Munira Wilson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Culture, Media And Sport · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), on securing this important debate on sport and youth services. The debate is timely because it coincides with the world cup and Wimbledon—and yes, like other hon. and right hon. Members, I will be hiding behind a sofa somewhere on the estate from 5 pm tomorrow for the England match. It is also timely because it coincides with the recent publication of the Milburn report and this week’s findings from the Children’s Commissioner that show a 10% rise in children and young people’s referrals to mental health services over the past year. For too long, sport and youth services have been an afterthought for Government. As many hon. Members have already said, young people need space and the opportunity to express themselves, and they need trusted role models and structure in their lives. Both sports and youth services give them the chance to discover their talents and build their confidence, as well as helping them improve their mental and physical health. Yet the Milburn report showed that failing to invest in prevention carries through into poorer education and employment outcomes. If we want happy, healthy, hopeful and productive adults, we must first invest in happy, healthy and hopeful children and young people. I strongly support the Select Committee’s recommendations to hardwire two hours of physical education into the school week. PE is funded largely by the Department for Education, with some support from the Department of Health and Social Care—although we know that there has recently been a tussle between the two over funding. The resulting announcement saw annual funding for PE slashed by a staggering 22% under the Government’s new PE and School Sport Partnerships Network, with primary schools hit the hardest. The cuts are being rushed through mid-year, leaving teachers, parents and sports co-ordinators scrambling. That comes at the worst possible moment. In England, 2.1 million young people do less than 30 minutes’ physical activity a day and only 57% of teachers say their schools deliver the recommended two hours of PE each week. Sky’s “Game Changing” report estimates a participation gap between girls and boys in secondary school of a staggering 280,000,000 hours of sport per year. If we want to see many more years of Lionesses and Red Roses lifting trophies, we need to invest in the next generation now, through sport both in school and in our communities. Cutting budgets at a time when children need them most—when they are spending more time in front of their screens, as we have just heard—is incomprehensible.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Culture, Media And Sport · Hansard source

  More

  Could the Minister clarify one point for me? The previous PE and sport premium was just for primary schools. Am I right in saying that the new funding she has announced is for primary and secondary schools, and it is therefore being spread across far more schools, so there will be less money per school? How will that help her meet the chief medical officer’s targets?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Culture, Media And Sport · Hansard source

  More

  Partnerships are valuable, of course, and I do not oppose the Government’s approach, but the overall funding envelope is declining and being spread across both primary and secondary schools. This is resulting in a real-terms cut in the sports that are, as we are hearing from both sides of the House, so important to our children’s wellbeing and health. Moving on to grassroots sports more broadly, with Sport England losing its function as a statutory planning consultee, it is hard to see how the Government’s aim of promoting healthy communities can be met when facility provision is declining due to closures, ageing infrastructure and uneven availability. Local authorities are trying their best, but they need help. The Udney Park playing fields in Teddington in my constituency have been lying dormant for over a decade, land banked by developers and out of reach for the local community, who are crying out for additional pitch space. This is not just limited to my constituency. London Sport told the Select Committee that it had had to look at running sports activities in car parks, empty shops and libraries because of the massive disinvestment in parks, leisure and community centres and youth services. As this debate also covers youth services, I want to briefly touch on that, if I may. Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a fair, long-term funding settlement to support youth work, resources and infrastructure, so we very much welcome the Government’s national youth strategy, and particularly their promise to introduce multi-year funding settlements. However, we need them to deliver on that promise. Earlier this year, the YMCA reported that spending on youth services by local authorities in England and Wales fell by 10% in a single year, the largest annual reduction since 2016-17. We know that, as well as improving educational outcomes, youth services provide the relational infrastructure that prevents disengagement from becoming entrenched, protects our vulnerable young people and creates a sense of belonging. I have seen for myself what that investment can achieve at the WEST Youth Zone in London, where there are over 30 activities every evening serving a very disadvantaged community. I was told that if those young people did not have that space, they would be in their bedrooms on their phones all the time. In conclusion, as investment in youth services has fallen, spending on youth justice has risen. We need to focus on prevention, whether through youth services or sport, and we hope that the Government’s rhetoric will be matched by investment and a commitment to delivery.

• 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 · 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?

• 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.

• 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?

• 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

  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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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

  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

  That is indeed what we are trying to do. Putting forward a blanket ban on a particular list of social media sites determined by any Secretary of State at any given point in time is necessarily acting after the fact. That is not future-proof or particularly effective, and it is subject to politicisation. That is why our harms-based approach, which I want to negotiate to get into legislation soon, would be future-proof and work to act on things such as chatbots and games. I know from the discussions we have at home how addictive games such as Roblox can be, for instance. We Liberal Democrats have long been pressing for a suite of measures that would make the online world safer and healthier for all. One measure that could be implemented overnight would be to ban tech companies from profiting from our children’s attention by raising the age of digital data consent from 13 to 16. This would end the hold that addictive algorithms have on children.

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

  More

  I say gently that although the Prime Minister has promised us legislation at some point following consultation, it would be secondary legislation, which gets far less scrutiny than primary legislation, and I am afraid that his track record for U-turning on commitments is not great—let’s face it. I have tried to be as consensual as possible and not make political jibes, but we have had 14 U-turns. He said just a few months ago that he did not want to bring in any sort of ban on harmful social media for under-16s because of the experience of his teenagers, but he made a speech last week in which he said that, because of his teenagers, he did want to do so. I am not sure which version of his comments to believe. I would like to press this issue so that the Government introduce legislation sooner rather than later. I think it needs to be primary legislation so that we can discuss it, debate it, amend it and look at it thoughtfully, and we need a clear and strong timetable for it.

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

  More

  What I am setting out is what I would want to put forward as suggestions for the Bill. As you have helpfully pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will be dividing on whether there should be a Bill very soon on the broad subject of protecting children from online harms. The other measure I would want to bring forward in any legislation is a doomscrolling cap, which would end the infinite scroll feature on short-form online platforms for young people, limiting the amount of time for which children are pushed to TikTok-style video content to two hours. I would also want to see health alerts on social media platforms for under-18s. Just like cigarettes and alcohol, these addictive products carry well-documented risks, especially for young people. The evidence is clear that excessive use of these apps exposes children to mental health issues, anxiety and sleep disruption, and causes real harm to attention spans. Do they not deserve to know that? When we pick up a packet of cigarettes, we expect to be told about the harm that product will pose to our health, so why is social media—a key driver of the crisis in our young people’s mental health—any different? Given that young people themselves say they want a break from the stress of social media at school, and given the impact of phones on children’s concentration and focus, will the Education Secretary finally listen to her own Children’s Minister and put the Government’s guidance on mobile phones in schools into law to give teachers and headteachers the back-up and, crucially, the resources they need to restrict their use? That is also something that could be part of this Bill if the Government refuse to accept the amendment that will be coming from the other place to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. I recognise that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has announced a consultation on children’s online safety and that she will be tabling an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to enable further legislation to come forward on something at some point in the future—all as yet to be determined. Frankly, the Government are kicking the can down the road. Baroness Kidron in the other place, who is an expert and campaigner on children’s safety online, said the Government’s consultation “does not concern itself with the gaps in provision or enforcement of the Online Safety Act, nor the emerging or future threats that we repeatedly raise. It does not seek to speed up enforcement or establish why non-compliant companies are not named in Ofcom research or while they are being investigated. The consultation is entirely focused on two amendments that this House might send to the other House, which its Back-Benchers might agree to. The consultation’s purpose is to stave off a Back-Bench rebellion. It is not about child safety or governance; it is about party management. The UK’s children deserve better than that.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 21 January 2026; Vol. 852, c. 318.] Those are not my words; they are the words of the esteemed Cross-Bench peer Baroness Kidron in the other place.

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

  More

  I was about to expand further on that before I took the two preceding interventions. Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to continue and, if I have not addressed her concerns, she can intervene on me again. Ofcom would be given the powers to force platforms that do not want to play ball to do so or to face serious consequences. We believe that that would mean a ban on harmful social media for under-16s. Family friendly services such as Wikipedia or Tripadvisor would be available at a lower age, as those sites fall under the current user-to-user definition in the Online Safety Act. We know, however, that even 16 could be too young to access the most harmful of sites—those that host violence and pornography—which is why our proposals would allow what we think are really harmful platforms, such as X, to be age-gated up to 18. A harms-based approach, like the one we are proposing today, is supported by 42 charities including the likes of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Molly Rose Foundation and others, and would protect children from the worst of the web without breaking the parts of the internet that families actually rely on. Crucially, it is future-proofed and could be applied to chatbots, games and other emerging technologies. I welcome the fact that the Conservatives’ Opposition day motion a few weeks ago, which we were unable to debate, moved towards the Liberal Democrats’ nuanced approach to keeping under-16s aways from “harmful” social media. I hope that the Conservatives will be able to support our motion today and this approach going forward, despite the fact that they were unfortunately unable to do so in the other place just a month ago.

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

  More

  I am sorry the hon. Member feels that way. We have brought forward a lot of these proposals previously. It is not politicking; we have long been committed to this issue. A number of these things could be done tomorrow. They do not need to be consulted on. The age of digital data consent could be raised tomorrow without any further consultation. There was flexibility in European law on the age it was set at and the UK chose to set it at 13. A number of other countries have recently raised the age. Unfortunately, an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill to do just that was rejected. The bit that probably needs consultation is how any ban or restriction on harmful social media would work, but we could legislate for the principle and consult on the operational detail. I do not think that is a problem. On the hon. Member’s point about making sure that the voices of parents and young people are heard, I think they have been heard loud and clear up and down the country. They have been pushing and pushing for this. They are concerned that the consultation will just delay action further. Parents, teachers and young people are crying out for urgent action now. We need a smart approach that allows young people to benefit from the best of the internet—whether that is learning or staying connected to their friends and family online—while properly tackling the harms it can cause.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Healthy Relationships · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. I am not suggesting that the parental leave policy was perfect by any stretch of the imagination. If it was perfect, we would have far more fathers taking more parental leave, but typically it is mothers who take most parental leave. It is far from perfect, but the Government have an opportunity now, with their parental leave and pay review, to consider the situation holistically. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame has already set out, we as a party would like to see all parents being able to share parental leave. There would be six weeks of “use it or lose it” parental leave each, so that fathers, as much as mothers, have an entitlement of six weeks. However, the rest of the 46 weeks—taking us up to 52 weeks—would be for a mother and father to share as they wish. Again, recognising that that is challenging fiscally at the moment, frankly we have an ambition to try and double the rates of statutory maternity pay, which is also parental pay. That probably relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith), because at the moment the rates of statutory pay are, frankly, less than the minimum wage and lots of parents just cannot afford to take time off, and feel driven back into the workplace, often before they are ready to return to it. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with the Leader of the Opposition, who at one point said that maternity pay was “excessive”. I think that it is far from “excessive”; indeed, it is far too low and we have a long way to go to improve it. While we are discussing the parental leave and pay review, we should not forget about kinship families. Lots of families are not conventional families. Many children cannot grow up with their parents, but other family members look after them. Kinship carers step up overnight to look after children, frequently giving up jobs and careers, and incurring costs that they do not necessarily have a statutory right to receive any support for. Also, they are not allowed to take leave; often, they are excluded from adoption leave as well as from parental leave. When we are discussing family policy and building healthy relationships, that is a real gap in the system that needs to be fixed. I will move on to what I was originally going to say today, which is about trying to build good relationships. We cannot take for granted that children growing up today will necessarily have access to the right sources of knowledge. The rise of technology and social media has put our children at increased risk of encountering extreme and harmful content that distorts their understanding of how they should interact with each other, what romantic relationships look like, and—frankly—what sex looks like. We know that women are 27 times more likely than men to be harassed online, and that a third of young women between the ages of 17 and 21 have received unwanted sexual images online. We know that the online world needs to be reined in, with tech companies and influencers alike profiteering by exploiting the insecurities that men and boys often have, through the use of addictive algorithms that often promote radicalising content and monetise misogynistic content. It might have been the hon. Member for Ribble Valley who said that we should not stereotype our image of what men and boys are like at the moment. However, I think it is true that many men and boys feel increasingly lonely and isolated, and struggle with all sorts of issues, whether the cost of living or a lack of access to other positive activities. So, we need to look at men and boys as well as at women and girls, and to consider the different needs of each. I said in a debate on relationship education last year that we need a culture change in all aspects of society. We must encourage the men in our lives—our brothers, fathers, friends, boyfriends, husbands and sons—to stand up against the toxic masculinity that we have seen, and to demonstrate to other men in their lives, particularly young men, what it means to be compassionate and kind in all relationships, and to realise that compassion is a strength and not a weakness. Given the significant amount of online content that promotes violence against women and girls, which is particularly targeted at men and boys, we need to ensure that we protect our children and young people, not only because of the risk of harm to their mental and physical wellbeing but because of the impact on their social development and how they build relationships. That is why we, as a party, have called very strongly for a ban on harmful social media for under-16s. Different political parties have different proposals on how such a ban could be implemented, but I think it needs to go hand in hand with getting people off their devices and into other activities, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) mentioned. We cannot start restricting things for children and young people if we do not give them alternatives. I have seen that at youth facilities that are easy and cheap, or free, to access. When the young people at those facilities were asked, “What did you do before you came here?”, they said, “We would be on our screens, in our bedroom, on our phones.” We have to provide those third spaces for young people.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Healthy Relationships · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. Youth services are critical and youth workers are amazing, whether they are employed by local authorities, our churches or voluntary groups up and down the country. I am the parent of an 11-year-old who is at the age where, in the holidays, she absolutely does not want to go to holiday clubs. I am trying to persuade her to go to some of the youth venues in the area. We are lucky that we still have two or three of those facilities, but I recognise that in some areas of the country there is not very much. I welcome that the Government have made announcements in this area—the Culture Secretary has made some very positive announcements on this issue. I would like to see a longer-term strategy to support those announcements, particularly in relation to the workforce. In the classroom, relationships and sex education is so important for tackling and preventing violence against women and girls. I see amazing examples in my constituency, where schools are working hard on this issue. I am proud that our local authority, Richmond council, is White Ribbon-accredited and does lots of work with schools and lots of awareness-raising work in the area. However, age-appropriate relationships and sex education at school has a crucial role to play, alongside the role of parents and carers, in giving children the knowledge and information they need to keep them safe by teaching them about consent, healthy relationships and online risks such as pornography and sexting. That is essential for safeguarding. Yet, according to a report by Internet Matters, many children say that they have “received no specific education in relation to sexual image sharing or only very superficial coverage” in relationships and sex education lessons, and that they do not feel able to get the information they want in whole-class groups. Many children felt that they were not offered enough information when the issue was discussed and that, when information was delivered by teachers who were not subject specialists, those teachers “often sped through the topic because they found it ‘awkward’”. [ Interruption. ] Was that a cough to say that I need to wind up, Ms Jardine?

• 19 Jan 2026 · SEND: High-quality School Places · Hansard source

  More

  Shortly before Christmas, the Secretary of State announced to the media, rather than the House, welcome capital investment in specialist provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities, children for whom mainstream provision is simply not appropriate. However, digging into the small print, that included the forced cancellation of 18 free special schools and the jeopardising of a further 59, despite two thirds of state special schools being at or over capacity. With children being sent many miles away to privately run provision that is costing taxpayers eye-watering sums in transport and fees, why does she not give all local councils both the resources and the flexibility to decide whether they should go ahead with a special school in their area, because councils know what is best for the families in their areas, not Whitehall?