Alistair Strathern MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 May 2025 · Adoption and Kinship Placements · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. In a heartwarming way, my hon. Friend has reminded us of the opportunity we have if we can get the system right, to make sure that more young people who have had deeply difficult starts in life can experience the parenting, support and love that we all want for our children. I am glad that, whether through investment or reform, the Government are committed to overcome the challenges in the system they inherited. Whether it is finally funding a long overdue and important kinship care pilot or reforming and supporting more local authorities to attract more people into foster caring, there is a lot to shout about. I am glad, albeit with some caveats, that in the context of a difficult financial and public services inheritance, we have been able at least to safeguard existing funding to keep adoption support going for the next year. Although it is welcome that the funding is now being accessed by many more families, there is no getting away from the fact that the changing cap will have an impact on young people with SEND and their carers. Their concern is understandable. There will be lots of conversations about how we can best bring to life our broader vision and look after the young people in our care in the best way, by supporting more of them into nourishing, fantastic and thriving placements. In the meantime, we owe it to them to use every available lever to provide the fullest support possible. I welcome that support, but what more can we do to ensure that local authorities use their virtual heads to hold schools accountable for the pupil premium placement money they are given for children in adoption and foster care placements under their watch, to widen support available to them? Where we have given local authorities more money for children’s social care, I would welcome consideration being given to how guidance could be strengthened to ensure that they are filling in the gaps. We know that is in the child’s, the family’s and all our best interests. Like many others, I welcome further opportunities to work with the Minister. We have a number of champions of care and care leavers here. It is one of the most exciting and energising things about being an MP in this new Parliament. I know we would all be excited to work with the Minister to bring to life fully this Government’s vision of ensuring that every young person, particularly those entrusted to all of us, those society cares for, gets the support in life they desperately need.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Planning and Development: Bedfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  As a fellow MP representing Central Bedfordshire, I know that while good people can have reasoned debates about the right locations for new housing, no one can defend the lack of infrastructure to keep pace with development that we have seen in parts of Central Bedfordshire. It is therefore all the more surprising that the council has one of the highest levels of unspent section 106 contributions in the country. Does the hon. Member agree that Central Bedfordshire owes it to its residents to ensure it is putting that money to good use, and that we owe it to the council to ensure we are removing all possible barriers to its providing the infrastructure that our residents are crying out for?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Residential Estate Management Companies · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. Issues with leasehold, fleecehold and management companies might seem quite parochial, but they are actually quite pernicious and affect an ever-growing number of homeowners across the country. As the CMA pointed out, with over 80% of new developments now subject to fleecehold, it is increasingly the default model for housing delivery. That means that thousands of new homeowners across the country are on the hook for what is effectively a stealth tax, trapped paying a management company for a service—or the lack of a service—that a council would normally provide. Alongside that, the agency that home ownership is meant to deliver is being undercut. Residents are often hit by punitive mortgage charges by overly penal management companies, and their home sales can fall through as a result of companies not providing paperwork quickly and efficiently. If we are going to live up to our ambition to deliver on the aspiration of home ownership for many more households across the country, we clearly have to tackle fleecehold, which is why I was so pleased to see the commitment in the Labour manifesto to do that. What do we do? We know that switching on some of the regulatory provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act from the last Parliament will have some benefits for these homeowners, but we need to go much further. My ten-minute rule Bill, which was introduced before the recess, set out some important measures on the right to manage and on common adoptable standards, as well as on mandatory adoptions. I think that those will go a long way towards starting to tackle this issue at source for future households. We need to think about what more we can do to support those homes that are already being impacted. We also need to think about what more we can do in the interim to prevent more unadopted estates from becoming the norm before we can act. I was pleased to join over 50 colleagues in writing to a number of large developers to challenge them on what more they can do with local authorities to prevent unadopted estates from becoming the norm. I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on what more we can do in the meantime to move on that ambition.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Hyper-prolific Offending · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 22 Apr 2025 · Hyper-prolific Offending · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker—that is very kind. In less encouraging news, far too many retailers across my towns and villages, including my local Morrisons, are being hit by repeated shoplifting, which is all too often driven by prolific offenders and criminal gangs. How is the Secretary of State working with the Home Office to ensure that we are finally taking the scourge of shoplifting as seriously as we should?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Relationship Education in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing such an important debate. It is fair to say that the TV drama “Adolescence” has captured the imagination of the nation. It has shone a spotlight on our collective failure to ensure that we are keeping pace with the range of harmful content around sex, gender and relationships that young people are increasingly exposed to online. I know that for many parents, young people and those working in this profession, it just highlighted trends that have been all too apparent for quite some time. Some of the most heartbreaking moments that I have as an MP is when I speak to young people and their parents about the harms that they have been exposed to online, because we simply have not equipped them to be safe in experiencing them. Whether from the Children’s Commissioner or from Ofsted, there are some damning statistics about the violent pornography and graphic sexual misogynistic content that young people are now exposed to, and the way in which that is bleeding into their attitudes towards women, sex and relationships in schools and later in life. There is no doubt that this has been exacerbated by a social media landscape that often atomises young people’s interactions with new ideas and narratives when it comes to sex and relationships, and whose algorithms can often prompt and reinforce harmful voices and content rather than promote critical reflection. It is little wonder that against such a backdrop, really toxic voices such as Andrew Tate, have started to take root. Although there was some good news in More in Common’s research into young people’s role models, it should scare a lot of us that 25% of 16 to 21-year-olds saw Andrew Tate as someone who young people are likely to look up to. The solutions cut right across Government. I think it is be safe to say that, judging from the debates I have shared with some colleagues in this room, many of us would like Ofcom to go much further in its implementation of children’s code to ensure that we are doing much more to protect young people from exposure to some of these harms. We owe it to the young people in school right now to ensure that the curriculum is setting them up the best that it can, leveraging the best practice resources that organisations such as Internet Watch Foundation have out there already, including helping young people challenge image sharing online and ensuring that, collectively, we do not lose the moment that—

• 25 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. It is impossible not to be inspired by my constituent Hayley and the bravery of her daughter, Lily, after Lily was diagnosed with an optic pathway glioma at the age of just one. Hayley stepped back from work not just to look after Lily but to make sure she was able to campaign for change. The Government’s commitment to a national cancer plan is welcome, but with brain tumours not typically being staged or screenable, how can we ensure that they are not overlooked as part of the plan’s development?

• 17 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend, who could not have put my next point better. I completely recognise that this is a really important topic—it is important for parents and schools right across my constituency, too—but I am afraid the idea that, having had 14 years to bring this forward, the Conservatives have suddenly had a damascene conversion to the idea that this is something that cannot wait and must be delivered now, at a time when there is not a clear consensus among educational professionals or parents about the best way to bring such a ban into effect, feels disingenuous at best. I share lots of their concerns and, over time, I hope to be able work across this House to bring forward good protections to that effect. What I simply will not do is indulge this attempt to turn the issue into an opportunity for the Conservative party to posture, because it had so long and did so little on this work. In conclusion, I am very glad to be supporting a Bill that delivers step changes in protections for young people, steps changes in support for care leavers and a step change in support for kinship carers. For too long, we have not done enough to look after some of the most vulnerable young people in our society, and I am glad that this Bill and some of the Government amendments underline our commitment to ensuring that we do far better on this front than the last Government did.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that the Minister did not just commit to do some research; he committed to bring forward a statement on some really important aspects of online health on which the Government had not formally commented before. I gently suggest that if the Opposition are so clear—

• 17 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak about some very important amendments and new clauses, but also about a body of work that moves forward the country’s protections and support for some of the most vulnerable people in society, which has not been done for a long time. Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I had the privilege of being the children’s lead for the local authority on which I served. Many Members here may be the grandparent or parent of a handful of kids, but as any local authority lead will know, we are a corporate parent to many hundreds. In that role, it is impossible not to be moved by the testimonies of the young people with whom we are working. They have often undergone real moments of trauma and difficulty that would knock any of us for six. In the face of that, their resilience and their determination to better themselves should inspire us all. As guardians of the country’s collective obligation to young people in care, we owe it to them to fulfil our side of that corporate parenting role. I am therefore extremely happy to see Government amendments 18 to 22, which widen the role of corporate parenting to other local stakeholders. As a local authority lead working with the care-experienced campaigner Terry Galloway, I was happy to take on some of that work locally. I worked with fantastic local stakeholders to broaden our obligations as corporate parents, and to bring other local government bodies into the sphere of those who were trying to do best by the young people in our care. However, it is clear that acting in isolation cannot be good enough, and that without clear legislation requiring more local stakeholders to take on that important role, we can never involve all the partners who can have such a transformative impact on young people in care at that crucial early stage. No parent would think of caring for a child as just a narrow subset of his or her role, and the state, and our obligation as a corporate parent, should be no different. I am very glad to see these amendments; many in the House and beyond have been campaigning for them for some time, including my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who recommended some of these measures in his report on social care a few years ago. We saw very little action in this area under the last Government, but I am delighted that this Government are wasting no time in widening that obligation, and therefore widening the scope of the corporate parents who have the back of some of our young people in care throughout the country. I am also glad to see the Government amendments that strengthen information sharing. I have had to read a great many difficult serious case reviews involving young people all over the country, so I know that there has been tragic incident after tragic incident owing to failures in information sharing, and the failure of agencies to work together effectively. Strengthening information sharing and multi-agency working must be a core element of bettering our obligation to safeguard young people in all local authority areas, and it will be truly welcome to see that in the Bill. Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill will strengthen our obligation to care leavers. No parent would expect their obligation to young people in their care to end when they reached the age of 18, and the state should be no different. Perversely, a child leaving care could be ruled intentionally homeless, but a stronger and more widely available care offer for those who are leaving care will empower local authorities throughout the country to do more to live up to the obligation that we all have, as parents, to do right by young people long into adulthood. A number of amendments could be made to strengthen that provision; the Government may not be bringing them forward today, but I am sure that we will continue to revisit proposals as we monitor how this new obligation for local authorities plays out. The need to do right by young people cannot end when they turn 18, so we must think about how we can continue our role as corporate parents long into children’s lives, when they are young adults. Many of the young people with whom I worked as a local authority lead would welcome extra support, and I am sure that many will welcome the start that the Bill is making today. Alongside that, it is a fact pretty well appreciated across the House that the overly bureaucratic care system has not always done enough to recognise the importance of wider family networks at really important moments in young people’s lives, so the clauses bringing forward stronger commitments on family group decision making, recognising the important role of kinship carers, and strengthening the educational support available to those in kinship care, are truly welcome. So too—although not in this Bill—is the Government’s record financial commitment to expand the kinship care pilot and ensure that we start to understand the value that wider financial support could have in enabling more young people to be looked after by members of their wider family network, rather than falling into more formalised care.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Sentencing Council Guidelines · Hansard source

  More

  As a former local authority lead for youth justice, I saw at first hand how important pre-sentencing reports can be in shaping effective and progressive outcomes in justice. However, it cannot be right that access to them is determined by factors such as race and religion. I applaud the Justice team for making such a strong and robust response to the Sentencing Council’s guidance so far. Can the Minister assure me that unlike the last Government, who were clearly asleep at the wheel during the consultation, we remain willing to take whatever action is needed to uphold this important principle?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I could not have put it better myself. Research is clear about the strong link between good working conditions and good productivity, and the wider economic benefits that they bring. That is why I am grateful to everyone who has played their part, including the Minister and members of the Bill Committee—I have sympathy for those who had to endure some of the tropes that we have heard today—in ensuring that we had such a big and comprehensive package before us today. We are debating some strong amendments today. I will focus on new clause 32 in particular, as it affects a constituent who came to my surgery recently. The literature on the harms of zero-hours contracts—their impact not just on productivity but on poverty and on workers’ conditions, health and mental health—is compelling, but if we do not acknowledge the human impact, we miss half the story. At my constituency surgery two weeks ago, I was joined by a gentleman who had been working for four years on a zero-hours contract at Royal Mail. For four years, he had not known what hours he would be working week to week, month to month, year to year. For four years, he had not been able to plan his daily life—his other commitments, and the further education that he was trying to do to build out his skills and better himself. For four years, his life had been narrowed by the precarious reality of the exploitative application of zero-hours contracts by those who should haven know better. For that reason, I am so glad that the Government committed in our manifesto and in the Bill, which was introduced some time ago now, to taking on zero-hours contracts and giving people the right, where appropriate, to request a fixed-hours contract. However, without new clause 32, my constituent would have been missed out, because although he works at Royal Mail, he is employed through an agency. Without the extension of protections in the new clause he would, like many others across the country, have lost out. I am very glad that we are being complete in our approach and ensuring that we do not miss out from that important protection the very many employees who are currently working for agencies. There are lots of other important amendments to the Bill. I was glad to hear such warm words from the Minister in his opening remarks about the very important amendment tabled by my Bedfordshire neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). It is impossible to hear her testimony about bereavement or to speak to parents who have gone through bereavement and not recognise the simple reality that to be bereaved is not to be sick, and that our leave system should recognise it as such. I was very glad to hear from the Minister that the Government will work with my hon. Friend and others across the House who have campaigned on this issue for a long time to ensure we recognise that reality. There are a number of important measures in the Bill. I can do justice to very few of them in three minutes, so I want to focus on just one: clause 14, which is about ensuring we remove some of the barriers to new dads taking up paternity leave early on in their employment. It is a well-recognised fact that we have some of the worst paternity leave entitlements across Europe. Although shared parental leave sounds great as a concept, we do not have to look far to notice that its uptake is shockingly low and shockingly skewed to the highest earners. I am glad that we are taking a small but important step in the Bill to recognise that we need to do more to boost access to paternity leave. The Government will be conducting a review of parental leave later this year, and I know that Members across the House will be keen to engage with the Minister on how we can go further, not just in allowing fathers to have that crucial early time with their child but in breaking down the very gendered nature of parenting, which is currently baked into our statutory provision on parental leave. There are so many important measures in the Bill and so many important areas where we know we will need to go further. Fundamentally, I am full of pride to see a Government finally, after inaction by the Conservatives for far too long, taking seriously the issues of workplace security, productivity and the wellbeing of people across the country in some of the most vulnerable forms of employment. I am proud that this Government are standing up for my constituent and many people like him across the country, and I am proud to support the Bill today.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my trade union membership. For far too long, our economy has been stuck in a low-growth, low-wage, low-aspiration situation. For far too long, we have allowed some of the best employers and businesses in the country to be undercut by more unscrupulous employers that, as they are unable to compete through competitive advantage or productivity, do so only by levelling down working conditions. That simply cannot be right. We have heard in Committee, in the House and in headlines over many years some heartbreaking examples of the worst scandals that that has enabled. Truthfully, there is not a person in our society who is not losing out as a result of our failure to tackle this issue. Opposition Members have commented on the pace at which the Government are moving on that issue. We would not have to move at such a pace if they had done more.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Curriculum and Assessment Review · Hansard source

  More

  From the rise of Andrew Tate to the re-emergence of Tommy Robinson, lots of young people I speak to are concerned about the extremism and conspiracy theories that they are encountering online. Last month, an important report from Public First and the Pears Foundation highlighted the need to do more to empower schools and teachers to tackle those things in the classroom. How will we use the curriculum review to make the most of this moment to empower young people to feel safer in online spaces?

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It would be remiss of me not to start by thanking my hon. Friend for the leadership he has shown on the issue. He has started a big conversation not just in this Chamber, but right across the country. That is certainly true in my constituency, where we have a fantastic local Smartphone Free Childhood campaign group, and lots of the young people I meet on my school visits and in campaigning conversations across the constituency have real concerns about this topic. As always, the views of parents and young people on these things tend to lead the way. Does he agree that, as well as being ambitious about gathering evidence, we will need to become more comfortable with the idea of legislating in this area with the same precautionary principle that we apply in every other aspect of children’s lives, to ensure that we protect them from the harms they are expressing to us?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Right across my schools, young people are concerned about the conspiracy theories and extremism that they encounter online. A really important report recently by the Pears Foundation and Public First highlighted the need to do more to empower schools to tackle those issues in the classroom. Can we have a statement from the Education Secretary on how we can ensure that the upcoming review of the curriculum delivers on exactly that issue?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Housing Estates · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a right to manage for freeholders on unadopted private or mixed-use housing estates; to set minimum standards for public amenities on new housing estates; to make provision about the enforcement of those standards; to make provision about the adoption by local authorities of public amenities on new housing estates; and for connected purposes. In perhaps less parliamentarily precise language, but in words that might be a bit more relatable for those watching at home, the Bill will make sure we are finally tackling the fleecehold stealth tax that is affecting far too many new homeowners on new estates right across the country. I am incredibly proud to be here as a member of a party that recognises, in some of the best traditions of this country, the importance of a secure home in which people can build stable and prosperous lives. Indeed, as a Labour MP, I am probably contractually obligated to remind the House that one of the defining missions of this Labour Government is to get Britain building again. When it come to the state of the housing market that we inherited, it is clear that far too much simply is not working for far too many people. That may be due to the following: the broken state of the house supply system, which prices far too many people out of home ownership; the lack of affordable social rented homes or insecure private rented sector accommodation, creating precariousness for families who just should not have to face that in their lives; or the broken leasehold system, on which we announced some really important measures yesterday that I know many Members across the House will have welcomed. Today, I wish to address a slightly less appreciated issue, but one that is no less important. Fleecehold housing estates are really growing right across the country. Fleecehold arises when homes are not adopted by local authorities, leaving new occupants exposed to fleecehold stealth taxes and paying money to a private management company for services that others receive as part of their council tax. They are on the hook to an estate management company, which is often unaccountable to them and often seeks to exploit them with every available power. I know from lots of conversations that I have had with other Members across the House that I am far from alone in experiencing this issue. It is growing in my constituency, and also right across the country. Indeed, when I am away on holiday, I cannot escape it either. Over recess, I was up in Scotland visiting my family. A family friend took me to one side to raise the issues that they have had, which is quite typical. Their estate had gone unadopted for many years. There was no end in sight to this situation. In the meantime, they were paying hundreds of pounds each year for basic services that the rest of their neighbours were receiving through their council tax. But that was not the worst of it. When they missed one bill, which had gone up quite considerably at a week’s notice, rather than giving them any tolerance, their estate management company used the contractual powers that it had to go straight to their mortgage lender to have the amount added to that family’s mortgage and to drive a wrecking ball through their credit score in the process. This injustice cannot be allowed to persist, but for far too many people, this situation is becoming the norm. There was once a time when local authorities would typically adopt housing estates when they came forward, but that simply is no longer the case. Indeed, a Competition and Markets Authority report into this issue last year found that up to 80% of new housing estates now go unadopted, with no end in sight. Indeed, many in my constituency have gone unadopted for well over a decade after completion. In the meantime, these householders are on the hook to a private management company that they never expected to be stuck with and for a length of time that they had never considered. The impact of that relationship has many facets. First, these householders are hit with what is in effect a new homes stealth tax. They are often forced to pay hundreds of pounds each year for services that every other homeowner would get as part of their council tax. Typically, these bills are around £350, but that is a significant amount in a cost of living crisis. However, the bills are far from limited to that. I have had correspondence from constituents who have been hit by bills running to thousands of pounds. Again, very short notice is often given for steep increases. Across the whole country in 2022, the CMA found that more than £260 million was spent by households on exactly these charges. In that time, given the growth that we know has happened and that needs to continue to happen in our housing supply, that amount will only have grown. That cannot be fair and it cannot be justified. Part of the issue is not just the injustice of paying twice for something, but the fact that this delivery mechanism is structurally designed to maximise the costs that these households bear. The management companies are not directly accountable to the homeowners—to the people to whom they are providing service. There is no incentive for these management companies to keep bills down. Indeed, I have had correspondence from people who have been charged upwards of £250 just for having one lightbulb changed on their estate. Moreover, the small size of some of these estates, or the extent to which they can be subdivided, means that the bulk of the high fees can often just covers management and professional services fees, and bear no relation to any actual service delivered on the estate. Indeed, one estate had been subdivided to such a level that the vast majority of the bill that every household was paying was simply the fee for how they were audited each year. That cannot be right. Alongside that, it is not just the cost that is the problem, but the way that this is undercutting the very nature of the stability and prosperity that home ownership is meant to bring with it. By being on the hook to these management companies, residents often have to fight for years to get bare-minimum works and services and responses to their queries. They also often find that when they look to move away from this exploitative relationship, they are unable to do so because of the risk created by that fleecehold system. I have spoken to homeowners whose sales have fallen through when crucial management pack information has not been provided by management companies in a timely way or who, when they have looked to move, have not been able to because their credit score has been decimated by exploitative charges when they have not been able to pay steep increases in their service charge in what the management company viewed to be a timely manner. I welcome the Government’s commitment to trying to do something about this, but it is important that we address it at pace. Hopefully, we will be building 1.5 million homes over the course of this Parliament, but those homes will not deliver security or prosperity for the families who take them up if they trap them in fleecehold relationships and on fleecehold unadopted estates. My Bill looks to take several important steps forward to address this. First, it looks to build on some of the recommendations in last year’s CMA report to cut off unadopted estates at source, mandating minimum adoptable standards that all developers would have to reach as part of their works and laying out minimum adoption timelines that local authorities would be accountable for delivering on. All that would ensure that unadopted estate limbo can finally be a thing of the past. Given the perilous state of local authority finances, I am aware that this could create some financial burden. However, giving certainty over the direction of travel in the adoption of estates and creating clarity about the minimum standards for estates to be adopted would create the conditions for local authorities to be able to assess, negotiate and condition through the planning process any value that they need to extract, to ensure that they can cover the maintenance costs of that estate. Hopefully, that will enable us to undercut that iniquitous persistence of two tiers of council tax payers at source. Alongside that, it is important that we do not walk by those who are already in these estates, particularly because until we have a solution, they will only grow in number since they are now the default model for housing provision across this country. The Bill also looks to build on amendments tabled by the then shadow Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), in the last Parliament to give freeholders on private estates the ability to enact right to manage. This would put them back in the driving seat, give them the power to fire unaccountable management companies, ensure that they have a choice, and drive up service levels, responsibility and, hopefully, the performance of those undertaking management work. The Bill is far from a panacea. Many homeowners will want adoption to be the end state for their estate, but it is an important step forward to drive down the ability of management companies to be exploitative and extract unjustifiable fees from new homeowners. It puts them back in the driving seat and part of those adoption conversations, hopefully to get their estate to where it needs to be, so that the inequity can finally end. I am so excited about this Government’s housing mission, and to see the number of people in my constituency and across the country whose lives will be transformed by our commitment to stable homes. However, for a long time now we have failed to appreciate the extent to which fleecehold becoming a default model for new home delivery in this country is undercutting the very sense of security and prosperity that new home ownership is meant to bring. I hope that the Government will act with the pace that this issue deserves. I am very excited to introduce the Bill today to start to tackle at source the root causes of the fleecehold stealth tax that is affecting thousands of homeowners across the country, who are paying millions every year in unjustified service charges. I look forward to working with the Government to do right by those affected right across the country. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Alistair Strathern, Emma Foody, Abtisam Mohamed, Yuan Yang, Connor Naismith, Amanda Hack, Ben Coleman, Tom Rutland, Callum Anderson, Mr James Frith, Luke Murphy and Mrs Sarah Russell present the Bill. Alistair Strathern accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the F irst time; to be read a S econd time on Friday 13 June , and to be printed (Bill 190). Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill: Allocation of Time Ordered, That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill: Timetable (1)(a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order. (b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order. (c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order. Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put (2) When the Bill has been read a second time: (a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put; (b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given. (3)(a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question. (b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put. (4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply: (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair; (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed; (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown; (d) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision; (e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (15)(a) of this Order. (5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill. (6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions. (7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out. Consideration of Lords Amendments (8)(a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly. (b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed. (9) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (8) of this Order. Subsequent stages (10)(a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly. (b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed. (11) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10) of this Order. Reasons Committee (12) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order. Miscellaneous (13) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill. (14) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies. (15)(a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order. (b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion. (c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly. (d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed. (e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion. (16)(a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown. (b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith. (17)(a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies. (b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings in respect of such a debate. (18) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House. (19)(a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day. (b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours. —(Vicky Foxcroft.)

• 26 Feb 2025 · Online Safety Act: Implementation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this important debate. His contribution highlighted why he will continue to be an important voice as we go forwards as a Parliament in doing everything we can to keep young people safe online. For a long time now, Parliament has regulated to keep young people safe from a whole host of harms, which are often tangible and physical. The precautionary principle has been front and centre of our efforts—almost to a fault sometimes, people might argue—to keep young people safe from harms that they simply should not be exposed to. When we look at online harm, however, it is clear that the precautionary principle has not always been there. There is a range of reasons for that. I hope hon. Members will not mind me highlighting that, for many of us, the online world was not quite such a big presence in our lived experience growing up. Therefore, when it comes to legislating for the online world, the more recent nature of some of the developments means that the evidence base is inherently slightly more limited. We have to be confident in the principled, risk-based approach to acting, and act when we know it is right to do so. We have to know that more urgent action in this space is the right thing to do. It is impossible not to be moved by the testimony of parents who have gone through some of the most heartbreaking tragedies as a result of our historical inaction, just as it is impossible for me not to be stirred to act when I visit schools and pupils of all ages consistently raise their own fears and concerns about what they are being exposed to online and its impact on them and their mental health. Other Members have rightly highlighted some of the shortcomings of the Online Safety Act, but, as the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam pointed out, it is important to note the urgency of using the tools available to us now, given our historical inaction. We must ensure that we have the strongest possible implementation of the Act, which means that the strongest possible children’s code from Ofcom will be front and centre. As other colleagues have highlighted, there is a whole host of ways in which Ofcom has been far too conservative and limited in its interpretation of the powers that Parliament has given it in bringing forward the children’s code, as well as its wider approach to the Act. As 5rights and others have highlighted, the approach of focusing purely on content, rather than on design and features, means that a whole host of harms, which are explicitly called out in the Act, are not affected. There is nothing more tragic than the story of Molly Rose. The foundation set up in her name is very clear on the role that algorithms, doom spiralling, and young people consistently being pushed towards some of the most harmful content for them at their age played in what happened to her, and to far too many young people right across the country. In section 11(6)(f) of the Act, Parliament very explicitly made it clear that those features should be considered. Ofcom needs to make sure that that is brought forward, and that the code explicitly considers how technology companies can ensure that safety of features and design is considered right across the age range. Alongside that, Internet Matters and many other groups have been really clear in pointing out that the current approach to age appropriateness—the flattening when it comes to people over and under 18—and the weak guidance on age verification risks not doing justice to Parliament’s very clear steer in section 12 that content and features should be considered from a risk-based perspective right across the age range. Again, that is a clear area where I think Ofcom could and should do a lot more. As others including the IWF have pointed out, while some consideration of technical feasibility is obviously needed, the carve-out, as currently drafted, risks being an opt-out and a dilution of the ambition of tech companies in stepping up to the plate and making sure they are playing their part in keeping young people safe online. There is a lot more we will need to do, and I have no doubt that the curriculum review—that is a separate matter—will be important in making sure we are playing our part in empowering young people to feel more confident and safe in these spaces. I am very glad to be doing this work in a Parliament where there are so many strong voices on this issue. Given its urgency, I really do hope that we can make progress between now and the upcoming children’s code to ensure that we are meeting the need of this moment fully.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Defence and Security · Hansard source

  More

  It is shameful that in such a volatile world, for far too long, conversations around defence spending have involved a lot of hot air and not much hard action. Colleagues from across the House will today have to recognise that the Prime Minister has changed that, with a clear, funded and needed plan for investing in our defence. Supply chains are so important to security, so he will recognise, as I do, that what matters is not just what we spend, but where we spend it. How will he make sure that our whole Government are united in the effort to build up our domestic supply chain capacity, when it comes to key defence assets?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Thameslink Train Services · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. Like him, I have been a regular users of the Thameslink services in his constituency and mine, and, like many of my constituents, I have been consistently let down. My constituents’ two most common bugbears are the lack of drivers, which means that Thameslink cannot consistently put on the services it advertises—that seems the bare minimum—and the fact that when services go wrong, the emergency routes home via taxis and buses, which are so important in rural communities such as ours, are an afterthought. Does he agree that securing sufficient drivers for the line and getting back to putting passengers at the heart of our rail operations will be fundamental to delivering the rail services that my communities and his desperately need?

• 25 Feb 2025 · SEND Education Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing this important debate and for powerfully setting out so many of the failures that families in my constituency will be all too familiar with. There is nothing more heartbreaking than speaking to people in my constituency who have been let down by the national failures of the SEND system: the young person who has been out of school for far too long, with all the impact that has on their mental health and development, just because there is no school suitable for them in our local area; the family who have often had to step back from work to fight for the bare minimum legal entitlement of support that their young person needs to thrive at school; or the far too many of our schools that, despite going above and beyond, know they are not being set up to succeed when it comes to supporting far too many pupils with additional needs. When she described the system as “lose, lose, lose”, the last Conservative Education Secretary could not have been more right. In my local area, those painful failures are absolutely present at the local authority level too, whether in Hertfordshire county council’s shocking failure to deliver EHCP plans, laid bare by Ofsted in recent years, or in Central Bedfordshire council’s planning failures when it comes to specialist places, which is causing chaos for some of my local schools. From Ivel Valley school, whose redevelopment is now in doubt, to local schools that found out that their inclusion centre was being paused when developers did not turn up when they were meant to, it is clear that councils need to do much, much better with the tools already in their grasp. As a former teacher and local authority lead, I know that national change is needed too. The extra money prioritised in the Budget—£1 billion for the high needs block and £750 million for adaptations—is crucial, but much wider work is needed. We need clear accountability frameworks for local authorities and schools that hold them much more accountable for SEND and inclusion. Whatever the school structure, driving up standards should never come at the expense of an inclusive approach to admissions and exclusions.

• 25 Feb 2025 · SEND Education Support · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 25 Feb 2025 · SEND Education Support · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. It is really welcome that this has been a priority, right at the heart of the Government’s early decision making on education, and we need the pace to continue. It is clear that much further work will be needed on workforce planning. It is fantastic that we finally have a Government who are taking an interest in this issue and commissioning a survey to understand where the workforce shortages are, but it will be crucial for them to put in money to support the resolution of the challenges, especially in edge-of-London constituencies like mine, where all too often the resource is dragged into other authorities as a result of London weighting. We need to make sure that health partners are playing an ambitious role, too. Deprioritising health budgets is a false economy that only leads to increased pressures on education budgets.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Social Media Use: Minimum Age · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the parents who have brought forward this petition—they are often way ahead of us as legislators when it comes to issues affecting children’s safety. My hon. and learned Friend is doing a very good job of setting out some possible risks that the Online Safety Act will not fully be able to mitigate some of the challenges that we are seeing. Considering robust measures on the age of access to social media is timely and important in thinking about the best way of protecting young people from possible exposure to online harm. On top of that, though, we must recognise that some exposure is always likely to be there. Would he also agree that it is important to ensure that we think how, through the curriculum review, we can best empower and set up children, young people and their parents to protect themselves from harm where they are exposed to it, even with the stronger regulations that we are looking to put in place?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Breakfast Clubs: Early Adopters · Hansard source

  More

  As a former teacher and local authority children’s lead, I got to see at first hand the transformative impact that breakfast clubs can have in driving up attendance, attainment and young people’s wellbeing, so I am delighted that not one, not two, but three local schools will benefit from the Government’s early adopters scheme. As excited as I am for primary-age pupils at Meppershall, Shefford lower and Etonbury academy in Stotfold, I want to make sure that even more can benefit. How will the Government make sure that we learn the lessons of the pilots as quickly as possible, so that every pupil in my constituency and across the country who is eligible for the commitment can benefit from it?