Luke Taylor MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 16 Dec 2024 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Harris. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for securing this debate and the petitioners for raising these important issues for debate in the House. I am still deeply saddened by the events of 7 October 2023. More than a year after those horrifying events, many innocent people are still dying every day. I take this opportunity to extend my sympathies to all those who have lost loved ones and who are navigating life amid all the destruction. The murder or abduction on 7 October 2023 of over 1,000 civilians by Hamas terrorists, 101 of whom are still being held to this day, must always be condemned. Those 101 hostages should be released without delay. It is also true that Israel’s response has been hugely destructive. The Gaza strip is now in the midst of a humanitarian catastrophe, with 90% of the population having been displaced at least once and critical infrastructure having been damaged or destroyed. It would be remiss of us to ignore the fact that the damage takes many forms. It is not just the deaths and permanent life-changing injuries that horrify us, but the psychological scars of being exposed to such combat. It is hard to quantify the extent of the trauma that adults and particularly children have experienced as a result of this conflict. Tragically, we must recognise that no matter how quickly this conflict ends, and it must end quickly, an entire generation of Israelis and Palestinians will live with this horror for the rest of their lives. In October, I was part of a group of MPs who met Sharone Lifschitz, whose parents were taken hostage on 7 October and whose father is still held by Hamas, as well as Standing Together, a progressive grassroots movement involving Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel who stand against the occupation and for peace, equality and social justice. I heard at first hand the pain and anguish of the families of those on both sides of the conflict, who only want to see a lasting peace. The Liberal Democrats have been consistent on the issue for decades: a two-state solution is the only way to guarantee that lasting peace.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  I agree 100%, and I hope we hear the Minister speak with the courage to confirm that the Government will formally recognise Palestine. The dignity and security that both Palestinians and Israelis deserve can only be delivered by a two-state solution. That is why the Liberal Democrat manifesto called for the immediate recognition of Palestine on 1967 lines, and why I reiterate that ambition today. Our conscience demands that we do that which we can and play our part to accelerate a lasting peace. That is what responsible nations do. Recognition of the state of Palestine is within our gift to grant and can be done at any moment. Contrary to what some cynics say, I believe it is a crucial first step to achieving the goal of lasting peace. It is also important that the UK considers the role its arms exports play in the conflict, so I welcome the current halt of 30 licences as a good first step. However, the UK now needs to use every tool at its disposal in order to obtain the bilateral ceasefire necessary for a lasting peace. I conclude by echoing calls from across my party and from many parts of civil society for the Government to stop all arms exports to Israel for now, so that we can ensure that British products are not being used in any potential breaches of human rights. I encourage the Minister to act on the calls of the petitioners, to have the courage to recognise the state of Palestine and to suspend sales of arms to Israel, so that we can play our part in securing a lasting peace in the region.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Employer National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  The national insurance hike will impact on small businesses, which form the backbone of our local economies as fixtures on our high streets across London and across my Sutton and Cheam constituency, including in Worcester Park and North Cheam. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in recognising that Small Business Saturday is this weekend? Does he agree that the Government might take this opportunity to rethink the national insurance hike and the impact on small businesses, which will be suffering this week and beyond?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Employer National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, how can the hon. Gentleman say we will see more doctors when our GP surgeries are telling us that they will have to cut doctors, cut staff and cut appointments as a result of the national insurance increase? What would he say to them?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Tackling Stalking · Hansard source

  More

  For far too long, stalking victims have been let down by a fragmented and inadequate legal framework. The current system, which separates stalking into multiple offences, places an unbearable burden on victims to gather and present their own evidence to secure the harsher penalties under section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. This creates the concept of a perfect victim—those forced to meticulously prove the devastating toll that stalking has taken on their lives before justice is served. Although I am encouraged by the review of stalking legislation that is being conducted, will the Minister confirm that this will also consider the pros and cons of creating a stand-alone stalking offence, which would help to ensure that victims are protected and that perpetrators are held accountable without forcing victims to prove their worthiness of justice?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister, who did well to capture the tragedy that we all experienced so many years ago. The tragedy of Grenfell Tower will forever remain in our collective memory. On the devastating night of 14 June 2017, 72 lives were lost and many more were impacted forever. The events of that night left a deep wound in London’s history, physically and mentally. I extend my deepest sympathies to the victims, the families and all those affected. The fire changed their lives in unimaginable ways. Seven years on, justice for the victims is painfully overdue, yet thousands in the UK still live in buildings wrapped in dangerous flammable cladding. Of the nearly 5,000 buildings identified as having dangerous cladding, less than half have begun work and only a third have completed it. Between 4,000 and 7,000 buildings are still unidentified, highlighting the absolute failure of the last Government to get a grip on the crisis. That failure leaves an alarming number of buildings and residents still at risk. Just days before the publication of the final report in August, a fire broke out at a tower block in Dagenham. Thankfully, there were no fatalities, but more than 200 firefighters battled flames that spread rapidly due to non-compliant cladding. These unsafe buildings are ticking time bombs. Residents in London live in constant fear of another disaster. Across London, including in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam, tower blocks still possess non-compliant cladding, which could pose a serious risk to residents. The previous Government mandated that local authorities must make these buildings safe; however, crucially, they provided no funding to support that, at a time when local authorities were already facing severe underfunding. As a result, millions of pounds were added to council housing revenue accounts as an unplanned financial burden. Worse, Government assistance through various schemes was exclusively directed towards leaseholders, leaving local authorities and tenants without support. Although I welcome this new Government’s commitment to the replacement of all flammable cladding by 2029, urgency is of the utmost importance. It is essential that all dangerous cladding is removed as soon as possible and that leaseholders should not be required to pay a penny towards these necessary safety improvements. This work is as a result of the failure of builders, product manufacturers and regulators to ensure that the buildings that residents live in are safe. The report is utterly damning on the failures of the industry and the criminal negligence as a result of the failed safety tests that were hidden. The industry focused on contrivance and profiteering, instead of residents’ safety. We must all work to ensure that the mistakes of the past are never repeated. Another Grenfell must never happen. This tragedy will always serve as a stark reminder of the devastating consequence of neglecting safety and justice for local authority residents. Justice for the victims of Grenfell means a commitment to immediate action to implement the 58 recommendations of the phase 2 report. That is not just for them, but for every community still at risk.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  My experience in the aviation industry includes overseeing and being part of the record-keeping process for inspections. Does the hon. Member agree that the requirement to record and store all successful and unsuccessful testing results would resolve some of the issues that we saw in the Grenfell disaster, where unsuccessful test results were hidden and not made accessible to the public?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Migration and Border Security · Hansard source

  More

  While we are reassured by the previous answers that the Home Secretary is committed to increasing the processing of asylum claims to clear the backlog, the Liberal Democrats would push her to go further and faster. Will she consider our calls to end the ban on asylum seekers working, and reduce the time limit to three months so that they are able to contribute to their cost of living, integrate into society and start to pay a fair share within the communities that they wish to join?

• 28 Nov 2024 · Pakistan: Freedom of Religion · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on bringing forward this debate and allowing us to discuss this incredibly important issue in this House. On 25 November 1981, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed resolution 36/55, which said: “Discrimination between human beings on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes an affront to human dignity and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and shall be condemned as a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Nearly half a century has passed since those words were written, and they came just seven years after the passage of the second amendment to the constitution of Pakistan, which declared that Ahmadi Muslims were “not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or the law.” My speech will concentrate on the Ahmadi community, but that should not diminish the persecution and discrimination suffered by other communities, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members. Many decades on, we still find ourselves grappling with the critical injustice, prejudice and persecution that that amendment enshrined in law and enabled. That is what the current legal framework in Pakistan has done. It has enabled not just legal exclusion and prosecution, but ongoing hate speech and violent persecution. Extremist clerics in Pakistan have called for Ahmadi Muslims to be hung or beheaded, for their women to be murdered to prevent more Ahmadi Muslims from being born, and even for the Government of Pakistan to understand that if they do not act, the people will take matters into their own hands and kill Ahmadi Muslims themselves. If anyone has any lingering doubt about whether that awful rhetoric extends only to calls for violence within Pakistan’s borders, I refer them to one rally this year where the following was said: “We have to strangle each and every Ahmadi…You have no idea how powerful this slogan is! You will raise it here, an Ahmadi will die in Great Britain.” That abhorrent rhetoric has no place in a democratic republic such as Pakistan, and I know from conversations with many of my constituents, as well as Ahmadi Muslims across London, that it absolutely terrifies Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan and here in the UK. We too often forget that rhetoric has consequences, and violent rhetoric becomes violence as surely as night becomes day. Sure enough, violent hate crimes across Pakistan and around the world against Ahmadi Muslims are at shocking levels. This year, four Ahmadi Muslims were killed in a targeted manner. Tahir Iqbal, president of a local Ahmadi Muslim community, was shot dead by two motorcyclists. Zaka ur Rehman, a dentist, was killed in his own clinic by two gunmen. In both cases, no perpetrators have been identified and brought to justice. In Sadullahpur, two Ahmadi Muslims, Ghulam Sarwar and Rahat Ahmad Bajwa, were murdered in separate incidents on the same day. The alleged perpetrator, a 16-year-old student of a madrassah, confessed to the killings, citing religious reasons—16 years old. I invite hon. Members to recall the poisonous rhetoric that I have just outlined, and to which that young man must have been exposed in order to carry out such a heinous act. It seems that violence against Ahmadi Muslims is rarely investigated, and in many cases is seemingly encouraged or enabled by local officials and policemen in Pakistan. In June, 30 Ahmadi Muslims were arrested for the crime of celebrating Eid. Ahmadi homes were attacked, an Ahmadi mosque was ransacked, and the police stood by and did nothing. Earlier this year in January, it is alleged that local police in the Punjab region, acting under instructions from a local official, took part themselves in another disconcertingly common and awful act of hatred: the desecration of tombs in an Ahmadi Muslim graveyard. Desecration is a particularly cowardly and heinous act, and serves only to underscore the severity of the situation facing Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan. Freedom of worship is inextricably linked with freedom of expression and speech, and as a Liberal I will always place the greatest currency on that most cherished of virtues. But as all liberal societies have found, freedom of speech cannot extend to freedom of hate speech or the freedom to incite violence and hatred, and the Pakistani Government ought to be reminded of that fact in our bilateral engagements. Nobody should have to live like that, and to face hatred, threats, violence and death just for worshipping their own religion in a peaceful manner in a democratic country. It goes against every principle we hold dear in the community of international law, and against our every principle as an open, democratic, tolerant nation ourselves, not least as a nation that is bound to Pakistan by a common history, a common language and a track record of collaboration on tackling extremism in the region. We must be a critical partner of Pakistan. I call on the Government to respond to the concerns raised in the House today and to please come forward with reassurances that, at every single opportunity, the plight of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan will be raised with the Government of that country. Our conscience calls on us not to turn a blind eye. Ahmadi Muslims, like members of all faiths, deserve to worship free from intimidation and discrimination. The Liberal Democrats have long been in favour of a rigorous, values-based foreign policy that puts our money where our mouth is. We cannot just talk a good game on protecting minorities around the world and standing up for the fundamental freedoms outlined in the declaration of human rights; we must use our leverage with Governments such as that in Pakistan to encourage them to take serious and concrete steps towards making it a reality. This should be an issue that unites us across the House—I am encouraged to hear that it does—and one that reminds us not just of our obligations under international law but our moral duty to those facing oppression everywhere.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Taiwan: International Status · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, particularly given your considerable contribution on this issue throughout your parliamentary career, as other Members have said. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor), whose passionate love for her community and her family reflects well on her and gives her constituents faith that she will act on their best behalf in this House. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), whose contribution to this debate has already been warmly noted. Experts often talk about the pressure points of geopolitics, the places where the strategic aims of different countries coincide, clash and create tension. What is far too often left out of these conversations is the reality for the millions of people who live in those pressure points. The Taiwanese people are living in real fear at one of these pressure points. It should be telling for all of us that, despite being an advanced economy and a thriving democracy with high living standards and strong manufacturing, and with cultural links to the rest of the world, Taiwan feels increasingly isolated and vulnerable in the face of the Chinese Government. That is testament to the fact that, no matter how hard people have worked to build a robust democracy on that island, that does not, in and of itself, protect the liberty and security that we all deserve. Taiwan deserves our support as we enter the second half of this decade, and this motion can help us to continue doing that. The Liberal Democrats stand with the people of Taiwan. Any Chinese aggression or threat to their free speech and human rights is unacceptable. The Liberal Democrats will continue to support our friends in the Democratic Progressive party, which is the governing party of Taiwan, a long-standing member of Liberal International, and a founding member of the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats. In our manifesto, the Liberal Democrats called for the building of new diplomatic, economic and security partnerships with democracies threatened by China, including Taiwan, and it is something that we will gladly work with the Government to deliver because an issue of this importance should transcend party politics. I am reassured by the voices and the statements we have heard from Members on both sides of the House in this debate. Fundamentally, what is at stake in Taiwan is a question of moral obligation, one that we have always had to confront and that liberals have always been clear in answering: can we stand up for people living outside recognised sovereign states, who cherish the same freedoms we do and have the same inviolable right to self-determination that we do, against neighbours with increasingly imperial objectives? Or are we forced to live in a world where, as was said in antiquity, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must? Put simply, does might make right? The people of Taiwan deserve us to answer that question with our clear and resounding support as they go about trying to integrate into the system of international governance. The Government should therefore listen to the story being told in this House today and make it clear that, in their dealings with the Chinese Government, they will establish clear red lines that call out violations of Taiwan’s territory at land and sea as unacceptable. The Government should work with their international partners to remove the obstacles to Taiwan joining various international bodies. As other Members have said, Taiwan’s exclusion from the World Health Organisation serves to prove this point. Despite a successful approach to the covid-19 pandemic, Taiwan was again rebuffed in its attempts to join the WHO, with China vetoing its accession until such time as Taiwan gives in to China’s territorial claim on the island. This compromised our ability, and the ability of countries around the world, to learn from the lessons of Taiwan’s successful response to covid-19, and it will have cost many, many lives. Taiwan finds itself unable to properly access and work alongside Interpol, leaving it excluded from the international crime-fighting network that it needs, not least because international criminals are known to operate in the South China sea. This should concern all of us. Taiwan’s exclusion from these bodies makes international co-operation harder. It weakens a strategic ally in the region, and it emboldens states such as China and Russia to feel that their attempts to undermine the liberal world order will succeed. Indeed, how can we justify the liberal and democratic world order without ensuring that it offers protection to those who subscribe to it and who wish to join and collaborate with the institutions that are so key to maintaining that very world order? We have already left so many countries around the world vulnerable to the influence of states such as China. The last Government made short-sighted and naive decisions to continually cut the UK’s foreign aid budget, to slash our international development credentials, to shrink our world-renowned diplomatic service, to force cuts to our BBC World Service output and to undermine our standing as a major power on the world stage. Those steps have left a vacuum in Africa, in Asia, and in parts of Europe, too. We should not be remotely surprised that China has increasingly sought to fill that gap with debt traps and political influence through its belt and road initiative. It is up to this Government to do something about it, to show that the One China policy is not the policy of this Government and that Taiwan will be supported in acceding to various international bodies. That would be a key step in the right direction. They must be willing to discuss Taiwan with the Chinese Government as they embark on a new era of bilateralism with President Xi. I note that in its manifesto earlier this year, the Labour party committed to a new approach to China, as part of a wider audit of its China strategy. The manifesto said: “We will co-operate where we can, compete where we need to, and challenge where we must.” Those were welcome words, so it is disappointing to read coverage this week of the leaked news that the Foreign Office intervened to cancel a visit last month that Taiwan’s former President Tsai Ing-wen had been due to make to the UK, when he would have spoken to MPs. Will the Government respond to that claim and explain to the House exactly why former President Tsai, as it seems, was denied a visit? We all recognise that diplomacy is difficult, and I sincerely hope the Government will put my mind and those of other hon. Members at rest by confirming that this was an oversight. However, if it was not an oversight and that decision was taken out of deference to the Chinese Government ahead of the Prime Minister’s recent meeting with President Xi, the Government will not be surprised to hear me say that that is unacceptable. The Government’s new approach to China should be characterised by a defence of our values and the robust support of Taiwan. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for the Government to issue a comprehensive China strategy that places human rights, effective rules-based multilateralism and working with our European partners centre stage. Without that, we risk further backsliding into a world where China feels able to act with impunity and Taiwan will continue to suffer. Will the Minister provide an update on when the Government will provide the House with an update on its China strategy audit, so that we can scrutinise it and ensure it lives up to those values? Just last month, China simulated a full-scale invasion of the island through war games in the South China sea. As the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) said, in late 2021 and early 2022, we watched Russian forces massing on the Ukrainian border and attempted to convince ourselves that the inevitable was not about to occur. I will quote a great man, who hangs heavy over many of us in this place: “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Imagine living with the threat of such a war on the doorstep. We have all been paying close attention to the terrible scenes unfolding in Ukraine and the middle east in recent years. We all know that the horrors of war have not been eased, but rather compounded by modern technology. Imagine people witnessing those scenes on their TV screens, while knowing the very same could happen to their homes and families in the very near future. The journey to recognition and accession to international bodies for Taiwan is long and will not be solved overnight, but the Government can play a key role in making the journey easier by showing its support for Taiwan as clearly as they can. They can do the right thing on human rights in China more widely too. They can choose to recognise the genocide happening to the Uyghurs in Xinjiang autonomous region. They can stand with Hongkongers who are already living with the experience of creeping authoritarianism from Beijing. And the Government can champion the cause of international laws and norms, in the face of growing disorder and violence around the world. I invite them to do so and to regularly report back to the House on how such a China strategy is developing, because Britain is at its best when it stands with those facing oppression and says clearly, with one voice, that the days of “might makes right” are well and truly consigned to history.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Victims of stalking often find themselves cutting ties with loved ones out of fear of repercussions and putting them in danger. Even years after the harassment ends, stalking survivors are often left with lingering anxiety, trauma and pain. In the most extreme cases, stalking can escalate to acts of physical violence, such as rape and, most tragically of all, murder. It is a crime that thrives on control, leaving victims in a constant state of fear and uncertainty. What makes stalking so dangerous is that it is often difficult to detect. A victim may not immediately notice someone following them, watching their movements or infiltrating their personal space online. The harassment might appear subtle at first but can persist for years, eroding the victim’s sense of safety and security. We cannot continue to leave the current legislation on stalking outside the scope of public debate. As it stands, the legal framework is not robust enough for victims and, at a more fundamental level, we must change the way we think and talk about stalking to recognise its severity. I have heard harrowing accounts from women who, when they confide in friends, family or even the police about their experiences, are often met with dismissive responses. Too often the perpetrator is written off as nothing more than a clingy ex-boyfriend who simply cannot move on. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, stalking offences are categorised under two distinct sections, 2A and 4A. Those sections have created ambiguity as to how stalking is understood and prosecuted. Under section 2A, it is defined as pursuing a course of conduct that amounts to stalking. That is considered a lesser offence, carrying a maximum sentence of up to six months in prison upon conviction. Under the more serious 4A offence, the perpetrator must be proven to have caused the victim fear of violence, or significant alarm or harassment that disrupts their daily life. It is clear that there are cracks in that framework. The two separate offences fail to recognise the total scope of stalking and its impact on victims’ lives, and there are real barriers to pursuing a section 4A offence. Victims are often left with the burden of proving the scale and severity of the stalking to convict perpetrators under the section 4A offence, and they must also meet an unreasonably high threshold of evidence, demonstrating that the crime has disrupted their life to a terrifying extent just to secure an appropriate sentence for the perpetrators. That process can take years, leaving victims trapped in fear while their tormentors remain at large. The burden placed on victims to provide extensive evidence often leads many who pursue a section 4A offence to lose faith and withdraw from the criminal justice system altogether. In London alone, the 2024 London stalking review found that 45% of stalking victims felt compelled to abandon their pursuit of justice. That is just not good enough. I therefore urge the Government to reform the current legislative framework and take action to address that gap in our justice system. A new, singular and well-defined stalking offence must be created with victims in mind. We cannot continue to allow years of harassment to persist before victims are able to seek prosecution. The London stalking review revealed another chilling statistic: “39% of the recorded stalking experienced by under 18s was the more serious Stalking 4a”. That throws into sharp relief the importance of defining stalking laws as they pertain to social media, which many perpetrators use to harass and exploit young victims online. As I have said, many young girls may be entirely unaware that they are being stalked at first. Disturbingly, the ability of stalkers to hide behind anonymous accounts and leave few digital traces of their stalking makes that worse. It allows stalkers to hide and to commit crimes in ways that can easily be overlooked compared with in-person harassment. I recently met a brave woman in my constituency who, as a victim of stalking, shared her fears about young girls in her family using social media platforms. These platforms enabled her perpetrator to harass her for years. She worries that her family members could fall into similar traps due to a lack of awareness around recognising such behaviours. We must urgently raise awareness about how young people, especially girls, are targeted online. As has been said, educating them in schools about the warning signs of online stalking is critical to preventing this crime from escalating into more severe forms of harassment. I have focused today on one aspect of violence against women and girls, among many others that demand our attention. I was appalled to read the national statement from the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing, which highlighted the staggering scale of this issue. Every day, 3,000 crimes of violence against women and girls are recorded in this country. That is simply unacceptable and we should call it out for what it is: an epidemic of coercion, control and violence that has no place in our society. I welcome the Government’s pledge to halve the numbers over the next decade. I look forward to working cross-party to explore how I and the Liberal Democrats can contribute to meaningful changes in the law on stalking and other acts of gendered violence, so that, within our lifetimes, we can stamp out this epidemic once and for all. No one can truly be free if they are forced to live in fear, and no women or girl can live their life to the fullest while this scourge goes unchallenged. In the words of the White Ribbon campaign group, which has done such an admirable job of putting and keeping this issue on the agenda, this starts with men. The men in this room, me included, must recognise our responsibility, hold ourselves accountable, challenge the warning signs and dangerous societal norms that we see around us, and act now to protect women and girls across our country.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this crucial debate, and I pay tribute to the Minister for her work over the last few years in raising awareness of the tragic cost of violence against women and girls. I want to draw attention to an issue that I believe is a critical front in the overall struggle to end the epidemic of violence against women and girls—an issue that far too often goes under-reported, unrecognised and unappreciated. It is the crime against women and girls of stalking, which the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) spoke about. Stalking is a form of psychological violence that will affect approximately one in five women. It is an insidious crime that can shatter lives. I have heard from stalking victims who feel trapped, are too afraid to leave their homes and are constantly looking over their shoulder on their way to work.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Antisocial Behaviour: Town Centres · Hansard source

  More

  The use of illegal high-powered Sur-Ron type e-bikes by criminal gangs on and around our high streets is causing significant concern, particularly in London, with incidents of antisocial behaviour, violent muggings and phone theft becoming increasingly more common. Can the Home Secretary please update the House on discussions her Department has had with the Mayor of London and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police on what they are doing to reduce these incidents and make our streets safer across London?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We all want to stop criminals terrorising our communities, whether they are domestic abusers or shoplifters targeting our high streets. Live facial recognition is being rolled out by our police forces, including on Sutton High Street in my constituency, but we cannot ignore the risks that this technology presents. Facial recognition systems are most likely to misidentify black people and women, doing nothing to stop crime and further eroding trust in our police. Will the Minister introduce clear regulation oversight of live facial recognition, such as that which the EU passed last April?

• 20 Nov 2024 · Apprenticeships and T-Levels · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes a point so good that I will be getting to it shortly—I completely agree. Staff worry about having to adapt their curricula to align with the new T-levels, which will involve updating course content, revising teaching methods and redesigning assessment strategies to meet the new required standards. There is no way to do that without enormous, time-consuming upheaval, which they will need as much notice as possible to prepare for. Teachers deserve a definitive answer on what will happen next. It is not just teaching staff; students have been left in the dark, too. Approximately 380 students planning to enrol at a college in the South Thames Colleges Group are affected by the confusion surrounding the implementation of T-levels. Those currently completing GCSEs and planning for their post-16 education face uncertainty about what their courses will look like in September 2025. They fear the removal of the element of choice in the system. BTECs formerly offered the option of a professional placement, but T-levels are geared specifically to placements. That leaves those who may not be academically suited to A-levels but do not wish to begin a T-level course, 20% of which is effectively a job, with no real support. On a visit to Carshalton college, I was told that there were 120 applicants for a diploma in childcare but only seven for a T-level in childcare. That could create a shortage in qualified staff coming through the system. The impact is felt disproportionately by those with special educational needs and disabilities, many of whom need extra support to explore their options before entering adult life, and for whom entry into the world of work may not be the right option so early in adulthood. Nobody is denying the merit in reviewing periodically the way we train our young people for the future, but forcing students to choose exclusively between A-levels and T-levels could represent a narrowing of their options. I fear that this is a poorly managed top-down change for teachers to implement, and a gamble with the opportunities of a generation of young people who, let us not forget, have already had their education severely disrupted by the covid pandemic. With September 2025 rapidly approaching, I urge the Government to provide clarity to all those affected so both students and staff can plan for the change ahead. The Government must also think again, and give colleges and students flexibility to choose the appropriate qualifications for them and their communities.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Apprenticeships and T-Levels · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this debate on such a critical issue for our young people. Today, I want to highlight a major concern among college staff and students: the need for certainty about the potential defunding of BTECs in favour of T-levels. For years, BTECs have served as a trusted form of level 3 qualification, providing students with practical and theoretical skills in a format that staff are experienced in delivering. I have heard from teachers about the pride and joy they take in teaching BTECs and watching their students thrive as they apply themselves to often very practical subjects. In many cases, it is the first time that those children have ever felt passionate about learning and excited to go further. It gives them the chance to finally start down the path—a path I imagine all of us in the Chamber want young people to take—towards realising their full potential. That is why so many are concerned about the replacement of BTECs with T-levels, and why I hope that the Government address those concerns when they publish the findings of their review of the policy next month. I have heard from teachers who say they will struggle with the suggested rapid adoption of new course structures and unfamiliar theoretical components across the whole range of non-A-level subjects. Staff at South Thames Colleges Group, which serves many of my local students, have expressed concerns about how those sweeping changes will be implemented effectively. Currently, around 58 courses are at risk of being defunded.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Police Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question on a subject that is on the minds of so many of my constituents. Stalking is a form of psychological violence that remains severely underreported. I have met constituents who are victims of stalking, and they have shared with me the lack of support they feel they receive from the Metropolitan police. They live in constant terror and anxiety, even after taking the brave step of reporting the offences. Will the Minister outline what steps her Department is taking to work with the Metropolitan police to ensure that officers receive proper training to identify stalking, support and protect victims and take robust action against perpetrators?

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  Members of this House will have seen that the celebrated Scottish comedian Janey Godley passed away on Saturday, after her long struggle with cancer came to an end in the Prince and Princess of Wales hospice in Glasgow. In her final days, Janey used social media to highlight the wonderful hospice care she received, and when her daughter announced her death, she took time to mention that her mother’s passing was “peaceful and a nice transition.” That is the profound value of hospice care to our society and the nation’s families. Janey Godley’s choice to highlight the care she was receiving in her final days should remind us all why hospices matter, yet across the country it is not an exaggeration to say that hospices are at breaking point, as we have heard from Members across the House this afternoon. Many hospices are grappling with severe staff shortages and tight budget constraints. Redundancies and supply shortages have become alarmingly common, highlighting systemic issues in the hospice sector. This most vital of services is reliant on an unsustainable model which, on average, requires two thirds of hospice funding to come from some sort of charitable donation. That leaves hospices vulnerable, reliant on charity shops and large contributions with no guarantee of financial stability, and it also adds to the postcode lottery for patients. Even the NHS funding that hospices receive fails to keep pace with inflation. Nowhere is that crisis more evident than at St Raphael’s hospice in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam. St Raph’s is more than just a healthcare facility; it is a sanctuary for those seeking to die with dignity. The compassionate care provided there not only supports the dying, but brings comfort to their families in one of the most challenging times in their lives. However, it receives only 25% of its funding from the NHS, which is substantially below the national average. In recent months, the hospice has been forced to reduce its clinical community nurse team by 20% and has completely discontinued its hospice at home programme, which once made sure that patients who wanted to spend their final days in the comfort of their own home could do so with dignity and support. Over the past four years, running costs for St Raph’s have risen by more than a million pounds, but NHS funding to the hospice has increased by only £140,000. In last week’s Budget, the Chancellor pledged £22.6 billion to the NHS, which is long overdue after years of Conservative neglect. However, hospices were notably absent from Labour’s 10-year plan for the NHS, and the rise in employer NI contributions threatens to push hospices already struggling with fragile finances over the cliff edge. If this Government are serious about delivering change, they will exempt hospices from the rise in NI contributions and listen to calls from the sector and inside this very House to sort out a proper funding deal to rescue our hospices.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Cost of Living: Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 29 Oct 2024 · Cost of Living: Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  12. What fiscal steps she is taking to support pensioners with the cost of living.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Cost of Living: Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  We know that no impact assessment was carried out prior to the decision to cut the winter fuel payment, but was any consideration given to the burden that the daunting application form places on the elderly, and the extra burden on charities such as Age UK, which advise them on completing it? Evidence of that daunting burden is the 60% limit to uptake over the past decade. Will she work with her colleagues to simplify the application process, ease the burden on those who are losing the winter fuel payment, and help them receive the broad benefits that pension credit provides?

• 28 Oct 2024 · Remembrance and Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree that the importance of this memorial cannot be overstated. With the battle over, Smyth spent a short time flying Hurricane fighters, and in December 1943 he joined 541 Squadron, a photographic reconnaissance squadron, commanding reconnaissance operations from Gibraltar. He was awarded the DFC in July 1945 for his work in reconnaissance and ended his time in the RAF in October 1945. Following his incredible wartime service, he returned to his pre-war job at the Stationery Office, retiring in 1980 and passing away in 2017 at the age of 96. It is only right that we take this opportunity to commemorate the contributions of Cyril, Donald, Desmond and Ronald. Will the Minister meet the Spitfire AA810 campaigners and help their campaign to honour the brave contributions of the PRU by delivering the first memorial to its work, outside the Churchill war rooms, where its work made such a profound difference to the course of the war?

• 28 Oct 2024 · Remembrance and Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  I also had the opportunity a few weeks ago to meet representatives of Spitfire AA810, to which the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) have already paid fine tribute. It is appropriate to reiterate the incredible contribution of the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit, which took more than 26 million images of enemy operations and installations throughout the war. These images were used in the Cabinet war rooms—now the Churchill war rooms—located underneath the Treasury, and were instrumental in the planning of major operations throughout the war. Despite this incredible contribution, and with one of the lowest survival rates of the war—life expectancy in the PRU was around two and a half months—there is no national memorial to the unit. That troubling oversight is why the Spitfire AA810 project is leading the campaign to establish such a memorial to the pilots and navigators. I take this opportunity to mark the contribution of four veteran pilots from my Sutton and Cheam constituency, three of whom gave their lives and all of whom would be commemorated by this memorial. Cyril Harley Sergeant Kirkus joined 241 Squadron and flew armed reconnaissance missions in Hurricane aircraft. He was killed on reconnaissance operations in Tunisia on 23 April 1943, aged just 27. Donald Nevill Gallai-Hatchard, who lived with his wife Joyce in Cheam before the war, was a trained photographer. His experience in the PRU saw him posted to work with the American 97th Bomber Squadron operating in Tunisia. In April 1943, he was put on an American Boston aircraft to photograph the results of a raid on Tunis, but he was killed at the age of 31 when the aircraft was hit by anti-aircraft fire. He is buried in Tunisia. Desmond Laurence Matthewman started the war in Bomber Command, flying with 51 Squadron. In February 1941, he brought home a bomber from a mission over Bremen whose tail flying controls had been damaged, making the aircraft almost impossible to control. Once over the UK, he and his crew jumped by parachute, an act which earned him his first Distinguished Flying Cross. On 8 August 1944, he and navigator William Stopford took off on a photographic mission to Munich but were met by the new German Me 262 jet fighter. Matthewman and Stopford were shot down over Ohlstadt in what has been recognised as the first jet aircraft combat kill in history. Ronald Henry Smyth DFC lived in North Cheam and attended Sutton high school. He joined up in May 1939 and flew Bristol Blenheims with 25 Squadron.

• 28 Oct 2024 · China: Human Rights and Sanctions · Hansard source

  More

  Over the last few weeks, I have met a number of Hong Kong advocacy groups, who have outlined how withholding BNO visa holders’ access to mandatory provident fund accounts and the launch of a volunteer recruitment scheme by the Chinese embassy are spreading fear of creeping Chinese influence on our streets. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the Chinese Government on ending transnational repression of Hongkongers in my constituency and across the country?