5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The good people of Exeter want their elections to go ahead as planned in May, yet the Labour super-majorities both on Exeter city council and here in Westminster leave no realistic prospect of fighting the decision. Does the Minister agree that Exeter city council is quickly losing its democratic mandate and is moving to some form of local tinpot autocracy?
In pushing back against the tariffs, will the Foreign Secretary and others make it clear to the US that it is not just the potential imposition of these tariffs, but the bandying about of the threat of tariffs, that is so disruptive and difficult for major British businesses that export to the US, such as those in the Scotch whisky industry? The tariffs might be just game-playing or tactics, but they are causing real damage right now.
Early access costs money. Last year, children with special needs in the East Riding of Yorkshire were funded to less than £1,000 per capita—the lowest level in England. Camden received £3,565 a head. The Government’s grant proposals increase East Yorkshire by £30 a head. They increase Camden by £267 a head, nearly 10 times as much. How on earth does the Secretary of State expect East Yorkshire to provide early access or anything else, when funding is as tight as that?
This despicable regime goes in for state terrorism at home and abroad, and its principal instrument for terrorism abroad is the IRGC. This is now the sixth time that I have called on Prime Ministers and Ministers to proscribe the IRGC. The excuse given historically is that we want to keep our embassy open, but the embassy is now shut, demonstrating how futile that argument is. When will we proscribe that terrorist organisation?
We all look forward to whatever it is that the Government have decided to change here, but can I ask the Minister to look at two points? First, can he look at when appeals can be made to valuations? At the moment, businesses have to wait until 1 April, and that simply is not giving the sector any confidence. Secondly, can he look at wedding venues? They suffered enormously during covid and are likely, as things stand, not to benefit from any relief that he will announce in the next few weeks.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I start by offering my gratitude to Robert and Helen, the two petitioners who—forgive the phrase—lit the fuse for these petitions to get the number of signatures they did, and enabled this debate today. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who eloquently set out the reasons why we need to have this debate and the issues involved, which have also been ably raised by many other representatives in this room. This is not the first time that the House has discussed whether additional restrictions on the use of fireworks are necessary, but with more than 370,000 signatures on the two petitions, including 632 from West Worcestershire, it is clear that the public want a system that better protects people, animals and communities from the misuse of fireworks. We have heard from almost everyone who has spoken that fireworks bring joy, and I shout out the many responsible groups up and down this country that are committed to the safe display and enjoyment of fireworks. They often raise money for good local causes. However, as we have heard so often in this debate, we cannot ignore the real problems—the dangerous misuse, the antisocial behaviour and the distress that is caused to pets, livestock, wildlife and many vulnerable people. I welcome the Government’s engagement with stakeholders, and their campaign encouraging responsible use and low-decibel displays. We have heard in all the contributions today that we are a nation of animal lovers. We are also a nation that wants to continue to enjoy firework displays, but we also heard loud and clear that no action is not the answer here. The Government will need to listen to all the points that have been made. We have heard from across the land—from South West Hertfordshire, Dewsbury and Batley, Glastonbury and Somerton, Taunton and Wellington, Morecambe and Lunesdale, Luton North, Scarborough and Whitby, Broxtowe, North West Leicestershire, Edinburgh South West, Warrington South, Bathgate and Linlithgow, Heywood and Middleton North, Shipley, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Richmond Park, Glasgow West, Hartlepool, Aylesbury, Stourbridge, Rochdale, Newport West and Islwyn, Bournemouth East, Cannock Chase, Leeds South West and Morley and York Central. Every Member here this afternoon represented so well the concerns expressed to them by those in their constituency who have written to them. We recognise that fireworks are already heavily regulated, but many of the contributions highlighted gaps in enforcement, weak penalties for illegal sales, problems with stockpiling, and the devastating consequences both for property and in terms of burns when things go wrong. The age limits on purchases, which many believe are no longer appropriate, have been shown to be not properly enforced. There is a clear need for a proper, evidence-led review of the regulations. If reforms are proportionate and grounded in that evidence, I suspect that they will attract unanimous support from across the House. From the point of view of my party, and of many Members in this debate, although a ban on fireworks should not be a first resort, it should not be taken off the table as a last resort. Through the petitions, the public have spoken loudly. Through their representatives in Parliament, people have spoken loudly. Parliament has raised these issues repeatedly, and communities want action. Clearly, the existing regulations are not doing what society wants them to do. I am keen to hear about how the Minister plans to respond.
The problem is that the November Red Book stated: “The high street will benefit from permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure”. Businesses up and down the land think that was entirely misleading. We have had briefings to the newspapers that there will be a change, but the Minister is saying that that is not happening, and that change will be made through the normal processes, which I interpret to mean in the next spring statement. Those in businesses are lying awake at night, worried about these increases, so can the Minister tell them when relief will be on its way?
There is growing evidence that smartphones in schools are harming behaviour, concentration and outcomes, but leaving it up to headteachers is driving inconsistencies, and only 11% of senior schools have an effective mobile phone ban. Will the Secretary of State publish an assessment of the impact of a statutory ban of smartphones in schools?
T6. The Secretary of State and I have had a number of exchanges over the past 18 months about the historical formula that leaves children with SEND in the East Riding as the worst funded in the country. I am sure she understands my frustration about the latest settlement, which will increase that inequality—our frustration is reflected in the fact that I am the third Member of Parliament from the East Riding to raise this issue today. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that this is not the end of the matter, and will she meet me and East Riding colleagues to find a constructive way forward?
Just to provide clarity, the Minister can indeed continue until 10 pm, but she does not have to.
Following the curriculum review, will the Secretary of State outline how the Government will support teachers to deliver financial education in the constituency of Mid Bedfordshire and, of course, right across the country? Will financial education form part of initial teacher training?
The western world must remain united to keep us all safe from both Russia and China. Regrettably, we are far from united right now, and many of our constituents will be concerned about the risk to our country and critical infrastructure. At the same time as trying to reinvigorate our relationships with our NATO partners, should our worst-case planning assumption be that the USA may not be by our side if and when we need it in the future? If it was not clear before this week, surely it is clear now that spending on defence must rise immediately to at least 3% of GDP. Does the Foreign Secretary agree?
If I may, I will return to the topic of Craig and Lindsay Foreman. The Minister will be aware that they have been imprisoned for more than a year and are in Evin prison, regarded as the harshest in Iran. Can the Minister update the House on their medical condition since the outbreak of violence in Iran in recent weeks? Can he say when he was last informed of their medical condition, and whether they are still safe?
Looking at the wider implications of the Bill, the Minister talks about the intelligence services. Can she confirm whether there is a carve-out for military intelligence services in any way? Looking at that more broadly still, will it also apply to special forces operations and personnel, and will it be applied retrospectively?
There are reports that the US is planning airstrikes or action in Iran. Following the previous US airstrikes there, Iran fired rockets at the Al Udeid airbase in Qatar in response. That base, which has recently been partly evacuated, is co-located with the prison where Matthew Pascoe is being detained. Will the Government advise the House on what they are doing to make sure that he, and any British nationals in the nearby area, will be safe? What is being done to ensure the safety of the Foremans, who continue to be held in Evin prison? We know that, in the past, Iranians have often rightly sought to overthrow the prisons, because of all those who are being held unjustly there.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on her question. One could be excused for feeling that this is groundhog day, because once again the House has gathered to share our collective concern about plans to approve the Chinese Communist party’s mega-embassy and once again the Home Office has declined to answer. I did consider rereading my speech from last week, but as I hope we will get some answers, I have gone back to the drawing board. The Chinese Communist party’s plans are not normal diplomatic renovations, and it would be laughable to suggest that they are, given the location. Did the Minister see the unredacted plans before their publication, and can she genuinely say that she would have no concerns about her Government approving this shadowy network of 208 secret rooms? Given the claims that the Government and Ministers had not seen these plans until last week, surely the Government need time to review them. Would the Minister confirm that there will be a delay to the decision, which is due tomorrow? No one would seriously suggest that, in the week that has passed, the Government have identified all the mitigations needed to protect our cables and militate against these secret rooms. The Government have so far shielded themselves behind the mundane language of planning policy, but this is not a normal application. Can the Minister confirm whether our allies have been consulted on the unredacted plans, and if so, who? Can she confirm whether UK Government officials previously denied the existence of these cables to the United States in discussions? Last week, I asked whether the Chinese Communist party’s ambassador had been démarched and forced to explain his party’s duplicity in the application. The Minister declined to answer. It has now been a week. Has the Minister—not officials—finally found time to prioritise national security and haul in the Chinese ambassador? If not, why not, and what message does that send to China? Not once have this Labour Government démarched the Chinese ambassador since they came to power, despite cyber-attacks, spies in this place and bounties on the heads of Hongkongers. What does the Chinese Communist party have to do for this Government to defend us and act to deter future hostile acts? The Government tell us that security concerns have been addressed, including ones that they only knew about a week ago. Tell us how. Finally, the Prime Minister has not yet publicly confirmed his vanity visit to Beijing. Has the Chinese Communist party made approval of the new embassy contingent on the visit going ahead? The Government have a duty to protect our country. Without national security, there is no economic security. This House clearly speaks with one voice on this issue and that voice says no, so will the Government join us or will they choose a dereliction of their duties?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I asked an urgent question about this important issue last week, it was shunted to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Today when the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) asked the question, it was shunted to the Foreign Office. The Minister opened her answer by saying that she could not answer the fundamental question being asked in the Chamber. When I asked her directly whether she had démarched the Chinese ambassador, because that is within her brief, no answer was given, so Ministers will not answer on other people’s briefs, despite collective responsibility; if they will not answer on their own briefs, how are we to get answers in this place?
Greenland is being offered two options: to be sold or to be annexed. This is naked imperialism. The Government of Greenland have made clear that they will work with the US in any way necessary to protect our security and that of Europe, but I am afraid that beyond the vague diplomatic assurances of diplomatic activity and claims of being hard-headed, I am no clearer, from the statement, about what the Government are doing to keep us safe from tariffs and, more importantly, to protect our security and the sovereignty of Greenland.
One of the reasons for the massive public opposition to mandatory ID is that it is seen to be an infringement of civil liberties and individual freedom. Will the Minister give an assurance that the digital ID database will not be made available to the police for the use of live facial recognition?
Does the hon. Lady agree that there are practical consequences flowing from the failure of the—[Interruption.]
Does the hon. Lady accept that there are practical consequences flowing from the intolerable delay in the Government making an announcement about the scheme? For example, repairs are under way at All Saints church in Mudeford and at Christchurch priory, and the consequence of the Government not doing anything about this scheme will be hundreds of thousands of pounds of extra costs for those churches.
My constituents are opposed to digital ID, and I welcome the Minister’s U-turn—I look forward to him being given responsibility for jury trials as well. The problem is that digital ID will have no effect on illegal working or illegal migration, because employers that ignore the system at the moment will continue to ignore the new system. The real problem is that the Government are not deporting those illegal migrants they catch.
May I agree with the point raised by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake)? In the village of Cossington, there is a small housing estate that had the misfortune to be managed by FirstPort. My residents had to put up with unexplained charges, poor service and a complete lack of transparency. While my residents have wisely changed to a new management company, the incompetence of FirstPort continues to afflict them. Despite repeated requests, including from my office, FirstPort has failed to provide the financial information required to allow my residents to complete their statutory accounts. May I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent statement on how the Government will enable residents to hold failing management companies to account?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing this important debate, throughout which we have heard valuable contributions from Members rightly raising concerns on behalf of their constituents. We all know that food inflation significantly impacts the cost of living by eroding household purchasing power, and that it disproportionately affects those in low-income households, leading to food insecurity. Just last November, 61% of adults in Great Britain reported an increased cost of living compared to the previous month. Much of the reason for that was linked to the inflation of food prices. I join Members across the House in thanking those who are going out of their way to support those who need it in their own constituencies, not only with advice but through operating food banks and providing comfort and support. Imogen and her team in the Salvation Army in Keighley, who I have met many a time, do fantastic work to help families not only in Keighley but across the wider Worth valley area in my constituency. I pay particular tribute to her and her team.
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and he must have known what I was coming on to in my speech. There are many other organisations and companies that are producing excess amounts of food. We need to reduce food waste, which is ridiculously high in this country, and utilise and redistribute high-quality food through a localised logistics system or a national strategic approach. Those at both grassroots and national level need to be thanked, but much more work is needed to focus on reducing food waste to help those on lower incomes. Lower-income families spend a large proportion of their budget on food—about 14% in the UK compared to 9% for higher-income households—making those who are more vulnerable much more exposed to price spikes. We have already heard that the price of flour has increased by 19% and milk by about 46% in a relatively short period of time. As well as the vulnerability sitting with those low-income households in terms of their purchasing power, it also sits with the primary producer: the farmers and growers who are exposed to those spikes. They are not only exposed to their own vulnerability; they also lack resilience because they are entered into contracts with unfair terms and unfair adjustment mechanisms linked to supply and demand, and they have to compete against commodities and food that can be produced at much cheaper prices in places with different standards. While the end price for some food products fluctuates for the primary producer—we have seen that with lamb, beef and milk prices this year—for others they do not. For example, in the arable sector, cereal prices are linked to global commodity prices and some of those feed wheat prices have not really changed in the last 20 years. Exposing those primary producers to fluctuating prices depending on what they are producing, but not mitigating the increase in associated input costs for producing that food, directly hits food inflation prices. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) mentioned the vulnerability associated with farm-gate prices. Return rates for our farmers sit at about 1%, if not at all, and therefore many of our primary producers are not even breaking even. That is why the Baroness Batters farming profitability review was welcomed, although it was frustrating that the Government held that report back. They did not give the opportunity for it to be debated on the Floor of the House through an oral statement; they just relied on a written statement. I encourage the Minister to allow time for us to get to grips with debating such a significant and valuable report so that all Members can contribute towards it. A key recommendation in that report was around the supply chain, which, as I think has been acknowledged, is not fit for purpose and disadvantages primary producers. That is why we want more funding and power going to the Grocery Code Adjudicator. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) highlighted the challenges around input costs increasing for our food producers and farmers. That has not been helped by policy choices and tax choices brought forward by the Labour Government in the last 18 months. Let us look at the rise in labour costs: the Bank of England says that the increasing costs associated with labour through the rise in employer national insurance, coupled with the rise in the national minimum wage from £11.44 to £12.21 an hour—a rise of about 6.7%—has dramatically impacted not only the horticultural sector, but many of those food-producing businesses and large employers. In April, employer national insurance rose from 13.8% to 15%, while the threshold has significantly reduced, falling from £9,100 to £5,000 per employee annually. That disproportionately affects companies who employ lower-paid, younger and part-time workers, many of whom are employed in the horticultural industry and the food-producing sector. That is, of course, combined with uncertainty around levels of investment. We have seen the changes to inheritance tax come through, and that is holding back a level of investment: many of those involved in the food supply chain want to invest, but are holding back due to uncertainty about being able to mitigate the inheritance tax changes coming down the line. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent picked up on, we have also seen new regulation, particularly for the dairy industry, and the hurdles that those sectors need to jump through simply to get their food product on the table. New regulation is having inflationary challenges: the un-Employment Rights Bill worked its way through the House and led to stagnation in business decisions, with investment held back from moving into automation. I am being contacted, as I am sure other Members are, by many employers who are not willing to risk employing people because of the challenges associated with the Employment Rights Act. I dare say many of those are young people and those with special educational needs or learning challenges, who want to get their first step on the employment ladder, but many of those businesses are holding back, which is leading to inflationary challenges. There is also the extended producer responsibility tax, which has been recognised by not only the British Retail Consortium but the Food and Drink Federation as creating an inflationary challenge for our food sector, estimated to be about £1.4 billion, which will be passed on to consumers by those supermarkets. The British Retail Consortium believes that 80% of those EPR costs will be passed on to consumers, which will lead to higher food prices. Then there are the increasing energy prices; the funding being taken away from our primary producers—our farmers—such as delinked payments dramatically reducing in a short period of time to £600 as an annual payment, where just two years ago they would have been receiving much more; and challenges with the fertiliser tax and sustainable farming incentive. That just adds to the inflationary challenges associate with food prices, which are predominantly hitting those on the lowest incomes. I ask the Minister not only what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be doing, but what conversations they will be having with the wider Government Departments. It is fine to have a food security strategy, but if that does not sit at the heart of Government, it is for the birds. The reality is that, if it sits under a Secretary of State who has responsibility for food but is not bought into by the likes of the Chancellor and those who are making fiscal adjustments, it will not have the positive impact that it needs to; we have seen that from the last two Budgets that have come out of this Labour Government. I also want to understand from the Minister what recommendations she and her Department will be taking forward at speed—not only the few announced by Baroness Batters’ profitability review, but that specifically address food inflation challenges, give fairer reassurance to our farmers that farm-gate prices will increase and they will get what they deserve for the primary product they are producing and, ultimately, help those on the lowest incomes across all our constituencies with the cost of living.
We know that the Prime Minister was warned many times that voters would not believe the claim that introducing mandatory digital ID was about stopping illegal immigration, but he decided to push on regardless. Does the Minister think it was credible to argue that 67 million people—law-abiding citizens who already have passports, national insurance numbers and driving licences—should be placed into a brand-new compulsory database to stop illegal immigration, or does he accept that this is just another example of the Prime Minister treating the public as fools?
In Ilkley, Labour-run Bradford council is shockingly set to remove the town’s free one hour of on-street parking, despite over 4,000 residents objecting to the proposals. That follows a local referendum in the town, in which 90% of residents rejected a blanket 20 mile per hour zone and speed humps, only for the results of that poll to be ignored by the Labour mayor, who used his casting vote to push the vote through and, outrageously, said to residents that they should save their votes for “Strictly”, then went on to bill taxpayers £190,000 for the privilege. Ministers often say that decisions are for local leaders, but what happens when local leaders are outright ignoring the views of the public? Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on the role of central Government in areas where local democracy is clearly failing?
I would like to make it clear that I am speaking in an individual capacity as the Member of Parliament for North Bedfordshire. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) on her speech and on the extraordinarily human way in which she described her life in a new town. For people in North Bedfordshire, the hon. Lady’s testimony may be a timely one. I would like to draw the focus of the debate to the proposals for new new towns that are recommended by the Government’s new towns taskforce. Tempsford is a historic village in North Bedfordshire. It was the site of a decisive battle in 917 AD when the forces of King Edward the Elder stormed a Danish stronghold, killing the Danish King and effectively breaking Danish power in the region. It includes the former RAF Tempsford airfield, from which multiple special operations were flown to send people to help resistance movements in Nazi-occupied countries. It is a village of 234 households, comprising fewer than 500 people, and one that has been in two parts since the dualling of the A1 in 1962. It is also a village that, according to the report by the new towns taskforce, presents “a unique opportunity with potential to provide over 40,000 homes in a standalone greenfield settlement”. Tempsford is the largest of the proposed new towns and would turn this village of 500 people into a new town of at least 40,000 homes—that is 100,000-plus people. I want to take a few minutes, speaking in this individual capacity, to raise points that have been voiced by my constituents in recent meetings with residents, the parish council and local councillor, Adam Zerny. One of the questions, of course, is, “Why Tempsford? It’s not what we want—we don’t want this change,” and so on. That is an important issue for consideration, and we await the final decision of the Government on it. If that decision is made, the No. 1 source of scepticism is that much of Tempsford is a floodplain. There is a legitimate question about how the flood risk will be managed in any new town. Tempsford is a floodplain for both the River Ouse and the River Ivel. Sticking on the theme, local residents have for years dealt with a range of sewage overflow issues; I myself have been witness to a number of these incidents and have helped residents with them. This is important because the water company will obviously wish to improve this issue if we have a new town, so adequate funding must be available both to provide the necessary waste water and sewage water infrastructure and to solve the existing problems. As the Minister will be aware, the pressure on water resources in Bedfordshire is extensive. We are also the site of Universal Studios’ new theme park, which will attract between 8 million and 10 million people a year—the equivalent of an additional population of 50,000 in terms of water usage. The site is being developed over the next five years. The River Ouse is the one source of water running through this area, which contains both the theme park and the new town, so we need to make sure there is a plan for this river. Bedford borough council has set up the North Bedfordshire water management group, run by Paul Leinster, formerly of the Environment Agency. I encourage the Minister to meet him to discuss the issues of both Universal Studios and Tempsford. The Minister should also recognise that the proposal for this new town fits into a context of very rapid housing growth. Hon. Members should be aware that the number of households in Bedfordshire has been growing at two and a half times the national average for the past decade or more, meaning that we have already had a build-up of additional pressures on local services over the past 15 to 20 years. At the meeting held last week with the parish council and residents, the main issue other than the floodplain was the provision of local services, as people already do not have sufficient access to GP and transport services. Just a few miles away is the village of Northstowe, which is sort of the poster child for getting it wrong with local service provision. All the things the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch said should already be there were not there in Northstowe—there were no shops and no GPs for a number of years while residents were moving in. Obviously residents do not want to see that happen with Tempsford new town, if it comes forward. Tempsford is a village that still runs on oil heating—there is no other power supply. A number of residents were keen to understand whether solar and ground source heat pumps would be a prerequisite for housing in the new town. A key point for a village with a proposal for a new town of up to 100,000 people is, of course, its village identity and heritage, in particular around RAF Tempsford, and there is a lot of concern about one of the most important buildings there, Gibraltar Barn. Any plans must take account of that. My residents are also connected to nature and wildlife. They chose to live in a rural area, and they are proud of their rural environment—the head office of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is just 5 miles away from Tempsford. It is crucial, if the Government move ahead with this proposal, that we do whatever we can to maintain the nature and wildlife of the area. There are also questions about the adequacy of road networks and the type of employment. I will briefly cover a couple more areas. Professor Doug Clelland and Dr Nigel Moor, two independent planning experts, have completed research on Tempsford in the past two years and provided evidence to the House of Lords Built Environment Committee for its report “New Towns: Laying the Foundations”, relating to the footprint, scale and timeline. In the evidence, Professor Clelland and Dr Moor present a “compact centre” of 25,000 homes over 4.5 square miles with a footprint connecting St Neots to Sandy in an area between the A1 and the Great Northern rail line—an extensive area. There is also a wider footprint that could accommodate the building of an additional 15,000 homes in satellite developments stretching south from Tempsford to the village of Blunham and on to Great Barford, Wilden and Little Staughton then across to Hail Weston, including the villages of Staploe, Honeydon, Roxton, Potton, Everton and others, with a similar impact on the Cambridgeshire side of Tempsford. I do not expect Members to know all those villages, beautiful though they are; they are well worth visiting, and Members should do so. I simply want to ensure that local residents are aware of the scale of what might take place if this proposal goes ahead in North Bedfordshire and in parts of Cambridgeshire. I am not sure that local residents have internalised that. If the Government decided to move forward with these plans, there is a lot of work they would have to do, in particular with regard to the use of farmland, as this is a primary agricultural area. If I may, I will leave some questions with the Minister. First, the Government have a housing target of 1.5 million —personally, I am not sure they have got off to a particularly good start on that. That target may have an impact on the type of housing being built, so I would be interested to hear the Minister comment on that with regard to Tempsford. Secondly, I have mentioned that the housing growth in North Bedfordshire is two and a half times the national average. It is the Government’s position that new towns should not count in that total, but come on—we are already struggling to keep up. There is no way we can plop this additional amount of housing on top of that pace of growth and expect things not to break. Thirdly, will the Government’s specific social housing target apply in the context of these very large new towns? Fourthly, can I alert the Minister to the fact that the new town is potentially just one of six nationally significant infrastructure projects in Bedfordshire, two of which are directly within this footprint? One is the Black Cat roundabout, which is under way and will be completed, so that is fine. There is also a proposal for a large-scale solar farm of over 1,900 acres—that is the size of Gatwick airport and a bit more—within that satellite boundary. What on earth will happen with that? Clearly, it is a choice: we can do one or the other, but we cannot possibly do both. Local residents are keen to make sure that their voice is heard. I had a meeting with the civil servant who is dealing with this issue, for which I prepared some documents, and she was 100% on board with that— I can see that the Minister is nodding. My residents are clear about that. Once the decision is made, if Tempsford is one of the new towns, I would strongly encourage the ministerial team to come and visit, have a conversation with the villagers and listen to them, because there is so much that can be done. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch said, in the end this is about people. If the Government take people along with them at the start when they make that decision, they will set themselves up in a much better way.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point about making brownfield sites a priority, and I think he is giving the Minister some very good advice. The first question that will be asked by people in Tempsford and the villages, who may see so much more housing come upon them, is, “Well, why haven’t you built in areas that are already developed? Have you maximised the potential in those areas?” It will be to the Government’s benefit if they can demonstrate, as I am sure the Minister will from the Dispatch Box shortly, that they will push existing urban areas as hard as they can to maximise housing potential and avoid some of the artificial blockages to which my hon. Friend is referring.
Plymouth Culture has launched its bid for Plymouth to be the city of culture 2029, and I wonder if the Secretary of State realises that there has never been a southern city of culture, let alone a south-western city of culture. Does she agree that the city of culture 2029 would be the perfect opportunity to rectify this?
The Secretary of State will be aware of concerns across the culture, media and sport sectors about the 14-day cooling-off period in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. It could be exploited to allow people to sign up for an annual membership of a heritage, arts or cultural institution, visit the sites for free for two weeks, then cancel their membership and get a refund, causing considerable financial distress—on top of the recent national insurance increases, of course. There is cross-party support to close that loophole, so can the Secretary of State confirm the timeline for further action?
I thank the Secretary of State for that response and I appreciate the tone that she has adopted. We all know, especially after yesterday’s announcement, that the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from the game with Aston Villa was not only wrong, but based on fabricated police intelligence. From the answers to my recent written parliamentary questions, we also know that the possibility of banning Israeli fans was communicated to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on 9 October and to the Home Office on 2 October—two weeks before the ban was publicly announced. In that two-week period, what conversations took place between DCMS, the Home Office, the police, the safety advisory group and others, given that a hugely controversial decision was potentially about to be made? What action was taken to try to stop it?
I commend the Football Foundation for its brilliant work with grassroots sport and its help to develop the brilliant facilities at the New Croft at Haverhill. As Newmarket football club looks to get a new pitch, will the Secretary of State join me in sending the message to the foundation’s chief executive, Robert Sullivan, that we endorse that bid?
People in West Suffolk are furious at the prospect of the county council elections being cancelled yet again, and I reiterate my opposition to that decision. This morning, the BBC reported that Suffolk county council had requested that the elections be cancelled. That is completely untrue, as the county council leader, Matthew Hicks, has made clear, and the BBC has corrected the record. The BBC got that story from somewhere, and everyone suspects that Government officials or advisers briefed the media accordingly because the Government want to cancel the elections and blame somebody else. The elections are now only four months away, so can a decision and a statement be made as soon as possible?
Order. The hon. Lady is testing the Chair by sitting in a part of the Chamber where she does not normally sit.
Order. When entering the Chamber, hon. Members must be aware that there is a debate taking place.
Order. I assume that the Minister is about to come to a conclusion as he has overrun his two minutes.
Order. I will not introduce a formal time limit, but if Members keep their speeches to under eight minutes, that will help everybody else.
The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) mentioned that it is his mother’s birthday. I have been given an update: she is called Yvonne Bonavia. Happy birthday, Yvonne.
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. For full transparency, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) for securing this important debate. The protection of children and young people should unite every Member of this House. We all recognise that under-18s should not be gambling, and it is right that the law is strict on that point. Young people are still developing, as others have argued; they are more exposed to online influence and less equipped to assess long-term risks and consequences. That is why it is somewhat difficult to square claims that even limited exposure to gambling advertising is intolerable with the arguments made by some on the Government Benches for 16-year-olds to have the vote—but I will move on, because that is not the purpose of today’s debate. If we are to make real progress in protecting children, we must be clear about where harm and exposure actually arise, particularly in the online world, as we have heard, and ensure that our response is based on the best possible evidence. Crucially, as we have heard, harm to children does not come only from direct participation. Many children experience gambling harm indirectly—from parents or loved ones who themselves struggle with addiction. That can mean financial instability, stress at home, relationship breakdowns and wider impacts on a child’s wellbeing, education and mental health. Those knock-on effects are real and deserve serious attention from Government. That is why prevention, early intervention and family support matter so much. To that end, I would appreciate the Minister telling me or trying to work out why I have yet to receive a response to the letter that I, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) sent to the Secretary of State on 6 November regarding the impending cliff edge on funding that fantastic charities such as Gordon Moody, Betknowmore UK, Deal Me Out, Ygam and GamCare are all facing. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has raised the issue, and the Minister will be aware that I raised it with him personally before Christmas, because we do need to ensure that Government understand the unnecessary worry that has been caused to charities that have real expertise in this space. I understand that there may be interim grants to cover the next financial year, but that information is only just starting to come to light. I ask the Minister to tell us why the Government have left these essential charities in the dark over the future of the services that they provide, and whether the Government will finally—hopefully—get their act together and engage with the sector, so that a real, working solution can be put in place for the long term and we do not have this ongoing situation in which gambling harm seems to fall between the DCMS and the Department of Health and Social Care. That is a real issue and concern. As a shadow Minister, I have visited a number of these charities to see the work that is happening on the ground. They do incredible work and have incredible expertise in helping people across the country, so we must ensure that gambling harm does not fall between the cracks any more. Much of the debate has focused so far on advertising. There is no question but that children should not be targeted, and within the regulated sector they are not permitted to be. But at the same time, as we have heard, we cannot ignore the wider online environment in which children now live. Evidence shows that when young people encounter gambling-related content, it is most often through social media, streaming platforms and online influencers—the places where enforcement is hardest and protections are weakest. This is the area that I have most concern about as a shadow Minister, and I have spoken about it before, particularly in relation to some of the crypto scams that we see online. Someone mentioned doomscrolling, and I sometimes come across this content when doomscrolling. Illegal and unlicensed operators are exploiting this space and exploiting young people. They use influencers and celebrities in ways that licensed operators are explicitly banned from doing, and they operate in overseas jurisdictions, which means that age checks can be bypassed entirely. Once a child enters this space, there are no safeguards at all—no limits, no interventions and no support. We must be honest about unintended consequences. When policy decisions, including sharp tax rises, weaken the legal, regulated market—I have said openly before that I do not mind bashing the bookies, but I am worried about the growth of this—the activity does not stop, but moves to the illegal market. I have made that point before in the House. Evidence from abroad shows such displacement to the black market, where there are no age checks, safeguards or accountability. In my opinion, that environment is far more dangerous for children and adults alike. Of course, we know that gambling harms exist, and every case involving a child is one too many, but they do not exist in isolation. They are closely linked, as we have heard, to mental health, family circumstances, financial stress and patterns of online behaviour. That is why education, parental engagement and digital literacy must sit at the heart of the Government’s response. Children need a clear understanding of risk and probability, a resilience to online marketing and the confidence to question what they see online. Parents need support, information and early help when problems arise. If Government Members want to do what is best for children and completely remove their exposure to unregulated, predatory advertisements from black market sites, I kindly encourage them to back the Conservatives’ plan to raise the age of consent for social media to 16 years old to support children and parents. It is a bold policy that, as we have heard, has cross-party support, and I urge the Government to get on with it. I think it is the bold action that is needed to tackle online harms, including gambling harms. Moreover, the statutory levy provides an opportunity to fund evidence-based education, treatment and prevention, including support for families affected by gambling addiction. That funding must be targeted, evaluated and focused on what works. Would the Minister outline what he is doing to step up work on this issue to ensure that charities have the funding certainty they require to continue their operations across the country? What are the Government doing to ensure that the Gambling Commission has the resources and the right approach to tackle the illegal black market and the targeting of young people on social media, particularly in relation to crypto?