debates/debates2025-04-03c conversation_26
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-04-03)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-04-03c conversation_26

Juliet Campbell:Whether she is taking steps to help support churches in Broxtowe to meet the criteria for a gold Eco Church award. \p Marsha de Cordova: The Church of England is working with A Rocha UK to support parishes in meeting their net zero targets. Grants are being awarded to parishes to help them make quick wins in reducing their running costs, such as energy efficient lightbulbs and modern heating systems. \p Juliet Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. On a recent visit to St Michael and All Angels church in Bramcote in my constituency, they were proud to show me the plaque they had received for meeting the silver standard for eco churches. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating St Michael and All Angels, and Christ Church, Chilwell, on achieving the silver eco church award, and on their hard work and commitment to environmental sustainability? \p Marsha de Cordova: I am very happy to congratulate the congregations of St Michael and Christ Church on achieving their silver eco church awards. In my hon. Friend’s constituency, there are many parishes that I am   sure could learn from the great work those churches are doing. I also thank her for her commitment to her local faith organisations. \p Jesse Norman: Will the Leader of the House give us the future business? \p Lucy Powell: I shall, Mr Speaker.

Monday 7 April—General debate on road maintenance, followed by a general debate on neighbourhood policing and tackling town centre crime.

Tuesday 8 April—General debate on the potential merits of awarding a posthumous Victoria Cross to Blair Mayne, followed by a general debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

The House will rise for the Easter recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 8 April and return on Tuesday 22 April.

The provisional business for the week commencing 21 April includes:

Tuesday 22 April—Second Reading of the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill.

Wednesday 23 April—Opposition day (6th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats—subject to be announced.

Thursday 24 April—Remaining stages of the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords].

Friday 25 April—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 28 April will include:

Monday 28 April—Second Reading of the Football Governance Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 29 April—Remaining stages of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill.

Wednesday 30 April—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill.

Thursday 1 May—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 2 May—The House will not be sitting. \p Jesse Norman: It is some weeks away yet, but this is the last moment I will have to wish you, Mr Speaker, and all Members of this House and staff a very happy Easter; I hope I may do so. Easter is a joyous occasion, full of families and possibly inappropriate amounts of chocolate. I will be making the shadow Leader of the House’s legendary hot cross buns—not very much of the mix actually makes it into the oven, but that is part of the joy.

It is lucky, however, that we have several weeks to look forward to Easter, because this week has not been one of joy. We will be debating tariffs later, and we have also had the impact of the national insurance rises, which have pushed up costs, raising inflation, making it harder than ever to hire a new employee and blocking routes into work for young people.

My question, however, is this: what on earth is happening in Birmingham? As the House will recall, Birmingham city council is now in the fifth week of a strike with the  union Unite over bin collections. Apparently this matter concerns just a few dozen out of some 9,500 city council employees. As the House has heard, 17,000 tonnes of rubbish has piled up so far, growing by a reported 900 tonnes a week. Let us not forget that Birmingham’s bin collections were reportedly three and a half times worse than the worst of other councils even before this strike. The public health implications are now so dire that the council has declared a major incident.

The strike comes on top of two other recent fiascos. First, the athletes’ village in Perry Barr was built by the city council to host competitors during the Commonwealth games in 2022 but was never used, and has been sold at a reported loss to taxpayers of about £320 million. Secondly, Birmingham city council tried to install a shiny new Oracle IT system, resulting in a disaster whose costs are set to reach £216-odd million by 2026, according to a report by academics at Sheffield University.

As a city, Birmingham is technically bankrupt. It has been controlled by Labour for well over a decade, but my point is not about the council—it is about the Government. The Minister for Local Government let the cat out of the bag in his statement on this topic on Monday, when he said:

“Birmingham’s waste service has been in urgent need of modernisation and transformation for many years… Practices in the waste service have been the source of one of the largest equal pay crises in modern…history, resulting in costs of over £1 billion to the residents of Birmingham. This situation simply cannot continue.”—[Official Report, 31 March 2025; Vol. 765, c. 45.]

The Prime Minister went further in his own remarks yesterday, saying:

“The situation in Birmingham council is completely unacceptable”.—[Official Report, 2 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 294.]

However, neither the Minister nor the Prime Minister has yet offered any criticism at all of Unite, whose action is the cause of all this rotting refuse in the streets.

Unite was Labour’s biggest union donor before the general election, giving £553,900 to a total of 86 MPs—although not to the Leader of the House, I am very pleased to say. Does she think there could be any relationship between the Government’s reluctance to call out Unite on the disastrous situation in Birmingham and the half a million pounds in donations their MPs have just received? Some Members of the House may see this whole situation as eerily reminiscent of the 1970s, especially Labour’s winter of discontent in 1978-79, when striking binmen caused refuse to pile up across major cities, including in Birmingham. My worry, however, is about not the past but the future. Labour consistently backed public sector union strikes when they were in opposition—a point the Prime Minister conveniently forgot to mention yesterday—but now they are in power they have thrown money at the unions hand over fist with little or no negotiated improvements. Let us not forget that Northern Rail negotiators have even said that their agreements with the union require them to use fax machines.

There is a very serious point here, Mr Speaker. At this moment, the Government are abolishing NHS England and taking direct control of the NHS. Does anyone seriously think that a Government who are incapable of calling out their union donors over bin collections will have any ability at all to withstand pressure from the same and other union donors on the NHS? What will that do to cost control and productivity, to public spending and inflation? I would be grateful if the Leader of the House reflected on those issues in her remarks. \p Lucy Powell: May I join the shadow Leader of the House in wishing everybody a very happy Easter? I hope that Members can resist eating too much chocolate and hot cross buns, especially those who are on diets at this time of year.

Today is a day to reflect, Mr Speaker, because we face unprecedented times, which have the potential to change the global trade consensus of the past 80 years—a consensus that has brought this country, and most western countries, a great deal of prosperity. We are still processing exactly what the new tariffs will mean for British businesses, and we will shortly hear from the Secretary of State for Business and Trade about that in more detail. Just as President Trump is acting in what he believes is his national interest, we will always act in our national interest. We will do whatever is necessary to protect British jobs, British businesses and British consumers. I am sure the shadow Leader of the House will agree that, in any eventuality, securing the long-sought economic deal with our closest partner, the US, which the Prime Minister has been leading on for many months, is in our national interest, and I am sure the whole House will support him in those endeavours.

As the shadow Leader of the House said, this week is the start of a new financial year and the annual uprating of Bills. It is also a very worrying time for families. The cost of living crisis is not yet over, and many people will be wondering, as the month begins, how long their pay cheque will last. We have inherited a very difficult situation, and the global trade war will not help, but we are determined to protect working people. That is what we are all about. We are about making work pay with our Employment Rights Bill. We have seen a £1,400 a year increase to the national living wage. And for young people, there has been an unprecedented uplift to the national minimum wage, which is now up to £10 an hour. The state pension will increase this week by £470. We will take the action necessary to bring down in the long term our bills, including those for water and energy.

The shadow Leader of the House raised the situation in Birmingham. I was in Birmingham just last weekend visiting my husband’s family and found the conditions to be totally unacceptable. It is awful what people are living with, and we want to see the situation end, and end immediately. I am happy to tell the right hon. Member that I have no problem in saying that the trade union Unite needs to step up, get back round the table and come to an agreement. A reasonable agreement is on the table, so the trade union and the council should be able to deal with this very quickly.

I gently say to the shadow Leader of the House, however, that I do not think the situation in Birmingham covers anybody in glory. To make some party political point about it does not serve him too well. He and other Conservative Members might have a short memory, but this is a failure of successive leaderships of that council, including the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition of the early 2000s in particular. That was a critical phase in resolving the equality pay dispute, which other councils, including in Manchester and other cities, dealt with during that time, while Birmingham’s buried their heads in the sand about it.

If the shadow Leader of the House wants a discussion about what has happened with local government finances, let me say that local government was absolutely starved of finances for 14 years under his Government. Month  after month, we saw councils go bust, including Tory councils such as Northamptonshire and Thurrock. We have put record investment into local government, and will bring forward a devolution Bill later this year, which will include further measures on auditing local finances.

The shadow Leader of the House mentions the impact of industrial action on the working people of this country, but what did his Government preside over? We saw more days of industrial action in our NHS and on the railways under the Conservative Government than we have done under Labour. That is what the Conservatives want to do every time—cause conflict and have industrial action. We have seen an end to industrial action in our NHS. Because the strikes ended, waiting lists have gone down every single month for five months—and another 2 million doctors’ appointments have become available. On the shadow Leader of the House’s watch, rail companies boasted about free cash from the Government for their rail contracts, and we had a record number of days lost to industrial action. We put an end to that. We got this country back to working in the interests of working people, so I will take no lectures from him. \p Navendu Mishra: Mr Speaker, I wish you and all the House staff, colleagues in the Chamber, and those outside an early happy Easter.

Sky is a household name in Britain and has millions of customers. I am proud to represent Stockport, and Sky is a major employer in our town. Unfortunately, it was announced last week that almost 2,000 jobs are at risk in Sky’s UK operations, with 545 roles in Stockport and more in Leeds and Sheffield impacted. I have been working with my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and my immediate constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), to support the staff impacted.

Serious questions have been raised with me by Sky employees about the mass redundancies, the process being leaked to media outlets before all staff were made aware of the redundancies, and the lack of clarity about the level of support on offer to members of staff. These redundancies will have a detrimental impact on the economies and communities of Stockport, Sheffield and Leeds. Will the Leader of the House allocate Government time for a debate on Sky and how it treats its hard-working, loyal staff? \p Lucy Powell: I am really sorry to hear about the redundancies at Sky, which will affect my hon. Friend’s constituents, as well as some of mine nearby. He is doing his job as a constituency MP by raising this important matter on the Floor of the House. I am sure that the company will have heard his concerns about the announcement being communicated via the media before employees were told. That is just not acceptable. One of the reasons why we are bringing forward our Employment Rights Bill is to ensure that workers have more rights in these circumstances, and that employers have an obligation to ensure that redundancies are handled sensitively, and with regard to people’s long-term interests. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Marie Goldman: On 15 April, we will mark the 36th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster and remember the 97 people who tragically lost  their life on that dark day, as well as their families’ subsequent fight for justice. Last September, the Prime Minister gave a commitment that the Hillsborough law would be introduced in Parliament before we reached this anniversary. A duty of candour for public servants and public bodies is long overdue, and will help stop future cover-ups. It is vital that the legislation delivers on the commitments made to Hillsborough families in a meaningful way. Can the Leader of the House give an update on whether the legislation will be introduced before we rise for the Easter recess? If it will not, when we can realistically expect it? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue; it was also raised last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg). She is right. As we approach the anniversary of the Hillsborough tragedy, we should remember the 97 lives lost, all the families affected and the years and years of fighting for justice and accountability that the families have suffered since—frankly, with the state fighting against them, in most cases. That is something we should all endeavour to put right. As she says, the Prime Minister and the whole Government, myself included, remain focused on fulfilling our commitment to the Hillsborough families to bring forward and enact a Hillsborough law, which will of course include a duty of candour at all times. That is a very important measure to take forward.

At this time, the most important issue is to ensure that the legislation reflects the full range of concerns and experiences, and meets the expectations of the families. The very worst thing we could do is not meet those expectations, given that all the trust issues relate to the state failing to live up to the families’ expectations. We are working on the Bill at pace, but we will take whatever time is necessary to work collaboratively with the families and their representatives, because getting the legislation right is overwhelmingly our priority, as I am sure the hon. Lady can understand. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: Last month, Whitburn Band, from a former mining town in my constituency, won the Scottish brass band championships for the third time in four years. The band will represent Scotland at the national brass band championships in London, and at the European brass band championships next year. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Whitburn Band on its remarkable achievement, and wishing its members the very best of luck as they represent Scotland? Will she make time for a debate on the important contribution of brass bands to our musical heritage in communities across the UK? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Whitburn brass band, the Scottish brass band champions, and wish them all the very best in the UK-wide national brass band championships. If I may say so, she is doing a fantastic job of blowing the trumpet on behalf of her constituents. [Laughter.] It is Easter. I wish the band all the best in the championships. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. \p Bob Blackman: On the business that the Leader of the House announced, I have to say it is disappointing that we do not have Backbench  Business on 24 April. My reading of the business that day is that the Bill is uncontroversial and we are likely to finish early, but we will be denied the opportunity to have a debate on St George’s day, which is of course on 23 April, or a debate on Parkinson’s Awareness Month, which is April.

We are contemplating organising three 90-minute debates on 1 May, which is local election day. Colleagues may wish to be campaigning elsewhere, but that would at least allow debates on some of the motions that we have in the queue. It would help if the Leader of the House could confirm when estimates day will be in May. By my reckoning, there are only around four possible dates, and our Committee has to advertise the opportunity for people to apply for an estimates day debate, and then choose the debates.

On Tuesday 8 May, there will be a Westminster Hall debate on the persecution of Christians. When we return on 22 April, there will be a debate on residential estate management companies; I remind colleagues that we will sit Monday hours on that day, so the debate will start at 11.30 am, rather than at 9.30 am. On Thursday 24 April, there will be a debate on Lesbian Visibility Week, followed by a debate on the trading relationship with the European Union, which will be quite topical, given the tariff arrangements that have just been announced. On Tuesday 29 April, there will be a debate on compensation for criminal injuries.

Most of our allies, including the United States, have indicated their objection to the reappointment of Francesca Albanese as the UN special rapporteur on the occupied territories. This is a woman who has attempted to justify the atrocities on 7 October 2023, and repeatedly excused the atrocities committed by terrorists, yet she is apparently going to be reappointed by the UN. Our allies have called this out, but there has been total silence from the Foreign Secretary and nothing from any of our Ministers, so may we have a statement on how the Government will instruct our representatives at the UN to vote? Indeed, will they register their strong objections to her reappointment? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, as ever, for organising so many good, well-attended debates. He asked about 24 April. I am sure he will recognise that there is a bank holiday that week, and two weeks later, so we have a number of short weeks and a lot of Government business to get through. Given that Tuesday 22 April will be more like a Monday, I am afraid that Thursday 24 April will be more like a Wednesday, which is why, on the Thursday, time was not allocated to the Backbench Business Committee. However, I heard what he said about St George’s day and am happy to have a conversation with him about that. As ever, I will try to give him as much advance notice as I can of estimates day.

I thank the hon. Member for raising the issue regarding the UN rapporteur. He will appreciate that such matters are for the UN. However, I will ensure that the Foreign Office has heard his point, as I am sure his constituents have. In general, the Government and I would not find acceptable any comments of the kind that he described; I join him in saying that. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Just to help the House, I think we will say that these questions will last another hour or thereabouts. Hopefully we will get everybody in, if we help each other. Let us have a good example from Dave Robertson. \p Dave Robertson: Nether Stowe school in my constituency—my old school—has just completed a consultation on closing its sixth-form provision. This has caused a huge amount of stress for kids who are prepping for their GCSEs. They do not know where they will be able to do their A-levels. The other school sixth forms in Lichfield at Friary and King Edward are already heavily oversubscribed, so there is a risk that we will lack academic places for people to do A-levels when they reach 16. A month ago, I asked Conservative-controlled Staffordshire county council to share its planning for how many sixth-form and academic places we need in Lichfield. It has completely failed to provide that information. I need to know that there is a plan, so that everybody who reaches the age of 16 can take courses that are appropriate for them. Will the Leader of the House arrange for me to meet the relevant Minister urgently to discuss post-16 provision in Lichfield? \p Lindsay Hoyle: That was a bad example. \p Lucy Powell: I will try to keep my answers short, Mr Speaker. I am really sorry to hear about the closure of Nether Stowe school’s sixth form. I know that A-level provision is a challenge in many areas, and it sounds like it is in Lichfield. I am sure that Baroness Smith, the Minister responsible for further education, will be happy to meet my hon. Friend, and I am happy to arrange that meeting for him. \p Shivani Raja: While inequalities during pregnancy and childbirth have reduced, they remain a cause of concern for pregnant women from ethnic minorities. According to latest data, black women are 2.8 times more likely to die during and up to six weeks after their pregnancy, and Asian women are 1.7 times more likely to die during the same period. Ethnic minority women also have higher rates for stillbirth and various other complications. Will the Leader of the House kindly make time for a debate to explore those health inequalities and racial disparities? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Member for raising that important issue, which I know has caused considerable concern and debate across the House over a number of years. She is right to identify the poorer maternal health outcomes for those with black and ethnic minority backgrounds. The Government are committed to addressing that, and I am happy to keep her updated on progress. \p Peter Swallow: May I take the opportunity to thank 1st Priestwood Brownies, 1st Priestwood Guides, the Wayz youth centre and all those who took part in Bracknell town council’s great British spring clean litter pick last weekend? Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking litter pickers in Bracknell and across the country for all they do to keep our communities clean? \p Lucy Powell: I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Brownies—I was once one—and all those who took part in the spring-cleaning efforts in Bracknell. I join him in bringing that to the Floor of the House today. \p Stephen Flynn: Much to my surprise, but perhaps to the relief of the Prime Minister, at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday not a single Member of this House raised the fact that energy bills have once again increased. In fact, on the Labour party’s watch, they have gone up by £281, despite its pre-election promise to reduce them by £300. Will the Leader of the House afford us all a debate on Government time as to that latest broken promise from the Labour party? \p Lucy Powell: It is always a pleasure to see the right hon. Gentleman here. I am not sure how his promise to stay committed to this House is faring, as I think he has now had another flip-flop on that and I hear he is still going for that second job. For as long as he is here—[Interruption.] He asks if I would miss him. I, and I am sure the whole House, would miss him greatly.

He raises an important issue, which is energy bills. He will know that this Government are absolutely determined to lower our bills, to create the jobs of the future and to get our energy security. As a country, we are still far too exposed to international gas prices, as we are seeing with the increase in energy bills this year. That is why we are even more determined than ever—I am sure he will join us in this—to ensure that we have that clean, renewable energy of the future, which is the only way that we will get lower bills. \p Melanie Ward: Will the Leader of the House please share when the Government will publish the impact assessment on the assisted dying Bill? Will she further update the House on current plans for Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill? \p Lucy Powell: A number of Members have raised that with me over the last couple of weeks and I think it was raised last week at business questions too. As I said then, given the close scrutiny of the Bill in Committee and the number of amendments accepted from all sides of the debate, the impact assessment will require significant work by the Government to get it ready. However, we are absolutely committed to doing that in time for Report stage.

My hon. Friend asks about the future progress of the Bill. She will know that Report stage of this private Member’s Bill is on the Order Paper for 25 April. It is a matter for the House to decide on the Bill’s progress and I am sure that, as on Second Reading, so ably chaired by you, Mr Speaker, this House will come together in that debate. Hopefully, it will be chaired by you, Mr Speaker —let us see—and we will have a respectful debate in which people can contribute, make their views heard and show the public that we can come together and discuss such issues. \p Steve Barclay: The Active Learning Trust is closing the sixth-form Neale-Wade Academy, which will be harmful to social mobility in Fenland. Given that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) raised a similar point, may we have a statement on what action Education Ministers and the regional schools director can take to ensure that the Active Learning Trust, about which there are serious questions, puts in place a recovery plan and is much more transparent about how its decisions are reached? \p Lucy Powell: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue for his constituents and for many others about the Active Learning Trust and the provision in his constituency. I will make sure that the Minister is in touch with him. As he says, the regional schools directors, as well as Ministers, should ensure that there is adequate provision that is of a high standard and that trusts such as the Active Learning Trust are held to account for those issues. This is one of the reasons that we are bringing forward the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill—to make sure that accountability for trusts is really there. \p Emma Foody: One of the biggest issues raised with me in my constituency is the availability of council and social housing. In Conservative-led Northumberland, a recent freedom of information request found that there were more than 300 void council properties in south-east Northumberland alone, with £750,000 lost in rental income. The failure not only wastes money, but leaves people languishing on waiting lists, often in inappropriate housing. May we have a debate on how we ensure council properties are not standing empty for months on end, costing local taxpayers and limiting income that could be spent improving services? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of void council homes in her constituency. As she said, these homes could be housing those desperately in need of a social home, and it involves a loss of income. We are putting extra money into local government to ensure that they have the capital and revenues to bring those homes back into use, but we are also committed to ensuring we have more affordable and social housing for all her constituents. \p Lisa Smart: The Leader of the House may remember that on 5 December I raised the issue of adopters not being eligible for any financial support from the Government if they are self-employed. She helpfully recommended that I table an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, which I did. I also have had a Westminster Hall debate and raised the issue with the Minister at the Dispatch Box. At every stage, every member of the Government has mentioned a parental leave review. In response to a written question this week, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) suggested that this would start “in due course”. What format will the review take, and what is the timetable for conclusion so that all Members can participate? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Member for pursuing the issue through all those different means. She is an example to other new Members as to how to take forward an issue across a range of opportunities in this House. I will ensure that she gets a fuller response from the Minister about the timescale and how Members can be involved. \p Marie Tidball: A retired postmistress in my constituency served our communities at the post office in Parson Cross from 1994 to 2002 and was affected by the Horizon scandal, leaving her mentally and physically unwell. She has not  been paid the compensation she is owed from the fixed sum payment scheme. Please will the Leader of the House advise me on how I can help my constituent and her husband Michael to expedite access to their compensation payment? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend’s constituents have not had their compensation payment. Over 5,000 victims have had their payments made so far, but we certainly have more to do. She will recognise that this Government set aside the proper amount of money necessary for the first time, but I will ensure that her case is expedited. \p Roger Gale: Following the conversion from paper visas to e-visas, members of the Ukrainian community in the United Kingdom who are refugees are having considerable difficulty renewing their visas because of IT failures within the Home Office system, leaving them effectively without any proof of status. I know the Leader of the House is sympathetic to their plight. Would she be kind enough to ask the Home Secretary, given the shortage of time between now and the recess, if she would make a written statement to clarify the position for everybody? \p Lucy Powell: I was not aware of the issue the right hon. Member raised. I know the matter of Ukrainian visas will be of concern to many Members across this House, and I thank him for raising it. I will absolutely ensure that the Home Office considers a written ministerial statement or some other means to communicate an update on the matter. \p Andrew Lewin: I recently met Hertsavers, a credit union providing affordable loans and saving products all across Hertfordshire. Of its nearly 3,000 members, I am proud that the majority are in my community in Welwyn Hatfield. It makes a particular difference to young families through access to loans for people in receipt of child benefit. Would the Leader of the House join me in thanking the trustees of Hertsavers credit union, who work so hard to ensure that people have access to affordable finance in my community? \p Lucy Powell: I absolutely join my hon. Friend in thanking the trustees of Hertsavers in his constituency. Credit unions are incredibly popular and an important part of our constituents having access to loans and finance when they otherwise would not get them. I am sure that would make a popular topic for debate if he wanted to have one. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr, Mr Llefarydd. The House should know that, unlike in England, Welsh public services are not fully protected from the cost of increased employers national insurance contributions. That is because compensation from the Treasury does not take into account Wales’s bigger public sector, and it means Wales is losing out on £65 million. Can we have a debate about why it is fair that the NHS in England gets more money proportionately than the NHS in Wales? \p Lucy Powell: The right hon. Member will know that as a result of this Government’s Budget, we delivered a record £21 billion settlement for the Welsh Government—  the biggest in the history of devolution. That has allowed additional funds to go directly to the NHS in Wales and elsewhere, and I am sure that that will come through the system soon. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:

Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Act 2025

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Act 2025

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2025

Chancel Repair (Church Commissioners’ Liability) Measure 2025

Church Funds Investment Measure 2025. \p UNKNOWN: Proceedings resumed. \p Bell Ribeiro-Addy: I have met many leaseholders fighting for fair treatment from housing association freeholders such as Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing, Hyde, L&Q, Notting Hill Genesis, Optivo and Peabody, to name a few. They are struggling to secure general repairs, sort issues with damp and mould and get transparency about rising service charges that are running into the thousands of pounds. Such behaviour from a landlord or council would be considered unacceptable, yet housing associations continue to act with impunity, and past leasehold reform legislation has done little to address the issues. Can the Leader of the House assure leaseholders in my constituency that the Government will take legislative steps to ensure that they are able to hold their housing association freeholders to account? \p Lucy Powell: The plight of leaseholders is raised with me regularly in these sessions, and I represent many tens of thousands of leaseholders in Manchester Central. The Government are committed to bringing forward a draft leasehold reform Bill. We recently published our commonhold White Paper, and the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), laid before the House an extensive written ministerial statement that outlined how he was enacting the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. We need to go further to protect leaseholders; my hon. Friend is right to raise that with me today.

Mr Speaker, given that you have just announced Royal Assent for a number of Acts, I want to put on record my thanks to Figen Murray, who is in the Public Gallery, for her tireless campaigning for Martyn’s law, which is now an Act. It will protect many venues across the country, and I am delighted that we have had a voluntary scheme across Manchester, which has already prevented some incidents from happening. I am sure the whole House will want to pay its respects to Figen Murray and Martyn’s law, which is now an Act. \p John Glen: The Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed this week that the tariffs announced have not been factored into the forecast, nor has the effect of the Employment Rights Bill. I talked to local businesses in Salisbury last Friday at a Budget breakfast, as I have done for the last eight years, and they are very concerned about the cumulative impact of the Employment Rights Bill on top of the national insurance changes. Could we have a statement from a Treasury Minister on the need to revise the OBR forecasts and the implications for tax increases, which are now all but certain in the autumn? \p Lucy Powell: We have only just had the spring statement last week, and the OBR has forecast that the economy will grow faster than expected over the forecasting period. The right hon. Gentleman might not like our Employment Rights Bill, but I am afraid Government Members stand proud behind it, because we have a firm belief that making work pay and giving people dignity and security at work is how we will boost our economy and boost growth. I will not get into speculation about  what may or may not happen in the future. I respected the right hon. Gentleman greatly as a Minister, but he was part of a Government who presided over a huge crash in our economy and all the problems that came from it. \p Julie Minns: With thoughts turning to Easter, I recommend to Members who might not already have plans a visit to my beautiful constituency of Carlisle and north Cumbria, and in particular RSPB Geltsdale, where they will see the award-winning Howgill Beck restoration project, which just last night won the UK river prize. It is a fantastic restoration project that has restored the wetlands, and native species have returned to the environment. It is a stunning part of north Cumbria. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the RSPB and all its partners on this wonderful project? \p Lucy Powell: I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating the RSPB in Geltsdale and Howgill Beck, which sounds fantastic. I am actually a member of the RSPB, in part because my son is a bit of a keen twitcher, and I am sure he will be nagging me to pay a visit to her constituency and see that fantastic project. \p Ellie Chowns: Last night I attended the meeting for worship at Westminster Quaker meeting house. Last Thursday, that place of worship was forcefully raided by 20 police officers, equipped with tasers, and they arrested six women and charged them in relation to planning a peaceful protest. That raises important questions about the criminalisation of public protest, and indeed religious freedom. May we have a debate in Government time about the need to repeal those elements of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023 that have such a repressive effect on the right to peaceful protest, which is a cornerstone of British democracy? \p Lucy Powell: I am sure the hon. Lady would not expect me to comment on that particular case, as that is an operational matter for the police, but she is right to say that the right to protest is a fundamental part of our democracy, and one that we hold dear. We also have to balance the right to protest with protecting the right of the law-abiding majority to go about their daily lives, free from disruption, and that is the comment I will make in that regard. \p Charlotte Nichols: In 2018, Warrington borough council applied for and was successful with a proposal for a new 56-place special free school for pupils with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder, whose needs cannot be met by our current provisions. The free school is part of an expansion plan to address that issue, and the implications of dither and delay from the Department for Education have exacerbated the funding challenges that the local authority and our schools face when sending pupils to out-of-borough independent placements, which cost circa £8.5 million from the high needs budget in 2024. May we have a debate in Government time about the process for opening new schools, and ensuring that pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, and their families, can have their needs met in their own boroughs? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear of the challenges facing the free school in Warrington that is designed to support those with autism and special education needs. I am sure she will recognise that the situation we inherited was not delivering for parents, not delivering outcomes, and was on its knees in terms of SEND provision—this issue gets raised regularly with me in these sessions—and I will ensure that she gets an update from the Minister on that application, and hope it can be expedited. \p Martin Vickers: Last night, along with colleagues from across the House who represent constituencies in northern Lincolnshire and east Yorkshire, I met the Humber Energy Board. Representatives from the board were particularly concerned about delays in support for a number of projects that are pending Government support in the region, and that is particularly important given the potential job losses at Scunthorpe. May we have a debate, or a statement from the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, about support for a number of energy projects in the Humber? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that. I am sure he will recognise that this Government have done more to create opportunity, jobs and investment in the energy opportunities of the future than the previous Government did in 14 years. We are committed to ensuring that places such as the Humber, and Humberside more generally, which powered this country in the past, will do so again in the clean energy sprint that we are embarked on. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets an update from the Minister about what is happening with those particular issues. \p Barry Gardiner: Land-based gambling shops represent a silent crisis up and down this country, targeting some of our most disadvantaged and deprived communities. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Muhammed Butt and Mili Patel, leader and deputy leader of Brent council, on their campaign, now supported by leaders of more than 30 other councils, to reform the Gambling Act 2005 to protect our high streets from rapacious gambling and betting shops? May we have a debate in Government time about the need to change the presumption that exists in the 2005 Act and states that councils to “aim to permit” such licences? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the work of Brent council and its leadership in addressing some of the issues and challenges presented on our high streets and in our communities by problem gambling. I do not know exactly where we have got to with reforms to the Gambling Act, but I will ensure that he gets a full update. \p Daisy Cooper: On 6 February, I asked the Leader of the House if she would

“use every lever in her power”

to ensure that this House had a debate on the climate emissions framework

“before any new airport expansion is given the green light”,

including at Luton airport. The Leader of the House replied, saying

“I will ensure that any such decisions are brought to this House first for scrutiny by her and others.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 954.]

And yet, it has been reported this morning that the Government intend to give the green light to Luton airport expansion via a letter on the national infrastructure planning website at 2 pm—in less than three hours—with no debate at all. Is that true? If so, why has there been no debate in Government time about the climate emissions framework, as the Leader of the House had promised? \p Lucy Powell: As I said to the hon. Lady at the time, individual applications by airports are a quasi-judicial decision for the Secretary of State for Transport, so it is difficult to comment in advance of them. However, all those decisions are taken in the context of our legally binding climate commitments, as well as other factors. I do not know about today’s press reports that she mentions, but I will ensure that she and the House are updated on those decisions. \p John Slinger: Ten young people confidently presented at my “Pitch your Policy” event in Rugby, and I promised to take the winning idea to Parliament and Ministers. Theo Speed won with his policy of extending voting rights to those with settled status; Izzy Hart came second with her policy for funding and support for people known to and working with children’s services; and in third place, Molly Wall suggested more resources for political education in the national curriculum. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all who participated, and does she agree that my event shows that young people have the ideas and skills to be the architects of the future? We need to listen to them more and focus additional resources on the next generation through the national youth strategy, and perhaps there should be a dedicated Minister for youth sitting next to my right hon. Friend at the Cabinet table. \p Lucy Powell: I congratulate Theo, Izzy and Molly on their success in the “Pitch your Policy” event. My hon. Friend is right that that shows that young people have a huge amount to contribute to the political debate in this country. That is one of the reasons why I and this Government are committed to votes at 16, because we think young people who are 16 and who want to and are able to contribute to our political debate should be given the opportunity to do so. I might not extend so much democracy among my own teenagers at home, but my hon. Friend makes an important point. \p Nick Timothy: On the same day as the closure of the sustainable farming incentive, without the notice that the Government had promised, Ministers announced the end of the fruit and vegetables aid scheme, which provided match funding for capital investments and was vital for the competitiveness of English growers. Similar schemes exist in Scotland and Wales and continue in Europe, so can we have an urgent debate on that incredibly foolish decision? \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Gentleman will know that the previous Government underspent on the sustainable farming incentive and on other schemes, and we went out of our way to ensure farmers knew they were available and applied to them, which is why we had to close the scheme early. But we are bringing forward a range of schemes, because food security and supporting  our farmers in this country are extremely important to this Government, and we will ensure that they are sustained. \p Rachel Taylor: I am concerned by reports on social media that a disabled person in a wheelchair in Bedworth was stranded because their bus did not show up and several taxis refused to take a wheelchair. I am sick and tired of hearing how my vulnerable constituents are let down by Warwickshire’s buses, which is why I launched my petition to bring buses back into public control. We must look at the issues facing disabled people when using transport. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on access to taxis for people using wheelchairs? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear about the experience that my hon. Friend’s constituent had. I support her endeavours on the Warwickshire buses; that is why we have the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill progressing through the House of Lords. She is absolutely right to raise issues around accessibility for those with disabilities when it comes to public transport, which includes taxis, and that would make a very good topic for a debate. \p Helen Morgan: North Shropshire is home to some historic and beautiful market towns, and I recommend a visit over Easter. I have been contacted by some high-street retailers, particularly Niche Patisserie and the Covent Garden Fruit & Veg shop, which are concerned about the double whammy of business rates increasing and NIC hikes happening this week. They are worried about the impact on high streets, which also face the closure of post offices and banks. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we can radically reform business rates to bring our high streets back to life? \p Lucy Powell: This Government are committed to business rate reform. We have already taken through a piece of legislation beginning that process by creating a new lower level of business rates as well as a higher band for some of those much larger businesses, but we need to go further. We have retained the discount into next year, but I appreciate that these are difficult times for high street business and businesses in our town centres. This Government are committed to ensuring that we protect and support businesses and working people. \p Andy McDonald: I note that the Government have today issued a best value notice to the Tees Valley mayoral combined authority. Concerns around governance, financial mismanagement and procurement have been voiced over a number of years, yet Mayor Ben Houchen has resisted demands for openness and transparency—indeed, just last Friday he openly called questioning members of the public “idiots” and deemed their questions to be “insane”. That all changes today. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time for this House to consider how we balance our laudable further devolution ambitions with the need for a much more robust system of oversight and accountability? \p Lucy Powell: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been a tireless campaigner on issues around accountability and transparency in the Tees Valley mayoral combined  authority. I am sure I will join in him welcoming the fact that we have today issued a best value notice; he should take some credit for that given the work he has done over many, many years. Ministers welcome the recent improvements, but there is much further to go, and as my hon. Friend says, this is the beginning of that process. We will publish our devolution Bill later this year, which will include aspects of accountability and audit, and I am sure he will welcome debating that at the time. \p John Lamont: Can we have a debate about the importance of local swimming pools? Sadly, the much-loved Laidlaw Memorial swimming pool in Jedburgh closed at the end of last year due to rising costs. Hundreds of local residents recently attended a public meeting in the town to show their support for reopening the pool. Does the Leader of the House take the view, like me, that learning to swim is an important life skill? Can she encourage her colleagues in Government to open up dedicated funding to support local swimming pools? \p Lucy Powell: I absolutely will join the hon. Gentleman in saying that learning to swim and water safety are really important life skills. I am really sorry to hear that his local swimming pool has closed. I am sure he will recognise that funding for swimming pools and sports facilities such as that is devolved in Scotland and that the Scottish Government now have the level of money to provide more support for communities such as his to ensure that his constituents can learn to swim and get those life skills. \p Calvin Bailey: Growth and job creation are central to rebuilding this country. On Monday, the Office of Rail and Road found that the cross-channel rail network could achieve higher capacity. That is an exciting opportunity for my constituency, as the potential doubling of Leyton’s Temple Mills depot offers opportunities for meaningful local jobs and the strengthening of our European relationships. I have written to the Rail Minister and look forward to his reply, but seizing these opportunities is crucial. Will the Leader of the House support a debate on the expansion of HS1 services in order to hear the totality of the benefits that it could offer us across the UK? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend makes a strong case for the expansion of HS1 services, and all the benefits that that boost to cross-channel rail links would provide to his constituents and, indeed, the wider economy. I will ensure that the relevant Minister updates him, and that the House is updated when there are important developments in this regard. \p Pete Wishart: Today, the consultation on the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020—introduced by Boris Johnson to constrain devolution at the height of the Brexit chaos—closes. That Act is equally loathed by the SNP Scottish Government and the Labour Welsh Government. For some reason, abolition of the UK internal market was not included in the consultation’s terms of reference, so when the Government respond to the consultation, will they make sure that that option appears and that we get the opportunity to get rid of that awful, devolution-destroying Act? \p Lucy Powell: I remember well that Act passing through these Houses, and some of those issues being raised at the time. Of course, the Government will respond fully on those issues and make sure that the settlement we have in this country works for the whole of the UK, and that we have a strong internal market, as well as getting all of the benefits that we can now get from not being inside the EU. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. We have just 20 minutes remaining, so questions must be short, and I ask the Leader of the House to be brief with her answers as well. \p Rachael Maskell: Before scheduling legislation on the “Pathways to Work” changes, will the Leader of the House ensure that there is proper consultation with disabled people on the fiscal elements of the proposals, and that the Government publish the transition arrangements in full and their response? \p Lucy Powell: I know that my hon. Friend has been campaigning on welfare reform issues. I am sure she will appreciate that we have committed to publishing legislation and taking through a Bill; that will give us ample time to debate and consider these issues, and to look in great detail at aspects of the proposals. As she says, that includes transitional arrangements, and we should absolutely debate those arrangements. We have produced the impact assessment—however Members view what it says—in good time, so that Members across the House can consider all the issues before we debate the primary legislation. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: On Tuesday 25 March at Windsor castle, His Majesty the King honoured George Kelly, making him an MBE in recognition of his dedication to the Royal British Legion. A former president of the Royal British Legion’s St Ives branch, George joined the legion in 1982 after an incredible 42-year career as an RAF navigator. He was shot down during the second world war aged 21, and went on to take part in the Berlin airlift and the Suez crisis. At a sprightly 101 years old, he is known locally as the poppy man. Can I ask the Leader of the House and all Members to join me in congratulating George on his achievement and his incredible life of dedication and service, and will she make time in the parliamentary schedule to give thanks to all those who dedicate their lives to volunteering for charity organisations and to the help of others? \p Hon. Members:: Hear, hear! \p Lucy Powell: What a lovely tribute to George Kelly— I am sure he will be very pleased to hear that. I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating him on a very long life of dedication and service to this country, and thank him for bringing that tribute to the Floor of the House. \p Sojan Joseph: I have previously raised in this House how the use of Operation Brock to queue freight lorries heading to Dover on the M20 causes disruption to large parts of my constituency. My constituents are not against it being used as an emergency traffic-calming measure, but I have been extremely disappointed by the decision of Kent county council  and the Kent and Medway resilience forum to routinely deploy it over the school holidays—this time, it will last until 22 April. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on traffic management, so that we can discuss how measures such as Operation Brock should be used only as a last resort? \p Lucy Powell: We understand the disruption and inconvenience caused when Operation Brock is deployed in Kent. Unfortunately, it is sometimes necessary, but I will ensure that a Minister comes back to my hon. Friend about how this can be done in a more sensitive way, especially during the school holidays. \p Claire Young: When I met Great Western Railway earlier this week, we discussed how the half-hourly Bristol to Gloucester service is vital not only for capacity at Yate station, but to serve the new station due to open at Charfield in 2027. However, the current funding ends next year and an extension is vital to bridging the gap. Will the Leader of the House raise that with the Transport Secretary and ensure that a full impact assessment is carried out before the funding expires? \p Lucy Powell: I will certainly ensure that a Minister gives the hon. Member a full response about rail capacity in her constituency and that any assessments of the damage caused are shared with her. \p Jayne Kirkham: The Renters’ Rights Bill will help to curtail the use of section 21 evictions to flip houses to holiday lets in Cornwall, but we still have a massive issue with second homes, and with holiday lets in particular. Can the Leader of the House find out what progress the Government are making on bringing in a registration scheme—or preferably a licensing scheme—for those holiday and short-term lets? \p Lucy Powell: As my hon. Friend says, we are committed to introducing a short-term let registration scheme. I will get for her the latest estimation for delivery of that scheme. We are also abolishing the furnished holiday lettings tax regime. I know that both those things will be of great significance to her constituents. \p Shockat Adam: In the words of the legendary rock band 10cc:

“I don’t like cricket…I love it.”

However, with reduced council budgets and annual park budgets falling by 14% over a decade, and with the pressure on urban playing fields meaning that we have lost 50% of playing fields to other developments, clubs in my constituency, including the South Asian and Caribbean cricket clubs, which go strategically from grassroots cricket to professional players, have now found themselves homeless. Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate to discuss the valuable contribution of grassroots sports and how they can be protected in the future by supporting things like “A Better Future for Parks and Green Spaces”? \p Lucy Powell: I am a fan of cricket myself. It is something that my children enjoy, but the hon. Member is absolutely right to identify the diminution we have  seen in cricket playing fields, in cricket sports clubs and in grassroots sports over recent years. This Government are committed to grassroots sports. We have put extra money into that, and we are also putting extra money into local government so that it can support the kind of measures he wants to see. \p Phil Brickell: My first job was working at Bolton hospital, so will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the many staff at Bolton NHS foundation trust who, between October 2024 and January 2025, secured a drop in local waiting lists of 2,447 patients? After 14 years of neglect under the Conservatives, will she find Government time to discuss additional innovative solutions to bring waiting lists down even further? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those at Bolton NHS foundation trust for their amazing work in reducing waiting lists by more than 2,000 in recent months. We have further to go in reducing waiting lists, but I am determined that this Government will achieve our objectives. \p Tom Gordon: Last weekend, I attended the ninth Harrogate K. R. Ali Taekwondo Academy mayor’s cup tournament in my constituency. More than 400 people attended from across the UK and overseas, and it was a fantastic event. Master Ali, who runs the taekwondo academy, had to fund the event himself and could not find access to any funding. Will the Leader of the House first congratulate him on a fantastic and well-run event, but also look to make Government time to debate support for grassroots sporting organisations? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely. The home of British Taekwondo is actually in my constituency, so it is a sport I am familiar with. As I said in a previous answer, we are committed to supporting elite sport, as well as grassroots sports in this country. I think we have a debate later today on these issues, but I will certainly raise that with the Department. \p Liz Twist: Last week, I visited the Gateshead district energy scheme, a ground- breaking project that uses geothermal energy from mine water in old coal workings to heat local homes and businesses. The scheme is the first of its kind in the UK, and is owned and operated by Gateshead council. It is fantastic to see this legacy of our industrial past playing a pioneering role in decarbonisation, so can we have a debate in Government time on the contribution that our coalfield communities are making to fighting climate change? \p Lucy Powell: What a fantastic initiative that is in my hon. Friend’s constituency to get geothermal heat providing heat and warmth to local homes and businesses through these local heat networks. I am sure a debate on such issues would be popular. \p Jim Shannon: On the Muslim holy day of Eid, Ahmadiyya Muslim worshippers across the Punjab and Sindh provinces of Pakistan faced widespread obstruction in their efforts to get to their place of worship. On the same day, the authorities  sealed two more mosques belonging to Ahmadiyya Muslims, bringing the total to 10. Some 169 graves were desecrated at the same time, and 42 Ahmadiyya Muslims remain behind bars on faith-based charges. Will the Leader of the House request that the Foreign Secretary call upon the international community to urge Pakistan to protect Ahmadi Muslim mosques, release all Ahmadi Muslims arrested on fabricated charges, protect Ahmadi Muslim graves, uphold its obligations under the international human rights framework, and uphold the rights and safety of all its citizens? \p Lucy Powell: The British Government condemn the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan, and we are aware of the recent reports of threats and incidents at holy sites. As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a very important matter, which I will raise with the Minister. \p Christopher Bloore: The Droitwich transmitter in my constituency, commonly known as the Wychbold masts, celebrated its 90th birthday last year. The longwave transmitter was used as a jamming device by the Royal Air Force to obstruct enemy transmissions trying to reach Luftwaffe aircraft that were approaching Britain, and it played a pivotal role on D-day and in communicating with the French resistance. Will the Leader of the House join me in calling for the masts to be strongly considered for listing by Historic England for their role in defending this nation? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend has made a very strong case for the masts to be listed as part of our history. Fantastic work was done during the world wars to make sure that we were protected. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. There are 12 people wishing to speak and we have 10 minutes—you can do the maths. Keep your questions short. \p James Naish: Yesterday, on 2 April, I received an unprompted letter from the Home Builders Federation, which said:

“A recent Freedom of Information request…shows that Rushcliffe Borough Council holds £50 million of unspent developer contributions in total, equivalent to £1,000 per household. This is the fifth-biggest amount in the country on a per-household basis, and 4 times the national average.”

Nationally, a total of £8 billion-worth of developer contributions are unspent. Does the Leader of the House agree that these are eye-watering sums of money not being spent on local infrastructure and local people, and will she ensure that the relevant team look into why this is happening? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend raises the very important issue of unspent developer contributions. There really is no excuse for the eye-watering length of time it has taken for his local authority to deploy them, and he has made a strong case here today. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: Last year, there were more than 4,000 incidents of fly-tipping in Buckinghamshire. I have been working with Thames Valley police, who are increasing patrols in affected  areas such as Slapton and Ivinghoe Aston, but it is not enough. One resident has told me that it is beyond a joke. Does the Leader of the House agree that we have to do more to tackle fly-tipping, and will she make time for us to debate introducing tougher sanctions for those who continue to spoil our countryside and our villages in this way? \p Lucy Powell: We are absolutely committed to forcing fly-tippers and vandals to clean up the mess that they have created as part of our crackdown on antisocial behaviour. There are further measures in the Crime and Policing Bill, and I look forward to debating them with my hon. Friend. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: Fourteen years of neglect from the Conservative party left high streets, such as the one in Edgware, in a shocking state. One common complaint that my constituents have is that phone boxes on Edgware high street have become derelict and act as a magnet for graffiti, vandalism and litter. I am pleased to say that after lobbying BT, two of these unsightly phone boxes will be removed, but there is much more work to be done. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time to map out the Government’s comprehensive plan to revive Britain’s high streets? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important issue of high streets. From my time as a Member of Parliament, I know that any debate on the future of phone boxes would be incredibly well attended if he wanted to apply for one. \p Paul Davies: I recently met constituents who are campaigning locally to improve care for those with Parkinson’s. Next week, we will observe World Parkinson’s Day, which helps raise awareness about the disease and its impact. Enhanced funding and support for research can lead to better treatments, and potentially to a cure. Can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of research into Parkinson’s? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting this important issue, which has been raised with me a number of times. We are committed to supporting those with Parkinson’s. We can go further on research and support, and I am sure that a debate on this matter would be very well attended. \p Josh Dean: John Staines has volunteered with Hertford Town football club for 30 years, and he has been a fan for 60 years. To mark his 93rd birthday, he wants to see 1,000 people attend Saturday’s game against Flackwell Heath FC. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging our residents to watch Saturday’s game and in celebrating John’s outstanding contribution to the club over those years? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in supporting John Staines’s call to get 1,000 people down to Hertford Town FC this weekend, which would be a great tribute to his life. I am sure he will want to raise such an issue when we debate the Football Governance Bill, which is coming back to the House after Easter. \p Martin Rhodes: Under current passport application rules, an applicant needs a counter-signatory who has known them for at least two years  and is in good standing in their community or from a recognised profession. One of my constituents has faced a problem with these requirements due to losing contact with her social circle as a result of complex post-traumatic stress disorder. Although in theory discretion exists in these rules, my constituent remains unable to get a passport. Will the Leader of the House allocate Government time for a debate on ensuring passport accessibility? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear about the difficulties my hon. Friend’s constituent has. We want to ensure that people can easily and readily apply for a passport, which is a vital identification document. We have to do that in a way that makes sure we have confidence in the system, but I will certainly ensure that the relevant Minister looks into this case. \p Johanna Baxter: I recently had the honour of attending Renfrewshire council’s provost community awards to celebrate the incredible contribution that many make to our communities. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the winners from Paisley and Renfrewshire South—Jean Gallagher, who has volunteered for 25 years at the Johnstone learning centre, the Autastic Club, OB Muay Thai gym and Craig Ferguson, who has raised many thousands of pounds for men’s mental health? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating all the winners of those community awards, to whom she has paid a great tribute. \p Douglas McAllister: My constituent Jagtar Singh Johal, who has now been in arbitrary detention in India for seven and a half years, was acquitted of all charges on 4 March in the first case against him to conclude. However, he has not been released because he is facing eight other essentially duplicate cases, without the prospect of any credible evidence by the Indian prosecutors against him. Time is of the essence. It is exactly one month since the verdict, and my constituent’s family advise that his conditions of detention have significantly deteriorated since the acquittal. Can I ask the Leader of the House to arrange an urgent statement confirming that our Government are acting with the utmost urgency, that there is the political will to push robustly for his immediate release, and that they recognise that now is the moment to bring him home to my constituency and to his family in Dumbarton? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend has raised this issue with me and others many times, and I am sure his constituent is really glad to have him as his Member of Parliament in these difficult times. As I have said to him in previous answers, we want to see this case swiftly resolved, and I will ensure that the relevant Minister discusses with him the latest on this case. \p Josh Newbury: Newlife, a charity based in my constituency, provides specialist equipment for disabled children. In 2023 alone it helped 1,524 children nationwide. It has told me about the challenges these children face in getting the right equipment at the right time. Would the Leader of the House grant   a debate on the roles and responsibilities of health, social care and education services and the charity sector in ensuring that disabled children receive the specialist equipment they need? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to join up better all the different services and charities to ensure that disabled children get the equipment and support they desperately need, and I think this is a really good topic for a debate. \p Perran Moon: Wednesday last week was Epilepsy Awareness Day. My constituent Sara contacted me about its acknowledgment in Parliament, and today I am wearing a purple tie to mark epilepsy awareness. Will the Leader of the House reassure Sara and me that support for the hundreds of thousands of people who suffer from this challenging condition will remain at the heart of the Government’s healthcare policy? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising Epilepsy Awareness Day, for wearing a purple tie and for supporting his constituent Sara. He has raised another important issue, and tackling epilepsy and other health conditions is what this Government are all about. \p Andrew Cooper: I recently attended the official opening of Her-Place Charitable Trust’s new hub in Winsford, using space generously provided by Weaver Vale Housing Trust. The hub will provide the charity with its first permanent base, from where it can deliver services to support women and girls across Cheshire, including the community launderette, drop-in clinics and friendship groups. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Her-Place not only on the opening of its new hub, but on the invaluable work it does in my area? \p Lucy Powell: I will join my hon. Friend in congratulating Her-Place. It sounds like a really important hub in his constituency for women and girls to come together. \p Nusrat Ghani: For the final question, I call the ever-patient David Williams. \p David Williams: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Residents from Newchapel and Butt Lane in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove recently contacted me about inconsiderate pavement parking in their areas. One resident who has significant health issues fears that ambulances will struggle to make it down her cul-de-sac, placing them at unacceptable risk. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on appropriate parking enforcement and resourcing requirements? \p Lucy Powell: Parking always generates a very considerable debate in this House, and pavement parking would be no exception. I join my hon. Friend in raising that issue today. I am sure it would be a very popular topic for a debate. \p Nusrat Ghani: I thank the Leader of the House and colleagues for moving at pace—we got everybody in. \p Jonathan Reynolds: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the United Kingdom’s economic relationship with the United States. The UK has a strong and balanced trading relationship with the US worth £315 billion, which supports 2.5 million jobs across both our countries. This is second only to the EU, where our trading relationship is worth £791 billion.[Official Report, 8 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 6WC.] Yesterday evening the United States announced a 10% reciprocal tariff on UK exports, and it has today imposed a 25% global tariff on cars. That follows the application of tariffs of 25% on US imports of steel, aluminium and derivative products announced on 12 March.

No country was able to secure an exemption from those announcements, but the UK did receive the lowest reciprocal tariff rate globally. And although that vindicates the pragmatic approach the Government have taken, we know that while the tariffs are still being levied the job is far from done. We are, of course, disappointed by the increase in tariffs on the UK and on other countries around the world. The impact will be felt among all trading nations. But I would like to update the House on how the UK can navigate these turbulent times, acting in our national interest and for the benefit of all our industries.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my American counterparts, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, US trade representative Jamieson Greer, and special envoy Mark Burnett for their engagement over the past few months. While any imposition of tariffs is deeply regrettable, from the beginning they promised to make themselves available and they have been true to their word. I look forward to our continued engagement over the days ahead.

As Members will know, since the new US Administration took office, my colleagues and I have been engaged in intensive discussions on an economic deal between the US and the UK, one that would not just avoid the imposition of significant tariffs but deepen our economic relationship. On everything from defence, economic security, financial services, machinery, tech and regulation, there are clear synergies between the US and UK markets. That is reflected in the fair and balanced trading relationship that already exists between our two countries.

I can confirm to the House that those talks are ongoing and will remain so. It is the Government’s view that a deal is not just possible but favourable to both countries, and that this course of action serves Britain’s interests as an open-facing trading nation. I have been in contact with many businesses, across a broad range of sectors, including those most affected, who have very much welcomed this approach. It is clear to me that industry itself wants to grasp the opportunity a deal can offer and welcomes the Government’s cool-headed approach.

In increasingly insecure times, I have heard some Members cling to the security of simple answers and loud voices. I understand the compulsion, but I caution Members of this House to keep calm and remain clear-eyed on what is in our national interest, not simply to proclaim that we follow the actions of other countries. The British people rightly expect the Government to keep our country secure at home and abroad, and an unnecessary, escalating trade war would serve neither goal.

True strength comes in making the right choices at the right time. Thanks to the actions of our Prime Minister, who has restored Britain’s place on the world stage, the UK is in a unique position to do a deal where we can, and to respond when we must. It remains our belief that the best route to economic stability for working people is a negotiated deal with the US that builds on our shared strengths. However, we do reserve the right to take any action we deem necessary if a deal is not secured.

To enable the UK to have every option open to us in the future, I am today launching a request for input on the implications for British businesses of possible retaliatory action. This is a formal step and it is necessary for us to keep all options on the table. We will seek the views of UK stakeholders over four weeks until 1 May 2025 on products that could potentially be included in any UK tariff response. This exercise will also give businesses the chance to have their say and influence the design of any possible UK action. If we are in a position to agree an economic deal with the US that lifts the tariffs that have been placed on our industries, this request for input will be paused, and any measures flowing from it will be lifted. Further information on the request for input will be published on great.gov.uk later today, alongside an indicative list of potential products that the Government consider most appropriate for inclusion.

I know that this will be an anxious time for all businesses, not just those with direct trade links to America. Let me say very clearly that we stand ready to support businesses through this. That starts by ensuring that businesses have reliable information; any businesses that are concerned about what these changes mean for them can find clear guidance and support on great.gov.uk, where there is now a bespoke webpage.

This Government were elected to bring security back to working people’s lives. At a time of volatility, businesses and workers alike are looking to this Government to keep our heads, act in the national interest and navigate Britain through this period. While some may urge escalation, I simply will not play politics with people’s jobs. This Government will strive for a deal that supports our industries and the well-paid jobs that come with them, while preparing our trade defences and keeping all options on the table. This is the right approach to defend the UK’s domestic industries from the direct and indirect impacts of US tariffs in a way that is both measured and proportionate, while respecting the rules-based international trading system.

As the world continues to change around us, British workers and businesses can be assured of one constant: this is a Government who will not be set off course in choppy waters. The final part of our approach will be to turbo-boost the work this Government are doing to make our economy stronger and more secure, including our new industrial strategy. We will strike trade deals with our partners and work closely with our allies for our shared prosperity. We have a clear destination to deliver economic security for working people. We are progressing a deal that can do just that, laying the foundations to move quickly should it not, and ensuring that British businesses have a clear voice in what happens next. I commend this statement to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Andrew Griffith: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

Businesses, workers and their families woke up this morning with greater fear and more uncertainty about their future. Tariffs make us all poorer by pushing up costs, suppressing demand and making the pound in our pocket buy less of the things we need. It is free trade to which we owe our past prosperity, and free trade that has lifted billions out of poverty since the second world war.

This is a moment for calm words and cool heads, and we will support the Government when they do sensible things to reverse the impacts on our already fragile economy. I am glad they have recommitted to reaching a deal with our closest ally and largest single country trading partner. However, this is also a moment for honesty and telling the truth. The Government, sadly, got no special favours from the White House last night. The Secretary of State refers to vindication. This is no vindication at all. We are in precisely the same band as the Congo, Costa Rica, Kosovo and Christmas Island. In fact, I can count more than 125 countries and territories that have the same US tariff levels as we now do—not that special.

Our automotive manufacturers face unchanged tariffs of 25% on around £8 billion-worth of cars and auto parts exports. Steel and aluminium exports remain at 25% and, on a volume-weighted basis, our exports face an average tariff of closer to 13%.

Above all, last night was a vindication of those who were pilloried and abused for wanting our country to have the freedom to decide our own trade policy. If Labour and the Liberal Democrats had their way, we would still be in the EU. As the Prime Minister acknowledged this morning, thousands of British jobs have been saved today as the result. I hope that he and his colleagues had the decency to regret the 48 times that they voted to stay in Europe, and to thank us for getting Brexit done.

Last week, the OBR warned that these tariffs could knock up to 1% off GDP. We are already in a per capita recession and markets are falling this morning. It is businesses that create jobs and grow our economy, yet, at every turn, the Government have piled on headwinds when they need our support. They put a tax on jobs, more than doubled business rates for many, introduced the family business death tax and are barrelling ahead with flawed recycling charges. No wonder business confidence remains at rock bottom.

To help British exporters survive, the Government must urgently tackle our sky-high energy costs. A business in Birmingham, west midlands, faces energy costs that are four times those of its competitors in Birmingham, Alabama in the US. That dwarfs the impact of tariffs and is no basis on which to compete.

The Secretary of State was responsible for the Employment Rights Bill, which will hit businesses so hard that the OBR has not even begun to assess how much it will hurt the economy. Now is the time, today is the day for the Secretary of State to walk back to his Department and, in the national interest, instruct his officials to shelve the Employment Rights Bill. He should put ideology aside, put the unions on hold and put the Government on the side of British business. The cost of   failure is too high, the burdens on business are too great and time is too precious, the Secretary of State must act and act fast.

Let me conclude with some questions for the Secretary of State on behalf of all our constituents. Will he publish an urgent assessment of the impact of today’s tariffs on the UK economy so that the markets can see whether the Chancellor’s emergency Budget sums still add up, or whether she will be back for more taxes? When will he give the car makers the clarity they need on the ZEV—zero emission vehicle—mandate? Will he undertake to keep Parliament informed and to publish the UK’s broader objectives—not its negotiating strategy, but the broader objectives—in these trade negotiations with the UK, precisely as the previous Government did in March 2020? Will he assure us that any deal will back British farmers and food producers and uphold our high environmental protection and animal welfare standards, which we have enhanced and upheld in the agreements that we have reached since leaving the EU?

Will the Secretary of State now surge additional resources for exporters, reallocating resources across Government to fund a new version of the UK trade show programme and enlarge the GREAT campaign? What consideration are the Government giving to the special situation of Northern Ireland? Will he guarantee that all claims under the duty reimbursement scheme for Northern Ireland will be paid promptly and the Government will commit additional resources when required? Can he reassure us that, in the event the UK did see a major trade distortion in Northern Ireland, the Government would be prepared, if necessary, to trigger article 16 of the Windsor framework? Will he reassure the House that any concessions to UK tech giants on the digital services tax will not simply shift the burden to the United Kingdom’s small businesses?

The Conservatives are on the side of business and Britain. We understand the gravity of the situation, and we will support the Government where they act in the national interest. I hope that they will take this moment seriously, get back around the table with their US counter- parts and involve the House in their deliberations. \p Jonathan Reynolds: I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his response and his tone in responding. I recognise his commitment to free trade and the case he has made for it. I believe it is something we broadly share. He asks for honesty—that is always good in Parliament—but he is a little bit flippant about the position we find ourselves in today. He mentions a series of countries—Christmas Island, Kosovo—that do not have the kind of complex trading relationship that we have with the United States.

The shadow Secretary of State can see from my tone, presentation and words that I am disappointed that we are in this position, but I look at the EU, facing a tariff of 20%; at Japan with 24%; at India with 26%; and at Canada and Mexico with 25% tariffs already in place. Yes, we are in a more favourable position compared with those key friends and allies, but we must go further, especially in relation to the tariffs on the automotive sector, which is a particular concern for me.

The shadow Secretary of State again brings up Brexit, which was perhaps not the Conservative party’s finest hour in preparing the state for large trade shocks, but let us pass over that. As the President of the Board of Trade, I am of the view that it is good that we can set  our own trade policy, but I say to him and to all colleagues: is it not time that we try to unite the country for the future, rather than keep on harking back to the past? Is that not how we will find our way through this? Half the country voted one way, and half voted the other way, but let us build together and look to the future. It is the right way forward. My next point is very important: it is false to see this as a choice between working with the US and working with the EU. We can work in a way that is consistent with both, and we should all be committed to that.

The shadow Secretary of State also asked about the implications for the United Kingdom. Broadly, he asked me to reverse a series of policy choices made in the last 14 years; I will go through all of those. In relation to the spring statement, the Chancellor had already rebuilt the headroom substantially higher, due to the global turbulence, than that bequeathed her by the Conservative party.

On the Conservatives’ spending plans, they left no business rates relief whatever: it was a one-year relief, rolled over, that never had any longevity. I have not yet received any credible proposals on how their spending plans would be paid for, but I am always available to receive those in writing.

The shadow Secretary of State asks for reassurance, which we are always happy to provide on domestic policy changes. On things like the ZEV mandate for the automative sector, we are more pragmatic than the Conservative party was when in office. As he knows, the Department for Transport leads on that policy, but our response to the consultation on potential changes will be published soon. As colleagues would expect, I will not comment on the details of any negotiations with the US.

In our manifesto, we committed to the UK’s sanitary, phytosanitary and food safety standards system. Of course the Government will adhere to that. The shadow Secretary of State also knows that we are imminently preparing to publish our trade strategy, which covers a lot of these issues, particularly around support for exporters that we want to proceed with.

Northern Ireland is an incredibly important issue for all colleagues. The potential for a differential response from the European Union could lead to a difficult situation in Northern Ireland. As the Secretary of State highlights, the key policy is the duty reimbursement scheme, because goods entering Northern Ireland from the US that will not go into the wider single market are subject to the reimbursement programme. We must make sure that that works well. I recognise the points that he has made on it, and I will continue to update the House and all colleagues on our work in this area. I recognise how important and relevant it is to all our constituents, so we will endeavour to keep all colleagues updated on progress. \p Anneliese Dodds: Workers at BMW at Cowley are deeply concerned by the recent news. BMW is right that a trade war would have no benefits. The Secretary of State is right to engage calmly with his US counterparts, but what discussions has he had with his EU counterparts, given how integrated our automotive sector is with that of EU countries? \p Jonathan Reynolds: My right hon. Friend is right that some of our iconic automotive manufacturing brands, such as BMW, Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin,  have had particular success in the US market and are therefore exposed to tariffs. There is close co-operation in Government between the teams working on our EU reset and on our trade negotiations in this area, so I assure my right hon. Friend of the alignment, continuity and consistency of our policy.

My right hon. Friend will know that, along with the changes to domestic policies such as the ZEV mandate, there was significant money in the Budget for incentivising the roll-out of infrastructure for electric vehicles, and £2 billion has been put aside for the wider joint collaboration and research and development initiatives with the automotive sector, which remains a clear and consistent Government priority. I will keep my right hon. Friend updated given her particular constituency interest. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Daisy Cooper: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

Donald Trump has launched a destructive trade war that threatens the jobs and living standards of people across the UK and around the world. Let us be clear: this is not about reciprocity or a level playing field. The US is conflating our high British standards with trade barriers, and it is doing so on purpose. This is Donald Trump saying to the UK that he will lower tariffs only if we lower standards. He is saying, “Sell out your NHS to US vulture firms, or else; sell out your farmers to US big business, or else; and give up protections against online scammers and for children’s safety to US tech barons, or else.” If the Government give in to Trump’s threats, it will only encourage him to use the same bullying tactics again and again.

It is simultaneously true that the way the White House has made its crude calculation actually makes Britain’s negotiating position a bit better than the position of other countries, and we genuinely welcome that—it is a relief to us all. With regret, there is, however, no sign that the Government’s lobbying has borne any fruit, given that we have been put on the same regime as a number of other countries such as Honduras, Peru and Guatemala. This must be a wake-up call.

We Liberal Democrats believe that we must end this trade war as quickly as possible, which means standing firm with our allies against Trump’s attempts to divide and rule. Will the Government take urgent steps to bring our Commonwealth and European partners together in an economic coalition of the willing against Trump’s tariffs? We welcome the month of consultation with business; will the Government confirm that they will look at energy costs and business rates reform as part of that four-week consultation, especially in respect of the car industry? Will the consultation run in parallel with talks with our allies to draw up plans for the co-ordinated use of retaliatory tariffs?

When do the Government expect to publish an assessment of the impact of the tariffs on small businesses, jobs and the cost of living? Will they look seriously at launching talks with the EU to create a bespoke customs union? Let us be clear: the UK would not be in a worse place if the Government had heeded our calls to negotiate a customs union. Even the Conservative party should  be able to see that Turkey has been in a customs union with the EU since 1995, and it has likewise been hit with tariffs of only 10%.

Finally, will the Government rule out once and for all the watering down of the digital services tax, or our digital competition regulations, to appease Trump’s billionaire backers? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions and her submission. I am pleased to hear that she feels we need to end any potential trade war—although I am pretty certain I heard her in the media last week demanding that we escalate the trade war. I do not think that is in any of our interests, and it is not the route and direction we need to go in.

The hon. Lady mentions that there is no sign of the UK being treated in any different way; she will know that the US has a view of VAT that we do not share—the US compares VAT to its sales tax. If we look at our rate of VAT and the comparable treatment of the European Union, we see that there is a differential. That does not satisfy me, because I believe we could seriously get to a position in which we not only avoid the imposition of additional trade tariffs and barriers, but deepen our trade relationship and remove some of the barriers that already exist, particularly in the trade in services. That is the Government’s objective.

We of course work closely with a whole range of friends and allies, but when they go into any negotiation, they represent their own national or customs union interest, and we do the same. I would not expect any country to go into a negotiation trying to represent the UK; other countries will have their own interests. I do the same for the United Kingdom: I have to put our interests first. There is a different structure to the trading relationship between the US and the UK—for instance, the US does not have with us the large deficit in traded goods that it has with the EU or China—so it is a different level of conversation and it allows us to put our own interests first. That is all that the Government seek to do in our policy towards the US.

The hon. Lady mentions a range of other issues that I recognise. Colleagues know that I had strong views on the very large increases in industrial energy costs that occurred after 2010—there was an increase of almost 50% in real terms—and I think they need to be addressed. The industrial strategy and other Government initiatives set out our wider policy objectives and tools in this area. The consultation and call for input that I announced today is much more about the formal steps we need to take to understand from businesses the impact and give them the chance to put forward their views. As I say, that will not be necessary if we can come to an agreement, which I believe all Members want us to do. I believe that the relationship can be deepened. If we get it right, it will not come at a cost to our other key trading relationships, such as with the European Union. That is the Government’s objective and I welcome any support from throughout the House for fulfilling it. \p Callum Anderson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Yesterday’s dramatic shift in US trade policy marks an historic abdication of the principles of open commerce and global trade that have underpinned the economies of  the western world since the end of the second world war. Tariffs bring no winners—there are only losers, through higher costs for consumers and higher barriers for business and industry. Will the Secretary of State set out how the Government are working with international institutions such as the World Trade Organisation to prevent further escalation and position the UK as a leading champion for open markets? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s question. He is right that this is a substantial change in US policy. It is important that, even if we do not agree with some of the decisions made and the thinking that underpins them, we recognise where they come from. Indeed, they were part of the US presidential campaign, so we have been able to prepare the ground for our conversations.

My hon. Friend asked about international co-operation. We are strongly involved with the WTO, and particularly supported the re-election of Dr Ngozi as its director-general. It is important to remember that despite the problems the multilateral system faces, it is still the basis on which the vast majority of trade around the world takes place. We will continue to play a constructive role in relation to the WTO, and any multilateral organisation, where that serves our interests. \p Steve Barclay: What was missing from the Secretary of State’s statement, and from his reply to both Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople, was the Government’s estimate of the cost of the tariffs, particularly in the context of the Chancellor’s fiscal headroom. Will the Secretary of State update the House on that specifically? \p Jonathan Reynolds: As a former Treasury Minister, the right hon. Gentleman will know the kind of work that goes on to make sure that such assessments are made. The announcement came late last night; it is only last night and this morning that we have had the chance to respond to it. He will also appreciate that the impact on the UK is about not just the direct relationship between the US and the UK, but what happens in the wider global trading system. How other countries choose to react to the US announcements will be the determining factor for the impact on the UK, and we do not know that at this stage.

I promise to keep the House updated, and to update the right hon. Gentleman personally, if he wishes, at any stage on our work to assess the impact on the UK. For all Members of Parliament, this should be a time for reassurance, for calm heads and for giving clear information to British business on how we will navigate these difficult times. That is the correct message to send out from Parliament. \p Stella Creasy: If those on the Opposition Front Bench are still trying to propagate the arguments of 2016, I suggest they are a bit drunk on chlorinated chicken. We need to get real. Celebrating a tariff of 10% rather than 20% is like a person celebrating the fact that when they were mugged, only their wallet was taken, not their watch as well. The British public deserve better.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for talking about our relationship with Europe, because who knows what President Trump will bring next week? We do five  times more business with the European Union than with America. It is in our interest to have a close and stable trading relationship with Europe, but right now, that is up for grabs, too. What do the tariffs mean for the Secretary of State’s negotiations on the European reset, and for the summit in May? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. Let me be clear again: no one is celebrating the position that the country found itself in this morning. We recognise the differential for the UK, but all of us in the House—Members from all parties—are disappointed by the announcement from the United States, and are seeking to provide a way through.

I know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about this matter, but I reiterate to her that we do not have to make a choice between the US and the EU. They are two key, long-term and important trading partners, and security and defence partners as well. The EU summit next month is a key event. Our aspirations remain for an ambitious EU reset on trade, to rectify flaws in the agreement made by the previous Government. Our objectives are clear and were all in the manifesto on which Government Members stood for election and won. They remain a key priority. I assure my hon. Friend that the alignment in Government between the EU reset and the US negotiation is very strong. \p Alison Griffiths: The Business Secretary delayed and dithered for five months before meeting his US counterparts, and working people and businesses in the UK are paying the price for that dereliction of duty. Does he regret his refusal to meet his US counterparts earlier? \p Jonathan Reynolds: The hon. Lady is incorrect, and I must ask her to take a bit more of a serious tone in the questions that she brings to the House. This is really serious stuff. I have met my counterparts on many occasions, and we were in contact even before some of the formal procedures on the US side were confirmed. It was not technically possible to have been in touch with them sooner. Their engagement has been consistent and serious. She is incorrect, and I ask her to please approach these important proceedings with a bit more seriousness. \p Bill Esterson: The US tariffs have serious implications for UK industry. They are a reminder of the importance of the industrial strategy and Government support, including for domestic steel- making capability, which, sadly, the Conservative party neglected badly over 14 years. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is fully committed to the plan for steel, and confirm the importance of our sovereign steelmaking capacity? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and for the work that he did, alongside me, in this area over many years in opposition. He knows the commitment of the Government and Government Members to the steel industry. Of all the issues of industrial neglect that we were bequeathed, those are some of the harder ones to resolve; there is no doubt about that. He knows that our ambition is strong, whether we are talking about the future of British Steel at Scunthorpe and Teesside, or, in terms of sovereign  capability, our aspirations under the steel strategy for new investments and new technology. The issues are difficult—particularly this week; I know that all the workers at Scunthorpe are concerned—but the Government’s commitment to and work on the steel sector will go on. \p Alistair Carmichael: Can the Secretary of State offer us any guarantee that the Government will not enter into a trade deal with America that will allow the importation and sale in this country of food produced to lower environmental and animal welfare standards than those that we demand from United Kingdom farmers? \p Jonathan Reynolds: The right hon. Member knows that I will not go into the detail of any negotiation, but he knows of our manifesto commitment to our SPS regime, which I mentioned to the shadow Secretary of State. That commitment is important to the Government, and it affects all our trade negotiations, not just this one. \p Jenny Riddell-Carpenter: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. The port of Felixstowe is the UK’s busiest container shipping port. Though we import more than we export, we are also the ninth-largest exporter, and the USA market is important for our local and national trading markets. Last night’s news will likely have a significant impact on global trading markets, and it is not an exaggeration to say that it could change the global trading consensus of the last 80 years. Just as President Trump is acting in what he believes is his national interest, will the Secretary of State reassure me and my constituents in Felixstowe and across Suffolk Coastal that he and the Prime Minister will act firmly in our national interests, and do whatever is necessary to protect British jobs, British trade and industry, and British consumers? \p Jonathan Reynolds: My hon. Friend is right to talk about the historic scale and significance of the announcement last night, particularly for her constituency, which has economic infrastructure that is so vital to the country, and how we will process the scale of the changes. I assure her that the Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet and I as the Secretary of State are at all times doing what she mentioned, in the decisions that we have had to make at pace, so that we can put our national interests forward in a way that has allowed us to progress negotiations and to keep opportunities open. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: For all the carefully choreographed bonhomie in the Oval Office last November, the Prime Minister failed to secure a US military backstop for his coalition. Despite No. 10 briefing a narrative about productive discussions at the weekend, the Prime Minister has admitted to business leaders that there will be an economic impact from the decisions that the US has taken. On Times Radio this morning, the Business Secretary said that he would roll up his sleeves to try to remove the impact on businesses entirely. That is a bold claim, given the circumstances and the impact that the Chancellor’s Budget is already having. What timeframe does he envisage for an economic deal with the US? What will he be doing until 1 May while waiting for the views of UK shareholders? \p Jonathan Reynolds: The hon. Member will have heard me this morning on the media and here in Parliament being clear about how we feel about these decisions. We are deeply disappointed that no country has been able to secure an exemption from the tariffs, but we remain committed to working hard to deliver a potential way through this.

The hon. Member asked how we will respond. Respectfully, the statement covered the fact that we will ask British businesses to work with us on the necessary formal steps. On the timeframe, I shadowed a lot of Conservative Business Secretaries in the last few years—there was fairly rapid turnover at one point—and some of them gave all kinds of timeframes and commitments on trade deals, but that is not in our interests because it puts pressure on us in the negotiations. The US side will have timescales that it wants to engage on, but I believe that no country in the world is further advanced in its talks with the United States, and hope and optimism comes from that. \p Nusrat Ghani: Chi Onwurah will be followed by Steve Darling. \p Chi Onwurah: The US is our closest ally and the world’s largest economy, as well as being the UK’s greatest source of foreign direct investment, so I welcome my right hon. Friend’s calm and pragmatic approach, and his determination not to abandon British workers’ rights in the face of these tariffs, as the Conservatives urge us to, but rather to focus on the trade talks. Will the Online Safety Act 2023, the Digital Markets Competition and Consumers Act 2024 and the digital sales tax be part of the talks? Will he also say a little more about his counter-argument to the Trump Administration’s view that VAT and the DST represent tariffs, rather than tax? \p Jonathan Reynolds: My hon. Friend reminds me that I did not get a chance to respond to the shadow Secretary of State. If, following these announcements in the United States, we had come to Parliament and said, “You know, the answer to this is that low-paid people will not get the sick pay they would otherwise have got under this Labour Government,” that would have been the wrong response. Again, as ever, that would be scapegoating the wrong people for difficult things that have nothing to do with their position in the UK economy.

My hon. Friend skilfully leveraged in a number of questions. There are real differences of opinion between us and the United States on VAT. We say that it applies, as it does, to domestically produced goods as much as to goods that come into the UK, and that it is not trade distorting; indeed, the balance of trade between the US and the UK is evidence of that. The argument from the US is slightly different. I will not go into the content of all the negotiations—she will appreciate that—but success in any negotiation is about being willing to be at the table and put forward our argument, while recognising the other side’s argument. That is the approach of this Government, and that is the way forward. \p Steve Darling: We must stand up to the bully that is Trump and support British business. This morning, I reached out to Gooch & Housego, a manufacturer in Torbay of fibreoptics that help to facilitate  international communications. It has interests in manufacturing in the US, the UK, Europe and Thailand. It and other players in the high-tech sector now have an extremely complex world to navigate. How does the Secretary of State plan to help the high-tech sector navigate the challenging world that we now live in? \p Jonathan Reynolds: Our job is to defend the UK national interest, and the company in Torbay that the hon. Member described—it sounds like a fantastic company —is an exemplar of why I want businesses to be based in the UK: because they can then access a whole range of markets from the best possible position. That is exactly the kind of company that, because of complex supply chains, will have questions about what the announcements mean for it. We decided to launch bespoke information on great.gov.uk today to coincide with this announcement precisely to attempt to provide such companies with the assurance that they need.

A business like that can genuinely help us through this difficult period, because whatever hon. Members think of the President and his agenda, that agenda is based on returning a certain type of good-quality manufacturing job to the United States, and in many cases British firms and British business already provide those. They will provide more if we can find a way through these trade tensions and the imposition of tariffs, so they can work with us on the solution to these problems. I am grateful to the hon. Member for mentioning that company. \p Marie Tidball: I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State’s commitment to steel. Stocksbridge Speciality Steels in my constituency is a strategically significant site with world-class, unique capability for creating specialist parts that will be essential in increasing our defence capacity and net zero infrastructure. Last week, I held a community listening event on the Government’s excellent steel strategy. The message was clear: let us ensure that British-made steel is best. Does the Secretary of State agree that today’s news further demonstrates why it is so important that this Government are committed to a £2.5 billion plan for steel? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I greatly appreciate my hon. Friend’s advocacy for steel. She puts the case extremely well, which is that the kind of products that we make in the UK steel sector and which, in the main—where we export them to the US—are niche, high value and in critical sectors such as defence and the manufacturing supply chain, are complementary to the US. That is a good case of why I believe there is no need and no argument for the imposition of tariffs in the sector. Our steel sector is complementary to the US, whether that is in defence or the manufacturing supply chain. That is the basis on which we can find a way through this.

My hon. Friend is right to say that the level of domestic support has increased considerably through the steel strategy and the £2.5 billion—£3 billion in total, including Port Talbot—that this Government have put forward. It is very important to us that we support the foundation industries. The steel strategy is a clear example of that. \p Nusrat Ghani: From another steel constituency, I call Martin Vickers. \p Martin Vickers: Dealing with the erratic Trump Administration must be something of a nightmare for negotiations. The unexpected can always emerge from the White House, but one certainty is that tariffs were going to form part of the Trump agenda. It is somewhat surprising that the Minister is only today launching a consultation about the implications of retaliatory measures. Building on the previous questions about steel, will the Secretary of State at least acknowledge that the current uncertainty in the whole of the world market increases the pressure on the Government to acknowledge that further support will be needed for that industry? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He knows that I always have time for him to discuss the particularly challenging constituency issues that he faces through the position at British Steel. Just to be clear, today’s announcement is the formal step necessary to engage with British business about last night’s announcements. That is an important stage and the right way forward, and we have been prepared for it.

In relation to the other challenges around the steel industry, this is a particularly challenging situation—he and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin) know that better than anyone. Our commitment, even in difficult circumstances, is absolute. We will continue with that, and I will continue to keep him and his constituents updated at all times. \p Emily Thornberry: Many of us may remember a time when Boris Johnson and many of those on the Conservative Benches claimed that a trade deal with Donald Trump could increase our trade with the US by up to five times. It was clearly more difficult than they thought, but it is important to learn from failure. I wonder whether the Opposition had been in a position to pass on any pearls of wisdom or any advice—maybe even an oven-ready deal—that might help the country at this time of difficulties. [Laughter.] \p Jonathan Reynolds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have been in touch with a lot of people who have been this country’s Business Secretary, including some Conservative colleagues who remain in touch. I find that, at times, to be a very useful and worthwhile thing. I cannot tell my right hon. Friend that I am in touch with Boris Johnson on this or any other matter.

On the work of the previous Government, nothing substantive was negotiated in the trade talks they had with the US. This is a very different situation, but one where I think, if we get it right, there are gains. As I say, it is not just to avoid what was announced last night or before that on steel, aluminium and automotive tariffs, but to genuinely improve that trading relationship to our mutual benefit. \p Desmond Swayne: Tariffs are always and everywhere a diminution of the choice available to consumers. So it is not liberation day; it is the very antithesis. I hope the Secretary of State will bear that in mind as he considers the policy and the consultation on any retaliatory action. \p Jonathan Reynolds: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for how he has put that. I think he is right on where the burdens of policy fall in that area. It is not in anyone’s interest. No one wins a trade war; that is  impossible. However, it requires us to react in a way that is calm, reassuring and pragmatic and which seeks a way forward. I can tell him that that is exactly what this Government will seek to do. \p Andrew Cooper: I thank the Secretary of State and his colleagues for all he has done so far in negotiating an economic partnership deal with the US. The automotive sector is an incredibly important one for Cheshire and Merseyside, both for manufacturers such as Bentley, Vauxhall and Jaguar Land Rover, and the wider supply chain, which supports the employment of tens of thousands. The US is the biggest export market for Bentley Motors in Crewe, so it is likely to be at the sharp end of the tariffs. We all hope that my right hon. Friend’s calm-headed approach has meant that we are in the best position to secure a deal. What specific support does he have in mind for the automotive sector to help it weather the storm? \p Jonathan Reynolds: My hon. Friend is right to highlight that. I am tremendously proud of our automotive sector. Indeed, he may know that I come from and grew up in one of our automotive sector powerhouses, Sunderland, with the Nissan plant. It is incredibly important to lots of communities in the supply chain all around the UK, but particularly to our exports. The US is a key market, particularly for the high-value models, some of which he mentioned, which are incredibly valuable to this country. We want and seek to maintain that success.

On the kind of support, first, it is about dealing with this issue. Secondly, there are things such as the announcement in the Budget of the £2 billion for collaboration with the private sector in the automotive field, the money incentives for electric vehicle infrastructure and the changes around the wider ZEV mandate that we are consulting on and about to publish a response to, for which we need a more pragmatic response than we have seen in the past. \p Stephen Flynn: Despite there being a trade deficit and despite the best efforts of this Government, including the Secretary of State, for whom I have a great deal of personal respect, the reality is that we have still been hit by significant tariffs from the States. People at home right now will be worried about jobs, inflation and the global headwinds, which will undoubtedly hit us irrespective of our own tariff situation. One industry in particular, back home in Scotland, that will be watching with eager eyes is the Scotch whisky industry, given the billions of pounds of exports that go to the United States. I do not want the Secretary of State to try and control—nor could he—Trump’s tariffs policy. What he can do, however, is control his domestic taxation regime. Will he take this opportunity to re-engage with the Chancellor in and around the Scotch whisky taxation status? \p Jonathan Reynolds: The right hon. Gentleman knows the value that we place as a Department on the incredible product that is Scotch whisky. We have a particular set of policy initiatives on geographic indicators to make sure the brand is protected, and I always do everything I can to support Scotch whisky, which is just absolutely world class and always will be.

He is right to say that our joint success in Scotch whisky produces a prominence that sometimes makes it vulnerable to retaliatory measures because of the recognition  of the success in that field. On domestic policy, I remain in close contact with the Chancellor on all matters and will do on this one. There are tremendous opportunities for Scotch whisky from some of the other trade negotiations that we are having, such as with India in particular, which is the biggest whisky market in the world, as the right hon. Gentleman will know. I think there could be real steps forward in terms of our market access there and the arrangements that we have, which will give us an advantage over other countries, and that is also a prominent part of our work. \p Calvin Bailey: War does not benefit anyone. A trade war between the UK and its closest ally will not benefit our industry nor our people and will stifle our ability to grow our way out of 14 years of Conservative mess. For that reason, I thank the Minister for his pragmatic and cool-headed approach. However, the measures also threaten our ability to prevent military conflict here on the continent of Europe. Will he detail what action he is taking to ensure that our air and space industry can work with our European partners to implement the defence industrial strategy, which is central to ensuring peace here in Europe? \p Jonathan Reynolds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his assessment of the burdens and benefits of solving the challenge we have been faced with by the announcements yesterday evening. He will know that the defence sector is one of the eight priority sectors of our industrial strategy. There is a whole range of work across areas like air and space that we are engaged in with Ministry of Defence colleagues. Of course, we have also had a significant increase in defence spending, which is a crucial part of how we respond to these threats. The US will always be a crucial security ally for us, and our shared interests—whether they are economic or in the defence and security space—are enduring. That is something we should always bear in mind as we try to find a way through. \p Christopher Chope: I very much support the Secretary of State’s concerns about the automotive industry in this country. Will he therefore take action immediately to remove the arbitrary restrictions on the ability of our domestic motor manufacturers to produce and sell vehicles with internal combustion engines? The Government’s policy has already reduced the domestic production of vehicles in this country by a third between February last year and February this year. Why does he not lead by example and remove all tariffs on US vehicles? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I thank the hon. Member for his words on the automotive sector. On the ZEV mandate that he references, it was a policy of the previous Government to be clear. We inherited that policy. The consultation we have opened with our colleagues in Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Department for Transport will look at that in the context of a fall across all European markets in automotive production and demand, and this incredible entry on to the world economy of increased Chinese production, which is a challenge for all of us. He will also know that the automotive sector is very much an export-led sector—we  export 80% of what we make—and all our key markets have the transition policies in place towards electric vehicles, so if we did not make that transition, we would not have a product to sell in those key markets. We have to work with industry to do it, but we also have to recognise that what we inherited from the Conservative party was not working. That is why we opened the consultation, and we will publish the response very soon. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for his efforts and those of his team thus far. I also welcome the fact that there will be engagement with businesses on the potential for retaliatory action—that input is vital. While the UK has the lowest rate of reciprocal tariffs, that will be cold comfort to the many businesses in my constituency of Bathgate and Linlithgow and, indeed, for those in the whisky and salmon industries, which employ thousands of people across Scotland. Will the Secretary of State assure the business community that he will work at pace with his team to secure a sustainable trade deal with lower tariffs and to bring much-needed certainty to businesses and households across this country? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I thank my hon. Friend for her support. We are taking steps to ensure that all options are on the table for the action we may need to take in future—that is important. It is inevitable when an announcement of this magnitude has occurred that businesses will be concerned, and I understand that will be what her constituents are telling her this morning. I absolutely assure her that the approach I have laid out today will be something that we continue to work towards at pace. Our tone, the assurances we can give and the fact we are approaching this with calm-headed pragmatism is vital, and that will be part of how we can reassure businesses. We will work to get to the position she articulates—a better set of trade terms with the US—and that is the objective of the Government. \p Munira Wilson: The Business Secretary said in his statement,

“True strength comes in making the right choices at the right time.”

Will he assure parents, carers and young people up and down this country that he will show true strength with Donald Trump and his sidekick Elon Musk, and make the right choice by refusing point blank to trade away our children’s safety online in watering down—in any way, shape or form—the implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I do believe that strength comes in making the right choices at the right time in our national interest. I can tell the hon. Member that the talks I have had with my US counterparts are not to do with what she has articulated; they are to do with goods, services, the regulation of professional bodies and all the things we would associate with normal trade talks. The United States is not seeking to make our children unsafe or more vulnerable. That is not the right approach to take to our key and core ally. I think sometimes the Liberal Democrats are inventing problems to try to propose that they are the solution. This is a conversation about trade, and it is vital that we keep it in those important and appropriate terms. \p Barry Gardiner: There is a threat, but there is also an opportunity. What measures is my right hon. Friend taking to combat trade leakage and the diversion of goods produced in countries hit by high US tariffs, which may dump their products in the UK, undercutting our domestic producers? What steps is he taking to encourage manufacturers based in those countries and, indeed, in the EU, to relocate to the UK and export from here to the US to take advantage of our lower 10% tariff? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising one of the most important issues we face: the impact of trade diversion—not just the relationship between the US and the UK, but what it means for goods that potentially would have gone to other countries coming to the UK market. That is something we have to be extremely vigilant about. He will know that we have those safeguards in place on the tariffs already announced on steel and aluminium, and that we have our own quotas and 25% tariff to protect domestic production to ensure that that is not the case. I can tell him that we stand ready to use those powers for any sector of the economy that we need to use them for, or indeed to take further powers if that is deemed to be necessary.

I want businesses to be based in the United Kingdom and to serve a whole range of markets from the United Kingdom. That pitch is not just about the comparative position we find ourselves in, but about the kind of policies we put in place to ensure we have the level of competitiveness we need. That is something that every country in the world is engaged in, but I assure my hon. Friend—not so much on the announcements last night, but on the wider agenda of the Government—that that is our commitment. \p Ben Spencer: Tariffs are a tax on import paid by domestic businesses. As the Business Secretary reflects over the forthcoming weeks and consults with businesses, will he reflect on the taxes he has raised on our own domestic businesses and think about whether that is an appropriate response to what is happening? \p Jonathan Reynolds: We always reflect on the decisions we have made as the UK Government. I say to the hon. Member again—we have probably had this exchange a few times—that I am always willing to hear from the Conservative party how it plans to fund its spending plans, but it certainly did not set that out in the spending plans we inherited. If the Conservatives are ready to make a decision on that, we would love to hear from them, but until they do so, they should stop criticising us for fixing their mess. \p Alex Sobel: I hope the Secretary of State agrees that protectionism is not the way to protect consumers and businesses. Our own history teaches us that: the Tory corn laws kept working people impoverished for generations in this country. I hope our approach will be that we should have free and fair trade with other countries and not see rising prices for British people, American people or people anywhere else in the world, and that we will do our best to ensure that people’s living standards rise by ensuring the fair and free flow of goods and services. \p Jonathan Reynolds: We have talked about not reliving the arguments of Brexit; my hon. Friend has brought up the corn laws—it is about time we had that one again. He will know that if we go back to arguments from the past, such as those around imperial preference, and look at the stance the Labour party took, it was always for free trade. That is because free trade makes food and other goods and services cheaper for the people we represent. That has always been our history and our commitment. What we are announcing today and how we are seeking a way through these difficult and disappointing sets of announcements is entirely consistent with our own history in the Labour party and our commitment to internationalism. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. Some commentators are fawning over a 10% tariff simply because our nearest neighbours have been hit worse. Let’s get real: the 25% tariff on steel and aluminium will hit Wales’s biggest export to the US—machinery and transport equipment. The EU is Wales’s greatest trading partner, with Welsh exports valued at £11.2 billion. In the face of the American President’s obsession with international economic revenge, does the Secretary of State recognise that it is economic common sense to accelerate the scrapping of trade barriers with Europe? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I am grateful for that question. Again, the right hon. Lady can see that no one in this Government is fawning over the relative position we find ourselves in. That is why we are so determined to find a better way through. She is right to say that the announcement on steel and aluminium is a real danger to us, particularly the potential for derivative tariffs—that is, on a product that is not the raw steel or aluminium but is produced from them. That is why we are taking this so seriously.

We have an ambitious commitment to the EU reset. We need a partner on the other side. There has been some relative political instability in some key European partners, and they have to be in a position to have that conversation. But I say again that this is not a choice between the US and the EU—we can tackle this together. We can improve our trading relationship with both partners and with India, the Gulf and other parts of the world, and it is the commitment of this Government to do so. \p Luke Murphy: In January 2017, the then Conservative Foreign Secretary claimed that the UK would be “first in line” for a US trade deal; 2,722 days later, when the Conservatives left office, precisely nothing had been achieved. Incidentally, that is 37 times longer than the 73 days President Trump has been in power for his second term. Does the Business Secretary agree that it is hard to take the Conservative party’s criticisms of our trade approach seriously, given its appalling record on meeting its claims to be able to achieve trade deals? I urge him to continue with his calm approach to this, in the interests of businesses in Basingstoke and across the country, and to take those decisions in the national interest. \p Jonathan Reynolds: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. There was no real progress on a federal level with the US under the previous Government. The former  President made the decision that he would not pursue trade deals, so there was perhaps not much they could do on that, but I do sometimes reflect that the Conservative Government broke our relationship with our nearest and most important trading partner, which is the European Union; they then fell out with countries in the Gulf and could not do that deal; they could not do the deal with India; and they would not engage with China. For a global Britain policy, there is not much of the globe left if we find ourselves in that position. That is not best practice for us to follow, but we welcome Conservative Members’ support for our approach if it exists and continue to say that this is surely the right way forward for all our constituents. \p John Lamont: Farming, textiles and whisky are all important parts of the economy in the Scottish Borders and across Scotland more broadly, and they will be affected by these tariffs. There are also real concerns in Scotland that products currently heading to the United States market from other countries will be redirected and dumped into the UK market, which will impact the domestic market. What action are the Government taking to address that? Will the Secretary of State undertake to engage with the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Scotch Whisky Association and other representatives of industry in Scotland to ensure that this problem is tackled head-on? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I agree: this is one of the principal issues that we have to address. Whether it is on farming, textiles or whisky, what is going on in the rest of the world and other countries’ relationship to the US have a direct impact, even though that does not relate directly to the conversation about tariffs and our own trade deal with the US. I am meeting the chair and chief executive of the Trade Remedies Authority imminently. This is a crucial part of the work that we have to get right. We have some measures in place for steel and aluminium, but we have to ensure that we are ready for other sectors of the economy, too. \p Rachel Taylor: Many of my constituents work at Jaguar Land Rover or in the motor manufacturing supply chain, and they are really concerned about 25% tariffs on exports to the US. Can the Secretary of State set out what steps he is taking to get those tariffs reduced and to support west midlands businesses before I meet Jaguar Land Rover later today? Does he agree that a calm and measured approach is exactly what is needed to get the best deal for British businesses? \p Jonathan Reynolds: JLR is an example of an incredible UK-based business in terms of its success in the US, China and other parts of the world. We want to maintain that and give that business the platform it needs for that success. I am in regular contact at the most senior levels with JLR. I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend is meeting it today to share some of these messages of reassurance. I know that, like all businesses, it supports this calm, pragmatic, rational approach to finding a better trade relationship with the US, not just to avoid the imposition of what was announced yesterday evening. \p Jeremy Corbyn: The previous Government undertook secretive trade negotiations with the USA that included health. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that in any bilateral discussions with the USA, there will be no question of US private healthcare interests coming into Britain to undermine our national health service or, indeed, take over sections of it? \p Jonathan Reynolds: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I do not comment on the detail of talks, but I can tell him that there have been no discussions in relation to the NHS or anything that would concern him in that regard. This is about goods and services and how we recognise each other’s standards. There is nothing relating to the health sector that I have been able to talk about with US counterparts. I hope he finds that reassuring. \p Chris Curtis: The automotive industry is incredibly important for workers in Milton Keynes, with many headquarters based there, such as Volkswagen’s. I realise that these tariffs will be incredibly difficult for the automotive sector, and it is good to hear what the Secretary of State said about looking for a pragmatic approach to the ZEV mandate. What else will he be doing to support the automotive industry here in the UK? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. He has some tremendous businesses based in his area, and it is great having him here as a champion for them. In terms of the automotive sector, it is about the regulatory environment, which we have discussed, and it is about the funding that we make available for co-investment with the private sector, which is always a priority, and £2 billion was allocated for that in the Budget. We have to accelerate and improve our electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and there was £300 million for that in the Budget. The pressures on the automotive sector across Europe are fierce—that is widely recognised—with changes in consumer demand and much more competition from China coming into the market. We have to be serious about making sure that the UK is the place to be a producer of automotive vehicles. My personal commitment to that is very strong. \p Sorcha Eastwood: I thank the Secretary of State for his responses so far on Northern Ireland. I trust that he will continue to engage with my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive in the days ahead. However, he has not been able to allay my fears about the possible inclusion of online safety in any US deal. Can he reassure me and the Molly Rose Foundation that no more young lives will be sacrificed in order to try to get a deal with the US? \p Jonathan Reynolds: As I said, I updated the First Minister and Deputy First Minister yesterday. It is a particular situation that we need to remain very much aligned to, making sure the system is working as it should, difficult as that will be. The hon. Lady knows that I will not go into the specific negotiations on any part of a deal, but I say seriously to any colleague that their concerns are misplaced if they think this is what the negotiation is about. It is about goods and services and regulation, and that is what we are focused on delivering. \p Sally Jameson: The Prime Minister has rightly said that this Labour Government will always work in the national interest, so can the Secretary of State assure the House that it is in our national interest to protect the copyright of our creative industries and the £126 billion of economic power they bring to Great Britain? \p Jonathan Reynolds: The creative industries are not just a wonderful cultural asset to the UK but a tremendous economic asset as well. I do not necessarily agree with the commentary in parts of the media that posits a tension between being a creative powerhouse and supporting the tech sector. There is a way through that, and that is what my work in government seeks to achieve. I think we all recognise the economic impact on the UK of our creative sector, the cultural soft power that comes from it and the huge asset it represents. That is always first and foremost in our thoughts. \p Neil Shastri-Hurst: It is estimated that 25,000 jobs directly linked to the automotive sector are at risk due to reduced exports to the United States. That is a deep concern to many of my constituents who work at either JLR in Solihull or Aston Martin in Gaydon. Can the Secretary of State set out what specific steps he is taking to protect those jobs, and whether it will involve reforming the regulatory environment in which they operate? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I have seen the Institute for Public Policy Research report that contains that figure. Because the automotive sector is such a jewel in our crown, we are all aware of what would happen if we were not able to find a way through this. Our work to find that deal and remove this threat of tariffs is intended precisely to deliver that way through. I met Aston Martin yesterday, as an example of the work we are trying to do.

The hon. Gentleman asks a specific question about the regulatory environment we inherited. I cannot pre-empt the publication of the consultation, which has just finished, but he will be aware of comments I have made publicly about changing that to reflect different circumstances. He will not have to wait long for the outcome to be published, and I can tell him that the Secretary of State for Transport, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and I are aligned on ensuring that we get the regulatory environment correct for the future. \p Liam Conlon: I thank the Secretary of State and his colleagues for the practical and pragmatic approach they have taken to put us in the best possible position with the US. Does he agree that as well as the US, political and economic co-operation with our European friends and neighbours is essential and in our best interests? \p Jonathan Reynolds: It absolutely is, and there is no tension between those two things, as I have said. It is a false choice if people try to present it in that way, and I am particularly looking forward to some of the progress that I hope we will make in our relationship with the European Union. It is looking not to the past but to the future, and of course it is in both our interests to do so. \p Lisa Smart: The US is clearly seeking concessions from the UK, and it has been widely speculated that the UK Government are considering a reduction in the digital services tax as a way of placating Trump and his ally Elon Musk. My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) asked the Secretary of State this question but I did not quite catch an answer in his response: will he commit today not to cut the digital services tax, as that is the way the tech giants pay their fair share here in the UK? \p Jonathan Reynolds: The hon. Lady has heard me say repeatedly that I will not go into specific negotiations, but ensuring that not just a US tech company but any tech company pays a fair rate of taxation in the UK, for the economic activity that it has in the UK, is something that all parts of the British Government are committed to—she does not need to be worried about that. In any discussion there will always be a lot of issues that need to be dealt with. In the main, those are trade issues. I understand that there are all kinds of speculation, but speculation is not always correct. I ask all colleagues to bear that in mind and understand that we cannot publicly share every single aspect of such a negotiation. If she is worried about US tech companies, or any tech companies, paying the right rate of tax in the UK, let me say that that is something we are deeply committed to. \p Deirdre Costigan: Does the Secretary of State agree that now is time for unity across the Chamber in the national interest, in contrast to the politicking that we had earlier from the shadow Minister? Will he commit that this Labour Government will always put country first and party second? \p Jonathan Reynolds: Absolutely, country first. I would hope that all Members of the House could get behind the approach we are taking, which is genuinely in the national interest. That is the way forward and the way to deliver what all our constituents want in these troubling times, which is a much better path towards the future. \p Andrew Snowden: I appreciate the tone of concern with which the Secretary of State has come here today. I am particularly concerned about what these measures mean for the UK defence industry, particularly companies such as BAE Systems in Fylde and across Lancashire that manufacture component parts for US-UK defence programmes such as the F-35. What conversations has he had with those in the Ministry of Defence about working with their US counterparts to address this issue from a national security perspective, for both the US and the UK? Can he give an assurance that the order of 25 fighter jets that the RAF needs to place will not be used as a bargaining chip in any trade deal, and that British-built Typhoon jets will be used for the RAF? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I have constituency interests that are similar to his, and the close alignment between ourselves and the US on defence and security matters is an enduring and huge asset to both countries, so I share the sentiments he has raised. He asks whether we can engage US counter- parts in this conversation about a more constructive way forward. Yes, that was always part of our thinking, and our trading bodies in the UK have excellent US links in  the main, and they engage in similar activity around that. On his specific point, I have no detail to give him— I have no knowledge of anything like that being used as a bargaining chip, but if I need to give him additional information, I am happy to write to him to provide that. \p Peter Swallow: Bracknell is home to the UK and European headquarters of many US companies, as well as to many UK businesses that do business in America. Can the Secretary of State assure businesses in Bracknell that this Government’s position is that barriers to trade are bad for growth on both sides of the Atlantic, and that he is working hard with a cool head to secure a trade deal? \p Jonathan Reynolds: My hon. Friend is right; Bracknell has some tremendous businesses, such as Honeywell, Dell and 3M, so he will be seeking to promote and defend particular constituency interests. I have had tremendous support for the approach that I have mapped out today not just from UK businesses but from US businesses as well, particularly those with an economic relationship with the UK. Right now people are seeking evidence that countries around the world are trying to deal with this difficult situation in the right way, in their own national interests but also in a way that gives us an opportunity to strengthen rather than weaken those important trading relationships. \p Ellie Chowns: It is clear that the UK needs to show some backbone in standing up to the US President’s bullyboy tactics on trade. The Secretary of State says that he is keen to negotiate a deal, but at what cost? What is he putting on the table? Can he assure the House that, in seeking a carve-out from President Trump’s tariffs, he is not prepared to offer President Trump and his big tech billionaire buddies an opportunity to carve up the NHS, our environmental and food standards, or our sovereign right to make our own decisions on taxing digital giants? \p Jonathan Reynolds: The hon. Lady will have heard the answers I have given to some of the questions she raises, and the unequivocal assurances I have been able to provide. She talks about backbone—backbone and strength. Strength and wisdom are not opposing values. Backbone comes from putting our own national interest first, and negotiating on a basis in the interests of all our constituents, not bandying around rhetoric and escalating the situation. That, respectfully, is not the right way forward. The right way forward is to engage on national interest, make sure we are delivering and have the chance to find the right way through this. \p Melanie Ward: I thank the Secretary of State and his team for the enormous amount of hard work they have put in on this issue. It feels apt to mention that I represent the town of Kirkcaldy, the birthplace of Adam Smith, who I am sure would have had something to say about last night’s events. My right hon. Friend is keenly aware of the importance of the US market for Scottish exports, including but not limited to salmon and whisky, which I know he is very fond of. What further reassurance can he offer to Scotland’s leading export industries about the impact of these developments on trade with the US? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I am tremendously grateful for my hon. Friend’s support and for her question—Adam Smith is probably the best historical reference we have had in this statement so far. As she knows, I have always aspired for my Department to be one of the most pro-Scottish UK ministries, because of the interests that we are there to defend and promote. She will also know that this week is Tartan Week in the US. The Secretary of State for Scotland is in the US right now, and I admire the way that he has turned the Scottland Office into such an economically focused Department, working with Scottish businesses, and working closely with me. That is a tremendous initiative, and one that we will continue to promote. \p Blake Stephenson: Trump’s tariffs will make everyone poorer and are extremely disappointing, so is it noteworthy that Reform Members have not bothered to turn up to share in our disappointment? Our automative sector is already announcing closures and layoffs, including Stellantis in Luton, which has provided great jobs for my constituents for many years. In his review of the regulatory environment in response to these tariffs, will the Secretary of State ensure that it will be easier, not harder, to create jobs in the UK in future? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and he is right to note some conspicuous absences from the Chamber on such an important subject. I could not make it clearer: I care a great deal not just about the transition to new technologies in the automotive sector, but about ensuring that we make those vehicles in the UK. We face tremendous competitive pressures, as he will know from the stories his constituents tell him. We must be alert to that and willing to be adaptable, to ensure that we are a place where vehicles can be made. We have some tremendous industries. If we chart the productivity and efficiency of some of our plants on a global scale, we see that are at the top end. We must get that policy and regulatory environment right, and I give the hon. Gentleman a total assurance that that is my personal objective. \p Johanna Baxter: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for all the work that he has done so far in negotiating an economic partnership with the United States. He will appreciate that the lower levy applied to the UK will be of cold comfort to my constituents, who will see their bills rise. Can he assure me that he will resist calls for a knee-jerk reaction to this? The escalation of a trade war will not help anybody, and the way we achieve a negotiated settlement is through constructive dialogue and a calm approach—I say that as somebody who spent 20-odd years as a negotiator prior to entering this House. \p Jonathan Reynolds: My hon. Friend is a formidable negotiator, as I have seen at first hand—we might see if she is available for some of the work we have to do. She is right that this is about delivering for our constituents, who must be concerned when something of this magnitude has been announced. No one in Government or in any part of the Chamber is relaxed about the relatively better position we find ourselves in, because it is still something that we have to find a way through. We must keep all options on the table—that is behind some of  the announcements I made in the statement—but the approach that my hon. Friend advocates and promotes is my approach, and I thank her for her support. \p Jim Shannon: I watched the Secretary of State on television this morning, and I thank him for his calm, collected and carefully chosen words. He understands my real concerns about Northern Ireland businesses—my stomach is doing somersaults worrying about the impact for Northern Ireland. My party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), made a point at Prime Minister’s questions that still stands: Northern Ireland remains exposed to potential EU retaliation, and local businesses must not become collateral damage. The Government must take urgent steps to protect Northern Ireland interests and to ensure that our place in the United Kingdom internal market is fully safeguarded. In his reply to my right hon. Friend yesterday, the Prime Minister kindly committed to act in our national interest, so will the Secretary of State outline for the record what steps will be taken to do just that? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his kind words. It has been quite a week so far, and we still have some way to go. This is an issue not just for Northern Ireland Members, but for all Members of the House. We have to be alert to the particular situation that would occur if there were a different retaliatory stance from us and the EU. That is why I briefed the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and my counterpart yesterday. The shadow Minister was right that the issues around the duty reimbursement scheme are key. On the formal steps that we have taken, businesses can now input their concerns and what the tariffs will mean to them directly to Government. We need to work together, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland, to ensure that specific voice and that specific question are a key part of how we look at the issue and respond. I am keen to work with the hon. Gentleman in that regard. \p Ben Coleman: May I echo the thanks to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for the calm and effective way that they are dealing with the United States? Unlike some of the frivolous comments we have heard from Conservative Members, does my right hon. Friend agree that the US’s 20% tariff on EU goods is to be deeply regretted, as it could indirectly affect the many UK businesses that supply components to EU manufacturers that export to the US, particularly in the automotive, aerospace and pharmaceutical sectors? What discussions has he had with European counterparts about the US decision? How he will represent our concerns to them in the coming days, if there is an escalation of tariffs? \p Jonathan Reynolds: My hon. Friend is right that our concerns have to be not just about what this means for our own relationship with the United States, but about the second-order impact on the UK from the trading relationship changes between the US and other key allies and markets. No discussion on trade or tariffs is complete without bringing up rules of origin. The complexities of some of the supply chains, particularly in the automotive industry, are key issues; we have to ensure that we have preferential tariff access to markets  and that the products we make in our country qualify for those under the rules of origin. We are closely engaged with all partners. He will know that the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), deals with the EU reset, but we will continue to have a very close working relationship, as well as having direct conversations with our European Commission counterparts. \p Bobby Dean: In answers to questions so far, the Secretary of State seems to have dismissed the threat of the US trade negotiations to the safety of our children. I am sure he has seen the abandonment of content moderation on social media platforms and heard what Trump, J. D. Vance and Musk have said about free speech in our country: what they mean is the freedom of US social media giants to keep our children addicted to their platforms, no matter how harmful the content. I know the Secretary of State says that he does not want to get into the specifics of the negotiations, but is the Online Safety Act 2023 part of those negotiations, or will he take the opportunity to rule that out? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I want to be clear with colleagues, not to invent problems that do not exist. I am aware of comments that have been made about freedom of speech in the UK. They have not been part of the trade negotiations. The hon. Gentleman recognises that I cannot share details of negotiations, but then he asks me to share those details. He knows that I am not going to do that because it would not be in our national interest. However, I say to colleagues that these negotiations are about goods and services in the main. It is important to focus on that—let us not make this more difficult than it is. \p Sarah Coombes: West Bromwich is a metal industry heartland. We are home to the Confederation of British Metalforming and many brilliant exporting businesses are in the automotive steel and aluminium supply chain. This morning, I spoke to the chief executive of William King, one of those brilliant local businesses, and she was clear that the Government are right to remain calm and to work to do the deal. While Ministers are working towards that deal, what else can we do to support those businesses to continue to trade and invest with confidence? \p Jonathan Reynolds: That is the right approach to take. I welcome my hon. Friend’s support and that of the businesses in her constituency that she mentioned. Of course we are trying to find a way through this, but given the situation we inherited after the election, our domestic competitiveness is not what it could be and what it needs to be. Even Conservative Members recognise the impact of aspects of regulation, energy prices and the direction of travel. The output of foundation industries last year and this year is at levels that should concern us all. We have to get that right, which is why this Government are committed to an industrial strategy and a trade strategy that works in partnership with it. As well as endorsing our approach, the feedback from businesses is that that is exactly what they want. West Bromwich is a powerhouse, but I want it to be an even bigger powerhouse in the future, and the same applies to the constituencies of many Members across the House. \p Manuela Perteghella: The tariffs announced by Trump last night will be concerning for many businesses in the UK, not least British farmers, including in my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon. We all recognise that Trump will use the imposition of tariffs to try to get concessions from countries around the world. Will the Business Secretary reassure the whole country and commit today that he will not agree to any deal with the US that would lower food standards and undermine British farmers? \p Jonathan Reynolds: The hon. Lady will have heard me say very clearly that we are committed to the sanitary and phytosanitary regime, as set out in the Labour manifesto. The UK is currently the biggest importer in Europe of US agriculture, so we should not present this as something that we do not already have that the US is trying to open up. We have a strong, mutually beneficial relationship. British agricultural products are premium products that have a tremendous reputation, whether in the US or in other parts of the world. Seeking to remove trade barriers on both sides, while maintaining the SPS regime in UK, which is very important to our other trading relationships, is vital, but that could be a positive story of how we open up more markets to excellent US products. That is fundamentally what good trade policy is about. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and for his calm head in a difficult situation. My constituency is home to many businesses, including Wright’s Flour, A1 Bacon, Harlow Group and Raytheon, that trade directly and indirectly with the US. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give to those businesses and their consumers? Does he think that Raytheon’s work sourcing UK parts for its defence systems will be increasingly vital in the months and years to come? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support and for mentioning some of the excellent local businesses in his area. On the impact of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine on supply chains, the private sector has been working with Government to look at vulnerabilities to ensure we do not have strategic weaknesses. We intend to include that vital work in the trade strategy, which is due to be published imminently, but that aspect of economic security is extremely important. \p Seamus Logan: The Secretary of State cannot have failed to notice the number of Members from all parties who have raised the food and drink industry, particularly in Scotland, where many products are made in my constituency. I admire his approach of speaking softly and carrying a big stick as he prepares his plan B, but retaliatory action is not the only lever that we could pull. In discussions with the Chancellor, would he be prepared to offer some sort of mitigation to businesses in the food and drink industry in the autumn statement? \p Jonathan Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman has skilfully raised issues relevant to the autumn statement that are more for the Chancellor than for me. Products from the food and drink industry form a prominent part of our economic exports. Because of that industry’s success  and what it means to the prosperity of every bit of the United Kingdom, it features heavily in all our decisions, whether on trade, business support, export support or the wider regulatory and policy environment. I assure the hon. Gentleman that his constituents and the excellent and successful businesses in his area are always prominent in our thinking. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: I thank the Secretary of State for his hard work and for his calm and pragmatic approach. In my constituency of Aylesbury, there are almost 5,000 small and medium-sized businesses, several of which export to the US or have been seeking to do so. Will the Secretary of State set out what he is doing to protect our SMEs in his ongoing negotiations with the Trump Administration? \p Jonathan Reynolds: Fundamentally, I want to see greater market access to the US for small and medium-sized businesses in every part of the UK. We can tackle particular things as part of that, such as the regulatory system in the United States and the federal-state dichotomy, particularly for services and exports. All that is the prize on offer if we get this right. A big part of trade policy is also about not just free trade agreements, even though they tend to get the most prominence, but how we come to agreement on e-commerce and functions of online marketplaces and transactions. All that is a very practical difference that we can make, through good trade policy, to small and medium-sized businesses. That will be a premium and important part of the trade policy we are about to publish. \p Tom Gordon: The pharmaceutical sector appears temporarily to have avoided tariffs, but that may well change. However, medical devices and diagnostics do not appear to have that same exemption. The UK is home to many medtech and diagnostic companies, and the tariffs will have an impact on them both here and abroad and may well push up prices. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care about ensuring access to medtech and diagnostics in the face of increasing prices? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He may be aware of the biopharma conference held in the UK yesterday with the top chief executive officers of many of the leading companies in this area. It was attended by myself, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we could see further announcements in this area. There are particular US issues, such as the differential in drug pricing, which has always been a fairly prominent part of trade negotiations. There is an integration and shared aspiration between people in Government, such as myself and the Health Secretary, and recognition of our need to be more forward-leaning, to use more innovation, to look at how we provide that and the relative allocation of resources in our existing health system. We take that very seriously, and we are very much looking at that. There is a lot to do, and it is a difficult situation, but we need more of the success that the hon. Gentleman outlined. \p Douglas McAllister: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The announcement of a 10% tariff on all products exported from the UK to the United States means that for the second time in just five years, the Scotch whisky industry could be impacted by tariffs in the industry’s largest global market. That will be concerning news across communities where Scotch whisky is a major employer, including in my constituency. Scotch whisky makes up a quarter of all Scottish exports to the US, but it is not one-way traffic; to give just one example, the Scotch whisky industry imports up to $300 million of ex-bourbon casks every year. I urge the Secretary of State to work with the US Administration and ensure that a mutually beneficial resolution can be agreed as soon as possible to support the Scotch whisky industry. \p Jonathan Reynolds: I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and for his accurate insight into some of the co-dependencies and relationships that exist between Scotch whisky and other key international sectors of the food and drink economy. If he ever wants to come and see me in my office in the Old Admiralty Building, I keep a bottle of Lagavulin there, which I think we can all agree is an excellent choice. You would be welcome to come for that conversation at any time, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have to keep the numbers down, but we will look at that if we come through with a deal. [Interruption.] Of course the shadow Secretary of State would also be very welcome to come—what an excellent meeting we have just set up accidentally.

Often an equivalence is made in some markets between, for instance, the tariff on bourbon from the US and Scotch whisky. A comparison is made, and those are often seen as competing products, but there is an interdependency as well. The point about the sherry barrels is also really important and fascinating. I can tell my hon. Friend that we are in regular contact with the Scotch Whisky Association, which is tremendously supportive as a resource to us and is very closely engaged with Government. These issues, which are so important to his constituency, are always considered and prominent at the highest levels in Government. \p Scott Arthur: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and congratulate him on his choice of whisky; that is my favourite as well.

There are no winners in this dire situation—we think of the people waking up this morning in Vietnam, Cambodia and so on—but we have to acknowledge that the cool heads in Government have meant, at least for now, as we start this process, that the jobs of people in Edinburgh South West have been saved. I do no doubt that, as we speak, businesses in my constituency and across the UK are trying to figure out what this means for them, so we have to redouble our efforts in our search for growth.

I welcome the pragmatic words given around the zero emission vehicle mandate. Ultimately, without compromising our aims, we can work together with businesses and trade unions to get a better outcome, but I wonder if the same approach can be taken elsewhere. The AI regulations that we have been discussing, which I think were mentioned earlier, come to mind. [Interruption.] I will be very quick, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is also HFSS advertising and the sustainable aviation fuel mandate.  We do not need to compromise on all those things, but we can work closely with industry to get the right outcome. \p Jonathan Reynolds: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s words and his endorsement and seconding of my whisky choice. I should say that other excellent whiskies are available; a lot of Scottish Members are present, and I do not want to offend anyone. He is right to say that businesses will need reassurance: I hope they will get that from the tone that the Government are striking today, but they will need information. If Members get out their phones and go on to great.gov.uk, they will see a link to a bespoke page where that information is provided. We have advertised around that.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Where we can look at alleviating some of the domestic pressures, whether through regulation or other areas, this is clearly the time to do so. I have had those conversations with Cabinet colleagues. He is right to say that this is not about changing policy, but about looking at the impact right now and how we can make a difference. That is a very wise observation to make. \p Andrew Lewin: I commend my right hon. Friend for the measured tone he has taken on events in Washington. I want to reflect on the agency we have here in London and with our allies in Brussels. Does the Secretary of State agree that now is the moment to seek the most ambitious trade deal we possibly can with the European Union, seeking deep alignment in goods and services? Furthermore, while the United States may want to make it harder to trade, does he agree that the UK-EU reset provides us with an opportunity to break down the barriers to trade that the Conservatives put up when they were in government? If we get this right, the prize on offer from the UK-EU trade deal could be even greater than what was lost overnight. \p Jonathan Reynolds: I warmly thank my hon. Friend for his question and his support for the approach we are taking. I believe there is a competitive advantage to seek for the UK where we are able to reach agreement with the US. We are able to do those trade deals and negotiations with countries such as India or customs unions such as the Gulf Co-operation Council, and also to get the EU reset right. Although this is not about looking to the past, a lot of smaller businesses stopped exporting entirely after Brexit. They almost certainly set up subsidiaries in the single market, which was not to our advantage, and we saw a real decline in certain types of food and drink trade, even though we had a broadly similar SPS regime in place. We can work on those practical things, and that is our objective. There is real gain to be had from that. We need a partner on the other side who sees the benefits as well, but I believe that they exist, and that is a crucial focus for what we call the twin-track approach to trade under this Government. \p Jonathan Davies: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the work he is doing as we face this challenge. I welcome the Government’s commitment to increase defence spending. That is good for not just our national security, but our economy. The sector employs many people in Derbyshire, including at Rolls-Royce. As we seek a trade deal that will create the economic conditions for our public services to thrive and for prices and bills to remain as low as  possible, can I encourage the Secretary of State to remind the US of the importance of manufacturers such as Rolls-Royce and the defence sector, and the strategic and economic partnerships they offer us, so that we can work with them more constructively? \p Jonathan Reynolds: Those are very wise words, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting them on the record. Defence spending is crucial for our national security. The big change and uplift that we have seen is a big part of that, but he is right to say that it would be wrong for anyone in this country to think there is not a domestic economic dividend for that. Those jobs are spread all around the United Kingdom, including in places that are really reliant on them, so it is great news on the economic front for all parts of the UK and Derbyshire—Rolls-Royce is a great example of that.

My hon. Friend talks about how we can get this right with our relationship to the US. We already have some great things under way. We can think about the AUKUS agreement, in which the US treats domestic UK suppliers as part of the domestic supply chain; there is equivalence there. We can think about steel and the role that Sheffield Forgemasters plays, for instance; that is a crucial part of the defence supply chain for the US. These are really important and mutually beneficial strengths to recognise. If we look at the facts and at how our trade inter- dependencies work, there is a great prize on offer if we get this right. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call David Pinto-Duschinsky to ask the final question. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—a joy as ever. I thank my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister for their   tireless efforts, which have secured the best, most powerful position available for our country. Of course, there is deep disappointment that tariffs have been levied, but the fact that they have been levied at the lowest band is a vindication of the Government’s strategy, and businesses I have spoken to—in Hendon and nationally—have been unanimous in their support for the Government’s approach. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to stand up for Britain is through a cool, calm, collected and pragmatic approach, and that we must reject the knee- jerk response and calls for action on invented problems that some Opposition Members demand? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He has articulated our approach, which is that we are not complacent or happy; we are disappointed about any tariffs being imposed on the UK. We recognise that the lowest band has been applied to the UK, but that does not mean that we will not redouble our efforts to secure an agreement that offers a way through.

I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend’s constituents. I hear in every part of the country that our approach is genuinely the one that businesses want us to take. It is calm—I am not sure whether it is cool—and, I hope, reassuring to businesses in my hon. Friend’s area. A lot of people are always offering advice in this area. At times, they are offering to escalate a conflict, and perhaps do not have a plan to de-escalate it, but this Government’s approach is always to pursue our national interest, work with partners, and look at the mutual benefits we could get from doing things right. I am extremely grateful for the support for that policy from Members in all parts of the House today. \p Nusrat Ghani: That marks the end of the very lengthy statement on UK-US trade and tariffs. \p UNKNOWN: Select Committee statement \p Nusrat Ghani: We now come to the Select Committee statement. Florence Eshalomi will speak on behalf of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. They should be brief questions, rather than full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, not the Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning. \p Florence Eshalomi: Today, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee publishes our first report of the Session, following our inquiry on children in temporary accommodation. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for kindly granting time for this statement, and the Committee’s staff for their assistance in producing the report.

This morning, over 164,000 children woke up without a permanent roof over their head. Their parents were unable to sleep, worrying about making the long journey to work and school, about the state of their accommodation, and about when they will finally get a home of their own. Given that the number of children in temporary accommodation rose by 15% in the last year alone, we know that there will not be an overnight fix to this problem. That is why our Committee’s first inquiry of this Parliament focused on the stories of children in temporary accommodation, and the impact that the increasing amount of time families are spending in what should be temporary accommodation is having on those children. How can we expect children to have the best start in life when they are living out of suitcases? How can we expect them to grow up without the basics of a private bathroom or kitchen, and how can we expect them to be ready for school if it takes them hours to get there, on a route that is always changing?

When a family with children become homeless, their local authority has a duty to provide housing for them until they can settle in a more permanent home. This temporary housing could be a privately rented property, short-term social housing, a council-owned property or nightly paid accommodation, such as a bed and breakfast or a hotel. Our inquiry found that far too often, temporary accommodation is completely inappropriate for families, and in some cases is unfit for habitation. We heard about cases of families living in accommodation that is excessively cold, that has serious damp and mould, and that has mice infestations. Temporary accommodation is often overcrowded; sometimes older children have to share beds with their parents or siblings, and babies cannot crawl or learn to walk due to a lack of floor space.

However, that accommodation is costing the public purse a fortune. In 2023-24, local authorities in England spent around £2.29 billion on temporary accommodation, and London boroughs alone spend £4 million a day on  temporary accommodation. The cost of homelessness services has led to at least one local authority applying for exceptional financial support from the Government. Representatives of local authorities across England who we heard from during our inquiry all agreed that the cost of temporary accommodation is utterly unsustainable. Even the term “temporary accommodation” is misleading, because these placements are often far from temporary. As of March 2024, more than 16,000 families had been in their temporary accommodation for over five years. Can any of us imagine starting secondary school, in year 7, in temporary accommodation, and still not having a home of our own when we leave in year 11? That is the reality for so many young people in so many families—young people who are often voiceless, out of sight, and stuck in completely unsuitable accommodation.

Our report is therefore entitled “England’s Homeless Children: the crisis in temporary accommodation”. It was apparent to us that we have not only a housing crisis in England, but an acute crisis in temporary accommodation. During our inquiry, we heard about conditions so appalling that they are having a negative impact on children’s health. We heard that housing conditions are contributing to respiratory illness, sleep deprivation and mental health conditions in children. Most shockingly, we heard that temporary accommodation has been a contributing factor to the deaths of at least 74 children in the past five years. Of those children, 58 were under the age of one. In one of the richest countries in the world, that is shameful. That alone should inspire us all to act urgently and bring an end to this crisis before more innocent lives are lost.

Why, then, are local authorities not required to inspect the quality of their temporary accommodation at all? There is no requirement for local housing departments to carry out in-person checks on the properties being used. Our report recommends that local authorities carry out mandatory inspections of housing before it is used as temporary accommodation, as well as whenever new residents are placed in that housing, to ensure its basic suitability for children and families. Perhaps the worst form of temporary accommodation is bed and breakfast accommodation. B&Bs are rarely self-contained, meaning that families must share facilities with complete strangers. We heard about alarming cases of prison leavers sharing bathrooms and kitchens with families, and heard evidence that families had been placed in housing with men with a history of domestic abuse. Local authorities must work with the Government to put an end to those mixed placements in order to mitigate the clear safeguarding risks.

In some areas, demand pressures have forced local authorities to place homeless children in temporary accommodation outside the area. Families are often left with no choice but to move away from everybody and everything they know, including their friends and support networks, sometimes not knowing when or if they will return. For children, an out-of-area placement can mean hours spent travelling to and from school, or needing to move schools entirely. Just last week, new research from the Children’s Commissioner highlighted a stark link between the number of times a child in temporary accommodation moves school and low GCSE results. Only 38% of children who moved homes five times while at school achieved five GCSEs, compared with 65% of children who had only one home address. While  we were not able to consider this latest evidence in our inquiry, those findings demonstrate the point that we need to keep improving data collection and reporting across public services, so that we can fully understand the health and education impacts of child homelessness.

We also recommend that the Government establish a formalised notification system, so that a child’s school and GP are alerted when they become homeless. The Government have set up an inter-ministerial group, which will publish a strategy on ending homelessness later this year. While we welcome that announcement, we recommend that the inter-ministerial group considers the link between welfare reforms—particularly the re-freezing of the local housing allowance—and homelessness.

Fundamentally, England’s housing crisis is an affordability crisis, and the same can be said about the temporary accommodation crisis. We know what has caused this problem: there has been a failure of successive Governments over decades to deliver new homes. The Committee supports the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament, but we also stand ready to help scrutinise those plans as they come forward. We must ensure that these new homes are safe, of high quality and are genuinely affordable. A long-term part of that strategy is a national target to promote social or affordable rent homes in the housing mix. Clearly, building those homes is the long-term objective, but the 164,000 children in temporary accommodation, and their families, cannot wait. They need an immediate response from the Government.

This is personal for me. I still remember being placed in temporary accommodation at a bed and breakfast in King’s Cross. I remember the joy and the relief of receiving our home and the keys. It was somewhere we could build a home and not have to carry belongings around in a black bag. Sadly, those 164,000 children in temporary accommodation will have to wait years for that same feeling, and they will continue to suffer under an unacceptable system for too long.

I thank my fellow Committee members, and the many homeless organisations, local authorities and others who presented evidence to our Committee during this inquiry. We look forward to receiving the Government’s response, and I commend the report to the House. \p Meg Hillier: I commend my hon. Friend not just on this report, but on her strong leadership of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. In the report, the Committee describe the very real lives of the 3,770 children from my borough who are in temporary accommodation. That is enough to fill eight primary schools. There are other impacts, too. She talked about what the Government are doing, and the report mentions the report that is expected in July. Can she give the House any indication of when that report will come, and what will her Committee do to follow up on it? \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank my fellow Chair, the Chair of the Treasury Committee. This is really important. As we said, we welcome the Government’s inter-ministerial group, which meets regularly to consider key findings. It is vital that it works to end homelessness across the UK. We are pushing the Government to bring forward their  strategy before the summer recess; it is vital that local authorities, charities and organisations can plan before the summer holiday, when, sadly, more children will be shunted from one borough to another if we do not get to grips with this issue. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady. She has a big heart, and we thank her for her leadership of the Committee. It is right to address the issue of homeless children. Rental accommodation is too expensive. We have high demand for social housing, multiple families living in one household, and mould and damp issues. This report is excellent. It lays out the issues but also puts forward recommendations. Will she share it with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly? \p Florence Eshalomi: I am always happy to see the hon. Member in the Chamber, and he makes an excellent point. We have to make sure that we share our learnings right across the UK, including with Northern Ireland, and I am happy to do that. \p Naushabah Khan: I thank my hon. Friend and Chair of the Select Committee, of which I am a member, for presenting the report. We heard compelling evidence during the inquiry. Does she agree that the Government should look carefully at the evidence we heard about the impact of out-of-borough placements on children, families and host boroughs, particularly when thinking about future legislation? \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank my fellow Committee member, who brings her experience to the issue from her work with homelessness organisations. Local authorities want to work with the Government, but they need to talk to each other more. We will push the Government further to ensure that local government is speaking with one voice. At the moment, some boroughs are not notifying each other. It is vital that we look at that. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Select Committee Chair for bringing this report to the Chamber. It relates to two of my previous roles, as I have worked as a teacher and with homelessness charities, so the subject is close to my heart. What joint working has the Committee done with the Department for Education and teaching professionals on the impact of being in temporary accommodation on learning? I also want to raise an issue that came up in Harlow when I worked for a homelessness charity. The decision by the previous Government—I do not think it was malicious—to raise the housing element of universal credit led to many private sector landlords raising their rent. That had an impact on temporary accommodation, because many people were being housed in temporary accommodation in the private rented sector. Will the Committee consider that? \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank my hon. Friend for his points, and I again commend him on the work he has done in this area, which I have heard him speak on in the Chamber. It is important that we recognise that the long-term ambition is to build those genuinely affordable homes, but in the interim, it is about how we work to address this important issue. One way is ensuring that this issue does not just sit with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. It has to be an  inter-Department agenda and focus. That is why we welcome the Government’s cross-departmental ministerial team looking at this, because the issues are not confined to MHCLG, but are about education and health, too. It is important that the Departments continue to talk, and that is one thing we will feed back as we get responses from the Government. \p Bell Ribeiro-Addy: I congratulate my hon. Friend and her Committee on this crucial report. As my constituency neighbour, she knows how much this is an issue within our borough, and I am sure she would agree that the end to no-fault evictions in the Renters’ Reform Bill will be a positive step towards ending the number of families who are evicted with no cause and forced into emergency and temporary accommodation. Our hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) just spoke about extortionate and unregulated rent increases in the private sector forcing families into temporary accommodation. Does the Chair agree that the Government should be looking at regulating private rents—essentially rent controls—so that they are affordable for the average family? \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank my neighbour and hon. Friend. This issue sadly affects our borough of Lambeth. In the past year, the data shows that average rents have increased by 9%, and we know that many families’ incomes have not increased by that rate. We need to look at how we get to grips with the private rented sector. As I have said, the reality is that we cannot build these homes tomorrow, so more people will continue to rent. It is about working with local councils, housing associations and other organisations to make sure that the rents being charged are fair. Most importantly, we must ensure that conditions in properties are being addressed. We are seeing a situation where more than £2.29 billion is being spent on accommodation. That is frankly unreasonable, and that is where we need to get to grips with what is happening. \p Liam Conlon: I thank my hon. Friend and the Committee for bringing forward this report. Too many children in Beckenham and Penge live in temporary accommodation and I know, from speaking to local headteachers and others, the impact that has on every aspect and every corner of their lives, from their education to their health and wellbeing. Does she agree that we will only make progress in improving outcomes in other areas when we have tackled this crisis? \p Florence Eshalomi: As a fellow south Londoner, my hon. Friend will recognise the pressures that many boroughs are facing. London councils and all political parties have come together to flag this key issue with the Government. It is not sustainable for London councils to be spending £4 million a day on it. It is vital that we continue to work with all Departments. If we are saying that our children are the future, it is important that they get the best start in life. We have situations where children do not have space to crawl. Their first few years are hindered by that. It is vital that we look at how we address and tackle this issue. \p Sorcha Eastwood: I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of digital platforms on UK democracy.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to host this debate today, and I thank the sponsors and Members here present for supporting it. I begin by paying tribute to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, two public servants murdered in the name of hatred—the very hatred and radicalisation that digital platforms fuel. We are failing a whole generation. We are failing young women facing unprecedented levels of abuse and harassment. We are failing young men being radicalised and exploited in plain sight. We are failing democracy itself, as misinformation and intimidation silence voices and distort political participation.

Today’s digital age presents a new, unparalleled threat to our democracy. Social media is not without its benefits. It allows us to connect with constituents and promote causes; indeed, I am sure that all of us would be looked upon very unfavourably if we did not engage in the online space in some shape or form. It has become one of the few ways that young people engage with politics, and it has played a pivotal role in promoting grassroots activism and greater transparency. However, we now face a national emergency of misinformation and digital violence. Families, teachers and even young people themselves are crying out for an overhaul.

Just this past month, we have seen stark reminders of the harm that digital platforms enable. The release of “Adolescence” has rightly ignited a national conversation about online misogyny and radicalisation, exposing the toxic digital culture infiltrating our homes and classrooms. We only have to look at cases like the murder of Brianna Ghey to see the horrifying real-world impact. The reality is that young men radicalised online do not just stay there; they go out into the world and sometimes commit the most heinous acts of violence.

The rising tide of online hate and radicalisation does not exist in isolation. Misogyny, incel ideology and far-right extremism, among others, are not just thriving in online spaces; they are being actively cultivated by algorithms that are designed to maximise engagement and profit. That is a really important point, which I will come back to later.

Esther Ghey, Brianna’s mum, has called social media “an absolute cesspit”, and I am sure that we all agree. She has called for an under-16s ban, and she is right to do so. I want to make it clear that this crisis is not confined to one country, one background or even one ideology. The names change, but the pattern remains the same. Parents are terrified and teachers powerless, and children are being exploited right under our noses. All we have to do is look at the case of Alexander McCartney, a prolific paedophile who sat in his bedroom in County Armagh and abused thousands of children across the world. It is the UK’s largest ever catfishing case, involving a man who used social media to blackmail,  torment and sexually exploit children across the world. When I participated in a discussion last year on the safer phones Bill, all the big social media companies were present. After they had boasted about how they self-regulated, I asked them whether they were familiar with the Alexander McCartney case. \p Liam Conlon: I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate, and on all the campaign work that she is doing. Does she agree that although there are some fantastic examples of social media being used positively to enhance democracy and political participation, this is often reliant on benevolent and honest owners, and that our democratic safeguards should not rest on the presumption of good will or honesty from technology giants? \p Sorcha Eastwood: Absolutely, and that is a really timely point. We should not outsource our children’s safety to social media companies. Indeed, we heard in a previous statement about the impact of content moderation and how it may or not form part of discussions on trade agreements as we move forward.

When I sat in a room with all the social media companies, only one had heard of the Alex McCartney case. That tells us everything that we need to know about how seriously big tech takes child safety.

It should not take a TV show like “Adolescence” to make the Government wake up to what has been warping our society for years. The actions that they have taken so far have been inadequate. Meeting the creators of “Adolescence” was indeed welcome, but it is simply not enough. Commissioning more reviews, talking about cultural change, and tinkering at the edges will not fix the problem. We must speak to the platforms in the only language they understand: profit and loss. We know what drives this issue: algorithms, content recommendation systems and the financial interests of the big tech companies actively steer vulnerable young people towards ever more extreme content. This is not a side effect; it is their business model.

Fundamentally, this debate is about power: who holds it, who wields it, and in whose name are they acting? Right now, big tech billionaires and online extremists are working hand in hand, shaping our children and democracy, and warping our society. This Government have been too slow, too weak and too captured by vested interests to stop them. Figures like Andrew Tate have built empires by manipulating young men into their worlds of violent misogyny, lies and conspiracy. Tate has ingratiated himself with Donald Trump and Elon Musk, but does he care about men? Not a bit—he exploits them. This is not just an individual person behaving irresponsibly; it is a co-ordinated machine trying to drown out critical voices, spread misinformation and undermine public debate.

Let us be honest: agitators and bullies like the Tate brothers have always existed. What has changed are the tools and the platforms that they have at their disposal, which give them access to young people in particular. Let us be clear: their reach is not accidental. Andrew Tate is amplified, promoted and monetised by the same platforms that claim to be unable to regulate online harm. This is not just about free speech; it is about radicalisation and control. Powerful malign actors—some overseas, and  some home grown—are exploiting our young people and our political system for profit. Social media platforms are not neutral: they push extremist content deliberately, algorithmically and at scale. \p Lisa Smart: I thank the hon. Lady for the clear way that she is laying out some of the issues that we are talking about today. I am lucky enough to be a vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, and one of our strands of work is on tackling myths and disinformation. One of the calls I have heard is that, at the very least, the social media giants should have a duty to carry out a risk assessment of legal but harmful content, which covers some of the issues that she is talking about. Does she agree that that is the very least the platforms could do? \p Sorcha Eastwood: I thank the hon. Member for her comments, and I completely agree that that is the bare minimum that they should do.

A report by Hope Not Hate found that almost 90% of boys aged 16 to 18 in the UK have consumed content from Andrew Tate. On Elon Musk’s X, a platform that has dismantled its trust and safety teams, Tate’s videos dominate young men’s feeds. If we allow this climate to continue, we are handing digital platforms the power to dictate political debate, poison young minds and do irreparable damage to our democracy.

Of course, the loudest free speech warriors are the first to silence criticism, as I know from personal experience. After I called out Elon Musk for platforming extremism, Tate’s followers immediately descended on me with a flood of abuse and harassment. That was not random; it was a deliberate attempt to silence an elected representative. I was bombarded with death threats, rape jokes and abuse from accounts both local and international. Then the Tate brothers themselves came after me—two men running from the most serious criminal charges and propped up by the world’s most powerful leaders. They targeted me, an elected representative from Northern Ireland, for daring to speak my mind. It was not even about them—it was about Musk—but it was a calculated attempt to silence an elected politician. I was, in their words, “a nice target”. It was a direct attack on democracy and on this House itself.

This is not just about individuals; it is about democracy. We have seen a deliberate, organised effort to create an online environment where extremism flourishes, where intimidation becomes the norm, and where women, minorities and political opponents are driven out of public life. \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank the hon. Member for securing this really important debate, and for her passionate speech. She highlights the ripple effect that will be created if we do not challenge social media companies. In the last general election, we saw so many women and black and minority ethnic candidates being targeted online by anonymous social media accounts, and much of that went unchecked. Does she agree that if we do not deal with this issue, we will see fewer people putting themselves forward to stand for public office? \p Sorcha Eastwood: Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I am really honoured that she is here today, because her voice is so important.  When I was elected to the House last year, I was really proud to be here as part of a diverse Parliament. That diversity is welcomed across the House and is reflected on these Benches. That is good, but I have to be honest and say that we have heard from many parliamentarians—not just here, but across the UK—that if they had known what being an elected representative would bring to their life, they would not have stepped forward. But that is exactly what we need, because the social media companies want those voices to be silenced.

This is not just about our agreeing with the political views we like—absolutely not. I will defend to the hilt the right of people to express views that I absolutely do not agree with, because they need to be heard too. The hon. Member made a really important point, and I thank her for it.

The Northern Ireland Electoral Commission’s report on the 2024 UK general election laid bare that over half of candidates reported harassment, intimidation or abuse; one in ten faced severe abuse; and women were disproportionately targeted, as were minorities, often by anonymous accounts—the point just made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). The consequences were immediate: nearly 40% of candidates avoided solo campaigning and almost 20% avoided social media altogether. This is a system in which intimidation silences voices before they can even be heard. I have heard the same warnings from colleagues across this House, and the chilling effect is real.

It is much bigger than this too. Let us be clear: our democracy is under threat, and the battlefield is not just in Parliament or the ballot box, but online, where rogue states and billionaire tech moguls are manipulating public opinion for their own ends. The recent Romanian presidential election should have been a routine democratic process. Instead, it became a cautionary tale. A pro-Russian candidate who did not debate, did not campaign and supposedly spent nothing suddenly surged to the top of the first round, and the election was then annulled. That was digital interference in action—a warning for every European democracy, including our own.

If Members think that is just happening in Romania, they should think again. Here in the UK, over half of the public said they saw misleading information about party policies and candidates during the last general election. Nearly a quarter of voters say they have encountered election-related deepfakes, while 18% were not even sure if they had. The scale of the problem is staggering. Democracy does not function when voters cannot trust what they see or hear, yet the people in control of these digital platforms are not just bystanders, but active participants.

How is it that Elon Musk, now sitting in Trump’s Administration, owns one of the world’s biggest digital platforms, which has spiralled into a far-right cesspit? Remember when we thought silicon valley’s tech bros were going to make society better—more open and more progressive? Those days are long gone. Now they have tasted power and they are in the White House, endorsing the AfD—Alternative für Deutschland—in Germany, while their algorithms push misogynists and conspiracy theorists to the top of feeds.

This is not a glitch in the system; this is the system. It is a system that rewards the loudest, most divisive voices while drowning out facts and reasoned debate. If we  care about democracy here in the UK, we need to stop treating social media giants as neutral platforms, and call them what they are: political actors. If we do not hold them to account, we are not just allowing misinformation to spread, but handing them the keys to our elections on a silver platter.

For online abusers, anonymity is not protection; it is a weapon, and overwhelmingly it is used against women and minorities. For centuries, democratic debate was based on people knowing who they were engaging with. Anonymity once existed to protect the speaker from harm. Now it enables the speaker to inflict harm with impunity. This is not about free speech; it is part of a political strategy; a co-ordinated effort to undermine trust in institutions, silence opposition and create a hostile environment for anyone who dares to challenge the status quo. When those in power let this happen—by dragging their feet on game-changing legislation, by gutting a private Member’s Bill and by potentially scrapping a digital tax, handing more money to the very platforms on which these predators thrive—they are sending a message. It is a message to every woman in public life and every girl in this country that their safety is not the Government’s problem.

What needs to be done? We must deprive these hate figures and predators of the oxygen of publicity. Why is it being tolerated? The Online Safety Act 2023 was outdated before it was even fully implemented. It is too slow and too weak, and the harms it was designed to address have only worsened. Regulators lack the power to challenge big tech, and Ministers are too afraid to stand up to Musk and Trump. Every concession emboldens these extremists, there is no appeasing them, and our children’s lives cannot be collateral damage in a reckless pursuit of growth.

Australia has taken decisive, world-leading action. It has introduced a full ban on social media for under-16s. Meanwhile, the UK’s digital age of consent remains 13. That means children as young as year 8 can legally sign up to platforms awash with violent misogyny, porn, self-harm content and extremist material. What more proof do this Government need? The safer phones Bill could have been a game changer. Instead, it was watered down, gutted and abandoned. Why? It was because this Government prioritised big tech’s profits over our children’s wellbeing. We do not need any more reviews or consultations, but we do need decisive, courageous action. While this Government dither, the average 12 to 15-year-old now spends 35 hours a week—more than a full-time job—on their phone. \p Jerome Mayhew: The hon. Lady is making a genuinely powerful speech with a really strong argument, and I commend her for it. The Government may be struggling to tackle the digital platforms themselves, but would a useful first step be banning telephones in schools up to the age of 16? \p Sorcha Eastwood: The hon. Member is absolutely right. This is a huge issue to grapple with, but I think the evidence is clear about what this has caused so far. There is a valid discussion to be had about the use of phones, and school is possibly one of the only places where our children’s devices will be taken off them for a set period, but the issue is what is on the phones when they get them back. For me, that is the point at hand.

To conclude, who would want to be a child growing up in this world today? That question is really distressing and disturbing. It is a world in which radicalisation is just a click away, misinformation spreads like wildfire and people’s reputations are trashed in seconds, and it is one in which those who challenge it are met with a wall of co-ordinated abuse. I know I would not want to be growing up today, with political donations, foreign interference in elections, voter manipulation, online bullying, deepfakes, mental health problems and class disruption—and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Sadly, I do not have time to cover it all, but I do know that we have a moral duty to protect young people and future generations, and I truly believe that everybody in this House genuinely believes that and wants to act on it.

This is now a national security issue. A society in which young men are radicalised against women is a society that becomes more violent, fractured and dangerous for us all. We are at a critical juncture. The question before us is clear: do we allow the likes of Andrew Tate, Donald Trump, Elon Musk and others to profit from poisoning the minds of our young people, or do we stand up for our children, our country, our democracy and the very fabric of our society? The Government must act, and act now. So I ask: what is stopping us? If not now, when? The time to act is today, for the sake of our children and, indeed, our very democracy. \p Anneliese Dodds: I rise from the Back Benches for the first time in many years, having resigned from my position as Minister for Development and for Women and Equalities. The view is “much better from here”, as the late, great Robin Cook said, but I do deeply regret that I could not continue to serve in the Government for which I campaigned for so long. I wish my successors, Baroness Chapman and Baroness Smith, all the very best. I will not try their patience—or indeed yours, Madam Deputy Speaker—by reprising the contents of my resignation letter, but I do want to explain why I have chosen to break my silence during this debate.

The new Government entered office at a time of unprecedented geopolitical and economic flux. There is no muscle memory in Government, or indeed in politics, for the instability we are currently seeing, and as democracy backslides globally, instability is the new normal. It demands a strategic, not tactical, response. Economically, I believe, as I set out in my letter, that we must be prepared to reassess shibboleths, whether on the fiscal rules, as Germany has done, or on taxation, especially when the very best-off are seeing so little impact on their wellbeing from the economic headwinds.

In addition, we must work with our allies—particularly in Europe but also beyond—to build our resilience on defence production and exports, with productivity growth hammered by post-Brexit impediments to trade and now, as we have heard this morning, with US-imposed tariffs. From Turkey to Somalia, people are desperate for democracy, stability and economic growth. In supporting them, we also support our country’s security.

I therefore regret that, on top of the huge cut to official development assistance that led to my resignation, the shift to a cash basis may limit resources further.  I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to work closely with other countries to bridge some of that gap, but it must include radical action to tackle indebtedness, increase financial guarantees, protect lifesaving health services, and to support and reform multilateral bodies as they come under attack from autocrats.

I believe that we need the same strategic approach—not tactical—when it comes to the protection of our democracy. Last summer saw the worst racist riots in our country since the second world war. None of us can forget the appalling scenes when racist thugs set fire to hotels knowing that people remained inside, and all in the name of three poor beautiful little girls—may they rest in peace. The policing and criminal justice response was swift, and I commend the Government for that, but in this case and others the influence of social media has not been fully digested, let alone acted upon.

There are many other canaries choking down the coalmine, not least due to the growth and impact of violent online misogyny. Here I commend the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) not just for her steadfast campaigning, but for the fact that even as she has received such appalling abuse herself, she continues to stand for women and girls. I stand in solidarity with her, as should all Members in this Chamber.

Considerable progress is being made to defend democracy by the new Government, through: the taskforce of that name; the joint election security and preparedness unit; the foreign influence registration scheme that was released a couple of days ago; the Speaker’s Conference focused particularly on the safety of candidates; and the new ban on the creation, as well as the sharing, of sexually explicit deepfakes, whether they are focused on politicians or other victims. But attempts to degrade our democracy have involved actors from states that are not classified as hostile, and they have taken place outside election times, too. Policy must deal not with how things were 10 years ago, but with the reality of an online world that is having huge offline consequences.

First, I agree with the hon. Lady that we lack tools to deal decisively with the growth in disinformation. The Online Safety Act does includes measures to protect content of democratic importance, but without a clear definition of that content, and with Ofcom’s advisory committee on disinformation and misinformation apparently not having met yet, that must be remedied speedily, given that over half of people now receive news through social media, and that rises to 82% of young people. Recommender algorithms, as she said, privilege engagement above all else, and extreme content engages more. I urge the Government to consider including independent audits of recommender algorithms, as contained in the EU’s Digital Services Act but not in our Online Safety Act.

Secondly, our new legislative regime, although welcome, relies on an antiquated separation of large and small platforms. Last summer showed how the far right often switch from Telegram to YouTube to Rumble, and to other platforms large and small. When they spread disinformation, they do not keep it only on large platforms, so regulators should be prepared to act on small platforms, too.

Thirdly, the new regime was created when the major complaint against platforms was that they were failing to heed their own rules. Now, powerful platform owners are ditching rules and firing compliance officers, and  are themselves pumping out disinformation. There are no minimum standards in the new regime for platforms’ terms of service. I urge the Government to look again at that, with the care that I know the Minister always displays.

Finally, we must work more closely with others seeking to protect their democracies, from Helsinki to Rio, Tallinn to Ottawa, and Chisinau to Berlin. In that vein, paralleling the Prime Minister’s push for a UK-EU defence partnership, we surely also need a UK-EU structured dialogue on digital policy and the defence of our democracies.

In conclusion, I remain grateful to the Prime Minister and my party for providing me with eight months where I could seek to serve my country as a Minister of State. That was only possible because my constituents in Oxford East afforded me, through their free choice, the opportunity to represent them. Voters’ free choice, taken for granted so often in our country but so precious, is what is ultimately at risk if we fail to defend our democracy. \p Bobby Dean: I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for an excellent opening speech. It almost made me feel like putting down my own speech, because I thought there was nothing more I could contribute. I thank her so much for that introduction.

It is worth saying that the people who will be speaking in this debate are probably not fearful of technology itself. I consider myself a digital native: I grew up with MSM and Myspace, and I enjoy the connectivity that social media brings to us all. It has transformed our society in ways that are for the good, but without a doubt we do have a problem: we have a big problem with content, we have a big problem with addiction, and, as the hon. Lady articulated so clearly, we have a problem with power.

I will begin with content. There has been a huge rise in the level of hate, misogyny, violence and pornography we are seeing on our social media feeds. I am certain that I am not imagining that. I am sure that the stuff that pops up on my “For you” feed on X was not there a few years ago, prior to Musk’s ownership. The sorts of things that have been pushed towards me as a youngish man are an absolute disgrace. A few months ago, there was a knife crime incident in my community, just yards away from my office. The footage of it circulated online within minutes. Again, I am sure I am not kidding myself that a handful of years ago that piece of content would eventually have been taken down. Today, Meta-Facebook has shown no interest in taking that down. That shocking footage is still circulating around my community, and shame on them for that.

That sort of content rises to the top of algorithms because it is emotionally charged: it disgusts, it enrages and it sparks fear. That works for social media companies, because that is how they generate their profit. When we apply that kind of emotionally charged content to news, it is no longer judged by its veracity or the insight it provides, but by its ability to provoke, with the result that misinformation travels much more quickly than the truth.

On addiction, we have to understand that this form of emotional engagement is new. There are people out there who say that we have always had emotionally engaging content via TV, radio and newspapers, but the  type that happens on these platforms is genuinely new because it is addictive by design. Once upon a time, the brightest minds in the world all wanted to work in law and medicine. Now many of them are working for big tech companies, trying to work out the circuitry of our brains to keep us addicted to their platforms. They do that because we do not pay for those platforms, but we do pay for them with our attention. The more we look at their platforms, the more ad revenue they generate. That is new, and we need new regulation to address it.

The second, interrelated element of addiction is the way it interacts with algorithms. We funnel people down echo chambers and reduce their exposure to the other person’s view. Ultimately, that damages critical analysis and leads to the kind of polarisation that I believe we are seeing in our politics today. With unregulated content full of misinformation being supplied to people incessantly, as we remain addicted to our devices and stuck in bubbles, we think to ourselves, “Just imagine how dangerous this could be if the technology got into the wrong hands.” But, of course, it already has.

As a liberal, I am always sceptical of concentrations of power, because we know how vulnerable it leaves society. We have somehow allowed big tech to make the argument to us and to Governments across the world that its oligopolistic power over this industry is justified—a natural order, somehow, and something we should make an exception for in our global economy. In doing so, we have allowed a handful of firms to dominate the digital world. They control huge amounts of our personal data, and now they control our discourse, too.

As has been mentioned, the vast majority of 18 to 24-year-olds use social media as their primary news source. As each generation passes, the role of TV, newspapers and radio will only continue to diminish. I was at a careers fair at a local school the other day, and a young kid came up to me—he must have been about 13 years old. Almost immediately, he started talking to me about Donald Trump in a positive way. When I asked him where he was hearing all this stuff, he of course answered, “TikTok”. His mates all giggled, because they were all doing exactly the same thing. I do not think we are treating this with the seriousness that we need to.

I will make just one more remark about the media environment. Lots of the more clickbaity outlets generate their revenue not by the quality of their content, but by how many people they manage to get on to their website. That is how they get ad revenue. Many of the more considered—and, perhaps, critical—publications are often behind a paywall. This situation is driving a lot of our public conversation at the moment, because of what media is available to people for free. If most people are getting their news from these digital platforms, we are left at the whim of those in charge of those platforms. Those people not only have control of their platforms to manipulate our discourse, but have huge amounts of personal wealth, and can, sadly, interfere with politics in a way that people have always been able to: through donations and the influence of their personal wealth. This is a double-edged sword for us.

As we have seen, this kind of wealth and influence has had real-world impacts. Most recently, we have seen Elon Musk’s role in the US elections; if we think back a bit further, there was a kind of intransigence from Facebook over the dark ads that ran during the Brexit campaign, when nobody knew who was responsible for  running those campaigns for some time. As was explained earlier, the organised pile-ons and everyday disruption attempt to silence politicians in their contributions to everyday debates.

Over the past few years, it felt like we were starting to make some progress in society on this topic; we had the formulation and introduction of the Online Safety Act, and it felt like greater efforts were being made to check the power of social media giants. However, right now, it feels like we are about to go backwards again. In reaction to the election of President Trump, we saw Meta rolling back its moderation capabilities. In the UK, legislation such as the Online Safety Act and the Digital Services Act—some of the few tools we have in our toolbox to tackle these social media giants—are up for discussion as part of a wider trade negotiation with the US. We must fight hard to keep those tools in our toolbox and keep those protections, but we are kidding ourselves if we think those alone will be enough.

A free press is a fundamental pillar of a liberal democracy, and these digital platforms are threatening it. As well as protecting the legislation we already have, this House needs to start talking about what further action we can take. Without it, all our places are under threat. \p Martin Rhodes: I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for bringing this debate to the Chamber.

Throughout history, from the printing press to social media, technological advancements have often outpaced the laws meant to regulate them. Today, digital platforms evolve at a speed that outstrips Governments’ abilities to fully understand or regulate their impact—especially concerning for democracy, which depends on informed citizens making choices shaped by debate. Yet democracy is increasingly undermined by bad faith actors, misinformation and manipulation.

As digital natives and future voters, young people face particular risks, and Governments owe them a duty of care to help them to develop in an informed and safe way online. However, older citizens with less experience of social media and newer tech platforms can also face difficulties in how they interact and interpret information or disinformation. In addition to the risks of early forms of digital platforms for democracy, such as the spread of misinformation, contemporary digital platforms now possess novel risks such as deepfakes, AI bots and short- form video content. I will focus my speech on how this situation relates to our democratic engagement.

In Scotland, 16-year-olds have the right to vote in local and national elections; with the Government’s manifesto promising votes at 16 in UK elections, it is important to consider the impact of digital platforms on young voters and the younger generations who will one day become voters. It will not surprise many to hear that young people are extensive users of digital platforms and that their online habits are evolving rapidly. According to Ofcom, 86% of 9 to 16-year-olds use social media, and even among children as young as 5 to 7, a third are now active online. Platforms such as TikTok and Discord are increasingly shaping young people’s understanding of the world, including politics. Ofcom reports that  children aged 5 to 15 are now spending an average of five hours and 24 minutes a day engaged in social media activity.

It is right to note that there are benefits to the use of digital platforms by young people in our political system. These platforms allow young people access to the entire sum of human knowledge, and therefore have real scope as a great source of education and knowledge. They can not only provide helpful information and analysis on our politics, but act as a new means of getting young people engaged and interested in our democratic system.

Despite these benefits, it remains the case that there are real risks and harms associated with children’s use of social media and their outlook on democracy. Recent TV shows such as “Adolescence” have highlighted that digital platforms can act as echo chambers where extremist communities can influence young people’s ideas and opinions. A recent survey published by the University of Glasgow’s John Smith centre, based in my constituency, found that nationally, 57% of 16 to 29-year-olds would prefer to live in a democracy; that said, 27% of those surveyed would prefer to live in a dictatorship. The fact that more than a quarter of this age group would prefer to live in a system completely juxtaposed to our own democracy should be a warning to us all. In difficult times globally, with uncertainty and disruption to previously accepted patterns of international, national and local environments, the lure of simplistic but dangerous solutions promoted by bad faith actors can be all too persistent.

I welcome the actions taken to address these challenges by committing both to making the digital world a safer place for young people and to delivering real, tangible improvements in their lives through other policy initiatives, but we must work harder as we move forward to respond to the ever-changing environment of online activity that we face. Social media giants must be held accountable for the role their platforms play in shaping public discourse, and no tech executive should be above the law.

I commend the efforts of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley in securing this Backbench Business debate and introducing it today. We must not only protect young people—and, in fact, all citizens—from harm online, but equip them with the tools to shape their future, assuming they are not just passive consumers of digital content, but informed and engaged citizens in our democracy. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), first for securing this debate and giving us all an opportunity to participate, and secondly for her passion for the subject matter. I am pleased to be here to represent my constituency—the two of us are representing the entirety of Northern Ireland here—and I commend her for her courage, her speech and her determination to be a spoke- sperson for many.

The rise of digital platforms and their use has been of concern for many years, recently more than ever. I am probably the oldest person in this Chamber, and we are talking about issues that I never faced in my youth, but my children face them, and my grandchildren will. Information is distributed online so readily, and it is easily accessed by anyone, whatever their age. The spread of false, damaging and vile information shapes how the public form their opinions, and there is so much  work to be done on this matter. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) referred to that in her introduction.

In a survey just last week, Members of the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland, both male and female, were asked whether they had been subject to high levels of abuse. Some said that if they had known that the abuse would be so bad, they would never have entered politics. If that does not tell us about the amount of abuse and vile comments targeted at both men and women, nothing does.

I have recently seen numerous disgusting comments on social media about many politicians, including me and others in my party. They were written by keyboard warriors—heroes who hide behind their keyboards—of all ages and backgrounds. In the past week, I have had nothing but admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). She has been an inspiration not only to Members, but to young women across the United Kingdom who have faced personal online abuse. She has been so courageous. I watched her and Naomi Long, the Minister of Justice in the Northern Ireland Assembly, on “The View” last Thursday night when I got home. Both of them were excellent. They epitomise the sort of people who are at the receiving end of vile abuse. Families have to read abuse about a loved one. There must be zero place in society for that abuse. I hope the Minister will acknowledge how much work there is to be done on this matter.

We have seen the rise of social media over the past 10 to 15 years, and its impact on children. As a grandfather of six, I very much understand why we must protect our children. I look to the Minister, who is a mother, to reassure us on this matter. I know that she appreciates how big an impact social media has on our children and grandchildren. Although social media has obvious benefits —it teaches digital skills and gives us the ability to communicate, which are good things—the mental health issues that flow from it are shocking. Anxiety and depression are at an all-time high among children. When I saw the stats for Northern Ireland, I had to question them. I am sure the figures are similar for the United Kingdom. Children as young as eight, nine and 10 are suffering from anxiety issues and depression. We see more suicide and thousands of instances of cyber-bullying. I heard the hon. Member for Lagan Valley comment on the new Netflix show “Adolescence”. The traction it has gained is incredible, and she should be commended.

There are lessons to be learned on mental health, the dangers of social media and friendships and relationships. Perhaps there could be more onus on our schools to deliver such material. When the Minister responds, perhaps she can tell us what discussions she has had with Education Ministers to ensure that the issues are directly addressed at school.

I agree with what the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) said about mobile phones. I am convinced that the issue has to be addressed directly. I know that schools in Northern Ireland are running pilot schemes in which phones are removed from the children and put in pouches, and then returned at the end of the day. If our Education Minister, Paul Givan, can see that this has to be done, then, with the greatest of respect, it should be done here as well.

As an elected representative, I can say that, yes, it is important to have an online presence to engage with local businesses and constituents, but I have very limited  engagement with social media. That may be because it is a generational matter, or because I have seen the devastation that social media can cause. There is no secret about the misinformation that is out there. I am probably fortunate that I have limited social media contact, and that I understand the dangers of it.

Freedom of speech is important, but there is a difference between healthy debate and disagreement on the one hand, and the vile and unnecessary comments that we see on social media on the other. In this House, I have always tried to engage with everyone in a suitable way, and to be friendly and respectful of others who have a different opinion.

I have spoken in debates in the Chamber numerous times, including in debate on the Online Safety Bill, about the need for greater regulation of social media. There is a responsibility on the Government, in conjunction with social media companies, to ensure that people are safe, especially our youth; adults should know better, but unfortunately that is not always the case. Young people are impressionable and are inclined to go with crowds. Not only that, but they are growing up in a world where social media is massive, so the correct provisions need to be in place, and I look to the Minister for a response on these matters. I know that I will not be disappointed in her, because she understands the issues; she faces the same issues with her family.

To conclude, there is a huge amount of work to be done. There is a responsibility on us personally, on teachers, on social media companies, and on parents to ensure that online safety is accorded the utmost priority. Addressing this matter is not simply down to the parents. This is a joint effort, and we must work harder together to resolve the issues. I look forward to working closely with colleagues from all parts of this Chamber on this matter, because we all have the same connection and the same goal. I hope the Minister will commit to working with her counterparts in the devolved nations to ensure that we can apply the same strategy everywhere. \p Leigh Ingham: I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this debate; I know how important this matter is to her and to all of us. We are all representatives of our democracy, and it is crucial that we as a Government address the concerns about the impact of digital platforms on our democratic process.

Sadly, faith in our democracy is being withered away in today’s age of misinformation and disinformation. Even more concerning is the rise of threats and abuse received online by MPs across this House. The abuse takes unique forms for female MPs and for MPs of colour, who are too often the targets of sexist or racist threats of violence. I am not sure whether a declaration is necessary in this case, but I would like to make it known that I am member of the Speaker’s Conference on the security of candidates, MPs and elections, and I commend Mr Speaker for his work in this space.

The anonymity granted to users by online platforms makes perpetrators feel especially confident in their abuse. It also makes it harder to track and identify the worst offenders. Additionally, with the rise of artificial intelligence, bots can be directed to abuse MPs and political candidates en masse. These bots are even more  difficult to trace. Directing abuse and threats at MPs is not only hateful; it deliberately undermines our political system. Asthe hon. Member for Lagan Valley says, this is about threats against this House. When we must fear for our safety, the most valuable link in our democracy—that between us and our constituents—is strained. An MP should feel safe in their own community, as should anyone else.

Threats and abuse are not the only issue; online platforms are privy to hordes of personal, sensitive information about their users. For many people, social media is their main source of news. Around 72% of my constituents in Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages use Facebook, but we know that Facebook has a troubling history of endangering democracy. We all remember the outrage when Facebook breached the personal information of millions of users, sharing it with the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. This data was then used to target political advertisements in the US presidential campaign of 2016. The breach was not discovered until two years later. For me, this was the first time that I realised just how seriously the political process could be undermined by digital platforms.

Very recently, Meta stated that it would no longer use independent fact checkers. As a result, misinformation runs even more rampant. I am sure that we have all experienced family members sending us posts that present themselves as facts but are often complete nonsense. Sadly, since I became an MP, these have been really targeted at me, so my family and friends will send me pictures of me at the back of rooms looking shadowy. Members will be pleased to know that apparently I recently banned banter. Allowing misinformation to run rife leads directly to a loss of faith in our democratic institutions, and to a rise in extremism. To reiterate the point I made about me looking shadowy in the corners, it is a problem for all political parties when individuals are personally targeted, particularly women and people of colour, as those groups face specific attacks.

It is obvious that social media has the capacity to influence elections, and that it can be a medium for abuse and threats. I know that many friends from across the Chamber will have experienced this at first hand. It is therefore crucial that action is taken to curb abuse and misinformation. \p Emma Foody: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case about the risks associated with social media platforms. Companies too often seem to have all the agency and none of the accountability for what we see on their platforms. We see these platforms pushing more and more extreme content to people through their algorithms. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time we saw checks and balances applied to the social media giants? \p Leigh Ingham: My hon. Friend reminds me of something my sister-in-law recently told me. She saw a story on Instagram about a girl’s experience in a relationship. My brother received a completely separate version of the story. It was targeted by gender. There was a disparity in the narratives being pushed. My sister-in-law mentioned how weird it was that they both got the story on the same day, but with different narratives being pushed. \p Christopher Vince: My hon. Friend is giving an excellent, emotional speech—its excellence is her trademark—highlighting this problem, and I am sorry to hear about the issues she has faced. Does she agree that when Members of Parliament are targeted in this way, it affects not only them but their families? As the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said, that puts people off getting involved in politics, which cannot be a good thing for democracy. \p Leigh Ingham: I thank my hon. Friend for his point, and I completely agree. I am particularly passionate about getting more women into politics. It is something I will constantly bang on about. A number of women have said to me, “I don’t want to put myself in that position.” In fact, when I was considering standing for this place, it was one of the things I was most nervous about. I am not a huge user of social media platforms, and have never really put my life out there in that way, so I was incredibly nervous about standing for a political role, because I did not want to expose myself or my family in that way. My hon. Friend makes a very valid point.

In the old days, we had coffee shops and pubs in which to disagree over politics, but the rise of social media has meant that, today, people often get their information online, and have political conversations online. A quiet conversation in a pub or a coffee shop does not reach thousands of people within seconds. Social media has meant that the very nature of political discourse has changed, because the medium has changed. \p John Hayes: I apologise for not being here in the early part of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am so moved by what the hon. Lady says. The truth is that the discourse she describes has been brutalised. Complex ideas have been made simple—or at least apparently simple—and malignance has been given licence, exactly as she said. My advice to any new Member of this House is: do not get involved. I am not involved in social media at all, but I have an immense profile in my constituency, because I occupy the real world, not the virtual world. Real-world contact with people is always more valued and more valuable. \p Leigh Ingham: I agree with the right hon. Member. I host a lot of community coffee mornings in my constituency, in which we discuss complex ideas, rather than three-word solutions to very complex problems.

Social media is here to stay. The next thing we do must be to regulate it appropriately. It is our duty as Members of this House to ensure that our constituents still have an avenue through which to share their opinions. I agree with the hon. Member for Lagan Valley about disagreeing with people—it is an incredibly important feature of our democracy—but we must enforce guidelines that protect users from harmful content, misinformation and abuse. Ultimately, we must restore faith in our political process. By improving the discourse, we can improve our democracy. I look forward to hearing the Minister outline the Government’s plans to tackle this issue. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I am imposing an immediate five-minute limit. I call Manuela Perteghella. \p Manuela Perteghella: I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on introducing this timely and urgent debate.

As we know, the digital age has brought about an unprecedented opportunity for campaigns of any kind, including campaigns of nefarious origins and by malign agents who seek to undermine democracy and the safety of our people. Digital platforms are proliferating at a rapid pace and reaching an unprecedented number of British citizens. They have become the most powerful communication tool of our age and are able to absorb vast amounts of detailed personal information about their users. Further, the platforms can apply complex algorithms to create tailor-made campaigns and personally targeted advertisements and content. That can include spreading conspiracy theories, extreme content and abuse towards citizens and elected officials.

Regrettably, successive Governments have not been proactive in tackling the threat. They have been complacent with inertia and inaction, while tech and social media giants have spread misinformation and outright lies. They have let their digital platforms incite hatred and digital and physical violence, and they have caused riots on our streets. The digital world is the last frontier—wide open for exploitation by domestic and foreign powers who do not have Britain’s best interests at heart.

The Russian Government have been accused of orchestrating a widespread campaign of interference and disinformation that seeks to undermine the global order. Last autumn, the head of MI6 warned that the international order is under threat in a way not seen since the end of the cold war, accusing Russia of a reckless campaign of sabotage across Europe. Likewise, Elon Musk recently used his platform to suggest that America should liberate the people of Britain and overthrow the UK Government.

As we have heard, it is not just our democratic processes that are under threat and being targeted but our children too. With violent misogyny, online abuse, radicalisation and sexualisation on these platforms, who is keeping our children safe? The Online Safety Act 2023 must not be watered down in any future trade deal negotiations with the US. Further, the spread of misinformation online has the power to dramatically alter the outcomes of our elections and referendums, and in doing so change the course of this country. Who will take responsibility for the regulation of digital political campaigns? The Electoral Commission says that its focus is on campaign finance, the Information Commissioner’s Office says that its focus is on personal data, and the Advertising Standards Authority says that it does not regulate political adverts.

When we do not regulate to protect our democracy and our children and young people, we rely on companies to regulate themselves. We hope that Facebook’s three-part strategy to target misinformation is robust enough, that Google’s centre for content responsibility takes its job seriously, and that the EU’s fine levied against tech companies for spreading disinformation has any real impact. Unfortunately, our hope will be in vain.

In these unsettling times of global challenges, we must take the protection of Britain and its people into our own hands. We cannot rely on our safety being a priority for any other nation or for unelected tech billionaires. We need regulation and legislation to protect  the people of Britain and ensure that our democracy is not affected by lies propagated by groups and individuals who do not have Britain’s best interests at heart.

Effective tech regulation for digital platforms would result in radical real-time transparency for political advertising—for example, on donations and spending. It should result in strong laws on digital safeguarding, especially for young people and children. As America, influenced by its tech billionaires, withdraws from its role as the protector of the free world, let Britain step up to the mark and become a global leader in digital transparency, regulation and safeguarding. \p Dan Aldridge: It is an honour to contribute to this debate on such a critical issue. As the former head of policy for the British Computer Society, this was one of my passion projects. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for bravely bringing this debate to the House, as it affects us all.

As MPs, we have a duty not only to preserve democracy, but to strengthen it. We must safeguard the integrity of public discourse, yet increasingly the conversation is manipulated by a handful of powerful billionaires, unaccountable corporate giants and malicious actors—foreign and domestic—all counting on us to dither and retreat from the scale of the challenge.

Public trust in digital platforms is eroding as the people behind the algorithms that drive the platforms wield unprecedented power and influence over millions without any of the checks and balances by which the rest of our democratic institutions have been shaped for generations. The people behind algorithms that are designed to manipulate or exploit are rewarding sensationalism and division over truth, nuance and meaningful discussion, and doing so with impunity. \p John Hayes: The very distinction between fact and fiction is being eroded, and I fear that young people’s consciousness of that is being so damaged that we will be unable to navigate the journey to truth that the hon. Gentleman describes. It is about the great internet giants, but it is also about the keyboard warriors. Umberto Eco described the internet as the “empire of imbeciles”; the trouble now is that people cannot tell the difference between imbeciles and experts. \p Dan Aldridge: There is rightly a lot of conversation about children in this space, but we often forget that people generally are having huge problems. Just last weekend I was knocking on doors, and grown men were saying they did not believe anything they read online. They did not believe anything I said. There was no justification. It is a real difficulty, so I absolutely take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. It is important to talk about the people behind the algorithms. \p Noah Law: It is not only important to make the distinction between fact and fiction; does my hon. Friend accept the distinction between the real and fake people who operate in some of these spaces? \p Dan Aldridge: Yes, absolutely. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) mentioned the difficulty of identifying or holding to account the bots and the non-people actors who are causing so many problems.

In debates such as this, I talk about the people behind the algorithms and platforms because it is far too easy to lose perspective and characterise algorithms and digital platforms as something intangible and alien to us, when we are actually in control of them. In 2020, the former Member for Uxbridge, when he was Prime Minister, claimed that a “mutant algorithm” was to blame for the 2020 exam fiasco. It was a masterclass in deflecting blame from the egregious human failure, and from the line of responsibility that tracked right back to the heart of his Government. The consequences still impact the thousands of young people, my constituents included, whose life plans and chances were upended by the hubris of a Government who were enthralled by the promise of tech as a quick fix.

Sensationalist headlines about mutant algorithms serve no one other than those avoiding the finger of blame, and it all comes at the expense of a meaningful space to discuss the issues that truly matter to our constituents, such as the cost of living, the housing crisis and the need for better public services. We must do better.

Online disinformation is a persistent and pernicious threat to our democracy. False narratives spread much faster, and they stick much harder than the truth. Populist snake-oil salesmen hawk false hope online and pervert public perception. They sell simple solutions to complex problems to desperate people. They intentionally undermine our institutions to their own ends. \p Alex Ballinger: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the people who operate in the background do so on the behalf of our foreign adversaries—countries like Russia and Iran—who outsource this sort of work to sow division inside our society? We should work with the Government as hard as we can to tackle that. \p Dan Aldridge: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will get on to that.

Disinformation has become a stealth weapon wielded by hostile states and domestic actors alike to destabilise communities and societies and to undermine democratic norms. We saw the real-world consequences of that just last summer when inflammatory content spread online with impunity, fuelling riots and civil unrest. That serves as a stark warning that disinformation does not remain online but has dangerous real-life consequences. In my constituency, I saw how people manipulated fear in our most vulnerable communities using online platforms to promote their own craven political agendas. I will never forgive them for that. \p Leigh Ingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a responsibility on all of us who are fortunate enough to be in this place to use our voices proportionately, carefully and with respect, because by using such platforms we have the power to inflame and antagonise, which can make situations worse? \p Dan Aldridge: As my hon. Friend knows, I am a very moderate human being. I agree with her. One of the things that I want to do in this place and in my constituency is always look for the positive angle in things, to talk with moderation and to calm community tensions rather than inflame them for political gain. I see much more of the former at the moment, and I am grateful for that.

Stronger regulations, greater transparency and real accountability are essential, but so is meaningful and applicable education and training. One will not be fully effective without the other. Platforms must act in the public interest and have greater ethical oversight and governance rather than simply follow the corporate interests of shareholders. The voices of ordinary citizens, not the interests of the few, must shape our national discourse, and the UK has to push for global consensus where it can in an increasingly challenging and complex world. \p Emma Foody: My hon. Friend is making an incredibly impassioned speech, which comes from a place of real experience. As has been mentioned, though, we see an incredibly stark divide in the younger generation. Recent research on generation Z has shown that it is more polarised than ever, with over 25% of young people preferring authoritarianism. Does he agree that it is time to ensure that our young people can access nuanced debate? \p Dan Aldridge: Absolutely, we need to create spaces in our schools and our communities for that debate. I am really encouraged by the work of my colleagues in government, including my hon. Friend the Minister, who are taking their responsibilities to the British public seriously and showing an openness to engagement that was sorely lacking under the previous Administration in policies around technology. I look forward to working with my colleagues to take the necessary steps to protect and strengthen our democracy in this digital age.

The Government have a moral duty to act in the public interest on this. Let us work together to restore faith in our democracy and our institutions and show that we are still the masters of our own destiny, even in this brave new digital world. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I am now imposing an immediate three-minute time limit. \p Susan Murray: I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for bringing this important debate to the Chamber and for her courage. As we have heard, the Netflix show “Adolescence” has been a wake-up call for many about social media’s dangerous impact on our world view and beliefs. A young boy groomed online by an incel culture that is hostile to women murders a female classmate for resisting his prejudice against women.

Campaigners have recently warned of this issue. Months before “Adolescence” was released, Zero Tolerance’s “Many Good Men” report highlighted the need to better regulate platforms that spread misinformation and radicalisation. That is of particular importance for young people, including those in my constituency of Mid Dunbartonshire, as nearly 60% of them rely on social media as their primary information source, including for news, as we have heard.

If radical content already fuels violence against women and girls, we must be aware of its effect on democracy. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) referenced research at Glasgow University. Recent work by King’s College London showed that over half of  generation Z think that the UK would improve under a strong leader who is unconstrained by Parliament or elections. More worryingly, when explicitly asked if they would prefer a dictatorship, 6% said yes. Yet, when questioned on that stance, they clarified that they simply wanted a leader who could effect change quickly, as current progress is too slow. This should not come as a surprise. After all, they are bearing the brunt of a mental health crisis, soaring house prices and a brutal jobs market.

It is clear that a poor online environment reflects a poor real-world environment. Individuals of all ages, frustrated by their circumstances, look for something to blame, be it women, immigration or democracy, in sentiment driven by social media giants and the far-right populists who exploit young people’s frustrations.

The solutions to social media’s erosion of democracy lie in the real world. The John Smith Centre stresses that politicians should be more open and transparent and address young people’s housing and employment concerns to reduce disillusionment. If we ignore their challenges, social media will continue to undermine our democracy and draw our young people into increasingly extreme environments. \p Joani Reid: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for raising this important issue.

It is all too tempting to believe that democratic processes were once stronger, more resilient or perhaps more civil, but I do not think nostalgia is a particularly practical strategy. Nor, however, can we assume that progress towards a better world is natural and without setbacks. It is our responsibility as legislators not simply to comment on history but actively to shape it, particularly when we are confronted with new and complex challenges.

The impact of digital platforms on our democracy represents precisely such a challenge. They promised to democratise the debate and give every citizen an equal voice, but the reality has been far more complicated and, I would argue, more destabilising than democratising. Polling by More in Common has revealed that 72% of Britons believe that social media negatively impacts young people, and even more people showed a strong appetite for greater accountability from tech companies, particularly regarding misinformation and online harm. Ofcom’s latest findings show that three in 10 children aged eight to 17 encountered harm online in the last month. That is not abstract; just because it is online does not mean it is not a real harm. We do not allow it offline, so we should not allow it online. Social media companies have enormous power to influence the public debate. Their platforms have too often facilitated harmful content—hate speech, misinformation and abuse—and the reality is that they continue to profit from division and outrage. We should expect a lot better from such influential businesses.

I chair the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, so I am subjected to a particular kind of abuse that gives me the tiniest glimpse into what it is like to be either Jewish, or indeed any minority, in the UK. I just ignore most of it because it is so widespread, but occasionally I will get something and think, “That is really not acceptable”, and I will report it. \p Katrina Murray: There has been a lot of comment in the debate about the impact on Members’ families. My hon. Friend is talking about her experiences of abuse in her role as an APPG chair. Does she agree that her staff are also exposed to that? \p Joani Reid: I absolutely agree.

I want to give Members a sense of what I have reported to X, which I have been told does not meet its threshold for action and I can just block the accounts if I want to. Here are some of the comments being directed at me:

“Why are Jews allowed to invest in politicians in the UK?”

“Are you Jewish? Most Jewish children are weak and neurotic and struggle to understand things the way advanced Aryan children do.”

“You are not well-bred. You are 1/4 tainted of Jewish blood. This softens the heart and darkens the soul.”

In relation to the Holocaust, I have been told it “didn’t happen, mate.” That didn’t reach X’s harmful content threshold and was allowed to continue.

These people operate with impunity in this country. Transparency in the algorithms, proactive content moderation and genuine co-operation with regulators such as Ofcom should absolutely not be optional. Tech companies must understand that accessing our markets and citizens carries clear responsibilities and that if they want to operate here, they need to obey the law of our land. This is not about stifling innovation or freedom; it is about— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I call Noah Law. \p Noah Law: The strength of our democracy lies in its people—their voices, concerns and participation. The Labour party that I know has always been a party of the grassroots, particularly in Cornwall, and of real individuals engaging with real communities. We are not the party of faceless bots, anonymous profiles or foreign interference. Yet, as we reflect on last year’s general election, we must confront the unsettling reality that the integrity of our democratic process is under threat from hostile actors and unaccountable digital platforms, such as those we have heard about today.

In my constituency I have seen the manipulation at first hand. The administrators of the local Reform UK Facebook group—supposedly representing my constituency —are not local at all. Not a single one that I can see has anything to do with my constituency. Many cannot even be identified as real individuals. This is not grassroots activism; it is astroturfing—an insidious form of political manipulation where orchestrated campaigns masquerade as spontaneous grassroots movements, misleading and deceiving the public.

That is not an isolated case. Across the UK, our election was tainted by misinformation on an unprecedented scale. These were not spontaneous expressions of a democratic electorate, but the work of malign domestic and foreign actors, deliberately interfering to distort the public discourse. The power of those platforms to spread falsehoods rapidly and without scrutiny undermines trust in our political system.

Undoubtedly, the owners of the platforms wield immense influence on our public discourse. Their decisions on content moderation, as we have heard, shape what information is disseminated and trusted. The fact that one such owner has openly endorsed figures convicted of hate crimes, such as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, is appalling, signalling how those with immense digital influence can amplify those voices. These are not neutral platforms but ideological battlegrounds, and right now the scales are tipped in favour of disinformation. Labour stands for a different vision of politics; a politics built on real people, engagement and communities. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Max Wilkinson: A serious allegation was made recently that Liberal Democrats spend too much time in our communities fixing church roofs and are not on Twitter. Well, last night I logged back on, and let me tell the House that Twitter was absolutely brilliant. The quality and depth of political debate really was something to behold. Liberals and authoritarians, nationalists and internationalists, and people from the economic right, left and centre were engaging in well-informed, expansive and thoughtful debate about the most pressing issues of the day. I jest, of course—it was a total waste of time for everybody involved, including me.

Elon Musk has made Twitter useful for some people, though. I refer to those on the hard right of politics, who are profiting by sowing the seeds of division. They are not just profiting politically, but lining their pockets with the money of social media barons. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have already told the Member to whom I am about to refer that I intend to refer to him today, because his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests is revealing. The leader of Reform, the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), has declared more than £10,000 in earnings from one particular source since he was elected. The address of the payer is in Market Square. I know what Members are all thinking: “It’s the charming covered market in Clacton”. No, that closed in 2022. It is Elon Musk’s X, based in Market Square in San Francisco, California. He has also declared more than £14,000 in earnings from Google, £98,000 from Cameo, based in Chicago, and more than £2,700 from Meta in California.

One wonders where the Member for Clacton finds the time. As a 2024 intake MP, I encounter colleagues who basically do not have time to go to the loo. On a more philosophical note, for someone who claims to be a patriot, he is certainly taking a lot of money from international sources. That should give us all pause for thought when we consider the impact of digital platforms on democracy. We might conclude at the very least that it distracts some MPs from doing their actual job—and I do not mean the distraction of doom-scrolling; I mean the distraction of the grift.

What of the broader threats presented by social media platforms? We have spoken on many occasions recently about the issues that young men face and the impact on democracy. It is my belief that, at heart, those issues are the symptoms of many problems, including the tone of  debate about the roles and responsibilities of boys as they become men, a lack of routes to secure employment, and ludicrously high housing and rental prices. For someone who is stuck in their childhood bedroom looking for reasons why their life is rubbish, the digital world has no shortage of scapegoats: women, minorities, LGBT+ people, immigrants, foreigners, refugees, disabled people, the weak, single-parent families—the list goes on.

There is also no shortage of snake oil salesmen out there to tell them who to blame and what they can do about it. Andrew Tate tells us it is the fault of women. I can tell any young men listening at home that nobody outside the manosphere wants to see pictures of bald middle-aged men with their tops off—I know from personal experience. My social media followers and, more importantly, my friends left me in no doubt about what a plonker I looked after I posted a photo of myself at Cheltenham Lido. Those who idolise Tate would do well to heed that advice.

Jordan Peterson, another big thinker on the right, gives brilliant advice to young men. He tells them they must make themselves physically strong so that they can find a mate and get rich and powerful, or they will end up dying poor and alone, perhaps with melted brains like crustaceans defeated in a violent fight in the depths of the ocean. I am pretty sure that is not true. The lads should not worry about it, but so many do, thanks to these snake oil sellers online.

Thanks to President Trump and those who argue for a bizarre form of freedom of speech—just not for everyone—the truth is now a contested concept, and it is intertwined with fear and hatred, which are both a threat to our democracy. We all know where the truth goes to die: whichever social media platform you like. You just start posting outlandish stuff. You keep going. You double down. You find a mad and hateful narrative. You tell everyone it is free speech, and before you know it, you might be lucky enough to become a successful online grifter with your top off. Perhaps you will be an MP, or maybe even the President of America.

Two days ago it was April fool’s day. I hate April fool’s day, because the world is now so ludicrous that we do not know what is a joke and what is not. Even worse, what we post as a joke might end up being shared so many times that it becomes somebody else’s truth eventually. In the worst case, that becomes part of a hate-fuelled conspiracy theory. I will not mention it; everyone here knows what it is. There are many increasingly popular conspiracy theories online that have nothing to do with hatred but are plainly bizarre. I will not name them here for the sake of all our inboxes, but every single one of those outlandish claims is a threat to our democracy, and those views are going round the world quicker and quicker thanks to social media.

What should we in this place be doing about it? While digital and social media platforms can be good for democracy, they are inherently vulnerable to misinformation and abuse, and they reduce the quality of public debate. We need look no further than the riots following the tragic Southport attacks. That tragedy for those little girls and their families was compounded for so many by what happened in the following days, when people were whipped up into a frenzy by false rumours leading to more violence. Musk’s X, Zuckerberg’s Meta and other social media companies facilitate that spreading of misinformation, and they have made it entirely clear to all of us that they do not care.

Let us face it: platforms such as TikTok and Snapchat are making our children sad and depressed, they are putting a check on the development of the adults of the future, and they absolutely cannot be trusted. Musk used his purchase of Twitter to further leverage his influence over the world’s largest democracy. He changed the rules to boost his own posts and push aside those he disagrees with—freedom of speech, but for some more than others.

From his own platform, the world’s richest man has made several direct interruptions in our democracy. Last summer he sought to further incite disorder, posting that in the UK “Civil war is inevitable”. He also called for America to

“liberate the people of Britain”

and overthrow the UK Government, and he has suggested he might bankroll the Reform party. While I have some sympathy for Ministers dealing with Trump, do they really think it is wise to be so gentle with him when his right-hand man, Musk, has called for them to be forcibly ejected from office? I realise that Ministers are limited in what they can say, but I am pretty sure I know what they think. Regardless of diplomatic norms, this is plainly absurd. Worse than that, it makes our once strong nation look weak.

What should we do? Social media companies must take a larger role in tackling misinformation. It is clear that they will not do it without Government intervention, and they need to get on with it. Liberal Democrats believe that stricter regulations must be introduced to ensure that they properly challenge the spread of misinformation on their platforms. We must stand up to them. We must intervene to protect our democracy. As a liberal, I believe that unchecked power and wealth are inherently dangerous, and I often take my whip from John Stuart Mill, who warned:

“the dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution, is one of those pleasant falsehoods…which all experience refutes.”

We must heed that warning. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Opposition spokesperson. \p Ben Spencer: I thank the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this important debate. Digital platforms can both enhance and undermine democracy. Social media can increase awareness of elections and candidates, encouraging participation and voter turnout, but it can also lead to the abuse of democratically elected MPs, councillors and politicians. Even more worrying is the threat of electoral interference from malign international actors. I am grateful to Members from all parties who took part in what was an incredibly thoughtful and interesting debate on such an important issue.

For reasons of time I cannot reflect on everyone’s speech, but I wish to pay particular heed to three Members who have spoken. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley for her incredibly powerful speech, and I am sorry about the abuse, attacks and threats she has experienced. Any attack or abuse to an MP is an attack on our democracy. We have brilliant representatives in this place. I am proud to be a Member of this, the greatest Parliament in the world, and there is a duty on  us to stand up for our fellow colleagues, Members across the House, and elected representatives at all levels. I particularly thank her for mentioning Jo Cox and David Amess. I was elected after Jo Cox was murdered, but I did get to meet David Amess before he was murdered, and I still have a letter that he sent me when I was elected as a new MP. I know that he and Jo Cox are very much missed by us all. Sadly, what happened to them clearly drives home the importance of ensuring that we deal with these problems and get this right.

Later in my speech I will pick up on one of the points that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley raised about disinformation and misinformation, as well as digital watermarking. She also raised important points about how social media operates. I have often thought that we need to think about anonymity and privacy separately in terms of people using a platform and its content.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who used her speech, in part, to make some comments regarding her resignation. Principles are not principles unless we act on them, and I hope she has the opportunity to serve in His Majesty’s Government again at some point in the future. There have been so many brilliant speeches, and I would like to reference everybody but cannot due to time. However, some remarks by the hon. Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid) jumped out at me, particularly the quote that she read out in this Chamber, and those vile comments. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that when she winds up the debate, and said what reassurance she can give the House that the issue is being dealt with appropriately by the digital online platforms.

Protecting the integrity of our elections and stopping the influence of malign and foreign actors is a critical role for the Government, and it is the Government’s responsibility to work closely with the Electoral Commission, and others, to protect the integrity, security and effectiveness of UK referendums and elections. The Electoral Commission has a wide range of investigatory and civil sanctioning powers, and the Government are able to refer more serious matters to the police or the National Crime Agency. As outlined in the previous Government’s response to the report on Russia by the Intelligence and Security Committee, the UK’s adversaries adapt a whole-of-state approach to hybrid and malign activity. Therefore, tackling it requires a cross-Government, cross-society response.

To respond effectively, the Government need to draw on the skills, resources and remits of different Departments, agencies and non-governmental organisations. Considering the current geopolitical landscape, it is essential that the Government keep all aspects of their approach to protecting democracy under review so that they can quickly adapt to any new threats that emerge.

The UK is not alone in facing this issue; democracies across the western world are facing the same issue. Political parties are successfully harnessing the impact of social media to reach cohorts of voters who are normally uninterested or disillusioned. That is a good thing, but countries are facing interference from other states, including Russia and China, so how should Governments respond?

The previous Government were resolute in defending our country from hostile state activity. The Elections Act 2022, which they brought forward, restricts third-party  campaigning to UK-based groups and eligible overseas electors, so that only those with legitimate interests in UK elections can campaign at UK elections. It also contains new measures requiring digital imprints on online campaign material and greater transparency in political funding. The previous Government also passed the world-leading Online Safety Act, to which many Members have referred. Its provisions have only recently come into force and I hope this Government will continue to actively monitor what Ofcom is doing to ensure the Act is working appropriately.

There are also threats from artificial intelligence and disinformation, particularly the ability of AI to create realistic videos and images impersonating trusted public figures, including political and religious leaders. The risks of that are clear for all to see. In Committee, we tabled an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill that would have set up a technological standard on digital watermarks. In part, it was about helping to solve some of the issues around AI and copyright, but it was also about ascribing authenticity to what people are putting on social media. I suspect that, like me, many colleagues from across the House would like to have the ability to put a digital watermark on the material they put out, so that people can be sure that the content they are seeing is from the person who purports to have created it. The Government voted our amendment down, but I hope Ministers will work with us to support such measures going forward.

To conclude, we must ensure that regulations are effective and up to date with the latest technology. We must ensure that the public are made aware of the risks of AI-generated content and deliberate misinformation, and we must tackle foreign interference in our elections. Digital platforms can enhance democracy and it is important that we do not lose sight of that. Like it or not, traditional media is no longer the primary news source for many people; Twitter, Facebook, TikTok and Snapchat are all part of the news ecosystem. If we, as politicians, want better participation in democracy— I believe that all of us want that—we cannot vacate social media, although if I am honest I am very jealous of the people who do not use it, or vacate the online space. Instead, we must ensure that it works for all of us. \p Feryal Clark: I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing the debate. I join her in honouring the memory of our dear colleagues Sir David Amess and Jo Cox. I am grateful to her and to all the other speakers for their incredibly powerful and insightful contributions to the debate.

The Government share the hon. Member’s concerns about the impact that online harassment, intimidation, abuse, misinformation and disinformation have on our democracy. Existing and emerging technologies have led to changes in the information environment and will continue to shape our future, but it is, and will always be, an absolute priority for the UK Government to protect our democracy, and we remain well-prepared to do so with robust systems in place. I was grateful to the hon. Member for sharing her experiences. The House  should hear about the online abuse and hate that she has faced. There is no place for that, and I thank her for sharing it.

The Government are committed to combating violence against women and girls. The Online Safety Act requires Ofcom to develop and enforce guidance for tech companies, which aims to ensure that platforms implement measures to reduce harm to women and girls online. The Act imposes legal responsibility on online platforms, including social media platforms, gaming platforms, dating apps and search engines, to protect users from illegal content and material that is harmful to children and to address issues that disproportionately affect women and girls. Those measures reflect the Government’s commitment to creating a safer online environment, acknowledging the unique challenge faced by women and girls in the digital space. In putting that guidance together, Ofcom consulted with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner and experts in the field.

The effectiveness of those measures depends on their robust implementation and enforcement, which we will monitor closely. As the hon. Member knows, the implementation of the Online Safety Act started only in spring this year. While we know it is a landmark Act, it is not perfect, so the Government will continue to keep it under review, and we will not shy away from strengthening it where required. As I said, the Act is already being implemented. We will introduce protections to protect people from illegal content, such as child sexual abuse and terrorist material, as well as to protect children from harmful material. I make it clear to the House and to all Members who raised this issue that that is not up for negotiation.

The hon. Member also raised the issue of banning smartphones for under-16s. The Government will consider all options in pursuit of children’s online safety. However, it is important that the Government take evidence-based action in recognition of the need to balance safety with allowing children to use technology positively. I am sure she is also aware that in November last year, the Department announced a study using methods and data to understand the impact of smartphones and social media on children. The study began in December last year and will run for six months until May 2025, and I am sure we will report to the House on that.

I come back to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). I take this opportunity to thank her for all the support she gave me and many of my colleagues when she served on the Front Bench in opposition and when we came into government. I look forward to seeing her on the Front Bench again soon; I hope she does not spend too long on the Back Benches.

My right hon. Friend raised the issue of the unrest last year. During that unrest, the Department worked with major platforms to tackle content contributing to the disorder, which included proactively referring content to platforms that assessed and acted on it in line with their terms of service. Throughout our engagement, we have been very clear that social media platforms should not wait for the Online Safety Act to come into action: they should actively be removing harmful content.

My right hon. Friend also raised the issue of broader international collaboration on online safety, with which I absolutely agree. International collaboration is absolutely crucial in tackling the global threat of online harms,  and we must build consensus around approaches that uphold our democratic values and promote a free, open and secure internet.

As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said, since 2022, the Elections Act has protected candidates, campaigners and elected office holders from intimidation, both online and in person. It is an election offence for a person to make or publish, before or during an election, a false statement of fact about a candidate’s personal character or conduct, for the purpose of affecting the return for that candidate at the election, if the person does not believe it to be true. This provides a reasonable check and balance against malicious smear campaigns.

We also have the defending democracy taskforce, which has a mandate to drive forward a whole-Government response to the full range of threats to our democracy. That taskforce reports to the National Security Council and is comprised of Ministers and senior officials, as well as representatives of law enforcement, the UK intelligence community, the parliamentary authorities and the Electoral Commission. In April 2023, the task- force set up the joint election security and preparedness unit—JESP, for short—as a permanent function dedicated to protecting UK elections and referendums. It monitors and mitigates risks related to the security of elections, including those posed by artificial intelligence, misinformation and disinformation. JESP stood up an election cell for the 2024 elections, which co-ordinated a wide range of teams across Government to respond to issues as they emerged, including issues to do with protective security, cyber-threats, and misinformation and disinformation.

An election cell has been stood up for the upcoming local elections. Firm steps are being taken to ensure the security of candidates and campaigners. That happened during last year’s election, and will happen again for the upcoming local elections. Candidates were issued with security advice, and guidance was made available on gov.uk about the risks they face, including from AI and disinformation. That guidance brought together expertise from across the security community, including from the police and the National Cyber Security Centre, to help candidates implement quick and effective personal protective measures. I have only recently looked at that guidance, and I recommend that all candidates take a look. There was also an investment of £31 million over financial year 2024-25 to strengthen protective security measures for MPs, locally elected representatives and candidates.

As reported by the Electoral Commission, last year’s UK general election was delivered safely and securely. Certain novel risks, such as AI-generated deepfakes influencing the outcome, did not materialise. However, in that election, there was unacceptable harassment and intimidation directed at candidates—particularly female candidates—and campaigners, especially online. It is clearly vital that everyone, regardless of their sex/gender or race, feels able to participate in public life. The Home Office is reviewing this activity through the defending democracy taskforce.

We need to better understand the trends, motivations and drivers that cause people to harass and intimidate their elected representatives. That includes identifying gaps and vulnerabilities and developing recommendations to strengthen legislative responses, as well as a clear delineation of online versus in-person activity and its impact. That work will be reported to the taskforce, and my Department has contributed to these efforts to tackle online harms and improve online environments. While the primary responsibility for harmful social media content rests with the individuals and groups who create and post it, social media platforms have a responsibility to keep users safe. \p Judith Cummins: I call Sorcha Eastwood to quickly wind up. \p Sorcha Eastwood: I thank everybody who has contributed to today’s debate, the Backbench Business Committee for giving permission for it, and those who supported the application for it. I also thank the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds)—I was privileged to have her in the Chamber for this debate, and her contribution was really poignant and incredibly moving. I thank the shadow spokespeople, and I thank the Minister for her remarks.

Today should be the start of a conversation and a dialogue. It is clear that everybody in the Chamber is passionate about moving forward on this issue and defending our constituents, our country and our democracy. I look forward to working with everybody across the House on tackling this issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of digital platforms on UK democracy. \p Leigh Ingham: I beg to move,

That this House has considered access to sport and PE in schools.

First, I put on record my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate in the Chamber. I called for this debate because I made a visit to Sir Graham Balfour school in my constituency, where I met one of my young constituents, Tane. After my visit, he wrote me a letter in which he talked in detail about his worries about the impact of covid-19 on his generation. I will start by quoting him:

“Exercise doesn’t just chemically make you feel good, it’s great for socialising, raising self-esteem and coping with losing. All life skills that seem a bit ‘missing’ in kids my age since lockdown.”

His statement was profound in its simplicity, but it is at the heart of my argument today.

Access to sport and physical education is about more than keeping children physically fit; it is about giving them skills, resilience and the confidence to navigate life’s challenges. It is about their mental health, their ability to form friendships and their capacity to overcome obstacles. It is about ensuring that no child is denied the chance to benefit from opportunities because of their background or gender, or any other barriers to opportunity that they face in life.

To begin with, I want to focus on the clear and undeniable health benefits, both physical and mental, of sport and exercise. Sport England’s active lives survey of children and young people provides invaluable insight about physical activity among young people. It confirms what many of us feared: while overall activity levels have remained stable since covid-19, the long-term effects of the pandemic have cast a shadow over children’s engagement with sport, their mental wellbeing and their future relationship with physical activity.

For children who enjoy sport or whose parents can support them in being physically active, things are straightforward, but for those children and young people who do not feel comfortable playing sport, do not have playgrounds to play in, or do not have the physical ability to be active easily, these things become much more challenging. For many children, especially those facing socioeconomic challenges or with limited access to recreational facilities, PE classes may be the only opportunity to engage in structured exercise. By providing structured and comprehensive PE classes, schools not only contribute to the immediate health of students, but equip them with the knowledge and skills to lead active lifestyles into adulthood.

We know that access to sport does not just benefit physical health; as Tane said, it benefits our mental health, too. Engaging in regular exercise releases endorphins, our feel-good hormones that alleviate stress and anger and improve sleep quality. MPs could probably benefit from that, me included. Furthermore, participation in team sports or group activities can foster social connections, which are instrumental to wellbeing and so important in the wake of covid-19. \p Christopher Bloore: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing such an important debate. She was kind enough to contribute to my debate about  mental health support in education settings. She is well aware that the link between mental health and exercise is so important. Physical exercise can help people manage stress, anxiety and depression. One in five young people report having a mental health disorder or a mental health crisis, so creating and supporting a robust PE curriculum, and giving children the opportunity to take part in outside sport, is more important than ever. \p Leigh Ingham: I completely agree. I will come on to discuss this issue further. Individuals who are inactive are three times as likely to face moderate to severe depression than their active counterparts, and we know that regular physical activity can reduce the risk of depression by up to 30%. The benefits are even more pronounced when exercise takes place outdoors; studies indicate that immersion in nature enhances happiness, imparts a greater sense of life’s worth, and diminishes depression and anxiety. In a changing world, in which more and more children struggle with their mental health, we need to support our young people in any way we can.

When it comes to accessing sport, the significant challenges that young girls face include a lack of confidence and a fear of judgment, particularly around body image. They are surrounded by social media and edited, unrealistic images of women’s bodies, which tell them that they need to be perfect to participate. This is compounded by the fact that many sports are still male dominated. \p Lisa Smart: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for opening today’s debate. My constituent Olivia recently wrote to me. She and her sister play football for the Stockport County under-8s and under-9s teams, and they are showing clear talent and skill. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is really important that we support young girls to get into the habit of playing team sports? Olivia wrote to me because they are looking for support with bibs and balls, which I am working on. I am sure the hon. Lady agrees that getting young girls playing sport is a really important way of getting them in the habit of doing so for the rest of their life. \p Leigh Ingham: I completely agree. I am about to say a little bit about that, because equitable access to sports is so important. Before I was elected as an MP, I worked for an organisation called Plan International, which specialises in working with young people, particularly young women and girls. I was shocked to learn that, on average, two thirds of playgrounds are taken up by boys. They often play football, which means that the physical space that girls have for playing sport is significantly diminished.

I was delighted to learn that four schools in my constituency signed up to take part in a girls’ “biggest ever football session”: Sir Graham Balfour, Flash Ley primary, Stafford Manor high and Church Eaton primary. Change starts at home, so I am proud to have schools in my patch that prioritise the inclusion of young women and girls in sport and football. However, despite the Lionesses’ brilliant 2022 Euros win, many girls still do not feel comfortable playing football. In 2022, the Lionesses brought football home and said that it was only the beginning. I echo their open letter to the then Prime Minister, in which they asked him to make sure that young girls have access to at least two hours of PE a  week, that physical activity among young women is tracked, and that there is accountability for ensuring that takes place. The Government now have the chance to deliver on the Lionesses’ ask, which would benefit girls and young women around the country.

From Sport England’s research, we know that active children are not only healthier but happier, more resilient and more confident. However, despite the overwhelming evidence supporting the benefits of physical activity, many young people are being left behind, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. I spoke to representatives of Swim England, who told me that only 50% of children from the least affluent families can swim 25 metres by the time they leave primary school. By comparison, 90% of children from wealthy families can.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the impact of covid-19 on children’s relationship with physical activity has been profound. Those who were in nursery or early primary school when the pandemic struck, who are now in years 3 to 8, remain significantly less likely than their older peers to have positive attitudes towards sport and physical activity. Worryingly, happiness scores have also dropped among these age groups, as has their sense of resilience. The number of children who keep trying when things get tough is down by 6.9% for those in years 5 and 6, and down by 7% for those in years 8 and 9. In a changing world, we know how important it is that children are able to keep going when things get tough, and sport is one of the key ways that they can learn that resilience. As Tane said, where else can a child learn to pick themselves up and go again?

In preparing for this debate, I wanted to ensure that the voices of children with special educational needs and disabilities were at the heart of the discussion. Walton Hall academy in my constituency is a special educational needs school, and it has told me how crucial the role of sports is in supporting its students by providing an opportunity to develop essential skills, including hand-eye co-ordination and teamwork, while fostering a sense of belonging and confidence.

For many SEND young people in both mainstream and specialist schools, sport is not only an activity, but a powerful vehicle for achieving their education, health and care plan targets, such as promoting communication and building connections, which are areas that can be particularly challenging for SEND young people. However, when I spoke to the Activity Alliance and ParalympicsGB, both shared some worrying information about inclusivity of sports for SEND young people. Nationally, 15% of our young people and children have special educational needs, which is about 1.5 million people, but 75% of them are not active in school, meaning that over one in 10 of our children nationwide are not active. I fear that those numbers are due to a poor understanding of inclusion for disabled children.

Furthermore, accessing sport and play outside school can be financially prohibitive for SEND families, with membership fees and specialised equipment presenting specific barriers. I have been running a campaign in my own constituency for inclusive playparks as places where children can get active for free, but that would need to be rolled out nationwide. That has significant challenges because of the differences when it comes to special educational needs and disabilities. I recently hosted a coffee morning on SEND in my constituency, and many  parents told me that their experience with councils and schools was frequently adversarial and confrontational, which can exacerbate this issue.

No child should be left on the sidelines, and I know how seriously the Department for Education takes its responsibility to SEND children. I strongly encourage the Government to consider adapting teacher training and education to ensure that the next generation of the teaching workforce have the skills and confidence necessary to deliver truly inclusive physical education. That could involve significant disability inclusion training, and introducing subject-specific disability inclusion training to the core content framework for PE specialists, such as special accessible lesson plans and a wide range of adaptive sport. I do not know if any Members have ever played wheelchair basketball, but it is actually the most fun, and it is incredibly competitive. \p Max Wilkinson: I recently played wheelchair basketball with the Harrogate Hammerheads, at the Liberal Democrat party conference, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). It was a joyful experience, and what I learned is that it is basically impossible. \p Leigh Ingham: I thank the hon. Member for the intervention. I agree that it is definitely a challenge, but what I like about it is that it can provide a level playing field. A class of mainstream and SEND kids can play it together, and everyone finds it really challenging, so it is a great leveller.

Moving on from SEND, the ongoing curriculum review is a rare opportunity to enhance access to PE. Sport teaches teamwork, discipline and resilience, which are essential qualities for both education and employment. Employers seek individuals who can collaborate and persevere, and sport provides such a training ground. A diverse PE curriculum, including activities beyond traditional sports such as football and rugby—no shame; they are both great sports—can engage more students. Options such as martial arts, yoga and dance could be explored to ensure that PE appeals to all.

However, this is not just about access to sport; it is about the social value of sport, and the fact that it gives children and young people more time and energy to focus on other subjects and attain better results. What other subject gives kids focus like PE does? By embedding structured, high-quality PE into the school week, we would be not only improving children’s health, but giving them the tools they need to succeed in other subjects and studies. Sport also provides valuable lessons beyond the classroom, such as teamwork, resilience, discipline and leadership. Again, those are essential qualities for most careers.

I make it clear that, perhaps unusually, this debate is not to ask for more money for sports, at a time when our financial situation is so tenuous. What we need are more sustainable funding frameworks for PE, and for the pupil premium and school games organisers. In 2016, school games organisers received a funding promise for each academic year of that Parliament. That was during a process of substantial change under previous Governments, Prime Ministers and Education Secretaries, but that funding commitment did give schools the ability to plan ahead, build structured sports programmes, and invest in the staff and resources necessary to make PE  effective. However, in the years since, uncertainty over future funding has left many schools unable to make long-term commitments, forcing them into a cycle of short-term solutions that do not serve students or school communities well.

We need assurances that funding for sport and PE will be protected and given the same security as other areas of education. Without that, we risk losing dedicated school games organisers and vital school sports programmes that have been proven to improve health and wellbeing. Can the Minister please give confirmation that funding for school games organisers will be provided for the next year, and consider the possibility of more sustainable long-term funding commitments?

In conclusion, we know that sport provides a health value in improving physical health. We also know that it provides a social value, in the wellbeing of our children and adults. Finally, we know that it provides an economic value, in reducing mental health service usage, fewer GP visits and preventing illness. Altogether, that value is upwards of £100 billion each year. Sport and PE are not just about fitness; they are about the future. They are about creating a society where young people grow up healthier, happier and more equipped to navigate life’s challenges. The benefits of sport are not abstract. They are real, measurable and profoundly impactful. If we want a healthier nation, a more resilient workforce and a stronger society, then investing in access to sport and PE is not just a policy choice—it is a necessity.

I urge the Government to take the issue seriously, to commit to sustainable funding and to ensure that every child, regardless of background, has the opportunity to thrive through sport. We must listen to young people like Tane, who have articulated so clearly the need for action. We must respond with real change. As Tane said when he wrote to me:

“This seems like quite a simple solution to a lot of problems.” \p Claire Young: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing the debate. I could easily spend my whole speech talking about the challenge of increasing girls’ participation in PE and sport in schools. Despite the progress made through initiatives such as the “This Girl Can” campaign, there is still a gender gap, with only 32% of girls aged five to 15 achieving the recommended 60 minutes of physical activity each day compared to 41% of boys, according to Sport England’s “Active Lives” survey in 2023. We have come a long way since my schooldays in the ’80s, when girls over eight were not allowed to play competitive mixed football and there were no girls’ teams I could join. I have been delighted to see the great strides made in women’s football in recent years and it was a joy to join a girls’ training session at Pucklechurch primary school recently. The 20-plus girls running around on a very small pitch showed that girls really do like football.

However, I want to focus today on a different area of inequality: the participation in PE of children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. I am pleased that the hon. Lady raised this issue in her speech. Children with SEND are one and a half times more likely to be inactive compared to their peers without SEND. We know the benefits that physical  activity can bring: improved mental and physical health, boosted self-esteem, and important social opportunities for SEND students. So, what are the barriers? Only 14% of PE teachers feel fully confident in adapting activities for children with SEND, according to research by the Youth Sport Trust. There is a significant gap in teacher training for inclusive sport. Schools often lack access to the necessary adaptive equipment, making it difficult for SEND students to engage in physical activity on an equal footing with their peers. Provision is inconsistent, with some schools able to offer much more well-developed programmes for SEND students than others.

One consequence of that, which may surprise some, is that it can lead to increased absence for SEND students. The Youth Sport Trust has highlighted that pupils with SEND are more likely to experience disengagement in physical education, which can lead to increased school absences. A report from Scope, a leading disability charity, found that children with SEND who feel excluded from physical activity are at higher risk of developing mental health challenges, which can further exacerbate absence. A study by the National Autistic Society found that students with autism, in particular, are more likely to be absent from school when PE lessons are not adapted to their needs, with absences increasing by up to 20% for those students. To tackle that, Scope calls for more accessible PE facilities and training for teachers on how to adapt physical activity for SEND students. It emphasises the importance of inclusive support, suggesting that schools offer a broader range of activities that cater to different abilities, from wheelchair sports to multi-sensory activities.

The National Autistic Society stresses the importance of clear communication, structured environments and sensory friendly approaches, while Special Olympics Great Britain highlights that a key barrier for children with SEND is the lack of mainstream sports clubs that offer inclusive programmes, urging schools and communities to create partnerships with local clubs, offering pathways to competitive sports for SEND children and fostering an inclusive and welcoming environment. On that, I would like to highlight the work of Yate Acrogymnastics centre. Contrary to the hon. Member for Stafford, I do think this will require some funding for adaptive equipment and the specialist training for staff.

I will conclude by highlighting the work done by the charity Gympanzees, which is currently fundraising to open in my constituency the UK’s first fully accessible exercise, play and social centre for disabled children and young people. I had the privilege of visiting its pop-up offerings before I was an MP, where I saw for myself the fantastic holiday activities it provides with an array of specialist equipment and dedicated staff. It has had a massive impact on its users’ lives, whether that is the three-year-old laughing for the first time, the 16-year-old who had refused any form of sport at home and school but who rowed a kilometre on their rowing machine, the nine-year-old who held up his head on his own for 10 minutes for the first time, or the 57 children and young people who were able to walk for the first time, using the specialist equipment.

Opening this permanent home for the charity’s activities will allow it to offer schemes not only in school holidays but year round, and would give the centre the scope to open up its facilities for other organisations to use, including schools. Gympanzees has already raised more  than half of its £8 million target to fit out the facility. I have previously written to Ministers asking them to consider contributing to the funding of this centre as a pilot facility—a model that could be rolled out across other regions to help to inform provision in and provide training for our schools. I ask them to look again at the huge benefits this project could bring for children with complex needs and the potential it has to deliver access to PE for children who currently miss out. \p Judith Cummins: I do want to try to get everybody in, so we will start with an immediate time limit of four minutes. \p Liam Conlon: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for securing this debate. She made some fantastic and profound points in her speech.

Like the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young), I will focus on disability sports. In schools across the country, three in four disabled children do not take part in PE regularly, and four in 10 confide that they would like to take part in more sport if it was offered. We should not underestimate the impact this has on these children, with disabled children already facing exclusion and 72% of them reporting feeling lonely.

I know this from my own experience, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have not played sports since I was 13. I had an accident in year 8 where I shattered my hip; I did not walk for four years, and then had a hip replacement in sixth form. A challenge a lot of children who are disabled face in similar situations is that playing football and other sports is how children often build common bonds with their friends; it is what they do together and what they talk about. Being excluded from that has far wider repercussions.

This has been a big priority for me in my constituency. I pay tribute today to the work of ParalympicsGB, the Youth Sport Trust and others; they really recognise this and are doing lots of important local work to improve it. We have some fantastic projects and organisations in Beckenham and Penge that are using their own initiative to increase the participation of disabled people in sport. In Crystal Palace, the National Sports Centre is undergoing a multimillion-pound refurbishment to secure its facilities for future use and, crucially, to make them accessible. I think 19 world records have been set in Crystal Palace, but wheelchair users currently cannot get to the pools and a lot of the other facilities. As Members will know, this issue is close to my heart, and I am proud that this facility in my constituency will be made fully accessible and will be one of the best facilities not just in London but across the country for disabled sport going forward.

I want to put on the record my thanks to Sir Sadiq Khan, the team at the Greater London Authority, including project manager Ben Woods, and Councillors Ruth McGregor and Ryan Thomson, and to the Crystal Palace Sports Partnership, with John Powell and Fran Bernstein, who have really brought people together and made this happen.

Crystal Palace football club and the charity Palace for Life Foundation do genuinely incredible work right across south London, including at the National Sports Centre, to support disabled people and others. As part  of this work, the foundation hosts football sessions for those with Down’s syndrome and visual impairments, as well as powerchair football.

One of the points that I often try to make to people is that, of all the protected characteristics defined by the Equality Act 2010, disability is by far the most diverse. We also talk of specific disabilities, such as autism and cerebral palsy, as having spectrums. The challenge for disabled sport is really comprehensive, but we have experts by experience—people with disabilities who understand how best to bridge that gap and make inclusion possible. It is fantastic that the Schools Minister has recognised this. I know that she has spoken about the need for increased PE in schools for disabled children. If I speak to some of the local schools in my constituency, I am told that having other facilities outside school is absolutely essential.

It would be remiss of me not also to mention Kent County Cricket Club in Beckenham, which, alongside managing two disability teams, runs a regular Friday night disability cricket session in Beckenham for children and young people. It has been fantastic to see a renewed focus on access to disability sport both in Government and in my local community, especially following the Paralympics. Increasing access to PE and sport is not something that will happen if we sit back and wait for it. Inclusion is not just an absence of exclusion, and achieving equity will require an active effort from all to get involved. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford for securing this debate. \p Andrew Cooper: I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for leading this debate and for the way that she has set out the issues.

Sport and physical education in schools is not only vital for the future of our children, but critical to the health and prosperity of our nation. As we face higher levels of childhood obesity, increasing mental health concerns, and a need to foster a healthier and more cohesive society, it is more important than ever to make physical activity a central part of the school experience.

The benefits of PE and sport extend far beyond childhood. The life skills gained through physical activity, team work, leadership and communication help young people succeed in school and prepare them for their future careers. According to the Youth Sport Trust, 87% of participants in the Set for Success programme said that they know more about how their skills can help them in the future, with 96% of young people reporting an improvement in at least one of team working, communication or leadership since taking part. These skills are crucial to helping young people thrive in their careers and contribute to the future economy, aiding the Government’s mission to kickstart economic growth.

I wish to take a moment to recognise the incredible work that is being done in my constituency of Mid Cheshire by organisations such as the Vale Royal School Sport Partnership and Active Cheshire. These organisations are working tirelessly to increase the opportunities for physical activity in schools and communities.

Since 2006, the Vale Royal School Sport Partnership has been instrumental in bringing sport to schools across Northwich and Winsford. School sports partnerships were an early casualty of the coalition Government,  with the announcement that ringfenced funding would be removed in a letter to the Youth Sport Trust from the then Secretary of State, Michael Gove, in October 2010, in direct contradiction of what the Conservatives had said when in opposition. In Northwich and Winsford, the schools got together and decided that demolishing an entire infrastructure and proven delivery system that was improving children’s lives here and now was not the way to go. So they pooled their funding and saved Vale Royal School Sport Partnership and it is still delivering for children today.

Through well-organised PE programmes, inter-school competitions, and community initiatives, the partnership has helped to increase participation in sport among young people in my area. It offers resources, training and support to teachers, ensuring that every child has the chance to experience the benefits of physical activity, regardless of their background or ability. If the Minister would like to visit my constituency and see the value of the work undertaken by school sports partnerships, I am sure that they would be delighted to receive her.

Similarly, Active Cheshire is dedicated to creating a culture of movement in schools and communities. By providing schools with the tools they need to integrate more sport into their daily routines, Active Cheshire helps foster environments where children feel encouraged and supported to be active.

I cannot let this moment go without mentioning Northwich Rowing Club, which celebrated its 150th anniversary this month. The club has enjoyed huge success in recent years, having produced three Olympians: bronze medallist Emily Ford, and gold medallists Tom Ford and Matt Langridge. What makes me proudest to have them as representatives of my home town is the work they do with schools in partnership with Warrington Youth Rowing to open up access to the sport and break down the perception of rowing as an elitist sport. Every year they give dozens of children across our local secondary schools—all pupil premium children—the opportunity to learn to row, which they otherwise may not have had. Together, these organisations are making a real difference, providing children with the opportunity to develop lifelong healthy habits.

I am conscious of time and so will conclude by highlighting a date for the diary. On 4 June I am sponsoring Youth Sport Trust’s national school sports week’s parliamentary drop-in. Montell Douglas, who represented Team GB at both the summer and winter Olympics, will be in attendance, and I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister and other colleagues will come along to support this worthwhile event. \p Caroline Nokes: I shall certainly do my best. I call Josh Dean. \p Josh Dean: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for securing this debate. I will say from the outset that sport and PE was not my favourite part of the school week, and in preparing for this debate many memories of running in the cold on Monday mornings came back. As I am often reminded, it was not that long ago for me. I was the boy at the back of the class, hoping  that the bell would not ring, because I desperately did not want to go and do PE. Members might wonder why I have chosen to speak in this debate, and I am sure some of my PE teachers—blessed to have witnessed my sporting skill—will similarly wonder why.

One of the many joys of this job is the way it helps me to see things in a new light, even in the community I know best, where I grew up and which I call home: Hertford and Stortford. I have had the privilege of visiting almost half of the roughly 50 schools in my constituency since I was elected, and at each one I have been amazed at and impressed by the quality of their sports and PE provision, the positive difference it makes for the young people and their success at it.

To give some examples, it was great to hear how Herts and Essex high school’s under-14 girls team recently won silver medals after reaching the national hockey finals. Bishop’s Stortford high school pupil Luke Dunham, who is a member of Herts Phoenix Athletic Club, based in Ware, came third in the under-17 race in the inter-counties cross country championships last month. I was also privileged to visit new secondary school Avanti Grange at the end of last year. We have touched on the importance of resilience and mindfulness, and at that high school I saw one of its new yoga classes. Having those built into its curriculum and classes is a way to ensure that their young people are resilient, mindful and prepared for the challenges of school and life. I think that is fantastic.

When young people find a sport that they enjoy at school, they will often progress to one of the many fantastic local sports clubs in our community, such as Hertford Town football club or the Bishop’s Stortford Community football club—to say nothing of our fantastic offering in Ware and Sawbridgeworth. Some will go even further, like premier league footballer Oliver Skipp, who, like me, went to Richard Hale school. Without digressing too far from the topic of the debate, for young people it does all start at school. Sport builds our young people’s confidence and is good for their mental health and wellbeing. According to Sport England, children who are active are happier, more resilient and more trusting of others.

I would be grateful if the Minister could address two specific points regarding the provision of PE and sport in schools. First, given that the final report on the curriculum and assessment is due later this year, will she ensure that children’s mental and physical wellbeing as well as academic achievement is right at the heart of that review? Additionally, in December 2024 Sport England highlighted the impact of the pandemic on young people. Children aged seven to 13 are now less likely to have positive attitudes towards activity, and they have a lower sense of opportunity. Will the Minister set out what the Department is doing to improve and foster positive attitudes towards physical activity and exercise among young people?

I mentioned at the start the many memories I have of not enjoying sports or PE at school, but it has been a privilege to see the amazing provision in my local communities and to know the confidence it is building in our young people and how good it is for their mental health and wellbeing. I want to say a huge well done, not only to the young people representing our schools and communities in competitions across the country, but to all the young people who just want to give sport a go and improve their physical and mental wellbeing—and enjoy it too. \p Josh Newbury: I thank my hon. Friend and almost constituency neighbour the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for securing this debate on such an important topic. When we talk about access to sport and physical education in schools, it is about not just fitness and physical activity, but opportunity. It is about making sure that every student, no matter what their background, has the chance to find something in which they can excel, or at the very least that they are given the chance to try.

I wish to share a personal story. When I was in school, the sports we were offered were restrictive, to put it politely—or archaic, to be a bit less generous. In autumn and winter it was football for the boys and netball for the girls. In summer it was football and cricket for the boys and rounders for the girls. Sadly, although I enjoy watching both, football and cricket were never my strong suit—and yes, I was always the last one picked for any team, as the bottom of the barrel was scraped. Because of this, I never felt that sport was something that I could excel in, or even enjoy.

However, around the time I reached year 10, I had the opportunity to try sports such as badminton and volleyball—sports that suited me, that I was reasonably good at and, most importantly, that I actually enjoyed and wanted to carry on after I left school. The lesson I took away from that is that sport and PE are not one-size-fits-all. There are so many different sports, each with their own appeal, and it is crucial that children and young people have the chance to explore as wide a range as possible.

According to a Youth Sport Trust report last year, 58% of girls in the UK said that they would like to have more options to choose from. Many girls are not engaged in historically male-dominated sports such as football and rugby. To address this we need two things. First, we need improved access to the alternative sports that girls are missing out on, to give them the chance to discover something they enjoy and excel in, as I did. Secondly, we need to break down the outdated gender taboos around sports. The Lionesses, the Red Roses and campaigns such as This Girl Can are smashing those taboos; I hope that will radiate through our schools so we do not leave such a huge proportion of students behind.

In my constituency last month, Norton Canes primary academy and Jerome primary school in Norton Canes and the John Bamford primary school and Chancel primary school in Rugeley all took part in the biggest ever football session organised by the FA to empower girls to feel like they belong in football. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said, it is great to hear about such initiatives to make sure that girls around the country have the opportunity to participate.

According to another Youth Sport Trust report, children from poorer backgrounds are the least confident in being active. Only 51% of 11 to 16-year-olds in the D and E socioeconomic groups rate themselves as confident about taking part in physical activity, compared with 75% for higher socioeconomic groups. The statistics show how important fairness and equality of access are. The Government are absolutely taking the right steps, particularly with last month’s announcement of £100 million to revamp local sports facilities across the UK, breaking down barriers to opportunity and giving young people the opportunity to build vital skills and connections.

My final point is about the importance of sport and PE for young people’s mental health. Because of my uselessness at football and cricket, I often found PE lessons an isolating experience, which contributed to the poor mental health that I experienced at times growing up. The macho culture around football in particular is really hard for a young gay person in school, but I believe that culture is starting to shift.

Happily, I have since found hugely positive mental health benefits in sports. To make sure that children and young people in schools can reap the benefits, I hope that the recruitment and retention of teachers will be made more stable and that, through partnerships with schools, local authorities, academy trusts and the Government, we can make sure that as many PE teachers as possible are mental health first aiders and champions. They have such a pivotal role to play, which perhaps we should value more than we currently do.

I am so grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford for securing this debate, because investment in sport is investment in something that will give children the confidence and mental resilience that they need to succeed both on and off the playing field. \p Dan Aldridge: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for securing this important debate, which was inspired by one of her constituents. By leading the debate, my hon. Friend has shown that she puts the people of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages at the heart of everything she does. In doing so, she is building back trust in our democracy and democratic institutions step by step. I commend her for that. It is also a privilege to speak while I have two of my favourite constituents, Aishah and Samir, up in the Public Gallery. I thank them for coming.

I wish to offer some personal reflections, and I will probably echo some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury). As someone who lived under the long, dark, damaging shadow of Margaret Thatcher’s hated section 28 in the 1990s, school—and particularly PE—was often a violent and miserable place for a gay kid like me who could not fit in, no matter how much I tried or how much I pretended not to be who I was. Thankfully, because of the new Labour Government’s commitment to breaking down barriers to opportunity, their repeal of section 28 and the many other legislative and social changes that were delivered, education and sport in school are now far more inclusive.

Sport teaches teamwork, resilience and discipline, excludes less, builds friendships, and gives children the chance to push themselves and—crucially—have fun. It is one of the simplest and most effective tools we have to improve both physical and mental health, yet while so much progress has been made to make sport inclusive, access to PE and sport in schools is far from what it should be. Over the past 10 years, we have seen a decline in the number of PE hours in secondary schools and the gap in sports provision between state and private schools has continued to widen.

However, there are shining examples, especially in places like Weston-super-Mare—and the villages—that demonstrate the incredible difference that access to sport can make to children’s lives. Broadoak academy,  under the leadership of its principal, Danny McGilloway, and his excellent team, has made significant strides in promoting sports for all. It celebrates its young people with an annual sports personality of the year award. One of the most exciting developments for the school and the town is the introduction of girls’ football teams in every year group for the first time this year. That is a huge milestone for the school, ensuring a level playing field across genders. It also ensures that girls can feel part of something bigger and empowering. That is the sort of structural change in schools that I really love.

There is also the hard-fought-for inclusive SEND playground at Castle Batch in Worle; and I pay tribute to Councillor Catherine Gibbons for her tireless efforts to secure support for SEND kids in my patch. Those examples from my constituency show what can be achieved when there is a commitment to sport and physical activity for all. The reality is, however, that too many schools are still struggling with inadequate facilities and limited resources.

I want to take a moment to recognise the incredible teachers, coaches, parents, carers and volunteers in our communities who already go above and beyond to make sport possible for young people. I know that both my sisters, their husbands and all the kids that surround my family have community sport at their heart. I love the joy and confidence that it brings to them all—I probably love it more because of the stark contrast with my experience of sport at school. Whether it is teachers staying late to run after-school clubs, grassroots football coaches giving up their weekends or parents fundraising for new kit, those are people who are making a real difference. They should not have to do it alone.

We can get this right and ensure that sport and PE are available to every child, no matter where they live or their circumstances. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford again for pushing this issue not just on behalf of her constituents but on behalf of all our constituents. \p Dave Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham)—my right good friend—for securing the debate. It has been great to hear so many hon. Members talking about the importance of sport in our schools. I had a slightly different experience from some of my colleagues with PE in school, because I loved it; I was right up for it. I had the pleasure of playing for my school’s cricket team—once. I had the pleasure of playing for my school’s football team—once. I was a little bit better at basketball, so I got to play that twice. It turns out that there is a limit on how far enthusiasm will get you.

Rugby union was my sport in school, and at the risk of the northerners’ ire, I will say that rugby union is the correct code. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] That has not gone down well. We only ever had three fixtures when I was at school, but I absolutely loved it. I also loved going to PE lessons.

My background is really academic, but I used to love that break in the school day when we got to go out and do something slightly different. It is important to recognise that. Following that, I went off to university, became a teacher and taught for almost 10 years. I hope to carry that background with me during my time in this place.

We have heard a lot about the health benefits of physical activity, and I absolutely agree with those points. But I have also seen some of the transferable skills that kids I taught picked up from their PE lessons and how that can contribute to a well-rounded education. I taught physics, astronomy and a little bit of maths, mostly at key stages 4 and 5—for older secondary pupils—so my background is in an academic part of the school, but I support the debate, because, on top of all that, I ran a Friday night sports club at my school where kids could come along and play ultimate frisbee: the game I found at university where the ceiling on where enthusiasm gets you is slightly higher.

In schools, too often there is a temptation to play subjects off: some are academic and some are not; some are more important and some are not. Those are binaries that I do not recognise—not personally, not from my experience and not from my experience in the classroom. As much as I support great science provision and great maths teaching, subjects such as music, art, drama and particularly PE are hugely important to every single individual in a school—not just to the kids who will go off to university or the kids who have a more vocational route, but to every single kid, because of the soft skills they pick up, such as teamwork, resilience and just being able to react to anything outside their control. Anybody who has ever tried to chase an egg around a rugby field will know: it is bouncing, you have no idea where you are going and you have to think on your feet, often while being chased by 18 stone of very rare meat. Sport pushes you out of your comfort zone to use skills that we all rely on day in, day out. In fact, I know that the skills I use in my role here come much more from some of the sport I have experienced and some of the soft skills I have developed than my university education, which I paid a lot more for.

Sport in school is also an amazing way to build a community. I see that in my constituency. A couple of weeks ago, I was at the rugby watching Lichfield play Tamworth and it was really great to see some of the old boys and the gentle rivalry between the guys who went to Friary 20, 30 or 40 years ago and the guys who went to King Ed’s 30 or 40 years ago, while I was sitting in the corner from Nether Stowe. The community that they have built around there is a community of rugby players, but within that there is a gentle rivalry and it comes from that school experience. It is hard to replicate—although we also see it up the road in Chasetown football club, which is called the Scholars because it was set up by pupils from Chase Terrace high school. There are examples in everybody’s constituencies.

It is really important that we keep school and PE at the heart of schools, keep PE in the classroom and keep the classroom on the field sometimes. \p Christopher Vince: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for bringing this important debate to the House. Being picked last was very much my experience of PE at school. It is interesting that the majority of people who have spoken in this debate are not very good at sport. There is a rule in the parliamentary football team that MPs have to start. I have to say that I am the footballer who has pushed that rule to its limits, leading to the question: “How quickly can we sub Chris off and bring on a better player?”

Before this debate, on the suggestion of my hon. Friend for Stafford, I reached out to some of my local schools in Harlow to hear about their good practice and to find out about some of the challenges they face. People will know that Harlow has a proud history of sporting excellence. It is the childhood town of Glenn Hoddle, the birthplace of Laura Trott—not the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott)—who is now Laura Kenny. I have to mention long-distance runner Michael Casey, because he is now a local journalist, and my sporting hero, the Paralympian Anne Strike MBE.

Two schools were very quick to get back to me about what they are doing in Harlow. I thank Luke Hammond, the PE lead from Purford Green primary school, for his quick response and what he shared from his school and the wider Passmores Co-operative Learning Community, which is a strong advocate for physical education. He told me that they have done up to 70 events in the past year alone. They purchased and lent out bikes as part of a Bikeability programme and created their own sporting event—I believe it is called tchoukball—and a dedicated festival to support SEND students to do PE, as well as a girls-only tag rugby tournament where over 150 students participated. He particularly wanted to pay tribute not just to the staff in his school, but to the staff in primary schools and schools across Harlow who work collaboratively in coalition to support one another.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) mentioned the decision by the coalition Government in 2010. I have to say that I am old enough to have been teaching at the time of that change, although I am pleased that Jerounds primary school in my constituency continues to excel in ensuring students have at least two PE lessons a week. It also invites sports- people into the school, including representatives of Essex cricket club, which we know is the best cricket team in the country—there are not enough people to boo that. \p Rupa Huq: My hon. Friend makes a brilliant case for access to sport. I could challenge him on his last claim, but he is such a doughty champion for Harlow, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), who brought us together for the debate. Does he agree that sometimes school sport can fall off when we talk about elitism, elite athletes, the Olympics and all that? Will he champion the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report that we are working on? We took evidence the other day. It is on community and school sport and the challenges facing sports clubs and under-represented groups. Schools are central to that, and as an ex-teacher, I know he will agree. \p Christopher Vince: My hon. Friend mentioned that I was a teacher before I did—oh no, I did mention it. \p Rupa Huq: You look too young! \p Christopher Vince: Thank you.

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and what is interesting from hon. Members’ contributions is that none of us particularly excel at sport—I certainly do not—but we have seen sometimes in later life how important participation in sport is. She is right that it is not just about elitist sport; we could talk about Harlow Parkrun where people come together as a community  and take part in sport every Saturday morning. There are so many examples where sport does not need to be elitist. Of course we want people to excel at sport, and of course we want the next Laura Kenny or Glenn Hoddle, but we want people to enjoy sport: the impact it has on their mental health is huge. I thank my hon. Friend for the work she is doing on the Select Committee to champion that point, and I look forward to that being fed into the curriculum review.

Increased transport costs are among the biggest challenges that teachers have raised with me. For some Harlow parents struggling financially, and low-income families, transporting their children to away fixtures is just not possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford—and the other bits—mentioned the Lionesses. We have all been inspired by Lucy Bronze and others in that team, and young girls in Harlow have been inspired by them as well. However, many girls and young women in Harlow have to leave Harlow to go to Bishop’s Stortford, of all places, to access sport, so we clearly need to do more to ensure that sports facilities are readily available and close enough for everybody to go to them.

As someone who is not the most sporty person in the world but appreciates the value of sport, my plea to the Government is to invest in PE in our schools, because it helps develop skills such as resilience and physical and mental health, as mentioned previously. It should not be just for elite athletes; it should be for everybody to enjoy—even slightly over-the-hill former maths teachers. \p Caroline Nokes: Before I call the Front Benchers, it is important to put on the record that I, too, was always picked last. I call Max Wilkinson. \p Max Wilkinson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—you would always be my first pick. [Interruption.] Sorry, that was a terrible start, wasn’t it? Let me do better. Otherwise, my jokes will end up going down like the US stock market.

The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) mentioned rounders, and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) mentioned the school that I went to. That took me right back to my GCSE PE assessment, where we were told that we would do rounders because it was the easiest and we would get good grades as a result. I regret to inform the House that I got a three out of seven for rounders. I have no idea how, and that led to my failing to get a C grade at GCSE PE. [Hon. Members: “Aw!”] I know, and I became the Liberal Democrat Culture, Media and Sport spokesperson despite that failure—not that a D grade is a failure.

I will get serious now. We are in the midst of a crisis of sedentary lifestyles and obesity. Almost a third of children and young people are classed as inactive. More than one in four children is either overweight or obese, and the mental health crisis among young people is widely acknowledged to be totally out of control, not least because of the subject of the previous debate on social media. These facts shame our nation and store up huge problems for our economy, our health services and individuals. That is why the debate is timely, and I commend the hon. Member for Stafford—and the villages—for securing time in the Chamber, because instilling a love  of sport and exercise in young people can do so much to turn around and tackle the public health crisis, and that starts in school.

For me and for many of us, my earliest memories of taking part in sport are of playing football on the primary school playground, but I know from first-hand experience what happens when schools do not have the facilities to offer proper PE lessons. When I attended Broadoak school in the constituency of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, it was falling down, and we had one playing field left for the whole time we were there. We were all crammed on to it at break time. That meant we were not able to play as many fixtures as we otherwise might have done. I was too weedy for rugby, and the guy who was captaining the football team just picked his mates and did not like me, so it made little difference to my school experience, but it did have an impact on many others. It probably had an impact on what else went on at the school, which struggled with a difficult catchment area. Although I rarely took to the field for my school teams, I did achieve something brilliant in the fourth division of the Cardiff University intramural games: I scored from the halfway line against the Japanese society—a moment I will never forget, nor will anyone else who was on the pitch that day.

On a more serious note, 42,000 hours of physical education have been lost from the curriculum in the last decade. That is a travesty. State secondary schools in England taught 284,000 hours of PE in 2021, down 13% from 2011. I have many high-performing independent schools in my constituency and many good state schools, but the difference in provision between the independent and state sectors is marked. We need to ensure that the state sector is providing the very best for children.

The proportion of pupils in years 7 and 8 who can swim the standard 25 metres has fallen in the last eight years, with disparities evident among demographic groups, giving rise to concerns about equality. That is not surprising, because 217 school pools have been lost over the last 15 years. Swim England says that the Department for Education cannot even provide statistics due to the number of schools not properly reporting swimming lessons.

Sport England suggests putting PE at the heart of the curriculum by protecting time for it and subjecting it to suitable rigour. It suggests a really important change from traditional school approaches—that we reimagine the PE curriculum, so that it is based on enjoyment and meaning, rather than forcing people to go into a scrum and run into each other on the pitch. That is wise, because not everyone is into that kind of sport; they might be into yoga, dance or something else. Let us be expansive about this. Enjoyment is the single biggest factor that drives up the number of minutes that children spend playing sport.

The Lawn Tennis Association is among the bodies calling for us to enact the chief medical officer’s recommendation for one hour of sport and physical activity to be delivered inside and outside school every single day. To do its bit, the LTA is offering free teacher training and a grant for equipment. It is also asking for clarity about the future funding of the park tennis project, and I hope the Minister can provide that clarity or take the matter up with her colleagues.

The medical experts and sports organisations know what is screamingly obvious to everyone else: sport and physical activity is the silver bullet for solving our public health crisis. If we can get it right by instilling healthy habits among people at an early age, and then providing them with opportunities through their life, much of the rest of the challenge we have in the NHS will fall into place. It is not fashionable to say that, because we are supposed to just stand up and shout, “Save the NHS!” but I think we in this place all know that it is much more complex than that.

Facilities are core to the challenge. In my constituency, I am supporting Pittville school’s efforts to upgrade its badly outdated sports hall. When the kids play badminton, the shuttlecock hits the ceiling. The school has been waiting for ages to get its application through the planning system. One of the local councils has, remarkably, raised an objection on conservation and heritage grounds. I hope Ministers agree that the planning system should be making it easier for schools to build more sports facilities, not getting in the way. I hope Ministers will also consider designating sports halls and swimming pools as critical health infrastructure. That is a really important idea for Ministers to take forward, because in these straitened times, it costs the taxpayer nothing to do that.

In February 2013—so long ago that I had a full head of hair—Ofsted published a report recommending that schools spend at least two hours a week on PE. All these years on, there is still no requirement for schools to provide those two hours. We want to ensure that every child has access to high-quality PE, as well as extracurricular sports activities. That would ensure that all children had access to some form of physical education, which is not always the case. We need to restore those two hours. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are considering that?

School also serves as an important gateway to sports clubs. The Sport and Recreation Alliance is calling for better links between schools and sports clubs—something the Liberal Democrats passed a policy on as long ago as 2004. Is that one simple change part of the Government’s agenda? We all know that the Government are dealing with tight finances, but it is important to note that every pound invested in sport is likely to generate a return on our investment of more than £4. I cannot think of a better investment for this nation to make.

We in this place often talk about the pressures on the NHS, and about making a proper effort to ensure that children benefit from a love of sport and activity. If we can marry those two up, we will ensure that many children who are growing up to be obese, unhealthy, and depressed are saved from that fate. If we fail to get this right, Members from across the Chamber can carry on saying “save the NHS” and complaining about waiting times as much as we like, but it will not make a difference. All we will ever be doing is dealing with an epidemic of chronic physical inactivity, and mental illnesses caused by inactivity. We will be denying generations to come a love of sport and physical activity, which would be a dereliction of duty on the part of us all. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p Rebecca Paul: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to today’s important debate on access to sport and physical education in schools. I thank  the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for securing this debate, and all hon. Members here for speaking about this vital issue, which cuts across our approach to education, health, mental wellbeing and social mobility. At its heart, physical education is about giving every child, regardless of background, the chance to lead a healthy, active life, while learning important life skills such as teamwork, resilience, perseverance and respect for others. Sport is about so much more than just being healthy. It creates opportunity and can transform lives. Indeed, many of our country’s most famous sporting heroes began their athletic journey while still at school. Olympic champion Dame Jessica Ennis-Hill wrote about the positive impact that sport had on her:

“Playing sport as a child helped me enormously. I met lots of different people, both teammates and competitors and faced new challenges. The camaraderie and support that you get from sport massively helped build my confidence and my ability to overcome setbacks and defeats both on and off the track.”

It is precisely because sport has the power to do so much good that Conservative Members worked so hard to make real, measurable progress on improving access to sport and PE in our schools when we were in government. Let me start with what we did. The last Conservative Government took a clear stand in favour of equal access to sport for all children, girls and boys alike. In March 2024, the Department for Education published new guidance for schools, making it clear that boys and girls must be offered the same sports, both during curriculum PE and in extra-curricular activities. For too long, some pupils have missed out because of outdated or inflexible provision, and that is no longer acceptable. Our new standards ensure that opportunity in school sport is not determined by sex; it is driven by fairness, aspiration, and choice. That guidance followed the success of the Football Association’s #LetGirlsPlay campaign, which aimed to change perceptions and ensure that girls got the chance to play football as part of the school curriculum, as well as at break time, after school, and at local clubs. It has proved very successful; much larger numbers of girls are playing football, inspired by our amazing Lionesses, following their success at the Euro 2022 tournament.

But that is not all we did. Our 2023 school sport and activity action plan set out the clear expectation that schools would provide a minimum of two hours of PE per week. We took that step because we know that exercise is not a luxury or an optional extra. It is fundamental to children’s physical health, mental wellbeing, and ability to focus and succeed in the classroom. In addition to considering what happens during school hours, we took decisive action to boost participation across the country. In August 2023, we launched our Get Active strategy, which provided for a new national taskforce, including Government officials, education experts and former sports professionals. The taskforce was given the bold mission of getting 2.5 million more adults and 1 million more children physically active by 2030. Those serious ambitions were backed by serious actions, and they reflected a long-term strategic commitment from the last Conservative Government to increasing participation, promoting inclusion, and tackling the root causes of inactivity. I do not pretend for one moment that the job is done. There is more to do, but I am proud of our record in this field.

However, I regret to say that there has been fallout from this Government’s Budget. We are seeing evidence that the decision to end business rates relief for independent  schools is having damaging consequences. Some such schools now question whether they can continue to operate community sports facilities, including school playing fields. Lest we forget, those facilities are used not just by the schools, but by local primary schools, community groups, youth sports teams and families. I see the benefits of that on my doorstep. Many children in my constituency attending local primary schools are learning to swim and getting the benefit of other sports facilities at their local independent school. If this policy ends up forcing the sale or closure of those facilities, it will only have succeeded in reducing access to sports for the very communities who most need it.

I am disappointed that the Government have chosen to scrap the opening school facilities fund, a programme designed to keep school sports halls and playing fields open over the holidays and outside school hours. That fund enabled schools to support healthy, active lifestyles all year round, not just during term time. In addition, will the Minister end the uncertainty and finally confirm the Government’s plans for the School Games network, which is set to end this year? The network supports 2.2 million participation opportunities for children and is hugely valuable. Will she confirm that that has not been scrapped as well?

I want to take a moment to recognise the importance of access to sport for disabled young people, as powerfully set out by the hon. Members for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) and for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young). It is vital that barriers to inclusion are removed, so that disabled young people can benefit in the same way as all other children in school.

I cannot speak about the importance of sport without touching on the subject of sex. The concerning trend of gender ideology threatens to undermine efforts to promote sport among young women and girls. Let me be clear: it is bodies that play sport, not feelings. In women and girls’ sports, participants must be separated by sex, not only for safety reasons but for fundamental fairness. Former Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies MBE has been warning about the negative impact of this issue on women’s sport for many years, and it is important that she and other advocates for women are listened to. I urge the Minister to ensure that, as soon as possible, we finalise and issue the draft guidance for schools and colleges on gender-questioning children, which was prepared under the last Conservative Government, and which makes it clear that sports participants should be split by sex. Until we act to address the rise in environments where young female athletes feel unsafe or simply cannot ever win, how can we feign surprise when girls are less inclined to participate in sports?

The Conservatives believe that access to sport and PE is a fundamental part of good education for boys and girls. We believe that children should be given the tools to live healthy, active lives, and that sport builds confidence, resilience and teamworking skills, not just health and fitness. Those are beliefs that we put into practice in Government, through new equality standards, mandated PE entitlement and a joined-up national strategy, and by allocating funds to widen access to facilities. That is how we build a healthier, fairer and more active future for every child in this country.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government will seek to ensure access to sport, and to her responses to all the excellent questions asked by Members, including mine. \p Catherine McKinnell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), who represents Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, on securing the debate; I will henceforth refer to her as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. I thank her for her powerful opening speech. I was hoping that her application for this debate would be granted, as it is a subject that I feel incredibly passionate about, and I know that every Member in the Chamber who has spoken feels that way, too.

Every child deserves an enriching and rounded education, and PE and sport play a key part in achieving that. As many have said, access to sport improves health outcomes, boosts wellbeing and builds resilience. As was shown by Tane, the student my hon. Friend mentioned, that is not just a theory; I know that from personal experience. My experience was the opposite of that of my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson).

The days from school that I remember best are the days I spent with friends playing hockey, tennis and netball. Those days built my confidence, and got me through the school gates in the morning when, quite frankly, the academic subjects were not appealing. That is why I believe that we need to break down the barriers that prevent children from accessing and enjoying sport and PE; that is key. The importance of accessing and enjoying PE, sport and physical activity at school came out very strongly in today’s debate.

I know my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford wholeheartedly agrees, as he went on to explain, because we cannot deliver on our ambitious plan for change as a Government without it. Our mission-led Government have committed to putting children and young people at the heart of our priorities, ensuring that every child can achieve and thrive. As part of the opportunity mission, we will get more children active by protecting time for PE and supporting the role that grassroots clubs play in expanding access to sport.

I have really enjoyed listening to the contributions of hon. Members today, particularly on their personal experiences of sport, including those from my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) and for Lichfield, who were very honest about their experiences of sport. I agree with them that we have to broaden opportunities so that every child can find an activity they enjoy. We are not alone in that mission, as I have heard so clearly from young people, schools, charities, national sporting bodies and hon. Members.

In recent weeks, I have had the pleasure of meeting with the Sports Minister, with sporting bodies and, just this morning, with Baroness Campbell, who speaks with great passion about ensuring that sporting opportunities are available for everybody, not just the privileged few. In 2023-24, fewer than half of children and young people met the chief medical officer’s guidelines to be active for 60 minutes a day. It is clear that there are inequalities and disparities among those less likely to participate, whether they are girls, children from poorer backgrounds or children from black and minority ethnic groups.

I have seen numerous examples of schools and their pupils benefiting from resources, teacher training and exclusive offers provided by sport governing bodies.  There are some fantastic examples, such as the Lawn Tennis Association’s youth school portal and Chance to Shine in cricket, which I had the pleasure of joining in with at a school last year—I even got to bat with Ben Stokes. However, we cannot leave this to chance, and that is especially the case for those who face additional barriers, such as those with special educational needs or disabilities. That was rightly raised by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), who spoke from very powerful personal experience, and the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young).

The Department has funded the Inclusion 2024 grant programme, which utilised a network of 50 lead inclusion schools to upskill teachers, teaching assistants and other members of staff to deliver inclusive PE and sport. An open procurement for the new grant from April 2025 is in its final stages, and the outcome will be confirmed soon. The school games mark, which is funded by the Government but managed by the Youth Sport Trusts, has introduced mandatory equality criteria for PE, school sport and physical activity participation in 2024-25. Schools get support to review their provision to ensure that they are overcoming barriers that children might face and that best practice will be shared with schools to enhance the equal access of girls to sport.

More widely, high-quality PE must be the starting point to ensure opportunities for all children. PE is rightly compulsory at all four key stages of the national curriculum, which makes PE time a crucial opportunity in a child’s lifetime to establish a positive relationship with sport and physical activity and help them to develop the skills we know they need throughout school and in life. As I mentioned earlier, we are committed to protecting high-quality PE time, ensuring that all pupils have the best start on their journey towards leading active and healthy lifestyles. High-quality teaching is essential in that too, in order to harness the energy and attention of pupils and ensure that sport is a vital and enjoyable part of a child’s experience at school. It needs to be fun, accessible and beneficial for all, so we need to raise standards and ensure that every child has equal access to opportunities. We also need to start valuing a skilled and qualified workforce that is confident in delivering PE and plays a crucial role in the wider school community.

Many have outlined the lengths to which teachers go to support children to be active both in the school day and beyond. We need to ensure that teachers have the right support and professional development to understand how to develop the movement skills that are the basis for taking part in sport and physical activity safely, confidently and competently.

We also need to make effective use of the networks that exist across sport. Members—particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) and for Harlow (Chris Vince)—referenced the big community that can exist around sport, which also supports its effective delivery within schools. To build on that network, schools have to provide further opportunities to play sport and take part in other activities. The vast majority of schools offer extracurricular sport and physical activity, and the DFE school and college panel survey reported in 2023 that 99% of schools surveyed offered some sort of sport and physical activity.

School games organisers play a crucial role in ensuring that all children can engage in accessible and inclusive sport and physical activity across the country. The network of 450 school games organisers provided 2.3 million sporting opportunities in academic year 2023-24, spanning 40 different sports and activities. It ensures that competitive opportunities are available for young people and empowers them through pupil voice and leadership, offering them the chance to co-create and lead activities as well. The Government recognise the impact of that network and have confirmed funding to the end of the 2024-25 academic year. We are exploring future models for school sport delivery and will publish our findings in the coming months, because we need to make sure that our future investment in sport is used as effectively as possible. However, I can reassure Members that the school games organisers network is a hugely valued part of the sector, and we will announce funding shortly.

More widely, the PE and sport premium should be used by eligible schools to make additional and sustainable improvements. The Government have provided £320 million through the PE and sport premium for academic year 2024-25, with over 18,000 eligible schools and around 3.9 million pupils benefiting from it, and we are very aware of the need to provide as much certainty as possible for schools. We will confirm further information on budgets for the next academic year as soon as we can.

To conclude, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and everyone who has contributed to what has been a really enjoyable debate, but also a really important one. We all share an appreciation of what PE and sport can do to transform children’s lives, whether that is improving their health and wellbeing, instilling a sense of resilience, perseverance and achievement, or building skills such as teamwork and leadership. Only by ensuring that every pupil in every school has access to high-quality PE are we truly investing in their future, and this Government remain committed to breaking down the barriers that we know still exist for far too many children and ensuring that great sporting opportunities are truly available for every child in every community. \p Leigh Ingham: I thank all the Members who have come to the Chamber today to speak on this subject, and also the shadow spokespeople. It has been one of the most fun debates that I have taken part in, even though interestingly, a lot of the Members who spoke—like myself—were not necessarily the most sporty at school. The memories that this debate has clearly evoked in many of us have been a pleasure to listen to.

I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) and the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young)—prior to being elected, the hon. Lady and I were councillors together in South Gloucestershire, and she and I participated in some sports activities. It is nice to be able to recollect that memory. My hon. Friends the Members for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), for Redditch (Chris Bloore), for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), for Harlow (Chris Vince), for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), and for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) also brought to this debate powerful memories of how important sports were to them at school. I also thank the Minister for her commitment to the importance of sport within the DFE, and I know that as soon as those funding arrangements can be confirmed, she will be in touch.

As I said earlier in the debate, and as we have heard from Members across the House, this is not just about fitness or fun; it is about the long-term health, resilience, and success of our young people. I thank everyone present for participating in today’s debate with that at the forefront of their minds.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered access to sport and PE in schools. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gerald Jones.) \p Tom Gordon: I am pleased to have secured this debate on this important issue, which is rarely discussed, yet profoundly impacts thousands of families across the UK: the crisis of adopted children leaving the family home prematurely. I want to highlight this issue of adoption breakdown, which sometimes might be days, months or even years after an adoption order is signed. Adoption is not just a legal process, but a lifelong commitment that demands sustained support from Government. At present, that support is simply not in place.

After meeting a family in my constituency who had experienced an adoption breakdown, I was deeply alarmed by the lack of support available once an adoption order is signed. Since securing this debate, I have been inundated by messages from people and families across the country sharing their lived experience. The overwhelming consensus is clear: adoptive parents feel isolated and forced to navigate the challenges of raising children with trauma and complex needs without sufficient support, often resulting in adoption breakdown.

The reality is that many adoptions face profound challenges. The trauma, loss, and attachment difficulties experienced by adopted children do not simply vanish once an adoption order is granted. Those challenges persist, often surfacing as complex behavioural, emotional and psychological difficulties that demand long-term specialist support. According to Adoption UK, 70% of adoptive families report that their children have significant social, emotional and mental health needs. Many are diagnosed with conditions such as foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder, yet post-adoption support remains inconsistent and inadequate, forcing families into exhausting battles just to access the help they desperately need.

For many adoptive parents, raising children who have suffered early life trauma is an immense challenge. Many endure physical aggression, verbal abuse and school exclusions. They feel abandoned, left without a clear pathway to support, and when crises emerge, the system often responds too late, if at all. \p Steve Darling: The issues that my hon. Friend raises are spot on. Would he agree that the more trauma-informed training we have within schools, the better these young people will be able to be accepted and supported within schools, rather than potentially demonised? \p Tom Gordon: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I will come on to that important point later in my speech. A major challenge in tackling adoption breakdown is the lack of reliable data. We have little understanding of the true scale of the problem, making it hard to assess the effectiveness of current policies or plan for meaningful improvements. Local authorities, which are meant to provide support, frequently fail to help parents facing those significant challenges in raising children with complex needs, and that is worsened by  the absence of clear, specific policies to prevent or respond to adoption breakdowns. There is an urgent need for better data. \p Liam Conlon: I have met a number of adoption charities and organisations in Beckenham and Penge, and they have told me that adoption breakdown can lead to significant emotional trauma for children and adoptive parents, and many other implications. Does he agree on the need to bring local authorities, Government and families together, first to try to prevent adoption breakdown, but then, where it occurs, to take action to support both parents and children? \p Tom Gordon: The hon. Member raises an excellent point. That is exactly the case, and I have heard exactly those points from many adoption charities across the UK.

Our focus must also be on trying to make sure that there are clearer policies and improved support systems, and addressing the gaps is the only way to reduce adoption breakdowns and ensure that every child has the chance to grow up in a loving and stable environment. Our focus must shift to enhancing the support structures available to families post-adoption. While the current framework is well intentioned, it is insufficient. Raising adopted children is made more difficult by barriers to vital special educational needs and disability services and mental health support. Increased investment in services such as counselling, educational support and respite care could significantly improve outcomes.

The most recent Government research and data that I could find on adoption disruption dates back over a decade. It was the Department for Education’s “Beyond the Adoption Order” research paper published in 2014. The paper estimates a disruption rate of between 2% and 9%. Since then, there has been no significant follow-up or research, and if we are to address this issue, it is vital that we have that up-to-date information on disruptions to properly assess and respond to the challenges that parents face.

Currently, local authorities and regional adoption agencies record data inconsistently, creating an incomplete picture of the national situation. The Department for Education reports that 170 children entered local authority care after being adopted in the year to 31 March 2024, averaging 0.2 adoptions per constituency. However, I am aware that three adoptions broke down in my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough in the same time period, so the data is clearly patchy. The discrepancies highlight significant gaps in our understanding of the prevalence of breakdown. How can the Government possibly expect to adequately support those affected, when they do not fully understand and comprehend the extent of the issue?

In speaking to adoptive parents—regardless of whether they face disruption or not—a clear theme emerges: support often vanishes once the adoption order is signed.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gerald Jones.) \p Tom Gordon: While the early stages of adoption may involve training and some resources, the ongoing assistance tends to dwindle after a child is placed. Many adoptive  parents, especially those caring for children with complex needs, report feeling isolated and overwhelmed, as local authorities frequently fail to offer consistent, tailored support. \p Sojan Joseph: I have been approached by my constituents about their breakdowns. As we do not have any data, we do not know how many parents are struggling in our constituencies. Does the hon. Member agree that if we do not identify adopters and support them, we will not have any adopters in the future? \p Tom Gordon: That is one of the key points about adoption disruption and breakdown, and the hon. Gentleman makes it very eloquently. There is concern that if we do not help people who are adopting now, we will not have a next generation of people who will adopt. \p Rachael Maskell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing today’s debate. We know from Adoption UK’s adoption barometer that 42% of families experience challenges or crisis. It also notes that it can take them an average of five months to get the support they need, and we need to shrink that timeframe. Does he agree that we need to have money reserved for the urgent support that these families need? \p Tom Gordon: The hon. Member is exactly right and puts her point eloquently. Far too often, families and children are left waiting, which causes additional pressures that can lead to adoption breakdown, so I completely agree with her. As I said, while the early stages of adoption may involve training and some resources, the ongoing assistance tends to dwindle.

I applied for this debate after meeting some of my constituents at a regular surgery. Ian and Verity experienced this issue at first hand when their adopted child began exhibiting violent behaviour. When they reached out for help, they were shocked to discover just how little was available to them. Unfortunately, like many services, post-adoption support has become a postcode lottery. Available services are often fragmented, underfunded and difficult to access, leaving parents without the necessary help to manage the challenges. \p Josh Newbury: I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. As he knows, I am an adoptive parent and a foster carer. In the run-up to this debate, I had the opportunity to speak to the social worker who is supporting me and my husband with what we hope will become our second adoption, and I would like to get the hon. Gentleman’s view on some of the things she mentioned: the importance of having better access to more holistic support in schools; closer working between psychologists and adoption teams to maximise the use of the adoption and special guardian support fund; therapeutic life story workers to work with children and families, particularly those at greater risk of breakdown; and greater training in social work courses on key issues, such as early trauma and attachment, to widen the knowledge across the workforce and ensure that a wider range of teams can support adoptive families when they come across them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such measures would go a long way towards keeping adoptive families together? \p Tom Gordon: I have had the pleasure of meeting the hon. Gentleman’s child and look forward to meeting more in due course. He makes an excellent point. I will come on to everything he said when I set out the wish list from adoptive parents to the Minister, and I am sure she will respond to the best of her ability, within the constraints of what the Government can do.

When Ian and Verity reached out to me, I was shocked by how the local authority and local services had failed them. When they reached crisis point, they requested an intervention from the local authority, but instead of receiving help, they were threatened with police action for child abandonment. Ultimately, they were forced to disrupt the adoption, causing trauma to both the child and the entire family. I have asked people to email me their stories, and a common, repeated theme is local authorities using child abandonment charges as a scare tactic, which is deeply worrying. The advocacy group PATCH has highlighted how families facing adoption crises are often met with punitive approaches that fail to acknowledge the impact of trauma on these children. As a result, families break down because they cannot access the resources needed to address those challenges. I have heard from many families that have experienced breakdowns, and instead of receiving support when they have faced violent and threatening behaviour from their children, they have been met with blame, threats and criticism. A culture of blaming adoptive parents persists, leaving them isolated and without the help they need. Many adoptive parents are not fully informed about the child’s needs before adoption. \p Shockat Adam: I thank the hon. Member for securing this very important debate. Does he agree that, under article 20 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, when children cannot be looked after by their own family, they should be looked after by those who respect or represent their ethnicity, their culture, their religion and their language? With BAME children being disproportionately represented—and, unfortunately, very vulnerable—does he agree that this is about not just finding a place for children but finding the right place for them? \p Tom Gordon: I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. He makes a good point. We have ended up in a situation where local authorities are trying to recruit anyone to adopt, and it is often a scramble to find any place, so places do not necessarily always meet the needs of or provide the best option for those children. I think that is the nature of the situation we find ourselves in, with the service at a crisis point.

Many families that have been in touch have also said that support for adoptive families is often limited to the adoption and special guardianship support fund. This fund seems to have become a bit of a sticking plaster to allow local authorities to claim that they are supporting families with adopted children. While the fund is massively helpful, it is often the only resource that people can turn to.

As the Minister mentioned a number of times during Tuesday’s urgent question, local authorities have a legal obligation to support families who have adopted. However, this fund is often inadequate, and it is the extent of support in many areas. It is not an instant fix, and it is often only available to families once they have reached  crisis point. As the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, families often report waiting for months—six months and upwards—to access funds and support due to delays by local authorities. During this waiting period, crises can escalate, and families are pushed closer and closer to breakdown. \p Christopher Bloore: I thank the hon. Member for securing such an important debate. During the process of putting together his speech, I am sure he read the local government and social care ombudsman report from last November, which details a litany of failures across England in supporting adoptive parents. For me, the most heartbreaking element of reading the report and its recommendations was the number of families who said that they were put off the process, or driven out of it, by the bureaucratic failures and the lack of support on offer. \p Tom Gordon: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and that is one of the key points. I will turn to examples of where people try to access that fund, but many people do give up, which is such a shame for the children involved. \p Bobby Dean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; the number of interventions he has taken shows how important this debate is to the House.

I, too, have had adoptive parents come to my surgery who are going through a breakdown, and they have told me that their experience of adoption was better in the past because they used to have a named person supporting them at the council. That council service has merged with those of eight other boroughs, so it is now a nine-borough service. Adoptive parents no longer have a named contact, and they have to go through a central hotline. Does my hon. Friend agree that the adoption breakdown rate is increasing partly because of the funding environment for local government, and that we need to improve that first to get this service fixed? \p Tom Gordon: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The point he makes is one that I experienced at first hand when we had local government reorganisation in North Yorkshire. People have commented that the merging of services leads to an inferior outcome at the end. I agree with his point about needing greater funding for local authorities to help fix this problem.

The Government must ensure swift distribution of the new funding announced earlier this week to prevent future delays. For many families that are already struggling, the support fund is a lifeline. A delay in therapy increases anxiety and distress not only for these children, but for their families as a whole, and it can cause huge disruption to their daily lives. In some cases, families have been left without support for months or even years. The prolonged period of uncertainty around the support fund has caused an exacerbation in woes and fears. Many families feel they have been abandoned by the system and have struggled to navigate a complex and fragmented network of support services.

It is clear that the system is failing the families it was designed to support. The unpredictable nature of service access means children and families are left to fend for  themselves. The Government must urgently address the chronic underfunding of adoption support services, and commit to ensuring that families have timely and reliable access. I have heard countless stories from adoptive parents and children who speak about the deep trauma of what happens when an adoption breaks down. The impact is not just emotional; it can extend to physical and social challenges as well, and leads to behavioural problems, mental health struggles and difficulties in schools in some cases.

A point made earlier by another Member was that a key barrier to providing that support is the lack of training for professionals working with adopted families. Teachers, social workers and healthcare providers all lack an understanding of the unique challenges that adoptive parents and adopted children face. That lack of knowledge results in misguided interventions and insufficient care. Adoptive parents require more than just financial assistance. They require access to specialists, including trauma-informed mental health care, educational support and respite care, too. Lived experiences are at the heart of this issue and countless adoptive parents have shared their stories of pain, struggle and heartache. They are not just statistics; they are real families grappling with unimaginable challenges and receiving little to no support. In the time left, I will try to briefly share some of those stories.

One parent wrote to me about how an adopted child had suffered severe abuse. Despite their best efforts, the child’s behaviour became increasingly violent and unmanageable. When they reached out for help, they were met with indifference by the local authority. Eventually, the situation became so unbearable they had no choice but to disrupt the adoption, leaving heartbreak in its wake. Another adoptive parent shared the story of a child who had been through numerous foster placements before being adopted. Despite the child’s significant trauma, the family was dedicated to providing a loving and stable home. However, due to a lack of support and the inability of the local authority to help meet the child’s needs, eventually another adoption broke down. The parents feel ashamed and abandoned by the system that promised to support them.

As we reflect on those stories, we must remember that behind every statistic is a child who has already endured more than enough and more than most. These children deserve the same opportunity to thrive as any other, but they cannot achieve that without the right support. It is our responsibility to ensure that adoptive families are equipped with the resources, tools and understanding to provide that. We need a system that places support at the centre of the adoption journey: from the moment a child is placed, to the challenges they face during adolescence. It is not enough to provide support just in the early stages and walk away once the adoption order is granted and the child appears settled. We need a cultural shift in how adoption breakdowns are viewed. Parents should never be made to feel guilty for seeking the support they so desperately need.

The lived experiences of families impacted by adoption breakdown serve as a reminder of why change is necessary. Adoptive parents do not want to bear the blame for breakdowns, many of which are caused by systemic failures. They want to be part of the solution. These families have opened their hearts and homes, yet they feel abandoned. We can no longer allow adopted children  and their families to fall through the cracks. Decisive action is required now. I will set out a few things that the Government could do to try to help with this issue.

We need a commitment and guarantee that the adoption and special guardianship fund will be made permanent, and that we will never see a return to the year-by-year situation that has caused heartache and pain for children and parents this time around. We need to mandate regular keeping-in-touch opportunities for all adoptive families. Too many families feel isolated without a clear support network during times of crisis. We must improve local authority support structures. Families must have guaranteed access to crisis intervention services and mental health support before situations become unmanageable.

We must ensure that health and education professionals are trained in early trauma and care experiences. We cannot expect teachers, social workers or mental health professionals to support adopted children without properly training them and giving them the resources. I would like to see an extension of adoption support services to at least the age of 26. Trauma does not end at 18, and young people need continued access to support as they transition into adulthood. We need to provide a targeted support pathway for teens and young adults, including access to specialist advocacy services, mental health care and interventions to prevent exploitation and criminal involvement.

Before I conclude, I would like to share a few other personal stories. There is one which stands out. It is from somebody who got in touch after I put out an appeal for stories:

“I’ve been reflecting on my adoptive son’s life story and wanted to share some statistics with you and the services involved: 13 Social Workers, 15-plus placements with only three regulated, 100-plus carers, innumerable police officers, innumerable fire officers, five care home managers, four headteachers, five teaching assistants, 10 judges including eight High Court judges, three GPs, two dentists, 25-plus class teachers, two behavioural analysts, three play therapists, one psychologist, one children’s guardian…”

The list goes on and on. Adoptive children interact with services across the board, but it is clear that they are being failed and passed from pillar to post.

I heard another story from a family whose adoption broke down in January last year, when their children were aged just 13 and 14. Only six months earlier, they had celebrated their 10th anniversary as a family by going to Paris. Like many other adopters, they had several happy years before things started to go wrong. The family

“believe a combination of inappropriate education, hormones, peer pressure, social media and—possibly most significantly—trauma from childhoods…was the cause of a…dramatic change. To cut a long story short, things got so bad that myself and my husband both suffered breakdowns and the children went into care. We are lucky that we are in regular contact”.

The current system leaves far too many families struggling with inadequate support, which often results in disruptions that could have been prevented with earlier targeted intervention and support. Without accurate data, clear policies and sustained funding, we cannot address the root causes of adoption breakdown or provide the resources needed to ensure successful adoptions.

I call on the Government to make sure further action is taken post adoption to ensure that there is no postcode lottery and that local authorities are held accountable  for providing the support that families need. These children have already faced immense trauma and instability, and they deserve better. Adoptive parents who open their hearts and homes should never be left feeling abandoned when they seek help. We need urgent and meaningful reforms to mental health services and access to SEND, and we need to establish a robust, long-term framework for post-adoptive care.

I will close by thanking everyone who has reached out to share their deeply personal stories, and especially my constituents Ian and Verity. We must reject the idea that adoption is a one-time event; it is a lifelong journey that requires continuous and specialist support. To every adoptive parent struggling in silence, and to every young person feeling abandoned by the system, I say, “You are not alone.” Today we ask those in positions of authority and power to listen, learn and act. \p Janet Daby: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) on securing this important debate. I have indeed listened and heard his many concerns, issues and questions. There have been a great number of interventions from many hon. Members across the Chamber, and I will endeavour to respond to those, too.

The stories that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are heartbreaking. On the back of that, I would also like to say that there are many, many positive stories of adopted children and their successes, where things have gone incredibly well. I just want to give a bit of a balance. I know that when an adoptive parent adopts a child, they want to do their very best for them—to bring them into their family, love them, show them security and help them to thrive, grow and develop in every way possible. I know that people across this Chamber share that view, and that we all want the very best for adopted children and adoptive parents.

Supporting adoptive families and preventing adoption breakdown is a priority that I know all Members across the House support. As the Minister for Children, it is a significant priority for me, too, so I am pleased to be able to respond to this debate. Supporting children through adoption is a manifesto commitment for this Government. Every child deserves and needs a loving and stable family home, which is exactly what adoption can, should and must provide. Improving support for adopted families is a key part of our plan for change, to ensure that every child has the opportunity to succeed.

We inherited a system in which far too many families are missing out on vital post-adoption support services. We recognise that we need to improve our knowledge of adoption breakdown and are taking action to improve the statistics, the data we collect and other forms of research. The number of children who return to the care system who have an adoption order has remained between 170 and 180 in each of the past five years. However, these figures are not as robust as we would like them to be, and we will be challenging local authorities to improve the accuracy of their returns.

In particular, we need social workers always to record when a child entering care is living under an adoption order. We do not collect specific information on adoption breakdowns where the child does not return to care. Some adopted young people will go to live with birth  relatives, and others to live independently at the age of 16 or 17 without the knowledge of the local authority. Sometimes this is for short periods, and sometimes they return home.

We know from previous research that around 3% of adoptions disrupt, but this research is 10 years old. To gain more up-to-date information, the Government have been funding the new research “Family Roots”—I am sure Members will be very interested to know more about that—which is looking at adopted children’s outcomes. This will give us new, up-to-date information on adoption disruption and breakdown, and the results will be published later in the year.

High-quality support for adopted children is critical. It can decrease the likelihood of adoption disruptions or breakdowns. Research shows that approximately one third of families are doing well, one third need extra support compared with other families, and one third report that they are in crisis.

Adoptive families often complain that they do not get the support they need when they are in crisis. They often experience blame and criticism of their parental approach and there is a lack of understanding about the impact of trauma on their children’s behaviour. I have asked regional adoption agencies to put in place services this year that can respond quickly and effectively to adoptive families in crisis, including trauma-trained professionals who provide evidence-based support.

We are also ensuring that all social workers work better to understand the long-term impact of trauma. We recently published new post-qualifying standards for social workers, in which we say that all social workers should be trained “to use evidence and best practice to reduce the impact of any trauma, increase the likelihood of secure relationships and ensure improved outcomes for the future.” \p Steve Darling: I wonder whether the Minister has heard of the outstanding charity Home for Good, which uses faith-based groups to support families through either fostering or adoption. Does the Minister believe that there are opportunities to give them extra support, so that we can grow a richer tapestry of support for those who adopt or foster? \p Janet Daby: Yes, I know Home for Good; I have met the people involved and they do excellent work on fostering and adoption. There is so much more that could be done, so I absolutely take on board what the hon. Member has mentioned. \p Rachael Maskell: I am grateful to the Minister for her commitment and for all that she is doing in this area. When young people are placed in adoption, can we look at ensuring that there is more open adoption? We certainly need to look at the data on that. We know that a teenager finding their birth parents can often lead to an adoption breakdown. That teenager might never be able to restore a relationship either with their birth parents or with their adoptive parents. \p Janet Daby: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. Adoption can be quite complex, especially when children reach their teenage years, as they are able to make contact through different social mediums. Contact and  how it is managed is under constant review. We need to ensure that, where it is appropriate, where it is right and where it is safe, contact continues for adopted children. Again, I stress that is where it is appropriate, where it is right, and where it is with the agreement of the adoptive parents. Much of that takes place during the assessment process and the adoption order itself.

The majority of adopted children will have experienced neglect or abuse, which leads to ongoing and enduring problems. Providing support for families at an earlier stage before needs escalate to crisis point is critical. We are funding Adoption England to develop consistent and high-quality adoption support provision across all regional adoption agencies. This includes implementing a new framework for an early support core offer, which covers the first 12 to 18 months after placement. Adoption England will also be rolling out a new adoption support plan book for all new adoptive families.

This year we will fund Adoption England with £3 million to develop more multidisciplinary teams in regional adoption agencies. These are joint teams with local health partners that will enable families to receive holistic, high-quality support. \p Josh Newbury: I thank the Minister for setting out the measures the Government are taking, which are very welcome. Returning to the conversations I had with my social worker, one of the suggestions she had was to have a designated lead within local authorities and adoption agencies, to ensure that support is there for adoptive families. They could also work with teams across the organisation that might not be as familiar with the challenges that adoptive families could face. Is that a suggestion the Minister might take away and look at? \p Janet Daby: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his adoption, and I know he is a foster carer as well, which is wonderful. I appreciate what he says, and I will indeed take it away and come back to him.

The adoption and special guardianship support fund provides much-needed therapeutic support for adoptive and kinship families. Since 2015, over £400 million has helped to support nearly 53,000 children, and many have received multiple years of support. Therapeutic interventions help children to deal with difficulties related to their experience of trauma and to form attachments to their new adoptive parents. They can also help prevent adoption breakdowns. Evaluations of them show a statistically significant positive impact on children’s behaviour and mental health. In surveys, 82% of adopters said that the support from the adoption and special guardianship support fund had had a positive impact on their family. Much of that information can be found on the Government website.

I announced on Tuesday that the adoption and special guardianship support fund would continue in this financial year with a budget of £50 million. We recognise the importance of the adoption and special guardianship fund in helping children to have good outcomes and in preventing adoption breakdown. \p Bobby Dean: It is great to hear the Minister’s support for the fund, but this year it was allowed to expire before it was renewed. Can we have assurances that we will get much better notice next time about the renewal of the fund? \p Janet Daby: I appreciate what the hon. Member says. If he was there during the urgent question on Tuesday, he would have heard my regret about the delay. This Government are committed to ensuring that we continue to support adopted children through funding where it is needed.

Adopted children should receive support to obtain good educational outcomes. However, many do not do so, with poorer GCSE results than the overall population and higher exclusion rates. The Adoption UK barometer report shows that 58% of adoptive parents in England are parenting one or more adopted children with an education, health and care plan. Adopted children are entitled to priority school admissions as well as advice and support from school-designated teachers and local authority virtual school heads. Schools will also receive £2,630 in pupil premium plus this year for every adopted child in their school, but we do need to go further. We intend to fully update the statutory guidance for virtual school heads, including sections on supporting adopted children’s educational outcomes. We will conduct a   public consultation to gain input from stakeholders, ensuring that the latest research and examples of good practice are incorporated.

Local authorities deliver adoption services through 33 regional adoption agencies, working in partnership with voluntary adoption agencies. Evaluation of regional adoption agencies shows that they provide a more strategic approach to delivering adoption support, including by early intervention becoming widely embedded.

I am enormously grateful to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for raising this issue. He has raised some important concerns, many of which I share. Adoption support is currently not good enough, and we must do better. This debate has given me the opportunity to talk about our plans to ensure that all adopted children get the support they need to experience a full and happy childhood.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.