Saqib Bhatti MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I will be voting against the Bill and in favour of the reasoned amendment, for the simple reason that I do not believe this Bill will do anything to smash the gangs, which is what the Labour party sold to the British public. Over the past 12 months and beyond, my constituents have regularly brought up immigration on the doorstep, talking about both legal and illegal immigration. They want a fair legal system that ensures that the best and the brightest come to this country, as we have always wanted, but for them, this is really an issue of fairness. They believe that uncontrolled borders are not fair, and I agree. Uncontrolled borders make people angry and undermine the case for taking those who are most in need. Over the past 14 years and beyond, we have had a great track record of taking in refugees from areas of conflict and other places, but by cheating the system, thousands of illegal migrants are entering the country, with the inevitable consequence that our public services are overburdened. That makes my constituents feel that the system is broken—that it does not work for them. Our schools, NHS and welfare system fail to work properly because of the strains caused by illegal migration, and my constituents are right to feel a deep sense of unfairness. Until they see the fundamental issue being tangibly addressed, which this Bill does not do, they will continue to feel that sense of unfairness. We have seen this with the reopening of the asylum hotels. That is a manifesto pledge that has been broken—the number of asylum hotels and the number of people in them has gone up. Those hotels are funded by the taxpayer, and divert money that my constituents feel could be spent on improving our public services. Earlier, we heard the Home Secretary give no guarantee on when those asylum hotels will be cleared. That will be a consistent and continuous source of consternation for many people across the country, who feel totally helpless when they see pictures and videos of often young men entering this country illegally and being given access to things that my constituents work hard for and pay taxes to sustain. I firmly believe that all of us across this House want to control illegal immigration, but I fundamentally disagree that this Bill will do so. I have talked about our track record of taking in refugees. We have had a consistent record for many years—we have taken in refugees from Afghanistan, from Syria, and of course from Ukraine—but that track record is being constantly undermined by the dramatic increases in illegal migration, making people feel that we cannot do more. My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) made an eloquent case for this being a global issue. That is often forgotten in the debate, whether it is due to climate change or conflict. However, the public want to see the case being made for the nation state—to know that we can control our borders, and can then allow in the people who we want in the country. Since the Labour party has been in government, we have seen a 28% increase in illegal migration, which will inevitably put strain on our resources. The consequence is that society becomes fragmented, and there are those on the far echelons of the political spectrum who take advantage of that for their own ends and crowd out legitimate and reasonable debate. The Bill takes away the deterrent and does not deal in any way with the need for a deterrent. As we have heard consistently from the NCA and other experts, without a deterrent, there is nothing disincentivising the gangs from bringing people over. We all want people who are in need to be taken care of, but this Bill does not do that—there is no guarantee that it will. We have heard the Home Secretary continuously fail to provide an answer on that point. The Bill’s weak tinkering around the edges of the illegal migration system will actually strengthen the gangs, because they now know that they can take advantage of that system. This House is engaged in debate, but the Labour party will win this evening’s vote—of course it will. It has got the numbers; the British people placed a huge amount of trust in Labour, which is now being betrayed, and those gangs will take advantage of it. The one example I will use is that when the Rwanda scheme received Royal Assent, we continuously heard people—and people smugglers—saying that they were not going to come to the UK, and we saw the numbers drop. They will be celebrating the fact that this Bill is going through the House.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  Three weeks ago, the Government announced five local inquiries into rape gangs, which crucially cannot compel witnesses to give evidence. We still do not know where all the inquiries will be, and we do not know how the towns will be chosen. As Charlie Peters from GB News originally reported, grooming gangs are suspected to have operated in 50 towns. Does the Minister recognise that the failure to announce a meaningful national statutory inquiry means that women and girls from across the country, who are not from the five selected towns, will be denied justice and a fair hearing? If the victims want a national statutory inquiry, why doesn’t the Minister?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Rural Housing Targets · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this debate. In many ways I was hanging on his every word, because I genuinely felt that he was also speaking to the concerns of my constituents on a whole number of issues. Let me start in the way that my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members started: we all want housing and recognise the need for it. Meriden and Solihull East is a constituency of two halves, with a very urban north and a very rural south, so many of the issues we discuss in the House affect me in both respects. Everyone who has spoken has referred to young families and young people, and my right hon. Friend spoke about affordable housing. I agree with him, and one of the conversations I have been having with my local council is about starter homes. As we have heard, young people want to grow their families in a place they are connected to, and that is clearly vital. I say to the Minister that, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the formula impacts rural areas in a much more detrimental way. I would like him to achieve his targets, but I do not think that the formula will allow that to happen. I have form on this, because I raised a similar issue when the last Government tried to do this. I thought the formula was disproportionately affecting my constituency, as opposed to Birmingham, which is next to us, and areas such as Walsall, where I was born and brought up. I remember having a conversation at No. 10 on a number of occasions, and I was very pleased that the formula was looked at again. The current formula requires Solihull, which currently builds about 866 homes per year, to increase that to 1,317. However, the current plan in Birmingham has about 7,174 homes a year, and the revised plan would take it down to 4,974. That is a huge disparity, and I am sure the Minister would agree. I believe that he is a reasonable person and that he would agree that there are people in Birmingham who will require housing, so that reduction in numbers makes no sense whatever—it is quite a significant plummet. I campaign on protecting my green belt. I feel uniquely affected, as do my constituents, for two reasons. First, we have the Meriden gap, which is a vital throughway, through which wildlife migrate every year. It is known as the west midlands’ lungs , but is actually the lungs for the whole United Kingdom. As the new national planning policy framework comes forward, will the Government take into account areas of vital importance, such as the Meriden gap? My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire mentioned national parks, and I do not want to see the burden on the council increased because other parts of the green belt have to be affected. Through no fault of its own, it has areas of real importance to nature. The second reason I wanted to raise is that my constituency is specifically affected by High Speed 2. We have a station just by the National Exhibition Centre and Birmingham airport. Balsall Common has had to take a huge load; it has been ripped open many times over, and is also taking on additional housing—there is a significant amount already, with thousands of homes. Hampton in Arden, a beautiful part of my constituency, is now starting to see the effects of HS2. This is critical national infrastructure, and the sacrifice my constituents are making in terms of their green belt should surely be taken into account. Currently, I do not see anything in relation to that. By the way, I posed the same challenge to the previous Government, and I stand by it. I am conscious of the time, but I just wanted to pose those questions to the Minister. I am more than happy for him to visit my constituency, and I will happily show him around, in the spirit cross-party working, so that he can deliver some good news to my constituents.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Speech and Language Therapy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson). He gave an excellent speech, and I cannot think of a single thing that I disagreed with—although I might wait to read the Hansard to double-check that. He spoke passionately about his own mum and the situation with Parkinson’s. As for many Members across this House, issues of special educational needs, and speech and language therapy are not new to me or to my inbox, so I think this is a timely and important debate. It is particularly important because of the hard work of one of my constituents, Mikey Akers, who is in the Public Gallery today, along with his mother and friends, whom I will also mention. He was the instigator of the petition, which is very much the reason why we are here. Mikey first came to see me on 13 January 2022. Little did I know at that point that this young man would be such a giant when it came to standing up for children and adults everywhere who have been affected by speech and language conditions. In many ways, this young man has given voice to so many up and down the country who, through no fault of their own, do not have their voice. Mikey’s ask of me was really simple. He looked at me and said, “Will you help me to raise awareness of verbal dyspraxia?” I am not afraid to admit that I had no idea what verbal dyspraxia was at that moment, but of course I said yes, because for us as Members, one of the easiest things that we can commit to is using our platform to raise awareness of issues that particularly affect not only our constituents, but others across the country. I went away to investigate verbal dyspraxia and see how widespread it was. I found out that there is a huge lack of awareness of verbal dyspraxia, and yet there were friends of mine, parliamentarians in the previous Parliament, who suffered from various forms of dyspraxia, as I found out when I raised Mikey’s issue at Prime Minister’s questions. Parliamentarians came to speak to me about them having some form of it, or said that they knew someone who did. Simply, for those who do not know, verbal dyspraxia is when a child has difficulties in being able to make and co-ordinate the movements needed to produce speech that is clear and easy to understand. Like the hon. Member for Lichfield, I then set about meeting the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, the Dyspraxia Foundation, and many other expert organisations and practitioners. I draw attention to Gillian Rudd, who is in the Public Gallery and is a senior lecturer at Birmingham City University. She is training future speech and language therapists—I will also touch on the workforce. She contributed to the “Bercow: Ten Years On” report, and her petition—back in 2018, garnering 11,000 signatures at the time—led to a Westminster Hall debate on the topic. Gillian came to see me in 2020, and I am so pleased that I have been able to at least highlight her work and to support her in all the work she has been doing. Since my first meeting with Mikey, I have been able to raise the issue of speech and language therapy and verbal dyspraxia in the House on a number of occasions, including at PMQs. I am pleased that in conjunction with Mikey, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, and Chris Kamara—who, as you may be aware, Mr Vickers, is a well-known footballer and commentator—we were able to hold an event in the previous Parliament calling on the Government to do more to support speech and language therapists. I have talked about verbal dyspraxia, so I will say that Chris—I hope he will not mind me saying this, as he has spoken about it in public—suffered during lockdown from apraxia. In his role, voice and speech matter so much, with the intonations and being able to get thoughts out. I will not try to copy his most famous lines, but those things matter so much. He was so brave in the way he spoke about it. Kammy and Mikey were kind enough to invite me on to their documentary, “Lost for Words”, which is on the ITV player. The documentary is illuminating for anyone who wants to get an understanding of some of the challenges families face across the country and of the trials and tribulations that parents and children go through to get the support that they need. Georgia Leckie, who was on it, is also in the Gallery. This issue has affected so many of us in this Parliament and in previous Parliaments. Under the previous Government, the Department for Education committed £8 billion to special educational needs in the 2021-22 financial year. In the financial year ’22-23, that was increased by £1 billion to more than £9.1 billion, and at the 2021 spending review, the Government announced £2.6 billion, over the spending review period to 2025, to create more than 30,000 new high-quality school places for children with special educational needs and disabilities —more than tripling the previous capital funding levels to over £900 million to ’24-25. That was a transformational investment, which I was proud of, and it supported local authorities to deliver new places in mainstream and special schools, as well as other specialist settings. It would also have been used to improve the suitability and accessibility of existing buildings. Of course, none of that is to say that there was not more that needed to be done, or that needs to be done. A £2.6 billion capital investment in high-needs provision was announced in October 2021. That was to deliver up to 60 new special and alternative provision free schools, and was in addition to the 48 special free schools already in the pipeline and the more than 90 that were already open. In fact, a number have opened in the borough of Solihull, which I represent, and one opened recently in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst). In March 2022, the Government announced high-needs provision capital allocations amounting to over £1.4 billion-worth of new investment, which was focused on the academic years ’23-24 and ’24-25. Of course, there has been a change of Government and a change of priorities, so will the Minister set out whether that funding will be increasing and what his intentions are in that regard? In March, the previous Government published their SEND and AP improvement plan. The plan set out what the Government would do to establish a single national system to deliver for every child and young person with special needs and disabilities from birth to age 25, so that they could enjoy their childhood, achieve good outcomes and be well prepared for their next step, whether that was employment, higher education or adult services. Has that plan continued, or has it informed current Government strategy and how the Government intend to take the previous Government’s ambitions forward? It is no secret that councils are under great strain, so I hope that the Minister can highlight how, in the coming years, the Government intend to support local councils to alleviate that strain, especially when it comes to SLT and integrated care boards. The hon. Member for Lichfield mentioned the demand on the workforce, which has been a perennial issue—the RCSLT briefing for this debate also highlighted it. How do the Government intend to alleviate pressures in this area? Do they intend to fund more places, especially at the university level? These are complex issues, and highly skilled people are needed. I also want to ask a few questions that Mikey had. One of the key things that he has raised with me from the first day I met him is the lack of awareness in the teaching profession and among GPs when it comes to identifying cases of verbal dyspraxia. The Minister might not be able to answer on the education side, but he might be able to say how the Government intend to ensure that health professionals are prepared to identify some of these serious issues. Of course, I have to ask whether the Minister will agree to meet me, Mikey, RCSLT and—given the cross-party nature of this debate—the hon. Member for Lichfield. Can the Minister also describe the timeframe for any increases in spending? The hon. Member for Lichfield mentioned the retention of the workforce, so what are the Minister’s thoughts on ensuring that we keep more of the people who enter this profession? The metrics that we use to assess policies are key, so can the Minister describe the metrics for a successful policy around speech and language therapy? That would ensure that Members can assess the policy going forward. I hope that the answer to this question is yes, but do the Government recognise the economic benefits of getting people, young people and those who are young at heart to have better speech and language therapy and to contribute to the economy? I will finish where I started: by encouraging people such as Mikey, as well as those he inspires, to continue to campaign on this issue. There is always more to be done. I have met Mikey a number of times, and he really is a legend. I thank him for allowing me to support him on his journey. I will end with some of his words: “I raise awareness of verbal Dyspraxia/Apraxia so those who share my diagnosis, now and in the future, never feel the loneliness I felt growing up.”

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to wind up the debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Official Opposition. There have been impressive contributions from across the House, and many Members have highlighted how their constituencies deliver for the UK’s creative industries. We heard from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), who participated in a punk rock band—the last one to perform at The Roxy, he said, although I think the jury is out on that. We also heard from the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), who I believe performed at Glastonbury. I do not think he talks about that enough; he should do so more in the future. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) highlighted the places that made him the man he is today. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) secured a meeting for not just himself but his Labour colleague, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley)—a great example of cross-party working. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) made a very serious point about the impact of the Budget on the creative industries. The Chair of the DCMS Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), gave a tour of the power of the creative industries across the country. She is doing an excellent job of holding the Government to account. As we have heard, the UK’s creative sectors are world-leading. They provide opportunities for young people up and down the country to gain employment and skills that can transform their lives. I welcome the fact that so many Members across the House recognise the potential of the creative industries to grow the economy. The UK’s creative industries are truly formidable. In both cultural and economic terms, they are absolute titans. In 2023 alone, it is estimated that the creative industries contributed around £124 billion to the UK economy—in other words, about 5% of our overall economic output. There has been a steady rise in the value of the creative industries to the UK, from accounting for 4.7% of economic output in 2010 to over 5.2% in 2023. It is important that we in this place recognise their growing importance in economic terms. Our creative industries are also immense in terms of jobs. Around 2.4 million people work in the sector, which totals around 7.1% of all UK jobs. Although the creative industries are still quite heavily London-based, we see diversification of the sector and clusters of creative industry right across the UK, from the leading video game development hubs in Stoke-on-Trent to the beating heart of Northern Ireland, where the creative industries sector employs 29,000 people. Huge swathes of the UK benefit from our creative industries. I know that at first hand, as a west midlands MP. The remarkable director Steven Knight, who created “Peaky Blinders”, runs an incredible project in Birmingham where he recruits 20% of people from the most deprived neighbourhoods. Steven’s record shows that we must continue to champion our creative industries sector, because it has real potential to drive social mobility and generate economic growth. As “Peaky Blinders” is a huge international success, our creative industries ensure that Brand Britain rules on the international stage. We cannot measure the value and importance of our creative industries just in economic terms, because their reach is impossible to estimate truly. Government statistics show that between July and September 2023 there were 12.5 million visits to DCMS-sponsored museums and galleries. Given the Government’s desire to ensure that 50 million people come to the UK each year, allowing these cultural hubs to thrive will bring more people to the UK to visit some of our great cultural attractions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) set out, the Conservatives have a proud record of supporting the creative industries. Between 2010 and 2022, the creative industries grew at more than double the rate of UK gross value added, expanding by over 50%. During that period, over one million new jobs were created in the sector. Rather than burdening the creative industries with tax hikes, we introduced over £1 billion of tax reliefs, including the UK independent film tax credit and business rates relief for theatres and cultural venues. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon set out, during the pandemic we introduced unprecedented support for the creative industries, including the £1.57 billion culture recovery fund, the £500 million film and TV production restart scheme and the £800 million live events reinsurance scheme. That support protected over 5,000 organisations and safeguarded 220,000 jobs, ensuring that our creative industries could bounce back and continue to offer opportunities for young people. As we have heard, our ambition did not end there. In government, the Conservatives published a sector vision setting out our plan to grow the creative industries by £50 billion and create one million new jobs. These were jobs for young designers, artists, writers, creatives and others who wanted to bring joy, inspiration and opportunities to the lives of others. In this debate, the Government claimed to have similar aspirations for the creative industries and the young people eager to build careers in them, but we know that is simply not true. Labour Members have spoken warmly about the creative industries, their impact on the economy and the many opportunities that they bring to young people, but the Government’s actions speak louder than their words. The Government know that one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training, and that many lack the essential skills and confidence to progress in work. How did Labour rise to that challenge? It scrapped the National Citizen Service. The NCS, introduced by the previous Government, was designed to support young people during a crucial time in their life, connecting them to peers from many walks of life. It gave them opportunities to build their skills and confidence, and empowered them to make a difference in their communities. Having delivered over a million experiences to young people, who took part in over 18 million hours of volunteering, the NCS made a real difference. Does the Minister recognise that Labour’s decision to scrap the NCS will mean that fewer young people take up the opportunities presented by the creative sectors? UK Youth has warned that scrapping the National Citizen Service and the youth investment fund, along with other cuts, could lead to a net reduction in central Government funding for youth services in 2025-26, possibly by tens of millions of pounds. That will inevitably hurt the creative sector. Many Labour Members spoke warmly about the creative sector, but their Government are doing irreparable harm to its industries. The truth is that the Chancellor’s Budget of broken promises raised taxes to the highest level ever and introduced a national insurance jobs tax. Labour slashed retail, hospitality and leisure relief. There is nothing to protect the creative industries from the Deputy Prime Minister’s radical Employment Rights Bill—a ill-thought-through piece of legislation that will bolster the power of the trade unions and take the country back to the 1970s.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I can see the Whip furiously making notes: “Give the man a job.” He was reading that off the Whip’s handout, and that is all I will say. Our creative industry sector, and especially the young people within it, will pay the price of the Chancellor’s growth-killing Budget and the Deputy Prime Minister’s radical Employment Rights Bill. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that Labour’s national insurance jobs tax could lead to fewer opportunities. The sad truth is that under this Labour Government, many businesses in the creative sector will not survive. Don’t just take it from me; take it from Sir Nicholas Hytner, the former artistic director of the National Theatre, who warned that Labour’s jobs tax will force businesses to close, or from UK Theatre, which warned that 40% of venues could close in the next five years due to Labour’s autumn Budget. The inevitable truth is that this Labour Government are a threat to the entire creative industry sector. But it is not just the Government’s rampant socialism that poses a huge threat to the creative industries. [ Interruption. ] I am glad Government Members are cheering the demise of the creative sector; people in them will be listening. Alongside the catastrophic impact of Labour’s increase in national insurance, there is the Government’s copyright and AI consultation, which is causing deep concern for the creative industries, but also for many Labour Members. The Minister’s preference for a data mining opt-out for the creative industries will place extra burdens on creators, who are rightly concerned that their work is under threat. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and many others made a compelling argument about how damaging the Government’s proposal is. Given the magnitude of the potential changes to copyright and AI, one would think that the Minister would have allocated significant time for creative industry sectors to raise their views. Instead, during the Christmas break, he rolled out a consultation that finishes just next month. He left the creative industries scrambling to raise their concerns with a Government who refuse to listen. The Minister also works in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, so can he tell me why, as my hon. Friend for Gosport mentioned, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has refused to meet representatives from the creative sector? I have heard myself just how worried, angry and frustrated the creative industry sector is about this proposal. Does the Minister have any idea about its impact? Has he considered having a full and transparent impact assessment to properly understand how the sector will be harmed by these changes? My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon put forward some really important points and challenges, and I look forward to hearing the answers to those. In our last exchange at the Dispatch Box, I asked the Secretary of State questions about her national youth strategy, but my questions remain unanswered. I hope that the Minister, in his closing statement, can address the serious concerns we have raised about Labour’s Budget of broken promises and its radical Employment Rights Bill, as well as the serious issues we have highlighted around the Government’s AI and copyright consultation. I repeat, slightly changed, the question I asked Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box less than two weeks ago: can the Minister guarantee that the Chancellor, in a desperate attempt to save her job, will not balance the books by putting the burden on the back of our creative industry sector? When I asked the Secretary of State that question, she said that it was tired. Well, I can tell the Minister that Conservative Members will not tire of standing up for our young people; we will not tire of standing up for our creative sectors; and we will not tire of holding the Government to account.

• 27 Jan 2025 · A&E Services: Solihull Borough · Hansard source

  More

  I stand today to make the case for accident and emergency services in Solihull borough. Ever since I was first elected in 2019, through covid to now in 2025, I have campaigned for better health resources in my constituency and across Solihull borough. Like many across the country, I am grateful for the national health service. Indeed, I owe my life to the NHS, having fallen seriously ill as a child at the age of three. It was an NHS doctor who saved my life after my parents had been told I had mere hours to live, and it was NHS nurses who cared for me. When my children were born, NHS nurses delivered them and NHS doctors cared for them and for my wife. Like many of my constituents, I am ever grateful for the NHS staff who were on the frontline during the pandemic, in the most difficult circumstances that one can imagine. I am proud to stand up for the NHS in my constituency. I have been fortunate to have campaigned for a number of successful outcomes in the borough of Solihull, where we have a positive story to tell. I supported the introduction of integrated care systems in the Health and Care Act 2022. As I said to the then Health Secretary, it was clear to me that we needed an organisation that would be more accountable to the public. The Birmingham and Solihull integrated care board was born as a result of that legislation. The Solihull Conservatives led a campaign to get a new urgent treatment centre, and our petition garnered more than 11,000 signatures. I am pleased that the UTC at Solihull hospital was opened in 2023. It has been vital in easing pressures on local services and for local residents, and I have used it for myself and my family. We also have new elective surgery units, built with start-of-the-art robotics. I am delighted that just a few weeks ago, they reached their 1,000th operation. On top of that, the brand-new locality hub at Solihull hospital aims to provide early intervention and urgent response care for patients in the borough, and it will be vital in providing much-needed relief for local services. Alongside that, the brand-new community diagnostic centre that I secured for north Solihull is currently being built. I had the pleasure of visiting the new facility, which is forecast to deliver almost 116,000 diagnostic appointments, including MRIs, ultrasounds and much more. As the Minister will see, we have a strong track record of delivering health services for our constituents in the borough of Solihull. However, one thing is lacking. It is clear when I talk to local residents that Solihull borough needs accident and emergency services. Solihull hospital used to have an A&E, but it closed in 2013. A recent write-up of my campaign by the Solihull Observer correctly identified that, stating: “Historically Solihull did have an A&E department but in 2013 hospital bosses admitted there had not been a full and proper A&E at Solihull for many years – with A&E services dwindling bit by bit over two decades.” The Minister will note that things have seriously changed. First of all, Solihull hospital is thriving. I am pleased that there has been a collective recognition that it must be nurtured and preserved. Silhillians who are in need of medical treatment for broken bones, sprains, cuts, stomach pains, rashes and minor burns can always book an appointment at the urgent treatment centre that I just mentioned at the Lode Lane hospital, but for anything more serious, residents are redirected to Heartlands hospital in Bordesley Green.

• 27 Jan 2025 · A&E Services: Solihull Borough · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot disagree with the hon. Gentleman. He makes a really valid point. Of course, it is about not just the travel time, but the time that is spent there. As I will come on to say, there is discussion about the A&E at Heartlands hospital, which has similar issues.

• 27 Jan 2025 · A&E Services: Solihull Borough · Hansard source

  More

  Of course, investment will make a big difference. That is why I think integrated care boards play an important role, because there is accountability all the way up to the Minister. It is also about how resources are distributed locally for the needs of the community. I spoke about the journey to Heartlands hospital. At any given time, it can take 40 minutes, and it quite regularly takes more than an hour. In a situation where every minute matters, I am afraid that is just not good enough for my constituents. It could quite literally be a matter of life or death. Solihull borough has a population of approximately 216,000 people, and that is set only to grow.

• 27 Jan 2025 · A&E Services: Solihull Borough · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes an important point. Every winter we see the strain on our health services. Our professionals in hospitals and ambulance services always make an important contribution. His second question is really for the Government. I will talk a little more about the future vision for my constituents and his.

• 27 Jan 2025 · A&E Services: Solihull Borough · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and for all the work he has done on the matter, including the petition he launched, which I will come on to later. He is absolutely right, and he leads me to my next point. The Minister’s own Government have set out their planning reforms, which mean that valuable and precious green belt will now be built on as housing numbers are massively increased, putting our local infrastructure under strain. As we can see, that is a concern across the country, on a cross-party basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) has made significant progress talking to his constituents on this issue. I know they feel exactly the same way, and I look forward to working with him. Significantly, more than 40% of our residents are reportedly over the age of 50. As we go through this especially cold winter, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) said, we must all remember that the winter is a challenging time not only for the NHS, but for our constituents. Cold and flu cases are at their peak and place additional pressures on the NHS. Every Christmas, we face a timely reminder that we are in desperate need of an A&E in Solihull, so I am grateful to have secured this debate early in the new year. Although I will not focus on social care today, I can assure the Minister that I will return to this topic at some point. I simply make the point that kicking the can down the road on issues such as social care will cause further anxiety to my constituents and exacerbate the strain on our hospitals. All Governments, of all ilks, need to deal with social care. The Government’s response does not deal with social care, nor does it deal with the problem of the country’s ageing population, especially in areas such as Meriden and Solihull East. The long-term social care issues faced by our NHS are made far worse by the fact that there is a national average of 14% more attendees at A&E than there were 10 years ago, which means that more people now face longer waiting times. As of August 2024, 65.4% of patients in Birmingham and Solihull ICB spent less than four hours in A&E departments, and that is markedly below the NHS target of 95%. I hope that the Minister might be able to comment on that and share any thinking on increasing that figure. I believe I have already set this out adequately, but it is worth repeating that residents in my borough have to travel to different areas to access A&E services. Given the size of the local population and the likelihood that demand for emergency services will only increase further, it is obvious that Solihull residents need to be supported by dedicated A&E services. That is because a dedicated A&E in Solihull borough will take pressure off other A&E departments, lowering waiting times across the whole area to the benefit of thousands of people in the west midlands. Can the Minister give any indication as to whether she considered those arguments in the previous correspondence that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley and I have had with her? Moreover, my constituents and I are very concerned that this issue will become increasingly pressing because of the Government’s planning changes and their potential changes to the national policy planning framework. If the Government were to achieve the objective of removing consent from local people, the demand for local infrastructure—from schools to roads and health services—would go up and inevitably become unsustainable. I launched my petition in May last year to restore A&E services to Solihull hospital. I can confirm to the Minister that I did not know a general election would be called a week later. Within a week, we had about 1,000 signatures. I have had about 1,600 and I think my hon. Friend has had a similar amount, so we are reaching more than 3,000 residents who support our campaign. The petition remains open on our websites for further support. I assure my constituents that I will not falter or waver in my resolve to see the campaign through. Let me help the Minister. I understand that such projects do not happen overnight, but surely she will agree that a case such as this must be looked at. There has to be a long-term vision and plan to start to deal with issues, such as an increased population, which are clearly coming down the road. When my hon. Friend and I wrote to the Minister in November, we outlined the arguments for enhanced healthcare provision for Solihull borough. We were disappointed with the Minister’s response, which failed to cover some of the assertions we made, and that is why I put in for an Adjournment debate. I want to give the Minister another chance, because it cannot be possible that she does not have a view on long-term health provision for my constituents. For clarity, the Minister argued that the NHS Birmingham and Solihull ICB was responsible for funding and implementation in the area. I am sure that is a matter of fact, but she must have a view, even though it will play a decisive role in decision making on these matters. It would be really helpful to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend if she agreed, at least in principle, to look at our plans, even if she does not quite support them. Will she agree to look at the long-term need of my constituents, especially in the light of the extra housing the Government are demanding be delivered on our greenbelt? It is a point worth making that as a result of the extra building, my constituents will be making huge sacrifices. The least the Government could do is to recognise that and provide the infrastructure to match. The Minister confirmed that the Government were committed to delivering the new hospital plan. She said the Chancellor had confirmed that in the Budget there would be a £3.1 billion increase in the overall departmental capital budget over this year and the next. The Secretary of State committed, in his piece in the London Standard in June, to delivering the new hospitals programme, so I was disappointed that there was no mention of Solihull borough in his statement last week. I want to ask the Minister a very simple question. The Government set out plans that take hospital building to 2039. Does that mean that our constituents in Solihull borough will not get a look-in from the Labour Government until then? Will it be 15 years before we can even start to think about new plans to support Solihull borough? It would be really helpful to get clarity on that. In our correspondence, my hon. Friend and I made the case for part of the £3.1 billion uplift in the NHS capital budget to be spent in our area. The Minister should be assured that we will take every opportunity in this House to make the case for an A&E in Solihull. Will she now instruct her officials to take a long, hard look at that and take a constructive view on the long-term plan? Indeed, just a few days ago—this is the point I wanted to come to when I was intervened on—it was reported in the Birmingham Mail that the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust is looking for a £200 million investment to create a new urgent and emergency care facility at Heartlands hospital, because the facilities are “disconnected and inefficient”, and that “patient numbers continue to increase, being cared for in buildings which are dark, cramped and not fit for the current purpose”. That could not be clearer. The report prompts the question: why should my constituents be subject to those conditions? They deserve better. They deserve the very best health facilities. I will not let up, and nor will my hon. Friend. We will keep coming back. With more than 3,000 people having signed our petitions, will the Minister do the right thing and back our campaign for a new A&E in Solihull? When I raised this issue on the Floor of the House, the Health Secretary wanted to know where I would spend the money differently. Perhaps the Minister has a similar line in her speech. This is not a party political point, but we would have chosen not to spend billions on trade union sweetheart deals in return for nothing. We would probably not have spent billions on GB Energy, which will not deliver outcomes or reduce bills. That money could pay for an A&E in Solihull many times over. Politics is all about choices, so I ask the Minister: will she do the right thing and choose to engage constructively, so we can deliver the best outcomes for our constituents?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I start by praising my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this vital debate. As we can see, it is incredibly important to many hon. Members, and I want to acknowledge contributions from a number of them, but given the time, I cannot acknowledge everybody. I thought my hon. Friends the Members for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) and for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the hon. Members for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) all made wonderful contributions, as did the other Members I have not been able to mention. They have all made their faith communities incredibly proud. I take your steer, Mr Western, and will try and give the Minister as much time as possible to satisfy the Members in this House, because this is an important debate. Britian is defined by its history: up and down the country, people are fiercely proud of their heritage. As His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, it is therefore right that we hold the Government to account as we try and stand up for our history and protect our heritage. In Opposition, we have campaigned on this issue very vehemently and I know there is a written ministerial statement on the way. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said this might be the shortest campaign ever.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  It might the shortest WMS, which I hope tells us how the Minister is extending the scheme. I want to thank all the people from across the country who have written to us on this issue—their voice matters. I thank all the volunteers who protect our most beautiful heritage sites. The Conservatives are very clear that Britian’s rich history, deep sense of tradition and incredible national story is something we should always protect, and there is no doubt that our churches, and other places of worship that have been announced, are fundamental to that. These cherished buildings play key roles in their local communities, serving both as a window into our past and as active centres of support and sanctuary for people of all faiths and none. The people who look after them, as custodians of our future generations, are volunteers who give their time and energy generously with very little external help, but many of them are reliant on the vital lifeline that is the listed places of worship grant scheme. Introduced in 2001, the scheme provides essential grants covering the VAT charge and repairs to listed buildings used as places of worship. I am proud that the Conservative Government had a very strong record of supporting that important scheme. Under the previous Government, the listed places of worship grant scheme was extended, providing funding to cover VAT on essential repairs, which meant thousands of churches were protected for generations to come. However—this may change—Labour is yet to announce whether it will fund the scheme past its expiry in March this year. The Budget came and went without an answer. This uncertainty is making the task of those who look after these precious buildings more precarious and stressful. Many are understandably delaying their plans until the Government make up their mind, meaning more leaky roofs, more draughty windows and more cold churches during the vital Christmas period. With the WMS on the way, I am hopeful that the Minister will announce something meaningful that goes beyond one year. I share the ambition of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove for the permanency of this grant, so I hope the Minister will address that point. According to Historic England, 969 places of worship are under threat, including churches in the Prime Minister’s constituency. When questioned about the scheme at the Dispatch Box last week, the Minister quoted a hymn, but the custodians of our historic churches need more than a hymn and a prayer. They deserve clarity and support from the Government, which I hope the Minister can give us today. That is important because Historic England’s informative heritage at risk register paints a harrowing picture for England’s historic sites. For places of worship in particular, the possibility of roofs collapsing or a lack of maintenance on stonework would be catastrophic. Numerous constituents in my constituency of Meriden and Solihull East have written to me about their concerns for some of our most beloved local churches. They told me that discontinuing the scheme would “be a disaster for listed places of worship”, and that the ability to reclaim VAT “makes an enormous difference, particularly at a time when the cost of building work has increased substantially.” There is great frustration about the Government’s failure to confirm the extension of this vital scheme. It is not just felt by constituents; it has an impact on all our communities and on the rest of society. The chair of the National Churches Trust, Sir Philip Rutnam, has called on the Government to renew the listed places of worship fund. Sir Philip states that the crisis affecting church heritage could get worse in the coming months if this vital “financial lifeline” is scrapped. The Bishop of Dudley, Bishop Martin Gorrick, also paints a bleak picture, saying, “It is not just heritage that is at risk if the Scheme lapses. Churches and other places of worship are home to so much social enterprise and action: Church of England churches support over 35,000 social action projects such as foodbanks, community larders and debt, drug, alcohol advice and rehabilitation groups.” The director of the Friends of Friendless Churches, Rachel Morley, wrote to the Secretary of State saying, “The impact of this cut at a parish level would be devastating” and that, “We place the burden of caring for thousands of the nation’s most important buildings—undoubtedly the nation’s greatest free heritage resources—on a tiny proportion of the public who are, for the most part, volunteers.” That view was eloquently shared by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox). I hope the Government will confirm the continuation of the scheme as soon as possible or, better still, an expanded scheme that helps the custodians of listed places of worship to carry out vital repair works in the first place. One challenge I would put to the Minister is that the funding has been a rebate for many years. Let us make it into a grant and let us make it permanent. Will he also consider the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), which raises quite a vital point? I hope he addresses that. I cannot speak about this issue without addressing the broader economic picture. If the Government were to neglect these cherished buildings, it would be an act of vandalism, but it would come as no surprise to many of our constituents if the Labour Government did turn a blind eye to this threat to our heritage, given where we are economically. We have seen the calamitous impact of the Chancellor’s callous Budget on our great houses already, including on our historic houses, and I have already written and made comments about the impact. Independent analysis has shown that the dramatic increase in inheritance tax could spell an end for many of our historic heritage sites and estates across the country. This would cost jobs and mean that some of the UK’s most popular stately homes would be closed. I have very little confidence in the long-term faith that the Government would put in our heritage. Of course, the dire economic circumstances make a big difference. I have already raised the matter on the Floor of the House, because it is becoming ever clearer that the Chancellor will have to cut budgets. Although many of our voters, including many of my constituents, do not believe that they can afford a Labour Government, what they certainly cannot afford is the Minister abandoning our most vital sector, so I encourage him to stand up to the Chancellor and try to protect those vital budgets. As the cost of debt goes up and the economic situation becomes more dire, the Chancellor will have even less headroom to spend on schemes such as the listed places of worship grant. Mr Western, in deference to your timing request, I will conclude. I share the concerns of many beyond this House that the Government are yet to protect our heritage. As we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, hundreds of churches have been left with a deep sense of uncertainty for months. The Government’s failure to commit to that funding risks imperilling centuries of British history and heritage, all while leaving gaping holes in our local communities and depriving our constituents of spaces to accommodate celebration, grief, art, music, sculpture, political hustings—of course—wellbeing groups, childcare, addiction support sessions and so much more. The listed places of worship grant scheme is essential, and I urge the Minister to make the strongest possible case for its renewal to the Treasury; otherwise, many of our constituents will ask, “Is nothing sacred any more?”

• 21 Jan 2025 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Businesses in my constituency and across the country are still reeling from the Chancellor’s damaging Budget. She made a commitment at the Confederation of British Industry conference that she would not come back for more taxes. Does she stand by that commitment?

• 16 Jan 2025 · National Youth Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for her answers. When she cancelled the national citizenship service and announced a consultation on the national youth strategy from the Dispatch Box, she started to lay out how she intended to fund the strategy. That was over two months ago. Since then, the cost of borrowing has reached its highest point since 1997, and it is quite clear that significant spending cuts are on the way. Can she tell the House in further detail what plans she has for revenue and capital spending under the national youth strategy? Can she guarantee that the Chancellor, in a desperate attempt to save her job, will not balance the books by putting the burden on the backs of our young people?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Artificial Intelligence Opportunities Action Plan · Hansard source

  More

  We should be under no illusion: the U-turn on a supercomputer is exactly that. We committed £1.3 billion to it; Labour cancelled it. Can the Secretary of State tell the House how much money has been set aside to achieve his supercomputer ambitions?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Live Events Ticketing: Resale and Pricing Practices · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for advance sight of his statement. As he said, dynamic pricing is a strategy used across many industries outside the creative sectors, including by hotels, taxis and airlines. It can offer significant benefits for consumers when prices are low—for example through early-bird tickets or late ticketing. The Government are right to emphasise the importance of transparency. Oasis fans know—I am one of them—that we did not have the necessary information up front, and I understand that the Competition and Markets Authority is rightly investigating that episode. However, it is my view that new regulations should be considered only when they are necessary and proportionate and do not duplicate existing rules. Current legislation already states that although dynamic pricing is legal, it must be implemented transparently. I can assure the Minister that we will carefully consider any proposals that could strengthen, improve or simplify the market for fans, but I warn him that we will oppose regulation introduced for the sake of introducing new regulation. The secondary ticket resale market plays an important role for artists, fans and venues. It can provide a safer way to transfer unwanted tickets, ensuring that seats in venues are not left empty. The Minister claims that his reforms will better protect fans, improve access to live events and support the creative sectors. He claims that the proposals will give power back to fans and prevent them from being fleeced by ticket touts. We know that that is not true, however. We know that Labour’s plans will harm fans and venues, and make live events even harder to attend. [ Interruption. ] The Minister wants to know so I will tell him. Let us first discuss price caps on resale tickets. The Government’s consultation proposes capping ticket resale prices to somewhere between the original price and a 30% uplift. That may seem on the surface like a reasonable measure, but we know that it will lead to an upsurge in black market activity and to more money flowing into the pockets of ticket touts. In fact, price controls would lead to a surge in unregulated and illegal transactions, leaving fans with little to no consumer protections. The Minister might not believe me, a free-marketeer, but in response to Government’s consultation, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, warned that “Draconian regulation, targeting only the secondary market, will only mean more tickets changing hands in informal settings without the same protections that exist in proper marketplaces.” I regret to say that the Government’s proposed measures to increase the regulation of resale websites and apps, and to raise fines for rule violations, will not prevent fans from turning to underground markets. We have already seen that in Victoria, Australia, where a 10% profit cap failed to prevent significant mark-ups on ticket prices, and even led a spike in the number of ticket scams. We know that scams are already a serious issue in the secondary ticketing market. For example, and as the Minister will be aware, Lloyds Bank estimates that Taylor Swift fans lost £1 million in ticket scams ahead of her tour. If his policy had been in place, how much more would fans have lost to scammers? We know that a ticket resale cap will lead to empty seats and the prevent spontaneous ticket purchases. We saw that at the Paris Olympics, where restrictions on the resale of tickets left empty seats at many venues. Empty seats are bad not just for artists, but for the economy. Events at stadiums and venues provide a boost for local businesses, including restaurants, bars and other hospitality venues. Let us be clear: the hospitality industry is already under a lot of strain, not least because of the Budget of broken promises. Labour’s national insurance jobs tax, and its slashing of reliefs, have led the Music Venue Trust to warn that many businesses are at “immediate risk of closure, representing the potential loss of more than 12,000 jobs, over £250 million in economic activity and the loss of over 75,000 live music events.” Let us be clear: the reason we are here today is that the spin doctors in No. 10 are trying to move the news cycle away from a beleaguered Prime Minister, a Chancellor already drowning in the debt markets, and an anti-corruption Minister being accused of corruption. All the while, the Government and the Department are throwing creative industries and hospitality businesses under the bus.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this important debate. He made an impassioned speech, and may I be the first to say on record that I think he will have a long and fruitful career in this House? I hope I have not just given him the kiss of death. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said, the strength of feeling on this issue is demonstrated by the turnout for this debate. I thank every Member who has contributed. Charities play a huge part in our lives, providing critical support to individuals who face poverty, illness and injustice. One of my many privileges as the Member of Parliament for Meriden and Solihull East is to have many fantastic charities in the local area. It is always inspiring to meet the volunteers who do so much to support people, year in, year out, wherever those volunteers come from. In my constituency, I have the Colebridge Trust, which strives to get more people into work, improve health and tackle the effects of loneliness. I have the Lily Mae Foundation, which was set up to help support parents who suffer the unimaginable trauma of baby loss—I had the privilege of jumping out of a plane for it not so long ago. I also have the fantastic Lily’s Tea Parlour in Chelmsley Wood, which helps struggling people by offering warm food, drink and a safe space. Alongside the great local charities in my constituency, like many Members, I also have Age UK and Marie Curie. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East made the case for the challenges that they face and will be facing as a result of this Budget. Supported by an army of volunteers, these organisations are enormously important features of our high streets, towns and our society. On a national level, the UK is one of the most generous nations for charitable giving. Our charities are a huge source of pride for people in this country, and Members across the House must always continue to come to Parliament to do all they can to stand up for the UK’s charitable sector. The country’s charitable spirit can be seen by the fact that the British public donated an estimated £13.9 billion to charity in the last year. In our communities, local people gather regularly to take part in charity bake sales and sports fixtures and watch performances where ticket costs are donated to local charities. In some respects, some of the nation’s favourite cultural pastimes are deeply intertwined with supporting our charities, and there is no doubt that these charities bring all of us together. But in spite of that, our charities are under threat. I have been contacted by a number of charities about the impact of this Budget. Local mental health charity Birmingham Mind told me that “the rise, combined with current financial pressures, presents serious challenges for charities like ours”. The brain injury charity Headway contacted me estimating that the proposed changes will push up its costs by tens of thousands of pounds, forcing it to “reduce services” and potentially putting employees at “risk of redundancy or reduced days”. Birmingham-based Services for Education, run by its formidable chief executive, Sharon Bell, wrote to me to say that “the impact of national insurance changes will hit” it “hardest—unfairly so.” She paints a very concerning picture about how the charity will be forced to limit the fantastic services it offers because of this unprecedented cost. When the Chancellor delivered her Budget of broken promises, she did exactly what she promised during the election that she would not do: she significantly raised employer national insurance. What is even more concerning is the devastating effect that this has had on the charity sector. Just a day after the Budget, more than 7,000 charities came together to sign an open letter co-ordinated by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, warning that the sector’s increased national insurance costs would amount to £1.4 billion a year. They all called on the Chancellor to either exempt or reimburse charities for these additional costs. Let me tell the Minister that the impact is already being felt, and it is dire. Over Christmas, the chief executives of five domestic abuse charities made it clear that increased national insurance would force them to cut services, run down reserves and even make redundancies. This will have a catastrophic impact on the safety of vulnerable women and girls. Has the Minister had discussions with the Minister for Women and Equalities about the possible impact on women in this country? Has she spoken to the Chancellor? And where is the impact assessment? More than 110 chief executives of homelessness charities in England have warned that these changes could cost the sector between £50 million and £60 million. Can the Minister give cast-iron assurances that homeless people will not lose vital support, especially over this cold and wet winter, because of the unprecedented rise in NI contributions? The Opposition voted to exempt charities from the additional costs of NI increases. I regret that a staggering 348 Labour Members voted against that amendment, which will have a far-reaching impact on charities that provide essential services. Will the Minister give certainty that the Chancellor’s job tax will not have a negative impact on charities? And can she be certain that the Chancellor will not be coming back for more?

• 18 Dec 2024 · BBC: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Let me start by wishing all Members and you, Mr Mundell, a very merry Christmas. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this valuable debate, which has been a spirited one with some interesting points. I will pose some questions to the Minister in, as it is Christmas, the most constructive way I can. The BBC plays a fundamental role in the lives of the vast majority of people in the country, and its scope is impossible to underestimate. The National Union of Journalists estimates that 91% of British adults use BBC television, radio or online each week. As a number of Members have pointed out, its global reach is equally important: 426 million people access the BBC every week via the World Service and its worldwide and global news services. The BBC’s reach and reputation is rightly a source of pride for people in the UK. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon pointed out, as we approach the renewal of the BBC’s royal charter in 2027, there is no denying that the Government must recognise some of the challenges that the organisation faces, not least in respect of its sustainability, with decreasing licence fee uptake and decreasing revenues. The issue of trust has been brought up. The social contract that exists between the licence fee payer and the BBC is fundamental. Unless we ensure that people have faith in the BBC and its role in society, endless questions about its relevance and importance will continue to be a factor in public discourse. Failure to address that will undermine trust in the BBC. The BBC is one of our great institutions. Since its founding, it has promoted the very best of Britain at home and abroad. It has guided our nation through war, economic and political crises and much more. It needs to be trusted, especially as we see our adversaries like Russia and China bolstering the reach of their own state broadcasters. We also see the concerning impact of AI and misinformation domestically and around the world. We must emphasise the issue of trust. We are clearly seeing a trend in the questioning of the BBC’s credibility, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), who was an excellent Minister on these issues, as was my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon. Recent funding figures are a cause for concern. A 2015 report by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee found that some view the licence fee as “anachronistic” and “harder and harder to sustain”. Its conclusions are verified by the fact that licence fee income between 2022-23 and 2023-24 went down, and there were fewer licences in force at the end of March 2024 than the end of 2023. That clearly suggests that more people are reluctant to pay the licence fee because they are not believing in the BBC or trusting it. This is a foundational challenge for the Government. This country needs the BBC. The challenge is for the Government and the BBC to make that case. I hope the Minister will recognise that in her response. We must also recognise that the way that people, especially our younger generations, engage with media has altered dramatically in the past decade. The covid pandemic accelerated some of the trends that have dramatically transformed the media landscape. It led to a surge in online streaming companies, which now dominate the market. As we approach the review of the royal charter, we cannot ignore the radically different media environment that the BBC is operating and competing in compared with that of just 10 years ago. The Government must understand that unless there is genuine reform of the BBC and how it functions, it will continue to be an analogue service in a digital world. There is no denying that the licence fee model was conceived at a time of linear viewing, when watching programmes at the time of broadcast was commonplace. The reality is much different now. The BBC competes in a far more crowded market—a market that can be accessed at any time, anywhere. Licence fee payments will not increase if the BBC does not continue to strive to adapt to the rapid changes in online media that we all have to interact with. What discussions is the Minister having with the BBC to ensure that its funding remains sustainable over the next 10 years, in the light of a radically different media landscape? I acknowledge that these are not easy questions; they require leadership and clarity, so I hope the Minister can provide some of that in her remarks. The issue of local radio has also been brought up, and the Government should seek to engage constructively with the BBC about its future. The BBC has 39 local radio stations that currently reach 5.7 million listeners. Under the terms of the current royal charter, the BBC has an obligation to reflect the diversity of the United Kingdom in both its output and its services and must meet the needs of its regions and communities. As the National Union of Journalists sets out, local radio is a lifeline for often-isolated rural communities and provides an invaluable source of news and education for so many, especially elderly people in our communities. At a time when elderly people are feeling more and more marginalised, it would be wrong to make further cuts to local radio, which provides essential information and entertainment for millions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon made some excellent suggestions in that regard, and I hope the Minister can address his concerns. I want to turn to Ofcom, because the question of BBC funding raises other issues that have been brought up in a number of different ways when it comes to the BBC’s impartiality. As Ofcom is the broadcasting regulator and has the role of challenging broadcasters, especially in an ever more competitive environment, there are clearly questions that the public will want answers to. In the past decade, the BBC has had many new competitors, and I want to raise the issue of GB News. Ofcom recently fined GB News £100,000 for its programme with the former Prime Minister in February this year. Many people believed that was not correct, and I also question it. The Government should question Ofcom’s remit, its scope to deny freedom of speech, and whether its fines are proportionate in the circumstances, as we enter an ever more competitive media landscape that is fundamentally different compared with the previous decade. I wish you a merry Christmas, Mr Mundell, and I thank all Members for their contributions; I hope they have a happy new year.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Draft Local Digital Television Programme Services (Amendment) Order 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to see the work of the previous Government come to fruition. The Minister is right: we should be proud of our local TV services, and we should not underestimate their importance to our local communities. As Members will be aware, and as the Minister set out, licences for a local TV multiplex for all 34 local TV services are due to expire on 25 November 2025. In April 2022, the previous Government published their broadcasting White Paper, which outlined the ambition to make changes to the local TV licensing regime. The changes, which will be implemented through this statutory instrument, will enable the extension of a local TV multiplex licence until 2034, and make it subject to the same conditions that apply to national digital terrestrial television multiplexes. A consultation run under the previous Government for 14 weeks from 7 June 2023 on options for the renewal or relicensing of individual local television services received numerous responses, including from current licence holders, media and telecommunications companies, and members of the public. Overall the responses were supportive of the proposed approach. His Majesty’s official Opposition support this SI, which implements the necessary changes proposed by the last Government. The existing regime for local TV does not allow Ofcom to renew licences for the local TV multiplex or individual local TV services. The SI will enable Ofcom to run a renewal process that provides scrutiny but is not burdensome. I hope the Minister agrees that that balance is key in this endeavour, because for small and micro-businesses a lengthy and costly process will be problematic. Without the SI, Ofcom would be required to launch and run a new licensing round for the local TV multiplex and individual services, which risks putting a disproportionate burden on those businesses without any tangible policy benefits. I hope that this approach provides stability for local TV services over the next licence period. I am of course concerned that the disastrous Budget set out earlier this year is already affecting business confidence. Will the Minister provide detail on how the Government will support collaboration and investment in the sector? How are the Government supporting local TV services to overcome some of the challenges they face, including to their financial sustainability? I shall be grateful if the Minister, in answer to a point raised in the other place, gives details of the steps the Government are taking to ensure open competition in future licensing rounds. More broadly, I am sure we all agree on the importance of local TV services and the significant economic and social benefits they bring to viewers across the UK. The previous Government published their vision and ambition for the sector, outlined in the White Paper. We are yet to see any new proposal from the Government, but we have been promised a local media strategy. Will the Minister inform the Committee when that will be published, and say whether it is being developed with industry input?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Responsibilities of Housing Developers · Hansard source

  More

  This is a timely debate, because I have just written to Solihull council about the Arden Triangle in my constituency and the lack of sufficient detail around the masterplan that is being put forward and considered tomorrow. Does my hon. Friend agree with me about this? One of the points I raised was that developers need to give consideration to infrastructure such as GP surgeries, but also to the road network, so that it can deal with the increase in housing.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Planning Committees: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Is it not the case that the Government have realised that the mandatory top-down targets they came up with are now unachievable, and that, in their panic, they have come up with a policy that will undermine local democratic voices and take people away from, not closer to, the democratic process?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, along with Opposition colleagues, I met representatives of a number of hospitality businesses across different sectors. Everyone wants to make their venue more secure, and everyone acknowledged the importance of the legislation, but there are points to address on clarity and the uncertainty being caused. We have talked about the responsibility of volunteers, and where it starts and ends. Some venues will have queues outside, and it is not clear how the legislation will work in that case. An 18-month review is important, because it would allow us to look at whether the legislation is making people more safe and secure. Does the shadow Minister agree?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Syria · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement on what I know is a fast-evolving situation. In the coming days and weeks, he will have to think about the issue of diplomatic relations with Syria. Does he agree that one prerequisite of that relationship must be the handing over of any chemical weaponry that Assad has left behind, and will he work with international partners to ensure that that chemical weaponry is taken off the hands of anyone who wants to retain it, so that it is destroyed and does not fall into dangerous hands?

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way at this moment. I have yet to be convinced that the legislation has sufficient safeguards in place. On slippery slopes, take Canada as an example: there, someone does not even have to have a terminal or fatal illness now; mental illness will be an acceptable reason for assisted suicide in 2027. Even though it did not start that way in Canada, that Pandora’s box has clearly been opened, and we risk embarking on that route today. The hon. Member for Spen Valley has said that there is almost a guarantee that this situation will not change, but she cannot guarantee that future Parliaments will not change the goalposts on this matter. The slippery slope argument is about exactly that: when we embark on this journey, that is where we may end up, as the goalposts start to move. I am conscious of time, so I will end my comments shortly. We have had lots of conversation about the private Members’ Bills process, and the hon. Lady cannot guarantee that there will be sufficient scrutiny and safeguards. We have not had enough impact assessments or public consultation, and there has been very limited time to look at this piece of legislation. We are at serious risk of passing something that will do immense harm. I worry that in the future we will look back at this, after there has been abuse or coercion of some of the most vulnerable people, and we will come back to the House to discuss the damage that we have caused today.