew resigned in disgrace and it did not come before Parliament demonstrate that there is such a reluctance, or is it a true misunderstanding of process that that did not come before the House for us to discuss and really get into the weeds of the matter? Does he not see that as demonstrating the need for a change in the process, or at least an acknowledgment that we need to be digging deeper into these issues?
Chris Bryant
Well, yes, and I also think that the truth of the matter is that we probably need more Paul Flynns. I have always been a bit sceptical about independent MPs, but I have always been very much in favour of independently minded MPs, who are one of the backbones that really allow Parliament to function effectively. I love the Whips—of course I love the Whips—but there is a but.
I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I really do want to finish my remarks.
Layla Moran
I hear the Minister’s scepticism about a public inquiry, but the more this debate has gone on, the more I have felt that this is an issue of culture. There are things material to how we have ended up where we are that will not meet an evidentiary threshold and have not contravened any laws, but that clearly do need changing, and what needs changing is the overall culture in our establishment itself. If we do not need a public inquiry to examine this in the round on the basis of everything we know—and I understand his arguments for why it should not be—then how do we do this?
Chris Bryant
Yes, I myself made all those arguments about phone hacking in 2011. A chunk of us had to persuade our own political party to be brave on the matter at a time when that was not easy, because the whole media were not in favour of us moving on that. The point I would make is that I think the single most important thing for a Member of Parliament is that they should feel able to speak without fear or favour.
Chris Bryant
All the Lib Dems are now trying to intervene on me, and I am trying to make a very short speech. It was meant to be five minutes, and it is now already nine minutes, so I am failing miserably. All right, I give way.
Daisy Cooper
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I want to press him on that point again. There are some specific allegations that an inquiry might want to look at, but there is the broader point about culture, which my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) mentioned. He will know very well—in the context of phone hacking, but also in looking at the culture of the Metropolitan police—that there are many examples in the not-too-distant history, or in our recent history, when an inquiry has looked separately at the culture of an institution as opposed to specific allegations and what specifically went wrong. If he is concerned about a two or three-part inquiry, with a second or third part being cancelled in the future, that simply requires a small amendment to the Inquiries Act 2005. I do think it is important to press him on the point that there is a cultural issue here, and we do want the cultural issue to be looked at.
Chris Bryant
I completely agree that there is a cultural issue that needs to be looked at. I am certainly not able to commit the Government today to a public inquiry—I think all Members accept that I am not going to do that—but I am also not entirely convinced that public inquiries actually often end up changing culture. Culture changes because we choose to. [Interruption.] I note that the Whips have a terrible case of coughing, but I want to end with a few more short points.
The first point relates to trade envoys. I want to praise the work of our present trade envoys—not just from the Labour party and not just from this House—who are helping us to win contracts around the world. They are all accountable through the Minister for Trade and the Department. I would quite like there to be more questions about trade envoys at Business and Trade questions, which are coming up in the near future.
On the Act of succession, which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam asked me about, we are working at pace on this, and we intend to bring forward legislation when we can. I cannot commit to a particular date on that, but I note that Julie Andrews, in “The Sound of Music”, sang,
“I have confidence that spring will come again”,
so I have confidence that the Act of succession will come around at pace.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam also said:
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
The cultural point I will make is that, actually, this was not about power; this was about influence. Influence can be just as pernicious in the body politic as anything else, and that is one of the things we need to address, because it can lead to corruption.
I will end with this point. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, “Let’s make sure this never happens again.” Of course, every single Member of this House would hope that we never again see the horrific abuse that happened under Jeffrey Epstein and the concatenation of different forms of abuse that were created by the complicity of people from so many different sectors—people turning a blind eye and people participating, whether because they loved wealthy people, they loved the wealthy lifestyle or whatever it may be. Of course, I would dearly love to be able to stand at this Dispatch Box and say that it will never happen again, but I would bet my bottom dollar that there will be young people today who are being abused by rich, wealthy, arrogant, entitled people, and it will continue. Yes, we must do everything in our power to make sure that deference, influence and complicity do not allow that to happen, but in the end the only recourse we have is to the court of law, to ensure that those who abuse their position of trust face the full rigour of the law.
Question put and agreed to,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House all papers relating to the creation of the role of Special Representative for Trade and Investment and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment to that role, including but not confined to any documents held by UK Trade and Investment, British Trade International (BTI) and its successors, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister’s Office containing or relating to advice from, or provided to, the Group Chief Executive of BTI, Peter Mandelson, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister regarding the suitability of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for the appointment, due diligence and vetting conducted in relation to the appointment, and minutes of meetings and electronic communications regarding the due diligence and vetting.
Online Harm: Child Protection
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 69 / Noes: 279 - Question accordingly negatived.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House makes provision as set out in this Order:
(1) On Monday 9 March 2026:
(a) Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that Order) shall not apply;
(b) any proceedings governed by this Order may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed, and shall not be interrupted;
(c) the Speaker may not propose the Question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private);
(d) at 6.00pm, the Speaker shall interrupt any business prior to the business governed by this Order and call the leader of the second largest opposition party or another Member on their behalf to move the order of the day that the Online Services (Age Restrictions) Bill be now read a second time;
(e) in respect of that Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time;
(f) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this Order may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption.
(2) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (19) of this Order shall apply to and in connection with the proceedings on the Online Services (Age Restrictions) Bill in the present Session of Parliament.
Timetable for the Bill on Monday 9 March 2026
(3) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at the sitting on Monday 9 March 2026 in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 8.00pm.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 10.00pm.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put on Monday 9 March 2026
(4) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme Order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(5) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (3), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by The Chairman or Speaker for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a designated Member;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other Questions, other than the Question on any motion described in paragraph (15) of this Order.
(7) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments and Messages on a subsequent day
(8) If on any future sitting day any Message on the Bill (other than a Message that the House of Lords agrees with the Bill without amendment or agrees with any Message from this House) is expected from the House of Lords, this House shall not adjourn until that Message has been received and any proceedings under paragraph (9) have been concluded.
(9) On any day on which such a Message is received, if a designated Member indicates to the Speaker an intention to proceed to consider that Message—
(a) notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14(1) any Lords Amendments to the Bill or any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly;
(b) proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under subparagraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed;
(c) the Speaker may not propose the Question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private) in the course of those proceedings.
(10) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme Orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion as if:
(a) any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member;
(b) after paragraph (4)(a) there is inserted—
“(aa) the question on any amendment or motion selected by the Speaker for separate decision;”.
(11) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme Orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of a Lords Message to a conclusion as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.
Reasons Committee
(12) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme Orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.
Miscellaneous
(13) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies.
(14) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a designated Member, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(15) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies except by a designated Member.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(16) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(17) No private business may be considered at any sitting to which the provisions of this Order apply.
(18) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which proceedings to which this Order applies are to take place shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(b) Standing Order 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate.
(19) In this Order, “a designated Member” means—
(a) the leader of the second largest opposition party; and
(b) any other Member acting on behalf of the leader of the second largest opposition party.
This afternoon is an opportunity for the House to come together to take urgent and meaningful action and to legislate within weeks—not months or years, but weeks—to keep our children and young people safe online, whether that is protection from harmful social media, artificial intelligence chatbots or addictive gaming. It is clear that we are at a tipping point, with widespread public and cross-party support for decisive action.
Every parent across this country knows the threat that social media poses to our children—to their mental health, to their physical health, to their sleep and to their concentration. They have written in their thousands to every single MP in this House—I want to take this opportunity to thank the 1,500 or so parents and carers in my Twickenham constituency who have written to me—and they are begging for a change in the law, so that they can better protect their children. They are not abdicating parental responsibility, as some people would like to suggest; they are pleading with the Government for help in providing the tools and safeguards that they need when faced with the might and the business models of enormous tech companies profiteering from our children’s attention.
For me, this is personal. My husband and I fight a daily battle at home with our children, aged 11 and seven, on screen time and what platforms and games they can access. Peer pressure is overwhelming for children—especially those just starting out on their secondary school journey, as my daughter recently has—who are desperate for belonging and connection. Parents are torn between wanting to ensure that our children are not left out of online spaces, which all too often we ourselves struggle to understand, and wanting to protect our children.
I believe that it is time we sent this message, loud and clear, to Musk, Zuckerberg and the other tech giants: “If your platform spreads harmful content or relies on addictive and harmful algorithms, you should not be allowed anywhere near our children.” That is why the Liberal Democrats have today introduced a Bill that would provide a range of protections for children from online harms, including the restriction of access to harmful social media.
Before I describe what we would ideally want to include in the Bill, let me emphasise that if the House were to support the motion, we would seek to work on a cross-party basis to introduce workable and effective legislation quickly, given that there is support for action across the House. This is not about one party winning or owning the issue; it is about us—as politicians, policymakers and parents—coming together to protect our children, their safety and their wellbeing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank and commend the hon. Lady for initiating the debate, and for her devotion to this subject. Does she agree that we should consider education and the role of school principals? In Northern Ireland the Education Minister, Paul Givan, has introduced a pilot scheme on phone-free schools, and I have held an event in my constituency to discuss that very issue. The aim is to prevent children from being harassed while at school, and from understanding things that they should not be understanding or doing. Does the hon. Lady agree that phone-free schools to help our children should be part of the policy and part of what the Liberal Democrats are trying to do?
Munira Wilson
It is always a pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is the first to intervene in the debate, and I entirely agree with him. I will touch on the point about phones in schools later, and I believe that we will have a chance to vote on that specific measure shortly, when the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill returns to this House.
As I have said, we want to approach this legislation in a cross-party way, but let me now turn to what the Liberal Democrats would ideally like to see in it.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making her case very personally and passionately, describing the harms to young people’s mental health that result from the predatory algorithms that the tech giants have devised to create addictive content for children. I, too, think that there is cross-party agreement on the need to look very carefully at how we protect children. Today I was on a call with members of the campaign group “36 Months”, discussing how they are approaching the issue in Australia. Does she agree, however, that the right approach is to have a full public consultation—as has been proposed—so that parents, schools and the rest of us can get this right, learning from evidence and learning from places such as Australia in order to protect our kids?
Munira Wilson
I hope the hon. Lady will not mind if I call her my hon. Friend, although we are on opposite sides of the House. I thank her for her intervention, and I take her point, which I have also heard the Government express. I agree that we need to consult, but I think we should be consulting on how we implement some of these proposals, not on whether we do or what we do, because there is clearly a general consensus. When we look at the findings of every opinion poll—certainly when it comes to such measures as banning social media for under-16s—we see overwhelming public support. There is also cross-party support in this House and, as we have seen recently, in the other place. For me, if there is a consultation, it should be about how those things are implemented and not whether we do that or which ones we implement. However, I will touch on the Government’s approach towards the end of my speech.
We Liberal Democrats would introduce a film-style classification system, with social media rated at 16 as a default, and give Ofcom the powers to back up such a framework. That echoes the film and video classification system established in the 1980s, adapting a trusted framework for the digital age. Companies would be required to age-gate their platforms based on the harmfulness of their content, the addictiveness of their design and the impact that that can have on a child’s mental health. The onus would be on social media companies to stop children getting on to their platforms and to take steps to make their apps safer in the meantime.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sympathetic to all the hon. Lady’s arguments. However, it appears that we are about to have a Second Reading debate on an as yet unpublished Bill, when the motion on the Order Paper is about whether we have a day for that Second Reading debate. I am conscious, because I have been to the Vote Office, that the Bill is not available yet. What are we debating this afternoon? If we were to vote with the hon. Lady this evening, what Bill would we be asked to look at on that future day?
Munira Wilson
It is simple. As I have said, I want us to come together in a cross-party consensus on what should be in that Bill. I have heard what the Conservatives have had to say, I am about to set out what the Liberal Democrats have to say and I am keen to hear what Ministers have to say on what should be in the Bill. We do not have a Bill yet because we think there is an opportunity to work together on this issue.
There have been suggestions that there is party politicking on this issue. I do not think it is a party political issue; I think we all agree that children’s safety and wellbeing is a cross-party priority. The idea is that we agree to move forward, come together and work cross-party on a Bill which, hopefully, we can get through Parliament very quickly and on to the statute book to start protecting our children as soon as possible.
Gareth Snell
I do not wish to make this a procedural debate, but the hon. Lady presented a Bill earlier for First Reading. We have been asked to consider that Bill for Second Reading on a future date. That Bill is not available. Although I absolutely respect her approach for a cross-party consensus to design the Bill, as I understand it the Bill is already written and we are being asked to give over Government time for that to be debated on Second Reading. Again, what are we debating today if the Bill is not available but has been written and we will not have a Second Reading debate until sometime in March?
Munira Wilson
We are debating today the principle of bringing forward legislation quickly. I know that the Government are saying that they want to bring forward legislation sometime in the future. We do not know when that is. I am trying to put a timeframe on it, because we know that what will come back shortly from the other place in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will not be accepted by this House. That is why I am trying to find an opportunity for us all to come together and get to a point that we all agree on. This is about agreeing the principle that we should have primary legislation sooner rather than later. I am happy to make time in my diary tomorrow to start those discussions.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
The hon. Lady makes a passionate case and spoke movingly about the debate in her own family and how to protect her children. I recognise that. I have two young children and I think carefully about what they look at online. I worry about when they get older and how we will deal with that.
The hon. Lady talks about age-gating as the principle on which she wants to work, but I am concerned. We know that the algorithms are addictive and that they reinforce people’s worst prejudices. What evidence is there that that stops at 16? Is she not concerned that simply focusing on age-gating will diminish the pressure on social media companies to open up the algorithms so that we can have a look at how they affect society more generally?
Munira Wilson
I have not said that we should focus only on age-gating; as I continue through my speech, the hon. Gentleman will hear about the range of other things that I think should be in any legislation that is brought forward—quickly—to protect our children. The age-gating of certain platforms based on their harmfulness, which would be a key principle and part of the legislation, is part of our proposals, but so are various other things that I will talk about in terms of tackling the addictiveness of algorithms that is so damaging to our children.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I wanted to ask the hon. Lady about the register and the ranking of age-appropriateness for content. We have sat opposite each other on many occasions discussing this matter. I have grave concerns about who will register those individual self-published bits of content and who will manage it and pay for it, and how it would actually work in practice.
Munira Wilson
I was about to expand further on that before I took the two preceding interventions. Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to continue and, if I have not addressed her concerns, she can intervene on me again.
Ofcom would be given the powers to force platforms that do not want to play ball to do so or to face serious consequences. We believe that that would mean a ban on harmful social media for under-16s. Family friendly services such as Wikipedia or Tripadvisor would be available at a lower age, as those sites fall under the current user-to-user definition in the Online Safety Act. We know, however, that even 16 could be too young to access the most harmful of sites—those that host violence and pornography—which is why our proposals would allow what we think are really harmful platforms, such as X, to be age-gated up to 18.
A harms-based approach, like the one we are proposing today, is supported by 42 charities including the likes of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Molly Rose Foundation and others, and would protect children from the worst of the web without breaking the parts of the internet that families actually rely on. Crucially, it is future-proofed and could be applied to chatbots, games and other emerging technologies.
I welcome the fact that the Conservatives’ Opposition day motion a few weeks ago, which we were unable to debate, moved towards the Liberal Democrats’ nuanced approach to keeping under-16s aways from “harmful” social media. I hope that the Conservatives will be able to support our motion today and this approach going forward, despite the fact that they were unfortunately unable to do so in the other place just a month ago.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The hon. Lady is right that we did table an Opposition day motion in Conservative time on this subject, but the difference between our motion and the Liberal Democrat motion is that ours contained proposals. This afternoon, she is asking us not to debate a motion on the topic in the title of the Bill, but merely to give the Liberal Democrats control of the Order Paper on 9 March. Why did she not choose to bring forward a Bill, allow the House to look at her proposals and have a solid, principled debate on it before she asked us to give her control of the Order Paper on 9 March?
Munira Wilson
While the House would be giving me, or the Liberal Democrats, control of the Order Paper, I have made it abundantly clear that we would work together to bring forward legislation—[Interruption.] The Conservatives have proposals; the Government are consulting on something, although I am not quite sure what, because they have not published the consultation yet. We put forward proposals in the other place that the hon. Gentleman’s party unfortunately chose not to support. However, I do not think we are that far apart.
We have published proposals in the other place and would use those as a basis for discussion. The Technology Secretary has already told me and my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) that she would happily work with us on our proposals. There are proposals out there in the public domain. This is about the principle of legislating soon and quickly to bring forward legislation that we can all agree on to protect our children.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again, because I have to push this point. She has outlined that her party has published proposals in the other place, but her party is called the Liberal Democrats—this is the democratically elected Chamber, and we should be debating a proposed Bill from the Liberal Democrats on their Opposition day. I agree with her that we need urgent legislation. Why is she depriving Members across the House of detailed proposals that we could vote on and instead asking the House through a procedural motion to give her party control of the Order Paper on 9 March?
Munira Wilson
All I can do is repeat myself: I know that if I had published all these things that I am laying out as a piece of legislation, Members on both sides of the House would probably have voted it down. I have told the House that I am happy to come forward in the spirit of co-operation to draft something together—
Several hon. Members rose—
Munira Wilson
I am going to try to move on now—[Interruption.] I am going to make some progress, because I think we have now tested the procedural approach to death.
It is important that we reach consensus on our approach and reject the unworkable blanket bans that have been proposed elsewhere that put enormous powers in the hands of an individual politician. I do not think any Reform Members are here in the Chamber, but given that Reform wants to scrap the Online Safety Act altogether, I shudder to think what future Ministers might deem acceptable if they were allowed to choose what our children and young people could access, which the amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill coming from the other place would allow the Secretary of State to do.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
In among the discussions around procedure, which are important in this place, I fear that we are missing the nub of what my hon. Friend is trying to get to, which is that this is a nuanced space. This is not a blanket “we say no to everything”. Some people are arguing that we should do nothing, and that it should just be down to parents to deal with it. Does she agree that the thoughtful way that she is putting this across, trying to get us all to come together around this issue with the public, is how we will create something that is future-proof? So much of legislation in this area involves chasing our tails, but this is an opportunity for us to get ahead of it, for once.
Munira Wilson
That is indeed what we are trying to do. Putting forward a blanket ban on a particular list of social media sites determined by any Secretary of State at any given point in time is necessarily acting after the fact. That is not future-proof or particularly effective, and it is subject to politicisation. That is why our harms-based approach, which I want to negotiate to get into legislation soon, would be future-proof and work to act on things such as chatbots and games. I know from the discussions we have at home how addictive games such as Roblox can be, for instance.
We Liberal Democrats have long been pressing for a suite of measures that would make the online world safer and healthier for all. One measure that could be implemented overnight would be to ban tech companies from profiting from our children’s attention by raising the age of digital data consent from 13 to 16. This would end the hold that addictive algorithms have on children.
Gareth Snell
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady is making excellent points on the substance, but they bear no resemblance to the motion on the Order Paper. Are you able to give me guidance on what is up for debate this afternoon? Can the hon. Lady point me to where what she is debating sits in the motion?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
What is clear is that there is a motion on the Order Paper on which Members will presumably be asked to divide in due course. That does not give any detail of the proposed Bill, but the motion on the Order Paper is orderly and it will be up to Members to decide how they wish to vote on that.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your indulgence, and I suspect that I will get the same answer as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), but I have never, in my seven years in this House, been in a situation where a motion outlines the timetable for Monday 9 March—including the timings of proceedings and questions to be put on Monday 9 March and of consideration of Lords amendments and messages on a subsequent day—for a Bill that this House has not seen. How can Members vote for a motion that allocates separate procedures for a Bill that has not been published? I want my constituents to know what the Liberal Democrats are proposing in this space. The hon. Lady is now elaborating on the Floor of the House on what she wants her policies to be, but she is asking us to vote for a Bill that has not been put before this House. Can I therefore have your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether this debate should be going ahead if the House does not have a substantive Bill relating to this procedural motion?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. The motion on the Order Paper is perfectly orderly, so Members will be invited to vote on that, not on the substance of any Bill that might come on 9 March. I think it is important that the House is clear on that.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. How can I assess what is orderly for my contribution to the debate given that the substance of the motion is about process? To be frank, I do not want to speak about process; I want to speak about protections for children.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The motion is to give consideration to a Bill on the specific matter which has been outlined clearly on the Order Paper: “Protections for children from online harms”. I reassure the hon. Lady that any contribution she chooses to make on that matter would be in order.
Munira Wilson
What I am setting out is what I would want to put forward as suggestions for the Bill. As you have helpfully pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will be dividing on whether there should be a Bill very soon on the broad subject of protecting children from online harms.
The other measure I would want to bring forward in any legislation is a doomscrolling cap, which would end the infinite scroll feature on short-form online platforms for young people, limiting the amount of time for which children are pushed to TikTok-style video content to two hours. I would also want to see health alerts on social media platforms for under-18s. Just like cigarettes and alcohol, these addictive products carry well-documented risks, especially for young people. The evidence is clear that excessive use of these apps exposes children to mental health issues, anxiety and sleep disruption, and causes real harm to attention spans. Do they not deserve to know that? When we pick up a packet of cigarettes, we expect to be told about the harm that product will pose to our health, so why is social media—a key driver of the crisis in our young people’s mental health—any different?
Given that young people themselves say they want a break from the stress of social media at school, and given the impact of phones on children’s concentration and focus, will the Education Secretary finally listen to her own Children’s Minister and put the Government’s guidance on mobile phones in schools into law to give teachers and headteachers the back-up and, crucially, the resources they need to restrict their use? That is also something that could be part of this Bill if the Government refuse to accept the amendment that will be coming from the other place to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
I recognise that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has announced a consultation on children’s online safety and that she will be tabling an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to enable further legislation to come forward on something at some point in the future—all as yet to be determined. Frankly, the Government are kicking the can down the road.
Baroness Kidron in the other place, who is an expert and campaigner on children’s safety online, said the Government’s consultation
“does not concern itself with the gaps in provision or enforcement of the Online Safety Act, nor the emerging or future threats that we repeatedly raise. It does not seek to speed up enforcement or establish why non-compliant companies are not named in Ofcom research or while they are being investigated. The consultation is entirely focused on two amendments that this House might send to the other House, which its Back-Benchers might agree to. The consultation’s purpose is to stave off a Back-Bench rebellion. It is not about child safety or governance; it is about party management. The UK’s children deserve better than that.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 January 2026; Vol. 852, c. 318.]
Those are not my words; they are the words of the esteemed Cross-Bench peer Baroness Kidron in the other place.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I had understood that the hon. Member’s party was keen on public consultation, and there is clearly a lot of public concern about the very real problem of online harms and the need to protect children. I am therefore puzzled by the fact that she is seeking to control the parliamentary agenda in just a couple of weeks’ time with rushed-through legislation and without any substantive proposals or consultation. If she is concerned about the scope of the consultation the Government have announced, why not try to amend that scope? Why not emphasise the importance of parents in particular having their voices heard rather than rushing through legislation that will probably be quite flawed if there is not sufficient time to ensure that everybody’s voices are heard in this conversation? It feels like politicking, to be honest, rather than a substantive engagement with the details of the issue.
Munira Wilson
I am sorry the hon. Member feels that way. We have brought forward a lot of these proposals previously. It is not politicking; we have long been committed to this issue. A number of these things could be done tomorrow. They do not need to be consulted on. The age of digital data consent could be raised tomorrow without any further consultation. There was flexibility in European law on the age it was set at and the UK chose to set it at 13. A number of other countries have recently raised the age. Unfortunately, an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill to do just that was rejected. The bit that probably needs consultation is how any ban or restriction on harmful social media would work, but we could legislate for the principle and consult on the operational detail. I do not think that is a problem.
On the hon. Member’s point about making sure that the voices of parents and young people are heard, I think they have been heard loud and clear up and down the country. They have been pushing and pushing for this. They are concerned that the consultation will just delay action further. Parents, teachers and young people are crying out for urgent action now. We need a smart approach that allows young people to benefit from the best of the internet—whether that is learning or staying connected to their friends and family online—while properly tackling the harms it can cause.
Munira Wilson
I have given way to the hon. Member a couple of times. I am just about to finish.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I am confused about what the Liberal Democrats’ proposals are. The proposals laid out by the hon. Lady are not those introduced in the House of Lords. In the House of Lords, only user-to-user services were talked about, not addictive online gaming, for example. Are we discussing a Bill containing the proposals laid out in the House of Lords, or is the hon. Member putting forward new, ethereal proposals? I do not understand what this Bill is going to be. I was expecting to actually see it so that we could discuss it today.
Munira Wilson
The harms-based framework that we proposed in the other place would apply to chatbots and gaming as well. The point is that, as I have already laid out, we would come together and come forward with proposals that we can all agree on.
Munira Wilson
I am very grateful that the hon. Member wishes to help me out, but I suspect that he does not have my best interests at heart. [Hon. Members: “Aw!”] Oh, go on; I am happy to take his intervention.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is being characteristically courteous in giving way, and I always have her best interests at heart. She is right to say that people are keen to be heard loud and clear, and she is rightly setting out her position about legislation she wants to see before the House. However, if she thinks that people have been heard loud and clear, can she tell the House whether the things she has outlined today are in a drafted Bill, sitting in a safe somewhere within Liberal Democrat HQ, and why she chose not to publish that this afternoon so that we could have a principled debate on her policy proposals?
Munira Wilson
No, I will not give way; I would not expect the hon. Member to help me out.
At various points, we have tabled all the things I have mentioned as amendments in both Houses, so they have been drafted—although I am happy to admit that they have not been put together in one Bill for me to present today. I apologise on that procedural point, Madam Deputy Speaker, which I can see has upset many Members, but all the proposals that I have outlined have been tabled in both Houses as amendments to various Bills, including the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and the Data (Use and Access) Bill.
To reiterate, the only consultation that we should focus on now ought to relate to how the restrictions might work in practice, not whether they are needed at all—the public and campaign groups have made their views on that pretty clear already, whether they support or oppose a blanket ban. Although I have been criticised for coming forward without a Bill, the whole point was to say, “Let’s work together,” because I think there is cross-party consensus on this matter.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
There seems to be great confusion in the Chamber, even though the Liberal Democrats have time and again set out our proposals quite clearly in different places. I find it fascinating that the official Opposition accuse us of politicking when they probably agree with the substance of our proposals. They are contorting themselves to find a way not to support the motion, which is about urgency and acting more swiftly than the Government propose to do—I, for one, think that is a good thing.
Munira Wilson
Discussing the substance of the issue is exactly what we are seeking to do. It has been a long time since this Chamber has had a proper debate on these issues. In a few weeks’ time, we will discuss amendments that suggest individual parties’ views on the way forward. We are proposing a discussion on what the proposals should be so that we can return with a piece of legislation that meets the needs and requirements of the public—our children and young people, and their parents and carers.
We Liberal Democrats say to Ministers and the official Opposition that we have a set of solutions, and we will work with them in the best interests of children. We need to act now, so they should vote with us today and make time for this Bill on the legislative agenda. If the Government do not want to make time for our Bill, perhaps they will make time for one of their own, but we need one quickly. We stand ready to work across parties to create the safer future that our children deserve—
Anna Dixon
I thank the hon. Member—I will call her my friend, as she gave way to me on the last sentence of her speech. She has made a powerful case for cross-party working, hearing different perspectives and bringing forward change quickly, but that is the point of consultation: to find out how we should do something, get the views of parents, schools and everyone else, and come out with something that will be effective in the long term. The Online Safety Act 2023 took far too many years, while this proposal bounces us into something when we are not even sure of what we are voting for. I say with huge respect for her that we should use the consultation process.
Munira Wilson
I say gently that although the Prime Minister has promised us legislation at some point following consultation, it would be secondary legislation, which gets far less scrutiny than primary legislation, and I am afraid that his track record for U-turning on commitments is not great—let’s face it. I have tried to be as consensual as possible and not make political jibes, but we have had 14 U-turns. He said just a few months ago that he did not want to bring in any sort of ban on harmful social media for under-16s because of the experience of his teenagers, but he made a speech last week in which he said that, because of his teenagers, he did want to do so. I am not sure which version of his comments to believe. I would like to press this issue so that the Government introduce legislation sooner rather than later. I think it needs to be primary legislation so that we can discuss it, debate it, amend it and look at it thoughtfully, and we need a clear and strong timetable for it.
Joy Morrissey
We all want to find a solution to online harms—we would not be in this debate if we did not care about protecting children—but the way to do that is through a long consultation period outside the Chamber before we come forward with a Bill. Procedurally, this is not the way that we debate Bills, assess their merit or take them through the stages of becoming law. If the Liberal Democrats want to take this seriously, they should use the correct procedure for taking forward a Bill. We should all be able to debate it. There should be a long consultation process, and then we can take it forward together.
Munira Wilson
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention about procedure. I say to her gently that her party and others have in the past used this mechanism to try to force Governments to introduce legislation on various issues.
Munira Wilson
I will not give way again, because I think we have tested this argument to death. I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns about procedure, but this mechanism is not unheard of. The Labour party did something similar on fracking a few years ago when Liz Truss was Prime Minister. I remember it well—I was in this place, as was the hon. Lady—and we voted on that. There was no substance, but Labour wanted to bring forward legislation.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a procedural question. Given that the long title of the Bill is not in the motion, does that mean that the Bill can effectively cover any subject or theme if the Order Paper is seized on that day?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, which I anticipated might come at some point. If he checks the Order Paper, he will see that paragraph (1)(d) says very specifically that it has to be a Bill on online services age restrictions that is brought forward on 9 March.
Dr Spencer
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for that clarification, but my understanding is that that is the short title, not the long title. Is it the case that the long title can be used to tag in any related subjects to expand the scope from the narrow one here?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his further point of order. Clarification on that point had best be sought from the Public Bill Office. It is my understanding that any Bill brought forward will have to cover online services age restriction, but I appreciate the distinction that he makes between the long and the short titles.
Munira Wilson
I am perplexed, because I think there is support on both sides of the House for restricting online harms and protecting our children, and for the principle of bringing forward legislation, although I understand that people are vexed about the procedural point. I fear that there has been some contorting to find a way to justify voting against this motion. I am sorry that that is the case, because we Liberal Democrats are ready to work in a cross-party manner to create the safer future that our children deserve so that they can flourish and thrive in the online and offline worlds. I hope colleagues across the Chamber will support us.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members might be jaded by my making this point of order, but I am grateful to you for allowing me to do so; as a democrat, I like this Chamber to work properly. Will you clarify the procedural basis of the request by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for the Government to make time for the Bill? I ask this because if the motion is accepted, the Government will not be able to pick a time for the legislation; instead the Liberal Democrats would take over the Order Paper and force the Government to accept their legislation on 9 March, with the procedures that are outlined.
May I also ask your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the motion? It would make a number of amendments to the Order Paper on that day, including that
“No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies...
The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.”,
and that only a “designated Member” would be able to make any decision about the order in which a Bill was to be taken. In subsection 19 that designated Member is
“(a) the leader of the second largest opposition party; and
(b) any other Member acting on behalf of the leader of the second largest opposition party.”
Despite the protestations of the Liberal Democrats that they want this to be a cross-party approach, this is them taking over the Order Paper and giving their leader carte blanche to table what they like on 9 March. It does not give the Government the opportunity to table legislation on a cross-party basis at a timing of their choosing—it has to happen under the jurisdiction of the Liberal Democrat motion, does it not?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his very long point of order—[Interruption.] Yes, he has made the point that he is trying to be helpful. To clarify, first, it is the House’s time not Government time, but the powers given as set out in the motion are as he has outlined them. May I further highlight that it is not without precedent to hold a debate on a motion taking over the Order Paper on a Bill, without the Bill having been published? It last occurred on 6 February 2024 when an Opposition motion was tabled to take over the Order Paper to discuss ministerial severance reform, and that Bill had not yet been published. So it is not without precedent, but the hon. Member is correct in his understanding of what the motion would do were it to be passed by the House.
I call the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate, not least to further my education in my personal passion area of parliamentary procedure.
Let me begin by responding to the motion, and then I will turn to the substance of the debate. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) will accept that no Government could accept a motion such as that proposed by the Liberal Democrats. The motion goes against the Standing Orders of the House, which state that the Government as elected by the people control the Order Paper, apart from specific exemptions such as Opposition days. The motion would give the Liberal Democrats free rein to schedule the business on 9 March. Today they introduced a Bill. It is still not available to Members across the House, yet they are asking the House to hand them control of business to complete all stages of the Bill within a day. That is no way to make complex changes to the law in this area.
This is not just a procedural outrage; more than that I am sorry to see the Liberal Democrats join the Conservative party yet again in their usual coalition of putting political desperation on this question ahead of the interests of British children and families. I urge the Liberal Democrats to forget this approach, and to take part in the Government’s consultation, which is a true attempt at engaging across parties and across the country, so that we find the right solution for children and parents. This Government have already set out a way forward that considers those vital issues in a responsible way, and allows for swift action in response. That is how we will give children the childhood that they deserve and prepare them for the future.
Wera Hobhouse
I do not know where the Minister has been, but my inbox has been inundated by families and parents who are calling for action. We are responding to the request of our constituents to take action. Do the Government not see the urgency with which we need to take action?
Kanishka Narayan
The Government are seeing both urgency and responsibility in the correspondence that we are receiving and the consultation we are engaging with, not the desperate lurch to a specific answer that the Liberal Democrats are exemplifying in this instance. I want to take this opportunity to set out our approach.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I say gently to the Minister that if he were to look at the Liberal Democrat’s track record over the past few years, he will see that we have worked really hard to put forward concrete proposals about putting online safety first.
Victoria Collins
No, but we have tried to push that agenda. It is not as if social media came into existence yesterday—Facebook was launched 22 years ago—and the Government brought forward the consultation after pressure from across the House. So I say gently to the Minister that we are trying to work together and that we want to continue to work together in that vein.
Kanishka Narayan
I take the hon. Member’s point about wanting to work together. The Government are committed to doing exactly that. It is not a question of whether we act, but how we implement specific changes to secure our children’s future. I encourage her and the entire Liberal Democrat party to engage with the consultation.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Kanishka Narayan
I will make a little progress having already given way twice to Liberal Democrat Members in short succession.
To be clear, it is crucial that we allow for a short, sharp consultation to allow the different parts of the debate to be heard, including crucially the voices of children themselves, who are too often under-represented in the debate. This is a complex area and it is vital that we get it right.
We have already announced that we will act both with speed and appropriate scrutiny to legislate based on the outcome of the consultation. Last month, the Secretary of State set out to the House that technology has huge potential for good: to create goods, to drive growth, to transform our public services and so much more. However, we have also been clear that in order to harness the potential benefits, parents need to have confidence that their children can benefit from the opportunities that the online world offers, ensuring that technology enriches, not harms, children’s lives.
Most children report benefits from being online, such as interacting with their peers, finding useful information or learning a new skill. But we also know that there are concerns about children’s online experience. This Government have always been clear that the protection of children online is our top priority. The Online Safety Act 2023 introduced one of the most robust systems globally for protecting children from harm online.
Anna Dixon
I thank the Minister for his remarks, and I hope that part of the consultation will involve looking at research. The Born in Bradford study is a huge cohort study that has recently looked at social media use by 12 to 15-year-olds in the Bradford district. It found that they are using social media for 3.36 hours per day and that there are associated increases in anxiety and depression. Will the Minister ensure that the harms from social media that we already know about, including that research, will be factored in as he makes decisions, following the consultation, to act swiftly to protect our children from harm?
Kanishka Narayan
I commend my hon. Friend on her consistent commitment to evidence-based policy making in this place, and beyond it too. I commit to her that both the Born in Bradford study, which she mentioned, and wider research will be in the front of the Government’s mind.
Caroline Voaden
Will the Minister tell the House when the consultation will be launched?
Kanishka Narayan
We will be very glad to come to the House as soon as the consultation is launched. It will be very soon indeed. As we have said, Members will expect not just a consultation—[Interruption.] I have not committed to debate the consultation today, prior to having published it. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats will take a lesson from that and follow appropriate procedure in this place.
The illegal content and child safety duties came into effect last year. Those duties represent a major milestone in protecting children from illegal and harmful content online, as well as helping them to have age-appropriate online experiences.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Consultation and timeframe is key, because while we procrastinate, online harm is continuing and our children are being put at risk. The statistics around online pornography show that up to 50% of boys aged 11 to 13 have already viewed pornography, and it is influencing their minds on a daily basis with regard to relationships and how they conduct their business. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that the consultation will come to this place very soon? Can he give timeframes thereafter, following the consultation, as to when we will see legislation brought before this House?
Kanishka Narayan
I can confirm to the hon. Member that the Government have committed to act robustly by the summer, which is about as short and sharp as a consultation can get. Instead of procrastinating on this question, I encourage her to engage intensively with the process of consultation and the national conversation.
I mentioned illegal content duties, as well as child safety duties. Under those duties, services must now conduct highly effective age assurance, precisely addressing the point raised by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), to prevent children in the UK from encountering pornography, as well as content that encourages, promotes or provides instructions for self-harm, suicide or eating disorders. Platforms are also now legally required to put in place measures to protect children from other types of harmful content. That includes abusive or hateful content, bullying content and violent content.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the decisive action that he took over the recent Grok incident. Given the scope of the consultation and the fact that we are talking about online harms, I want to flag the issue we have around content on YouTube, which is a video-sharing platform, not necessarily a social media platform. The type of content that our children are consuming on there is a quick succession of images, which is not very good for a child’s development, rather than the slow-paced stuff we get when we watch a broadcaster. Will the consultation look at the quality of content on these platforms? Not all screentime is equal; some screentime can be quite dangerous for a child’s development in general.
Kanishka Narayan
Both of my hon. Friend’s points—on the scope of how we look at particular platforms and at their functionalities—are not just considered by the consultation, but deeply important. I engaged with the Australian Minister on this issue just last week, trying to understand their experiences of this and the uncertainty of getting those two things right. That is exactly why the consultation has been an appropriate approach in this context.
Where services fail to comply with their duties in the Act, Ofcom’s enforcement powers include fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue. Ofcom has indicated that it has issued financial penalties to six companies under the Online Safety Act amounting to more than £3 million. I can confirm to the House that just yesterday, Ofcom announced that it has fined a porn company £1.35 million for failing to introduce proper age verification on its websites—the largest fine levied so far under the Act. I welcome this strong action to protect children online.
We have always been clear that while the Online Safety Act provides the foundations, there is more to do to ensure that children live enriching online lives. Like all regulatory regimes, it must remain agile. That is all the more critical given that we are dealing with fast-moving technology. That is why this Government have already taken a number of decisive steps to build on these protections.
The first act of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was to make online content that promotes self-harm and suicide a priority offence under the Online Safety Act. That means that platforms must take proactive steps to stop users seeing this content in the first place. If it does appear, platforms must minimise the time that it is online. As well as that, both intimate image abuse and cyber-flashing are now priority offences under the Online Safety Act.
Last month, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stood in this Chamber and made it clear that the creation of non-consensual deepfakes on X is shocking, despicable and abhorrent. She confirmed that we would expedite legislation to criminalise the creation of non-consensual intimate images, and I am pleased to confirm to the House that that came into effect earlier this month. That will also be designated as a priority offence under the Online Safety Act, and it complements the existing criminal offence of sharing or threatening to share a deepfake intimate image without consent.
Alongside that, it was announced that we will legislate to criminalise nudification tools to make it illegal for companies to supply tools to be used as generators of non-consensual intimate images. Last week, we went further still and announced that we will introduce a legal duty requiring tech companies to remove non-consensual intimate images within 48 hours of them being reported. These measures will provide real protection for women and girls online.
However, we recognise the strength of feeling up and down the country and right across this House—not least in this debate. We share the concern of many parents about the wider impact of social media and technology on children’s wellbeing. The rapid growth of grassroots campaigns such as Smartphone Free Childhood highlights how concerned parents are about the pull of these technologies and what it means for their children. That includes the potential impacts on mental health, sleep and self-esteem.
We have set out our commitment to supporting parents and children with these issues. We want to find solutions that genuinely support the wellbeing of our children and to give parents the help that they need as they guide children through online spaces safely.
Dr Chowns
I have received contact from hundreds of parents in my constituency and from some young people sharing their huge concern about online harm caused by engagement with social media, so I fully understand the sense of urgency in the Chamber and the desire for quick action. The Government said in January that they would consult. They reiterated that they would consult, and they reiterated that commitment 10 days ago. I understand that the consultation is due to start in March, and the Minister has talked about bringing measures through before the summer. Can he commit to acting with real urgency and bring that consultation forward? What is the delay? Will he commit to bringing legislation—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady has repeatedly made very long interventions. It was always open to her to attend the opening of the debate and to speak in it.
Kanishka Narayan
I totally agree with the hon. Member’s call for urgency. I assure her that first, the Government will act by the summer in robustly responding to the consultation. Secondly, we have been focused on getting the consultation right, and not just for the wider public; we are ensuring that it is designed for young people’s engagement, which requires particular design features. Thirdly, we are not waiting for the launch of the consultation to have the national conversation. I have been in schools and met parents, as have the Secretary of State and Ministers from across Government, so the conversation has very much started, and I am sure that the consultation is also imminent.
While there is consensus that problems remain, there is not yet consensus on the best way to address them. That is why the Government announced last month that we will be launching our short, sharp consultation and national conversation on further measures. We recognise that while some people support age restrictions on social media for children, there are diverse views on both the “what” and the “how”. Prominent voices in this debate, including the Molly Rose Foundation and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, are concerned that blunt age limits might not be the right approach and risk doing more harm than good. Even among those who support age limits, there are differing views on how to apply them, including which services restrictions should apply to. Those views are worthy of consideration, but we need to consider them properly and responsibly—we owe that to our children.
That is why the consultation approach is the responsible path forward for looking at these issues, considering in a swift and evidence-based way the full range of implications and the most effective way of protecting children and enhancing their lives online. We will consult with parents, the organisations representing children and bereaved families, tech companies and—crucially—children and young people themselves. None of that would be allowed under the motion we are considering today. This consultation, backed by the national conversation, will identify the next steps in our plan to boost and protect children’s wellbeing online. The consultation will include exploring the option of banning social media for children below a certain age, as well as a range of other measures. This will include gathering views and evidence on options such as restricting access to addictive functionalities and understanding what we can do better to support parents in navigating their children’s digital lives. We will also explore whether we should raise the digital age of consent, to give parents more control over how their children’s data is used, and how existing laws on age verification could be better enforced.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The Minister is making lots of observations about the consultation that is going to go ahead—what is going to be in it, and how long it is going to take. What we do not know is when he will commit to bringing legislation before this House to act against social media.
Kanishka Narayan
I am happy to repeat to the hon. Member this Government’s commitment, which is that we will act by the summer. That is about as short and sharp as a consultation period gets. The Online Safety Act took seven years; we are simply asking for one quarter to make sure that young people, parents and families across the country are properly heard from.
John Milne
I understand the consultation, but what about actual legislation?
Kanishka Narayan
I will simply repeat the point I have made, which is that we are going to act by the summer. We have already sought permissive powers to ensure that the Government are able to act on the outcome of the consultation through rapid legislation. I hope the combination of those two commitments gives the hon. Member some assurance.
The engagement and consultation will take place alongside work with counterparts. We will be monitoring developments in Australia on its social media ban for under-16s to share learnings and best practice. We are steadfast in our belief that the right way to deliver the next steps to protect our children online is to be led by the evidence through our short, sharp three-month consultation.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister has just said that the Government have already sought permissive powers. I understand that they are going to move an amendment in lieu to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, but I am not aware that that amendment has been published yet, much less agreement sought from the House. When will that be published, so that we can see what those permissive powers are supposed to be?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for that point, and commit to her that we are going to try to do that as soon as possible. She will be aware that the legislative process is already very tight, so I will come back to her and the House with the wording of the motion as soon as possible.
Last week, as I have mentioned, the Secretary of State confirmed that we will take new legal powers to allow us to act quickly on the outcomes of the consultation, delivering on our promises to parents. We will make sure that the wording is presented to the House at the earliest opportunity. We also recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and the expertise that parliamentarians in both Houses provide, and have already committed that when regulations are brought forward, they will be debated on the Floor of the House and there will be a vote in both Houses, ensuring proper scrutiny. We are clear that the question is not whether we will act, but what type of action we will take. We will ensure that we do so effectively, in lockstep with our children and in the interests of British families.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Today we are debating something that is very important: the protection of children from online harms is vital.
I commend the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on what I thought was a very heartfelt speech, but I fear that her good intent has been rather thrown under the bus by her party leadership. Setting aside the importance of this subject, let us look at their method of bringing it forward—a point which has been raised rather expertly by Members from across the House. Today the Liberal Democrats are doing what they do best: slightly nutty stunts. With all the menace of Captain Mainwaring they are attempting to seize control of the Order Paper and effectively declare themselves not only Government for the day but, with their loosely defined online services Bill, rulers of the internet. It is a gimmick. It is the parliamentary equivalent of boinging into the Chamber on a giant bungee.
Though the hon. Member for Twickenham put a little bit of flesh on the bones in her speech, the motion itself simply requests the power to barge through this House with a blank-cheque Bill for which we have no details and in so doing let the Government Benches clean off the hook. It has all gone a bit Benny Hill. It is a great shame because it is a distraction when the moment of truth on social media for children is coming to us imminently. They know that from the panicked recess briefings that the Prime Minister has been caught on the hop on an issue that is of deep concern to families, children, teachers and communities across the country.
Before too long the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will return to this House and Members will have the chance to vote on a credible proposition: an amendment tabled by the noble Lord Nash that no child under the age of 16 should have access to harmful social media.
Kirsty Blackman
If this is the Conservative’s stance, why when consideration of the Online Safety Bill lasted for so long—it was even referred back into Committee, which no Bill had been in 20 years—did the Conservatives not ban social media for under-16s through that Bill when they were in government?
Julia Lopez
This is a Conservative amendment in the Lords that has gained cross-party support, so it will be coming back to us. The hon. Member raises an important point about why this policy was not brought in under the Online Safety Act. That Act tried to do many, many things. In many ways, it took so long because it risked becoming a Christmas tree Bill, and many good causes were hung off it. That did cause challenges.
I think that as the debate has moved on we have realised that it is not just about illegal content that children are being exposed to and some of the things that the Online Safety Act was trying to change. There is an issue in general about children being in this space: there are addictive algorithms, and it is not just about illegal material but the fact that it is changing how children are thinking about interacting. Maybe we have to stand back as a society and say, “This is simply not the right place for children to be. We can create adult online spaces, but for children we think that there are other ways in which they should be interacting with the world.”
Victoria Collins
You are talking about the Online Safety Act. Do you think the fact that—
Victoria Collins
Apologies. The hon. Member talks about the Online Safety Act and what happened under the Conservatives. Do you think—
Victoria Collins
Apologies. Does she think that the fact that the Leader of the Opposition tried to water down that Bill and said that we do not legislate for feelings has anything to do with the can being kicked down the road and us not having made the necessary progress?
Julia Lopez
There were very real and important debates during the passage of that Bill about legal but harmful material and whether people should be able to speak freely online. Our approach was to seek to create a space where adults can speak freely while accepting that children should not be in some of these spaces. That was the point that the Leader of the Opposition was trying to make.
We were moving very dangerously into the realms of free speech, and it is not for an online regulator to start telling people what they can and cannot say online when it is not something that is illegal to speak of in the real world. That was the challenge that we got ourselves into as a Government, and that is why we changed parts of the approach that we were taking to the Online Safety Bill. I appreciate the concerns that are being raised, and I am trying to answer them as honestly and straightforwardly as I can.
When we consider the amendment from Lord Nash, this House will have its opportunity to make an unequivocal statement of principle: that when we believe that something is harming children at scale, we accept that it is insufficient to leave the status quo unchallenged or simply to commission a consultation. That applies especially when it is a consultation to which this Government have provided absolutely no political direction or view and that has been much trailed but still not actually launched. In truth, this consultation was not ready. It was a mechanism to get the Prime Minister out of another of his tight fixes.
The Tech Secretary might be very good at emoting and telling us all how impatient she is for change, how she cares, and indeed for how many years she has cared, but when she made her statement on social media for children in this Chamber a few weeks ago, she said nothing about what the Government would actually do, beyond seeking more time to take a position. I commend the hon. Member for Twickenham for pointing that out, and I have sympathy with why she is trying to use this mechanism today, because we are all trying to tease out what the Government are seeking to do.
It was extraordinary to listen to the Government Minister, who said with great sincerity, “We will act robustly in responding to a consultation.” What does he actually believe? What do the Government think we should do on this issue? Nobody has a clue. They are talking about a huge range of things that could be done, but it is for a Government to provide political direction; it is not for a Government to seek consensus. [Interruption.] It is for a Government to take a position and to take a view. It is for a Government to have opinions. It is for a Government to have policy positions. It is not for a Government to try to make sure that everybody in this House agrees. [Interruption.] It is pathetic to see those on the Labour Benches getting out of their tree about this.
Natasha Irons
I sincerely thank the hon. Lady for giving way. When we talk about the consultation, it is not necessarily about seeking consensus in this place; it is about seeking consensus with parents and children, and with people outside this place. Banning social media for children is a good approach, but this is not just about that, is it? It is also about the time that our kids are spending on screens. That is what this is about: it is about having a digital childhood that we can all get behind and support.
Julia Lopez
I can agree with that. My point is that this Government are trying to suggest that a consensus can be found in the absence of their having a policy position. They are talking about a consultation, but what on earth are they consulting on? Nobody has a clue. They have not been able to say anything about what they actually want to do, because the Prime Minister has no opinions, which is why he is in such deep trouble. Those on the Labour Benches can get out of their tree and get all uppity about it, but this—[Interruption.] No, the Prime Minister is being blown around like a paper bag on this issue, and everybody knows it. First of all, he said that his children did not want to ban social media; now he says that his children are the reason why he wishes to ban social media. He said there is going to be a consultation, but it has not materialised. What does this man actually think?
Kirsty Blackman
I am glad that the hon. Member has been very clear that her position is that she supports the Lords amendment that seeks to ban social media for children. Is she aware that it would not apply in Scotland? The Lords amendment would not apply in Scotland, because the territorial extent of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, apart from one clause, does not include Scotland. I take it that her position is that she only wants a social media ban for children who do not live in Scotland.
Julia Lopez
I am sure the applicability of the legislation in Scotland is something that can be debated when the Bill comes before the House.
To give them credit, many Labour MPs understand the fact that there is an absence of any Government position, and they will not be taking their foot off the pedal. I suspect that many may have the guts to speak out today—although perhaps not. Those MPs recognised immediately that a consultation is a mechanism for a delay that goes beyond the summer and into another parliamentary year before the sniff of legislation. That holding position is now falling apart, as we have seen from the Minister here today. It is the threat of a very large group of Labour MPs backing the Conservatives’ Lords amendment that is pushing this Government into action—it is government by rebellion. We ask the Liberal Democrats not to let us be distracted from the moment of truth that is coming up, when we hope there will be cross-party support for the noble Lord Nash’s amendment.
For too long, the internet has been treated as a space that cannot be governed. It has functioned like a pioneer society, with extraordinary opportunity but minimal rules. However, pioneer societies improvise customs and eventually retrofit themselves with rules to sustain societies, often after hard-won experience and dispute. That is the process through which we are now going, and we are realising that, as the online society was built, we were not vigilant enough when it came to protecting childhood. We did not recognise that this new territory would bleed into the old world. [Interruption.] The Minister is shouting from the Front Bench that I am embarrassing myself. We as a Government brought forward the Online Safety Act, but there are gaps in it, and we have taken a clear position as the Opposition that we think children should not be on social media. He is looking very angry, but what is his view? Can he stand up and tell us what his personal view is? As the Minister with this responsibility, what does he think should be done, having launched his consultation with such earnestness? Come on, tell us! Would he like to tell us?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Could I just be helpful? A lot of help has been needed this afternoon. The Minister has not asked to intervene, and the hon. Lady cannot force him to intervene on her.
Julia Lopez
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out that the Minister has no manners, but wishes to shout from a sedentary position. I sat listening to him and waiting to see if I could decipher, in his very long and self-regarding diatribe, whether he actually has any opinions, but it turns out that he does not. He is very comfortable to sit on the Front Bench and chunter away at me. [Interruption.] You see, he again says that I am such an embarrassment.
Gareth Snell
I have listened to what the hon. Lady has said, but last week I talked to a 15-year-old, who said to me, “We have no youth clubs. We go on the street, and I don’t feel safe and I get told I’m a nuisance. So I come home, and I interact with my friends online. Now I’m told I can’t do that.” I am not sure what the right answer is, and I sometimes think that not knowing the answer is as good as having absolute certainty all the time about everything. What would she say to that 15-year-old about the outcome for her? She is asking what she can do and how can she stay in touch with her friends. We do not have an answer to that yet, so what are the Conservatives offering?
Julia Lopez
I respect the hon. Member’s intervention for its politeness, but I do not think the answer is suddenly to encourage all children who are finding it hard to find purposeful and meaningful activities in the real world to retreat to their bedrooms. One of the challenges we have seen is that children have felt that the online space is the most stimulating for them. Unfortunately, that has led to an even greater retreat from the real world, and I think we can all recognise that that has been a negative for society.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
The hon. Lady has been very clear that she wished the Government had just charged forward in some direction or other. I have had hundreds of constituents email me about this, from various perspectives and various concerns about the workability of certain solutions. I would like to listen to them, and I think it would be really helpful if the opposition parties tried to do likewise and to engage with this process, rather than just criticising whatever approach we take.
Julia Lopez
I appreciate where the hon. Member is coming from. I do not think it is wrong to seek evidence and ask for people’s views, but the Prime Minister should be honest about what he wants to do. The problem is that he has been floating various opinions, and he is being buffeted by Labour MPs and by the Opposition and others. If he does not think this is the right approach, he should feel confident in saying so. He has said a whole range of different things about this, and the Government are seeking to launch a consultation, but nobody actually knows what precisely is being consulted on.
If Labour MPs were honest with themselves, I think they would recognise that. I suspect they are having very serious conversations with the party’s Whips, saying, “Well, actually, we would like to know what the Prime Minister does think about this issue, because we’re not convinced by this consultation—we think it’s kicking the issue into the long grass, and we’re worried about the length of time that will mean before we get legislation to protect children from various challenges online.” That is the very reason why the Minister has stood up before them today to say, “We are probably going to do something—very definitely, maybe—in the summer.” He is saying that because the pressure is growing from Labour MPs. It is being briefed out that the Government are going to bring forward amendments to the Bill because they are being buffeted into doing so.
The problem is that nobody knows what this Prime Minister believes. On every single issue for the Government at the moment, and despite the very large Labour majority, this Prime Minister is being buffeted around, and that is the problem.
Wera Hobhouse
I am very much enjoying the hon. Member’s speech, and I am wondering why she therefore cannot support our motion this evening.
Julia Lopez
I set out clearly at the beginning of my speech why we cannot support the motion, which is effectively a blank cheque. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. Member for Twickenham tried to set it out in her speech, nobody actually knows what the Lib Dems are trying to do here. The proposal before us is that the Liberal Democrats take control of the Order Paper and then can say whatever they like on internet governance. I am sorry, but I do not think that is the way to conduct ourselves in Parliament. There have to be clearer proposals.
Gareth Snell
I agree with the hon. Lady on this point. The other problem is that the motion caps the amount of debate at four hours—two hours for Second Reading, and then two hours for Committee and Third Reading. This will presumably have to be a meaty, multi-clause Bill to deal with an issue as complex as internet governance regulation, and it will be unamendable by this place because of the timescales available. It will not have the line-by-line scrutiny that would normally happen in Committee, and most of the amendments that get tabled will fall because there will not be time for Members to propose them. This is not a solution that brings consensus; this is the Lib Dems railroading through policies on a really complex issue that they cannot get through in conventional manners.
Julia Lopez
I agree with the hon. Member wholeheartedly.
Until now, we have implicitly decided that childhood must simply adapt to an environment that we as adults find totally overwhelming, undermining of our own sense of self and completely irresistible. We have been exposing our children to this place of no settled social rules where that exposure is constant, the boundaries are porous and responsibility is diffuse. Behaviour that would never be tolerated offline is normalised, monetised and then algorithmically amplified. The Online Safety Act, which we have discussed already, has been a step forward in trying to wrest back control, but it is, of course, an imperfect one. It focuses primarily on illegal content, seeks to keep the most extreme material offline and introduces age-gating for pornography and other over-18 content. That work does matter, but the problem before us today goes well beyond illegality and explicit material. There are also many concerns about the complexity of policing content, in terms of both the implementation and intent.
The central question is not just what children see but how social media works. Social media platforms are addictive by design. Their algorithms are engineered to maximise engagement and stickiness. They reward outrage, comparison, emotional intensity, competition and repetition. They draw children away from purposeful activity and into feedback loops that erode attention and resilience. Not all platforms operate like this globally, funnily enough. The Chinese version of TikTok is time-limited and feeds children content of scientific or patriotic value. In the west, it is emotional arousal that is fed to our kids.
Children are not simply consuming content; they are being shaped by the environment itself. It is happening when their brains are still developing. Their impulse control, emotional regulation and ability to assess risk are not the same as for adults. We recognise this everywhere else in law—in alcohol limits, in safeguarding rules and in age of consent protections—yet online we have decided to suspend that logic, and the consequences are increasingly visible.
Natasha Irons
I am new to this place and clearly still learning, but I am wondering why, in that case, measures on designing out at source the harms that the hon. Member is talking about were watered down in the Online Safety Bill. She is absolutely right: we are creating online worlds, and they should be designed to be safe. Just as we design clothes for children that do not have toxic materials in them, we would hope that the spaces they inhabit online also do not have toxic material in them, so why were those protections not strengthened in the Bill that the Conservative party passed when it was in power?
Julia Lopez
I have set out before what we were trying to achieve with the Online Safety Act and why certain things were in it and others were not. I do not want to go over that again.
The consequences of these design features are increasingly visible, including rising anxiety and low mood, poor sleep, shredded attention spans and cyber-bullying that follows children home.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
When I was growing up, social media was genuinely social—we would spend our time on it speaking to our peers and classmates. I remember MSN Messenger and Facebook when it first arrived. Social media has evolved to become this addictive, content-driven place where we are fed information. Does the hon. Member think we should perhaps differentiate between social media platforms that are genuinely for peer-to-peer interaction and help young people, and those that just feed content to them?
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention—I went off on a nostalgia trip in my brain, thinking about MSN chatrooms and all the rest of it. That was a time when people were not really aware of the power of the internet, and the predatory behaviours subsequently started to become normalised and industrialised. Although it might be tempting to want to try to go back to that place, I do not know whether we can actually get there, but it is certainly something we can aim towards and aspire to. The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. The essence of social media does not involve bad intent; the problem that we are seeking to solve is the way in which it has been manipulated and changed over the years to amplify negative behaviour.
Freddie van Mierlo
What the hon. Member has just said suggests that she might actually support the Liberal Democrat policy of age-rating social media platforms. That might lead to a new ecosystem of genuinely peer-to-peer, lower-harm products, which would be a good thing for young people.
Julia Lopez
We think that the current priority is ensuring that under-16s are taken off harmful social media platforms, but I am sure that there is room for a market to develop, over time, that will not feature negative algorithms and activity, and that there is a world in which new products could retain the essence of positive social interaction.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Is the hon. Lady not concerned about the possibility that if we simply ban a list of social media platforms, we will provide an opportunity for new ones to develop and cause a problem while not allowing existing ones to develop in ways that will be less harmful?
Julia Lopez
I am sure that the issue of the functionality list can be explored as time goes by.
It is important to point out that this is not a moral panic but a structural problem. Today the Leader of the Opposition gathered a panel of grieving parents who had lost their children, and in that context negative online activity was recognised to have real-world and utterly tragic consequences. The children had been drawn into dangerous challenges, coercive relationships, bullying and bribery, all of which created despair in those young minds.
That showed us plainly why the pioneer phase must now come to an end, at least where children are concerned. Pioneer societies do not remain lawless forever; eventually they are retrofitted with rules and boundaries, and protections for the vulnerable. It is striking that, after years of the problem building up, countries around the world are reaching the same conclusion with remarkable synchronicity—not because it is fashionable, because Governments are copying one another or because anyone thinks that this will be particularly easy to impose and enforce, but because the evidence has accumulated to a point at which denial is no longer credible. If social media were broadly harmless for children, this would not be happening, but Governments with very different. political traditions are acknowledging the same reality: that when it comes to children, some control must be wrested back. I suspect that this trend will be reflected vividly in the Chamber today, with examples from across the nation of what is happening in the real world because of the laxity in the online world.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I asked the hon. Lady’s Government to ban suicide forums that encourage young people to harm themselves. I asked her Government to ban eating disorder forums that encourage eating disorders. Her Government refused to do that in the Online Safety Act 2023, despite our asking for it to happen. How can she stand there now and take the moral high ground when her Government refused to ban the worst, most egregious, most harmful platforms? The Conservatives do not have a moral high ground on this issue.
Julia Lopez
I am not seeking to occupy a moral high ground. I am seeking to set out a way towards keeping children under 16 off social media platforms, because trying to legislate for specific different activities is very challenging, as I think we saw with the Online Safety Act. There are very good causes and there are very important activities that we sought to stop online, but turning that into a workable law is a huge challenge. That is one of the reasons why we think it important to take a “whole of society” approach that tries to shift the debate and say that certain types of online space for people under 16 are simply not appropriate—a principles-based approach to governing the online world that tries to steer away from some of the difficult debates about how to write implementable law to stop nasty and negative behaviour.
Gareth Snell
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way again; she is being very generous. I confess that I have not made my mind up on this. Let us suppose that there was a blanket ban preventing anyone under 16 from accessing material of this kind. How does the Minister envisage that being enforced? Will enforcement sit with the parents ultimately, and if they are not able to carry out that enforcement, what will be their criminal liability? There are genuine challenges when it comes to what children can access, and who is made ultimately responsible for enforcing a simple approach that could be quite complex to implement.
Julia Lopez
I would not envisage that parents would be responsible for that. There are mechanisms to make sure that platforms would not be permitted to provide accounts to under 16-year-olds and they would have to have highly effective age-assurance techniques. In fact, I have spoken recently to representatives of a major platform who said that they had very effective techniques for testing whether somebody trying to open an account is the age that they say they are. I will not take further interventions for a little while so that I can make progress, as I know other people want to speak.
There are serious arguments against implementing a ban, some of which have been heard, and they deserve to be addressed and not dismissed. We are likely to hear more about those doubts today and they must be listened to respectfully. Indeed, I hold some of those anxieties and reservations myself. The first argument is that a ban would be unworkable and that teenagers would find workarounds through virtual private networks, foreign platforms or fake credentials. They will, of course, because teenagers have always tested boundaries. Fake IDs, sneaky booze and under-age rule-breaking are traditional parenting challenges, but we do not abandon age limits simply because they are imperfect. Instead, we impose them because they change norms, shift behaviours and offer parents reinforcement rather than resistance. Of course, the mandatory age limit will not remove every child overnight, but it will remove a critical mass and that matters.
Some fear that such a ban would require de facto compulsory digital ID, undermining anonymity and civil liberties, and again, that concern must be taken extremely seriously. However, as I have just suggested to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), age verification does not require a single state-mandated digital identification system. Other jurisdictions have explicitly prevented platforms from requiring accredited digital ID and instead mandated multiple verification techniques, with responsibility placed on platforms and not citizens. As I said, I was speaking to a major tech platform recently that set out some of those techniques, which can now be used very accurately to assess a user’s age. However, we must be clear that we do not have a surveillance state simply because 13-year-olds are kept off Facebook.
A third argument, and a point that has been made, is that social media provides vital support and connection for many children, particularly those who feel isolated offline. That can be true, but it is not an argument for leaving the entire system untouched. This is not about banning the internet, messaging, educational platforms, health support or professional development services; those places can and should remain accessible, and that is happening in other jurisdictions. This is about a specific category of platforms whose business models depend on maximising attention and emotional arousal and which are demonstrably harmful at scale. Another concern is the unintended consequence that children may be pushed into darker corners of the internet. That needs to be included in the Government’s consultation when it eventually sees the light of day, particularly whether there needs to be parental consent required for downloading certain apps.
Doing nothing already leaves children exposed, in plain sight, on platforms that we know are optimised against their wellbeing. Protection will never be perfect, but neither is inaction benign. Doing nothing is not neutral. It leaves parents despairing, schools firefighting and children navigating a digital frontier with no one by their side. There is also a broader freedom argument, which is that by keeping children off adult social media platforms we can restore freedom to adults online and will no longer need to contort those digital spaces to be universally child-friendly, which is where some of the challenges have come in.
Finally, this is about leadership. As I said earlier, a consultation without direction is not leadership, and a consultation that pushes real change 18 months down the line is, in truth, a decision to do nothing now. Labour MPs know that, which is why the coming moment will not rest on this rather nutty Lib Dem takeover attempt. Instead, it will rest on the Nash amendment, when this House will have a clear choice: to accept that the pioneer phase is over; to recognise the sanctity of childhood, which deserves clearer rules; and to acknowledge that giving parents support is not the same as the state stripping them of their ultimate responsibilities. Parents will and must always be the first line of defence. When harm is real and growing, leadership requires a decision, even when the answers are not perfect.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
As Members will know, the debate has to conclude by 7 o’clock. There are slightly more than 10 people bobbing. I plan to move to the wind-ups at 6.40 pm, which should leave everyone plenty of time.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for bringing forward this debate on protecting children from online harms, although I remain uncertain as to the measures they are proposing. This debate is happening up and down the country, in homes and at school gates—indeed, wherever people gather—so it is right that we debate it here. If the Conservatives had done something during their critical 14 years of power, our children would be better protected now, but they did not, so it falls to us to take action.
I am going to speak about three things: online platforms, their history and approach; the work of my Select Committee, the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, on algorithms; and the work of the Committee on digital childhood, all within the context of protecting children from online harms.
The key online players range in age from pre-teen—TikTok was founded in 2016—to their late 20s, as Google was founded in 1998. In human terms, these platforms are just entering or leaving adolescence, and it shows.
As hon. Members across the House may have heard me mention, I am an engineer—chartered, as it happens; thanks for asking—and my last job before entering this place was head of telecoms technology for Ofcom. I remember meeting people from a US platform, which shall remain nameless, around 2005. The company executive commented that they had come to the UK from silicon valley on a six-month contract to sort out Government affairs, and they could not understand why, two years later, discussions were still ongoing. Did we not realise that Government had no role in what they did?
I say that to illustrate that tech platforms have their origins in a libertarian, small/no-government tech bro bubble that has spread globally. TikTok, as a Chinese company, has a different background, but public accountability is not necessarily part of it. Unfortunately for all of us, the Conservative-Lib Dem Government of 2010 and their successors shared the view that Government should not be a part of it, which is how we arrived in 2024—20 years later—without online harms regulation, while at the same time the use of social media and life online has exploded. That is why I consider the Tory position in this debate to be a superb example of hypocrisy.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech about the evolution of social media platforms. I have four children; the first was born in 2004 and the last was born in 2011, so their births have spanned that evolution. Facebook began in 2004; TikTok began in 2016. If that evolution was the industrial revolution, we would be around the spinning jenny stage, with AI chatbots the next destination. Those chatbots are terribly dangerous for our children, and we need to regulate them now. That should be within the Online Safety Act.
Dame Chi Onwurah
I agree that AI chatbots are a further evolution, and I think we should learn from the lack of effective regulation under the Conservatives during that critical period in the evolution of the internet in how we approach AI. I agree with the hon. Lady that AI chatbots should be brought into the regulatory environment of the Online Safety Act.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee is making an excellent speech. Her background in this area is really showing in the detail with which she is exploring these issues. Part of the challenge here is that we as parents are struggling to catch up with this revolution, which is gaining speed all the time. Perhaps my hon. Friend would highlight some of the challenges that parents face. For me, part of the importance of the consultation is to allow parents to think more deeply about this difficult issue; there are often different opinions from campaigners who have had the most painful experiences.
Dame Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is for that exact reason that I support a consultation: this is part of a debate, and we all need to improve our understanding of the impacts of this technology. Parents are in a difficult position. I do not believe parents should have to be technology experts in order to give their children the best start in life, but unfortunately there is so much pressure in the online world that that seems to be the case right now, and that is why it is right that Government take action and consult on the action they take.
Let us think about the evolution of these technologies. I remember that when I joined Facebook in 2005 I had to use my university email address to join—that meant I had to be over 18. Some 20 years later, 13-year-olds and younger are having their lives and brains formed by almost uninhibited access to social media. In the UK, the number of social media users has gone from practically zero to four fifths of the population. I have worked with the Molly Rose Foundation, a charity established by the Russell family after their daughter Molly took her own life at the age of 14 following exposure to self-harm content online; I have spoken to the bereaved parents of children bullied to death online; and I have spoken to the Internet Watch Foundation about the horrendous images its staff see of child exploitation. The fact that the Conservatives did nothing in all those years in government is, in my view, a form of political negligence of the highest order.
As part of my Committee’s inquiry into social media and algorithms, Google, Meta, TikTok and X told us that they accepted their responsibility to be accountable to the British people through Parliament, which I thought was quite a step forward from previous utterances, and ongoing utterances, by some tech billionaires who shall remain nameless. Our inquiry found that our online safety regime should be based on principles that remain sound in the face of technological development. Social media has many important and positive contributions, including helping to democratise access to a public voice and to connect people far and wide, but it also has significant risks—and those risks can evolve with the technology. We spoke about AI as an evolution, and one of the main failings of the Online Safety Act is that it regulates particular services rather than establishing principles that remain true and can be part of a social consensus as technology evolves.
Bobby Dean
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Should one of those principles be related not only to content but to the addictive nature of these platforms? One of the changes I have witnessed on social media over time is algorithmic addiction. The greatest minds in the world are now working out the circuitry of our brains and driving content towards us so that we look at our screens for longer so that they can sell more ads. Does she agree with that point?
Dame Chi Onwurah
I really thank the hon. Member for that intervention, because that is exactly one of the recommendations of the Committee’s inquiry. As he says, the advertisement-based business models of most social media companies mean that they promote addictive content regardless of authenticity. This spills out across the entire internet via the unclear, under-regulated digital advertising market, incentivising the creation of content that will perform well on social media, as we saw during the 2024 unrest following the horrendous Southport attacks.
This is not just a social media problem, though. It is a systemic issue that promotes harmful content and undermines public trust. The Committee identified five key principles that we believe are crucial for building public trust. The first is public safety. Public safety matters; I hope it is not necessary to debate that. The second is free and safe expression, which is also very important. The third is responsibility on the part of the platforms. Right now, they have no legal responsibility for the content they amplify; they just have to follow their own processes in certain specific cases. Our fourth principle involves control, and the fifth and final principle is transparency. We made detailed recommendations on regulating the advertising-based business model so that amplification would not be incentivised in the way that was outlined by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). We also recommended a right to reset—the right of a person to remove their data from any algorithm.
Our report came out not long before the Minister took up his position. The Government accepted all our conclusions but none of our recommendations. I urge them to look again at our recommendations and to consider implementing them, or at least to respond and tell me why they are still not to be implemented. I welcome the Government’s recent actions and interventions and their readiness to intervene. As I said, the consultation is critical. I welcome the desire to promote a consensus and to take measures to ensure swift delivery of the consultation conclusions through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The consideration of the inclusion of AI chatbots is important, as is addressing the risky features in certain models, as well as providing support for bereaved parents. The Committee looks forward to working with the Government to try to achieve their aims. We need evidence to drive policy and regulation based on principles that the public can have confidence in.
Natasha Irons
I wanted to intervene on the point about principles, content and responsibility. I worked for Channel 4 before I came to this place, and we were regulated by Ofcom. Channel 4 did not create its own content, but was responsible for the editorialisation of that content. It was beholden to certain standards. Does she agree that we should be holding these media companies—they are not now “new media” companies, but legacy media companies—just as responsible for the content they put out on their platforms as any broadcaster?
Dame Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend makes an important point; the insight she brings from her career in the media is critical. For many years, while the platforms were just that—platforms on which other people placed content—there was an argument that they should not be regulated and that they did not have a responsibility for the content on them, but they are at the very least active curators of that content now. Algorithms effectively form digital twins of individuals and then drive individualised content at them. That requires a responsibility. The time is right, as our Committee recommended, to ensure that platforms have responsibility for their content.
The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee will be holding a one-off session on social media age restrictions on 11 March to feed into the Government’s consultation on measures to keep children safe online and to hear from social media companies on their progress in the last year. We will also gauge the strength of the evidence for and against an age-based ban on social media, as well as any evidence relating to proposed alternatives to a ban. In doing so, we will hear from experts and representatives of those with direct experience of harms. We want to hear from both sides of the debate in the UK and will be seeking evidence from Australia on the first few months of the ban that is already in force there. We will be hearing from major social media and technology companies in a follow-up to our algorithms and misinformation inquiry, and we will ask for their views on the proposed age limits.
Finally, the work on social media age restrictions will feed into a larger inquiry on the neuroscience of digital childhood, which we will launch in the coming weeks. We want to find out how young people spending their formative years online affects their brains and what the Government should do to protect them from any negative impact. That could cover the impact of social media and other screentime on brain development, behaviour, and physical and mental health, whether positive or negative. It could also cover the physiological impact on eye development, the impact on socialisation and what actions Governments should take. There is a consensus on the need to do something, but not on what needs to be done. That is why we are seeking to provide evidence.
I always say to the platform companies that the opposite of regulation is not no regulation, but bad regulation. More regulation is coming. Several US states, such as California, have brought in new regulation on big tech. The Spanish Prime Minister has called social media a
“failed state where laws are ignored and crimes are tolerated”.
There is also the increasingly significant issue of technology sovereignty and whether we are too dependent on foreign companies for our online environment. I call myself a tech evangelist, and I am, but I also know how much an engineer costs. The starting salary of an AI engineer—if companies can find one—is well over £100,000 a year. Tech companies are not going to put them to work on protecting and keeping our children safe unless the House puts the right incentives in place. With all due respect to the Minister and the Online Safety Act, which he inherited, they are not in place now.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
This week is Eating Disorder Awareness Week, so I would like to pay tribute to the amazing staff at Leigh House in Winchester, an in-patient unit that cares for people with eating disorders in Winchester and the surrounding area. Eating disorders are possibly some of the most serious mental health conditions people can suffer from, and the most frustrating to treat and care for. They existed before social media, but social media is certainly making things more difficult. The body images that young people—teenagers and younger—are exposed to and the normalisation of AI-altered images that are impossible to attain, but which are presented as normal and aspirational, is hugely unhealthy.
We know that AI chatbots, which are often integrated into social media, are giving people mental health support and advice. I am really concerned about reports that patients with eating disorders are managing to get advice on how better to lose weight or even gain access to weight-loss drugs, which would make their condition much worse. I bring that up because there is a specific problem with AI chatbots. Some research shows that children do not recognise that a chatbot, which is often presented within social media as a companion, friend or cartoon character, does not have feelings, is not a person and does not care for their health and wellbeing.
It is very possible that, with the right regulation, AI and AI chatbots could be part of extending mental healthcare to people in the community at some point in the future. At the moment, it is dangerous and unregulated, and people accessing it are not even aware that it is giving them information that is potentially harmful to their health. I do not want this to fall through the cracks of regulation. Whatever we come forward with, whether it is about social media specifically or broadcasting licences, we should bring forward principles. Banning or regulating specific social media platforms or chatbots will be very unhelpful because of the speed at which these things are developing. It is a bit like whack-a-mole: once we regulate one, another pops up.
I draw everyone’s attention to the GUARD Act—guidelines for user age-verification and responsible dialogue—which was passed in the US last year. Very unusually, it had cross-party support despite the very fractious politics in the US at the moment. It regulates AI chatbots by requiring them to remind users regularly that they are not human or qualified to give medical advice, and it ensures that chatbots are not allowed to provide sexual content or have sexual or grooming-type discussions, and that users do not believe that they are speaking with therapists. I hope that we can focus our minds—especially during Eating Disorders Awareness Week—on the potential danger of young people being given what they believe to be medical advice by chatbots, which may be presented to them as friends or cartoon characters. That advice could be hugely harmful to their health.
I urge the House and the Government to move with extreme speed to address the problem. About two or three years ago, most of the general public had not really heard of ChatGPT. Now, we hear that around 50% of professionals use it regularly, over one in five people use it daily, and one in three adults have already turned to chatbots for mental health advice or emotional support. That is a huge and sudden change. It is penetrating our culture and daily use. We must ensure that we do not look back on this as we did with smoking. We knew for years the damage that smoking was doing to people, but action was not taken, evidence was obfuscated and lawmakers were lobbied. They delayed, and people died needlessly. We must get ahead of this and take action as quickly as possible.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
This week is Eating Disorders Awareness Week, and we must remember the acceleration of online harms. We have heard horrific accounts of ChatGPT giving young people diets of 600 calories per day, which is just appalling. We know the suffering and pain caused by seeing images tagged with the terms “ana”, “thinspiration” and other terms that should go. The promotion of such content is now a category 1 offence, and Ofcom should be weeding it out. The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) is absolutely right to say that that measure should be extended to bots.
I thank the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), for her fantastic speech. We have taken this matter seriously since the very beginning of the parliamentary Session, and we have done a lot of work on it. I echo her call for Ministers to look again at the recommendations in our Committee’s “Social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms” report, which goes well beyond misinformation and into how the damage is done.
Protecting our children and young people online is extremely important. The Online Safety Act was an important step forward, but it has not been fully implemented by Ofcom, it is not proactive enough, and it is too dependent on what social media companies themselves tell Ofcom. In the spirit of consultation—I know that we will get to that—I have done my own consultation with 500-plus 14 to 16-year-olds across my Milton Keynes Central constituency. Some 91% of them have a phone, and 80% have social media profiles. However, what will surprise the House is what young people consider social media profiles to be. We consider them to be Facebook or Instagram, while they consider them to be YouTube and Roblox—two organisations not covered by the Australian model. Additionally, 74% of those 14 to 16-year-olds spend two to seven hours online a day. Let me remind the House that, at that age, the brain development of young women is close to finished, while for young men, whose brain development does not finish until they are about 25, it is nowhere near complete. We know that from the science—just to be clear, that is not an opinion. Brain development in young women and girls happens differently, so should we therefore have different rules for young women and men?
Fifty-nine per cent of the 14 to 16-year-olds have been contacted by strangers, and more than a third of that was through Roblox, which is not covered by the Australian social media ban. Thirty-three per cent have been bullied, and a third of those was on Roblox. The Australian social media ban—which I assume is what the Liberal Democrats are talking about when they say they are in favour of a ban—does not cover YouTube or Roblox, and we have not even looked at whether it is effective. A ban is a blunt tool that essentially raises the flag of surrender to social media platforms and declares that there is no way of making social media safe. That is essentially what the Conservatives did when the Online Safety Act 2023 was passed: they said, “We cannot go far enough, so we are going to roll back. It is about free speech.” No, it is not about free speech. Freedom of speech was written into law in this country and spread around the world, so we understand how to protect it and limit its harm. The Online Safety Act was a missed opportunity. It also took seven years to get through this House, but we do not have seven years to wait.
There would also be unintended consequences to a ban. I had the pleasure of meeting Ian Russell the other night, and we had a really powerful discussion. My heart goes out to him, as one parent to another, given what his family have been through. He does not jump to the easy solution of a social media ban. The Molly Rose Foundation has done a brilliant briefing paper, which every MP should read, about why it does not support a ban: it wants the online world to be safe for children, but a ban does not make it so.
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I commend her work in reaching out to young people; it sounds superb. The lesson may be that we should all do exactly that. I am running a survey myself. She mentioned the Molly Rose Foundation, and I have met some of its staff to discuss its work. A family in my constituency of Reading suffered a terrible incident—their son was murdered in an incident of online bullying—and they have a different view. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we properly listen to the families and consider the different views in the consultation?
Emily Darlington
I absolutely do. My full sympathy goes to that family in my hon. Friend’s constituency—it is the worst thing in the world for a parent to lose a child. But we have to get this right, which is why it is right that we have a consultation. It does no child any good if we jump to a conclusion that does not actually protect children.
Although I maintain an open mind, I worry about a full ban. Some children rely on social media for connection, often including those who are exploring their sexuality—LGBTQ+ people—and those who are neurodivergent. The consequences for them could be devastating, so we need to consider their views. If young people get around the ban, as they do in Australia, they are less likely to report when they see harmful content or are being targeted on social media, because they worry that they will get in trouble for breaking the law.
A ban would create a cliff edge at 16. No matter the person’s maturity—I have already talked about the different brain development in young women and men—their skills or what they have been taught, there is a cut-off at 16. All of a sudden it does not matter, and they go into a world that is not safe. Younger children do not have their own social media profiles; they use their parents’ devices. Often, they start with a video of Peppa Pig, and all of a sudden—who knows where it ends up? A ban would not address that. So, what is the solution? Doing nothing is not an option—I think the whole House can agree on that.
Monica Harding
I was interested in the hon. Member’s survey. I have done my own very unscientific survey of young people, and all of them seem to want some form of regulation. With that in mind, we must hurry up—does the hon. Member agree?
Emily Darlington
I absolutely agree. Young people, particularly those in the mid-teenage years, understand this issue in a way that sometimes we do not because, quite frankly, our online experience is completely different from theirs. If Members want to test that, they should open an app such as Pinterest and compare what is fed into their Pinterest boards with their child’s Pinterest boards. It is a completely different experience. If Members do not have children, they should ask younger member of staff to open the same app on the different phones, and they will see a completely different world.
Kirsty Blackman
A local organisation in my constituency, CyberSafe Scotland, surveyed children about what they were being fed on TikTok. There is a road in my constituency called North Anderson Drive, and children on one side of North Anderson Drive were being fed different content to the children on the other side of it. It is not just an age thing; it is really specific, and we cannot understand what each individual person is seeing because it is different for everybody.
Emily Darlington
That is a very important point about how sophisticated the technology has become. When we ask companies to take action to stop outcomes, the technology exists to do that. We are not asking them to reinvent the wheel or come up with new technology. It already exists because they are even microtargeting two different sides of the road.
Having discussed this with experts, parents and—most importantly—young people, what do I think we need to consider? First, we need to fully and properly implement the Online Safety Act 2023. That must be done at speed, and it requires nothing from the House. It has been a request of the Secretary of State and the Minister, and I recommend that Ofcom gets on and does that as quickly as possible. We must make safe spaces for children online. How do we do that? Part of the answer is ensuring that content is related to ratings that we already understand as parents, such as those from the British Board of Film Classifications. I have been asking YouTube what rating YouTube Kids has for about a year now. Is it rated U? Is it 12A? Is it 15? It cannot tell me because it does not do things on that basis.
As a parent I want to know the rating before allowing my children on an app, because parents have a role in this as well. All apps should be rated like videogames. Roblox has a 5+ rating, which does not exist in videogame ratings. We see ratings such as 4+ or 9+, but those are made up. At the parents forum that I did after the survey, one parent said that she walked in on her nine-year-old playing “guns versus knives”—on an app that is rated 5+. The ratings on apps mean nothing, yet we have video game ratings that we as parents understand, so why are they not used? Should in-app purchases ever be allowed for young children? What is the age at which in-app purchases should be allowed in a game?
We must consider the time limits for the different stages of brain development. We have guides on fruit and vegetables that recommend five a day to parents. We all know that. Schools use the same language, we use the same language, yet we have nothing to support parents in deciding how long a child should be online at different stages of brain development. I hope that the evidence that the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee collects will help inform that.
We need to change addictive and radicalising platform algorithms. To protect children from child sexual abuse images, we need to talk to those behind iOS and Android to stop the creation of self-generated child sexual abuse images—some 70% to 80% of child sexual abuse images are self-generated—and we need to stop end-to-end encryption sites from sharing them. We have technology that can do that. We should always keep the ability to ban in our pockets, but any ban should be for particular apps. We should not ban our children and young people from having an online experience that is good.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Across the country, the dangerous synthetic drug Spice is being brazenly marketed to children over social media. Many vulnerable young people believe that they are buying the less harmful, though still illegal, drug THC only to discover, too late, that what they have been sold is a far more potent and unpredictable substance. In schools, the consequences are already visible. One in six vapes confiscated from pupils now contains Spice—one in six! If we walk through parts of our towns and cities, we see the human cost: Spice users slumped in doorways, trapped in a semi-conscious state, stripped of dignity and control. How terrifying it is that this drug is no longer confined to our streets and prisons, and has entered our classrooms.
Children are collapsing in school corridors. Some are rushed to intensive care and others begin a battle with addiction that may follow them for life. Spice is not simply another illegal drug. Its extreme potency and addictive grip is a fast track to exploitation and criminality. It is always a tragedy when someone falls victim to substance abuse, but when it is an uninformed child who has been misled and targeted over social media, it is not just tragic; it is a profound failure to protect.
I have raised the issue in the House and with this Government repeatedly over the past year and a half, but in that time the situation facing vulnerable children has not improved, but deteriorated. Gone are the days when a young person had to meet a dealer in a dark alley to buy drugs. Today, a child can purchase them from their bedroom, with a few taps on a phone. The marketplace has moved online and our children are paying the price. But do not just take my word for it. The Metropolitan police have warned about children accessing illicit vapes through social media platforms, such as Snapchat and Telegram. A recent BBC investigation revealed how effortlessly an illegal vape laced with Spice can be purchased over Snapchat.
This is not a few small-scale individuals. We are dealing with a global, industrial supply chain, with major chemical suppliers in China providing materials to markets in the UK, the European Union, the United States and Gulf states. Researchers at the University of Bath have identified nearly 10,000 accounts involved in the supply and distribution of Spice, many using TikTok to advertise and communicate. I have met a number of Ministers about this issue, most recently the Minister for Online Safety, who is in his place. I know he understands the scale of the problem and is sympathetic to our concerns, but words are not enough: we need action.
Selling drugs is already a priority offence under the Online Safety Act, and Ofcom has a statutory duty to enforce that. Yet despite clear, sustained evidence that these substances are being openly advertised and sold online, we have not seen the decisive enforcement that the law requires. Instead, the burden is falling on members of the public to report these accounts, effectively asking individual citizens to do the regulator’s job for them.
What happens when an account is removed? Within hours, a near identical profile reappears. An account named “Spice Sales 1” is reported and taken down, only to resurface as “Spice Sales 2”, then “Spice Sales 3” and so on. The name changes slightly, the branding shifts marginally, but the criminality remains the same. This revolving door of reactive takedowns is not a strategy—it is an admission that the current system is not working. If a shop in Bath were openly selling drugs through its front window, the police would intervene immediately. There would be no hesitation and no suggestion that the public should simply keep reporting it. So why, when the shopfront is digital and when the customers are children, are we not treating this with the same seriousness? It is time that we confronted this reality. Social media companies have developed incredibly sophisticated algorithms, as we have already heard this afternoon, that are capable of targeting advertisements to individuals with remarkable precision. They know what we watch, what we like and what we linger on, so it cannot be beyond their capability to deploy artificial intelligence to detect and prevent the sale of illegal drugs on their platforms.
Active detection must replace endless reactive reporting. The technology and resources exist, and the evidence is overwhelming; what is missing is political will and enforcement. It is time to hold social media companies to account, because the safety of our children demands nothing less.
Chris Vince
This is a genuinely friendly intervention. I am raising this point because I know that the hon. Member does a lot to champion and support people with eating disorders. I am completely changing the subject, but does she think that the rise of social media and online platforms has had an increased impact on people with eating disorders?
Wera Hobhouse
I could go on forever about online harm, particularly with regard to eating disorders. It is Eating Disorders Awareness Week, and we will be having a debate on that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will attend that debate, as he can then raise that point again.
Today I am talking about spice and the responsibility of social media platforms and how we protect children. I therefore support the provision to bring in a Bill on protecting children from online harms, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). As I have said before, it is time for action; we can no longer dither and delay. I do not accept all the debates saying, “Oh! Process this, that and the other.” If we really mean it and are really serious about this issue, we need to act now. I am pleased that my party is prepared to act and show the public that we want change.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on bringing forward this debate, which is a really valuable opportunity to talk about this issue. I also thank the many hundreds of my own constituents who have written to me about this from a variety of perspectives—if I have not got back to them yet, I will do so shortly.
Social media has rightly been described as a wild west. I come to this debate as someone who grew up with it—it has been there all my life—but who thoroughly dislikes traditional social media. Were it not for the importance of it in my job, I would spend very little time looking at it.
We must start by clarifying what problem we are trying to solve when we talk about online harms. The way I see it, there are three main categories. First, there is harmful online content itself. Algorithms are feeding people things that they never asked for, and the evidence that misogynistic and other extreme and deeply wrong content is being pushed on to people is overwhelming.
Secondly, there is the online grooming of children. Everyone knows how serious an issue that is, particularly on some online gaming platforms aimed at younger children, such as Roblox, which has been mentioned previously. It is so bad, and the reaction of the relevant company is so poor, that vigilantes are now active on some of these platforms, conducting sting operations to catch paedophiles. Appallingly, Roblox responded to one such user, who has a YouTube channel under the name Schlep and got six child predators arrested, by banning him from the platform and threatening legal action. Clearly we cannot encourage vigilantism, but if that is the platform’s response when someone is trying to deal with their own failures, something is deeply wrong.
There is also the problem of addictive content. That has gotten far worse in recent years, with the rise of short-form content and the algorithms that fuel it. Apps such as YouTube can in some circumstances automatically default to their “shorts” function when opened to be maximally addictive. Other addictive features are rampant, such as Snapchat streaks, which encourage children to open the app first thing in the morning and last thing at night to keep them going.
As the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) just mentioned, there are rampant drug-dealing problems on Snapchat. Some of that is due to the way that it recommends friends to people. There are accounts with the most obvious pseudonyms that we imagine, such as “snowforsale”, which clearly mean, “Add this account if you want to buy drugs from someone.” So little action is being taken on that issue.
Snapchat is not the only platform with this problem; it is rampant on Instagram as well. I remember quite recently that I came across an account that was so clearly selling marijuana-infused food, so I reported it, and Instagram did absolutely nothing. There is a real complacency and a lack of willingness to act in these companies that we have to deal with.
I should mention the rise of AI-generated fake content, designed either to mislead people or keep them hooked by showing fantastical things that do not work in reality. There is also the related issue of faked content more generally. There are horrendous examples of viral fake cooking recipes that do not work and could cause serious harm to people, such as by encouraging them to use a microwave in a way that could create something explosive. Online content creators such as Ann Reardon, who is an Australian YouTube creator, are doing amazing work to call that out and try to educate people, but the platforms do not have their backs; in many cases, they are actively undermining those creators’ work because the content they are trying to deal with is what is generating the most money for those platforms, due to its addictive nature.
I was very impressed by a video that my hon. Friend the Member for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) put out the other day, exposing—if memory serves—a situation in which people working for an estate agent were recording videos in the homes of people who are from ethnic minorities, then packaging them to look like they are asylum seekers and saying, “Look at the great lives that asylum seekers have.” I encourage everyone to have a look at that video. The way that that content has been able to propagate online is atrocious, and I am so glad that my hon. Friend has been able to call it out.
All of these issues point to a situation that cannot go on. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), I am concerned that trying to solve them in one fell swoop with a ban for young people will not work, and could make some of the issues worse. Young people are incredibly digitally literate and digitally agile, and I am afraid to say that when a platform becomes unavailable to them, they can rapidly switch to another. A recent letter—I was glad to hear the Minister mention it in his speech—signed by the NSPCC, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, the Molly Rose Foundation and a long list of other child safety experts raised exactly that concern, and referred to blanket bans as
“a blunt response that fails to address the successive shortcomings of tech companies and governments to act decisively and sooner.”
In my view, taking a named-platform approach to a ban is unworkable. I fear that young people and Ofcom will end up in a perpetual game of whack-a-mole, with children moving to other apps as Ofcom tries to follow and shut them down. I know which side I would have my money on in that game; our regulator is nowhere near quick enough. In March last year, I spoke in this Chamber about an app I was aware of others using from when I was a teenager, which essentially functions as a dating app for children but masquerades as social media. The app I refer to has now finally had its age limit increased to 18, but it took 10 years.
This is not just about Ofcom, either—I do not wish to criticise just Ofcom. Regardless of how quickly a regulator moves, I guarantee that our country’s children will move more quickly. Their digital literacy is far higher than they are often given credit for, which will make it much harder to regulate platforms and deal with harms. It will likely become easier for groomers to hide and to find victims, while it will become harder to regulate addictive features and to take action on harmful content. Even if that turns out to be less of an issue than I fear, arbitrarily setting the age at 16 just shifts the cliff edge that we already have to deal with—it does not teach people to deal with and recognise the problems. Frankly, the problems that social media creates are by no means limited to young people. I talked previously about AI-generated and faked content; it is primarily older people who are struggling to identify that content and are not equipped with some of the necessary skills.
In my view, blanket bans also risk serious damage to children aged between 13 and 16 for whom the ability to connect with others online is particularly important. Let me give a very personal example. Around the age of 13, I started to realise that my sexuality was not like those around me—I was not straight—but I was living in a rural community where there was not really anyone else to talk to about that who would understand. It was made worse by some of my early childhood being immersed in a deeply homophobic religious community. As such, finding people with similar experiences online to talk to and be able to provide mutual support was incredibly valuable for me, as it is for other LGBT people, as well as for neurodiverse children and others.
So what do I believe is the solution? We need a functionality-based approach. Through limiting certain functions and features, I am of the view that we can deal with harms without creating a situation where children—they are going to seek out ways to connect online regardless of the law—move on to less regulated platforms. In my view, we should look to restrict addictive functionality on those platforms; that might be linked to age, or it might be something we want to consider for people of all ages, because as I said, it is affecting people of all ages. The explosion of addictive, algorithmically driven short-form content over the past few years, as well as features such as Snapchat streaks that are actively designed to keep people hooked, provide no discernible benefit to society. Social media companies have proven unwilling to act on that front, so we must.
We also need to enforce existing age restrictions much better. We all know that plenty of people under 13—which is usually accepted as the current limit—are already using social media platforms that they should not be using. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central mentioned the example of children on their parents’ accounts, which is so widespread.
There is a definitional problem about what actually is social media. Are we counting online gaming platforms such as Roblox? That can be joined from age five. There are ways to prevent children from accessing chat functions—parents can prevent younger children from doing so—but with the continuing prevalence of child abusers on the platform, those measures are clearly not working. We need to be very clear on what we mean by social media because of how much the definitions differ.
To conclude, I really agree with the Government’s approach in opening a meaningful consultation—a national conversation—on how we tackle online harms and on where the pitfalls in workability are, so that we can identify and deal with them. I look forward to engaging further with it alongside my constituents.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Members will realise that time is knocking on. If they could keep their contributions to between five and six minutes, we should be able to get everyone in.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
As a society, we are raising the first generation of children who spend less time outdoors than prisoners do. Ministry of Justice guidelines state that all prisoners in the United Kingdom should have a minimum of one hour in the fresh air each day, yet research tells us that a worrying number of our children do not meet even that threshold—because they are confined not by bars and locks, but by screens.
Astonishingly, the Centre for Social Justice found that up to 800,000 children under the age of five are already using social media. The Association of Play Industries has released a report that highlights just how little our children are moving. The research places adolescent social media use at three to five hours every single day—a figure that has grown by 50% in under a decade. They socialise through social media, form their identities through social media and build their understanding of the world through social media, but what they find there is not a safe or nurturing space.
Children on TikTok encounter harmful content every 39 seconds. By the age of nine, one in 10 children has already been exposed to pornography. By age 11 that figure rises to more than one in four. This is not accidental exposure; it is a predictable consequence of placing children in unregulated digital environments and hoping for the best. Beyond the content itself, the very act of compulsive scrolling is taking a toll. Children are exhibiting the hallmarks of addiction anxiety when separated from their devices. They are experiencing declining attention spans, disrupted sleep and a growing inability to engage with the world in front of them.
Every hour spent staring at a screen is an hour not spent outside—not spent running, exploring, falling over and getting back up. It is an hour not spent in the kind of unstructured, unscripted play that builds resilience, creativity and social intelligence in ways that no algorithm can replicate. This was beginning to happen when my own children were young. At that time, a significant push factor was the fear that children were not safe roaming freely in the physical world. It is a sad irony that the very social media platforms that are providing an ever-increasing pull factor have created an online environment that puts children at risk of harm. Stranger danger is now online.
A 2025 University of Exeter study of 2,500 children aged seven to 12 found that 34% did not play outdoors at all after school on school days, and 20%—one in five—did not play outside on weekends either. Many children do not even get the hour promised to prisoners. The years that children spend outside are crucial. To replace that with an unregulated and harmful social media environment is to actively harm our children. That is why I support stopping under-16s from accessing harmful social media and why it is crucial that we get this right.
Getting it right means focusing on reducing harm. A blanket approach risks removing children’s access to helpful user-to-user platforms such as Childline. We must also ensure that we do not let young people loose at age 16 into a wild west of social media without any training in the safer foothills. These are concerns that charities such as the NSPCC have raised and which a film-style age rating would address.
It also means ensuring that there is flexibility to deal with future developments, such as AI chatbots, which have already been mentioned by a number of Members. We got into this situation because change in the tech world has far outpaced both our ability to adjust as a society and our legislative process. That is why I welcome the careful, collaborative approach being put forward. The 643 constituents who have written to me on this issue would expect nothing less.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
This is an issue in which I have taken a close personal interest, because I have spent 22 years working in mental health services in the NHS. During that time, I have seen a gradual increase in mental health conditions, especially among young people. I do not want to say that this is all because of social media—there could be various reasons, such as 14 years of austerity, the cutting of NHS services or the closure of youth hubs—but I believe, and many studies show, that social media has played a role in the recent increase in mental health conditions and mental illness among young people.
This is not just because of online content; as many Members have said, it is also because screentime takes away young people’s social interactions with the rest of society. I am particularly concerned about the high rates of depression and anxiety caused by cyber-bullying and exposure to the dark side of the internet, to which our children have almost totally unfiltered access through the devices in their pockets.
I pay tribute to the work that has been done in schools across my Ashford constituency. In my visits to local schools, I have seen how effective measures, such as students locking their phones away in sealed pouches at the start of the school day, can ensure that mobile phones do not disrupt learning. Some of the studies done in those schools show that children’s academic work and behaviour have improved, especially their attitude towards teachers and fellow students.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a really important point about the restriction of phone use in schools, and he mentions pouches. I met Naomi from Smartphone Free Childhood Dorset last week, and she is concerned that the use of pouches reinforces the idea that children can have smartphones at school. Although access is mediated, this approach still accepts that smartphones can be present. She would prefer children to have brick phones at school. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
Sojan Joseph
Local studies show that locking away smartphones leads to students feeling that they have not been taken away. They are still able to hold on to their phones in their pockets, but they are not able to use them. I agree with my hon. Friend’s suggestion that another option is for children to have brick phones, so that they can still make contact or send text messages but are not able to access online content. These sorts of things need to come out in the consultation, so that we know what works and what does not work. That is why it is important to have the consultation. Local studies have shown that locking away smartphones helps to improve students’ ability to concentrate, learn and socialise during the school day, and it has been welcomed by teachers and the overwhelming majority of students.
Last year, I went to see a performance of a play by young people in Kent. The play, “Generation FOMO”, explores the impact of smartphones and social media on young people, with a script drawn from interviews with people aged between 10 and 17. It is a powerful and moving piece of work that highlights some of the harms associated with smartphones and social media, as told by young people themselves. “Generation FOMO” has been performed in schools across Kent, and I know that it has been incredibly well received by teachers, young people and parents. After seeing the impact that the play has had locally, I was delighted to bring the cast to Parliament at the start of January, so that they could perform it to parliamentarians and other policymakers in Westminster.
Following that performance, I joined many of my colleagues in writing a letter to the Prime Minister to ask the Government to take steps to look into this area. The letter set out why technology firms, not parents or teachers, should take responsibility for preventing under-age access to their platforms. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcement of a swift consultation on what further measures are needed to keep children safe online. Ministers have been clear that the consultation is not about whether the Government will take further action, but about what the next steps should be. So I am particularly pleased that, alongside the formal consultation, the Government will run a national conversation to ensure that the views of parents, teachers and young people themselves are placed at the centre of future action.
Although I want to see further measures introduced, I believe that, in order to be truly effective, they must be evidence-based. As the consultation takes place, it is right that Ministers look at what other countries—particularly Australia—are doing to protect their children. Some Members have mentioned the loopholes and how the children work around the restrictions, and this will be an opportunity to look at what is and is not working there, so we can get it right from the beginning.
In the meantime, last week the Government announced immediate action to make the online world safer for children, including a crackdown on illegal content created by AI. Some Members have talked about AI chatbots, with young people and other members of the public have been accessing for mental health help, which is dangerous.
We all want to see our children grow up healthy, confident and safe, which means ensuring that the digital world they now inhabit is built with their wellbeing in mind. The actions already announced by this Government are welcome, and I look forward to Ministers returning to the House soon with meaningful, evidence-based measures that will further strengthen the protections on the platforms that shape so much of young people’s lives.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I would like to start by thanking the hundreds of parents in my constituency who have written to me about this important issue.
For too long, tech companies have treated children as data to be mined, rather than young people to be protected. We cannot let social media bosses off the hook for the way they have normalised harm, prioritised profit and ignored warning signs. We cannot keep allowing them to act with impunity in putting our children at risk or continuing to escape scot-free while the consequences of their business models are borne by families, schools and already overstretched public services.
As we have heard, harmful content and addictive algorithms are taking a profound emotional and psychological toll, contributing to rising levels of anxiety, depression and self-harm. The dangers cannot and should not be underestimated. It beggars belief that the tech companies have been able to operate without proper regulation.
At the heart of this debate must be the children and young people who have been subjected to appalling online harms. ChatGPT has reportedly given extremely harmful answers to young people experiencing a mental health crisis, while other AI chatbots possess capabilities to foster intense and unhealthy relationships with vulnerable users and to validate dangerous impulses. As we have heard, it has also been reported that ChatGPT and Grok chatbots are advising children with potential eating disorders on dangerous meal plans of just 600 calories a day. This is terrifying.
Although I recognise the difficulties in policing everything online, will the Minister consider establishing a cross-Government approach to ensure that mental health support is expanded and to equip public services to respond effectively to social media-related harms? Can he also clarify whether Ofcom is being given the resources to meet the scale of the challenge and oversee the rapid evolution of online technologies?
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Liz Jarvis
I am going to carry on.
My constituent Anne, who is a teacher, told me that she sees the mental health ramifications and the impact on education of mobile phone usage in schools, and believes the only way to protect the future of children is to ban their exposure to harmful apps. After meeting a local headteacher a few weeks ago, I asked the Secretary of State what interim measures the Government are considering to help schools manage pupils’ access to social media on mobile phones. She stated in her response that phones should not be used in schools, but schools do need support to enforce this. Without stronger enforcement tools, clear national standards and practical support, it will be very difficult for schools to get a grip on social media use during the school day without spending money they simply do not have.
We must also be clear-eyed about the potential shortcomings of age verification schemes. Early reports from the Australian scheme have highlighted issues with security and privacy. Teenagers can still migrate to smaller apps, borrow credentials or find ways around age verification technology, all of which pose risks to their online safety. Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s consultation will rigorously examine how systems can be designed to minimise data collection and safeguard the privacy of young people?
Social media and online content have changed what it means to be a young person today. One constituent told me that her 11-year-old daughter travels to school every day with fellow pupils, but because those girls have smartphones and like to scroll on the journey, she feels they are not interested in becoming friends with her, resulting in low self-esteem, isolation and not having local friends. My constituent dreads the emotional impact that smartphones will have on her other child when he starts secondary school.
The onus should not be on children and young people to protect themselves from online harms—it should be on platforms to prevent it in the first place. As long as the owners of tech companies allow harmful material to flourish, children are essentially being asked to build resilience in environments engineered to expose them to harm. We can teach children about online safety, respect, decency, courtesy and healthy relationships at home and in the classroom, but that work is actively undermined online by algorithms that reward extreme content and by platforms that are too slow to remove illegal and abusive material. Ofcom should be strong in enforcing clear regulations that protect users.
Liberal Democrats were the first to call for a ban on harmful social media, alongside a future-proof film-style age rating system that focuses on the harms platforms pose. The widespread consensus in this House and across the country that something urgently needs to be done to stop children accessing harmful online content reflects the pressing desire for the Government to get a grip of this crisis. We must act now to protect children, hold tech giants to account and ensure that all children are safe online.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I will constrain my comments to three themes, and I want to start with policy. This has been a very interesting and wide-ranging debate. We have heard from many speakers across the House who have articulated the heartfelt and thoughtful concerns that all of us have about the pervasive way in which social media can influence our children, our friends, our families and young people in our society. I am the parent of a 15-year-old. I know what that battle is like—hearing the chirp of Snapchat going off every few seconds, it sounds like, some weekends, as my daughter and her friends communicate in the modern way, and trying to understand what she is doing on Roblox, the games she is playing, who she might be interacting with and the other platforms that, frankly, are alien to me, as someone who is past the age when that stuff makes much sense or is of interest.
The simple answer is to say, “We should ban it all—just lock them all away until they’re 16, and it will all be fine.” I worry about my daughter walking down the street—I worry about who she is going to meet when she is walking to school and her interactions in the physical world—but simply saying, “Right, you’re staying in your bedroom until you’re 35”, which we discuss on occasion, is not a solution to those real-world problems. Part of it is about how we help young people to understand the misinformation and disinformation that they are coming across, and it is also about the way in which we regulate the content that platforms share.
The part that has been missed today, in the many wonderful contributions from Members across the House, is that this is about not just the platforms that share the content but the creators who make that content in the first place—the people who go online to sow the seeds of hate and division: the homophobic content, the Islamophobic content, the antisemitic content that all too often is passed off as criticism of the Israeli Government, and the many far-right commentators in this country who put out toxic masculine culture commentary as though it is a reasoned point of debate. I understand what Conservative Members say about free speech, but we have always been a country and a society where it is not consequence-free speech—there are consequences to the things we say and the actions we take, and that is how we come to understand what the social norms are. We seem to have abdicated our responsibility for that in the online world.
I turn to my second point. The 15-year-old I mentioned in an intervention earlier was, in fact, my daughter, who has now given me permission to out her in that sense. The facilities that I enjoyed when I was in my teens simply do not exist any more. My daughter’s world is as much her online friends and sphere of activity as it is the physical world in which we live. Disconnecting people from that because we think it is unsafe does a disservice to them. I am also slightly worried about the impact of the fact that we are soon to legislate, I understand and hope, on giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote—a policy that I think will mainly get cross-party support.
I like to think that the political literature that I push through letterboxes in my constituency is of such compelling interest that every young person will snatch it from the letterbox, read it and think, “That is why I am going to vote for Gareth at the next election.” I am sure that the Liberal Democrats’ Focus leaflets have the same impact on young people in their constituencies. The reality is, however, that young people do not read the direct mail that we send out. They do not read our leaflets, or at least not as much as they should. Many young people derive their information, news and views from social media. If we say, “You know what? We are going to cut it off”, where will we force those young people to go?
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I have not mentioned Harlow yet today, so I feel that I should. When I spoke to some young people at Mark Hall Academy in my constituency of Harlow—there we are, I have done it—about the potential social media ban, I was interested to hear what they had to say. They said, “We don’t care about Facebook”—because only old people like us use Facebook—but they did not want us to ban platforms like WhatsApp, which I had not thought of as being social media, although I suppose it is. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for young people’s voices to be heard during the Government’s consultation, so that we can understand their views on this issue?
Gareth Snell
Absolutely. I understand that my hon. Friend was a teacher in a previous career.
When I think of social media, I think of my Twitter account, which has been dormant for years; my Facebook account, which I use for the clips that all of us in this place are obliged to put out and then deal with the comments beneath them; and my WhatsApp, which it seems that every political party has to run with, because without it we would all stop talking to each other. My daughter would think of her Snapchat account. I too now have a Snapchat account with just one friend—her—and we use that to communicate when I am here and she is at home. It means that I get voice notes and little videos from her, and it is how we keep our weekend conversations going during the week.
We must ask ourselves where we draw the line. Members have mentioned access to YouTube. My daughter will freely use YouTube to help her with her homework. She goes to an all-iPad school, so much of the homework is set on iPads. Apparently the subject of screentime will form part of the consultation, and that should be genuinely considered. Will young people be told, “You cannot use your phone—it is the worst possible thing to have—but here is an iPad to look at for six hours a day, and if you get stuck on question 6, go to YouTube video 4 and follow the methodology”? On one hand we are sending one message, and on the other is something that is inconsistent with that approach. Let us be honest: the first job that all the children and young people we are talking about will have is going to be based on the use of some form of AI assistance, such as Copilot, and will depend almost entirely on the use of technology. We are going to have to think about how we integrate that sort of future-proofing into whatever regulation we produce.
My final point is about procedure. I am very sorry to return to that subject, because this has been an excellent debate. I went to the Public Bill Office—there is no Bill that is referenced in the motion. It is completely blank. I understand that the Liberal Democrats intend, if the motion is passed, to engage in a consensus-based process of writing a Bill in the next two weeks that we can debate and pass in one day. It is clear from what we have heard today—from the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), who spoke so eloquently about the perils of eating disorders, from the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who talked about the ability to sell drugs online, and from those on the Government Benches, including my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), who talked about the way in which young people interact—that, as I said earlier, this will be a complex piece of legislation.
The idea that we can complete a Second Reading debate in two hours and the full Committee and Third Reading stages in two hours, on a single day, which will include the discussion of amendments, is simply impractical. I genuinely hope that the content of today’s debate will lead to better legislation, as part of the national consultation that the Ministers are leading, but I think that doing this in such a truncated way, through a single motion and on a single day, will lead to bad legislation.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is not just impractical; it is also anti-democratic. As Bills proceed through this place, there is interaction with our constituents who want to influence how we are thinking and how we are voting, so it is important for us to have time to discuss these matters with them as well as in the Chamber.
Gareth Snell
I agree with my hon. Friend; however, I would not say that it is undemocratic. I will be clear: I do not like the principles of Opposition parties taking over the Order Paper. I did not like it or vote for it when my party tried to do it when we were in opposition during the Brexit years, so I will not support it now. I will say that the next time a Minister stands up and says that we are moving at pace, I might pull my hair out—or what is left of it. What we need are some actual timescales for when things will happen. Otherwise, we will find ourselves talking in circles.
Today, we have been able to establish the core principles, which we would agree on. That is a good thing. I hope that when the Minister winds up, he can give a little flavour as to when the consultation will start and how we can all get involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and I will be doing events across our two constituencies with our colleges. That way, we can try and make sure that those views are harvested and fed in, and that a complex and nuanced issue gets the hearing it deserves so that we get the legislation right first time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. We have three more speeches left. I will start Front-Bench speeches at 6.40 pm, so let us start with a five-minute time limit.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
We have all learned that if an online service is free, we are the product. That is the business model used by the social media giants. They track what we watch, what we click, what we like and what we fear. They then build detailed profiles of our behaviour and they turn that behaviour into data and advertising revenue.
These platforms do not just host content; they actively shape what we see. They promote material, target adverts and keep users online for as long as possible because the longer we stay, the more money they make, and that is where the problem lies. The algorithms used by social media giants are designed for engagement, not wellbeing. They feed on outrage, division and shock to keep us scrolling. Users are pushed towards more extreme content, not because it is true and not because it is healthy, but because it is profitable. We can see the consequences in the real world.
Young people in particular are vulnerable to these pipelines of harmful content. Misogynistic and extremist figures, including Andrew Tate, rise to prominence through social media ecosystems that reward provocation and repetition. What starts as healthy curiosity or pushing the boundaries in young people can quickly lead to radicalisation. Given the serious harms caused by under-regulated social media, we have a responsibility to act quickly in a defined timeline to protect children and young people.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Last week, the chief executive officer of Meta took the stand in Los Angeles as part of a landmark trial examining Instagram’s impact on the mental health of young users. This highlights the confusion about who is responsible for what in the online space. We know that we need Government legislation, but we also need clarity on what social media companies are responsible for. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time that we establish a clear framework and proper accountability so responsibilities are understood and the right people are held to account for any failings?
Susan Murray
I absolutely agree; it is important that it is clear who is accountable for the harms that occur. That is why I urge the Government to work with the Liberal Democrats to introduce age ratings for social media. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) so clearly laid out, ratings help parents and carers to keep children safe. We already accept them in other areas of life—not every film is suitable for every age group, so we rate them; not every game is suitable for every child, so we rate them. Social media should be no different.
If a platform, unasked, can expose a child to violent content, misogyny, self-harm content or extremist propaganda, it must not be treated as if it were harmless by default. This is not about banning social media or saying it has no value. It can be a brilliant tool for learning, as we have heard. It can help people stay in touch with friends and family, as we have heard. It can open up access to information, support and communities that people might not otherwise find. Yet those benefits do not cancel out the harms. We are not trying to get rid of social media, but we must take a sensible approach to ensure that multibillion-pound companies do not push products that maximise profits while our children pay the price. We regulate risk in other areas. We cannot be beholden to tech giants; we have a responsibility to regulate here.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
This makes me more frustrated than just about anything else in this place: the levels of ignorance, stupidity and hypocrisy from so many people in here, specifically about children’s access to social media. I fully intended to support the Lib Dems’ position, but the longer their spokesperson, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), spoke, the less I wanted to do so.
I do not believe that the Government’s position on this is 100% right. I am glad that they are having a consultation, but I do not like the way that they are amending the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is a devolved Bill, to change the territorial extent to bring that into scope. A Bill that we have not scrutinised, because it is a devolved Bill, will now have a reserved section in it. At the moment, the Bill does not apply to Scotland, apart from one clause; now, it will apply to Scotland, because it will include this. As we have not had the opportunity to scrutinise it, we have not been involved in that process. I do not think it is right that the proposed amendment should come forward in this way, although I appreciate why the Government are doing it. That is why I am asking for the amendment to be shared with us as soon as possible so that we can see it, because we have not had a chance to look at the Bill as it has gone along.
The Lib Dems have said that they have made their position clear. I have so far been able to find three amendments and new clauses to the Online Safety Act put forward by Lib Dems during its passage through the House. One of them was put forward by the Lib Dem spokesperson, who asked for an independent evaluation within 12 months of whether more platforms should be subject to child safety duties—this is the same party that is currently accusing the Government of kicking the can down the road, despite asking for a 12-month independent evaluation. There is hardly anything in the Lib Dems’ previous positions that helps me to understand their current position.
The Tory party’s position is totally incoherent, too. The Tories refused my amendment on reducing habit-forming and algorithmic features. They also refused my amendments on livestreaming.
By the way, before the Minister’s “Dear colleague” letter, livestreaming had been mentioned 53 times across the two Houses. A third of those mentions were me talking about how livestreaming for children should be banned. Before today, Roblox had been mentioned 32 times across both Houses—15 of those mentions were me saying that Roblox is not a safe platform for children.
I am massively in favour of improving the online world for children. I think social media should be about looking at videos of cats. I love videos of cats—they are absolutely brilliant. That is what it should be for. I also think it is a great place for children to interact with one another.
Like some others in the Chamber, I have been making the case that there are dangers on social media that can be easily tackled by changing the Online Safety Act. We could have got rid of those algorithmic features for children, for example. We could have got rid of livestreaming for children through the amendment I tabled. We could have got rid of children’s access to private messaging features with people they do not know, through another amendment that I tabled to the Online Safety Act.
I do not like the way the Government are doing this, though. They are proposing an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and then we will have secondary legislation that will, possibly, amend the Online Safety Act—I am not 100% clear on how it is going to go. I appreciate that there needs to be a consultation.
Before the 2024 Parliament, there were about three people in this entire place who had any grip of what the online world might have been like for children. One of them was the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), who talked about some of these things. I asked the Minister at the time whether Fortnite would be included in the scope of the Online Safety Act, and they said, “If there’s text chat.” Text chat in Fortnite—it is an online game! There is not enough expertise in this place. Much as I hugely appreciate the people who work on writing Bills and the work of some of the experts at Ofcom, they are not experiencing the online world that children are experiencing. That is why we need to listen to ensure that any changes that are made tackle the most harmful behaviours, places and functionalities on the internet.
I appreciate that the Government are trying to take action on this now. However, one of the few things that has made me cry in frustration in this place was one of the first things this Government did when they came in, when they brought in secondary legislation to categorise platforms and refused to include the small, high-risk platforms that had been added in the House of Lords. They said they were categorising as category 1 only platforms like Facebook, which meet a certain threshold. I was so frustrated by that choice by the Government.
There needs to be more listening and learning about where the actual dangers are, and taking action on them. Please, do that in consultation with those of us who do understand this. Please, listen to experts on this.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is clear that all of us here today want to see legislative change to protect our children online. There is no doubt about that. The only debate left is how we do it. We Liberal Democrats want to see some urgency, yet more than a month on from when the Secretary of State announced the consultation, we have seen absolutely nothing from the Government. The Minister today failed to answer my question about when we could expect to see that consultation. Given how the Government put pressure on the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) to water down his safer phones Bill back in 2024, they will forgive me for having little confidence that they are serious about legislating for this anytime soon.
There is a disconnect in our society where we assume that as soon as our children come home through the front door, they are safe from whatever harms exist in the outside world. We assume that they can happily hop on to the computer, boot up the PlayStation or relax and scroll on their phone, but in reality, the harms that children face online are far more significant, constant and pervasive than any that they face outside in the real world. Children, particularly vulnerable children, are at greater risk of grooming, seeing something violent or harmful, forming an addiction or damaging their mental or physical health from being online than they are from playing outside.
A 2025 survey by Internet Matters found that two thirds of children said they experienced harm online, that one in five had encountered violent content and that over a quarter of children had been contacted by strangers online. These days there are probably far more paedophiles sitting in a dark room in their underpants in front of a screen than there are waiting in the local park for a child to walk by. When Charlie Kirk was shot in the US, children as young as eight were watching that video within hours here in the UK. The bottom line is that parents are simply not aware of the dangers that their children are being exposed to online.
We have heard some brilliant contributions about the lack of socialising and playing outside, the damage to physical and mental health, the impact on eating disorders, the ability to buy drugs online and far more. I have talked a lot in this House about my belief that we should have a ban on phones in schools. One reason for that is that the evidence shows that when a secondary school has a total ban on having or bringing a phone into school, parents of children at the feeder primary schools are not under pressure to buy their children phones at the age of 10 or 11. By delaying giving children a device till 12, 13 or even 14, we give them some precious extra years when they can grow up a bit in the real world. Every single year counts at that age.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
That is exactly what is happening in Tunbridge Wells. The secondary schools there have moved together to be smartphone-free, and now the primary schools are having that conversation with the parents.
Caroline Voaden
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to ban harmful social media for under-16-year-olds by introducing age ratings similar to film classifications, so that we can rate the platforms according to the harm they present. We have talked a lot about this, and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) and others raised the issue of Roblox. The harms of Roblox are clearly something that we need to be aware of. Our approach would include all user-to-user platforms such as forums and online gaming, including Roblox, to ensure that children were properly protected from harm wherever they were engaging with others online.
I want to say one thing about the importance of the online world to children. Back in 2003, my husband died and I was a very young widow. I did not know any other young widows, and I joined an organisation that had a chatroom. This was back in the dark old days when we had very static chatrooms; some Members are too young to even know what that is. Late at night, when I was on my own, that place was a real lifeline for me and a real connection to other people who had been through the same tragedy. My children got to know other bereaved children who had lost a parent. The charity that I later became chair of now has online forums where those bereaved children can speak to each other. They are probably the only kids aged five or six in their school whose dad has died, so it is really important for them to be able to have those conversations with other children. Although we talk a lot about the LGBT community, I know from my personal experience that my kids would have benefited from being able to stay in touch with the other kids that they met occasionally on weekends away if they had been able to chat to them online. So I absolutely know the value of these online spaces for children, but I am also aware of the danger.
Our approach is supported by 42 charities and experts, which work with children, on violence against women and children and online safety. We believe that it is a valid proposal. We want everybody to come together in this House. We want to work cross-party. We know that we need to legislate, and we want to do so together because we owe it to our children—we are the adults in the room. We have to protect them, and we have to do it now.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I have been quite shocked at some of the procedural discussion for several reasons. First, we are acting like this has just come up, but even in the House of Commons under this mandate, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) mentioned, the safer phones Bill was put forward in 2024. As Liberal Democrats, we put forward amendments to change the age of data consent to ban addictive algorithms. There have also been calls to act on doomscroll caps, and we have highlighted the harms of AI chatbots. Yet we are at a point—I absolutely respect what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) was saying on this—where a consultation was proposed by the Government over a month ago, but we still do not know the details. There are things going through the House of Lords that, again, we do not know the details of. At the very least, Liberal Democrats are trying to give the space for that and say, “Yes, we need to start putting forward that legislation.” If there is another chance to debate that, what is the harm in this motion because this is such a crucial issue?
Secondly, it is not as if this is an issue that turned up yesterday. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) talked about, these harms have been happening for years—over 22 years for Facebook. I will go on to say more about that in a moment. Other countries around the world are showing leadership on this and saying that we have to act now. My point is that at the very least, a consultation could have been launched earlier. This is not something new in this Parliament. We are saying that action needs to be taken.
Most importantly, the parents, children and experts watching this debate want to see us taking this issue seriously. Children and young people are at the heart of this. I think back to the first time I met some of the sixth-form students at Ashlyns school in Berkhamsted. I will never forget sitting around that table with one sixth-former—let’s call him James. He told me about his fears for the mental health of his friends. He warned about the self-harm that he was seeing among his peers, which his teachers were not even aware of, and he talked about the role of social media. A few weeks later, I was pulled to one side at St George’s school in Harpenden, where some young women shared with me their concerns about the growing misogyny lived out by young men, which started on social media.
Since then, I have carried out a “Safer Screens” tour meeting young people. Students have talked about brain rot and seeing the extreme content that the algorithm continues to push on them, even when they try to block it—the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) talked about that. One student said, “It is as addictive as a drug”, and they see the harms of it every day.
This is the tipping point, and I am surprised that many Members think that it is not. This is that moment. Parents, teachers, experts and even young people are crying out for action, and have been for a long time, to tackle the social media giants that have no care for their mental health. As I said, this tipping point has been years in the making. Facebook was launched 22 years ago. Indeed, a Netflix documentary from six years ago started to highlight the warnings from people who worked in tech about social media. One expert said that it is
“using your own psychology against you.”
Having worked in tech myself, I have read the books and received the training on how these social media giants get us hooked—it is built in.
Awareness is growing. I thank Smartphone Free Childhood, Health Professionals for Safer Screens, the Molly Rose Foundation, the Internet Watch Foundation and the Online Safety Act Network, along with projects such as Digital Nutrition—the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) and others have made the analogy of an online diet—that have worked to ask what the guidance should be. Those are just a few of the organisations I could name that have worked tirelessly to ensure these voices are heard.
I also thank pupils in my constituency from Roundwood Park, St George’s, Sir John Lawes, Berkhamsted and Ashlyns schools, and students who have openly shared their experiences, hopes and concerns about the online world. Their concerns are not just about content; they are also about addiction. Let me be clear: as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) mentioned, the core of this issue is that this is the attention economy, so our children are the product. Their attention, focus and time are being sold to line the pockets of tech billionaires. Governments around the world are taking finally action. This is a seatbelt moment where we need to say, “Enough is enough.”
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) talked about trying to get this right. I respect that, but I often think that if we were able to walk down the street and see a 3D version of what young people are seeing in their online world, action would have been taken much sooner. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) talked about holding tech companies to account. We need to start unpacking what children are seeing and finally take action.
The Online Safety Act has done great work, but it does not go far enough. It sets out illegal harms and a code for inappropriate content for children and over-18s, but not a framework of legal harms or age-appropriate content. The social media age of 13 is based on data processing that is managed by the Information Commissioner’s Office and has nothing to do with what is age-appropriate in that context. Dr Kaitlyn Regehr, the author of “Smartphone Nation”, talks about how the Act is reactive, not proactive, and leaves it up to the user to report problems rather than putting the burden of safety on tech giants.
We must ensure that we build on the OSA and learn the lessons from Australia. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central talked about this. In Australia, a wide definition of social media has left it to a small group to decide what is appropriate. That has meant that YouTube has been banned for under-16s, but YouTube Kids has not, with no real framework for why apart from the fact that they deem YouTube Kids safer. WhatsApp has not been banned, which is possibly the right thing, but legislators are left to play whack-a-mole as new social media apps pop up. There is no framework for harm from AI.
Kirsty Blackman
Australia just bans children from holding accounts; it does not ban them from using any of the platforms. They can still use YouTube; they just cannot have an account.
Victoria Collins
Absolutely. YouTube is everywhere. It is embedded in almost every website that has videos.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) asked about AI chatbots. In the proposals we put forward in the Lords, the user-to-user services are the AI chatbots. We have highlighted for a long time that potential harms from AI chatbots are not covered. That is absolutely the case, but Ofcom has clarified that AI chatbots are the user-to-user service. The harms, such as AI psychosis, which my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) alluded to, are not covered. That is why the harms-based approach we are putting forward is so important.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) said when she opened the debate, the Liberal Democrats have been leading the work on online safety in this Parliament. We were the first party to push a vote on banning addictive algorithms. We have called for health warnings and a doomscroll cap. Today, we are calling for a vote on the age for social media and online harms. We are calling for a ban on harmful social media based on a film-style age rating. That harms-based approach holds tech companies to account, sets a pioneering approach to online standards and prepares for the future of AI chatbots and games like Roblox, which has already arrived.
In the offline world, anyone buying a toy for young children at this point would expect age ratings so that they know it is appropriate and safe, and films have had age ratings for over 100 years, yet we have not had that in the online world. The harms-based approach is backed by 42 charities and experts who work to protect children, stop violence against women and girls and make the internet a safer place.
We are also calling for a reset, because enough is enough. That includes a minimum age of 16 for social media and real accountability for tech companies with film-style age ratings. We need to make sure that we get the best out of the internet for young people and protect them from harms.
For me, it comes back to James, his friends and the young women and children I have spoken to around my constituency. We do not have time to waste—that is why we are pushing for these Bills. We are calling for action, and I call on MPs across the House to put children before politics, exactly as we did in the Lords. The amendment in the Lords could mean a blanket ban. We were uncomfortable with that approach—we much prefer ours—but we knew that the future of children came first. We must help the next generation to get the best of the online world—including those young people who have spoken out and shared their concerns and horror stories—and protect them from the worst of it.
The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)
I thank the Liberal Democrats for securing this debate, although I am slightly disappointed by the way in which that was done. I will not concentrate on procedural issues, but it seems to me that the argument is to give the Liberal Democrats the freedom of the House to introduce a piece of legislation that they want to work on while already having all the answers.
The use of a procedural motion for this serious debate is rather unfortunate. I think that has been demonstrated in the strength of feeling in the debate. I am completely and utterly split. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), asked us to give an opinion, but I do not really know what the best thing to do is. I have a five-year-old girl and a one-year-old girl. The jobs that they will do when they are any of our ages have probably not even been invented yet. I want them to be able to live their lives, and to exploit, experience and enjoy social media and what new tech has to offer, but I want them to do so safely. Denying them that opportunity might not be the answer, but that is why consultation is put in place.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who opened the debate, mentioned her own children and the daily fight between screentime, online and doing other things. I am sure that I had the same fight with my own parents when they tried to turn the television off at night, so this is not a new battle, but it is a battle that parents will win—whether we negotiate or treat them with sweets or something else. This highlights the importance of the approach that we are taking, which allows proper consideration of a range of views—that is urgent.
I have a whole stack of incredibly sobering but also very contradictory statistics here, which is why consultation and national conversation are important. Some 99% of 12 to 17-year-olds reported that they benefit from being online. One statistic suggests that half of parents think that the benefits of children being on social media outweigh the risks, while another says that just three in 10 parents think that.
Looking at that data—there is a whole host of it in that context—we might think that this is a difficult issue to resolve, but then we come to the child sexual exploitation and abuse issues. There were 41,000 obscene publication offences in December 2024—an 860% increase in a decade. In September 2025, there were 42,000 obscene publication offences—a near 1,000% increase since 2013. Some 91% of child sexual abuse material found online is self-generated, often under pressure from manipulation. Let us be quite clear, because some Members do not get this: it is illegal to create, possess or distribute child sexual abuse images, including those generated by AI, regardless of whether they depict a real child. That is already against the criminal law. The Online Safety Act requires in-scope services to assess the risks to their users of child sexual abuse material. That cannot be clearer.
Sir John Hayes
Of course, the Minister is right that there is all kinds of data about online activity, but what is plain and truthful is that academic evidence suggests not only that there are risks of the kind that he has just described—of abuse, exploitation and so on—but that children’s very consciousness is being altered, including their ability to socialise, to learn and to comprehend. That of itself requires the Government to act, for a generation of children are being exploited by heartless tech companies that are careless about the damage they do.
Ian Murray
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. [Interruption.] I am sorry to upset my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). The Government are acting at pace, but we want to act in the right way. We must act in the right way because this is such a complex and serious issue. It is important for children to be able to seize the opportunities that being online can offer. We have heard about iPad-only schools. Parents must be confident that their children are safe—that is key. If we do not want to exclude children from age-appropriate services that benefit their wellbeing, we must act on the evidence and ensure that we strike the right balance between protecting children’s safety and wellbeing, and enabling them to use technology in positive and empowering ways.
Dame Chi Onwurah
Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that, in this debate on protecting children from some of the most obscene abuse, not one Reform Member is present?
Ian Murray
And the Reform party wants to dismantle the Online Safety Act. We are trying to resolve its potential imperfections, get it implemented and take it forward through the consultation, but Reform wants to scrap it. I have already said that anybody who thinks that the illegal possession and creation of child sexual images is acceptable under the banner of free speech does not deserve to be sitting in this House.
I have only a few minutes, and many Members made superb contributions; let me run through some of them. I have no idea whether the shadow Secretary of State supports the Online Safety Act or taking this proposal forward to a consultation, but we have to be evidence led. We share a desire to keep children safe online, but she has politicised the whole issue. It is not contradictory to want our children to have access to social media and benefit from it, and want to protect them; in fact, most Members said that they want to do that.
Lots of Liberal Democrat Members asked about timelines. Let me just say to them that there are not too many sleeps to go before they will see the consultation. Crucially, the Government will table amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that will allow us to implement the outcomes of the consultation through secondary legislation within months—before the summer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan) said. There is a primary legislative vehicle there already, and we can introduce the secondary legislation later.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) talked about the legislation not having been scrutinised. That is the position of the SNP—it does not scrutinise legislation on matters that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament—but that is their decision. It is not the decision of this House; its procedures do not require that.
I pay tribute to the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), and the Committee members for all their work on this issue. They are experts, and I have enjoyed listening to their speeches.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) mentioned advertising and drugs policy. As a joint Minister for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, I chair the online advertising taskforce, which is trying to deal with issues relating to online advertising. We are working with the Home Office on a fraud strategy and are trying to ensure that online advertising spaces are well regulated and looked after.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North was absolutely right to talk about eating disorders and suicide. I have heard some absolutely horrific stories—unimaginable stories that nobody could write in their wildest dreams—about online grooming, mainly of young girls, and mainly on platforms on which they are already vulnerable due to eating disorders. We have to deal with that. The live streaming of suicides is creeping up, and we have to do something about that. That is what this consultation is about.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) raised huge issues including eating disorders and AI chat. That is why chatbots will be included in the consultation. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) does a lot of work in this area—she is one of the pioneers in bringing these issues to the House. Algorithms will also be part of the consultation.
However, young people do need to see what social media is. To me as a 50-year-old, it is Facebook and WhatsApp, but it is not that to younger people. In fact, they frown when I talk about Facebook because they think it is old technology like slates and chalk.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) said that the platforms must do better to police themselves—they do have to do more—and, like many other Members, talked about their addictive features. Addictive features will be part of the consultation as well, so please do get involved in that consultation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), along with many hon. Members, spoke about the correlations with mental health. The Department of Health and Social Care has a key role to play in that, as was mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Ninety-eight per cent of primary schools and 90% of secondary schools already have “no phones in school” policies. We are clear that the guidance was not strong enough, which is why the Department for Education has published updated guidance on the use of mobile phones in schools. Because we want to be as clear as possible to schools, parents and young people that phones should not be used in schools, we reserve the right to put that on a statutory footing, should we be required to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said that he uses Snapchat to communicate with his one and only friend on Snapchat: his daughter. I hope that she will not unfriend him after his contribution or he will have no one. He was right to talk about the procedural motion. This is such a serious issue, so we must ensure that we get that right.
Let me finish by talking about international social media bans and incidents from previous countries, as many hon. Members mentioned.
In closing, protecting children online and ensuring that online life is as fulfilling as that offline is a responsibility that this Government take incredibly seriously. No child should have to navigate unsafe digital spaces or experience negative impacts on their health and wellbeing, and no parent should feel alone in making decisions to protect and support their children. Members should please get involved in the consultation, which is there to give proper consideration to the most effective ways forward to deal with these problems. It will be short and sharp. It will last for three months, and we have a legislative vehicle to take forward the proposals from that.
Question put.
Point of Order
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Next week we mark St David’s day, and the relevant flag will fly on the parliamentary estate. Similarly, the relevant symbols fly on St George’s day and St Andrew’s day. However, this does not happen on St Patrick’s day, which occurs in three weeks’ time. I have raised this matter on numerous occasions inside and outside the Chamber. Mr Speaker kindly responded to my latest letter to him and said that responsibility with regard to this issue rests with both the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I have written to both Departments and am awaiting a response. Has Mr Speaker received any indication from either Department of their intention to come to the House in advance of 17 March to indicate that this issue will be remedied as soon as possible? What might I do if they do not do that?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I have received no notice from Ministers that they intend to make a statement on this matter. However, Ministers on the Front Bench will have heard his point of order. He is of course free to pursue the matter by other means, including parliamentary questions, on which he may wish to consult the Table Office.
Charter for Budget Responsibility
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
I beg to move,
That the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Autumn 2025, which was laid before this House on 23 February, be approved.
The motion relates to the UK’s fiscal framework. It is a framework that matters: it guides fiscal policy and provides both transparency and accountability. Since coming into office, this Government have reformed the fiscal framework and, more broadly, set the public finances on a sustainable footing. At the autumn Budget, that included doubling the buffer against our fiscal rules, providing more certainty and stability for taxpayers and businesses. This is a core part of a wider economic strategy that includes Budget measures to reduce inflation, pushing down on the cost of living. All this helps to push down on interest rates and give businesses the confidence to invest. This is the right plan, and things are moving in the right direction. Just last week, we learned that January saw a £30.4 billion public finance surplus, the highest monthly surplus on record.
This is all supported by our reforms to the fiscal framework. We have reset the fiscal rules to reprioritise public investment and introduced a fiscal lock to ensure that Governments cannot sideline the Office for Budget Responsibility, as we sadly saw in the last Parliament. We are also committed to delivering one fiscal event a year, delivering on our manifesto and bringing the UK in line with the vast majority of advanced economies. At the Budget, the Chancellor announced plans to strengthen that commitment. We are doing so by drawing on recommendations from the International Monetary Fund’s article IV report last summer. The IMF made the case that fiscal policy stability would be aided by ensuring that the fiscal rules would only be assessed once a year. We agree, so this Government are legislating to ensure that this is the case.
To deliver this change, we are updating the two core parts of the fiscal framework. First, we are updating the primary legislation, the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, via the Finance (No. 2) Bill. Clause 251 of that Bill provides for one fiscal rules assessment per financial year. We are also updating the secondary legislation, the charter for Budget responsibility, which is the subject of today’s debate. The updated charter reinforces the change in the Finance (No. 2) Bill. It makes no changes to the fiscal rules, but ensures that those rules should only be assessed once per financial year. Specifically, it removes the requirement in chapter 4 of the charter for the OBR to conduct a fiscal rules assessment alongside any forecast. This will ensure that we can reduce the number of fiscal rules assessments per year without any reduction in fiscal transparency.
This Government are absolutely committed to the OBR’s independence, and to its vital role in providing regular assessments of the economy and the public finances. The OBR will continue to publish a second five-year forecast in the spring, which will aid transparency and inform the Debt Management Office’s financing remit, but the Government will not normally respond with fiscal policy. I look forward to seeing a few more Members of this House at the next of these forecasts, the spring forecast, a week today. I recommend that this House approves the updated charter, and I commend the motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for a succinct opening speech.
The charter for Budget responsibility seeks to confer the important attributes of stability and credibility on a Government’s management of the public finances and the wider economy. “Stability” and “credibility” are not exactly the first two words that spring to mind to describe the current Government’s management of the economy. Through their own incompetence, they have presided over a chaotic year that has shredded any remaining confidence in the Chancellor and her team and—more important—has done lasting damage to the life chances of so many young people who now cannot find work.
As the Chancellor prepares her spring statement, we have a Prime Minister living on borrowed time. This Government are painfully lacking in real-world economic experience, and they desperately need help. We will not be opposing the measure this evening.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the shadow Minister share the concerns that many, probably all, MPs from Northern Ireland have—although I welcome the good news in relation to the tax surplus; who would be churlish and not welcome something that is to the benefit of us all—about the Northern Ireland Executive finding it incredibly difficult to make ends meet and make the books balance? One thing we look back on is the Barnett consequentials. We have heard promises many times over a number of years that the Barnett consequentials would be addressed, but that has not happened. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has raised it, and individual MPs have raised it too. The Conservative Government and this Government said that they would look at it, but nothing has happened. Does the shadow Minister believe that it is now time to get things right for Northern Ireland, with a budget to help us to govern and deliver the goods, as the Government are doing here?
Richard Fuller
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think his issue with the Barnett consequentials is one for the Minister to reply to, but the Conservative and Unionist party, as he knows, has very strong support for and kinship with our citizens in Northern Ireland. On his comment about the revenues that the Government received in January, I would just point out that that in large part was due to self-assessment returns and capital gains returns filed in that year. When we tease through the data, we will see that a lot of that came from people making economic decisions that, in the long run, were not in their interest, because of the uncertainty brought into the economy by the Chancellor, who has confused people for an entire year.
To illustrate the chaos of the last year, let me remind the House what the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), said in the equivalent debate on the charter last year:
“Growth is the primary mission of this Government.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2025; Vol. 761, c. 344.]
But since then, comparing the OBR forecast from 2024 and 2025, growth is down in each year of the forecast period. In 2026, it is down to 1.3% from 1.8%. It is down in 2027, 2028 and 2029.
The then Chief Secretary also said that the autumn 2024 Budget
“put the public finances back on track, and we will keep them there.” —[Official Report, 29 January 2025; Vol. 761, c. 345.]
But since that statement the Chancellor has brought forward proposals to cut £5 billion from welfare. Then she reversed them. She said that she would stick to the two-child benefit cap, but then she caved in to Labour Back Benchers. The Chancellor has been forced to U-turn on her removal of winter fuel payments to pensioners. She has U-turned on her plans to tax our pubs out of existence, and she has U-turned on her damaging plans on the family farm tax and family business tax. After having said that she would not be coming back for more taxes, she did indeed come back to whack the British people again with tax increases amounting to over £26 billion.
When this Government came into office, the forecast was that they would need to borrow £77 billion this fiscal year. But under this Chancellor, that level of borrowing has ballooned to £112 billion so far and is forecast to reach £138 billion by the end of the year. According to the OBR in November 2025, public sector net debt will continue to rise over the forecast period, despite Labour raising taxes to record levels, and debt will rise from 93.6% of GDP to 97% by the time of the next general election in 2028-29—if the Government last that long.
Given the wreckage that they have caused in the general economy, Labour’s spin doctors have started to claim that the Government have the fastest deficit reduction plan in the G7. But that is only because this Government have spent so recklessly in their first years. Achieving this remarkable reduction rests on the credibility of the Government’s plans to raise taxes ahead of a general election and on their ability to rein in public spending in the out years—plans which, surely, their skittish Back Benchers will stymie, if the Government last that long.
There are two changes in this revised charter that I would like to note. The first is the decision to change the definition of the current Budget being “in balance”. Paragraph 3.6 of the previous charter said that
“balance is defined as a range: in surplus, or in deficit of no more than 0.5% GDP.”
The current charter does not include that condition. Can the Minister tell us why the decision has been made to remove that flexibility? I would also be interested in what he thinks of the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ recent report, which stated:
“The UK’s fiscal framework is based around a set of pass-fail, numerical fiscal rules. The fiscal debate is overly fixated on the amount of ‘headroom’ the government has against the most binding of those rules. The system incentivises the government to operate with the smallest amount of ‘headroom’ possible, with policy often fine-tuned according to the central point estimate of a highly uncertain forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility.”
The IFS report recommended that
“the UK would be better served by a new framework based around a set of ‘fiscal traffic lights’”.
The Government appear to have gone in the opposite direction to the recommendations by stressing the importance of pinpoint accuracy, and I would be interested in the Minister’s views on that.
I turn to the most significant change: the removal of what was paragraph 4.27 in the previous charter, which said:
“At the same time as the forecasts, the OBR will produce its assessment of the extent to which fiscal policy has delivered, or is likely to deliver, the fiscal mandate.”
The Government have, at a stroke, removed the opportunity for an independent assessment by the OBR ahead of the Government’s spring statement, yet last year the OBR significantly revised many of its previous assessments ahead of the spring statement. The OBR wrote that it was expecting GDP growth of 1%—half the rate of the October forecast—and that
“CPI inflation is forecast to rise from 2.5 per cent in 2024 to 3.2 per cent in 2025, 0.6 percentage points higher than forecast in October.”
[Interruption.] I have not been called “kiddo” for a while. I hope the Whip on duty, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), understands that this is an important point to make. It may have taken me some time to get there, but this is an important point.
The issue here is: why make this change now? The Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 is clear that the OBR must prepare fiscal and economic forecasts and assessments at least twice a year. Clause 251 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill retains the requirement for the OBR to prepare forecasts twice a year, but it seeks to remove the requirement in the 2011 Act for the OBR to provide its assessment twice a year. Perhaps the Minister—the wannabe Chancellor—can confirm that the reason we are today debating a revised charter, which now excludes an OBR forecast just ahead of the spring statement, is specifically to preclude the OBR from doing its own assessment on the imminent spring statement.
We support tonight’s measure, but not with any confidence in this Government’s handling of the economy. In lacking that confidence, we are not alone. According to the latest Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales survey, business confidence fell again in the last quarter of 2025, with record concerns about the tax burden on business. In its December 2025 survey, YouGov found that 80% of the British people thought the Government were handling the economy badly. It is a sorry, sorry state for our great country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will not burden the House with too long a speech.
There are a lot of issues with the Government’s and the country’s economic policymaking process, but there are good arguments for reducing the number of fiscal events, which create artificial cliff edges. However, I note the concerns, including from the IFS, that this looks like a way to reduce scrutiny of the Government’s economic record.
Fundamentally, if we are serious about the responsible management of the public finances, tackling our high levels of debt and getting our economy growing again, I am most interested in how we scrutinise our Government’s tax and spending plans. The current situation, in which we have months and months of speculation and then approve hundreds of billions of pounds of Government tax and spending with just a few hours of debate, with no one permitted to see what the Chancellor is proposing in the Budget until it is announced as a fait accompli in Parliament, is exceptional by international standards and a key source of uncertainty and instability.
If the Government truly want to improve market confidence, this is where they should be looking to make reforms. For example, we could look at Sweden, which, following a budget crisis in the early 1990s and soaring debt, introduced proper parliamentary debate of the Government’s budget, with alternatives offered and amendments made before it is finalised, before getting a subsequent period of scrutiny and accountability. The fact that Sweden has seen years of strong growth and high living standards, and that its debt has now dropped from 80% to 30% of GDP, is a positive endorsement of this approach.
The reality is that incredibly important choices are made as part of the Budget process. These choices impact the day-to-day life of each of our constituents, whether in Witney or any of the constituencies that the Members here all represent. The people have a right to have the fullest possible picture of how the Government are going about setting their taxes, spending their money and managing the economic picture, and this step will not achieve that alone.
The Government need to foster stability and manage the public finances responsibly. That hinges on getting growth back into our economy, not pencilling in unfair tax rises in a last-minute fashion at the end of the forecast period just to stick to the letter of the fiscal rules. However, until the Government grasp the nettle on much more fundamental reform of our Budget process, I do not think that will be achieved, and more critically, I do not think the dial will move on economic growth or market confidence.
Torsten Bell
I thank the two Front-Bench spokespeople, one of whom spoke admirably briefly. I will not repeat the case for these changes, given that we have heard that both opposition parties are happy to support the Government’s changes to the charter, so I will just respond directly to the questions.
I say to the Lib Dems spokesperson that it is always good to hear anybody praising Sweden in any debate. On the questions about scrutiny, I do not think he gives enough credit to his hon. Friends on the Finance Bill, who have spent many hours scrutinising the policies, and I am sure they would be upset to hear his lack of faith in them today. Directly on his question about transparency, I think that is important, and that is why we are maintaining the two forecasts a year, despite there being only one fiscal event.
The Opposition spokesperson asked why we are making these changes now, and the answer is that in our manifesto we committed to one fiscal event a year. The IMF has come forward with sensible recommendations to reinforce that, and we are just responding to the IMF’s recommendations. He asked a question about the range contained in the previous charter, and that has been removed because it applied only at the spring forecast, and we are no longer carrying out a fiscal assessment at the spring forecasts. He asked about the IFS report suggesting a dashboard rather than fiscal rules. I can tell him that there will be no change to the fiscal rules, although I obviously always enjoy reading any think-tank’s reports, and I would point out that we have already doubled the headroom against the fiscal rules.
More importantly, I was sad to hear the Opposition spokesperson’s remarks more generally, because I always enjoy his normal perkiness, at least outside this Chamber, but he has turned into a gloomster.
Torsten Bell
He is a total gloomster. He has totally ignored the record monthly surplus for the public finances. He has ignored the fact that wages are up, business investment is up and GDP has grown the fastest of any European G7 economy. He has ignored the fact that GDP per capita grew in 2025, after flatlining in the last year of the Tory Government and falling during the previous Parliament. He has ignored inflation falling and interest rates falling. I think it is right for the gloomster to be gloomy about his party’s prospects, but not to be gloomy about the UK economy. On that basis, I commend this motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The petition states:
“The petition of residents of the constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme,
Declares that there is growing concern in Madeley about proposals that would limit public access to College Fields, a green space that has been used by the community for many years; further declares that the prospect of fencing and restricted access has caused significant local opposition and raised questions about how decisions affecting the site are being made; further declares that College Fields is an important part of community life in Madeley, providing space for informal recreation, wellbeing and outdoor activity and therefore losing or limiting access to this field would have a real impact on local residents; further declares that local people have been clear that they want College Fields to remain open and accessible, and that any decisions about its future must be taken transparently and with meaningful community engagement; and further declares that imposing changes without proper consultation risks undermining trust and damaging a valued local asset.”
It also notes that an online petition on the same issue has reached over 1,000 signatures from people who live, learn and work in Newcastle-under-Lyme. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Staffordshire county council in the strongest terms to commit to protecting College Fields, to rule out the erection of permanent fencing or other measures that would restrict public access, and to work constructively with Madeley parish council, the people of Madeley and other local stakeholders to agree a future for the site that reflects the needs and priorities of our community.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme,
Declares that there is growing concern in Madeley about proposals that would limit public access to College Fields, a green space that has been used by the community for many years; further declares that the prospect of fencing and restricted access has caused significant local opposition and raised questions about how decisions affecting the site are being made; further declares that College Fields is an important part of community life in Madeley, providing space for informal recreation, wellbeing and outdoor activity and therefore losing or limiting access to this field would have a real impact on local residents; further declares that local people have been clear that they want College Fields to remain open and accessible, and that any decisions about its future must be taken transparently and with meaningful community engagement; and further declares that imposing changes without proper consultation risks undermining trust and damaging a valued local asset.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Staffordshire County Council to commit to protecting College Fields, to rule out the erection of fencing or other measures that would restrict public access, and to work constructively with Madeley residents and local stakeholders to agree a future for the site that reflects the needs and priorities of the community.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003164]
Army Reservists: Employment Rights
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Madam Deputy Speaker, through you, may I thank Mr Speaker for selecting this topic for our Adjournment debate? I am very grateful to the Minister for Veterans and People, who is in her place. It is the first time that we have been able to engage in this way since she has been in her role, so I look forward to that exchange. I truly hope that we will not get a 15-minute elongation of the answer I got to my parliamentary question, which is that the Government do not wish to engage in this discussion at this time, but we shall see—there is plenty of time for it to develop.
I know that some will look at the title of the debate on the Order Paper, “Potential implications of the judgment in the case of Advocate General for Scotland v. Mr Charles Milroy”, and ask, “What has this got to do with a Northern Ireland MP?” or with the colleagues of mine who have kindly stayed in the Chamber this evening. I do not know Charles Milroy, though I know of his service. This afternoon I had the opportunity to speak with him for the first time, and I can recognise him as somebody who has served our country well over more than three decades.
Charles Milroy joined the Territorial Army in 1982, was commissioned in 1983 and retired in 2015, having served his time as a reservist, as a commissioned officer and major. When he retired, he sought to attain what his co-workers successfully already had: a pension. This House will remember that the former Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), introduced a pension for reservists in 2015. But Mr Milroy was not entitled, he was told, to a pension. For almost six years now, he has been highlighting the legal entitlement that he has and pursuing that legal entitlement through the courts.
As the Minister and colleagues will know, the law that lies behind that is the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, introduced into our domestic law by the previous Labour Government —an entitlement that assesses whether a part-time worker is being treated less favourably than their full-time counterparts. On two occasions, the employment tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, through the judgment of Lord Fairley on 29 January this year, have ruled that yes, Mr Milroy was being treated less favourably than his full-time counterparts.
Let me explain why I am raising this matter, and why I think it important for it to be raised. I served on the Defence Committee for eight years over the course of a number of Parliaments, and have taken an interest in defence issues and raised and championed cases not just for an individual, but for the collective endeavour placed in service in this country. I raise this matter because of the fundamental, important principles that lie behind this singular case.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend my right hon. Friend for initiating the debate. I met the Forces Pension Society guys on Monday. I did not know that he had actually secured an Adjournment debate on this matter, but when I showed them what he wanted to say, they were incredibly interested, and wanted to put on record their thanks to him.
My right hon. Friend understands, much better than I do, that Northern Ireland has identical legislation that provides the same protections for part-time workers, and that consequently this will have a huge impact on Northern Ireland’s reserves. I should declare an interest, as one who served as a part-time soldier for some 14 and a half years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this process must be handled quickly, and that urgency is of the utmost importance to ensure that we right this wrong and stand with our ex-service personnel who should never have had to fight their Government—their Minister—for what should rightfully have been theirs?
Gavin Robinson
I want to come on to the scope of this in a moment, but I do not disagree with the points that my hon. Friend has made.
As I mentioned earlier, I had a brief conversation with Mr Milroy this afternoon. From the way in which he engaged with me and the way in which he outlined his experience in this regard, I recognised him to be a true gentleman. I recognised him as someone who, for the last six years, has fought to assert what is now a legal entitlement accepted by two courts in this land. I also recognised him to be a gentleman who, having served as a senior military leader, was more interested in those who lay beneath him, those whom he led, those for whom he still holds a pastoral and benevolent support. He told me that over the last six years of his quest—he won two years ago and won again in January—three of his colleagues, comrades, individuals whom he had led, had died.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
There were more than 40,000 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, half of whom—about 20,000—were part-time members. In the light of this ruling, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that they should be entitled to a pension as well?
Gavin Robinson
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I will return to the issue of scope, but I appreciate the hon. Member’s point.
I lament the fact that someone who has been campaigning on this issue for six years, personally and with colleagues, has lost three comrades in the process who were never to attain their legal entitlement.
I imagine that the legal decision set by Lord Fairley, president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal across England, Scotland and Wales and someone of legal standing, is engaging not only individuals in the Ministry of Defence but those who are engaged in finance. There is a scope issue here. I understand entirely, and I will always champion those who served in Northern Ireland, whether in the Royal Irish Regiment most recently, in the Home Service Battalions until their disbandment in 2007, or indeed in the Ulster Defence Regiment. However, we cannot assert legal positions that did not exist at the time. The Ulster Defence Regiment was disbanded in 1992, some eight years before this legislation was introduced in the United Kingdom.
We can look, in particular, at those who served as reservists from 2000 or 1997 until 2015. We can look at the scale of that. We know that in 1997 there were 130,000 reserve personnel in the United Kingdom, that in 2000 there were 110,000, and that in 2015 there were 85,000. We know that in 1997, for example, when this legislation was introduced on a European basis, there were 1,870 reserve or part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. But we also know this: that is not the case before the MOD today.
The case before the MOD today is one of principle, in Major Milroy and those of his co-claimants who are already in the system. The Minister should also know well that there will be impediments through a statute of limitations to further and future claims. There is an opportunity for the Minister to consider this case and that of those who have travelled alongside Major Milroy, rather than worry about a scope that could be exponential but, sadly, for which time has already passed.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing this debate. Whenever I wrote to the relevant Minister a year ago, the MOD confirmed that there were at least 310 people in Northern Ireland who fell within scope, but I agree entirely that there is absolutely no point in the Government deciding to fight this or seek in any way to curtail it. They should now accept that they have lost on this point of law and therefore allow anyone eligible to benefit.
Gavin Robinson
I think the time is coming, though we might not hear it this evening, for the Ministry of Defence to engage in the reality of what has been asserted in the courts. The Ministry of Defence is going to have to accept that, at a time when I, my colleagues and others throughout this Chamber are raising issues around support for veterans, particularly in the light of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the challenges that the Minister knows well and on which she has engaged in debate with me in the past.
The Minister will know that when I challenged this Labour Government and said they were not bringing forward safeguards for veterans, I was told that they were. I was then told that I was right and that the Prime Minister would bring forward amendments to the Government’s Bill, which they had already said included protections. We have not seen those amendments or the nature of them.
We stand here tonight with yet another opportunity for the Government to demonstrate recognition for the service of reservists and veterans, and to demonstrate that, though they recognise that there will be a financial implication, there is a moral imperative to honour a legal commitment that a previous Labour Government brought through and applied in this country. We hear from the Labour Government all the time about the need to adhere to international laws. What about adhering to the ones that they brought in themselves in our own country, and honouring and recognising the sacrifice and service of so many—I know that includes the Minister—who have served our nation? That is one of the challenges.
The second challenge is clearer: the Minister will need to provide an outcome for this process. If that is not today, then she needs to indicate that the Ministry of Defence is interested in a particular analysis and the implications of this case, and that Ministers have a fair understanding of how they are going to deal with it and that they will work towards a resolution. The last thing this Labour Government want to do is appeal to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court, not only giving the impression but establishing the actual fact that they will exhaust every opportunity to deny a legal right that is there and that has been asserted on behalf of our veteran reservist community.
It would be an indictment of this Labour Government if they were to exhaust ad nauseam every appeal mechanism and opportunity to frustrate the legal entitlements of our service veterans. I do not think that they can stand here today and honourably say that that is the position they wish to adopt, or stand here in three weeks’ time and talk about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and how much protection they afford to veterans, when they cannot get the basics right.
I know the Minister is not responsible for what has gone before, but she has the opportunity to address not only the perception but the reality that has been faced by Major Milroy, his co-claimants and those who have a legal entitlement, which they are asserting. It is an opportunity to redress the harm that has been caused over the last six years, and an opportunity to ensure that this Labour Government do not endlessly pursue appeals to thwart entitlement. It is similarly true of the McCloud judgment, which applies to the Ministry of Defence. That judgment is still being worked through unsatisfactorily and unsuccessfully.
I raise this matter this evening in the earnest hope but limited expectation that the Ministry of Defence will, through the Minister, give at least some certainty that this process will not be dragged out endlessly through each and every subsequent court possible—the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. I understand that it is under consideration and that there will have to be an assessment of what to do, but that should not happen until there is a full understanding and analysis of the implications of the judgments thus far and the real prospect of any successful appeal. There will not be one. The entitlement is there; it has been asserted in so many other spheres and sectors and asserted here in these cases.
I can say clearly, as I heard earlier from colleagues across this House, that these guys did not serve for a pension. No—they served under the leadership and guidance of the Ministry of Defence and their senior command. This is an example of where they are saying, “Well, hang on a second. Maybe in service I took the orders I was given, but in retirement I am at least going to ask, ‘Were they lawful? Do the laws apply to us, too? Do we have legal entitlement and protections that we can avail ourselves of?’”
I think this is the opportunity for Government to say, “We recognise your service and all you did for us. We will not, by hook or by crook, deny you the legal entitlements and the recognition of your service that you so richly deserve.”
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for securing this debate. I am grateful for his contributions and those made by other Members. I know, and can see and hear, that the right hon. Gentleman is a passionate champion of veterans and reservists’ rights. As a veteran myself, I thank him for his commitment and hard work on behalf of those who have served and contributed so much to our armed forces.
As the right hon. Gentleman notes, the case of Advocate General for Scotland v. Mr Charles Milroy raises important questions not only in law, but in how we recognise and support those who serve and have served our country, including through reservist service.
Let me set out the Government’s position: on 29 January 2026, the employment appeal tribunal in Scotland handed down its judgment in Advocate General for Scotland v. Mr Charles Milroy, in which it upheld the earlier tribunal’s findings in relation to Major Milroy’s service and the application of employment protections to reservists. That judgment is being carefully considered by this Government. This evening I will explain the principles guiding the Government’s approach, the work already under way and the position we are taking to support reservists and employers.
First, I will speak on our commitment to reservists. Reservists are, of course, integral to the effectiveness of our armed forces. They bring vital expertise into Defence, strengthen operational resilience and provide specialist skills that cannot be generated or sustained in the regular forces alone. As the Secretary of State said on Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill last month, our reserve forces are crucial to Britain’s security and, if necessary,
“to achieving a sustainable, efficient and rapid…transition to war.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 644.]
Their contribution directly enhances Defence’s capability. The Government’s position is clear: reservists must be treated fairly, lawfully and with proper regard to both their military service and their civilian employment. That principle underpins our policies and will continue to do so.
Secondly, it is important to place the pension issues raised by this case into the correct historical context. The questions before the tribunal relate to an earlier policy framework and, since 2015, reservists have had access to the same pension scheme as their regular counterparts. Moreover, reservists have long been entitled to pension provision during periods of mobilisation, recognising the fact that they may be placed directly into harm’s way while serving on operations. That protection remains firmly in place today and should not be lost in the wider public discussion of this case.
Thirdly, on the judgment and the Government’s considerations of next steps, we must be clear about the particular facts of this case before the tribunal. It was found that aspects of Major Milroy’s reservist service engaged employment protections in a way that had not previously been recognised. Both the employment tribunal and the employment appeal tribunal expressly acknowledged that the level of service days in question was atypical. That finding raises legitimate and complex questions about how certain forms of reservist service are characterised in law, and how they interact with employment-related rights, including questions of pay and pensions in this individual case. As such, the Government are carefully considering its implications for the judgment. That work is ongoing and it is being carried out while the case remains within the statutory period during which an appeal may be brought. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to prejudge the Government’s final position at this stage.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I know that the hon. Lady has served and that she comes at this very much from a service background. Time is of the essence, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made a powerful point about three reservists who served with Major Milroy having passed away. I am not hearing today a clear timetable for implementation, I am not hearing that sufficient funding has been allocated, and I am not hearing that the Government are in the process of bringing forward an impact assessment detailing the number of affected reservists, the estimated financial liability and the Department’s plan for redress. Can the Minister go further and give hope to those reservists that the Government are actually going to do something?
Louise Sandher-Jones
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details, but I can assure the hon. Lady that we are considering the implications of the judgment very closely, and I am mindful of the point that she and others have made about the need for speed in coming to this judgment.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Of course, the Government are considering whether to appeal. I trust that they will not, but if they do not and this is the end of the legal road on this, they will be faced with the next stage, which is to determine what remedy model they are going to develop for this case. Could I appeal to the Minister that, in arriving at that model, the Government do not make it tight and narrow specifically to this case but base it on the emerging strong principle of this case that there has to be an acceptance that part-timers should have pension rights? That is the fundamental principle. If the Government seek to avoid that by focusing only on this case and on the reservists, while ignoring the wider cadre of individuals who are equally part-timers and denying them what they will have to give to this applicant, would that not be a very wrong-headed approach?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. and learned Member for his point, and his comments have been noted. As soon as I have further details, I will provide an update.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. and gallant Lady. We understand that she has a personal intention to try to make things better. Whenever I met the pension people on Monday, they said that many part-time soldiers are not aware of their rights and the fact that they might be able to claim. Are the Government, and the Minister in particular, making any efforts to try to contact all those soldiers to ensure that they will be aware of their rights and can claim? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said, the longer this goes on, some people will pass away. The opportunity for money should also go to their relatives; it should be retrospective.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am not in a position to give details at this point, but I will absolutely take into account the hon. Member’s comments and ensure they are considered. I note his concerns.
Several Members have spoken about the importance of confidence—confidence among reservists that their service will be supported, and confidence among employers that the framework within which they operate is clear and predictable. The Government’s objective is a framework that supports reservist service, provides clarity for employers and is fully consistent with the law. Where the Milroy judgment indicates that greater clarity is needed, we will address that. Where it confirms existing arrangements, we will state that plainly.
Finally, on the wider message to those who serve, reservists across the United Kingdom make a substantial and valued contribution to our national defence. This judgment and the debate it has prompted reinforce the importance of ensuring that our systems reflect the realities of modern service and continue to command confidence.
The Government will give full and proper effect to the judgment in Advocate General for Scotland v. Mr Charles Milroy. We are considering its implications carefully and engaging with stakeholders, and we will act where action is required. We will do so in a way that is lawful, proportionate and firmly grounded in fairness. I again thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East for bringing this matter before the House, and everyone who has contributed to this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.