Ben Obese-Jecty MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Mar 2025 · Knife Crime: Victims · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the steps that the Government are taking to address knife crime, and anything that can be done to reduce the number of young people who are drawn into this type of violence. How will the new offence of possessing a knife with violent intent differ from existing legislation relating to possession of an article with a blade or point, or possession of an offensive weapon? How far will the law go when it comes to proving intent? Will it refer only to the posture of the individual when arrested—for example, they may have been caught in the act of a machete-style fight—or will it have regard to other factors, such as someone appearing in a scoreboard video on social media?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Knife Crime: Victims · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent .

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady mentioned 13,000 neighbourhood police, but 3,000 of those will be new warranted officers; I believe that 3,000 will be operational police officers brought back from other places. When will police forces find out what their share of those police officers will be? How will the 3,000 officers currently in other roles be reassigned, given that operational matters are the responsibility of chief constables, not the Home Secretary?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Knife crime is a grave issue, and I welcome any measures that can help to reduce it. I have a debate next Thursday on knife crime, and I hope to see good representation from all parts of the House in debating how we can reduce the number of children and young people involved in knife crime, whether as victim or perpetrator. The question I would like to ask is about knife sales online. Some 52% of fatal stabbings involve a kitchen knife, and only 3.6% involve a zombie knife. I appreciate that measures are in place to reduce the ability of people to obtain kitchen knives online, but everybody has a drawer full of knives at home. How can we take measures to reduce that?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, I attended the Thrive youth café held at All Saints church in Huntingdon. The café runs on Mondays and Fridays after school. Richard and Ruth, who run the space, said that it provides a safe space and a listening ear, as well as pool, table tennis and a PlayStation. Crucially, it provides opportunities for young people to access support from local youth workers. Funding for the Thrive youth café is precarious, with grants allowing the project to exist only in six-monthly cycles, and it desperately needs longer-term funding guarantees. Will the Leader of the House make time in the schedule to celebrate the value that such provision brings to teenagers and young people? And can I invite her to the youth café to try one of its now infamous Oreo milkshakes?

• 6 Mar 2025 · East Park Energy Solar Farm · Hansard source

  More

  Further to my online petition of residents in Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire that has received 1,100 signatures, I present this petition from constituents of Huntingdon and north Bedfordshire who will be impacted by the proposed East Park Energy solar farm. The proposal announced by Brockwell Storage and Solar to build a solar farm, known as East Park Energy, which will, at 1,900 acres, be bigger than Gatwick airport, has caused great concern among residents in the parishes of Hail Weston, Great Staughton, Little Staughton, Keysoe and Pertenhall. The development has been designated a nationally significant infrastructure project and is being built on farmland, 75% of which is graded as best and most versatile land—grade 2 and grade 3a. The proposed solar farm stands to have a significant impact on local life, as 700,000 photovoltaic panels are installed on 250,000 pile-driven metal posts. The site has even been built on top of a Roman town that has been identified but not excavated. Local residents feel that their voice in opposition to the scale of the project being foisted upon them has not been heard, and that the Government are unprepared to listen to them. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to not approve the East Park Energy proposal and to take immediate action to remove its Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project status.” Following is the full text of the petition: [ The petition of residents of Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire, Declares that the announced proposal by Brockwell Storage and Solar to build a 1,900-acre solar farm, known as East Park Energy, has caused great concern amongst residents of Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire, who are deeply worries as to the scale of the development, and that the development has been classified as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, which has raised additional concerns about its impact on residents; further declares that the proposed site would result in the loss and permanent damage of Grade 2 and 3a agricultural land, removing it from food production; and notes that an online petition on this matter received 1,067 signatures. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to not approve the East Park Energy proposal and to take immediate action to remove its Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project status. And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P003050]

• 5 Mar 2025 · Professional Cycling: Free-to-air Coverage · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree. I will come on to it in a little more detail later, but I think the hon. Member is absolutely right that it is a tragedy that at the same time as we have been awarded the Tour de France, the biggest race in the cycling calendar, in 2027, the easiest place to be able to see that will be in person, rather than on television. Bradley Wiggins’s Olympic gold medal inspired a generation, alongside his victory in the Tour de France that year—a British first. The following season the torch passed to Chris Froome as he went on to win four times in the next five years. His run of victories was followed by that of Geraint Thomas, another multiple Olympic gold medallist. From 2012 to 2018, three British riders won the Tour de France six times in seven races. The following season, another British rider, Tao Geoghegan Hart, took the pink jersey, winning the general classification in the Giro d’Italia. Geoghegan Hart grew up watching the Tour de France on ITV. It is cited as one of the inspirations that brought him into the sport. On news of the Warner Bros Discovery announcement, Geoghegan Hart publicly stated that “the sport going behind such a large paywall is a huge problem” and that it is now time “perhaps to question the monopoly held over” the sport’s UK coverage. ITV is not blameless in this endeavour. Last year, ITV4 chose not to renew its broadcast rights, opening the door to Warner Bros Discovery. The reassuring tones of Gary Imlach and the encyclopaedic knowledge of Ned Boulting would no longer be staples of cycling fans’ summers. The organic growth in cycling that has accompanied this untrammelled success has been revolutionary, but the cycling boom that formed part of the London 2012 legacy is now in danger of being dropped by the peloton. The Tour de Yorkshire capitalised upon the success of the 2014 Grand Départ, but it became another casualty of the covid-19 pandemic. The 2020 race was postponed by organiser Amaury Sport Organisation in March of that year and after two years of attempts to revive the race, it has never returned, with ASO citing escalating financial challenges and uncertainties. The Tour of Britain, our very own multi-stage race, lacks the global recognition of the Tour de France, but last year’s men’s and women’s races generated over £30 million for local economies in the towns and cities that the race passed through. However, the future of that race is still uncertain. Last year, it was run by British Cycling after its former organiser, SweetSpot, had its race licence withdrawn because they had failed to pay the fee for it. Subsequently, SweetSpot went into liquidation. Last year also saw the demise of our last two remaining continental-tier teams, Saint Piran and Trinity Racing; last autumn, both announced that they were folding. As recently as 2021, the UK had five men’s continental teams in Trinity Racing, Saint Piran, Ribble Weldtite, Canyon DHB Sungod and SwiftCarbon Pro Cycling, but now none of them remain. In addition, RideLondon has been cancelled this year. The event was part of the London 2012 legacy, with its first iteration in 2013, and it had been run every year since. The event’s chief organiser, Hugh Brasher, has said that over the past decade it had: “inspired more than 300,000 people to get back on a bike or cycle more and also raised more than £85 million for charity”. Those are phenomenal numbers for a cycling event. However, the strategic pause of RideLondon in 2025 raises concerns that it, too, may not return in 2026 or beyond. Even British Cycling’s membership numbers have steadily dropped, after a fivefold increase from 30,000 to 150,000 in the decade between 2010 and the pandemic. The last year has seen the demise of major British races, race organisers and domestic teams. Since 2008, the BBC Sports Personality of the Year award has been won by cyclists more times than by participants in any other sport. Nevertheless, last year’s BBC SPOTY event all but announced the end of British cycling’s golden era with Mark Cavendish’s lifetime achievement award after his incredible 11th-hour achievement of eclipsing Eddy Merckx’s Tour de France stage win record, and tributes were paid to both Bradley Wiggins and to Chris Hoy, following his diagnosis of terminal prostate cancer. In many ways, the demise of live free-to-air cycling TV coverage is a metaphor for the crisis that has befallen professional cycling in the UK. My own deeply mediocre recent career in racing cyclo-cross was born from watching Mathieu van der Poel take on Wout van Aert and latterly Tom Pidcock. If I had not watched obscure Belgian Superprestige races and finally decided to get stuck in myself, I would not have joined British Cycling, bought myself a bike from eBay—n+1, I don’t make the rules—found my local grassroots race series and dragged myself off for an hour of the hardest, most heart-pumping physical activity that I have ever participated in. I mean that literally, because men of my age are not meant to hit 200 beats per minute. Mathieu van der Poel I was not, but it was fun to pretend that I could be. I would never have taken up cyclo-cross if I had not had access to watching the sport. Cycling is so much more than just a sport. It has changed lives and saved lives, and given people both purpose and freedom. It is one of our greatest sporting success stories, but, like all things, its continuing success depends upon the next generation being willing to pick up the torch. To do that, children need to be inspired and parents need to be enthused. Although the next generation of cyclists to emerge are already in the pipeline, there are limited options available to them domestically, and now they will almost certainly need to go abroad in order to take the next step in progressing their career. Cycling is not football, where we are never more than a stone’s throw from a pub to watch a game in. We see mainstream sports all the time. Even just a glimpse on a news bulletin can be enough, but cycling rarely gets a look in. A British cyclist reaching the pinnacle of their sport and winning the coveted world championship rainbow jersey barely registers in the world of sports coverage. If a British tennis player so much as gets a bye into the second round of a Grand Slam tournament, they carry the hopes of a nation. In an increasingly fractured media landscape, one in which even our national broadcaster struggles for relevance, linear TV finds itself staring into the abyss of obsolescence, and sports coverage is all but the preserve of those who can afford it. The inclusivity that sport offers appears to be at odds with the options available to consume it. Cycling is not a wealthy sport. The careers of professional cyclists are hard and precarious; only those who achieve superstar status will make their fortune. For many, it is a journeyman sport, and for many more it is a career too hard to sustain. To be popular, a sport must be visible; to be visible, a sport must have a television presence. The Government would never allow the FIFA world cup, the Olympics or Wimbledon to be put behind a paywall. With an estimated 12 million spectators attending the race each year, the Tour de France is easily the most attended sporting event in the world. Will the Government consider how it can inspire a new generation of Froomes and Cavendishes to take up the mantle and consider what they are doing to restore a sporting jewel, in which we have enjoyed such recent success, to the masses, lest its absence from our screens causes the sport to wither on the vine? Not so long ago, Britain had a golden age of cycling that made us unassailably the best in the world. Olympics, world championships, Tours de France—they were ours for the taking, and other countries could only look on in envy at the Union Jack-clad winning machine that British cycling had become. Now, the slow puncture of managed decline has reached the point where even the visibility of the sport will be limited to slightly overweight, middle-aged men like me, who pootle around on a Sunday morning in their Lycra, inspiring very few. I ask the Minister what can the Government do, and what they are doing, to arrest that slide and put British cycling—with a small c—on the right trajectory and stop the sport from fading into obscurity? What support can they give to the grassroots, and what help can they give to the struggling professional scene? What guarantees can they offer that the Tour of Britain and the world championships across all disciplines will not disappear behind the TNT paywall as well? What will they do to use professional cycling as a catalyst and inspiration to get the next generation out onto two wheels and matching their existing commitment to active travel schemes? I finish with a shameless plug for my constituency of Huntingdon. If anybody from British Cycling happens to be watching this or reading it in Hansard , Huntingdon is a beautiful part of Cambridgeshire with endless rolling countryside that would look fantastic in the helicopter B-roll they use in the Tour de France. With the race returning to the UK with the Grand Départ in 2027, we have a ring road that sets up perfectly for a spectacular sprint finish. For many that may present the best opportunity to actually see the race.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Professional Cycling: Free-to-air Coverage · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member’s sentiments. Cycling is one of those sports that people almost fall into by accident. Everybody had a bike when they were growing up; everyone learns how to ride a bike. I think that the inspiration for riding that bike and, potentially, taking that further and wanting to ape some of the successes that we see in the Olympics every four years comes from having that on TV, in front of people. When the move for the Tour de France to Warner Bros Discovery was announced last October, it was described in The Guardian headline as a “blow to free-to-air sport coverage”. At the time, it was to be shown exclusively on Eurosport, but as of Friday, Eurosport itself no longer exists. Cycling coverage will now sit under the sporting umbrella of TNT Sports, also owned by Warner Bros Discovery. The price of a subscription to TNT Sports is £31 a month; Eurosport, when it was not included in an existing package, cost only £7 a month, so there is a more than 400% increase to watch a sport that has limited crossover with other sports in TNT’s portfolio. The Tour de France has been available free to air on British television for as long as I can remember. This summer, ITV4 will broadcast the race for the 25th successive and final time. Before that, Channel 4 had broadcast the race since I was a child. Indeed, I remember vividly the 1994 Tour de France, when it came to this country for the fourth and fifth stages of the race—the first time since an anti-climactic stage on the Plympton bypass in 1974. In 1994, I was enormously excited to get a glimpse of the great Miguel Induráin in his Banesto kit. It was also the tour debut of Chris Boardman, who had worn the yellow jersey after winning the opening stage time trial. Such were the crowds and the reception that Boardman was quoted as saying: “I’ll never forget this day as long as I live.” ITV4 was the free-to-air stalwart. Having covered Le Tour for 25 years—coupled with Channel 4’s coverage before that—ITV4 has been almost singlehandedly responsible for inspiring a generation of young cyclists. Scott Young, senior vice president at Warner Bros Discovery Sports Europe, has stated that providing free-to-air live cycling “is not on our road map…People can choose to make their decision as to how they want to engage with us in the short term.” That short term means a 400% price hike for paid coverage of professional cycling and the complete disappearance of live, free-to-air coverage. Young has stated that there are no concerns in Warner Bros Discovery that putting the sport behind a paywall will stunt the growth of the sport’s support, but the European Broadcasting Union’s 2024 report, “The Economic Impact of The Sports Activities of Public Service Media”, clearly states that free-to-air coverage can also encourage participation in sport at grassroots level. For many, terrestrial coverage of the Tour de France has been their only entry point to a sport that is, fundamentally, extremely niche. The cycling calendar is awash with famous races—from the grand tours of the Giro d’Italia and La Vuelta to the classics such as Paris-Roubaix and Milan-San Remo. Iconic though these races are, they have failed to penetrate our national consciousness, despite British winners in recent years. The Tour de France is more than just a famous cycling race. It is the gateway to a sport that is otherwise comparatively inaccessible and is now made even more so by the decision to remove live, free-to-air coverage from our television screens.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Professional Cycling: Free-to-air Coverage · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of free-to-air coverage of professional cycling. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I am grateful for the opportunity to open the debate. Growing up, many of us had a sporting hero: a star striker, a gold medal winner or a record-breaking athlete. My sporting hero was Jason McRoy. Most will almost certainly have never heard of him. He was arguably Britain’s first mountain bike superstar. In the early 1990s, when the sport was in its infancy, Jason was a trailblazer. I followed his progress as closely as I could through the media available at the time. It being the 1990s, that was mostly dog-eared copies of Mountain Biking UK which I lugged back and forth to school, reading each month’s copy to destruction, and occasionally via coverage on Eurosport. Jason finally got his break in 1993, as big companies started throwing money at the fledgling sport. The biggest race in the calendar, aside from the world championships, was the Reebok Eliminator, a one-off head-to-head race on the famous Kamikaze course at Mammoth Mountain in California. Having secured entry after his mum persuaded the organisers, Jason—in his iconic black and white Hardisty Cycles kit, from a local bike shop in Newcastle—took on the top US factory race teams. Jason gave it his all, making it to the final against US favourite Myles Rockwell and narrowly losing. However, he had put his name on the sport’s international map. A professional contract with Specialised USA followed the next season and Britain had its first fully fledged superstar rider. We will sadly never know how Jason’s career would have panned out. On 24 August 1995, his Harley-Davidson collided with a lorry at Woodhead Pass on the A628 in Derbyshire. Jason’s father Jim took the call announcing his death at 1.50 am. Without Jason, there might never have been the double Olympic gold medal and world championship-winning Tom Pidcock, and no world championship wins for Gee Atherton, Steve Peat, Danny Hart, Reece Wilson or Charlie Hatton—no Rachel Atherton, Tracy Moseley or Manon Carpenter. Those are not household names, however. Their sporting successes are often difficult to witness as it is. Often the only place to watch those races was on Eurosport but last Friday it was consigned to the history books. Eurosport’s demise is a hammer blow for coverage of cycling in the UK. Owned by Warner Bros Discovery, the inevitable demise of Eurosport was hidden in plain sight. First their cycling-specific GCN+ app was closed, citing a desire to offer more content on fewer platforms. GCN+ provided almost unlimited access to the global cycling calendar. No race was too obscure. Omloop Het Nieuwsblad, check; Scheldeprijs, check; Kuurne-Brussel-Kuurne, check. Cycling bores like me had never had it so good. Parallel to the slow demise of Eurosport, and almost unnoticed to many outside of the cycling media bubble, Warner Bros Discovery had hoovered up the exclusive British broadcast rights to the Tour de France from 2026. That is comfortably the blue-ribbon event of the global cycling calendar and possibly the only race that everybody has heard of.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, thank the Prime Minister for his support to President Zelensky yesterday, following the circus that was his meeting with President Trump and Vice-President Vance in the Oval Office. Following the Prime Minister’s discussions with President Trump last Thursday, can the Prime Minister provide assurance regarding the ongoing presence in this country of the US Air Forces in Europe at current levels and give reassurance that the US’s half-a-billion-pound Defence Infrastructure Organisation investment in the European infrastructure consolidation project’s new joint intelligence analysis complex at RAF Molesworth —also the home of the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre —will not be put in jeopardy, given the change in European posture of the new US Administration?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Online Safety Act: Implementation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this timely debate. His wealth of knowledge on this topic is clear, and his voice in pursuing the most effective iteration of the legislation has been constant. The previous Government passed the world-leading Online Safety Act, which places significant new responsibilities and duties on social media platforms and search services to increase child safety online—aims that all Members can agree upon. Platforms will be required to prevent children from accessing harmful and age-inappropriate content, and to provide parents and children with clear and accessible ways to report problems online when they arise. The evidence base showing that social media is adversely impacting our children’s mental health is growing stronger. The Royal Society for Public Health says that about 70% of young people now report that social media increases their feelings of anxiety and depression. It is for those reasons that Conservative Ministers ensured the strongest measures in the Act to protect children. The Act places duties on online platforms to protect children’s safety and put in place measures to mitigate risks. They will also need to proactively tackle the most harmful illegal content and activity. Once in force, the Act will create a new regulatory regime to significantly improve internet safety, particularly for young people. It will address the rise in harmful content online and will give Ofcom new powers to fulfil the role of the independent regulator. Fundamentally, it will ensure services take responsibility for making their products safe for their users. I note that the Government have said that they are prioritising work with Ofcom to get the Act implemented swiftly and effectively to deliver a safer online world, but I recognise the concerns of parents and campaigners who worry that children will continue to be exposed to harmful and age-inappropriate content every day until these regulations come into force. Will the Minister acknowledge those concerns in her remarks? The Act places new duties on certain internet services to protect users from illegal content on their platforms. The purpose of those illegal content duties is to require providers of user-to-user and search services to take more responsibility for protecting UK-based users from illegal content and activity that is facilitated or encountered via their services. In December, Ofcom published its finalised illegal harms codes of practice and risk assessment guidance. The codes of practice describe the measures that services can take to fulfil their illegal content duties, and they recommend that providers of different kinds and with different capacities take different steps proportionate to their size, capacity and level of risk. The codes recommend measures in areas including user support, safety by design, additional protections for children and content moderation or de-indexing. Many of the measures in the draft codes are cross-cutting and will help to address all illegal harms. Certain measures are targeted at specific high-priority harms, including child sexual abuse material, terrorism and fraud. Those include measures on automated tools to detect child sexual abuse material and for establishing routes so that the police and the Financial Conduct Authority can report fraud and scams to online service providers. The included measures will also make it easier for users to report potentially illegal content. Ofcom has also published guidance on how providers should carry out risk assessments for illegal content and activity. Providers now have three months to complete their illegal content risk assessment. Can the Minister update the House on whether the completion of the risk assessments will coincide with the codes of practice coming into force? Another important milestone was the publication of Ofcom’s children’s access assessment guidance last month. Services will have to assess whether their service is likely to be accessed by children and, once the protection of children codes have been finalised by the summer, must put in place the appropriate protections, known as age assurance duties. All services that allow pornography must implement by July at the latest highly effective age assurance to ensure that children are not normally able to access pornographic content. Together, the illegal harms and child safety codes should put in place an important foundation for the protection of users. For example, children will be better protected online with services having to introduce robust age checks to prevent children seeing content such as suicide, self-harm material and pornography, and having to tackle harmful algorithms. Illegal content, including hate speech, terrorist content and content that encourages or facilitates suicide should be taken down as soon as services are aware of it. Women and girls will be better protected from misogyny, harassment and abuse online. The Government have said they are keen for Ofcom to use its enforcement powers as the requirements on services come into effect to make sure that the protections promised by the Act are delivered for users. Samaritans has called on the Government and Ofcom to “fully harness the power of the Online Safety Act to ensure people are protected from dangerous content”. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will fully back Ofcom in its enforcement of the illegal harms and child safety codes? There are concerns that Ofcom appears to be relying on future iterations of the codes to bring in the more robust requirements that would improve safety. Relying on revision of the codes to bring them up to the required standard will likely be a slow process. The requirement to implement initial codes and guidance is significant and is unlikely to allow capacity for revision. Furthermore, the Secretary of State’s ability to stipulate such revisions could hamper that. To that end, it is essential that the first iteration of the codes of practice is robust enough to endure without the need for revision in the short term. Although that might be difficult to achieve in an environment that moves as quickly as the digital space, it must be strived for, lest we end up with legislation that does not hold online platforms to account and does not protect victims of online harms as it should. As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that the online world is a safe place for our children. We also have a responsibility to ensure that online platforms take their obligations seriously. I am pleased that the previous Government’s Online Safety Act delivers on both those points. I urge the Minister to ensure that it is fully implemented as soon as possible.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Historic Slavery: Reparations · Hansard source

  More

  A quick question: to what extent do the Government support CARICOM’s 10-point plan for reparatory justice?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Defence and Security · Hansard source

  More

  As a veteran, I welcome the move to 2.5%. It is a milestone on the right track to increasing defence spending to 3.0% and probably beyond, particularly given that defence chiefs are reported to have requested 2.65%. With increasing defence spending and suggestions that British forces may be involved in a peacekeeping mission, along with ongoing support to Ukraine, it is reassuring to see that we are not prepared to acquiesce to Russian belligerence. With that in mind, as the Prime Minister prepares to meet President Trump, will he clarify with the President why the US sided with Russia and North Korea yesterday, voting against the European resolution that Russia should withdraw from Ukraine at the UN General Assembly?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate; Kim Campbell for launching the petition; the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening the debate; and the 128,000 signatories of the petition, including 225 people from my constituency of Huntingdon. In a recent survey by More in Common of more than 2,000 parents, social media and excessive screen time was ranked as the top issue affecting children’s mental wellbeing: parents ranked it higher on the list of threats than alcohol, bullying and financial problems. Exposure to harmful content online was deemed the second biggest risk to mental health. The challenges facing children have changed astronomically in recent years. Children now face a boiling point of addiction, constant connectivity, online crime and harmful content. Many feel that it has become too much for children to handle. The evidence base is growing stronger. Smartphones and social media are adversely impacting our children’s mental health. The Royal Society for Public Health says that about 70% of young people now report that social media increases their feelings of anxiety and depression. In increasing numbers, children are coming into schools up and down the UK having stayed up all night on their phone. A child who has not had a healthy night’s sleep is not equipped to contribute to the classroom, except perhaps to disrupt it. Evidence from Health Professionals for Safer Screens shows that children who routinely spend extended periods on their smartphones have poorer eyesight, inhibited speech and language development, interrupted sleep and rising rates of anxiety. Smartphones are designed to be addictive. Platforms are constantly seeking to develop new design strategies that encourage children to stay online longer. Notifications, comments and likes are designed to drive feelings of happiness. It is easy for children to feel obliged to engage and even compete with their peers online. Of course, children access social media on mobile phones via the internet. Individually, each tool brings its own benefits. Mobile phones allow children to let parents know that they have reached school safely, providing an extra safeguard that allows them greater and earlier independence. The internet itself allows children to further their education, whether through research tasks, homework or practising coding; it also provides better connectivity, information and entertainment. The internet is so integral to society that we must ensure that children have the skillset and the know-how to navigate it. I expect that many hon. Members use social media every day, scrolling through their feeds, checking the news or drafting updates to their constituents. Social media has its benefits, not least because it allows us to communicate with people instantly and en masse, wherever they may be in the world. Used responsibly, social media can provide some benefits for children. Children may use it to stay connected with friends and family around the world. They may use it for civic engagement or to fundraise; they may use YouTube or short reels for online learning or content discovery. The drawbacks, however, are considerable: addiction to their screen, online bullying and exposure to harmful content such as eating disorders, self-harm and body shaming. There is some bad content on the internet. It is deeply concerning that half of 13-year-olds reported seeing hardcore, misogynistic pornographic material on social media sites. There are widespread concerns that this is impacting the way young people understand healthy relationships, sex and consent. Half of parents worry that online pornography is giving their children an unrealistic view of sex. We see the same with knife crime: there is constant exposure to content that glamorises violence, exposes children to a world of criminality, gangs and scoreboard videos, and contributes to the perception that every teenager carries a knife and thus drives the urge for them to carry one themselves, too often with deadly consequences. What can be done to tackle these issues? The previous Government passed the world-leading Online Safety Act, which places significant new responsibilities and duties on social media platforms and search services to increase child safety online. Platforms will be required to prevent children from accessing harmful and age-inappropriate content and to provide parents and children with clear and accessible ways to report problems online when they arise. As well as content, the Act applies to service functionality, including the way in which platforms are operated and used by children. Will the Minister confirm whether platforms will be obliged to manage and mitigate addictive functions if a provider’s risk assessment identifies habit forming that could cause sufficient harm? We are cleaning up the online space with world-leading legislation and an enforced regulator, but I worry that that is not enough. We should be having a conversation about the use of mobile phones in schools. The previous Government took action and issued guidance backing headteachers in restricting access to phones in schools. However, new research has shown that only 11% of schools are genuinely smartphone free, while children at smartphone-free schools get one to two grades higher at GCSE. That is why the Opposition tabled an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to ban mobile phone use in schools. It was disappointing that the Government rejected that amendment and that argument. Will the Minister update us on what conversations he has had with colleagues in the Department for Education about that policy? Conservatives want to put the safety of children first. I hope that the Minister agrees with that aim. The More in Common poll showed that nearly nine in 10 parents—86%—backed raising from 13 to 16 the so-called digital age of consent, the point at which children should be allowed on social media. Some Members have also proposed banning social media for children under 16. I note that the Secretary of State has not ruled that out, saying that it is “on the table” and that he “is not currently minded” to enact such a policy. Instead, the Government have announced the launch of a study to explore the effects of smartphone and social media use on children. It seeks to build the evidence base for future decisions designed to keep children safe online. The work is being led by a team at the University of Cambridge, with contributions from researchers at other leading universities. The project lead, Dr Amy Orben, says: “There is huge concern about the impact of smartphone use on children’s health, but the evidence base remains fairly limited. While the government is under substantial time pressure to make decisions, these will undoubtedly be better if based on improved evidence.” The Opposition agree that the evidence base needs to be improved, and we welcome the study. The last piece of substantial Government-backed research into children and mobile phone use was completed in 2019, before covid. We know the devastating impact of lockdown on children and how pandemic restrictions forced children to connect with their friends and schoolteachers online. That pushed children towards technology and social media, potentially leading to irreversible changes in behaviour. However, the timeline for the work is unclear. Although the research should be detailed and thorough, its publication should be timely. Will the Minister please outline when the study will report back to the Department and, given the dangers of delay, whether he has considered speeding it up? I am aware that the Children’s Commissioner has recently done some work to better understand the impact of mobile phones on children. Her insight could prove very valuable while the academics are researching in depth. I presume that the Minister has spoken to the commissioner, but can he update the House on what he has learned from those discussions? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on those points. The poll is a clear illustration of the strength of feeling among parents, but we all know—from our own families and our conversations with parents, teachers and children in our constituencies—the impact on children of mobile phones and social media. As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that the online world is a safe place for our children. We also have a responsibility to ensure that online platforms take their obligations seriously. I am pleased that the previous Government’s Online Safety Act delivers on both those points, and I urge the Minister to ensure that it is fully implemented as soon as possible.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Opposition Members are broadly supportive of this Bill and its aims, which build on the work done by the previous Conservative Government and refined by Members of the other place. I will focus primarily on deepfakes and AI-generated images, specifically in relation to clauses 91 and 141. I commend Baroness Owen for her work on non-consensual images and deepfakes, and for pressing the Government to address this issue with more urgency. Her work brought about a U-turn on the intent-based amendment, pushed the Government to agree on solicitation, and pushed them to act on the deletion of content. Removing the intent-based amendment removes a huge hurdle for victims—a hurdle that would have required victims to prove the intentions of their tormentor. This would simply have placed more pressure on victims, while abusers would have been more likely to excuse their crimes. It is right that solicitation is now included in the Bill, as many cases have shown that it is not enough just to criminalise creation; we must also criminalise the people who ask others to create these images and videos for them. Otherwise, we run the risk of a loophole where images are posted on to sites and people from other jurisdictions create the content and send it back to the person requesting it. The Government tried to prevent custodial sentences from being an option for these abusers, as they argued that omitting “reasonable excuse” may breach the European convention on human rights. Given the content, I cannot see how perpetrators’ rights trump the rights of victims, but the change was made thanks to Baroness Owen and Members from across the parties in the other place, who persisted in making sure that the Government take all action needed to stop this growing criminal scourge. We have seen a surge in deepfakes, revenge porn and nudifying apps. This technology is the wild west and, unchecked, poses a danger to many in society. We must act to protect the most vulnerable from harm. I welcome that clause 91 establishes requirements for the commissioner to report on what actions have been taken. It is right that we see what is being done to combat these crimes. We have heard many reports of sexual images of children being generated and spread. This causes so much damage, and once such exploitative images are created and disseminated, they are near impossible to eradicate. As technology advances, we need to keep pace with new threats, lest technological change outstrip the pace of legislation. For too long, the law has been out of touch with fast-changing realities. There are apps just a few clicks away that allow users to generate their own AI boyfriend or girlfriend, and some of these apps can take real images and change them into sexually explicit figures that are already terrifyingly real. This is just one example of why we need further restrictions, with clear penalties for both platform providers and users. One app, undress-ai, processed over 600,000 images of women within 21 days of launching. These were ordinary women, with no knowledge that their image was being doctored in such a way and used, even traded, for the gratification of others. This is simply not right. Although consent is at the heart of aspects of the Bill, we need to look closely at provisions for withdrawing consent. This must be seriously considered, particularly where an image that is consensually exchanged is doctored into something that was never consented to. Though I welcome aspects of the Bill, we must ensure that we keep up with the rapid pace of change. Apps that cause great harm are readily accessible. I hope to hear more about what can be done to assist people to withdraw consent, so that we can end this vile abuse.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency of Huntingdon, I have two sites that form a key component of pre-clinical animal testing. Labcorp, where the testing takes place, and Marshall BioResources, where the beagle puppies are bred and then tested on. Almost none survive the testing process. While I do not support animal testing, I recognise that it is currently a necessary element of the pre-clinical testing process and cannot be phased out until non-animal methods have sufficient scope. The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation wrote to me in September outlining the Government’s approach to phasing out animal testing, but will the Government publish a timeline of what tests will be phased out via the work of the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research and when?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Hinchingbrooke Hospital · Hansard source

  More

  4. If he will take steps to repair Hinchingbrooke hospital before buildings containing reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete reach the end of their lifespan in 2030.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Hinchingbrooke Hospital · Hansard source

  More

  Last July, Deborah Lee, the senior responsible officer for the Hinchingbrooke hospital redevelopment programme, stated that the deadline for the new hospital was 2030. In a written answer to me last year, the Minister confirmed that, even after the mitigation measures of failsafe steelwork, the lifespan of the remaining RAAC buildings would run only until approximately 2030. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the rebuild, and all waves of the new hospital programme, will not be delayed by the review of building safety regulations guidance announced by the Deputy Prime Minister in December? Will he assure my constituents that the RAAC buildings at Hinchingbrooke will be safe to use beyond 2030, and if so, will he publish the risk assessment that he has conducted to confirm that?

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

  More

  I was not suggesting that people should not have the ability to clothe themselves; my point was that this is advertised on the Government website, and is a pull factor. What does this Bill do to address that pull factor?

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

  More

  This Government, with this plan, will sadly not get on top of illegal immigration. The Secretary of State made much of the fact that the Bill will introduce powers that mirror counter-terror legislation “to allow law enforcement partners to disrupt, investigate and prosecute those facilitating organised immigration crime”, but law enforcement already has the ability to disrupt, investigate and prosecute. The Border Security Command and the recruitment of its commander were announced with great fanfare by the Government, but what is there to show for them? Having already removed any deterrent, the number of small boats has risen to its highest level. By the end of the year, the number had risen to more than 30,000 arrivals—now crossing with impunity. The Border Security Command is due to provide and oversee a long-term vision for the border security system, but what is that vision? Within that system, the commander is responsible for setting the system’s strategic priorities, but what are they? The commander was appointed in September, and it is now February, so when will he set the Government’s strategic priorities for border security? The default answer of the Minister for Border Security and Asylum to nearly every question is that the Border Security Command is providing “cross-system strategic leadership” to tackle organised immigration crime—because cross-system strategic leadership is the No. 1 thing that people smuggling gangs fear more than anything. I asked what the Border Security Command’s target is for reducing the number of people entering the country via small boat: “cross-system strategic leadership”. I asked what the Border Security Command’s timeline is for reducing the number of people entering the country via small boat: “cross-system strategic leadership”. I asked what Border Security Command provides in the way of cross-system strategic leadership to Border Force, to the National Crime Agency, to immigration enforcement and to the police. The response was: “The Border Security Command is, for the first time, providing system leadership across those partners.” Most importantly, several months after the Border Security Command was established, I asked how many organised immigration crime groups had been dismantled —or, to put that in terms that regular viewers may find more familiar, how many gangs have been smashed? The answer was that it is “collecting key data across the system… This will support the BSC’s ability to drive cohesive delivery across the system”. So none—not a single gang has been smashed. The Government have stated that their new approach to border security will focus on prevent, pursue, protect and prepare. Prevent will “disincentivise migrants”, but how will this legislation do that? Currently, if anybody is wondering whether the journey to the UK will be worth the risk, the gov.uk asylum support webpage states: “You can ask for somewhere to live, a cash allowance or both as an asylum seeker… You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast… You’ll usually get £49.18 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries. It continues: “If you’ve been refused asylum but you’re still eligible for support you’ll be given: somewhere to live” and “£49.18 per person on a payment card for food, clothing and toiletries”. Whether someone is eligible for asylum or not, they will likely still get a home and £50 a week. What deterrent is there in this legislation to mitigate those pull factors? None.

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

  More

  No, I will not. The Bill repeals most of the Illegal Migration Act, removes the duty on the Home Secretary to make arrangements to remove persons who entered the UK illegally to their home country or a safe third country, and allows illegal migrants to obtain British citizenship—more incentives. The Illegal Migration Act blocked asylum seekers from claiming asylum based on their method of entry, so those who entered the country illegally via small boat were unable to claim asylum, not eligible for support and, crucially, not eligible to claim British citizenship. The Government talk tough on deportations, proudly boasting that they have deported record numbers of migrants, but more than 80% of those individuals are voluntary returns. When I asked the Home Office how much they were each awarded in financial incentives of up to £3,000 per person, the Minister for Border Security and Asylum could not provide that information. Why does she not know? Even those who lose the game still walk away with a cash prize. With no credible deterrent since the election, we have seen numbers rocket and migrant hotels reopen. In just three months since the election, the number of migrants in asylum hotels rose by 6,000, which is roughly equivalent to the population of the third biggest town in my constituency. Indeed, in Cambridgeshire, the hon. Members for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) have asked the Home Office to rethink its decision to move 146 male asylum seekers into the Dragonfly hotel in Peterborough. I imagine that was not on their bingo card for the first six months of a Labour Government. The only deterrent in the Bill appears to be five years in prison if migrants refuse to be rescued in the channel by French authorities. I will be staggered if a single person is prosecuted for refusing to be rescued by the French. For reference, threatening someone with a weapon carries a maximum sentence of four years’ custody in the UK, so to suggest that migrants will receive a harsher sentence for not being rescued by French authorities is a nonsense. This is a terrible Bill that pays lip service to controlling illegal immigration by talking tough while crossing its fingers behind its back. We know that Government Members are more comfortable signing letters to stop deportation flights than they are actually deporting people, but this Bill pours fuel on the fire of illegal migration. It encourages it and facilitates it, and I would not be surprised if Lord Hermer had advised on it. The Bill makes for a snappy headline, but it will not be the solution needed to curtail illegal immigration.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Afghan Resettlement Programme · Hansard source

  More

  9. How many Afghans who worked directly for British forces have been relocated to the UK under the Afghan resettlement programme.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Afghan Resettlement Programme · Hansard source

  More

  Having admitted 30,000 Afghans into the country as part of the Afghan resettlement programme, it is concerning to learn that the Ministry of Defence has no idea how many of them actually ever worked for British forces. The Government’s own figures estimate the total number of local Afghans employed by British forces during Op Herrick to be around 7,000, only 2,850 of whom worked as interpreters and translators on the frontline—a fraction of the 30,000. If the MOD does not know why they are eligible to be let into the country, the MOD presumably also does not know who they are or what they have been doing in Afghanistan over the past decade. Can the Minister confirm that the Afghan resettlement programme has not been exploited by criminal, terrorist or hostile state influence?