Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
This has definitely been the Secretary of State’s finest hour. I am only slightly disappointed that, for reasons of his own, the Prime Minister chose to upstage it in Downing Street. Can she tell the House what the main reasons are in Australia for reports—admittedly according to AI—that as many as 61% of young people are getting around the restrictions? Will she be working jointly with the Australians to try to get that down to a more acceptable level?
May I wish the new Secretary of State the best of luck in his new post and express the hope that the appearance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer alongside him on his first outing is not too symbolic of what has perhaps been going on in backrooms behind the Treasury? On the question of the seizure of the ships, does the Secretary of State agree that there is a possibility that Russia may in response start to think about escorting such ships by means of warships? This would, of course, expose Russia’s hand very much more clearly, but it does bring a whole element of possible escalation into play, including the possibility of Ukrainian strikes against those ships. We all know how successful Ukraine has been in the Black sea, and it might end up doing something similar in the Baltic sea and beyond.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the British Dental Association, which has supplied an excellent briefing to many right hon. and hon. Members for this debate, is in no doubt at all that it is precisely the 2006 contract that lies at the heart of the problem? The BDA states that it wants two things from this debate: one is a clear timetable from the Government as to when they will start to renegotiate that contract; and the other is a firm deadline for the roll-out of a new system in this Parliament. Those are the two things that we have been invited to press the Minister to deliver at the end of this debate.
Does the Minister accept that there is a high degree of unanimity in all parts of the House about this terrible situation? Does he also accept that the British Dental Association traces this back to the 2006 contract? What it wants to know is: when are the formal negotiations on a new contract going to begin, and what is the date of the Minister’s deadline to introduce the new system in the lifetime of this Parliament, as promised in his general election manifesto?
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment and welcome the action in the channel. He will be aware that last night saw one of the biggest attacks yet on civilian buildings and people in Kyiv, and included damage to the historic cathedral there. He will also be aware that dual-use technology is still arriving in Russia via third countries. We heard today from the Ukrainian Speaker about washing machine microcircuits that were supposedly going to Kazakhstan being found in Russian missiles falling on Kyiv. Will the Secretary of State look again, with his colleagues, at what further action we can take to stop this technology being used to kill more people in Ukraine?
I am pleased to support the revival motion before the House today. It is about 11 months since I moved Second Reading of the Bill last year. At that stage, it had already completed its passage through the House of Lords, and it was given a Second Reading without opposition. It then went into the Committee on unopposed private Bills, and the panel met in March this year under the chairmanship of the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Committee approved the Bill subject to an undertaking given by the Royal Albert Hall, which I will come back to. I do not want to repeat all of the speech I made on Second Reading, but I do want to set out again why the Bill is so necessary and beneficial, and not just to the Royal Albert Hall but to the many people who enjoy performances there. The Royal Albert Hall is one of our most important cultural institutions. There can be few people in this Chamber, or indeed the country, who have not enjoyed performances at the hall—either live or broadcast—including the last night of the Proms, the Festival of Remembrance, Cirque du Soleil and, tonight, Elvis Costello. I should declare that I served as a trustee of the Royal Albert Hall, appointed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, from 2018 to 2020. I was one of five independent trustees, and I also sat on the conflicts committee, which is an extremely important part of the management of the hall, and to which I will return. As a result, I gained a good understanding of the way in which the hall operates, and I saw how the council works to fulfil the charitable purposes of the hall. The hall has operated successfully for 150 years, and to explain why this Bill is necessary, it is important to appreciate its history and the model on which it is based. The hall was the idea of Prince Albert. Sadly, he died before he could see it completed, but the corporation was set up in 1867 in his memory, and the hall was built and opened by Queen Victoria less than four years later. The initial funding for the building of the hall came from the commissioners of the Great Exhibition, but it was insufficient, so the remainder—the gap that needed to be filled—was met by payment in return for seats in the hall. It is perhaps a unique model of public-private partnership. The hall has around 5,500 seats, of which around 1,250—just under a quarter—are privately owned. Those seat holders are members of the corporation, and in some cases those seats have been passed down through families across generations. Others have been bought by charities, companies and individuals when they have come up for sale. Ownership of a seat brings with it the right to attend certain performances—but not all—and the members elect from their ranks 18 out of the 23 trustees who run the hall. They also make a significant financial contribution each year through what is called the seat rate, which is currently around £2,250. That is an ongoing commitment of the seat holders to the continuation and the costs of the hall. On top of that, it has always been the case that seat holders agree to forgo their tickets for events held in the hall on just over 100 days each year. By giving up that right, the hall therefore has the tickets available either to offer to the promoter or to use for its own purposes. By doing so, it can attract higher artists, so it is of considerable financial benefit to the hall that the seat holders behave in that way. The practice of agreeing to forgo the right of using a seat is not covered expressly by the constitution of the hall; it is voted on and agreed by the members that they should do that. However, there has been a suggestion of legal challenge from a very small number who do not like the fact that a majority of the seat holders have voted accordingly to give up the right, so there is now legal uncertainty and a risk as to whether the Hall can continue to offer as many tickets as it does to what are called exclusives, where all the tickets are available for use by the hall. That legal uncertainty has resulted in several options for the hall, none of which is particularly palatable. It could continue to operate on the present basis, but it risks defeat in the courts, should that legal challenge be sustained. Indeed, failure to pass this Bill may encourage those seeking to challenge the current situation. The alternative is that the hall could revert to having exclusive performances only to the number permitted under the existing constitution. That probably means losing around 40 exclusive lettings in a year out of perhaps 150. The Bill is necessary to allow the existing practice to continue, to the benefit of the hall. If the Bill does not pass, the chief executive has calculated that it is likely to cost the Royal Albert Hall around £1.8 million.
I will make a couple of points to my hon. Friend. As I have said, I not only served as a trustee, but sat on what is called the conflicts committee. The conflicts committee has a majority of independent members—not of seat holders—and it is there to ensure that any decisions taken are done properly. While it may be the case that conflicts exist, that in itself is not a problem, so long as there are proper mechanisms in place to ensure that the current situation is not abused. Certainly no evidence has ever been suggested, as far as I am aware, of seat holders seeking to take decisions for their own benefit, rather than for the good of the hall. If they did do that, the Charity Commission would come down on them rapidly, so there is an existing control around that issue. My hon. Friend is right that concerns have been voiced about how the hall operates. When the Bill went through the House of Lords recently, an amendment was passed relating to the resale of tickets, which is the other issue that some Members have raised. It was suggested that seat holders, if they wished to sell their seats, should be required to do so through the hall’s own ticket resale mechanism. Many do choose to do that, but the problem with that is twofold. The first is how the resale mechanism works. It pools the takings and redistributes them among all seat holders. If not all seats are sold, that could end up costing seat holders money. The second problem, which is more fundamental, is that these are property rights. It is the legal right of the seat holder to decide whether to use the seat himself or herself, to pass it to somebody else, or to sell it. It is a fundamental property right. To meet the concerns that were expressed, and the amendment that was made in the House of Lords, the hall offered an alternative undertaking, which is that each year those trustees who are seat holders and had sold tickets during the course of the year would have the amount of money that they obtained as a result made public. Through that, there would be greater transparency, with anyone able to see that those seat holders who become trustees are not exploiting their position in that way. That undertaking was accepted by the panel of the Committee on unopposed Bills, and hence that undertaking is now being given by the hall in place of the amendment. This Bill is about one question alone: the ability of the hall to go on with the present practice, whereby seat holders go above and beyond the number of events or days where they agree to give up their rights and put more into the pot to the benefit of the hall and the public. If the Bill does not pass, there is a real risk that the entire model on which the hall operates will be undermined.
We are talking about very few events where tickets are sold at a much greater price than their face value. There will be some. The problem with what the hon. Gentleman suggests is that, at the end of the day, we are talking about somebody’s right as a legal owner of a property to decide what to do with it. The seat holders have been extremely generous in the level to which they agree to support the hall. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and I agree with each other on many other occasions—we sit next to each other on the Foreign Affairs Committee—but on this we are on opposing sides. She has suggested, for instance, that the hall has benefited unfairly from the Government and the taxpayer because it received a loan of around £20 million during the covid pandemic. I was a Minister in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport during covid. The cultural recovery fund amounted to £1.5 billion. If that had not been put in place, the entire cultural landscape of this country would have collapsed. In the vast majority of cases, the funding was grants. Cultural institutions—theatres, museums, galleries and music venues—were given grants by the Government, ranging from the Royal Opera House through to the Hot Box in Chelmsford, which I occasionally attend to see up-and-coming bands. All of them were beneficiaries, but the difference was that in the case of the Royal Albert Hall, it was not a grant, but a loan, and it is repaying that loan. The great thing about the Royal Albert Hall is that for 150 years it has provided one of our greatest cultural assets, and at almost no cost to the public purse. Apart from that covid loan, there has been no cost to the public purse at all, and it remains the case that, unlike so many others, it does not receive a grant. If this Bill does not pass, a model that has been so successful for 150 years is at risk of being undermined. If the consequence is that the hall has to withdraw from a lot of its charitable activities—reaching out to put on events for young people and for communities—and becomes solely focused on having to raise money, the communities will lose out. There must be a real risk that ultimately, if that model is no longer sustainable, it will be the taxpayer who is asked to step in in place of it. Let me say this to Members on both sides of the House. When we come to consider the Bill, it will have undergone scrutiny, and can continue to undergo scrutiny. I am aware of the concerns that the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) is about to express. Let us have a continuing dialogue with the hall about those concerns, but the Bill is only about sustaining the present mechanism, which is clearly of benefit to the hall, to everyone who goes there, and to the country. I hope very much that it will be allowed to be revived and to pass into law.
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
I should add that while the Government gave the hall £20 million as a loan, as it gave loans to so many institutions across the country, the seat holders—the members of the Royal Albert Hall —put in £2 million above and beyond what they had to provide under the arrangements normally, as support. The seat holders have been extraordinarily generous, and it is not the case that they have somehow exploited the Government. They put in their own money to the tune of £2 million to get the hall past covid.
I think the hall’s representatives would be only too happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry); indeed, they have asked to speak to her several times, without success. As has been pointed out, this is a very narrow Bill—it has a very restrictive title—and it is essential if the hall is to continue. We should continue to talk to the hall, but we should not stand in the way of this Bill, which is absolutely vital if the hall is to continue.
rose—
I am extremely grateful for your indulgence and generosity, Dr Huq. I wish to speak because I have enjoyed correspondence with the Minister at the Treasury Bench on exactly this subject on behalf of constituents who have written to me. Not only has he replied to me to address the concerns of my constituents, but so have his ministerial colleagues in the Treasury—such is the volume of my correspondence that it is too much for him alone to handle. It reflects the widespread concern among my constituents about the freezing of thresholds and the effect on pensioners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) has so admirably and ably highlighted. At the heart of this matter is a fundamental principle, which is that we owe a particular and special debt to those who have given a lifetime’s work to this nation. That is why a previous Government introduced what is known as the triple lock. I need not rehearse the argument for it at length today, except to say that in my judgment it is entirely legitimate and justified. Once it has been promised, it cannot be taken away—that is the political reality—but it has pushed more and more pensioners into taxation as thresholds have been frozen. Each year, more pensioners pay tax who should never have paid tax at all. That is not an entirely new phenomenon: I remember my father, who had a small works pension, paying tax in his 80s. He has been dead for more than 20 years, but he said to me then, “I am 85 and still paying tax. Is that really appropriate?” My answer then, like my answer now, was no. It is not appropriate for people on relatively modest incomes to be drawn into tax because of the freezing of thresholds. I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said, but—with your further indulgence, Dr Huq—I want to make two other points. I want to make a case, as I have before in this very Chamber, for the WASPI women. Those women were caught out by a change in the provision of pensions due to an alteration in the age at which women retired. They have suffered an injustice; that is not just my consideration or judgment, but that of the ombudsman, who accused the Government of maladministration. Those women, too, deserve a hearing. Before you call me to order, Dr Huq, and tell me that I am digressing from the subject at hand—
My final point is that the Government have options to take and choices to make. Of course, pensions are funded from the welfare budget. There are those, perhaps including some Members on the Conservative Benches, who say that the triple lock is no longer sustainable. The Minister himself might have flirted with that idea in an earlier life when he was a thinker, not a doer—[Interruption.] No, he ran a think-tank. Now he is a man who does things; then, he was a man who only thought about doing things. I take the view that the welfare budget is burgeoning because a large number of people of working age are claiming benefits, not because they are unable to work because they are profoundly disabled, infirm or otherwise incapacitated—for those people, I stand firm and do so proudly —but because they choose not to work and to let others work and pay tax, including those pensioners drawn into taxation by the freezing of thresholds. Pensioners have every right to ask why they should struggle, as many do; we know of pensioner poverty. I have the figures here: 2.2 million pensioners are in relative low income before housing costs, and 1.3 million are in relative low income after housing costs. We know that pensioners are struggling, and they will say, “Why should we do so when others, who could work, choose not to? Why have the Government failed to recognise that?” Notwithstanding his change of status, I suspect the Minister still thinks seriously about these things from time to time, when he is not busy doing the other duties that are a necessary part of governing, including replying to my correspondence. I am sure he must have considered this issue in the broad-minded way for which I know he is famed. For heaven’s sake, let us raise thresholds. Let us protect pensioners. Let us cut welfare, but cut it wisely and reduce the benefits of those who choose not to help themselves. Welfare is a safety net, is it not? It should always be for those who cannot do without it. With those few thoughts, I leave the matter to the wisdom of the Minister and to the remainder of the Chamber —but I stand firmly and squarely behind the very appropriate advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for the pensioners in her constituency, and I stand with the pensioners in mine.
The hon. Member has undersold me: I am right honourable, as he ought to know, really. Leaving that to one side, he will know that £253 billion is spent on non-pensioner welfare benefits. Many of those are entirely laudable—as I described when I spoke, the chronically sick, the infirm and profoundly disabled people deserve benefits, and I want those to be bigger and better—but many are not. The Government have ducked that responsibility. Whether previous Governments did, too, is not the point: this Government are in power, power brings responsibility and the Minister has the responsibility to tackle welfare.
There is a great deal to welcome in what the Secretary of State has said, but she will know that detail really matters, so can I ask her two points of detail arising from her letter to Ofcom that was published today? First, she talks about launching “a rapid assessment of what highly effective age assurance looks like for determining whether someone is over 16.” Why is that work being commissioned after the announcement has been made, not before it, and given the integral importance of age assurance to her policy, is it not important for the Government to know that it can be delivered effectively? Secondly, on the child safety duties under the Online Safety Act, will the Secretary of State confirm that what is likely to happen is that a children’s access assessment will demonstrate that those platforms with highly effective age assurance in place will not need to go on and carry out a children’s risk assessment for anyone under the age of 16?
I recognise that the Minister has a difficult job to do in answering today, but has he not noticed that even though Labour has three times more MPs, there are nearly twice as many Conservatives present in the Chamber? Is that not because the Minister’s colleagues are voting with their feet and saying that the former Defence Secretary was right, and could not defend the indefensible?
May I echo the words of the Secretary of State, nine years on from the terrible fire at Grenfell? It is incredibly important that we learn the lessons from that tragedy and ensure that people are protected in their home. Labour says that 16 and 17-year-olds are mature enough to vote, but in a written answer to me, it also says that 16 and 17-year-olds are not mature enough to serve on juries, because that is “an adult duty”. It says that 16 and 17-year-olds should vote, but should not play on their phone after the Government-defined bedtime of 8.30 in the evening. These are just two examples from the list of inconsistencies triggered by Labour’s “votes at 16” policy. The only consistent thing about that policy is the blatant party political self-interest, isn’t it? [Laughter.]
Travellers built an unauthorised development in Willows Green in my constituency over a bank holiday weekend. I wrote to the Secretary of State about this, and his reply amounted to little more than a hand-wringing word salad. If he is serious about ending the abuse of retrospective planning in Essex and elsewhere, why will he not take up the proposals that we have put forward and end the “build first and apply later” culture?
The House will be aware that we spend £333 billion a year on the Department for Work and Pensions. We spend less than a fifth of that on defence, at £62 billion. In his speech this morning, the Prime Minister talked about government being “a choice”. Is this the right choice?
I think we all very much welcomed the amazing work done by Lord Robertson, along with his team, including General Barrons and Fi Hill. How many of their 62 recommendations are the Government still committed to?
When the nation is at risk and the Leader of the Opposition asks a question, it is frankly cowardly for the Secretary of State not to turn up. His duty is to be here in our House of Commons.
I am sure the King would have understood, but we will leave it at that. The Minister constantly blames the previous Conservative Government, but the fact is that times have changed. Let us look at history. We were in the same situation in the 1930s—in 1935, we were only spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, but when we increased it to 9%, the whole nation came together. The Leader of the Opposition has offered the Minister a deal: we will combine with the Government to slash the huge welfare budget. We will help them to deliver what the previous Secretary of State wanted. Why did the previous Secretary of State resign?
The Minister told us that the former Secretary of State had asked him to stay. Had he not been so asked, would he have resigned too? How much persuasion did it take? [Laughter.]
Does the Minister realise how utterly discredited the Government now look? We all understand that a majority of Members of this House want the Government to take the necessary steps to find the extra money that is necessary for defence, but it is the failure of the Prime Minister to manage his own party that is at the root of the problem. Will changing the leader make any difference?
The Government were elected on a platform that included a dentistry rescue plan. They correctly assessed a crisis in NHS dentistry and promised to fix it. Nowhere is that crisis more felt than in the rural areas across the country. Nearly two years on from the general election, I consulted residents across my constituency in a survey about the health care issues that mattered to them. Almost everyone who replied mentioned the state of NHS dentistry and the lack of provision across Somerset. If the Government want to show genuine support for rural communities, as they claim, they can no longer ignore those voices calling for action—but ignore them, the Minister does. When I asked the Minister on the Floor of this House what steps he was taking to increase the number of dentists accessible to rural communities, he directed me to, “Watch my post box” to be furnished with the numbers of how many more appointments have been provided in my constituency. I did wait, and then I waited some more, and no response came. Eventually, having chased the special adviser outside the Chamber and threatened a point of order for the Minister’s reply, I did get a response. It then became clear why his Department had been so reticent: the numbers revealed that 4% fewer NHS dental treatments had been delivered in the first seven months of this financial year compared with the same period before the general election. The Government are too busy patting themselves on the back to notice the dire reality of NHS dental provision across Somerset and other rural counties. For meaningful change to be felt by my constituents and patients across the country, reform of the system needs to start being treated as a priority. Access to quality NHS dental care should be available to all, not just those in urban Labour constituencies. Families in Somerset should not need to travel miles for basic care, paying fees they cannot afford or, worse still, going without treatment altogether. Polling for Ipsos last year revealed that when people cannot secure dental treatment, a quarter will resort to at-home DIY solutions. That is simply not acceptable in a modern health service. Before those on the Government Benches leap to their feet with interventions beginning with “Fourteen years”, which we hear every sitting day, I have to acknowledge that this problem did not start in July 2024. Previous Governments, including previous Conservative Governments, did not do enough to fix the problem. The last Government did take steps, including an uprating of NHS dental unit pricing, but far more needs to be done to address the deeper structural issues in the system. Contract reform, fundamentally, is what we need to see. I am encouraged that Ministers seem to agree, but on this issue, this Government’s intervention follows a familiar pattern. Instead of taking action, they are launching a consultation. This Government and this Minister have been in office for two years, and I would have thought that by now they would have worked out what they wanted to do to improve the system. If the Minister is going to consult, I very much hope that it is on the basis of a well-thought-through plan and that it is not being used as another delaying tactic. I hope, in particular, that he will consider how we can strengthen the dental workforce in rural areas. Something I have raised previously with the Minister is how we can train more dentists locally. Clinicians who train in a community are more likely to stay and practise there. In Bridgwater, discussions took place with Bridgwater and Taunton college on the potential for partnerships, such as with the University of Bristol dental hospital, to deliver local training pathways. If student dentists could do some of their practice within rural communities, it might encourage them to work there afterwards. The Minister asked me to write to him about that, and I did, but I got a whole load of platitudes back and, regrettably, no action was taken.
I thank the hon. Lady for her point. I think golden hellos are a useful tool, but they are not sufficient. Reform of the contract is fundamentally what we need, and one would hope that after two years in his place, the Minister would have developed an idea of what to take forward. I believe that these local partnerships are exactly the sort of solution that could make a real difference to areas such as Bridgwater. More broadly, the Government must ensure that NHS dentistry is a viable and attractive career. This means continuing to look at how procedures are valued, at whether payments properly reflect the work involved and at how we can encourage dentists not just to enter the NHS but to remain in it. This House has already identified the problem and we have talked about reform, but now we need to deliver results to those in need. My residents across the Bridgwater constituency do not want another consultation that drags on for months without anything changing. They want an appointment with a dentist, and I urge the Minister to do all he can to deliver upon that as quickly as possible.
The Minister will recall that when he wrote to me on 23 April, he confirmed that under Labour 4% fewer dental treatments were performed in Somerset than in the same period before the general election. If everything is so wonderful, why is dentistry in Somerset worse now under his watch than it was under the last Government?
Last week, I was away at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I thought I had understood why the former Secretary of State for Defence had resigned, but here today according to the Minister it is really unknown. Where the Minister is right is in talking about making sure that naval procurement does not go through the problems it had in the past—that was one of the consequences of being in power with the Liberal Democrats. On procuring ships, there are shipyards that are worried about whether they can maintain their workforces—without the DIP, they cannot know—and I am concerned to read that the Type 83 destroyer may be postponed. Will all the plans for capital ships currently in place remain—yes or no, or is that up for debate as well?
May I offer my congratulations to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? He is a good fit for the role, and I hope that he will listen to those across the House and try to work constructively. In that spirit, this incredible operation was reliant on the Royal Navy and Royal Marines. Earlier today, I asked the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry about whether the plans in place for the Type 26s, Type 31s and Type 83s would remain as outlined. I am really looking for a yes or no answer, given that there are shipyards wondering whether they can keep their current workforce because they are relying on the DIP but it is not there. I ask the Secretary of State directly: are the plans in place for ships for the Royal Navy going to remain?
I am sure that the right hon. Lady paid as close attention to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon as I did, but she has just repeated that during covid the Government, to quote her phrase, bailed out the Royal Albert Hall. My right hon. Friend has explained to the House that the Government made a loan that is being repaid by the Royal Albert Hall. I do not recall anyone in the House saying that providing the cultural support that the Government gave cultural institutions during covid was the wrong thing to do. In fact, we were all probably clamouring for more to ensure that our theatres and other institutions were kept afloat in a post-covid scenario. If the right hon. Lady has got that basic fact wrong, why should we believe anything else that she is about to say?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, my near neighbour, for bringing forward this motion. He will agree that this is an issue that seems to fall hardest—disproportionately so—on rural areas. Does he also agree that Governments of both hues have tried a number of gimmicks and initiatives, but the core of the issue is to try to make NHS dentistry more attractive, and the best way to do that—please forgive the pun—is a root-and-branch reform of the contract to ensure that it pays? It is not rocket science; it is quite easy to do.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee with his extremely well thought-through and detailed opening remarks. I pay tribute to the many individuals who have campaigned, and to the advocacy groups that work tirelessly, to improve outcomes for brain cancer patients. As the petitioners request, investment in research is key. I join them—some are my constituents—in calling on the Government to increase research funding and to go further in legally enshrining the right to try genome sequencing, trials, immunotherapy, and repurposed drugs and vaccines. I will use my time to highlight some of the progress that has been made in treatment options, because there is some hope. Trials in the USA have shown very promising results for sonodynamic therapy as a treatment for children with the brain cancer known as diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. DIPG is an inoperable brain tumour primarily affecting children, and it is deemed terminal on diagnosis. The only form of treatment offered is radiotherapy, which may prolong life for a few months at best. On average, the survival rate is less than 10 months. Sonodynamic therapy uses focused ultrasound to produce a light that interacts with an administered prodrug. It is being worked on now in the USA and progress is being made. I am delighted to say that St Mary’s hospital in London is following suit with some promising results. I am therefore keen to understand from the Minister what the Government’s plans are for rolling out this type of therapy across the UK, and in particular for rolling it out to trials of vulnerable children who are willing to get involved. I conclude by paying tribute once again to those of my constituents who signed the petition and want to see the Government do their bit.
I know the Secretary of State will agree that access to cash and banking services is an important part of vibrant high streets, particularly in market towns in North Yorkshire such as Stokesley. Will he join me in thanking Link for agreeing to representations by me and the local community to install a banking hub after the closure of the last bank branch in Stokesley? It will make an enormous difference to the local community. I know this is something that the Secretary of State is also passionate about, and we are all delighted to have that banking hub coming to Stokesley.
Members of 42 Commando Royal Marines, led by Commanding Officer Tom Quinn, were a key part of the seizure of the Russian shadow fleet vessel yesterday morning. It is clear that our Royal Marines will always deliver for this country. They are world class, and I have had the privilege of seeing them in action at their home in Bickleigh barracks in my constituency. However, their ability to succeed can be sustained only if we invest in our defence and prepare for the wars of tomorrow. The former Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns)—a former Royal Marine himself—said in his resignation letter: “We are still purchasing capability suitable for the last war while our adversaries arm for the next one.” Does the Minister agree?
I really welcome this restriction on social media for children. As a mother, I am grateful for it, and I am grateful to everyone across the House who has pushed for it. As others have alluded to, there will clearly be practical issues and difficulties with implementation, and we all need to work together to address that, but one thing I would like to understand from the Secretary of State is what consideration has been given to enforcement through the device, as opposed to age verification by social media providers.
It is good to see the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) moving to the right. I pay tribute to members of the armed forces community, who played a big part in this operation; they truly are the best of us. Could the Secretary of State advise us on any actions that are being taken regarding the Russian frigate Admiral Grigorovich, which has been patrolling in English waters for two months without intervention from the Royal Navy?
I defer to my right hon. Friend’s superior knowledge in this area. I recognise the value of the asset. Can he reassure me on the concerns about conflicts of interests? Those people holding the seats are also trustees, so they are taking decisions for financial gain. Is he reassured that the process he is suggesting we follow will counter that issue?
If we do divide today, I shall be supporting this Bill, primarily for the reason that mentioned in its introduction: today we are debating whether to reintroduce the Bill. If we choose to do so, there will be plenty of opportunity to debate it at a later stage, and it appears that several Members want to do just that. Given that the debate has swayed into the substance of the Bill, I should say that I am one of the former Ministers who oversaw the implementation and execution of the culture recovery fund, alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), when we were in government—something that I am very proud of.
Absolutely. The Royal Albert Hall is a vital part of our tourism ecosystem, our cultural history and our cultural offering. Therefore, my final comment is an offer to the Minister. I am one of the biggest supporters of the arts, culture and heritage, and am very proud to be so, but I sometimes wonder when we have such debates whether it is truly appropriate in this day and age for us to discuss in this Chamber, when there are other demands on our time, the minutiae of the internal dynamics, operations and rule changes in certain institutions. When they were set up and established in other centuries, Parliament was the right vehicle to have such discussions, but I wonder whether it is the right vehicle now. If the Minister—or indeed the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) or others—wishes to discuss, once this has been resolved, whether there is a broader debate to be had about some of the ecclesiastical, heritage and academic institutions where Parliament still needs to arbitrate on what, at the end of the day, are internal operational decisions, I would be happy to discuss with the Minister whether that is an appropriate debate to have in this place.