partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

Showing every spoken contribution, including 11,987 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Edward Morello

   Train Services: Extreme Weather

   In the south-west, we share a lot of those problems. The Salisbury-to-Exeter line runs a reduced service over the summer as a result of “soil moisture deficit”—a catchy term that means the ground is too dry and too hard, and the trains cannot run over it. That is not a new problem: we had a reduced service last year and the year before. Proper planning for what is now our everyday experience of climate change is vital. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that the Railways Bill, currently in the other place, is an opportunity to ensure that our infrastructure is resilient for the future and is also taking account of our climate targets.

   Hansard source
2. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Roz Savage

   Solar Panels on Agricultural Land

   Does the right hon. Lady agree that it cannot be right that farmers in the South Cotswolds, who have had no say in this, now face the compulsory acquisition of rights over their land purely because the developer has chosen to locate a solar farm 13 miles away from the nearest grid connection?

   Hansard source
3. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Roz Savage

   Apprenticeship Opportunities for Young People

   For a young person in a South Cotswolds village, the barrier to an apprenticeship is often just getting there. Buses are rare or non-existent, and the cost of running a car is out of reach on an apprentice’s pay. Will the Chancellor work with the Transport Secretary to cap bus fares at £1 and to fund more rural bus routes?

   Hansard source
4. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

   Young People and Work: Milburn Interim Report

   It is worth noting that 13% of NEETs are university graduates. I meet many people who have just graduated with good degrees from good universities, who are applying for more than 300 jobs and not even getting a response. There is very little talk about support for graduates, and we are disappointed that in the Budget there was no mention of reforming the student loan system that is adding pressure on them. Will the Minister assure us that the Government are looking at the student loan system?

   Hansard source
5. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Daisy Cooper

   Cost of Living

   The Government’s use of the outdated council tax system to roll out their energy support package has led to an absurd situation whereby between 800,000 and 1.4 million people on low incomes will miss out on the £100, while a wealthy couple who have retired early and have downsized are set to benefit. There is absolutely no excuse for this. The Government could have followed our plan to use existing DWP and HMRC data to roll out a targeted essential energy guarantee, getting the most help to those who need it most, so why on earth did they not do so?

   Hansard source
6. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Daisy Cooper

   Advanced Manufacturing

   The Prime Minister and his Cabinet rightly point to Brexit as a major reason for the UK’s doom loop of low economic growth, and in two and a half weeks’ time, the Government will have an opportunity to do something about it. Rather than just discussing a timid UK-EU youth mobility scheme that should have been agreed months ago, will they start negotiations for a new growth and defence partnership as the only surefire way to put money back in people’s pockets and make the UK stronger, safer and more prosperous?

   Hansard source
7. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Daisy Cooper

   Budget Resolutions

   What we needed was a growth Budget, because only by growing the economy can we cut people’s taxes and bills. We Liberal Democrats have repeated our calls for a new growth and defence partnership with Europe, because growth through such a partnership would enable us, in time, to raise the income tax threshold to £15,000. If we can grow the economy, we can put more money in people’s pockets. The Government’s cost of living package was too timid and not well targeted. The OBR is clear that living standards are not set to improve. I am deeply disappointed that the Government’s energy proposal is linked to the outdated council tax system. That means that between 800,000 and 1.4 million of the most vulnerable people on low incomes will not benefit from the £100 payment, while wealthier people who may have retired early and downsized will. That could have been avoided. We have called several times on the Government to use existing data held by the Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC to roll out an essential energy guarantee to slash the cost of the first chunk of essential energy, benefiting everybody, and giving extra support to those who are most in need, such as the disabled. That is the most progressive way of supporting people with the cost of energy bills, it is the most targeted way of doing it, and it is within the Government’s reach.

   Hansard source
8. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Daisy Cooper

   Budget Resolutions

   The Government already have the data through DWP, which it uses to roll out the warm home discount. That data is already there, the system exists with energy providers and it would have operated just as quickly. HMRC has the data on child benefit; equally, it could have been rolled out just as quickly. Yes, I recognise that some money has been given to local authorities to roll this out, but that process will not act as quickly as the system that the Government wanted to roll out in January. It would have been done through the energy providers far more quickly than the additional support. It would have been a more targeted, faster and more progressive way of rolling out help. We have been calling for it for six months; it is unfortunate that the Government have not listened. On business, we welcome support for small businesses, and raising the small business threshold will support a number of businesses. However, that is still tinkering around the edges rather than delivering the fundamental reform of business rates that this Government promised in their manifesto. If we are serious about breathing new life into our high streets, we have to reform the outdated, broken business rates system. In my constituency of St Albans, the rateable values are so high that only eight pubs are set to benefit from the support, and that comes in the face of a whole raft of measures in the last two anti-growth Budgets. The chair of my local Save St Albans Pubs campaign has sent me this: “The budget does nothing to help or support most of the pubs in St Albans. Still no business rate reform. Alcohol duties up. No cuts in VAT. No cuts in the horrific employers national insurance jobs tax and a huge increase in wages”. That means one thing: it will put up the price of a pint. Founders’ relief has been described variously by people as “bonkers”, “dreadful” and “a pointless lottery”. It will benefit, at most, 600 people and will undermine productivity and growth. That is not exactly the ringing endorsement that I believe the Government were after. I encourage them to look at that relief again. As for the BAD—business asset disposal—relief, the clue is in the title, and the Government’s measures do not close the loopholes. On property taxes, we need to see real reform of all the outdated property taxes—council tax, stamp duty and business rates—but the Government’s so-called mansion tax is not the way to do it. All the funding will go to Whitehall; it will not go to local councils. That is from a Government who say they want devolution at a time when they are ripping money out of local authorities. The OBR says that there is a 20% chance of appeals. Just five weeks ago, I stood right here and challenged Ministers to contact the Valuation Office Agency because it had issued the wrong valuation to two of my small businesses. I dread to think what will happen to the many people who will want to sell their house and move to other parts of the country to support family members, but who cannot because they are stuck in an 18-month appeal process with the VOA. It is not clear that the Government even have a definition of a “working farm” when it comes to the operation of the so-called mansion tax. It looks to me that it could be family farm tax 2.0—I urge the Government to look closely at that—and for what? For £400 million in three years’ time. This will not sort out the cost of living crisis that we are facing right now. I am pleased that the Government have shifted on bank taxes. We Liberal Democrats have long called for taxes on the big banks that have made eye-watering profits. To those on the Conservative Benches who say that they are worried about the competitiveness of our financial services, let me tell them this. Under their botched Brexit deal, they have hammered the financial services, which have been hit by a loss of jobs and a loss of business. If anybody is serious about protecting our world-class financial services, they should support our calls to join the single market and to move the liability for online fraud from banks to the big tech companies. If we could do that, we could grow our world-beating financial services market and still increase the taxes further so that they can contribute to tackling the cost of living crisis. Finally, let me just say that there is a role for optimism; there is a role for talking about real hope. I hope that we can project to the rest of the world the fact that we believe in the future of UK plc. If we are going to talk about fresh hope, however, it must be matched with meaningful action. I am afraid to say that this Budget did not deliver the meaningful change that the country expects and deserves.

   Hansard source
9. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Daisy Cooper

   Budget Resolutions

   My hon. Friend mentions the example of an indoor play centre where the business rates are going up. Is she concerned, as I am, that this winter those increases will simply price children out of play altogether?

   Hansard source
10. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Daisy Cooper

    Budget Resolutions

    On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Hansard source
11. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Daisy Cooper

    Budget Resolutions

    The right hon. Gentleman surely has not missed the evidence that, since his party’s botched Brexit deal, it has become more expensive to do business in the UK, businesses are wrapped up in red tape, and many businesses have moved abroad, taking good, high-quality jobs with them. We have a NEETs crisis in this country, caused by many different factors. One of the reasons that there are graduates who cannot get jobs is because his party’s ridiculous Brexit deal has driven businesses abroad. If we get back into the single market and make doing business cheaper, those businesses will come back here and create jobs for British young people.

    Hansard source
12. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Daisy Cooper

    Budget Resolutions

    On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Hansard source
13. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Daisy Cooper

    Budget Resolutions

    On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Hansard source
14. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Daisy Cooper

    Budget Resolutions

    The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely contradicting himself. He has simultaneously said that we need to shorten supply chains to improve our food security while defending the very trade barriers that prevent British importers and exporters from getting food to each other on a shorter supply chain. It was the right hon. Gentleman’s party that agreed the terrible trade deals with New Zealand and Australia that have put up food prices and undermined British farmers. Would he like to apologise for that? After 10 years, we are still teaching the Conservatives how damaging their trade deals were.

    Hansard source
15. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Daisy Cooper

    Budget Resolutions

    Will the right hon. and learned Member give way?

    Hansard source
16. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Claire Young

    Cost of Living

    <Question HRSContentId="{4F8FDC9E-6215-4F4C-B3CC-B75719F1965A}">3. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{9528A2D5-41A0-4FC7-853A-49E01A35F74E}">What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the autumn Budget 2026 on household living costs. </QuestionText></Question>

    Hansard source
17. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Claire Young

    Cost of Living

    The Treasury is cutting £1 billion from the warm homes fund, including a smaller than planned pot for the boiler upgrade scheme. Combined with tax rises on heat pumps, these cuts risk creating a boom-and-bust cycle for installers and leaving more households exposed to the volatility of the oil and gas market. Can the Chancellor explain how cutting support for clean heating is consistent with the Government’s own mission for a clean energy transition?

    Hansard source
18. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Claire Young

    Poundland

    This is a hugely uncertain time for workers at Poundland in Yate, and I am sure that I am not alone among MPs in finding the DWP one of the hardest Departments to get answers out of. I am concerned about the practical support that the local jobcentre will be able to offer Poundland workers who lose their jobs. Can the Minister assure me that jobcentres will support those people?

    Hansard source
19. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Christine Jardine

    Train Services: Extreme Weather

    Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

    Hansard source
20. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Christine Jardine

    Equality Act 2010 Guidance: Gynaecological Conditions

    I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called.

    Hansard source
21. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Christine Jardine

    Equality Act 2010 Guidance: Gynaecological Conditions

    I ask Members to stick to an informal time limit of three minutes.

    Hansard source
22. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Charlotte Cane

    Train Services: Extreme Weather

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing the debate. Many decades ago, I did an excavation in Rugeley of a Mesolithic cave site. Moving forward a little to the bronze age, we know from the excavations at Flag Fen that our forebears knew how difficult it was to travel across the fenland and how to build, maintain and keep an investment in good routes. Moving forward to the 21st century, it is extremely disappointing that we do not seem willing to put the same level of investment into our transport systems as they did back in the bronze age. In June and August this year, one third of the trains on the line between King’s Lynn and King’s Cross did not run at all. Of the two thirds that did, 80% were delayed. That is extremely unreliable for commuters, students and people just trying to go about their daily lives—to go to the theatre and sports events. They cannot rely on a train that may or may not come, and may or may not arrive on time. The other insult is that the train quite often terminates partway through the journey, so someone trying to get back from London will get as far as Cambridge, be told that that is as far as the train will take them and have to work out how to finish their journey from there. I myself have been impacted by that, obviously quite often, with all the going back and forth, but there was a particular instance when I had a surgery in Littleport. I left in plenty of time, but the train that I was trying to catch was cancelled and the next train terminated at Cambridge, so I arrived an hour later than I had intended and therefore was late for my surgery, which is extremely rude, and I really hate being rude to my constituents. Worse than that is what constituents have written to tell me. One in particular has written to say that because their train has been so unreliable for getting to their job in London, their employer is now putting them under pressure. They are becoming an unreliable member of staff; their employer does not know when they will turn up to work. They are also having to make up the time at the end of the day, which means that they are getting home very late—often later than they expected, because not only have they left late but the train has then been delayed. That makes it a complete nightmare for them, because they have to be up early the next morning to go in. The reasons are many and various, but one of the main ones is the overhead power lines. They do not like very hot weather. I think they do not like very cold weather either, but in the summer the issue was the very hot weather. However, the really big problem is that the tracks are buckling, because the soil underneath is moving. We have the same problem with our roads. This is a major problem and, with climate change, it will happen year in, year out, so we need to put investment into sorting that out. I have talked to Great Northern and, in fairness, it is doing a lot to try to make the service less unreliable, but it will need proper funding from Government to help it to address the problem. My constituents rely on the service. As I have said, they need it for getting to work. Many students rely on it because the sixth-form colleges are in Cambridge and they need to get to college. Our main hospital is in Cambridge, so people need to get to the hospital. These train services are vital to people, so I call on the Government to look hard at what the particular issues are with extreme weather and the impact that it has on fen soils and at how we can make our rail lines more resilient so that my constituents can rely on a good train service.

    Hansard source
23. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Charlie Maynard

    Young People and Work: Milburn Interim Report

    Does the hon. Member agree that making it easier for young people to get functional skills qualifications, rather than being stuck in an endless cycle of resits, would allow them to get those qualifications and then on to an apprenticeship and into work, exactly as those at the Aspire youth hub in Witney do so well?

    Hansard source
24. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Caroline Voaden

    Train Services: Extreme Weather

    Forgive me for being late, but the railway did not want me to be here for the start of this debate. My hon. Friend talks about the impact of delays on the line on working people; we in the west of England are going to be impacted for two years or possibly more by the works at Old Oak Common. For the tiny sum of £12 million, which is just over half of what is being spent every day on HS2, highspeed wi-fi could be put on every one of the 94 trains on the Great Western Railway network. If it was, all those working people like me who get stuck on delayed and slow trains going down to the west of England would not mind an extra 10 or 15 minutes on the journey time, because it would be productive. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to fund that project?

    Hansard source
25. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Calum Miller

    Budget Resolutions

    The Government have labelled today’s debate “fresh hope for the future”, but I regret that the Budget failed to meet the hopes of my constituents. My constituency contains a number of leading spin-out, innovation and engineering companies, from Oxford Ionics to Zero fuels and from the Jaguar and McLaren Formula E teams to Siemens Healthineers. They want to put the area on the map as one of the fastest-growing tech hubs in the country, yet too many face one major constraint: energy. The queue for grid connections faced by many new businesses and developments in my constituency goes far into the 2030s. Many households in the area are also used to power outages. The Cooper school in Bicester recently had to close for a day because of a lack of power. North West Bicester, a site for 6,000 homes, was delayed by more than two years purely because of a lack of grid connectivity. We now have two proposed mega data centres. Exeter college proposes a new centre south of Kidlington, while a large centre south-east of Bicester will require electricity equivalent to that needed for 1.4 million homes. That is a huge amount for an area already facing energy scarcity. My constituents are worried that the Chancellor’s commitment to pushing data centres to the front of the queue will overload local networks or delay connections for essential new services. The Government must commit to publishing an assessment of capacity before allowing data centres to jump the queue. I agree with the Prime Minister and Chancellor that we need to give more power back to the people and to end the UK’s excessive centralisation in London. In principle, I support the creation of a Thames valley mayor and regional devolution, but devolution must give local communities a stronger voice when it comes to the cumulative impact of development in our areas. New housing, data centres and major infrastructure projects cannot be considered in isolation. They make demands on the same roads, public services and electricity networks, and residents experience the combined impact. The pressure on roads, GP surgeries, schools and utilities must therefore be assessed across the whole area. Buried in the Budget document is another announcement of real interest to my constituents. There is £150 million of additional funds to support large asylum centres, such as that proposed for site A of MOD Bicester. My constituents and I oppose this scheme for many reasons, but in this Budget debate I will limit myself to the eye-watering costs of converting this derelict storage depot, which has never had accommodation for people, into a village for 1,256 asylum seekers. The best estimate is some £280 million in capital costs and £80 million in annual operating costs, which sums to more than £1 billion over 10 years. That raises serious questions about how far the additional £150 million will stretch. I urge the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and their officials to take a close look at Home Office spending. I fear that they will find once again that the asylum programme is out of control. They will certainly find that building new accommodation at MOD Bicester is a bad deal for the taxpayer. Turning to hospitality, pubs, cafés and restaurants are key to the health of the high streets of Bicester, Kidlington and Woodstock. In the rural villages of my constituency, the local pub, alongside the church and the primary school, is the key local institution. Too many such businesses, including the much-loved Fat Zebra café in Bicester’s Market Square, have been forced to close. Too many others tell me that they are facing mounting and unrelenting cost rises. The changes on business rates relief are welcome, but businesses tell me that they may not be enough to keep them afloat. I urge the Treasury to look again at the Liberal Democrat proposal to cut VAT for hospitality businesses. This Budget was a missed opportunity for my constituents. It failed to assure them that infrastructure would come first, before major developments. It backed a failing Home Office programme for large asylum centres. It failed to deliver a stronger local voice, despite promises of devolution, and it failed to support the pubs, cafés and restaurants at the heart of our communities. I urge the Government to give my constituents more hope in the future.

    Hansard source
26. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Bobby Dean

    Budget Resolutions

    Some have dubbed this a “steady as she goes” Budget. That has been interpreted differently by those on different sides of the debate: some have taken it as praise while others have taken it as a criticism. You might be surprised to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I fall on the side of that being a criticism. That is because I hold the really controversial view that avoiding market turmoil is a minimum requirement for a Budget; it is necessary but not sufficient, especially given the challenges we face in this country. I accept that we face constraints, given the war in Iran and everything that is doing to the country’s finances, inflation, energy prices and so on, but we have more challenges to face up to. This Government actually recognise those challenges. They have commissioned reports on welfare reform, but they have pushed it to the other side of the Budget. They have a Chancellor who recognises that we need a plan to spend 3% of GDP on defence, but those decisions, too, have been pushed further down the track. They understand that growth has been appalling in this country for a long time, yet they have not revealed what their plan for growth will be. These are all known issues that are unaddressed in this Budget, and I think that is a massive missed opportunity. That is not for want of measures in this Budget. There are a record-breaking 98 measures in the Budget, but they add up to the lowest total value we have seen for a very long time. Let us get into some of those. The Government have praised themselves for their £100 energy support package, and who can be churlish about £100 in times like these? But the truth is that the scheme is insufficient and poorly targeted. The tragedy is that we had an energy crisis in 2022, when we had to deliver huge sums of money, almost universally. Everybody said, “We cannot let this happen again; we must have a much more targeted scheme in future.” Four years on, what is the system we have? We are relying on the valuations of properties from 1991 to target our support. What a failure of Government. Moreover, hundreds of thousands of low-income households are now set to miss out on support, and those most in need of support will not get enough. Looking at all the “breathing space” measures combined, those in the very poorest deciles will get, on average, just £15 more than all the others. This Government could have done far more to deliver on breathing space. For instance, they could have looked to the Liberal Democrat proposal for an essential energy guarantee, which would be more targeted and would provide more support at the right income levels. This has been a real failure of Government. A second measure for which the Government have been praising themselves is the bank tax and the contributions that they have got that sector to make. We called for a bank tax and so we broadly welcome it, but why did they not go further? The banking industry expected this measure to be permanent and expected it to be set at 8%, and bank shares went up when we found out that that was not what the Government were going to do. In the Treasury Committee this morning, we heard from people in the banking sector, who said that they did not believe the tax would affect competitiveness and that they would be unlikely to pass on the costs to the consumer. Basically, the banks have been getting £1 billion a week this year because mortgage rates and interest rates are so high. They could have been squeezed some more, and this Government failed to do it. On living standards, this morning the Resolution Foundation described the situation as “catastrophic”. The 2010s was the worst decade on record, with 14% growth in real household disposable income. For the 2020s, the OBR’s growth forecast is 1.4%. This is a tragedy for every working family in Britain, and that is before we get on to the cost of doing business or the spending pressures that are pencilled in for down the track. Courtrooms, classrooms and councils are all set for real-terms cuts under this Government—it is all in black and white. That is their proposal to come. All of this can be solved in only one way: via growth. I said at the beginning of my speech that there is a lack of a growth plan, but there is one waiting on the table for the Government. We would like the Prime Minister to stop having an open, frank conversation with himself on Europe, and to actually start putting forward some concrete proposals such as rejoining the single market. That is the quickest single measure to boost growth in this country, and we should get on with it. This Budget has deferred decisions on welfare, defence, Europe, public services and growth. The Prime Minister came into office promising to end 40 years of neoliberalism, but it will surely make its 41st birthday. It has been a missed opportunity that the Government will come to regret. Budgets do not come around very often—just ask any of the six Chancellors in the last six years. Political capital is a depreciating asset—it is best to spend it early, and the Government have utterly failed to do so.

    Hansard source
27. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ben Maguire

    Budget Resolutions

    My hon. Friend is making an excellent case for rural communities on heating oil, farming and other issues, but may I add the failure of this Government to extend the rural fuel duty scheme? My rural North Cornwall constituency does not have buses running to hospitals, educational opportunities and jobs. Does he agree that the Government missed an opportunity to extend that scheme to help our rural constituents?

    Hansard source
28. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    Young People and Work: Milburn Interim Report

    When the Government commission a review, people often just roll their eyes, because we all know there is no better way to kick an issue down the road than with an independent review. Few issues have been kicked down the road as much as doing something about the one in eight young people not in employment, education or training. Given what has been published so far and the conversations that I have had, I am genuinely hopeful that the Milburn review will give us a real shot at change. I would talk all day about this, but given the time, obviously I cannot. However, I would like to focus on two special areas of the report: rurality and special educational needs and disabilities. The review has highlighted what is obvious to everyone from south Somerset: transport is a huge barrier to work and further education. Nothing else that a young person or the system does matters. The review highlights that bus journeys in rural England have declined sharply. We have seen this with the No. 11 and No. 54 bus routes in Yeovil. Even if there is a bus, some young people still face three to four-hour delays. We urgently need action to improve rural transport networks and access to affordable driving lessons and tests. The £2 bus fare cap is a good start, but we need a new bus fleet in Somerset and to start looking at more innovative ideas, such as smarter booking for our most isolated communities. Equally, the Milburn report paints a clear picture of the challenges faced by young people with SEND, who are 80% more likely to be NEET. I have been saying for ages that the lack of early intervention is largely the driver of this problem. That is backed by the report, which highlights that children who fall behind at five years old are, on average, still behind at age 16. I was incredibly happy to hear from academics that the Universal Classroom Project got the increased Government funding that we had been calling for to develop a free profile-building screener for key learning strengths and weaknesses. I understand that in the final recommendations, Alan Milburn will look to present solutions radical enough to address the scale of the crisis. I can only hope that the Government do something about this.

    Hansard source
29. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Green·Hannah Spencer

    Young People and Work: Milburn Interim Report

    Last week, I went back to Hideout, a youth club in Gorton that opens its doors to hundreds of young people every week. I asked some of the kids I met about their future hopes and dreams and they all scrambled to tell me about who they thought they could be; I could genuinely feel the hope in the air. But ask anyone slightly older—a teenager or young adult—and you hear a clear, bleak understanding of the ways that the world is already letting them down. Their hope has faded away. Almost a million young people are growing up finding themselves not in education, employment or training. Every week I meet young people across the constituency who want to work hard and build a good life for themselves but find that the system is stopping them. A 25-year-old care leaver with no family, no network and no safety net told me that he tries so hard every day to stop himself becoming homeless, Despite being a university graduate, he cannot find secure, well-paid work. The risk of being not in education, employment or training is not equal: it doubles if someone comes from a disadvantaged background and has low qualification levels, and is far worse in Greater Manchester and the north than in London and the south-east. Opportunity should not be a postcode lottery. Those who need a hand most are being left behind by the Government’s sustained real-terms funding cuts to schools and colleges, despite ever-increasing demand, and because small and medium-sized businesses are unfairly being asked to train up the next generation of workers without the money and support needed to make that a success. Young people do not need cuts to the universal credit health element, which will just harm those who cannot work. Cutting cash benefits does nothing to improve employment outcomes. What they need is an approach from this Government that acknowledges that investment now will save money in the long run. What they need is change to the very structure of our economy and education system, more flexible and inclusive post-16 pathways and green skills at the forefront. The Milburn review is clear that urgent action is needed. The question is not whether young people in Gorton and Denton and across the country have ambition, but whether this Government are willing to match it.

    Hansard source
30. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Esther McVey

    Young People and Work: Milburn Interim Report

    Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak. Due to the number of people who have indicated their wish to speak, there will be a strict time limit of two minutes for speeches, so that we can get through everybody. I call Ann Davies.

    Hansard source
31. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Labour·Will Stone

    Immigration: Earned Settlement

    This country owes those in the Gurkha regiment a debt of thanks for their continued service. Will the Secretary of State outline what will happen to them and their dependants with these changes?

    Hansard source
32. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Labour·Torcuil Crichton

    Fire and Search and Rescue Services

    <Question HRSContentId="{609F3421-3599-4063-9CC6-B67C2B1721BB}">1. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{CDA6AA5E-2E24-47A4-A7E1-437C427DDDC7}">What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the co-ordination of fire and search and rescue services.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
33. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Labour·Torcuil Crichton

    Fire and Search and Rescue Services

    I draw the attention of the House to my role as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for volunteer rescue services. These people are out there on call—on land, sea and mountains—to help the public. The Secretary of State’s statement is very welcome. As recent events, like the wildfires, have shown, these volunteers are a key part of our emergency response and resilience. Does she agree that there should be a dedicated point of contact for volunteer rescue organisations in Government, and that Ministers ought to consider bringing forward a volunteers charter, using the template of the veterans charter, to recognise and acknowledge the contribution of volunteers, their families and their employers in our fourth emergency service?

    Hansard source
34. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tony Vaughan

    Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

    I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 757233 relating to the proposed ban on social media for under 16s. It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I declare an interest as the parent of a 15-year-old and an 11-year-old. These are issues that we, as a family, are dealing with, so this is a timely debate. I thank Leo Rhodes from Thirsk and Malton, who started this petition, as well as the 217,682 who signed it, including 267 in Folkestone and Hythe. I also pay tribute to the Smartphone Free Childhood group in my constituency for its tireless organising and campaigning on this issue, as well as the headteachers, students, parents and others in my constituency who have engaged with me on this issue and driven change in our schools. In June, the previous Prime Minister announced that social media companies would be prohibited from offering their services to under-16s. Because of this Labour Government, the power now exists under section 214A of the Online Safety Act 2023. Regulations are due before the end of the year, and the first rules are expected to apply from spring next year. The published model uses a banned list of platforms, similar to the measures in Australia. Leo, the petitioner, does not support a ban. He believes that, “for many young people social media is how they communicate with their friends. Some…view social media as a lifeline. A community, a supportive network.” He is making a serious argument about friendship, belonging and self-expression. Barnardo’s makes a point that all adults need to hear: the online world has become a vital civic space for young people partly because real-world spaces have been eroded over decades, made worse by austerity. Think about the closures of libraries, youth centres and grassroots sports facilities, which this Government are seeking to address. That is all true, but does it mean that we should allow these companies to provide their products on whatever terms they choose, especially when their products are made to be addictive, create so many dangers and cause so many harms that these companies are not addressing—all while raking in huge profits? Here is the interesting thing: groups that have disagreed in public about a ban have all signed one joint statement. That includes Smartphone Free Childhood, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Molly Rose Foundation, People vs Big Tech and FlippGen, which is a Gen Z-led organisation. They all say that “a binary debate between banning children from social media or not can oversimplify what is a complex issue.” Their position is that companies’ access to children should be made “conditional on their ability to demonstrate that they are safe.”

    Hansard source
35. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tony Vaughan

    Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is key that the young people affected by this have a seat at the table, so that their views are heard and taken into account by Ministers when the position on the ban and how companies might escape it is being finalised. I agree that it is fundamental that they feel included.

    Hansard source
36. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tony Vaughan

    Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We cannot have cliff edges. We have to build young people’s skills to be able to navigate this online world so that, when that point comes, there is not a cliff edge. And support should be available because, let us face it, young people rely on these technologies for all sorts of support. Those organisations are clear that companies must earn the right to offer services to under-16s by meeting strict safety standards. That means fixing the design, not just taking down the odd post. It means removing contact by strangers, disappearing messages, live location sharing, endless scrolling, autoplay, harmful algorithmic feeds, streaks and notifications. There must be mechanisms to catch new features that put children at risk, and the consequences must be ones that companies cannot simply absorb as the cost of doing business. At the Labour conference, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said that there will be a way for companies, if they want to innovate and change, to get themselves off the ban list, but that it is up to them. She also said it is a sign of failure that we have got to the point of taking children off social media altogether. I respectfully agree, so I ask the Minister whether the regulations to be laid later this year will create that route off the list? Will the ban come first and the route later? Let us take questions that young people are actually asking me about a ban, because they are good ones. First: “Won’t we just get around a ban?” That is a fair question, and the Australian figures are sobering. The Australian <span id="265WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="265WH"></span>e-safety regulator found that, between March and April this year, 12% of children used make-up to look older or used someone else’s ID to circumvent the ban.

    Hansard source
37. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tony Vaughan

    Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

    The hon. Gentleman raises a very interesting point, and Ofcom has recognised various different methods of age-verification. We must not exclude people based on whether they have one or other particular document. The Australian e-safety survey found that in 11% of cases a parent had helped a child to get around the ban. Those are sobering statistics that have to be taken into account, but most children in Australia who were still on restricted platforms did not actually need to get around anything. Around three in five said that the platform had simply taken no action on their existing accounts. The technology did not fail in their situation; the companies just did not use it. We are in a different place. As I understand it, Australia asks the platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent access by children. The UK position is that we require highly effective age assurance, and last week Ofcom confirmed that four methods of age verification could be used to meet the test at 16. My question to the Government is whether they foresee using any or all of the methods set out in the Ofcom report as a mechanism to police a ban.

    Hansard source
38. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tony Vaughan

    Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those mechanisms—those tests—are all key in deciding whether a ban can be implemented and can work.

    Hansard source
39. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tony Vaughan

    Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to make sure that we are dealing not just with lists, but with functionality. We are laying down the <span id="266WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="266WH"></span>gauntlet to stop children’s access. The next question is: if these companies want to have access, how do we allow that safely? If that cannot be proved, they should not have access to children, as far as I am concerned. I want to address the issue of virtual private networks. Some people say, “Look, children are just going to get around a ban”, but most children who get around age checks do it in simpler ways. In Australia, only one in 20 had used a VPN. Platforms already know a great deal about where their users are. There must be a duty on them to understand where their users are and to prevent children from gaining access. Barnardo’s goes further and wants VPNs to be age-gated. My understanding is that the Government have ruled that out for now, so what evidence would make them think again? It is an important point where the evidence is key. The second question that young people often ask me is, “Won’t we just move somewhere worse if a ban comes into place?” Young people in Australia report using messaging apps and gaming platforms more following the ban. Australia’s e-safety regulator did a three-month evaluation of 803 children aged 10 to 15 before the ban came into force and again in March to April this year, and the share using messaging apps daily or more rose from 40.5% to 52%. The share playing video games online every day rose from 26% to 29%, which is also significant. That is why the rules must follow the features wherever they appear, including gaming, messaging, AI and app stores. A third question is, “If something goes wrong, can I still tell somebody?” Research for the Molly Rose Foundation found that girls’ confidence to tell a teacher falls from 55% to 36% if they are still on a banned app. The message to that cohort must be that it is the platform that broke the rules in that situation, not them. These are not sanctions on individuals; they are duties on the companies. A fourth question, which an hon. Member mentioned, is, “What about my support network?” For LGBT, neurodivergent and isolated young people especially, we need a transition plan so that they know how to retain access to confidential advice networks and safe online support before restrictions take effect, alongside investment in welcoming local youth services. A fifth question is, “Where is the proof that a ban would work?” The long-term studies are not yet in, but last week Ofcom published its first report on content harmful to children. It concluded that there had been no significant change in the proportion of children encountering harmful content nine months after the children’s safety duties came into force, and that in a four-week period 14% of 11 to 17-year-olds saw suicide or self-harm content, 23% saw content promoting eating disorders and 61% saw bullying content, most often through their personalised feeds.

    Hansard source
40. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tony Vaughan

    Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

    I agree. There is a plethora of sources of harm on the internet, and such chatbots are one example. Another example that somebody was telling me about is suicide forums, which encourage all sorts of awful views and behaviours. It is perhaps not directly part of this debate, but the Government having the ability to stop that stuff, in addition to the social media debate, is absolutely key. As I understand it, more powers may be needed to go that far, but I agree that it is necessary. Tragically, we cannot even rely on the companies’ own numbers. Ofcom stated in its report that its exposure data “only account for content detected by service providers.” In other words, the companies count what they catch and do not count what they miss. Content that Parliament regards as harmful might not even be prohibited under the companies’ own rules. Ofcom says that the data are “indicative rather than direct measures.” None of that proves that a safe platform is impossible, but it does show that complying with today’s rules is no certificate of safety. Given the scale of harm we are seeing, it is clear that we should be applying the precautionary principle. It is right that the Government impose a circuit-breaker ban now, as they have promised to do. In the meantime, they are right to be working on a system for deciding how platforms can earn the right to serve under-16s by showing that they are safe, including by removing addictive and harmful features. Some say that Ofcom does not have the capability to police whether sites are safe in practice. In February 2025, I led a debate in this Chamber in which I called for a social media ban, and I asked why we cannot simply reverse the burden, so that it is not for the regulator to prove that an app is harmful, but for the company to prove that it is safe. I think that is the right question to ask; I believe that the Government agree, but I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation that that is the way they are looking at it. An off-ramp can only ever be acceptable if the burden genuinely shifts. Then, if there is incomplete data or uncertainty about safety, that must mean that there is no exemption, and not another long investigation while children remain exposed. Assuming that companies can demonstrate that they are safe, I have five questions for the Minister about this potential off-ramp. First, what exactly must a company show on harmful content—including what it misses—on contact from strangers, on addictive design and on risks to the most vulnerable children to demonstrate that its platform is safe? Secondly, who checks that evidence independently, with access to the real product rather than just the company’s own statistics? Thirdly, will the regulations expressly state that insufficient evidence means no exemption, rather than the regulator being required to prove everything, as it currently has to do, which is very difficult when it comes up against a well-resourced social media company? Fourthly, will major changes to an app or algorithm trigger a reassessment? If new evidence of harm emerges, how quickly can an exemption be suspended or withdrawn? The Molly Rose Foundation says that exemptions must be hard-earned, with stretching demands in order to keep them, and requirements reviewed and updated annually. <span id="268WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="268WH"></span>Finally, will Ofcom have the powers, expertise and resources to access the data needed to administer the system? The young people who signed the petition are right to put freedom—the freedom to express themselves and to find their community—at the heart of this debate, but that must also mean freedom from harassment, from content that damages their wellbeing and from design that makes it harder for them to put their phone down and spend time on other things that they themselves value. Those freedoms matter as well. I recognise that restrictions will limit choices. That is why the aim must be not permanent exclusion, but requiring companies to offer something that is better and—most importantly—safe. Young people should not have to choose between connection and safety, and companies should earn the right to serve them by respecting both.

    Hansard source