Gareth Snell MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 19 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker, and happy Hanukkah to those who are observing. What action are this Government taking to promote the purchasing of British-grown and seasonal produce through their public procurement framework?

• 19 Dec 2024 · Hospice Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Stoke-on-Trent is wonderfully served by the Dougie Mac and Donna Louise hospices. They are part of a healthcare system in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent that the Minister knows has a £90 million projected deficit. What oversight will there be to ensure that the money that goes to the ICBs reaches the hospices and that the team in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent do not try to use some of this welcome new money to fill holes elsewhere?

• 19 Dec 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House arrange for either a statement or a debate in Government time on the regulation of houses in multiple occupancy? Without an article 4 direction in Stoke-on-Trent, we are at the mercy of developers who buy family homes or terraced properties and then convert them, using permitted development rights. That has a huge impact on amenities and on community feeling, and I think we could do a lot about that as a Government.

• 19 Dec 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  For now.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Office of the Whistleblower · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an independent Office of the Whistleblower to protect whistleblowers and whistleblowing; to make provision for the Office of the Whistleblower to set, monitor and enforce standards for the management of whistleblowing cases, to provide disclosure and advice services, to direct whistleblowing investigations and to order redress of detriment suffered by whistleblowers; and for connected purposes. So it is quite a small Bill. If I may, I shall start with a couple of thank yous. All too often, being a whistleblower is a thankless task. Whistleblowers risk so much: their personal standing, their reputations, and their homes. I think that this ten-minute rule motion, coming so soon after the statement that we heard from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, highlights the importance of those who are willing to speak up and draw attention to wrongdoing when they see it. I should like—on behalf of the House, if it will indulge me—to thank those people who have the bravery to stand up, say that there is wrongdoing, and put themselves at risk. I also want to pay a short tribute to my immediate predecessor in this place, Jo Gideon, who now serves as the chairperson of WhistleblowersUK. She did a lot in this House to progress the issue, and it is a testament to her that progress was made in the last Parliament. I hope that we can continue it in this place. I am grateful to the Government for the work that they have been doing on improving current arrangements for whistleblowing. The duty of candour Bill, which will place on our public servants the requirement to speak out and tell the truth when an investigation is happening, is an important part of shining a light on some of the dark recesses of our public sector when things go wrong. I am also grateful to the Government for recognising that whistleblowing can be important for tackling sexual harassment, and for the work that they are doing on the Employment Rights Bill. The whole purpose of whistleblowing is to try to prevent things from happening in the first place. All too often we end up in circumstances and situations in which something terrible happens, and somebody stands up and gives evidence about what has happened. As we have heard over many hours of debate in this place, it then costs an awful lot of money to redress the wrongdoing that has happened. In such circumstances, not having in place an effective and efficient whistleblowing system that is available to anybody who sees wrongdoing costs taxpayers a huge amount of money. The current framework for whistleblowing in this country is very much looked at through the lens of employment law. Technically, someone is considered a whistleblower only if they are employed by, and have a contractual relationship with, the organisation about which they are making a disclosure. That means that the remedy and redress that is available to the whistleblower normally ends up in an employment tribunal, which looks at the occupational and work-related loss that the individual has suffered, and not necessarily at some of the social and reputational damage that they suffer as a result of being the person who stands up and speaks out. We all know that standing up and speaking out is so important, because it is instilled in new Members of Parliament when we arrive here. We are told that if we see wrongdoing, we have a duty to say something. Anyone who travels on trains will hear the slogan, “See it. Say It. Sorted.” If people see wrongdoing in life, however, saying something about it is often a risk too far. They might make a disclosure about their workplace, and suddenly they will be put on gardening leave. They find themselves in a situation in which they are labelled as the troublemaker in the organisation. Then they end up down the employment tribunal route, and the issue does not necessarily get dealt with. One aspect of my Bill that I hope the Government will consider taking forward—if not through this Bill, then perhaps by bringing forward other Bills—is the proposed office of the whistleblower, which was supported by my party in opposition and in amendments tabled to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. Such an office has been talked about in this House; the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), who is no longer in his place, said in a previous debate that it would have helped us to prevent some of the scandals that we have seen in this country. The proposed office of the whistleblower would provide a genuine levelling effect for people who stand up and say the right thing, and who then suddenly find themselves opposed by the legal and financial resources of huge companies that seek to discredit them, isolate them and put them in a position in which their reputation and home life struggle. With an office of the whistleblower, we could remove the David versus Goliath situation and genuinely ensure that speaking up and doing the right thing counts. I would hope that the proposed office of the whistleblower would be a designated body to which people can report when they have made a disclosure. Currently, 88 different regulatory bodies can take a whistleblowing declaration. In fact, Members of Parliament are prescribed people: whistleblowers can make a declaration to us without necessarily incurring a penalty. Very few of us know that, and very few of us are able to progress a disclosure to the next stage. The proposed office of the whistleblower would be required to collate data on where whistleblowing declarations are being made from public bodies and other organisations. Crucially, that would tell us where there is a problem. I am sure that even today there will be employees in the NHS, the civil service, other public sector organisations and the private sector who make a disclosure to a manager, while yesterday somebody else made a disclosure to a different manager about the same problem. But no one is collating that data to say, “Actually, this is a problem in a particular sector; we should probably look at this and take some action now and prevent a genuine wrongdoing, malpractice, malfeasance or even death from occurring.” Our current whistleblowing arrangements are far too reactive. They rely on somebody standing up and speaking out, and they rely on that person taking a risk after an event has happened. It becomes almost a situation of saying, “Here is the evidence to correct the wrongdoing that has occurred.” We need to change whistleblowing culture in our country so that when something is happening and we see it or somebody else sees it, they feel compelled and also supported to make that declaration. That is very important because quite often the people who are doing the wrongdoing in the first place—the people who are undertaking malpractice, malfeasance or corruption—do it because they think they can get away with it. They do it because they think nobody is watching. They do it because they think the risk is less than the reward they can personally derive from a cover-up, fraud or any form of non-criminal activity. By making it clear that we now empower individuals—citizens of the country—to stand up and make a declaration, and be protected and supported in doing so, those who want to do wrong will think again. That will prevent our having to spend millions of pounds on redress—money that we can put to better use in this country. I hope that this short Bill, although it has a long title, will go some way to rebalancing power in this country by allowing those brave souls—who often take on the mighty giants—the opportunity and the support they need to do the right thing, knowing we have got their backs. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Gareth Snell, Liam Byrne, Robin Swann, Richard Foord, Sarah Champion, Mr Jonathan Brash, Tonia Antoniazzi, Dr Allison Gardner, Mr Alex Barros-Curtis, Jim Shannon, Jodie Gosling, Will Stone and Anna Dixon present the Bill. Gareth Snell accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 April 2025, and to be printed (Bill 152).

• 18 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights: Terminal Illness · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on the campaign across the midlands and across the country. I was very proud to support it when I was last in this place. The sheer volume of workers who are now protected is testament to my hon. Friend’s hard work and his ability to tell such a compelling story. Could he enlighten me on whether the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the various Government Departments, which are huge employers, have signed up to the campaign? If they have not, could I extend a hand of friendship to him to help him ensure that they sign up as soon as possible?

• 18 Dec 2024 · Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement · Hansard source

  More

  After eight years of Conservative rule in Stoke-on-Trent, the council was taken to the brink of bankruptcy, and the Minister will be well aware of the extraordinary financial support that we have received and about which we are having additional conversations. How will the recovery fund interact with authorities in receipt of extraordinary financial support? May I also put on record the thanks of the city to Councillor Alastair Watson and Jon Rouse, the chief executive, for the work they have done to stabilise council finances in difficult times?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The phrase damned by faint praise springs to mind. To be clear, I think the analysis of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the state in which we found the public finances is absolutely accurate. I think the remedies we are taking, while unpalatable to some, are necessary. I just wish we were able to mitigate some of the worst aspects of them.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I actually do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment, because in my city of Stoke-on-Trent, when there is need, people arrive to offer help. It is one of the things that people often say; we are a friendly, welcoming people, and if someone is in need, we roll up our sleeves and get stuck in. However, I agree that although dedicated volunteers are excellent, they are not a replacement for staff. In particular, they are not a replacement for the highly trained staff who provide very bespoke services, such as some of the ones I have mentioned. There are thousands of volunteers across Stoke-on-Trent, and I thank every single one of them for every moment of their time that they donate, but as the hon. Gentleman will know from his constituency, we sometimes talk about voluntary organisations as if they have no costs associated with staff, because they are entirely volunteer-run. I think everyone across this House would recognise that that is simply not the case; if it were not for the cadre of professionals who help co-ordinate those volunteers, things would fall apart. Although I have set out the challenges faced in my city, I am not necessarily drawn to some of the proposed amendments that would set differential rates for charities or other organisations. That is not because I do not believe those organisations should not be protected from the national insurance increase that is coming, but if we are saying that they should have a differential rate, why should that rate not be zero? Why should we not just exempt them entirely? I am also not convinced that we would not see people seeking to reorganise their own businesses to try to claim charitable status and reduce their own liabilities. Fundamentally, I believe that paying tax is a patriotic duty—if someone should, then someone must. There have been record levels of settlements for the NHS, and I accept the points that have been made about hospices and GPs. I sincerely hope that Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent ICB will make use of the better care fund, putting some additional money into that fund to pay for the social care that could help offset some of the national insurance increases that will make those jobs much more difficult. However, many of the organisations I have mentioned receive their operating budgets from Government, albeit passported through funds, a local council or another public body. They are essentially running Government services—they are running a public service on behalf of the Government. Is it not incumbent on us to make sure the services we ask them to provide are provided at the level we expect, and that we resource them efficiently? I would like to think that the difference between this Government and the previous one is that we value the work sufficiently that we will pay those organisations correctly and accordingly. If the Minister could address those points when he sums up, I would be most grateful.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will come to exactly that point later on. My constituency is often in the top 50 for social and economic deprivation, and we are often wholly dependent on the charitable sector picking up people when they are at their lowest and most in need. Charities often do the really hard work in getting those individuals back to a place where they can even begin to access statutory support services, such are the demands placed on them by the services with which they are seeking to engage. Let me take the example of supported housing. We talk quite rightly about giving people homes, but many of the people in Stoke-on-Trent who access the services that will be impacted by the national insurance contribution increases would not be able to live independently on their own in the months to come if it were not for supported housing. As the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) points out, that has a huge bearing on the acute cost at the presentation of final service. Last Friday, Voluntary Action Stoke on Trent, an excellent organisation run by Lisa Healings and her team, convened a meeting of local charities and the three Members of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent. Lisa helped me by compiling some of the specific impacts that the national insurance increase will have on charities and organisations in my community, and with the indulgence of the Committee, I will refer to some of them so that Members can hear the scale of the challenges that we face. The first relates to the citizens advice bureau in Stoke-on-Trent, which does a phenomenal amount of work. It will see an increase of £150,000 to its national insurance contributions. Although it will be able to mitigate some of that impact, the change will just mean that people wait longer for help, or, perversely, that more people will enter MPs’ caseloads and visit our surgeries because the CAB often signposts to other agencies when it cannot meet demand. The second largest impact I was told about is to the YMCA North Staffordshire, which will see its NI contributions rise by £101,000. That organisation routinely provides homes for young people who would ordinarily find themselves on the street, works with families to ensure that family units can stay together, supports community meal initiatives to bring together different Stoke-on-Trent communities, and does a lot of work on community cohesion, which is a particularly contentious issue in my city. A smaller organisation, Savana, which I must declare is run by my ex-wife, although we are still on favourable terms—

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If the right hon. Gentleman hangs fire, he may be surprised by some of the things I will say as I try to progress my speech. Although, in that context, is it not laughable and ludicrous that some of the most important parts of our social care sector—our air ambulances and our hospices—are dependent upon charity; that they have to rattle tins in supermarkets, dependent on handouts and philanthropic grants on a non-reoccurring basis, just to continue the service they deliver? There is a much broader conversation that we have to have as a nation about how far general taxation should fund some of those programmes. The right hon. Gentleman rolls his eyes, but I would rather make a small contribution to ensure that hospices and air ambulances can run than to have to watch people sit in baths of beans to try to ensure that vulnerable people get the help and support they need when they need it. He may disagree with that, but we should discuss that broader point of how we fund some of those things and whether we consider them to be vital infrastructure to our health and care system.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No—I will give way in a second. Savana is the provider of the rape and sexual advice service in Stoke-on-Trent. It gets all its money from the Ministry of Justice; it is essentially running a Government service by virtue of contracts, yet it will now see an increase in its national insurance contributions of something between £16,500 and £17,000, which will reduce the number of people it can support with independent domestic violence advisers and independent sexual violence advocates. The other half of its money comes from the Home Office via the police and crime commissioner. Again, that is essentially public money providing a public service that just happens to be provided by a charity that is not covered by the rebate provided to other organisations. Disability Solutions helps those who are entitled to additional support to access it. That charity brings millions of pounds a year into the city, which has a cumulative economic benefit, because the money brought in is spent on our high streets and in our local economy. The people it helps are not the wealthiest in my city; they quite often have very little in their pockets, and every penny that is given to them is spent in the local economy. They do not hoard it in a savings account, put it into the Cayman Islands or use it as a downpayment on a new car or furniture; they go out and buy food, shoes and school uniforms for their children, or they use it in one of the local entertainment venues. North Staffs Mind faces an impact of £55,000. That organisation is specifically designed to help people with their mental health, which the Government have rightly identified as a huge inhibitor to economic growth, because if people cannot get their mental health sorted, they cannot get back into work. Another mental health organisation, Changes, wrote to me to say that these changes to national insurance would be unsustainable for them. Finally, the Dove Service is a bereavement counselling service that faces a cost of £2,000. All those organisations are filling a void in state provision in my city.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent argument against increasing the employer’s part of national insurance contributions. Yet he himself voted for the health and social care levy, which was an increase of greater proportion on both employees and employers. I have just checked Hansard —he made none of the arguments that he progresses today when his Government were putting that through. Why has his mind been changed now that he is in opposition?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Again, if my hon. Friend bears with me, I will get to that point, but I absolutely agree in principle that taxation in this country should fall on those most able to make that contribution. There is also a question about how we spend that money and use it in preventative services. Again, there is an argument to be had about how much of the money given to, for instance, the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent integrated care board is spent on reactive services that treat people, as opposed to preventative services that keep people well in the first place. There is definitely a discussion to be had in our communities about whether the commissioning bodies that have the money are commissioning the preventative services necessary to reduce acute demand. Last Friday I listened to the charities convened by Voluntary Action Stoke on Trent, and they themselves said that their biggest challenge before the national insurance increase was even mooted was the fact that they cannot get recurring funding year on year from health bodies, councils and the public sector. When they manage to get to the end of a project, they are told, “You’ve done that project. Come up with something new.” They are asked to redesign their service to chase a pot of money in order to deliver what essentially is the preventative service that stops the more acute services from facing greater demand. Again, we as a nation need to have a conversation—in part it is brought to a head by this Bill—about what role we see for charities in this and how we fund those services.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to start by reflecting on something that the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) said in his opening speech. He talked about socialists thinking that taxes just flow in. Given that he was a member of a Government that raised taxes to their highest level in history, perhaps this season it is less secret Santa for him, and more secret socialist. Perhaps, if he is lucky, under his Christmas tree on 25 December he will find a red flag that he can fly. I jest, Madam Chair, but the point is that that Government agreed with tax and spend—they taxed; the trouble was what they chose to spend the money on. That is the difference between this Government and the Government that came before: we have made clear commitments about what we will spend the money raised by this national insurance Bill on. We will make investments into the NHS and our public services, such as our schools and hospitals, and we will fix the railways. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) chunters, but I cannot actually hear what he is saying. If he wishes to intervene, I will happily give way—no, I thought not. The fact of the matter is that although this is not a decision that I would particularly have liked the new Government to make, having looked at the levers available to us and having made a political choice to protect the pay packets of individuals in work, this is a way of raising revenue.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I often think that we do not hear enough from the right hon. Gentleman, so on this one occasion I will give way.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  What assurances can the Minister give me that energy-intensive industries in Stoke-on-Trent, such as ceramics, will benefit from the investment coming from this Government and will not get left behind in our transition to net zero?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report · Hansard source

  More

  This will be a sad moment for the 4,000 women in Stoke-on-Trent Central who I have campaigned alongside for justice and a fair transition. I understand the Secretary of State’s need to balance the budget, given what was left by the previous Government, but is this a case of no compensation now because of the economic circumstances that we find ourselves in, or is it no compensation ever? If we find ourselves in the future in a much better economic state, will she consider re-addressing this issue and seeing what compensation might be available for the women who were affected?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  And how is that going?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State rightly talks about the role that regulators have to play, whether that is Ofwat or the Environment Agency. While the water companies were getting away with what they were doing, the Conservative party took huge amounts of money out of the EA. Independent figures from Unchecked UK suggest an 88% reduction in enforcement activities, and that a 50% reduction in the environmental protection budget led to a 60% reduction in activity. Will he set out more on how regulators will be key to clearing up our water industry?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support the Bill because we basically live in a monopoly. We live in a situation where a group of companies control an incredibly essential part of everyday life—a part that we need. As a consumer, if I do not like the service I receive, I can go somewhere else; I cannot do that with water. If I want to shop around for a better deal, I can do that; I cannot do that with water. The water companies know that—they know that they hold a monopoly on the service they provide—so they think they can get away with raising bills, failing to invest, and ploughing money into shares and dividends. Their time has come, and the Bill is apt. The new Government is providing new opportunities to change the way in which we look at water and consider it as a fundamental part of everyday life. But as I have been listening to the debate this afternoon, I started to wonder whether the Bill is actually needed, because if we listen to the hon. Members for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) or for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), apparently everything in the Bill has already been done, and we are fine. I struggled to reconcile what the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) said in her opening speech—about this Government copying what the previous Government did in the Environment Act—with the rather gory descriptions of the effluence and other material found in waterways across the country. I represent Stoke-on-Trent—the clue is in the name; it is the river on which we sit—and I know thousands of hours of sewage have been discharged into that river. Equivalent amounts of sewage are also being pumped into places like the Fowlea brook and the Lyme brook by a water company that is seemingly more worried about protecting its dividends than the health of the people I have been sent here to represent. How did we get to this point, if everything the last Government did was apparently fine? The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) summed it up perfectly when he talked about the importance of regulation. Actually, we have gap when it comes to regulation—it is an enforcement gap. We have great regulation on paper that says, “You will do this, and this will happen” and “There will be penalties and fines”, but the previous Government systematically over time reduced the amount of funding available to the regulatory organisations, so that their enforcement became reactionary to events. According to the Conservatives, the reason why we have 100% monitoring of discharges is not because of some benevolent act by a party that cared about the environment; it is because the previous Government got bored and tired of the community groups around the country campaigning on the issue, and they thought, “We’ll do something about it.” I find it no coincidence that that happened this year—in an election year. I hope that the Minister will talk more about how regulatory enforcement will happen, and about how we will provide the powers and the money that are needed.

• 16 Dec 2024 · English Devolution · Hansard source

  More

  Stoke-on-Trent is already a unitary authority, but it is surrounded on either side by a two-tier district system of Newcastle and Staffordshire Moorlands, who are our friendly neighbours and proud communities but fundamentally different places. Can the Minister set out what will happen to existing unitary authorities? Can he also say how, as part of this review, he will protect the identities of communities who look to a place rather than to a compass point and a county name? And if we are going to have new mayors with new powers, can he set out what the corresponding reduction of Ministers in this place will be to reflect the reduced number of services they will provide?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point about people who may wish to claim that they have a paddock at the back of their house. Does he have any numbers to back that up? If he does, I would be really interested to know them. I am racking my brains, thinking of how many homes in Stoke-on-Trent Central could claim that they had a paddock that allows mixed-use tenure. He may have that information to hand; I do not.

• 10 Dec 2024 · International Human Rights Day · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister’s powerful speech highlights the responsibility that we all have to protect human rights in the UK and around the world. Earlier today, I was with Councillor Amjid Wazir from Stoke-on-Trent and a group of Kashmiris who were presenting a petition to Downing Street to highlight the ongoing human rights abuses in Kashmir, the lack of self-determination, and the continuing violations following the suspension of article 370 of the Indian constitution, which guarantees the political autonomy of Kashmir and Jammu. All too often, Kashmir seems to be forgotten about; it is not talked about in this place nearly enough. May I ask what the Government’s current view is on the ongoing issues in Jammu and Kashmir? Can she take back to her Department our wish to discuss this matter fully in this House, because it has been a while since those people were given a voice here and I think that they would welcome it?