5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The GORSE Academies Trust runs schools in my constituency that have a very firm policy on the use of phones. Indeed, there was a security incident last year that put one of its schools under threat, but no pupil knew that that was happening because of that firm policy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are academies and institutions that the Government should consult to understand exactly how they are enforcing a very strict policy?
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. I have participated many a time in the Allendale challenge up in Northumberland to raise money for the North of Tyne Mountain Rescue Team. I thank all the volunteers who get involved, wherever in the country they are helping out. Since it is volunteers who are giving up their time, one of the key recommendations of the report from the APPG for volunteer rescue services was for the Government to recognise the mental health and wellbeing challenges they face. Does the hon. Member agree that it would be worthy of the Government to look at how they can support volunteers through the challenges they face when they are assisting in rescue efforts, wherever they are in the country?
In Wales, the south-west and across the UK, nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. Labour’s jobs tax, failed welfare reforms and damaging energy policies will worsen that crisis. Does the Minister recognise that when the Labour Government’s first response to any crisis is to tax business, businesses stop hiring, and it is young people in Wales who suffer most?
Today, vigils are being held across Westminster for the 22 women who are diagnosed with lobular breast cancer every day, and I think we are privileged to say that some of those extraordinarily brave women are in the Gallery this afternoon. When I raised this issue with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, she promised to take action and not just commit words, so will the Prime Minister today commit to the Lobular Moon Shot Project’s plan to fund lobular breast cancer?
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions: That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendment 102, but does not insist on its amendments 102C to 102G and proposes amendments (a) to (d) in lieu of the Lords amendment. That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendment 106, but does not insist on amendments 106C to 106E and proposes amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of the Lords amendment.
I am surprised to not see Mr Adam Jogee on his feet, considering the level of chuntering he has been doing from a seated position. You do not wish to contribute formally?
Before the hon. Member gets to her feet, I remind her that we have to conclude at 4.16 and I need to get five or six more Members in to contribute. I hope that she will be coming to a conclusion soonish.
To enable all Back Benchers to get in, there will be a speaking limit of three minutes. We now come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who has kindly said that she will speak for less than five minutes.
Patience is a virtue, and as we have made up time, the final Back-Bench speaker will get five minutes. I call Damian Hinds.
I now suspend the House in accordance with the motion that we have just agreed. I will arrange for the Division bells to ring shortly before the sitting resumes.
Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement at the Dispatch Box on 10 September last year that “full due process was followed”—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859] in the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador to Washington?
It has not put to bed anything. On 11 November 2024—long before any vetting had happened—the Prime Minister received advice from Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary. The advice said the appointment would require “the necessary security clearances…before confirming” the Prime Minister’s choice. This advice was ignored, so how can the Prime Minister still believe that confirming Mandelson before the security clearances was following “full due process”?
It is very interesting that the Prime Minister mentions Chris Wormald. He is relying on advice given to him after Mandelson was sacked by a Cabinet Secretary the Prime Minister then sacked. That is not relevant. I am talking about the advice he was given before the appointment. He keeps mentioning Sir Olly Robbins. Sir Olly Robbins told us that the Prime Minister even sought clearance from His Majesty the King before the vetting. He had already got agreement from the US Administration—the Chair of the Select Committee said that. Mandelson was a done deal. Yesterday, Sir Olly Robbins said that the “focus was on getting Mandelson out to Washington quickly.” He said the Prime Minister’s team showed a “dismissive attitude” to vetting, and they even argued Peter Mandelson did not need any vetting at all. This clearly was not proper process. Why was due process not followed?
We all heard what Sir Olly Robbins said yesterday. The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister spent a lot of time telling us just how furious he was to learn that Mandelson failed the vetting—the same Prime Minister who was trying to get him to Washington without any vetting at all. It’s just unbelievable. The reason the Cabinet Secretary advised the Prime Minister to carry out full vetting before the appointment—this is common sense, Mr Speaker—was to protect our national security. The due diligence document said that Mandelson remained on the board of the Kremlin-linked defence company Sistema long after Putin’s first invasion of Ukraine in 2014. The Prime Minister told us on Monday that he had read that due diligence report. Why did the Prime Minister want to make a man with links to the Kremlin our ambassador in Washington?
I do not know what planet the Prime Minister is on. Appointing someone with known links to the Kremlin is not full due process. If anybody had brought that sort of name to me when I was a Secretary of State, I would have said, “No way.” The Prime Minister thought someone with Kremlin links was still probably okay—“Let’s do some vetting.” Why does this matter? He keeps leaning on Sir Olly Robbins, a man he sacked—he keeps leaning on him. Sir Olly Robbins said yesterday that Peter Mandelson was given access to highly classified briefings even before he had received clearance. That was a clear national security risk. How can the Prime Minister still maintain that full due process was followed?
This is a joke. The Prime Minister says a Member of the House of Lords. Does he mean people like Matthew Doyle? [Interruption.] I am amazed at the level of chuntering from Labour MPs. The Prime Minister promised them probity. What he has given them is cronyism and an old boys’ club, where Matthew Doyle is being proposed as an ambassador. It is ridiculous. We all heard Sir Olly Robbins’ testimony yesterday. The head of the Foreign Office was sacked for the Prime Minister’s own failings. His Back Benchers know that is not fair. Even his most loyal Cabinet members will not defend it. The Prime Minister did not follow the process the then Cabinet Secretary set out in November 2024. He knows he did not follow due process, yet he told the House he had. Mr Speaker, I cannot accuse the Prime Minister of deliberately misleading the House, but everyone can see what has happened here. This was not due process. Everyone knows the price of misleading the House. Will the Prime Minister finally take responsibility and go?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I feel slightly sorry for the Minister in this scenario because he is going to be attacked from the left and the right, which is the tightrope that this Government are trying to walk—the fence that they are trying to sit on. They need to decide which way they are going. It has been announced to fanfare that the Metropole hotel on the Fylde coast is being closed and will no longer be used for asylum seeker accommodation. Lots of people are nervous and are trying to get information on where those people are going. On behalf of the Government, Serco has been buying up properties to house asylum seekers in my Fylde constituency. Fylde borough council has had to engage Serco formally and ask it to stop buying those properties due to the scale of movement, which we believe is in anticipation of the closure of the hotels. The people will still be in the same area, just housed in a different way. The Minister will be relieved to hear that I do not have a long and lecture-like speech to make. I simply ask him: what change does he feel—or has his Department estimated—these regulations will make to the number of beds required for the housing of asylum seekers? Has that been quantified, and is it quantifiable, or are these regulations just twiddling around the edges? Will communities like mine that are concerned about the issue actually see any change in the beds required by Serco to house people?
I want to make sure that the Minister does not put words in my mouth. I did not say that this was not a good thing, but that we are waiting with bated breath to find out whether it is a good thing, based on where the people who were being housed in the hotel will be placed.
Let us have some reality: it is Labour’s cost of living crisis that is hitting families across Wales. It is vital that both Governments do all it takes to ease those pressures, yet the Welsh Labour Government still choose to spend over £100 million on more politicians and tens of millions on a default 20 mph speed limit. They have set up vanity embassies abroad and spent millions on tree planting in Uganda. Those are not the priorities of struggling families. Will the Secretary of State finally condemn the wasteful spending of taxpayers’ money and admit that these schemes do not address the cost of living crisis in Wales?
The bedrock of our country’s defence rests on our crucial membership of NATO. The defence industry in Wales employs more than 15,000 people in well-paid and important roles. Yet the separatist Plaid, along with the Greens, opposes full membership of this deterrent, while Reform bizarrely claims all sorts of things like blaming NATO for provoking the war in Ukraine. Will the Secretary of State stand up for NATO, for more Welsh defence jobs and for the thousands in Welsh communities who rely on growing employment in this crucial sector?
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 April.
Can the Prime Minister deny that Downing Street considered appointing Matthew Doyle to a diplomatic position?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing this urgent question—I know how rare it is for a Government Parliamentary Private Secretary. [Interruption.] She is not any more—I apologise. I welcome the Government’s ambition to modernise public procurement, but ambition, as ever, must be matched by delivery. There are a number of questions that the Minister must answer today. The Government promised transparency through a new online register of commercial agreements. When precisely will that register be live, and will it be comprehensive from day one? Ministers often speak of backing small business. Will the Minister publish in a single, accessible place every Department’s SME target, its latest outturn and whether it is on or off track? On prompt payment, how many suppliers have actually been excluded from major contracts for failing to meet the required standards? If this strategy is truly about value for money, why have the Government still not resolved the fragmentation, poor-quality frameworks and poor use of data and technology that were identified by the National Audit Office? On national security, contracting authorities are now required to assess risks not just from prime contractors, but from associated persons and subcontractors. How many procurements have been referred for national security consideration, and how many suppliers have been excluded or challenged as a result? What assurances can the Minister give that public contracts are not still flowing into supply chains with links to hostile states? What assessment has the Minister made of the EU’s emerging “Buy European” policies? Is that not a protectionist barrier by the European Union? Finally, if social value is now mandatory at 10%, what assessment has been made of the risk that it adds cost and complexity, particularly for SMEs? I know that the House will want clear answers.
I begin by paying tribute to our fantastic public servants, civil servants and postal workers. The vast majority give so much in service of our country and the general public. This week, perhaps more than any other, is a reminder that it is Ministers’ responsibility to provide the political leadership so that those workers can deliver. The Minister’s decision to terminate the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme is enormously consequential and will be welcomed by many in this House, but more so by our many retired postal workers. While I appreciate being given advance sight of today’s statement, it does seem that the Minister, particularly in regard to the civil service pension scheme, has come to the House with more of a plan than a statement. It is clear that the current situation, as the Minister said, is the culmination of a series of entirely unforced errors by Capita. Its failure to adequately administer the CSPS has caused significant financial distress to thousands of former public servants, such as my constituent Chris. He has found himself without the pension he was relying on at just the time that his wife has had to step back from work after a cancer diagnosis. These people worked hard and planned responsibly for retirement, on the basis that the CSPS would be there for them when they needed it. Capita’s failures have left them anxious, frustrated and, in many cases, desperately out of pocket, but in all too many cases that I am aware of, Capita has been utterly unresponsive. Sadly, the constituents and others from around the country who have contacted me about Capita simply would not recognise the Minister’s claim of answer times being down to two minutes. This is not the way to reward a career of dedicated public service. Last year, the National Audit Office highlighted that Capita had failed to meet three of the six key transition milestones that had been due by March 2025. All those milestones related to scheme design and operational readiness. In October last year—two months before Ministers had to make a final decision on the transition to Capita—the Public Accounts Committee noted that Capita had missed milestones to deliver its IT systems. The Committee called on the Cabinet Office to fully develop contingency plans before making a final decision about whether Capita should take over administration on 1 December last year. The Minister’s Department confirmed that—four months after the transition was completed—Capita had still not met three transition milestones, while one was only partially met It is only at this point that the Minister has brought forward the contingency plans—the same contingency plans that the Public Accounts Committee recommended months before—but the warning signs were there, and they should have been clear and obvious. Despite that, last November, a full year and a half after the Government took office, they wrote to trade unions, confirming that Ministers were pressing ahead with Capita’s contract.. We all agree that it is in everyone’s interests that the operational stability of the CSPS be restored as quickly as possible. After all, Capita won the contract because of the failure of the previous MyCSP contract, and clearly a further change would mean more disruption, causing further harm to those who have already been so badly impacted. Ministers must ensure that Capita meets its contractual obligations consistently, and that any penalty clauses in the contract that can be enforced are enforced, to allow compensation to be paid. The Minister has some questions to answer. For those who are missing out because of Capita’s failings, will the Minister unequivocally commit to delivering a functioning service in the timeframe that he has set himself? Will he confirm that his Department has delivered the standardised mitigation letter that CSPS members can share with lenders to explain their temporary financial difficulties? That was promised last month; has it been delivered? I understand that there will be a commercial session on 28 April to discuss the penalties that Capita is facing, and what officials have called the “wider commercial position”. Will the Minister be attending in person? Will he commit to updating the House at the earliest opportunity, following that meeting? Will he elaborate on exactly what his officials mean by Capita’s “wider commercial position”? Finally, and most importantly, what contingency plans has the Minister put in place in case it becomes necessary to terminate Capita’s contract for the CSPS, just as he has today terminated its contract for the Royal Mail scheme?
One way to support growth in Wales, and indeed in Shropshire, is to support the Wrexham, Shropshire & Midland Railway’s open access application to the Office of Rail and Road. Will the Secretary of State make a commitment, similar to that of the Transport Secretary, that the Government will not get in the way of this application and will allow growth in Shropshire, Wales and the border market towns?
It is a great pleasure to serve under you this afternoon, Ms Lewell, and I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. We have heard quite a lot of depressing stories about how people have been scammed and ripped off, and all colleagues will agree that more needs to be done to tackle fraud and spoofing in the car insurance industry. Whether it is crash-for-cash scams, ghost broking or paid ad spoofing, our constituents are all being ripped off on so many levels; not just the cost itself, but the increase in insurance premiums. These practices are also harming the insurers and our wider financial services industry. The Minister will therefore agree with everyone in the room that more needs to be done to tackle this problem, but I hope she will reflect on colleagues’ comments about whether the Government are actually going far enough to tackle it. To give some context, fraud is a threat that is becoming more prevalent every year. In 2024, fraud accounted for 44% of all crime reported in England and Wales, with about £1.16 billion of fraudulent general insurance claims identified. On the car insurance industry specifically, a 2024 report from the Association of British Insurers said: “Motor insurance continues to be the area where insurers see the most illicit claims occurring, and they detected 51,700 motor scams worth £576 million.” The ABI’s data suggested that that accounted for 53% of all fraudulent claims that year. It is safe to say that there is an issue that needs to be rectified, that we need to do more to protect our constituents and that we need to work closely with the industry to resolve this issue. The thrust of this debate is paid ad spoofing, which is a very problematic but less well-known practice affecting the car insurance industry. According to the ABI, four in five people have never heard of it, so it is welcome that we have the opportunity to discuss it and raise its profile today. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire set out, paid ad spoofing is when fraudsters mimic legitimate businesses. They pay for ads to appear in search results when a customer searches for a legitimate service. In the context of car insurance, the ads usually refer to unscrupulous claims and accident management businesses, and tend to relate to those who have been involved in an accident. As Direct Line states, the practice relies on “the fact that in the aftermath of an accident, you might not be as vigilant as you’d otherwise be, searching quickly on your mobile and clicking on the first option you see.” Fundamentally, these organisations are relying on a consumer believing they are dealing with their own insurer. They then arrange various services that the consumer’s insurer would provide, adding more cost to the process. This is all done with the aim of recovering costs from the insurer, but if the insurer challenges the charges, the drivers are the ones left to pick up the bill. Understandably, those affected—such as the constituents of the hon. Member for North Shropshire—feel ripped off, and the companies that pretend to support them are actually exploiting them. The last Conservative Government understood that, which is why we instructed the Financial Conduct Authority to become responsible for claims management companies in 2019. As a result, firms must be authorised by the FCA to carry out their activities, and repeated violations will result in their authorisation being removed. It also means that customers can escalate complaints to the financial services ombudsman. However, I understand that accident management activities are currently unregulated, so will the Minister outline whether the Government are considering regulating those activities of claims management companies? I would also be grateful if she could provide an assessment of the resolution process for customers, and whether she thinks improvements need to be made. The other central issue is how these practices are allowed in the first place. Fraud is often complicated and involves many different actors. Consumers and insurers have a part to play in tackling it, but the actors, such as technology firms and social media platforms, should also bear responsibility; after all, they are the delivery mechanism for this fraud. We should acknowledge that some technology firms have taken action, and Google is a good example. In 2021, it required companies advertising financial services to demonstrate that they are authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority, which is a positive step. But more needs to be done, and we need a joined-up approach. The Government’s fraud strategy was an opportunity to do that. Although it is broadly welcome and recognises the role of technology firms in tackling fraud, not one of its action points requires change from them. Could the Minister set out why that decision was taken and what steps she is taking to ensure that responsibility is correctly allocated when it comes to fraud? Fraud in the car insurance industry is a serious issue, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Shropshire for bringing it up. Fraud in general is becoming an issue of national security, and we need to get a handle on it. The Government should continue working with all actors to stop these practices, and we will support them when they try to do so. Consumers also need to remain vigilant to these practices. I conclude by flagging to my constituents in Wyre Forest the current advice on how to avoid paid ad spoofing. First, people need to check the website’s URL to ensure that it is their legitimate insurer. Secondly, they should save the phone number on their insurance policy document to their telephone. Thirdly, if people are unsure about who they are speaking to, they should hang up and check their insurance details—caveat emptor.
The right hon. Member raises many really important points, much of which we agree with. That is why, I think on Report, the Opposition tabled an amendment to try to understand what the problem was. It specifically asked, “Why are these pension funds not investing in the UK? Is it legislative, is it regulatory or is it cultural?” The Government voted against that. They voted against exactly the work we need to do to understand what the problem is. Could he possibly explain why?
Both sides of this House are going with the grain of what is intended on this. There is a fundamental problem—we all agree on that—but let us get the issues out of the way that are blocking it. We cannot force people into a minefield if the mines are still there; we have to clear the mines and allow them do it. This is the most fundamental point. The Government should not be telling pension fund managers how and where to invest their money. If there is a problem that they are going to encounter, we should get those problems out of the way and managers will go into those assets.
Q8. Last Thursday, a man was arrested in Laleham in my constituency. He had been approaching children at the primary school, having been warned by the police not to do so. He was taken into police custody and, after further examination, detained under the Mental Health Act. Unbelievably, he was living in an unlicensed house in multiple occupation, supported by the Home Office, a stone’s throw from the primary school. What I would like to know, Prime Minister, is: who is responsible for the risk assessment that put him there? Was it the Home Office, or was it Spelthorne borough council? Who screwed up? Who can I hold accountable?
I want to start with some good news. After a year of resisting—insisting that a statutory ban on smartphones in schools was, to quote the Prime Minister, “unnecessary”—the Government have finally given in and we have got what we have been asking for: a statutory ban on smartphones in schools. Ministers have told me over and over again that there is not a problem. They said that the vast majority of schools have a phone ban and that a statutory ban was, to quote the Education Secretary, a “headline-grabbing gimmick”. At one stage, I was told—by an Education Minister during Education questions, no less—that I needed something better to go on than a smartphone ban in schools. But we have kept fighting, because I know and my party knows that there is a problem. The Department for Education’s own evidence says that phones are still disrupting almost half of GCSE classes every day. We know that children are still seeing porn at school on their friends’ smartphones, and it is affecting behaviour. We have tried guidance to fix the problem, but it has not worked. There is a phones crisis in schools, and only making the guidance statutory could possibly fix it. After various contortions from the Government Front Bench, I am glad that they have finally listened. In the face of a Government who until recently refused to accept that there is a problem, I pay tribute to the incredible campaigners—SafeScreens, Mumsnet, Parentkind, Will Orr-Ewing, Generation Focus, Health Professionals for Safer Screens, Phone Free Education and Smartphone Free Childhood. Their relentless focus and pressure has helped to give voice to the frustrated teachers, parents and students who were desperate for change—change that we have now delivered in the Bill. While that is good news, I want the Government to make it crystal clear that a “not seen, not heard” policy is not allowed under these rules. The statistic that Ministers constantly give—that 80% of schools already have a smartphone ban—includes schools that have a “not seen, not heard” policy. Such policies do not work: children still use their phones, they are allowed them in their bags, they still go to the loos and message their friends, and they are still exposed to nasty content on phones during the school day. The real number of schools with a full smartphone ban, where phones are not allowed to be with children at all during the school day, is only 11% according to Policy Exchange. It is vital that the Minister is explicit that a “not seen, not heard” policy, where children are free to carry their phones in their bags during the school day as long as the phones are silent, is prohibited under the guidance.
As ever, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we need an explicit commitment from the Minister today. I will be delighted if she is able to give that—it would be fantastic. If there is agreement from Members across the House, everyone will be very relieved. We have gone through the Government guidance and while that commitment could be read from the guidance, it is important for headteachers that it is made explicit. The Education Minister in the other place could not give that categorical assurance—[Interruption.] No, not this Education Minister—the Education Minister in the other place. It is important that the Minister gives that assurance today, and I am sure that she will. The Conservatives have shown that we can come together in the best interests of children, we can force change and we can make a difference.
The hon. Gentleman will know that we put guidance in place, but we have been explicit that it was not effective and that we needed to put it on the statute book, which is what we have been fighting for throughout the passage of the Bill. Turning to the Government amendment on pupil admission numbers, I am grateful that progress has been made in recognising the importance of school quality and parental involvement in decision making. This is a victory to protect school standards in the face of an onslaught against them in the Bill. Parental preference and choice are fundamental to healthy competition and higher school standards, and we welcome the belated acknowledgment of that by the Government. It is the right thing for parents, who would be dumbfounded at the idea that the local authority could unilaterally cut the places at a high-quality, over-subscribed school at the end of their road, which was exactly what was originally suggested in the Bill. The Government amendment is not perfect. It will still allow good school places to be cut as the adjudicator is required to take in account only the quality of education provided at the school in question and parental preference. That does not mean that school places are protected as they should be, but given that the Government have moved their position and taken into account some concerns, we will not vote against the amendment today. However, I would appreciate the Minister reassuring parents from the Dispatch Box that as the Secretary of State will be consulted on these decision, successful academies will not be penalised by local authorities merely by dint of not being run by them.
That is absolutely right. Enforcing a very strict policy is what now needs to happen off the back of the new statutory guidance. Let me now turn to the issue of social media and the Government’s approach. One of the biggest safeguarding challenges facing children today is social media. If we are serious about protecting children from the extreme and violent content that they encounter online every day, the Government should do what the Prime Minister says he wants to do—protect children online—by voting for change tonight. Parents are watching and they will not forgive the continued delay. Twice already, Labour Members have voted against a ban. Parents will be forgiven for not only feeling deeply let down, but being quite frankly baffled by what is going on. They have heard the Prime Minister promise action, yet once again he is preparing to lead his party through the Lobby to vote against it. If the Government truly wanted change, they could deliver it today. Instead, they have chosen to vote against a ban for a third time.
I respect the hon. Gentleman, but he will know that the Government consultation is not on how to implement a social media ban, but on whether to do one at all. That is not good enough. It also says in the consultation that TikTok is good for children because they can post dance videos. I do not believe that that is taking the issue seriously, and I do not believe that it commits to firm action. That is why Labour MPs who care about this issue should vote with us today.
There is a huge coalition of charities backing a ban. We have tried to police content online, and it has not worked, but we know that policing age will work and make a difference. This is urgent; there is no time for delay. Real harm is happening and children are dying. We must act, and a ban is the most effective way to do that.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Action this day—that is what is required, and that is what we are pushing for.
The rise of social media really came about in a serious way in 2015 or 2016 with the rise of front-facing cameras. We took action through the Online Safety Act 2023, which was a huge Act in pushing forward the safety of children, but it has not been effective in policing content. It has not been enough, and we need to go further. We now need a social media ban for children. Let me say once more: I will not give up this fight until the Government tell the House what they will do and by when. I hope that that comes tonight—the Minister indicates that it may come later in the other place—but I will not give up, and neither will the thousands of people who have joined the brilliant “Raise the Age” campaign, which has been speaking so powerfully for frustrated parents across the country.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. What she says speaks to the point that our two parties have been able to come together in the interests of children; it is just the Labour party that is standing in the way. Frankly, I know that there are Labour Members who agree with us and who want the Government to stop promising action and actually start taking some. Given the events of this week, I suspect that many of them do not even trust a word their own Government say. [Interruption.] It is absurd that the Government continually promise urgent action, yet all they have laid before Parliament is an amendment that does not commit to any action at all and does not specify a timeframe. This is not good enough. In a terrible week for the Government, the Opposition have proved that politicians can make change by coming together in the interests of children to ban smartphones. We can do the same on social media. The Prime Minister has already made his Back Benchers defend the indefensible this week, and I urge Labour MPs not to let him do the same to them again and to vote for change this evening. We owe it to the generation of children who are being exposed to extreme and violent content every single day to do so. Childhood is short, and children are being influenced and impacted by what they are being exposed to right now. Damage is being done now, and months and even years of delay mean a childhood lost for some, because once that content is seen, it cannot be unseen. Once those pressures take hold, they cannot simply be reversed, and the consequences can last a lifetime. This is not about action at some point in the future; it is about whether we act while there is still time to protect children who are growing up today, not years from now. Childhood is short, and we cannot give it back to children later, so we must protect it now.
I really appreciate the Minister engaging with this issue. However, some people could interpret “not having access” as children not being allowed to touch their phone during the school day, but still being allowed to have it in their bag. Can she be very clear today that that is not allowed under this guidance?
It is, as ever, a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. The power given to the Home Secretary by these regulations to suspend or discontinue asylum support in cases where asylum seekers are working illegally is welcome. It is also right to remove the existing duty on the Home Secretary to offer asylum support in all cases. Those are both improvements on the existing system. Clearly, if people come to this country to seek asylum, they should at the very least be expected to abide by the rules that govern that process. Although the changes are welcome in principle, criticisms raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlight a broader problem. The changes that the Government are proposing today will not, without changes to the wider legal regime, change the incentives for people who come to this country illegally or under false pretences to seek asylum. The Committee noted that illegal working cases—the ones we know about, that is—accounted for just 0.3%, or one in every 333, of asylum seekers receiving support. The number of asylum seekers working illegally is likely to be far higher in reality, and it is absolutely right that we deal with those cases, but these regulations alone will not create a meaningful deterrent for people who plan to come here illegally to seek asylum. Government Ministers say that they are developing a policy to address the problem, yet the indications so far suggest that we can expect to see tweaks at the edges of the system; what we need, and what the British people deserve, is a total overhaul. That would include preventing illegal migrants from ever seeking asylum in this country—a position legislated for by the previous Government but repealed by the current one. It would include being willing to remove people who come here illegally and return them to their home country or a safe third country—a position impossible under the current system, which the Government have committed to maintaining. We cannot seriously hope to remove people who come here illegally while remaining a signatory of the European convention on human rights and while the broken immigration tribunal system still has the final say on who can stay in our country. Yet the Government have committed to maintaining both. The changes I have mentioned would create a real deterrent for people who might otherwise be tempted to break into our country and abuse our good will. The measures before us today are positive, but they will not address the broader problem. The Government should focus first and foremost on the greater steps that we can take to secure our borders and end this problem for good.