April 2026

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

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 d

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 gi

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

Q2. Today marks the anniversary of the racist murder of my friend’s brother, Stephen Lawrence. Tomorrow is St George’s day. Does my right hon. Friend agree that now, more than ever, we need to tell the positive story of Englishness, founded in who we are and not in who the far right would like us to be?

I beg to move, That this House insists on its amendment 38J and disagrees with Lords amendments 38V to 38X to amendment 38J.

I am pleased to speak on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill for our third consideration of Lords amendments. The Bill is the biggest single piece of child protection legislation in a generation, and it will put in place a package of support to drive high and rising standards throughout our education and care system, so that every child can achieve and thrive. Today, I ask the House to again reaffirm its support for this landmark legislation. I turn first to Lords amendment 102 on the circ

I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention and for all his work for his constituents in Reading Central. To underline the fact that we will act quickly, we have committed to responding to the consultation by the summer and have made a legislative commitment to report to Parliament within six months.

I thank my hon. Friend for his work. I do agree with him; this is an important point. The issue is a part of our revised national curriculum and also the relationships, sex and health education curriculum. I am grateful for the engagement of peers and Members across the House on this vital topic. As a result, we have made a number of other changes that strengthen our position, including clarifying that this power can only be exercised to protect children from online harm and that we will share d

I reject the right hon. Member’s characterisation that we are kicking the can down the road. In fact, we are having a wide-ranging consultation—much wider than the amendments before us—that enables us to act swiftly and decisively. We guarantee that we will protect our children from harm.

I am going to make progress. Let me turn to Lords amendment 106 on our shared objective on banning phones in schools. As the House knows, at the start of the year the Government took decisive action to ban phones in schools. We strengthened the Conservatives’ weak guidance, including making it clear—to directly quote the guidance—that we expect schools “to implement a policy whereby pupils do not have access to their mobile phone throughout the school day including during lessons, the time betwe

I will finish this section of my speech and then give way. As the Government have consistently said and as sector leaders have repeated, this is a challenge of enforcement, and I genuinely believe that the package of measures we have already put in place will ensure effective bans of phones in schools. I have the greatest of respect for colleagues across the House who have argued that placing this guidance on a statutory footing could support enforcement, and we have tabled that amendment today.

I thank all colleagues for their contributions to the debate, which I found very engaging. I will try, in the few minutes that I have, to respond to some of the key points made. I start with my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who asked some really important questions, in particular on the matter of medical and other exemptions, which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) also asked about. I seek to draw Members’ attention to the guidance that is availa

I apologise, but I am going to make progress. I am happy to discuss this with the hon. Lady at any time. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) rightly paid tribute to Olly’s mum and dad. I have had the huge privilege of meeting Olly’s mum. No parent should have to endure what his parents endured; their huge courage in campaigning in their son’s memory is truly admirable. We heard contributions on the proposals on pupil admission numbers from the hon. Members for Weald of Ken

I can be extremely clear on that, as I have just been. We are categorically crystal clear that there is no access to phones at any point during the school day. The guidance says that. We have removed from the guidance that we have published any reference to any kind of “not seen, not heard” policy in the case studies. We are completely clear: no access to phones at any point during the school day. It is not for me to determine how a headteacher enforces their discipline and behaviour policies in

Kim Johnson voted AYE on 'Pensions Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insist on Amendments 88A and 88C and propose amendments (a) to (j) in lieu of Amendment 88B' (272-149, passed)

Claire Hanna voted AYE on 'Pensions Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insist on Amendments 88A and 88C and propose amendments (a) to (j) in lieu of Amendment 88B' (272-149, passed)

Paula Barker voted AYE on 'Pensions Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insist on Amendments 88A and 88C and propose amendments (a) to (j) in lieu of Amendment 88B' (272-149, passed)

Ian Byrne voted AYE on 'Pensions Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insist on Amendments 88A and 88C and propose amendments (a) to (j) in lieu of Amendment 88B' (272-149, passed)

Colum Eastwood voted AYE on 'Pensions Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insist on Amendments 88A and 88C and propose amendments (a) to (j) in lieu of Amendment 88B' (272-149, passed)