Tony Vaughan MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 13 Mar 2025 · Product Safety Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  7. What steps his Department is taking to help microbusinesses comply with the general product safety regulations.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Product Safety Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his answer. My constituent George Stevens runs a microbusiness in Lydd making handcrafted stringed instruments; it has been running for over 30 years and he has many EU customers. He is deeply worried about Brexit-related red tape, which is holding back his EU exports. Can the Minister give him an assurance that, as a result of the proposed measures, he will now find it easier to trade with the EU?

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

  More

  I thank hon. Members and the Minister for their valuable contributions and explanations. As the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) said, the status quo cannot continue, and I think everyone can agree with that. Several Members also said that we need a cross-party approach to these issues and, again, I think everyone would agree. Like many others, I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) for his analysis of the approach we should take to the evidence. The anecdotal and correlational evidence of the effects of social media is known to us all—especially to parents and teachers—and we have heard much of it in the debate, but putting the onus on social media companies to prove that social media is safe, rather than on the regulator to prove that it is not, seems to be common sense, and I was grateful to hear the Minister agree. Reversing that burden would mean that the social media companies would have to show that the mountain of correlational and anecdotal evidence of harms, which we have all talked about today, is explained by something else, but none of the discussion today has really pointed to what that “something else” could be. Of course, as the Minister says, there are other things—other material is part of the picture—but it is not good enough for the social media companies to say, as they currently do, “Well, it’s very complicated. You can’t prove that our social media is the problem, so we can get away with doing what we like.” I was therefore heartened to hear the Minister reiterate that everything remains on the table and that this is the first stage of rolling out what the Online Safety Act seeks to do, but not the end of action on this issue. Whatever the burden, the evidence is evolving and, while we wait, our children are losing out. I am a big supporter of evidence-based policymaking, but we as legislators have to make difficult decisions and difficult judgments on the evidence as it is, imperfect as it may be. Ultimately, of course, a judgment call will be needed, and we should give weight to the precautionary principle. It is clear that social media is part of the context, even if we cannot say that it is 51% of the cause—or however we want to put it. So it is important to say that if it is part of the context, we should take it out or do something more ambitious. But I accept that, as the Minister explained, we need to put the current mechanism in place so that we can at least see what we are dealing with. Lastly, I want to comment on the contextual point my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) made about the importance of keeping foreign state actors off our children’s screens. That is, of course, an important point, but I just want to acknowledge a big contextual factor here, without perhaps saying too much about it. I am under no illusion about the power of the social media and tech companies. To take the owner of X, who has a role in the US Government, the regulatory regimes are relevant to his bottom line—I think somebody else said that as well. The issues we are talking about do not only concern us here in Westminster; they may well involve relations with other countries, and how we go about persuading people who we want to help us in different ways to make the very bold changes that may ultimately be needed. I will end on that because it is one of the most difficult aspects, which is perhaps why it has not been talked about too much today. Nevertheless, let us not worry about the difficulties, because we are all united in the desire to do something about this issue. For me, that is one of the big, important things that has come out of today: we are united in trying to sort it out, so let us all work together and do it. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 700086 relating to a minimum age for social media.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The legislative regime that we have at the moment, as I will come on to say, will require risk assessments. The state of the evidence when the Online Safety Act 2023 was being passed is different from the evidence that we have today, so the nature of those assessments and of the risks is necessarily different. As I will come on to say, we need to look at that on a continual basis. As I was saying, social media can be a wonderful tool, but it has become a wild west where too much harmful content is being pushed on to young people, and social media companies are simply not doing enough to tackle it. The sad fact of the matter is that social media is pushing content that radicalises, that catalyses mental health crises and that is highly addictive. The head of MI5, Ken McCallum, last month raised the alarm about how extremist ideologies are reaching children as young as 12 through social media platforms, and young people radicalised by social media are on its books. That, of course, is a growing threat to national security. Another issue is mental health crises. We are seeing skyrocketing rates of anxiety, depression, eating disorders and even suicide among adolescents.

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

  More

  The hon. Lady makes a common-sense point: if we are going to advocate for change, we have to lead by example. It might be said that the harms we are talking about are a somewhat separate issue to that. Of course we need to take responsibility, but where we have social media companies that are pushing content that is objectively dangerous, we need to have the conversation that we are having today about how the system and social media companies should be forced to ensure that that space is a safe one.

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

  More

  Every school has to comply with the Equality Act 2010. Whatever policy a school puts in place, one would have to check that what they are doing complies with the law. Those sorts of exceptions would obviously have to be looked at very carefully. We do not have to look far to see examples of local areas that have banned smartphones in schools, such as the London borough of Barnet.

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

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I congratulate the children in his constituency on taking a very sensible approach. It is interesting that children themselves are coming forward and saying that—perhaps because they see the harms that I am talking about and want to do something about them. We have seen cases where children as young as 14 have taken their own lives after being bullied or exposed to harmful online content. During preparation for this debate, I was informed by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children that there is an online website posing as a community that encourages suicide. That is the dark and depressing side of the online world that we have to do more to tackle. What about addiction? Social media platforms are designed to exploit vulnerabilities in our young people. Algorithms push harmful content—body image issues, self-harm or anxiety videos—directly on to their feeds. A recent survey showed that on TikTok the algorithm was 4,343% more likely to show toxic eating disorder content to users who were already vulnerable to such issues. Many Members will have seen the Channel 4 documentary “Swiped”, where a secondary school took the phones of year 8 pupils for 12 weeks to see what would happen. The results were impressive: children talked to their friends more, reported less anxiety and were more focused in class.

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

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on his activism and organising on this issue. I know that he has played a big role in the outcomes that he has just described. An example more local to my Folkestone and Hythe constituency is a policy designed by the John Wallis academy in Ashford in Kent, where students put their mobile phones in a locked pouch during the day. The principal, Mr McBeath, had intended that the rule would limit disruption in school and support safeguarding. I, for one, will be advocating for that whenever I speak to headteachers in Folkestone and Hythe. I commend the work being done by Smartphone Free Childhood nationally and by its group in Folkestone and Hythe. It is important to work closely with everyone involved to address the problems that social media use is creating for our young people. I am conscious of all the other people who want to speak as well as the Minister, but I have a few questions for him, one of which I have raised already. Is the code of practice likely to be robust enough in the coming years, as we see more evidence of the harms caused by social media? What changes may be needed as time goes by? Is Ofcom striking the right balance between safeguarding children from harm and ensuring economic proportionality? Is there anything that Ofcom is doing or can do to tackle the small but high-risk sites I mentioned earlier, which act as online communities and encourage things like suicide? Last, what measures can the Government take to get ahead of AI development to ensure that children can be effectively protected from the risks posed by AI so that our politics can forge technical progress? That is enough from me. I look forward to hearing others’ contributions.

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

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We will not protect children through just Government or social media while expecting parents to do nothing. Of course, we parents will have to do our part. Interestingly, on that point, I was going to say that an important potential measure is the approach put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) in his private Member’s Bill, the Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill. His concept, which I hope to hear more about in the course of this debate, is about raising the age of data consent from 13 to 16, which essentially stops the social media companies being able to harvest data and keep feeding the kind of content that will be harmful. That seems to me a no-brainer. Very briefly, I want to talk about smartphones in school, an issue closely connected to the one posed by the petitioner. Many teachers and parents who I have talked to believe that this “never seen, never heard” guidance, which was introduced by the previous Government, is not working. We have students still using phones during break time and often during lessons, and the problems that that causes are significant. I have had many teachers say to me, “This takes up so much time—it is a huge distraction and it interferes with learning.”

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

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 700086 relating to a minimum age for social media. It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The House is considering whether social media should be banned for children under the age of 16. I start by thanking Kim Campbell, who is in the Public Gallery, for submitting this petition, which has gained over 130,000 signatures. Kim believes that the answer to the question posed is yes. When I asked my two boys, aged 14 and 10, whether social media should be banned for children, their answer was predictable: [Hon. Members: “No!”] No—of course. But when we ask the same question of UK adults, the overwhelming majority respond: [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] Yes—75% of them, in fact, according to a poll published last month and based on a survey of 2,000 adults, I think. On the same theme, I asked my constituents in Folkestone and Hythe last week whether smartphones should be banned in schools. Almost 2,000 responded and, again, 75% thought that they should—I must say that many of the 24% who thought that they should not looked to me as though they were still at school themselves. Are adults imagining a problem here? Do we just not understand our young people? I have heard it said more than once that most adults do not see how important social media is to young people’s social and digital identity and that we cannot teach boundaries if we ban access to these apps altogether. I totally agree that social media can be a space where young people can build positive relationships with their peers, reduce loneliness, improve coping skills and improve general knowledge and creativity—social media can of course be a wonderful tool, but it is currently a wild west where there is too much harmful content.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend raises a really important point. This cannot be about shutting down avenues for young people to socialise with each other. Whatever action is taken to make it harder for young people to access social media, we have to make sure that other things are going on in society so that they do not feel that that is the only place they can go to socialise. The petitioners’ view, as I said, is that we should ban access to social media until children are 16. I spoke to the NSPCC before this debate; its position is that it does not think an outright ban is the answer. Without changing the software or the devices, a ban on children using social media—without doing more—would be unenforceable. The NSPCC’s view is that a ban would push children into unregulated and more dangerous online spaces. Does the Online Safety Act do enough? Several people I spoke to in preparing for this debate think that it does. For example, there is a requirement for social media companies to conduct children’s access assessments to determine whether children are likely to access their platform. There are online age assurance measures that require social media companies to assess whether their services are likely to be accessed by children and to adopt robust methods such as photo ID matching, facial age estimation and mobile network checks. Age assurance measures are of course right, but groups such as Smartphone Free Childhood do not believe that risk assessments, and the Online Safety Act more broadly, go far enough. They do not advocate for an approach of risk assessment and risk reduction methods; rather, they say that the onus should be on the social media companies to demonstrate that their apps are safe for children to use and that, if they cannot, their app must not be used by children. That seems to be the opposite of putting the onus on the regulator to prove that an app is dangerous or harmful. It might well be that that would be something the code of practice under the Online Safety Act could do. It would require tightening that code of practice, so it would be useful to know whether the Minister agrees that the Act would be capable of reversing that burden, and that we ought to think about those methods.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Energy Infrastructure: Chinese Companies · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s reassurance about the Government’s rigorous scrutiny of energy projects involving Chinese technologies. I understand the argument that, at the current stage of our transition to net zero, we may need to look further afield to meet our domestic energy needs, but does she agree that the long-term plan ought to be to reduce reliance on Chinese technology in the UK energy sector and to use British-made green technology, about which there can be no national security or ethical supply chain concerns?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and the support provided to my office by the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project. I commend those on the Government Front Bench for their work on the Bill, which will give law enforcement agencies the powers that my constituents in Folkestone and Hythe expect them to have to tackle the smuggling networks. It is a lamentable failure of government that the Conservative party prefers gimmicks to practical, workable solutions to take down those gangs. The only winners in this multimillion-pound industry, which burgeoned under the previous Government, are organised criminals who exploit the desperation of others and force many to work in criminal enterprises in the UK. In my 18 years as a lawyer, I worked with many victims of modern slavery and saw how organised criminals use brutal, dehumanising tactics to destroy the will and dignity of their victims. Instead of addressing that complex issue, the Conservative party wasted £700 million on an expensive Rwanda gimmick and created a massive asylum backlog, all while stoking division and disregarding the rule of law. I am pleased to see this Government draw a line under that by taking a different approach and repealing the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and most of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. I am pleased that their answer to these problems takes the common-sense approach of tackling organised crime with stronger law enforcement tools. I wish to use my remaining time to make two points about something that the Bill leaves in and something that it leaves out. First, I thank the Minister for repealing the worst aspects of the Tories’ Illegal Migration Act when it comes to modern slavery, but do we really need to keep the uncommenced provision in section 29, which would block modern slavery protections on public order grounds, and could well undermine our efforts to combat trafficking? Section 29 would deprive police of the vital intelligence needed to imprison traffickers, who intimidate victims into silence by convincing them that they will be harmed if they speak out. Victims need to trust that their coming forward will lead to protection, not punishment, but under section 29, anyone arriving in a small boat could be prosecuted for entering without a visa, and excluded from trafficking protections as a result. Victims are likely to think, “What’s the point in going to the police and making myself a target, when the police won’t protect me anyway?” That would support the traffickers’ business model and violate our international obligations. When the Bill reaches Committee, will the Government reconsider the need for section 29, together with section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022? Secondly, the Bill tackles the criminal groups that drive small boat crossings, but it does not address the other dimension of the problem: the lack of avenues through which to seek asylum without making those dangerous crossings. The Home Secretary rightly said that the Bill is focused on the gangs, but pre-arrival processing is an important outstanding issue. We have schemes for Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong, and we should be thinking about increasing the resettlement of refugees who have already been recognised abroad, for example through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Will the Minister commit to looking seriously at a pilot system for those from specific conflict zones who have strong claims to be allowed to travel here so that their claim can be fully examined on UK soil? That would build an evidence base on the issue to inform future policy and lawmaking. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) on section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the safe country list. The Bill is a long overdue step towards fixing the foundations of our asylum system so that it is a fair, managed and compassionate system that the public can once more have confidence in. It pursues practical, workable solutions, rather than the gimmicks and divisiveness of the other parties, which I am proud that this Government reject.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q12. Many of my constituents are expressing their frustration at the net migration figures, which quadrupled—increasing by nearly 1 million—under the last Tory Government. Unbelievably, the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), has admitted that her party is proud of their open borders experiment on Britain. Will the Prime Minister explain what he is doing to bring those numbers back under control?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) for securing this vital debate. I start by mentioning an injustice. It is not right, economically or morally, that so many young people who want to enjoy a vocational education have not benefited from the same opportunities as university students. In my constituency of Folkestone and Hythe there is incredible potential for a thriving apprenticeship system. My constituency has strengths in the creative industries, as well as in green energy and nuclear—we are home to Little Cheyne Court wind farm and Dungeness nuclear power stations. But the potential for apprenticeships is untapped. Despite the significant number of regeneration projects in Folkestone and Hythe, the number of apprenticeship starts in construction, planning and the built environment fell by 49% in 2022-23 compared with the year before. Currently, there are 500 16 to 24-year-olds who are searching for work in Folkestone and Hythe but cannot find it. Apprenticeships have a critical role to play in supporting people to succeed in the workforce. I want to celebrate East Kent college in Folkestone, which in 2023 was judged by Ofsted to be outstanding and offers an incredible array of qualifications, such as BTECs, T-levels and adult education, as well as a junior college. I also commend the work of large businesses locally such as EDF, as well as smaller local businesses such as Jenner and Park Farm Construction, which provide brilliant apprenticeships. But frustratingly, spending on training by businesses is at its lowest level since 2011. I want to speak directly to employers in Folkestone and Hythe: when you invest in apprenticeships, you invest in our young people; when you invest in our young people, you invest in our future and our community; and if you support the local community, it will give back to your businesses and support your success. I believe that it is critical that part of Skills England’s mandate will be to collaborate with the Migration Advisory Committee to ensure that we prioritise training of our young people before reaching to recruit from abroad. The Government’s reforms will benefit many young people in Folkestone and Hythe who feel disenfranchised and believe that the 21st-century economy does not necessarily serve them. In many cases after deindustrialisation, where we gave them a pound shop in the place of a workshop, they may well be right. I have some questions for the Minister on future policy development. I would welcome the publication of a timeline as to when we can expect the phased development of Skills England. How do the Government plan to align our industrial strategy, Invest 2035, with their apprenticeship strategy, and how can they use apprenticeships to reduce youth unemployment and long-term economic inactivity? Much was made of Tony Blair’s desire to see 50% of young people start university, but there are a lot of people, whether they have gone to university or not, who are ill-prepared for the 21st-century economy. We have had “education, education, education”; we now need apprenticeships, apprenticeships, apprenticeships.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Attorney General’s Office: Conflicts of Interest · Hansard source

  More

  I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of the Bar. It seems that Conservative Members are deliberately feigning ignorance about our constitution to make an empty political point. The truth is that lawyers in this country represent clients without fear or favour. We do not in this country associate the views of our clients or the clients with the views of their lawyers, and there is the concept of the cab rank rule. Does the Solicitor General agree with me that the Law Officers’ convention and existing processes, which, as she says, have been in place for many years under successive Governments, can be left to regulate conflicts of interest, as they always have done? If the Conservatives genuinely had a problem with that, they would have changed it when they were in government.

• 14 Jan 2025 · UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Chancellor on unlocking £1 billion of value for the UK economy that would not have been unlocked if she had not gone to China. However, does she agree that the Government’s much-needed decision to thaw UK-China relations is now reaping dividends while also allowing us to press China on difficult issues, including human rights and labour standards?