Munira Wilson MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 22 Jun 2026 · Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 22 Jun 2026 · Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) have eloquently and powerfully laid out the ethics of leaving out some children from screening, as well as the deep unfairness those children face in not being screened. Is there not also a question of evidence? When we are talking about a rare disease, the numbers are so low that it makes sense to include the whole of England in what is essentially a clinical trial being run by the NHS. If we need a control arm to compare data against, there will be historical data for the children who were not screened and treated too late. I am genuinely perplexed why the Government have not included every testing centre or every laboratory in this trial in the in-service evaluation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Schools Funding · Hansard source

  More

  With the growing obesity and mental health crises among our children and young people, quality physical education has never been more important, yet annual funding for PE will be slashed by a staggering 22% under the new PE and school sport partnerships network, with primary schools hit particularly hard. To make matters worse, these cuts are being hastily rammed through midway through the school year, leaving teachers, parents and sports co-ordinators completely stranded. Can the Secretary of State look parents and teachers in the eye and claim that cutting sports budgets mid-term is giving every child the opportunity to get on?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  I have been contacted by constituents on behalf of young adults and children who are fighting for access to treatment. I am afraid that this all became far too real for me this time last year, when a dear friend of mine was diagnosed with glioblastoma; they are now in palliative care, probably with only a short time to live. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to boost Government funding into research? As he said, too many companies think that this is just too hard to do, so we need a Government initiative, in partnership with the amazing life sciences innovators in our universities up and down the country, as well as those in industry, to really crack this problem so that families do not face this devastation year after year.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether the Secretary of State could provide clarification. She has modelled her social media ban on Australia. Its definition of a ban includes companies taking “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s having accounts with age-restricted social media platforms. She will be aware that for platforms such as YouTube and Reddit, people do not need an account to access very harmful material. Will she clarify whether she is banning children from accessing accounts or from those websites altogether?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Healthwatch · Hansard source

  More

  When Boots decided to close two pharmacies in Hampton, leaving a large number of elderly and vulnerable residents without local pharmacy provision, Healthwatch Richmond played a crucial role in ensuring that we got a new community pharmacy in the area. That locally led patient voice cannot be replaced by officials in Whitehall or our local ICB, which is about to suffer cuts of over 50% in its operating budget. If the Minister is really serious about championing patients, will she think again?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Healthwatch · Hansard source

  More

  20. If he will make it his policy to retain Healthwatch.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Digital Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology if she will make a statement on the Government’s new policy announcements regarding children’s online safety.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Digital Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. Today and over the weekend, we have seen a Prime Minister who has spent months completely disengaged from the digital threats facing our young people suddenly experiencing an eleventh-hour damascene conversion. This sudden rush seems to be driven entirely by a looming ballot in Makerfield and a full-scale rebellion on his Back Benches. We Liberal Democrats will not criticise someone for reaching the correct position, even if it has taken them some time, but unfortunately this Government’s approach remains profoundly weak. It is shameful that the Prime Minister has to beg big tech to stop the proliferation of child sexual abuse imagery. He could and should make these changes anyway, so I appeal to the Minister and, if he is watching, the Prime Minister: just bring forward the legislation. Why is the Prime Minister still asking big tech to co-operate with him when it has constantly shown a total disregard for our children and young people? Broader proposals regarding a ban on harmful social media for teenagers were briefed to the newspapers over the weekend. The Liberal Democrats welcome these reports, and again urge Ministers to move quickly and decisively. Only through a smart film-style age-rating system can we protect children from harmful online content and algorithms. I am delighted that, in pursuit of a legacy, the Prime Minister seems to be borrowing more Liberal Democrat ideas wholesale—tiered age-rated access, ending infinite scrolling and tackling online gaming, not just social media—despite ordering his MPs and peers to vote repeatedly against many of those proposals during the passage of Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026. However, today is not about who voted which way. I ask the Minister and, through him, the Prime Minister to remember the children who have lost their lives because of the harms they have encountered online, and those whose mental and physical health and education have been harmed by what they have been exposed to online. It is for those children that we must work together to bring about change. The Prime Minister must stop begging tech companies to protect our children and start acting himself—now.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Following the brilliant news that the River Thames at Ham and Kingston is to be designated as a bathing water area, does the Secretary of State think that Thames Water’s proposals to pump treated sewage into the river just a few metres further downstream at Teddington are compatible?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, Kenneth Law pleaded guilty in Canada to 14 counts of aiding suicide. The toxic packages that he distributed around the world are believed to be linked to the deaths of some 79 Britons, including Tom, the son of my constituent David Parfett, yet Law will not be tried in the UK following a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service. David, other victims’ families and the Molly Rose Foundation have called for a public inquiry into these deaths and similar deaths connected to pro-suicide forums. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the relevant Minister to give a statement to the House on this case and the wider issue?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Home-to-School Transport · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) on securing this incredibly important debate and on setting out this deeply concerning issue eloquently and passionately. It does not affect his constituency alone; as we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, it is an issue right across the country, from Yorkshire right the way down to Kent and Sussex, and everywhere in between. It feels a bit basic and obvious to say this, but it bears repeating: every child deserves to be able to get to school. There is a legal requirement to educate our children, and their ability to get there is a fairly basic right. They also deserve to get to school safely, efficiently and on time, yet the shocking stories that we have heard from around the country show just how hard that is for far too many children. The fact that the changes in Yorkshire mean that parents are being charged almost £900 for bus passes is, frankly, ridiculous. Sadly, those stories are symptoms of wider failures by a number of Administrations to consider the needs of rural communities and SEND families. As a London MP and a born-and-bred London girl, both of whose children walk fewer than 10 minutes to get to their primary and secondary schools, I hesitate to talk about rural communities, but I hear from colleagues in my party and others about the real challenges of getting to school in rural communities. I have seen that when I have been on visits to Shropshire and talked to families and schoolteachers. Under the last Conservative Government, bus services withered. Between 2015 and 2023, the number of local passenger journeys fell by a quarter—1 billion trips—and many routes were scrapped altogether. We have heard today about the Public Accounts Committee’s recent report on SEND home-to-school transport, which highlighted the ongoing decline of bus services, particularly in rural areas. It notes: “Better local transport options…would reduce home to school transport costs”. I will address the soaring costs that local authorities face when it comes to home-to-school transport, but I will first take a moment to focus on the fact that it is the most vulnerable in society who are impacted by poor transport provision. I find it somewhat surprising that the Department for Education seems to have little interest in what transport looks like for those who use it. As we have heard, it does not collect clear data about who receives home-to-school transport or whether it is reaching those in need. As we have heard from Members from both sides of the House, children are being made to feel that their education does not matter because of where they live. They miss after-school clubs and activities and are made to walk on unsafe roads, often in the dark before school starts. As we have heard very clearly from some case studies today, parents are forced to sacrifice their time and income to drive their children to school, all because a computer said no—because of the rules that have been put in place by their local authorities. Grandparents or other extended family members are forced to go out of their way and step up when no one else is able to—although, as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) pointed out, Cornwall to Kent seems rather extreme and pushing it somewhat. There is, however, a larger underlying issue here. We have seen the costs of home-to-school transport soar alongside the need for SEND provision. While the Government have made the welcome move of committing to write off local authorities’ historic SEND deficits, that, sadly, does not extend to transport costs. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have been urging the Government to exempt SEND transport operators from the Government’s national insurance contribution increases to curb further cost increases. I hope the Minister will address that issue in her response today and will set out what the DFE is doing to address it now. Pushing it into the reforms that we have seen announced, which we know are going to take years to implement, will be too slow to address this particular issue. The cancellation of a number of planned special schools around the country does not help this situation. I strongly urge the Minister to revisit and reverse the cancellation of planned special schools. As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) said, if the specialist provision was closer to home, we would not need to spend quite so much on home-to-school transport.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Home-to-School Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I 100% agree that they need to crack on as soon as possible. The challenge we had with the Government announcements before Christmas was that some local authorities were given the option to crack on with the special school or be given money instead. From talking to councillors on the ground who went for the money, I know that it is not going to be anywhere close to what they need to cover the provision that they were looking for, but they felt kind of forced to take that option. I am really worried about what these announcements will mean for the continued ferrying of children with special educational needs and disabilities very far away from home. Parents of children with SEND battle against the system enough as it is. It seems really unfair that they are now being made to choose between the right school for their child, but not being able to get them there without further sacrificing time and income, and getting their child to a school, but not one that can actually provide the right support. A number of hon. Members have today highlighted the cliff edge in transport provision for students over 16 both with and without SEND. Local authorities do not have a duty to provide a universal transport system after the age of 16. For young people with SEND, their access to education is at the discretion of their local authority. Given what we have heard about financial pressures, it is sadly no surprise that young people with SEND are around 80% more likely to not be in education, employment or training than the average student. The Public Accounts Committee has said: “the Department appears unconcerned about the clarity of offering for this age group or the impact that losing transport at 16 may have.” My hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), who cannot be here today, told me that the cost of a Stagecoach South West termrider increased in September 2025 from £238 per term to £444 per term. Sixth-form students who are not entitled to free transport are being forced to pay more than £1,300 per academic year to access education. I want to be clear with the Minister that the increase was due to the rise in national insurance contributions, which meant that, over and above all the other inflationary cost pressures faced by the company, like many others, it needed to generate an additional £3,500 per year per vehicle to make ends meet. In the light of the Milburn report published last week and the shocking numbers of young people not in education, employment or training, it is deeply disappointing that the Government’s policy on national insurance has exacerbated the problem. Like me, the Minister is a London MP. We are very fortunate that our 16 to 18-year-olds have free transport to be able to get to college and education, so this is not an issue for our constituents, but it is shocking to read those numbers for residents in other parts of the country. I understand that local authorities are under immense financial pressure. As was rightly said by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who is no longer in his place, home-to-school transport is a problem for all political colours, right across the country. Sadly, the policy on national insurance has made the problem worse. I hope that the Minister will consider the exemption I called for, and I echo the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for the Government to review and update national guidance on home-to-school transport. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for the passion with which he has campaigned for his constituent in the terrible case of Lewis. I urge the Government to look at safeguarding standards for home-to-school transport.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Children’s Social Care: Enduring Relationships Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I have no doubt that it is a moment of immense pride for the Minister to be able to announce as Government policy many things that he recommended in his own independent review, and we welcome them. Every child deserves to have deep, trusting, lifelong relationships, yet, as we have heard, too many children in care are torn away from those whom they are able to trust, unable to keep in touch with them for the stability they need to enter adulthood. We know from the Milburn report, published last week, that care-experienced children are five times more likely not to be in education, employment or training at the age of 17 than the general population. As Milburn says, the care system produces an intense concentration of changes “at precisely the ages when continuity matters most.” The Liberal Democrats therefore welcome today’s announcement—the strategy, the accompanying investment, and the marked shift away from harmful short-term thinking and a transactional system towards a holistic approach that puts the child front and centre of decision making, alongside long-term relationships. The Minister will know that my noble Friend in the other place, Baroness Tyler, campaigned hard to close the loophole that prevented children in care from being able to contact siblings not in care, and we hope that today’s announcement will build on her brilliant campaigning. As the Minister alluded to, the number of children in care living more than 20 miles away from home has increased by 41% over the past decade, and that has a damaging long-term impact on those children’s relationships. When will we see a reduction in the number of children in care living far from their families and friends? What are the current accountability measures when children are moved to the other side of the country although that is not in their best interests, and how can that accountability be improved through the regional care co-operatives? The Minister also referenced the new financial allowance pilot for kinship carers. He knows that my party and I have long campaigned on that issue, and I very much hope that he will move at pace, working with the Treasury, to scale those pilots up quickly nationwide. He knows how beneficial it is to put kinship carers’ allowances on a par with foster carers’ allowances. I also urge him to work with Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that statutory leave for kinship carers is part of the parental leave review. Finally, the adoption and special guardianship support fund has been mentioned. I note that the Minister has increased the fund overall, but the cuts to the individual grants persist. He knows that those cuts are damaging to the families affected, so will he please consider reinstating those grants?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Improving the UK Visa System · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for giving way so early in his speech. He hits on the issue that communication with the Home Office is challenging. I would go so far as to say that there is a cultural problem in the Home Office, whether for visa applications or naturalisation applications. A family in my constituency applied for citizenship in 2022, and after months—years—of me and them chasing, and being pushed back and told by the Home Office, “These things take a long time; please be patient,” it transpired that there was an administrative error in the Home Office. It was noticed after three years, and four years later the family finally got naturalisation. Does the hon. Member agree that the culture at the Home Office needs to change?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  Alan Milburn, in his excellent but devastating report, makes it clear that the young people most at risk of ending up out of education or employment are likely to go to a further education college, and he identifies that 32,000 of those FE places are currently unfunded. Just last year, in her skills White Paper, the Education Secretary promised “increased funding to…16 to 19 providers to provide real terms per-pupil funding in the next academic year”, yet I know from talking to my local college that per-head funding this year is going up by only 0.55%. That is a real-terms cut and a broken promise. Coupled with the lag in funding of up to a year for new students, this is disincentivising colleges to take on these pupils. How does the Minister explain that?

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I agree with a lot of what he has said, but on FE colleges, I happened to visit Richmond upon Thames College in my constituency earlier this week, and the chief executive of the group told me that this year it has had only 0.55% per student uplift in funding, despite the White Paper published by the Government last year promising a real-terms increase year on year. That means it will not be able to create the places that young people need or to pay its lecturers enough. Does he agree that that is sorely disappointing from his Front Bench?

• 14 May 2026 · Heathrow Airport: Third Runway · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Just before he got on to the cost point, he confirmed that the ANPS will receive parliamentary scrutiny. Can he clarify for the House whether that means a debate and a vote on the Floor of the House?

• 14 May 2026 · Heathrow Airport: Third Runway · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 14 May 2026 · Heathrow Airport: Third Runway · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who is my constituency neighbour, and congratulate her on securing this important debate, on her excellent speech and on giving me permission to make a speech. I also thank the Minister for allowing me to speak today. My hon. Friend has clearly laid out the key questions that Ministers need to address in approving a third runway at Heathrow, which we have heard publicly today. I am also grateful to the Minister for having previously met my hon. Friend and I when we set out a number of those questions privately to him. As my hon. Friend has already said, in the King’s Speech yesterday the Government set out that “Legislation will be introduced to unlock the benefits of airport expansion”. I and many people, not least my constituents, are asking, “What benefits?” The truth is, as my hon. Friend has eloquently set out, the Government have provided precious little evidence to support their far-reaching claims of the economic benefits of a third runway at Heathrow. Many of us can only see costs, be they financial, environmental or to health. It is obvious that the Government’s expansion of Heathrow—not just Heathrow, but London City, Stansted, Gatwick and Luton—will have a significant impact on this country’s climate commitments. When I and other hon. Members have raised such concerns in the House, Ministers’ answers revert to sustainable aviation fuel every time. However, the reality is that SAF is not a silver bullet. As my hon. Friend has suggested, the Government’s expectation is for SAF to meet 22% of aviation fuel demand by 2040, while the Climate Change Committee’s prediction is just 17%. That will not be enough to make up for the 8 megatonnes to 9 megatonnes of carbon emissions as a result of expansion. The Environmental Audit Committee has warned that by putting all our eggs in this basket, the Government’s delivery on carbon budgets and net zero is “in serious jeopardy”. We must not lose sight of the human cost at the heart of this debate. Some 2.2 million people would suffer from an increase in noise pollution by 2050. Working people will see air pollution increase from congestion on the roads as the M25 is diverted for years—not to mention the permanent increase in traffic to the airport—and from thousands more flights over a very densely populated area, all pumping noxious fumes into our environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park has set out clearly the resulting health impacts. Over the past 15 months, I, like my hon. Friend and a number of others, have asked this Minister, his predecessor, the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Transport Secretary about the funding behind expansion. They all insist that taxpayers’ money will not be used to fund expansion of Heathrow, but frankly, that is hard to believe, given the unsustainable financial circumstances of Heathrow airport and the eye-watering, ever rising costs of a third runway. As we have heard, Heathrow itself has suggested that its expansion will cost £49 billion, but other estimates are much higher, and this country’s track record of delivering infrastructure on time and on budget is not exactly promising. At the same time, Heathrow is beginning to resemble another financial omnishambles: Thames Water. Both have significant debt and are spending massive amounts of money on infrastructure while jacking up prices for bill payers—or, in this case, those taking flights—knowing that the Government are ultimately there to bail them out if it all goes wrong. Let us make no mistake: taxpayers will be expected to foot part of the bill, and hard-pressed families and businesses will be forced to pay more for holidays and business trips through higher fares to fund the higher landing charges, as even airlines have warned. We deserve transparency and accountability from this Government, but at the moment we are getting neither. This Government are delaying publication of vital evidence, such as the aviation night noise effects and aviation noise attitude studies, when we know they have been sitting on the Minister’s desk for months. The Minister has been far from clear on whether this House will have the chance to scrutinise the ANPS properly, which means a debate and a vote. I very much hope he will address those questions head-on today. Back in January 2025, the Chancellor staked her “growth credentials” on this huge project. This kind of infrastructure project needs both economic credibility and economic and political stability. We cannot have another HS2, where half the project gets cancelled a decade down the line—too much is at risk. With the week we have just had, I cannot see how this Chancellor and this Government can seriously be trusted to see through a project that could take a decade or more to build. The Minister must follow the evidence and put a stop to this expansion before it is too late, for the sake of taxpayers, for the sake of our local communities and for the sake of our environment.

• 14 May 2026 · Heathrow Airport: Third Runway · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am dismayed that we find ourselves here yet again on this Bill. I remind the House that this is the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and currently one of the biggest threats to our children’s wellbeing is online harms, not least as a result of harmful social media, alongside other online harms such as addictive gaming and chatbots. I recognise and welcome that the Government have moved a little since we last debated amendments to the Bill last week: Ministers have finally made the commitment in legislation that the Government must take action, rather than may take action. There has also been some limited movement on the issue of addictive by design—a key principle that the Liberal Democrats have been pressing—although clearer and stronger wording on this point would be helpful, not least in view of the recent court cases in the US. Critically, we have been pressing for a clear time-bound commitment to action. I must say that the initial timeline put forward by the Government in the other place this afternoon was, frankly, laughable. When parents and carers, young people, grandparents and teachers in their tens of thousands are demanding urgent action on teenagers’ access to harmful social media, setting out a three-year timeline for introducing regulations to this place—let alone implementing them—was ludicrous. I note that this evening the Government have shortened that period to 21 months. Ministers have said repeatedly from the Dispatch Box that the current consultation is very short and sharp. I welcome the fact that they have committed to bringing forward a report in three months’ time, whereas previously they had said that it would take six months, but why do they need a further full year to lay regulations, and then a further six months’ buffer? Countries around the world are taking action right now. This Government have shown that when they want to move quickly on an issue, they have the means to do so. The compromising of children’s wellbeing and safety online every single hour of every single day is a damn good reason to move quickly and to bring forward amendments acceptable to both Houses of Parliament and, most importantly, to the people of this country. In the debate in the other place this afternoon, we heard excellent speeches from across the party divides—Labour, Conservative, Cross-Bench, Liberal Democrat—all calling for urgent action. A number backed Lord Nash’s amendment again, even though many, including the Liberal Democrats, are unhappy with his particular approach, all because we want to ensure that the Government move further and faster. May I draw the Minister’s attention to the noble Baroness Kidron’s excellent amendment that was considered in the other place this afternoon? As the Government will know, she is widely respected on the subject of online safety. Her amendment deals with all these important issues: safety by design; a harms-based approach with variable age-gating; and allowing the Government eight months to lay regulations and up to 12 months in total to enact them. Indeed, Lord Nash’s amendment, which the Government are choosing to vote down, committed to action within eight months, instead of this three months, plus six months, plus 12 months, plus another six months, adding up to 21 months before we might see any action. My noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones set out clearly that the Liberal Democrats support the approach set out in Baroness Kidron’s amendment, and I strongly agree with him. I would like to repeat my noble Friend Lord Mohammed’s offer: we stand ready to come together, cross-party, to act together, legislate together and protect our children from online harms and ensure that teenagers do not have access to harmful social media. The time is now. We will keep pressing through the night if necessary, until Prorogation, to ensure that our children and young people are not let down by this Government at this critical moment.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will try my best, Madam Deputy Speaker. Every family has the ambition to send their child to the best school—preferably close by—so we welcome the Government’s moves to strengthen the duty of the schools adjudicator to take account of quality of educational provision and parental preference in an area before changing a school’s pupil admission numbers. We also welcome the duty to consult. We remain concerned about conflicts of interest and how things will work in practice. Ultimately, if a high-performing, popular school has space to expand and there is a demand for places, ideology should not get in the way of it doing so. I welcome the Government’s decision to finally ban access to mobile phones during the school day by putting existing guidance on a statutory footing. I join the shadow Secretary of State in paying tribute to all the campaign groups and to my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for all her work on this issue. After more than a year of parents, teachers and pupils begging, this simple change will have a big impact. I am just sorry that it did not happen sooner and was described repeatedly as a gimmick. Classrooms will be a step closer to becoming a place of focus and learning, free from the addictive and demanding world of social media, but they need the right equipment and procedures in place. With school budgets stretched to breaking point and some parents not necessarily able to afford pouches, I urge the Government to ensure that all schools have the necessary support to properly ensure that every classroom can be smartphone-free. I welcome the reasonable adjustments alluded to in the guidance, but I would also welcome clear assurance from the Minister that for those pupils with medical needs or caring responsibilities, schools will be at liberty to make appropriate exemptions and accommodations that are not onerous or discriminatory towards individual children. Similarly, school leaders should have the freedom to ensure that children with SEND who may need assistive technology have appropriate access to a device. I strongly endorse the comments on exceptions by the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). Providing clear advice to teachers and headteachers on a regular basis would be very helpful to alleviate those concerns. While we can celebrate a big victory for smartphones in schools, the damaging impact of addictive social media and gaming and of chatbots extends far beyond the school day. Each day, more children are coming to serious harm because of social media, while the big tech companies come to this place, as we have heard, and brazenly deny responsibility for the damage that they are causing to the mental and physical health of our children and young people. Social media is encouraging insidious, brain-numbing behaviour in all of us—not just children, as the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) said—through its infinite scrolling features, frequent dopamine hits and addictive algorithms. Its content endangers the people we are here to protect. Just last week I spoke to a constituent whose child cut themselves after seeing a video on YouTube shorts that said it could help relieve stress. The longer we delay, the more we hear such stories. I urge the Government to formally recognise in the legislation that both addictive design and harmful content have created this toxic cocktail. If we cannot accurately identify the problem, how can we tackle it? I know that Ministers want to help our children, but we need them to do more. We have been debating this issue for more than a year now. The now Children’s Minister, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), put forward his own Bill on social media harms more than a year ago. The time is now to gut addictive algorithms, ban social media giants from collecting our children’s data and make big tech responsible for the harmful content it is pushing on our children. I urge the Government in the strongest possible terms to come forward with a concrete commitment to action and a swift timeline for implementation. I agree with the Minister that we need to go broader than social media, to gaming and chatbots. Some of that wider remit was acknowledged in a very positive amendment from Baroness Kidron in the other place, which the Government rejected. The Liberal Democrats have put forward broader, more nuanced amendments in the other place beyond just a blunt social media ban, but they have been repeatedly rejected. This is not about party politics, as some have suggested. We are all trying to come together towards the same aim, but we need a concrete commitment in any amendments that are brought forward to a date when the Government will take action. We cannot wait for a drawn-out consultation that asks if, not how, we should ban social media. Our children who are affected every single day cannot wait for action to be taken.

• 21 Apr 2026 · West Bank: Illegal Settlements · Hansard source

  More

  The Foreign Secretary has just reiterated that it is this Government’s stated objective and aim to recognise the Palestinian state, yet there are Members of the Israeli Government who say that it is their policy to expand illegal settlements in order to undermine a viable Palestinian state. Will she take firm action, ban the trade in settlement goods, and look at further sanctions on members of the Israeli Government and Members of the Knesset who promote these illegal policies?