Munira Wilson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 Apr 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor said in her statement: “Every choice I make will be about keeping costs down for families and businesses”. However, when I speak to small business owners on high streets across my constituency of Twickenham, Teddington and the Hamptons—especially café and restaurant owners—they tell me that the soaring energy and food prices that are a result of war are only compounding the pain they were feeling as a result of the Chancellor’s choices to hike national insurance for employers and, in some cases, double their business rates. What action will she take this month and this quarter, not in a year’s time, to help those businesses stay afloat? We need them to stay open for the sake of our communities.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Falling School Rolls · Hansard source

  More

  With falling school rolls in Twickenham, across London and in other parts of the country, school budgets are coming under increasing pressure that is compounded by the underfunding of teachers’ pay rises, breakfast clubs and free school meals. Data from the House of Commons Library predicts a £4.4 billion black hole in funding for teachers’ pay rises alone over the next three years, and there is no way in which “productivity savings” can bridge that gap. Will the Secretary of State commit herself to funding those rises fully, so that headteachers are not forced to cut the number of support staff and extracurricular activities that are so important to children’s education and wellbeing?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I was deeply alarmed by reports that Labour MPs were being given pre-written feedback to share, following consultation sessions with constituents on the Government’s special needs reforms. The Secretary of State promised to put families at the heart of her changes, so will she assure parents and carers that the SEND consultation is entirely free from political interference and that they will be listened to, especially with regard to their rights?

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

  More

  I am very pleased that we have proper time for debate today. I record my dismay that our last debate on this Bill was cut so short, when we had so many important amendments to consider. We spent more time walking through the voting Lobby than scrutinising the provisions of law that we are sent here to make. I want to start by talking about children in care. As we have just heard, their relationships with siblings can be the most important connections they have. Too often, those relationships are being strained or damaged by a system that just does not support them effectively. To that end, I would also like to commend the work of the charities Become and the Family Rights Group, who have sought to keep siblings connected. It is for this reason that I warmly welcome the Government’s acceptance of Lords amendment 17. The Minister said that it is a travesty that siblings have been separated. I gently say that it was her and her colleagues who made Labour MPs oppose the Lords amendment from my noble Friend Baroness Tyler in the last round of ping-pong. I am glad the Government have had a change of heart, accepted her approach and put forward their amendment in lieu. I congratulate and thank my noble Friend Baroness Tyler of Enfield. She has been championing this issue for many, many years and I recognise her tireless work. I also recognise the tireless work of the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell), who, as we have just heard, has also been working so hard on this issue. The amendment addresses a critical oversight in our current regulations, ensuring that the bond between siblings is not severed simply because their care status differs. These relationships are often the only constant in a child’s life. Protecting them provides a vital anchor of stability amid the profound upheaval of new care arrangements. Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 106 requires headteachers only to “have regard for” guidance on smartphones in schools, rather than mandating the existing guidance. Young people themselves say that they want a break from the stress of social media at school. We all know the impact that our phones have on our concentration and focus. If Ministers and other hon. Members in this House cannot resist the temptation to look at their smartphones during a debate like this, how on earth do they expect a 14-year-old to ignore a TikTok notification in a double science lesson? According to Health Professionals for Safer Screens, a quarter of children’s notifications go off during the day. I am deeply alarmed that our children’s educational attainment should be hindered by an issue that is so simple to solve. I appreciate the Minister’s comments about guidance and asking Ofsted to look at it. After they made the announcement that they would include the issue in Ofsted inspections, I met a group of headteachers from my constituency. They said to me, “This is yet another thing you are piling on to the Ofsted inspection. Please can you ask Ministers to just get on and make this law?” Where schools have managed to ban phones during the school day, they have seen a real transformation in pupils, going from being glued to screens to chatting and playing Uno at break times. Headteachers report significant reductions in incidents of low-level disruptive behaviour and lower in-school truancy, and children and teachers are reporting being happier in school. However, many headteachers are still battling to get their schools to that place. Our headteachers need proper support to do right by our children, where they are challenged by parents who want still to be able to reach their children even during the course of the school day, to ensure that children have a healthy and safe education free from distraction. I ask the Minister, and the Secretary of State if she is listening, to make this guidance statutory. Will the Minister support schools with the tools and funding to manage this transition to ensure that every classroom is a space where children can focus, learn and thrive, smartphone free, unless they have a need for a device for medical reasons, for special educational needs or because they are young carers? It is a strange irony that the Government demand endless evidence before reining in big tech yet refuse a single review of their branded school uniform policy. By rejecting Lords amendment 41B to review the effectiveness of the Government’s cap on the number of branded school uniform items, as opposed to the Liberal Democrat proposal of a price cap, Ministers are effectively asking the British public to trust that they have exactly the right answer. The amendment is a significant concession on what we have previously proposed. It merely asks for a review of the policy after 12 months. We have a shared goal on both sides of the House to tackle the cost of living for hard-pressed families, but Ministers seem to lack the humility to admit that there is a chance that their policy prescription to bring down the cost of uniforms may be wrong. The Schoolwear Association has said that 61% of its members may increase prices based on the item cap. The Government were forced to U-turn on winter fuel allowance for pensioners and on welfare reform for those in receipt of benefits. Why will they not accept the offer of an off-ramp to potentially prevent another forced U-turn somewhere down the line? What do they fear about testing their policy in a year’s time, just in case the uniform suppliers hike their prices in response to this policy, as the industry has repeatedly warned and as a basic understanding of market forces would suggest? The Government cite their manifesto as though it were a shield against better Liberal Democrat ideas, but a manifesto commitment is only as good as its delivery. Parents want action that will actually lower their bills. If the Government are so sure they have got it right, they have nothing to fear from a 12-month review. On the theme of supporting families, I shall speak to Lords amendment 38. I first offer my belated congratulations to the Government on accepting the merits of part of the Liberal Democrat position in their amendment. Having spent a year opposing our efforts to ban big tech from collecting the data of under-16s, it is heartening to see Ministers finally recognise that we can no longer allow social media giants to treat our children’s personal data as a commodity to be harvested for profit. It is also welcome that the Government have moved towards the Liberal Democrat position of age ratings for social media, by accepting that children of different ages will be affected by the online world in different ways. But the Government have still not gone far enough. Their amendment says only that they “may” make provisions to tackle these issues, not that they will. The Government’s amendment also remains silent on the predatory nature of addictive design. By ignoring the infinite scroll and the psychological triggers engineered to hijack a child’s attention, the Government fail to recognise that this amendment will leave parents, families, children and indeed the Government fighting against big tech with one arm tied behind their back. The recent US court cases against Meta and YouTube confirm what we already knew. Those apps are designed to keep our children hooked.

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

  More

  I could not agree more. There is a plethora of evidence out there showing that we have to act, and we have to act now. I simply cannot understand why the Government are not committing to doing something soon. Going back to the US court cases, one document revealed that Meta executives claimed: “If we wanna win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens.” That is my 11-year-old daughter that Meta is talking about. Another internal memo showed that 11-year-olds were four times more likely to keep coming back to Instagram compared with competing apps, despite the platform requiring users to be at least 13 years old.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Healthy Babies Funding · Hansard source

  More

  May I welcome the Minister to her new post? The Government’s support for Healthy Babies is very welcome, but the best way to keep babies who have type 1 spinal muscular atrophy healthy and help them to lead normal lives is by screening them at birth, because they can then access transformative gene therapy. My constituent little Charlie, who will soon be two, would be walking now instead of learning to use a wheelchair if he had been diagnosed at birth through screening, rather than when he was a few months old. Will the Minister consider adding SMA type 1 screening to the newborn screening schedule?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. My constituent Caroline fell ill after swimming in the River Thames. She needed antibiotic treatment and was warned by her doctor never to swim in the river again. Like many others, she has been enraged by Channel 4’s “Dirty Business”. Will the Secretary of State step up and not just replace Ofwat but improve transparency by monitoring sewage by volume, not just length of time?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Student Loans · Hansard source

  More

  I too welcome the reintroduction of maintenance grants, which, let us be clear, were scrapped by George Osborne when he was left to his own devices in 2015. However, does the hon. Lady accept that £1,000 a year for certain selected subjects will not even touch the sides and suggests that some poor students deserve support but not others? Does she think that that is the right way forward?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Victims’ Rights · Hansard source

  More

  8. What steps he is taking to support victims’ rights.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Victims’ Rights · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will recall that last month I raised with her the case of Roksana Lecka, who was convicted of child cruelty at a nursery in Twickenham. Her victims’ parents were given only six days’ notice that she was being deported just a few months into her eight-year sentence, so although the victims code currently says that “all reasonable steps” should be taken to inform victims of an offender’s immigration status and likelihood of deportation, it does not say when. Does the Minister agree that an updated victims code should say that information about an offender’s immigration and likely deportation status should be shared as early as possible in the process?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think that all of us across the House share the Justice Secretary’s passion for delivering justice more quickly for victims. I visited Isleworth Crown court at lunch time on Friday and spoke to barristers there. They impressed upon me that it is extremely rare that juries and jurors are the cause of delays to court cases. Recently, there have been delays because the cells have been too cold for defendants or Serco staff to use. Defendants are routinely delivered late by Serco, and there are no contractual penalties. That is pushing cases back repeatedly. Why will the Justice Secretary not take action on those things, rather than restricting trial by jury, which will make a limited difference?

• 10 Mar 2026 · English Rugby · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on this important debate. I am of course the Member of Parliament who represents the home of English rugby; I also have the premiership team Harlequins in my constituency. But we also have grassroots clubs such as Thamesians, which is struggling for pitch space, particularly for its women’s team, who are doing a brilliant job. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we should be doing everything we can, given what he has just said, to improve access to playing-field space, and therefore will he join me in imploring the Minister to talk to his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about its plans to remove Sport England as a statutory consultee on planning applications, which could reduce the number of pitches?

• 10 Mar 2026 · English Rugby · Hansard source

  More

  On PE in schools, will the Minister or his counterparts in the Department for Education commit to publishing a national schools sport strategy and a multi-year funding settlement, with the sport premium having been scrapped and other funds such as the opening school facilities fund that have benefited schools, particularly those in disadvantaged areas,?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to welcome the Bill back to the House of Commons, some 15 months after it started its passage at the beginning of last year. I am, however, extremely disappointed that the Government have provided such a small amount of time for us to discuss the numerous Lords amendments, and that they are throwing so many of them out. I am grateful to our colleagues in the other place for their diligence and their efforts to strengthen and improve the Bill. Lords amendment 41 and 42, tabled by my noble Friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, seeks to introduce a price cap on the amount of branded uniform that a school can require parents to buy. We know that the price of uniform causes real hardship for families, particularly in the midst of a cost of living crisis. As we have just heard from the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), it often causes genuine anxiety. Children are sometimes sent home for wearing the wrong item of uniform, which disrupts their learning. While we strongly support the Government’s intention to introduce a branded uniform items cap, I implore the Minister to look again at the detail. The Liberal Democrats have proposed a uniform price cap, which would keep the prices down for parents while giving schools the flexibility to choose their own uniform policy and decide how many branded items they wish to include. The Minister talked about perverse incentives and driving up prices for parents. In fact, a monetary cap would do precisely the opposite, because it would be using the market and incentivising suppliers to drive down their prices. Obviously, they would want to be able to sell more items of branded clothing within that cap. I appreciate that the Government point to their manifesto commitment, but there is nothing shameful about changing one’s mind—or, dare I say, U-turning—when the evidence demands it. That is something that the Government should feel pretty comfortable with by now. Let me turn to the theme of supporting families. Lords amendment 16 would require the Government to review the per-child funding in the adoption and special guardianship support fund following the devastating cuts that they implemented last year. The fund provides therapeutic support for some of the most vulnerable children in society, allowing them to process their trauma and relearn how to trust. As a result of last year’s cuts, many adoptive parents and kinship carers can barely afford to pay for needs assessments, let alone the complex therapy that the children actually require. A number of them have written to me from across the country about their experiences since the Government cut their entitlements. Heartbreakingly, many mention the threat of adoption breakdown looming over their family. The fund is a lifeline for families, but that lifeline is fraying. We are told that tough choices must be made, but the Department for Education’s advertising budget hit nearly £50 million last year. That is a £15 million increase in the last two years. Just halving that budget could restore crucial therapeutic support to thousands of children. Will the Minister support our amendment that seeks to review the funding for the adoption and special guardianship support fund and commit herself to restoring individual grants, or are this Government more interested in glossy advertising campaigns than in supporting the most vulnerable children? Speaking of vulnerable children, let me turn to Lords amendment 17, tabled by Baroness Tyler, who has done amazing work on the issue of sibling contact rights. The amendment seeks to close a loophole in the current regulations so that siblings, when one is in care and the other is not, are able to remain in contact. It would require a child’s care plan to include arrangements for promoting contact with all the child’s siblings, whether they are in care or not, as far as that is consistent with the child’s welfare. The Government have said that there is no need to close the loophole because the duty already exists, but I ask Labour Members whether they can be content with such an answer when it is clear that the present system is not working. We have heard again, from the Chair of the Education Committee and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), about the importance of this issue. I have been given permission to share Abby’s story. Abby grew up in a residential care home and lost contact with two of her sisters, which was subsequently restored. However, I do not have time to go into that now because the time for debate has been so limited this evening, but I hope that we will return to this subject again if the Government insist on doing the wrong thing and throwing out an important amendment that a number of their Back Benchers clearly support. The Government motion on amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 37 and 38 further amends the UK GDPR legislation to tighten control over children’s personal data online. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for that change for over a year. While we welcome the Government’s copying of another of our proposals, simply granting themselves the power to do something at some point is no protection for children until they act, and action has not been forthcoming. The same is true of the second part of the motion. Again, we have a consultation that appears to be dithering over whether something should be done at all. We Liberal Democrats have made it very clear to the Government that if they want our support, they must make a firm commitment to act, and to act quickly. We are calling for a specific implementation timeline and a change in the consultation’s terms of reference, so that it becomes a question of how, and not if, we regulate social media. We have a thought-out policy that is ready to go if the Government want to take another idea of ours. We have proposed a harms-based approach to online regulation: age-rating user-to-user services according to the addictiveness of their features, the harmfulness of their content and the impact on mental health. The solution is practical and future-proofed, and would provide the incentive to make the online world safer for us all. Unlike the Government’s approach, our approach would ensure that these sweeping powers are not concentrated in the hands of a single Secretary of State. Are the Government truly comfortable with bypassing full parliamentary scrutiny through secondary legislation? They must consider the precedent that they are setting. We are handing a loaded gun to any future Administration, of any political complexion, to decide which websites are harmful and which are not. For the sake of our children’s safety and our democratic standards, I urge the Government to think again. Finally, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches made a promise to the campaigners, the charities and the thousands of parents who have written to us that we would not play party politics on this issue. While we may differ in our approach, we will oppose the removal of Lords amendment 38, because we need the Government to hear the voices of the thousands of parents and children who are desperate for something to change. Every hour that this House spends debating whether we should do something, another algorithm is being developed to exploit a vulnerable child. By opposing the removal of the amendment, we are sending a clear message that the safety of our children is a non-negotiable right.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Supporting Children with SEND · Hansard source

  More

  Trust among families with special educational needs is at rock bottom. Their voices have often been ignored—sometimes with tragic consequences—so while many are open to reform, there is real concern that under the Government’s proposals tribunals will lose the ability to direct specific provision in a child’s best interest, with the risk that families will be trapped in an endless doom loop of dispute with local authorities. If Ministers are serious about tackling that adversarial nature, will the Minister confirm how she will prevent it and protect children’s and parents’ rights?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State has quite rightly said that someone’s background should be no barrier to success, so if she does not propose to increase the pupil premium budget, will she confirm how many children will lose out when she seeks to rebalance it, and will she guarantee that the money will always follow the individual child, not where they live?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I am perplexed, because I think there is support on both sides of the House for restricting online harms and protecting our children, and for the principle of bringing forward legislation, although I understand that people are vexed about the procedural point. I fear that there has been some contorting to find a way to justify voting against this motion. I am sorry that that is the case, because we Liberal Democrats are ready to work in a cross-party manner to create the safer future that our children deserve so that they can flourish and thrive in the online and offline worlds. I hope colleagues across the Chamber will support us.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I am about to come to an end.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I have not said that we should focus only on age-gating; as I continue through my speech, the hon. Gentleman will hear about the range of other things that I think should be in any legislation that is brought forward—quickly—to protect our children. The age-gating of certain platforms based on their harmfulness, which would be a key principle and part of the legislation, is part of our proposals, but so are various other things that I will talk about in terms of tackling the addictiveness of algorithms that is so damaging to our children.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I hope the hon. Lady will not mind if I call her my hon. Friend, although we are on opposite sides of the House. I thank her for her intervention, and I take her point, which I have also heard the Government express. I agree that we need to consult, but I think we should be consulting on how we implement some of these proposals, not on whether we do or what we do, because there is clearly a general consensus. When we look at the findings of every opinion poll—certainly when it comes to such measures as banning social media for under-16s—we see overwhelming public support. There is also cross-party support in this House and, as we have seen recently, in the other place. For me, if there is a consultation, it should be about how those things are implemented and not whether we do that or which ones we implement. However, I will touch on the Government’s approach towards the end of my speech. We Liberal Democrats would introduce a film-style classification system, with social media rated at 16 as a default, and give Ofcom the powers to back up such a framework. That echoes the film and video classification system established in the 1980s, adapting a trusted framework for the digital age. Companies would be required to age-gate their platforms based on the harmfulness of their content, the addictiveness of their design and the impact that that can have on a child’s mental health. The onus would be on social media companies to stop children getting on to their platforms and to take steps to make their apps safer in the meantime.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to try to move on now— [ Interruption. ] I am going to make some progress, because I think we have now tested the procedural approach to death. It is important that we reach consensus on our approach and reject the unworkable blanket bans that have been proposed elsewhere that put enormous powers in the hands of an individual politician. I do not think any Reform Members are here in the Chamber, but given that Reform wants to scrap the Online Safety Act altogether, I shudder to think what future Ministers might deem acceptable if they were allowed to choose what our children and young people could access, which the amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill coming from the other place would allow the Secretary of State to do.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  We are debating today the principle of bringing forward legislation quickly. I know that the Government are saying that they want to bring forward legislation sometime in the future. We do not know when that is. I am trying to put a timeframe on it, because we know that what will come back shortly from the other place in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will not be accepted by this House. That is why I am trying to find an opportunity for us all to come together and get to a point that we all agree on. This is about agreeing the principle that we should have primary legislation sooner rather than later. I am happy to make time in my diary tomorrow to start those discussions.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  It is simple. As I have said, I want us to come together in a cross-party consensus on what should be in that Bill. I have heard what the Conservatives have had to say, I am about to set out what the Liberal Democrats have to say and I am keen to hear what Ministers have to say on what should be in the Bill. We do not have a Bill yet because we think there is an opportunity to work together on this issue. There have been suggestions that there is party politicking on this issue. I do not think it is a party political issue; I think we all agree that children’s safety and wellbeing is a cross-party priority. The idea is that we agree to move forward, come together and work cross-party on a Bill which, hopefully, we can get through Parliament very quickly and on to the statute book to start protecting our children as soon as possible.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House makes provision as set out in this Order: (1) On Monday 9 March 2026: (a) Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that Order) shall not apply; (b) any proceedings governed by this Order may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed, and shall not be interrupted; (c) the Speaker may not propose the Question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private); (d) at 6.00pm, the Speaker shall interrupt any business prior to the business governed by this Order and call the leader of the second largest opposition party or another Member on their behalf to move the order of the day that the Online Services (Age Restrictions) Bill be now read a second time; (e) in respect of that Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time; (f) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this Order may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption. (2) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (19) of this Order shall apply to and in connection with the proceedings on the Online Services (Age Restrictions) Bill in the present Session of Parliament. Timetable for the Bill on Monday 9 March 2026 (3) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at the sitting on Monday 9 March 2026 in accordance with this Order. (b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 8.00pm. (c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 10.00pm. Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put on Monday 9 March 2026 (4) When the Bill has been read a second time: (a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme Order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put; (b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given. (5) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question. (b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put. (6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (3), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply— (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair; (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed; (c) the Question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by The Chairman or Speaker for separate decision; (d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a designated Member; (e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other Questions, other than the Question on any motion described in paragraph (15) of this Order. (7) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill. Consideration of Lords Amendments and Messages on a subsequent day (8) If on any future sitting day any Message on the Bill (other than a Message that the House of Lords agrees with the Bill without amendment or agrees with any Message from this House) is expected from the House of Lords, this House shall not adjourn until that Message has been received and any proceedings under paragraph (9) have been concluded. (9) On any day on which such a Message is received, if a designated Member indicates to the Speaker an intention to proceed to consider that Message— (a) notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14(1) any Lords Amendments to the Bill or any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly; (b) proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under subparagraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed; (c) the Speaker may not propose the Question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private) in the course of those proceedings. (10) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme Orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion as if: (a) any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member; (b) after paragraph (4)(a) there is inserted— “(aa) the question on any amendment or motion selected by the Speaker for separate decision;”. (11) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme Orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of a Lords Message to a conclusion as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member. Reasons Committee (12) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme Orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member. Miscellaneous (13) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies. (14) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a designated Member, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order. (b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion. (c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly. (d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed. (e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion. (15) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies except by a designated Member. (b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith. (16) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House. (17) No private business may be considered at any sitting to which the provisions of this Order apply. (18) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which proceedings to which this Order applies are to take place shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies. (b) Standing Order 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate. (19) In this Order, “a designated Member” means— (a) the leader of the second largest opposition party; and (b) any other Member acting on behalf of the leader of the second largest opposition party. This afternoon is an opportunity for the House to come together to take urgent and meaningful action and to legislate within weeks—not months or years, but weeks—to keep our children and young people safe online, whether that is protection from harmful social media, artificial intelligence chatbots or addictive gaming. It is clear that we are at a tipping point, with widespread public and cross-party support for decisive action. Every parent across this country knows the threat that social media poses to our children—to their mental health, to their physical health, to their sleep and to their concentration. They have written in their thousands to every single MP in this House—I want to take this opportunity to thank the 1,500 or so parents and carers in my Twickenham constituency who have written to me—and they are begging for a change in the law, so that they can better protect their children. They are not abdicating parental responsibility, as some people would like to suggest; they are pleading with the Government for help in providing the tools and safeguards that they need when faced with the might and the business models of enormous tech companies profiteering from our children’s attention. For me, this is personal. My husband and I fight a daily battle at home with our children, aged 11 and seven, on screen time and what platforms and games they can access. Peer pressure is overwhelming for children—especially those just starting out on their secondary school journey, as my daughter recently has—who are desperate for belonging and connection. Parents are torn between wanting to ensure that our children are not left out of online spaces, which all too often we ourselves struggle to understand, and wanting to protect our children. I believe that it is time we sent this message, loud and clear, to Musk, Zuckerberg and the other tech giants: “If your platform spreads harmful content or relies on addictive and harmful algorithms, you should not be allowed anywhere near our children.” That is why the Liberal Democrats have today introduced a Bill that would provide a range of protections for children from online harms, including the restriction of access to harmful social media. Before I describe what we would ideally want to include in the Bill, let me emphasise that if the House were to support the motion, we would seek to work on a cross-party basis to introduce workable and effective legislation quickly, given that there is support for action across the House. This is not about one party winning or owning the issue; it is about us—as politicians, policymakers and parents—coming together to protect our children, their safety and their wellbeing.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way again, because I think we have tested this argument to death. I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns about procedure, but this mechanism is not unheard of. The Labour party did something similar on fracking a few years ago when Liz Truss was Prime Minister. I remember it well—I was in this place, as was the hon. Lady—and we voted on that. There was no substance, but Labour wanted to bring forward legislation.