Josh MacAlister MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Mar 2025 · Supporting Care Leavers into Employment · Hansard source

  More

  Some 39% of care-experienced young people are not in education, employment or training—three times the average rate—and that is costing the UK over £145 million a year in lost tax revenue alone. We cannot achieve the ambition of getting Britain working unless we unlock the potential of this amazing group of young people. Do Ministers agree that we need to take bold, imaginative action to radically improve the number going into work?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend share my shock that Cumbria police did not hand out a single penalty notice for disorder in 2023? That is down from 1,000 issued in 2010. Does he also share my enthusiasm for this Bill’s measures to introduce respect orders?

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

  More

  I will get to that in my speech. I am keen to get on to those points, and I will address the questions the hon. Gentleman has asked. The Smartphone Free Childhood campaign has grown from zero members to over 200,000 in less than a year, which shows the strength of feeling in the country on this issue.

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Most countries landed on the age of 13 as a result of a protracted negotiation in the US Senate about data and online safety many years ago. That policy was not based on evidence; it was based on the compromise of a committee in another country. We must base such decisions on evidence, and there was no firm evidence for picking 13 over any other age. Alarm bells on the question of data and consent are already ringing. Just this week, the Information Commissioner announced an investigation into how TikTok uses the personal information of 13 to 17-year-olds in order to make recommendations to them. Changing the digital age of consent would give parents more control over who accesses their children’s data, and it would dumb down the powerful algorithms that feed children addictive content.

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

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s intervention, and I am glad to have boxed off those five. There are moments when politics falls behind the public mood. The process and traditions of our democratic system make it difficult to keep up with the rapidly evolving world of tech and social media, but this Parliament works best when it is a reflection of the problems and concerns of the people and a Chamber for earnest problem solving and action. Over the last few months, I have been encouraged by the sheer volume of support for this Bill and this debate, which comes from across the country, across the ages and across the House. My firm belief is that unless we as politicians are able to be the disruptors on this issue and solve it, we will be left being disrupted by it. Acting assertively together and sooner will bring benefits for our tech industry and public services, the quality of family life in the UK and, most importantly, the opportunities for our children. For those reasons, I commend this Bill to the House.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. I began my career as a teacher. I first entered the classroom in 2009. At the time, we were just beginning to see the use of smartphones among teenagers—there was the odd phone in the classroom and the odd instance of a child being bullied through their device—but neither I nor any other teacher at the time could have imagined the impact these devices would come to play in childhood. From speaking to children and parents today, it is clear that children’s excessive screen time and unhealthy social media use are fuelling family disputes, childhood unhappiness and parental concern the length and breadth of our country. The problem is growing and voices of concern are getting louder. It is now time to act. Today, the average 12-year-old spends 21 hours a week on their smartphone, which is the equivalent of four full days of school teaching a week; 93% of 12 to 15-year-olds are active social media users, and 76% of teenagers spend most of their free time on their screens. This is a fundamental rewiring of childhood itself, and it has happened in little over a decade. Children are spending less time outside and less time reading, exercising, exploring, meeting people and communicating in person—all the things that make childhood special and are necessary for healthy childhood development. Instead, many of our children now spend their time captured by addictive social media and smartphone use—often sat alone, doomscrolling; being bombarded by unrealistic representations of life; communicating through asynchronous large group chats, rather than by looking at facial expressions, eye contact and body language, or learning to interact; moving less; smiling less; learning less; and growing increasingly anxious and depressed. This rewiring of childhood has only one winner: the balance sheets of social media companies. Their business model, the very essence of their business, is built around monetising attention. As their understanding of our consumer habits and technology improves, the encroachment on childhood is set to get worse and worse. What has been the impact of this transformation on childhood? The use of smartphones and social media has grown in parallel with a sharp increase in depression and anxiety among teenagers. The trend has been reflected around the world, and the trend lines everywhere have tightly followed one another. Greater time spent on social media and smartphones has run in parallel with higher rates of anxiety and depression. What are the credible explanations for this phenomenon—for the worldwide explosion in adolescent mental health problems—if not social media and smartphone use? I am sure that nobody here needs me to highlight the crisis faced by child and adolescent mental health services. Our NHS is desperate for any action that might help to address this. The threat posed to our children by excessive screen time is not limited, though, to just their mental health. There is increasing evidence of a strong association between screen time and childhood obesity. Smartphone use also affects sleep. Children are 79% more likely to sleep less than the recommended eight hours if they use their phones. Some 45% of teenagers—nearly half—stay awake beyond midnight most weeks. This of course also has an effect on learning. Four in 10 teenagers admit that their smartphone is distracting them in school and from the grades that they could achieve. For some children, the ubiquitous use of smartphones has forced them into a world of round-the-clock, inescapable bullying and abuse. Over 73% of girls and young women have experienced online harm in the last year. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has reported an 82% rise in childhood online grooming crimes in the last five years, and Ofsted found that 90% of girls and nearly half of all boys have been sent explicit pictures or videos. This bombardment on childhood has not gone unnoticed outside of this building. Across the country, the number of incredible campaigners who have built huge communities calling for change has directly led to today’s debate. That is why I need to take a moment to thank all those who have contributed in some way to the development of this Bill and this debate, many of whom are in the Public Gallery. First, I must reserve my biggest thanks to Ben Kingsley of Safe Screens, and Joe and Daisy Ryrie and everyone else at Smartphone Free Childhood. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, to see the value of the contributions in kind that they have made to get us here today. I am extremely grateful for all their hard work and dedication to this cause. Their continued leadership on this issue gives me enormous confidence that laws will ultimately change to tackle these issues. I also put on record my thanks to the tens of thousands of parents who wrote to their MPs via Smartphone Free Childhood—and I apologise to the 630 Members of this House who got extra emails to respond to in the process.

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

  More

  The hon. Member is, of course, a connoisseur of private Members’ Bills and has been known not to be keen to see many of them make it to Committee. I am sure he will not mind me gently making the point that I am here today, as so many Members are, to make a difference and ensure that the Government take action. The Bill also commits the Government to instruct the UK chief medical officer to update and reissue guidance for parents and professionals about the impact of excessive screen time and social media use on children. It is nearly six years since that guidance was last issued, and we have seen the positive impact of recent guidance elsewhere, such as in America where the Surgeon General advice has stated more recently: “social media has not been proved safe” and that “Children and adolescents who spend more than 3 hours a day on social media face double the risk of mental health problems including experiencing symptoms of depression and anxiety.” That advice led to calls in the US for cigarette packet-style health warnings on social media websites.

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

  More

  I completely agree that progress is inevitable, given the strength of feeling in the country on the matter. I was grateful for the substantive research document pulled together by Rachel, Tom and the team at Nesta, which clearly demonstrates why action is needed, and for the polling and focus group research done by the New Britain Project and More in Common, which shows how popular taking action is among children themselves, as well as parents. Thanks also go to Arabella Skinner and Dr Becky Foljambe at Health Professionals for Safer Screens and all the health professionals they mobilised to engage with the development of the Bill, who witness at first hand the impacts of excessive screen time on the physical and mental health of the nation’s children. Our teachers and school leaders are also on the frontline of seeing the impact on children in their care. I thank, in particular, the headteacher of the John Wallis academy, Damian McBeath, who organised hundreds of his colleagues in support of the Bill; Teach First; the Ambition Institute; all the school and academy trust leaders who backed the Bill; and the teaching unions the Association of School and College Leaders, the National Association of Head Teachers, NASUWT and, in particular, the National Education Union, which is leading a big campaign on social media and smartphone use, with a report out just this morning. Children’s charities are alive to the detrimental impact of smartphone and social media use on this generation, and I have been delighted to have the backing of the big five: Barnardo’s, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Action For Children, the National Children’s Bureau and the Children’s Society. That is in addition to data and testimony provided by UK Youth, OnSide, the Scouts, Girlguiding, Coram and the King’s Trust—they have made their mark on this debate. A special mention goes to the current and former Children’s Commissioner for England for their backing. Organisations representing parents have been vocal about the need for further action, and I record my thanks to Sue, Rhiannon and the wonderful team at Mumsnet for all their coverage and for the debate they have instigated on the topic. I also thank ParentZone and Parentkind for their contributions to the Bill hearings. I also thank all the other members of the public and professionals who came to the Bill hearing processes; there are too many to mention, but they certainly made an impact on the Members of Parliament who attended. Finally, I thank the 5Rights Foundation and members of the Bereaved Families for Online Safety group, who I met alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy). They experienced the most devastating consequences of smartphone and social media use. They have done what many would find so difficult to do and have turned personal tragedy into a campaign for urgent change. I want to thank Ellen Roome, Mariano Janin, Lisa Kenevan, Ruth Moss, Lorin LaFave, Amanda and Stuart Stephens, and Esther Ghey for their bravery and for engaging with the development of the Bill. With the problems so stark and the calls for change so loud, what is being done to respond to those issues around the world? Just this week, the Republican governor of the conservative state of Utah has passed America’s first law mandating age verification for app stores, to ensure that children use only age-appropriate apps, when their parents are happy for them to do so. Australia has legislated for an outright ban on social media below the age of 16, which will come into force later this year, and last week Denmark moved to ban mobile phones in schools and after-school clubs. Last year, Norway increased the minimum age limit on social media to 15 by changing the age of consent for data sharing. France has done the same, and has pushed for measures to be taken across the EU. Will it be just British children who are left unprotected against addictive harms of smartphones and social media? We cannot let that happen; we must act. It is time that we caught up. That is why I am so pleased to be debating this issue today, following months of engagement across Government and beyond, with hundreds of health and education professionals; children’s, youth and online safety charities; parents, and young people themselves. I introduced the Bill because of the stark difference between conversations taking place out there in the country and the debates that we have here in the nation’s Parliament. It is fair to say that the public are well ahead of politicians on this issue. Today marks progress towards Parliament finally catching up with the mood of the nation. The Bill has been drafted to secure explicit Government backing. It has been written to achieve change rather than just to highlight the issue. That is why it is narrower than where I started when this campaign began six months ago. I hope that the Minister will confirm in his response that the Government will take forward the measures in the Bill. What does the Bill do? Most importantly, it commits the Government to coming back within a year with a decision on whether to raise the digital age of consent from 13 to 16. Under general data protection regulation, the standard age of consent was set at 16. However, countries can choose to vary it to as low as 13, which is what the UK chose to do at the time. The appropriateness of that decision must be assessed, given the ways in which social media companies are now using teenagers’ data to keep them hooked to their platforms.

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Updated advice from the nations’ CMOs is so important because it can cascade through health systems to guide professionals and parents. Finally, the Bill calls on Government to conduct more research and further develop the evidence and guidance that is so important for future action. Given how rapidly these devices and services are developing, it is vital that parents and carers are given up-to-date advice on the harm their children might be exposed to. Why has this not been done before? The technology companies that are profiteering off this rewiring of childhood are incredibly effective at casting doubt over any evidence of a link between screen time and negative impacts on children. This is not the first time an industry has fought against a tide of evidence in order to keep peddling their product. In the 1960s, the tobacco industry was lobbying hard against the link between smoking and cancer. In the absence of evidence of a causal link, they cast doubt on the overwhelming correlational evidence available. In the end, our Government acted on the basis of correlational studies using criteria set by the epidemiologist Sir Austin Bradford Hill. The criteria attempt to help policymakers to make decisions when causal studies do not exist. His criteria included that “Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect.” For example, the fact that students across the western world began reporting feeling increasingly lonely in school from 2012 is important. Another criterion is that “Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect”— essentially, the dose-response effect. Studies of multiple large datasets, including the UK’s own millennium cohort study, show that teenagers who are heavy users of social media are more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, eating disorders, body dysmorphia and other mental health harms. It could take years for evidence of a causal link, through scientific studies, to be established. In the meantime, our children’s mental and physical health degrades, their education continues to be affected, and evidence of a correlation gets stronger and stronger. As lawmakers, we must use tools such as the Bradford Hill tests to make the best possible decisions with what we know now. We must act on excessive screen time today, in the same way that we acted on smoking back then. Like debates that were had on smoking and car seatbelts, it took a process of legislation, rather than one big-bang event. That is why starting with these initial steps today, then following them through with major action soon, will be so important. Let me address head-on the arguments made against taking action to curb social media and smartphone use by children. As I see it there are five common arguments against action. First is that there is not enough evidence to act. Over the past few months, I and others have had a number of evidence sessions and engagements with experts that have shown that that is plainly untrue. Even so, where should the burden of evidence sit? Should it sit with parents and campaigners who have noticed the damage being done to their children, with children themselves who are calling for more support, or with the companies who are selling them products and services that are designed to be addictive and have completely transformed the nature of their childhood? When it comes to protecting children from harm, a precautionary approach is surely advised. For almost any other product, companies would have to prove that it was safe before selling it to children, rather than being free to sell that product as they wish, until the evidence of harm becomes so overwhelming that something needs to be done. It is instructive that the US Surgeon General advice states that social media has not yet “been proved safe.” Second is the argument that this is simply the latest in a line of moral panics. People used to fear that watching too much television would turn their eyes square; in the Victorian era, that reading novels would degrade intellect; or in the 20th century, that playing violent videogames would turn all our children into thugs. But for every example of overblown moral panic, we have many more examples of genuine public health crises that we took too long to address, but eventually were forced to tackle. Research that has come out this morning from More in Common demonstrates that this is not an issue of luddite older generations bemoaning shifting social trends. Concerns about social media and smartphone use are dominant in every generation, and half of generation Z regret the amount of time that they are spending on social media. The third argument I hear is that the genie is out of the bottle, and it is too late to do anything now. Phones and social media are undoubtedly here to stay, but their harms do not need to be. Regulation can find a way of allowing children to experience the benefits of this technology, without being exposed, relentlessly, to its harms. As introducing seatbelt laws saved thousands of lives from road traffic accidents without killing off the car industry, introducing a virtual seatbelt can protect children from excessive screentime. Action in other countries, and our experience with the Online Safety Act 2023, early though it is, has shown that tech companies are not beyond the power of Governments. The fourth argument, which tends to come from big tech, is that proper age verification is too difficult, and age restriction unproven—that the technology does not exist or is imperfect. As companies such as Yoti and many other age verification platforms show, that is no longer the case. I am also a technology optimist. The reason why this technology is not yet pervasive is insufficient demand. Introduce the regulation, and technology will have to catch up—we will see that in Australia later this year. There are some suggestions that it is not the Government’s job to get involved and that this is an issue of parental responsibility. That misses the point that this is a collective action problem. Parents and children alone are not able to establish new, shared rules for something that is addictive at a societal level. The reason why smartphones and social media are causing so much stress and conflict in families is that we are giving parents the unenviable choice of either removing devices and ostracising their children or giving into demands for access and living with the health, sleep and learning consequences. Additionally, not only are parental controls at device, operating system and app level confusing and opaque, but our own existing data laws give children as young as 13 the power over their data that means that they can opt out of those parental controls in year 8 of secondary school. We disempower parents on a problem that is common across society, then when they ask for help, we say that it is a matter of personal responsibility. I hope that today’s debate can bury the argument that responsibility for this problem lies with parents struggling with that impossible challenge.

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

  More

  I completely agree that there is an urgency to this issue, and the strength of feeling out in the country among not just parents but children themselves shows that we should take action.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The campaign they have started will only grow over time.

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

  More

  The hon. Member will know, as many in this House do, that private Members’ Bills are often a shot in the dark. From the beginning of this process, my aim has been to have a national debate, but also to put all of my energy into securing some action and progress. Regardless of party, this is an issue on which it has been difficult to make progress in the past; the previous Government made statements in 2019, 2021 and 2023 on introducing phone bans in schools, but those bans never fully materialised. I think the hon. Member would agree that we can work across the House to make progress on this issue at every available opportunity in the future.

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

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

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

  More

  I and a number of colleagues have had fairly extensive dialogue with Ofcom over the past few months about some of the detailed points, and there are two important gaps in the existing legislation. First, social media companies might put in a minimum age requirement, but there is no power to provide that social media platforms need to have a minimum age requirement to start with, so there is a big gap in the legislation in that respect. Secondly, despite the fairly extensive drafting in the Act, there is no requirement on Ofcom to look at functionality beyond where it relates to harmful content. Ofcom has stated clearly in writing to myself and other Members that it cannot regulate functionality unless it is specifically about harmful content, so much of what has been discussed today would not be covered by Ofcom’s current powers.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The debate so far has done a really good job of summarising lots of the reasons why I chose to bring forward a private Member’s Bill earlier last year to address some of the issues relating to the addictive features of smartphones and social media, such as the impacts on sleep, mental health and educational attainment. There are also increasing concerns about conspiracy theories and their ability to spread, particularly among young children. Today, I will focus specifically on the evidence, because I think that that is where the political debate is moving and where there seems to be the greatest disagreement—particularly on whether we have enough evidence now to act with confidence or whether we should pause and wait for further evidence. There are three ways I think about this issue. The first is that, in 2012, something happened not just here, but around the western world and beyond, and it was specifically to do with teenage mental health and levels of anxiety and depression among our young people. That global event coincided with the rise in access to smartphones and social media and high-speed internet. There is no other plausible hypothesis that I have heard or come across—I would welcome interventions from colleagues here today—to explain that global phenomenon; there is no coherent alternative hypothesis. So when we think about the evidence that we require to act in this country, we should think carefully about whether we are looking at developed, different hypotheses for why this problem has grown. The second element is the precautionary principle, which links to another point that was made. The tech industry in particular is very effective at casting doubt over findings from studies. Over the years, the burden of proof and of evidence has fallen on those like the many Members present and the petitioners. It has been for them to establish beyond reasonable doubt that there is a causal link between the use of smartphones and social media and the harms that it may cause. It is important in this debate, and in others, to balance where that evidence should be brought from. Surely we should place a burden of proof on those rolling out technology and platforms that are gobbling up huge amounts of children’s and young people’s time. At a fairly conservative estimate, the average 12-year-old is spending the equivalent of a part-time job every week on their smartphone. That must have some effect on how they might otherwise have used their time, the development of their brains, and their relationships with other people while they are on those platforms.

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his work on this issue in his constituency. He is absolutely right. Micro-experiments and anecdotal feedback from members of the public, who have signed this petition in large numbers, show that parents are really worried that something is going on here, but it will take some time to gather the evidence. The second aspect is about where the burden of proof should lie. Applying the burden of proof in one direction only—to those advocating for tighter regulation—is not balanced. It should apply both ways. The third point about evidence relates to the absence of causal studies. They will take many years, so what do we do, in their absence, with the weight of correlational evidence before us? This is where we must look at the work of Sir Austin Bradford Hill. The Bradford Hill criteria, which were named after him in the 1960s, were based on the epidemiologist’s work to try to fill in the evidence gap for policymakers when the debate was being had about the public health impacts of smoking. The tobacco industry did a very effective job of casting doubt over whether smoking itself caused cancer or, as the industry then said, it simply brought cancer out earlier—that cancer was inherent within people. That was the argument: the industry said that there was no correlational study to prove that that was not the case, which goes back to my burden of proof argument. We need to fill in the gap, because we will not have causal studies for many years. Petitions like this will continue to come, the debate will carry on raging, and politicians will be pulled towards this problem until we find a way of solving it. In the absence of those correlational studies, we have to find a way of applying a framework to look at the existing causal studies. I will not go through all nine of the Bradford Hill criteria, but one of them is dose-response rate: does the dose of a certain factor relate to the degree of the impact? In 2019, the UK millennium cohort study found that “social media use is associated with mental health in young people”, and greater use means greater impact. A 2022 dose-response meta-analysis found that more time spent on social media was “significantly associated” with depression. There are stacks of studies out there that show the correlation between time spent and impact. When one works through the nine criteria, in the absence of a causal study or series of causal studies, the evidence points in a clear direction: we need tighter regulation that can empower parents to set boundaries and the collective rules for how our children use smartphones and social media. There is a risk, at times, that the sides to this debate are characterised as pro- or anti-tech. My final reflection is that, for the UK to be the global sandbox and incubator of great tech development that it should be, we need good, intuitive shared rules that can garner high degrees of public consent and support. If we move quickly on this issue, and do it smart, as a country, we will get benefits not only for economic growth and the tech industry, but for our children and their future.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last year, the Government announced an extra £1 million for boosted antisocial-behaviour patrols across Cumbria, which was extremely welcome. Since then, we have seen a huge reduction in antisocial behaviour in those hotspots in Cleator Moor, Workington and Whitehaven. Under the leadership of the brilliant Labour police commissioner in Cumbria and the Government’s support, we are putting an extra £1.7 million in for the coming year. Would the Leader of the House thank the members of the public who have come forward to report crime and share intelligence and thank the officers who have done so much to bring down crime?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Shortly after the election, the new Government announced £4.3 million for a new community mental health hub in Whitehaven. Unfortunately, the local mental health trust followed that decision by announcing the closure of the Yewdale ward for acute mental health services. Does the Minister agree that we need to get early intervention right before we close acute services, and will he bring together a meeting to scrutinise that decision?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member’s intervention was perfectly timed, because I was about to say that it is in these communities that the easy soundbites of populists can take hold. I will answer his question in time. Our response must be economic revival in coalfield communities that can generate a renewed sense of purpose and pride. The cynical promise of the last Government to my constituents was that they would reopen a coalmine that they knew would likely never come. They told my community that the best it could hope for was jobs in a dying industry—jobs that would be tied to exporting a volatile commodity that lacked a domestic market. My job, and the Government’s job, is to put other options on the table. I have produced an industrial plan for west Cumbria, and since the election I have commissioned and updated a more detailed version of the plan, which I will publish shortly. It sets out how we might secure new nuclear, upgrade the port of Workington, and fuel new advanced manufacturing and industrial jobs in the area. The plan would revive and diversify west Cumbria’s economy and boost our sense of pride—looking to the future, not the past, for the answers that my community deserves. Those plans stand a chance of success only because we have a Government who are committed to an industrial strategy; who are serious about new nuclear power generation, as announcements earlier today indicate; and who recognise the vital role of upgrading our ports, and have set the national wealth fund on a footing to support those initiatives. The Government’s growth mission, actively backing those kinds of plans, offers an answer to revive our coalfield communities. I look forward to continuing to work with the Government to deliver this change for my community, and invite the Minister to west Cumbria to talk not only about these plans but the opportunity that the recently announced devolution deal might offer to revive the prospect of jobs and economic opportunity in my community.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all Members who were involved in bringing forward this debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). The coastal coalfield of west Cumbria stretches 14 miles from Whitehaven up the coast to Maryport. The coal seams in my constituency were mined for over 420 years before the last mine closed in the 1980s. The miners and collieries of west Cumbria helped to fuel Britain’s economy for centuries and sparked numerous innovations. Entire towns and communities in my constituency were built out of the coal, iron and steel industries. Our mining history is, however, also marked by terrible tragedy. Over 1,700 men, women and children are estimated to have been killed while mining coal in Whitehaven as a result of multiple major disasters, including at the Wellington, Haig and William pits. These terrible incidents are remembered to this day by members of the Pit Crack West Cumbria group, which organises annual remembrance events and creates a community for retired miners. Let me put on record my thanks to Dave Craddock, Joseph Ritson and others who are involved in the group. I also pay tribute to Patrick Robertson and others who are working to keep the memory of Workington’s mining heritage alive with their campaign for a mining memorial in Workington, which I wholeheartedly support. Despite those tragedies, west Cumbria remembers our mining history proudly. Having witnessed the loss not just of our mining industry but, over time, the generation of new nuclear power—despite being the site of the world’s first civil nuclear power station—that loss is felt profoundly. When not replaced, that loss does something to the psychology of a community. People yearn for work that provides a sense of shared purpose.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this Bill because it is a chance to make progress on resetting the children’s social care system in England, and that is where I will focus my remarks. Children’s social care is a special endeavour. It is a collection of kin, professionals and volunteers who seek to provide safe, stable and loving homes for children right across our country. They are the most important foundations for any child growing up—the foundations of family, of a tribe and of a sense of identity. Having chaired the independent review of children’s social care commissioned by the last Government, I have had the opportunity to spend time listening to thousands of people with direct experience of the system, and to make a number of recommendations on which I believe the legislation put forward today will deliver. One is about shifting away from late-stage crisis intervention, and another is about creating a sharper focus on a more expert-led child protection system. My other recommendations include unlocking the potential of family networks as an alternative to the care system, and moving away from a care system that breaks, rather than builds lifelong, loving relationships. As somebody who has led an independent review for the Government that looked at a serious matter, which included engaging with and speaking to victims of sexual abuse and criminal abuse, I find it extraordinary that people who are sent to Parliament to be problem solvers are using this debate to be problem exploiters instead. We have stacks of evidence. We have had thousands of victims of sexual abuse provide heartbreaking and very painful evidence and testimony over many years, and it is our job to listen and to act, not to exploit at moments when the politics may be in our favour.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree that we need to do an awful lot more to support the recruitment and retention of foster carers. Ministers have shown reforming zeal with this measure to provide the Secretary of State with powers to create regional care co-operatives across the country. If the Bill is passed, I urge Ministers to use this new power at pace and with boldness so that we can create the extra foster homes we need. If we follow the example of really effective fostering agencies in the voluntary sector, we could approve 15,000 new foster carers each year, rather than the 1,800 we approve at the moment. I welcome these transformational changes and commend the Government for introducing the Bill so early. I look forward to supporting its passage.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. I have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who shared his comments a while ago, but if he and other Members were serious about this matter, they would table amendments to deliver on IICSA’s recommendation not to go through the process again. I will speak briefly about three particular measures in the Bill. First, it is welcome that we have proposals for family group decision making to be made compulsory at pre-proceedings stage, because there is very sound evidence that it works. A randomised control trial undertaken a few years ago shows that if family group decision making, in the form of a family group conference, was provided at pre-proceedings stage across England, 2,000 fewer children would enter care each year, and it would free up £150 million for earlier support for families. As local authorities start to deliver on the new requirement, it is extremely important that we do not just make it a tick-box exercise, and that we ensure that the evidence and practice guidance is there to support local authorities to deliver in a way that will be most effective. Secondly, the Bill will create multi-agency child protection teams. These teams will fuse together—at an operational level, rather than just a strategic level—the relevant agencies needed to share information and then act on it to protect children from significant harm. It is important that, as well as getting the structure right, we focus on the professional expertise required to do the task of child protection, which is often so challenging. We too often leave newbie social workers with the most challenging task of assessing significant harm by themselves. We do not ask the police to do that—we often send police officers out in pairs—and it is important that we support social workers on their route to expertise through the early-career framework, so that the most expert are making these challenging judgments on significant harm. I know Ministers are looking at that. A unique child identifier is long overdue. I called for this in my review, as have a number of other reviewers. Again, I welcome the leadership that this Government have shown in acting on this in their first six months. It may sound like a modest technical change, but if it is delivered well, it will blow away the fog of confused and partial information sharing. I encourage Ministers to look at the Think family database in Bristol, which is a great example of what can be done when child-level data is shared by the police, education, children’s services and health. Finally, the introduction of regional co-operative arrangements will allow for bolder action to ensure that we have the foster carers we need in this country. Last year, 132,000 households expressed an interest in becoming foster carers, but we have approved only 1,800 of them.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does he agree that provisions in the Bill for measures such as regional care co-operatives, which would agglomerate services—bring them together—across local authorities, to do some of the work of commissioning, recruiting and building up children’s homes would help with the problems that he describes?