Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Just as a matter of record, we had a general election in Britain in July 1945, when we were still involved in fighting the second world war in the far east. If we can have a general election in wartime, I see no reason why we could not have local elections this May in peacetime.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I commend the Chair of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), for the skilful way in which he introduced this important topic. The Government’s original reason for postponing the elections was that councils were too busy with local government reform. In Essex, we had the bizarre situation where some of those involved in LGR thought they were not too busy to have elections, and some—mainly Labour-led councils—thought they were. I served on Basildon council in the early 1990s, when we went around this buoy before, under John Major’s premiership. The idea then was not to have mayors, but to have one unitary system across the county. I was involved in the negotiations between Basildon and other authorities. In the end, to cut a long story short, the whole thing broke down because no one could agree on who to team up with. There were too many old rivalries and too many differences between towns, and the whole thing collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. When I heard we were going around that buoy again, I confess, perhaps based on my previous experience, that I was deeply sceptical. I remember saying to my local Rayleigh and Wickford Conservative association at one of our quarterly executive meetings more than three years ago, “Don’t take it as axiomatic that this will all happen. It fell apart last time; it could yet fall apart again.” Where are we now? We were supposed to have mayoral elections this May; the Government have postponed them to May 2028. We are supposed to have a mayoral combined authority, so now we face the bizarre position where we would have an unelected combined authority—it is an unelected committee of a handful of senior councillors drawn from several constituent councils—but with no mayor. The fate of the combined authority now appears to be effectively in abeyance. Labour’s whole argument for doing all of this is to move from a two-tier system to a single-tier system. That is not true. The two-tier system we have at the moment is Essex county council as the upper tier, with a series of district, borough and city councils below. The third tier of parish and town councils are basically unaffected either way. We are now moving to another two-tier system, where we will have a mayoral and a combined authority as the upper tier and a bunch of unitary authorities—whether three or four or five—as the lower tier. We will have gone through all this cost, misery and uncertainty to go from one two-tier system to another. The whole argument is nonsense from the get-go. Moreover, I have been door-knocking in my constituency for 25 years, and I have never—not once, ever—had an elector say to me on the doorstep, “I want a mayor of Essex.” Members can take it from me: if Essex people want something, they are not shy to let their politicians know. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is grinning; he has obviously experienced that himself. They do not want a mayor of Essex. If they do, they have not said so. It has no demos. There is no public demand for it. People are not clamouring for a mayor. We have never had one in 1,000 years, but suddenly the Government think we need some Sadiq Khan for Essex. That is about as popular as a bowl of—well, it is not very popular. Where do we now sit? Southend unitary authority—forgive me, it is Southend city council, for which my great friend Sir David Amess campaigned for many years; if he were here, he would chide me now. Southend city council conducted its own consultation about a year ago, and two thirds of the people who replied did not want any change at all. The Government instituted a wider consultation county-wide—for the avoidance of doubt, that is Greater Essex, including Southend and Thurrock—which closed on 15 January. When the Minister replies, perhaps she could tell us, some six weeks on, what the result of that consultation was. If she does not have that information to hand, perhaps she could tell us when she intends to publish the results of the consultation. I am sure that that will be before the local elections—before we get to purdah in the third week of March—so that the good people of Essex know what their fellow county people have said before we go to the polls. I am going to take a punt: it is going to reveal that there was little enthusiasm for any local government reorganisation whatever in Essex. If the Minister wants to prove me wrong, she can publish the results of the consultation. Labour sought to postpone these elections and now, thanks to campaigning by—I admit—Reform, and by the Conservatives and others, but overwhelmingly due to public pressure, which perhaps both parties have managed to articulate in our different ways, the Government have given in. Now those elections are back on, and people in Southend, Basildon and Thurrock can go to the polls and peacefully and democratically express their opinion on the Labour mob who run those three councils should be allowed to carry on.
I give way to the right hon. Gentleman from Northern Ireland, because no debate in Parliament would be complete without him.
I have two responses to the hon. Gentleman, whom I have a great deal of time for, as he knows. First, the Chairman of the Petitions Committee laid out clearly the responsibilities of local government, so I shall not try your patience, Mr Mundell, or that of the rest of the Chamber by repeating them, but it is everything from planning to housing, adult social care and education. These things affect people’s everyday lives, and they are really important. People should have a democratic right to decide which councillors run those services, which they pay for as customers via their council tax. So of course there should be elections. Secondly, and on a personal note, and I hope that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and other colleagues here will understand this: nobody delayed the general election. I went into battle 20 points behind in the polls. No one gave me a bye; I had to fight to be here. I had to convince my employers, in my constituency, to renew my contract of employment to represent them, and so did everyone else in this House this evening, so why should it be different for local councillors? Why do they not have to get their contract of employment, in effect, renewed by their employers at the ballot box? I thank the Minister for the fact that the local elections will now go ahead. She may recall that we had some sparky exchanges in the Commons Chamber about this, but we have ended up with the right decision, albeit after far too long. So if the people of Essex wish to support the Government’s bonkers housing targets—mandatory and top-down, imposed by some Whitehall civil servant who could not find Essex with a TomTom, and supported by a mad computer algorithm—they can go and vote for that. If, conversely, they want to vote for Conservative councillors, who care about the area they live in and want to defend the green belt and carry on providing good services to people at a cost that they can afford, they have the chance to vote Conservative—although, for the record, other products are available. People can actually have elections in Essex and pass a verdict, and I very much hope that in my corner of the world—for Essex county council, for Rochford district council and for Basildon borough council—they will vote Conservative. But however they vote, whomever they choose, whomever they give the very important mandate to run those really important services to, the fundamental point is that they will be allowed to exercise their right to choose. It was this Government who very nearly took that away and we should never let them forget it. Other than that, I have no firm view on the matter.
My constituency is pronounced “Rayleigh”, by the way. My advice to the Minister is to cut your losses and drop the whole thing in Essex, because it is a shambles. However, under the Government’s plans we will have a unitary tier, and then a tier above that which is a combined authority drawn from some of those councils and a mayor. It is patently obvious that that is two tiers of local government replacing two different tiers of local government. To pretend that it is one is fantasy.
And Wickford for good measure.
I spend a lot of time visiting schools in my constituency and speaking to the hard-working headteachers about the pressures they are under due to spiralling costs and teacher shortages. With the Government’s proposed reforms placing an additional responsibility on schools to create individual support plans, alongside an ambition for more children’s needs to be met within mainstream schools, how will the Minister ensure that schools do not have to make sacrifices that harm the education of every child?
I, too, thank the more than 120,000 people across the United Kingdom who signed the petition. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) in acknowledging the many organisations that have engaged constructively on this issue, many of which have already been named. They include Unlock Democracy, whose chief executive Tom Brake is a former Member of this House, the Hansard Society, the Electoral Reform Society, and many others that have worked on an independent basis to review our constitutional arrangements. Members’ views on this proposal will differ in line with their views on the effectiveness of this Government, but the number of signatures demands that we treat the petition with the utmost seriousness and respect. The petition understandably calls for a further mechanism that would allow the public to remove a Government who no longer command public confidence. My hon. Friend read an excerpt from the petition, in which the petitioners said that they feel they have seen the opposite of what the Government promised before the election. Many people across the country in all our constituencies will recognise that sentiment. The Government have seemingly lurched from error to error and from crisis to crisis. Decisions that have been made have damaged the economy, undermined business, driven up unemployment, increased debt, and left communities and public services struggling. Above all, they have hit confidence in the Government, because people were promised so much but have seen so little delivered. Whether it is veterans being dragged through the courts or sovereign territory being conceded, the public are not getting what they expected—indeed, they are not getting what the Government said only months ago, in some cases, before the 15 major U-turns. Commitments made before the election have been abandoned: the promise of no tax rises on working people was broken and pensioners were left struggling after cuts to winter fuel payments. My hon. Friend raised many other examples in his opening speech. The crux of the debate comes down to perhaps the biggest promise that the Prime Minister made before the election: his pledge to deliver the highest standards in public life and “a Government of service”. Instead, the Government have delivered scandal after scandal, many of which were of their own making. Only this weekend, the inquiries Minister had to resign after being investigated by his own Department. It is no surprise to see members of the public signing petitions such as this one to try to regain an element of control from a Government who were elected with an enormous majority but are failing to deliver what they promised. While the public’s frustration is clear and understandable, we must look carefully at the proposal itself. Any new mechanism must work in all circumstances. The previous Government introduced a recall mechanism for Members of Parliament who were found guilty of certain criminal offences or who seriously breached the standards of this House. That allowed their constituents to decide whether they wanted those Members to continue. I am not necessarily against looking at whether that principle could be expanded to a national level. We want our political systems to be more responsive to the electorate, but we need to look carefully at how that could be done within a parliamentary rather than a presidential system, because that is the existing system in many countries where the public have the ability to trigger elections or recalls at a national level. It is the electorate who choose us and it is the electorate who remove us, if they wish, at a general election. Under our parliamentary system, a Government hold office because they command the confidence of this House. That is a fundamental principle on which our system and our democracy rely. As the Cabinet manual explicitly states, a Government’s authority flows from their ability “to command the confidence of the elected House of Commons”. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk said in his speech, that confidence can be tested at any time through a vote of confidence or a vote of no confidence. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, that option is available for those Members of Parliament whose constituents feel that we need a general election. I urge all constituents who feel that way to make sure that their representatives in Parliament are aware of the strength of that feeling, because the conventions of parliamentary democracy have served us well. Introducing a direct recall mechanism for removing a Government or triggering a general election before the parliamentary term is due to expire would raise significant practical and constitutional questions, some of which have already been highlighted, such as whether a successful public vote of no confidence would automatically trigger a general election, or simply require a change of Prime Minister to form a new Government within the existing Parliament, and whether such a change in personnel would suffice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk noted, it is unclear what threshold should demonstrate genuine national support that would suggest that a Government have irretrievably lost the confidence of the British people, and are not merely going through what might be temporary unpopularity at a time when they need to make difficult but, perhaps, necessary choices. Would it be at the level that has been set for recall petitions for individual MPs, which has tended to be very low? In almost all such cases, once a petition has been triggered, the threshold has been met. That would lead to some instability. Alternatively, would we be looking at a higher threshold? Would we require 50% of registered voters, or more voters than a Government secured at the previous general election? As has already been mentioned, if the threshold were too low, we risk well-funded groups being able to repeatedly attempt to destabilise any Government of any political party. We would have to seriously consider the risk of that including outside actors with their own motives before making any constitutional changes of this significance. On a national level, how could we be confident that a signature is verified? Where we have postal votes in a parliamentary or local council election, there is something to compare them against, but unless we are requiring signatures alongside voter registrations, which would go against the direction that I know the Government are setting out in this evening’s legislation, there would be unlikely to be any definitive database against which any signature on a petition could be compared. Furthermore, how could we prevent petitions from being launched back to back, creating permanent instability? These are just some of the questions that might be asked. They are not minor details, and it is fundamental that we consider them before we look at major constitutional change. We have seen the consequences of poorly considered constitutional reform in the past, such as in the case of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. It was, genuinely, introduced with the noblest of motives, but we then saw its impact at a time when there was no consensus or majority in Parliament to dissolve Parliament and allow for a fresh election. It seems it was not properly considered. Although we should be cautious about rewriting the constitution, we cannot ignore the clear message sent by petitions such as this one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk said, it is only weeks ago that more than 3 million people signed a petition calling for a general election. That was just one of a number of petitions expressing similar sentiments. Such a level of public anger should concern every hon. Member. Whether or not they happen to agree, in this case, that this Government are not delivering, it should be a concern across the political spectrum that people feel unheard and ignored. I urge those who signed this petition, and others seeking an early election, to make sure that their representatives are aware of their view and to encourage those representatives, if appropriate, to pursue that constitutional route because Governments that lose the confidence of the House have, historically, either resigned or sought a general election. I do not think that Governments can continue for too long when a majority of their Members have constituents who have lost confidence in the Government. After the promises made at the last election it is no wonder that so many of our electors feel let down. That is why this petition matters; it sends a clear signal from the public to Parliament. The message is simple: people want accountability, honesty and the ability to take back control, even where the Government have a very large majority, as this Government do. Above all, the public want competence and a Government who deliver. This Government are fast running out of road and the sooner that the country is given the chance to choose a new direction, the better. Ahead of the next general election we will certainly look at what mechanisms might be appropriate and effective to allow voters to retain control in between general elections. We would be reluctant to rush into committing to specific mechanisms until we have had a chance to properly consider what the consequences, intended and unintended, of such mechanisms would be.
To be clear, can the Minister confirm that the Government will not be spending 2.5% on defence this year?
The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), is no longer in his place, but can I put on the record my support for the words of caution that he expressed earlier? Can I turn the Prime Minister’s attention to oil supplies? It is not just about the risks to shipping; I understand from contacts in the industry that some refineries in the region are shutting down. Clearly, that could have a serious impact on business in this country. Could the Prime Minister assure us that contingency arrangements are in hand to maximise oil supplies?
When British children are being bombed in Dubai, and the British military are being attacked in Cyprus, Qatar and Bahrain, why does it seem like the Prime Minister—I hope he will forgive me—is frozen with indecision, entangled in his own legalise, and fretting about his Back Benchers? He is looking to the left in his party as much as to the middle east. He will know that I have supported him time and again on what he has said about foreign policy decisions at the Dispatch Box, but I have to say to him that this is not his finest hour. He is looking very weak, and that is not in our national interest.
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I agreed with parts of it. I agreed with him when he said that the regime was an abhorrent one, that British civilians, British service personnel and British sovereign bases had been attacked, and that, “You cannot shoot all the drones out of the air; you have to attack them at source.” However, his statement then implied, very cleverly, two things: that we did not have, in international law, every justification for offensive action against Iran; and that only the Americans had the capability to carry out these offensive operations. Bearing in mind that the world is listening, would the Prime Minister like to state very clearly that he understands that he would be justified, on the basis that we had been attacked, in launching offensive operations against our attackers, and that we have the capability to do so?
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that if the Government are going to push forward with auto-enrolment on to the electoral roll, it should at least apply to everybody at the same time, for the same general election? If not, they could be perceived by the British people as gerrymandering to get a specific result at the general election.
Last week, I asked the Secretary of State a specific question about SEND funding during her statement, which she failed to answer, so I will try again with the Minister today. The £4 billion for SEND announced last week, to be paid over three years, which the Secretary of State described as “new money”, is actually from within the Department’s existing spending review settlement, isn’t it?
Under what circumstances does the Secretary of State think it is appropriate for a five-year-old to socially transition?
The answer should have been “never”. That is what our guidance said, and that is what the Government’s guidance should have said. In our universities, gender-critical feminists have been kicked off campus, while today the ayatollah is being celebrated as a martyr at University College London. This is completely unacceptable, so what is the Secretary of State doing to crack down on this two-tier system, or is she going to sit on her hands while an enemy of Britain is celebrated?
I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 734311 relating to the public being given a right to a vote of no confidence. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I thank the more than 120,000 people across the United Kingdom who have signed this petition and secured today’s debate. I also thank the organisations I met during this process, including Unlock Democracy and its chief executive Tom Brake, who is a former Member of this House, as well as the Hansard Society and the Electoral Reform Society, which are universally recognised as independent, non-partisan authorities in this area. Whatever views Members have on this proposal, the fact that so many people have taken the time to sign the petition demands that it is treated with seriousness and respect. The petition calls for the introduction of a mechanism that would allow the public to remove a Government who no longer command public support. The petitioners state: “We voted for a party based on promises made before the general election, yet we feel none have been delivered—in fact, the opposite has happened.” I could not have put it better myself. Since the election, we have seen nothing but chaos from the Prime Minister. The Government are making bad decisions: they are damaging our economy, crushing businesses, driving unemployment up, piling on debt, giving away sovereign territory and allowing our veterans to be dragged through the courts. That is because the Prime Minister came into office with no plan for our country. This Labour Government have now made at least 15 major U-turns, including hiking taxes on working people despite promising not to do so before the election; the cruel cuts to winter fuel payments that left pensioners freezing in their homes last winter; the family farm tax; the refusal for many months to hold a grooming gangs inquiry; scrapping welfare reforms; digital ID; the betrayal of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—the list goes on and on.
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that goes to the nub of the motivation behind the petition, which lies not so much in a desire for constitutional change but in a feeling of being let down by this Government—a Government who promised change but has delivered none. All the promises they made have been abandoned, and they have tried to introduce other measures that were nowhere near their manifesto at the time of the election. The Prime Minister promised the highest possible standards—in his own words, “a Government of service” —yet all we have seen is scandal and chaos. Peter Mandelson was appointed US ambassador despite his links to a notorious paedophile. A communications chief was appointed to the House of Lords despite his links to another paedophile. A Deputy Prime Minister was caught evading tax. A Homelessness Minister resigned after making her tenants homeless. Just last weekend, a Cabinet Office Minister was forced to quit after it was discovered that he had hired a firm to gather information to discredit journalists. We have seen many other scandals—too many to mention today. People signed this petition because they are fed up with the chaos, with the U-turns and with this Prime Minister. Let me turn to the petitioners’ proposal. Members of Parliament, of whatever party, serve at the pleasure of the British people; it is their right to elect us, and to remove us at an election. There are many questions about how the petitioners’ proposal would work in practice. Would the public go back to the polls in a new general election, or could a new Government with a new Prime Minister be formed within the current House of Commons? There is also the significant question of a defined national threshold. It would be easy for a well organised, well funded campaign group to remove a Government of any political party, should the threshold be set too low. Would the threshold be 10% of the British public—the same as it is today for recall petitions for Members of Parliament? Should it be 50%, or perhaps a higher percentage than the incumbent Government secured at the previous general election? Whatever the number, it would have to be high enough to demonstrate a genuine national consensus. Over what period would the signatures need to be gathered? How would they be verified to ensure democratic legitimacy and prevent foreign state actors from interfering politically? There is also the question of frequency: if a petition succeeded once, could another be launched shortly thereafter? Important questions would need to be answered for such a profound constitutional change; however, none of those practical concerns should blind us to the message being sent by the people who signed the petition. Less than two months ago, I led another debate in this Chamber on behalf of the Petitions Committee, after more than 3 million people signed a petition calling for a general election. People are deeply angry about the performance of this Government. They feel unheard. They are sick and tired of the constant mistakes being made by the Prime Minister and his Ministers almost every day. Rather than focusing on making our country better, Labour MPs’ energies are seemingly being consumed by leadership speculation and political survival. The easiest way to remove this Government almost immediately would be through a vote of no confidence in the House of Commons by MPs. Having the confidence of the House of Commons is essential to any Government’s authority. When Governments have lost a confidence vote in the past, the Prime Minister has either resigned in favour of an alternative Government, or requested a Dissolution from the monarch to trigger a general election. We do not necessarily need new legislation. Labour MPs know the message their constituents are sending them. They know how deeply unpopular the Prime Minister is. They know they no longer want him to be in charge. As the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), has said on several occasions, Labour MPs have an opportunity to join with the Conservatives and remove this failing Prime Minister from office by uniting on a vote of no confidence. That would be in the best interests of this country. After all Labour’s pre-election promises, it is no wonder people are feeling fed up. They feel utterly betrayed. That is why it is important that Members across the Chamber listen to the message the petitioners are sending. The Prime Minister and this Government have run out of road. The sooner we see the back of them, the better for our country.
For the record, it is also important to note that in each of those elections—with the exception of the last—the Conservative vote actually rose.
I had not anticipated having an hour to fill—I joke; I am not going to fill the hour. I thank the petitioner for creating the petition, all the people who signed it, and the Members who have participated in the debate. It has been an example of quality over quantity. I particularly enjoyed the Minister’s speech, although I feel that she is living in a parallel universe in terms of the chaos, division and uncertainty that this Government are apparently moving on from. For most of us in the real world, I think our perception is somewhat different. The Minister made much of the 14 years of Conservative rule, although it is useful to remember—she mentioned the many elections that took place in that period—that in four of the five general elections that took place in the 14 years of Conservative rule, the Conservative vote went up. More people were voting Conservative and more people had Conservative MPs as a consequence, so it was not all bad. The petition is less about the proposed constitutional change and more about the feeling, which many people have, of being let down and betrayed by this Government: the sense of promises being broken and not delivered, and a real sense of a lack of direction. We all heard the Minister’s account of all the things that have apparently been achieved during Labour’s time in office, but in many ways that is part of the problem—the Government’s feeling that people should be grateful and should feel better. The reality out there in the real world is that people do not feel any better; they feel that things are getting worse. Unemployment is up, debt is going up and people are waiting longer for NHS appointments. People feel very let down, and this debate has been an opportunity to reflect on that. I hope that the petitioner and everybody who has been watching the debate have had an opportunity to listen to both sides of it. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 734311 relating to the public being given a right to a vote of no confidence.
This is unquestionably a really important issue, and the petition is indicative of the public’s unhappiness with this Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that the great difficulties people have with this Government include the number of manifesto pledges that have been broken, the introduction of policies that were not in their manifesto, and their constant U-turning, which would spin heads?
I am very much looking forward to the ending of this chaos; it seems that we are completely mired in it. As a former member of the fourth estate—I was a journalist for a long time—I am always concerned when politicians blame the media. I do not think the media are creating the chaos; they are simply reporting on it.
The hon. Member talks about the legitimacy of the voting system and the votes nationally not being proportionately represented here. Is the example that he is using the current Government, which got 34% of the vote but has 63% of the seats in this House?
I seek clarity from the Prime Minister: given his initial refusal of permission for the use of bases by the US, is it the view of His Majesty’s Government that the initial strikes by Israel and the United States were illegal?
The Secretary of State has bent over backwards to avoid backing a ban on mobile phones in schools. Her Back Benchers are making their views clear, so can she confirm whether she will be whipping them next week to vote against our amendment to ban phones in schools? We look forward to the Government’s 17th U-turn in as many months—the 18th if the one on Iran counts—but if a U-turn is not coming, why does she continue to stand in the way of parents, heads and her own Back Benchers, who simply want classrooms free from disruption?
On “Newsnight” on 23 February, the Minister for School Standards acknowledged that the student loan system is not perfect, but justified no change by saying the Government face huge pressure and must make tough choices. Given spending choices made since this Government came to power, is not the truth that the political choices that the Minister’s colleagues are talking about include balancing their “Benefits Street” Budget on the back of aspirational graduates?
When I visit primary and first schools, teachers tell me that when given a book, more and more children starting school are swiping it, rather than knowing how to turn the page. If the Secretary of State is serious about raising phonics standards at key stage 1, will she act now to empower parents and get screens out of classrooms, and back a ban on social media for under-16s to create the right habits early? Or will she continue to drag her feet, given that it has already taken six weeks to even launch a consultation that we all know the answer to?
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments about our service personnel in Bahrain and Akrotiri, which I had the pleasure of visiting in the summer. It is difficult to know where to start with the confusion and cognitive dissonance shown in the Prime Minister’s statement. He is against attacking Iran because it has nuclear weapons, but he is willing to attack it because it has conventional weapons. On those conventional weapons, British sovereign territory in Akrotiri has been attacked, yet the Prime Minister is unwilling to use British RAF personnel to strike Iran. What would Iran, or any other state actor, have to do to this country for him to act?
Why, if the Secretary of State is allowing 16-year-olds to vote, is he not allowing them to stand for Parliament? If somebody can vote for the lawmaker, they can be a lawmaker. That is the logical incoherence in his argument.
The Iranian regime ignored the joint comprehensive plan of action, which completely failed. The Iranian regime’s terror activities have reached these shores, and while we meet here this afternoon, the Iranian regime’s rockets rain down on our allies across the middle east. That includes Hezbollah’s rockets into Israel. Will the Prime Minister clearly set out the evidence underpinning his view that the Iranian regime is in any way, shape or form interested in coming to the negotiating table?
Sammi from Keyingham in my constituency, who was one of the first in her family to go to university, graduated in 2016 after borrowing £40,000. She has now been working in the medical field for over four years, but that £40,000 has grown to £46,000. I was glad to hear the Minister’s previous answer, but Sammi and others want to hear that there will be concrete action to stop the outrageous interest, which is higher than one would expect for a personal loan or a mortgage. Will the Minister do something about it?
The Prime Minister has made it clear that he thinks there was insufficient imminent threat to justify our going with our allies in the initial strike. But this is now after the act of war—after the attack on UK citizens across the middle east, many countries of which were not participating, and on British sovereign territory. That means we can join in and we could be involved in offensive actions if the Prime Minister so chose. Why is he choosing not to, and why is he pretending it is for a legal reason when that legal reason has disappeared?
This is an important Bill, and I support some of the aims and aspirations that the Secretary of State set out at the beginning. I also share many of the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly). All Members take representing children seriously. In the five times that I have been lucky enough to be elected, my first pledge has been that I will serve everybody in the Mid Norfolk constituency, including and particularly those who do not have a voice and need to be spoken for, and I always reference children. With the gentlest and greatest respect, I say to colleagues who are in danger of suggesting that if we do not pass this Bill, we are signalling that we do not care about young people that that is not the case. I was elected to this House quite a long time ago, and I know that there is the danger that well-intended legislation can have unintended consequences that we later regret. Given that time is short, I will focus my comments on my own experience of having been, I think, the first parliamentary victim of an AI deepfake video attack. I will point out some of the obvious gaps in the law that that has made clear to me, and the danger of political disinformation and serious disruption to our politics. Having consulted widely in the past four or five months, I want to make a particular point about the importance of protecting all people—not just politicians—against having their identity stolen. That is a fundamental issue in a digital age. For colleagues who were doing other things on that day in November, let me say that when I found myself the victim of an AI deepfake attack, my phone went hot and I suddenly found myself being called all manner of names that I could not possibly repeat to this House. It was quite clear that I was suddenly at the heart of a media storm, and I had no idea what had caused it. I then saw the video. It was indeed a video of me in my Westminster office, wearing my customary tank top, waving my hands around and speaking—not dubbed—about my decision that, because the political party that I am proud to represent and serve had let this country down, I was joining Reform. Leave aside for a minute the ridiculousness of that proposal and the insulting suggestion that somebody who prides himself on taking his politics seriously and thinking about the philosophical basis of it would join a rabble based only on pub populism, the more serious issue is that my constituents were deeply confused and democracy in my constituency was disrupted. When I contacted Meta, the platform on which that scurrilous, mischievous and disinforming information had been published, it said to me, “Well, it doesn’t breach any of our guidelines.” I understand the importance of protecting our vulnerable young children from grooming and protecting people from economic fraud, but I put it to the House that seriously misrepresenting an elected Member for the purposes of political misinformation and disruption is an important issue and should not be allowed. It should be a breach of Meta’s guidelines. When I spoke to the police, they admirably did take it seriously. In fact, they encouraged me, with the Crown Prosecution Service, to bring a test case, but I would have had to have made the case compellingly that I was suffering psychological damage. Now, I may well be suffering psychological damage, but I am not going to tell the people of Mid Norfolk that I cannot take a joke. It is really important that we in this House defend humour and satire—they play a really important role in our democracy—but this is different. I support the amendments that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), a fellow member of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, is tabling to stop political disinformation, but is it not time that we passed a law to protect all citizens against having their identity stolen? Everybody in this country should go to bed at night not worrying that they may wake up in the morning and find that somebody has stolen their identity, whatever the purpose.
My hon. Friend is making an interesting argument that voting should be defined not by age, but by a contract of citizenship. Could he share what he thinks those criteria might be—living in the country, paying tax or working here?
9. What steps she has taken to help improve nursery provision in Greater London.
I thank the Minister for her response. Late last year, with relatively little notice, the trustees of a pre-school in my constituency, Crofton Early Learners, decided to close the pre-school, meaning that 40 sets of parents had a very anxious Christmas wondering and worrying about what childcare they would have in the new year. The very good news is that—thanks to the dedicated work of former staff, volunteers and parents—a new setting called Phoenix Early Learners was opened within just six weeks. Will the Minister join me in thanking both Ofsted and the Charity Commission for fast-tracking the paperwork necessary, and in paying tribute to the staff, carers, volunteers and new trustees of the new early learning centre for all the great work they have done for the local community?
Alderley Edge school for girls, in my constituency, has just announced its closure, blaming increased costs, such as national insurance costs, and, most significantly, VAT on school fees. Given that the Secretary of State is responsible for its closure, what will she do to help minimise the disruption to pupils who are now being forced to change school against their wishes, and to look for places in schools in the Cheshire East area that either no longer exist or are full?
The Prime Minister has set out the threats posed by Iran with some clarity. Taking that into account, does he not recognise that treating international law as a rigid instrument as opposed to a flexible one, as he appears to do, risks binding our hands when it comes to national security?
The Prime Minister has been explicit on two decisions: one was that no bases would be used; now, some bases can be used. Could he set out specifically how this interacts with the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill and the exchange of notes from 1966 between the UK and the US?