Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The hon. Lady makes an important point about the history, landscape and geography of the Black Country and the fact that our roots are in industry. She makes a very good point about how we can reuse our brownfield sites—for example, for the battery and energy storage system. Does she agree with me that we should focus 100% on reusing brownfield industrial sites before we start damaging our precious greenbelt with things such as battery energy storage systems?
I thank the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for securing this debate and giving us, as Black Country Members of Parliament, and you, Ms Vaz, the opportunity to highlight some of the lot that is the Black Country at its best. I do not think that 90 minutes is long enough to talk with the passion that we all would like to convey, or name-check all the wonderful organisations and individuals who make up the Black Country’s history, present and no doubt future, but I know that we will all give it our best shot. Held every year on 14 July for over a decade now, Black Country Day is a time to honour and celebrate the incredible spirit of our region, from our tight-knit communities to our thriving businesses and tourism and remarkable industrial heritage. Today gives us the opportunity to share a little bit of it with all the people who have decided to tune into Westminster Hall on Parliament TV. My constituency of Aldridge-Brownhills was not historically part of the Black Country. Its incorporation came in April 1974 as part of the major reorganisation of local government in England. Its name originally comes from the urban district council, that class of local authorities that was abolished by the 1974 reforms. Having previously come under Staffordshire, we were absorbed into Walsall borough council and hence joined the Black Country. Although we have a Staffordshire past, the Black Country is very much our present and our future, though I acknowledge that many in parts of my constituency still look, and rightly so, to Staffordshire and enjoy the historical and familial connections, which I for one will never forget. The Black Country is renowned for its contribution to the industrial revolution. From the late 18th century onwards, the region developed into a major centre for coalmining, iron smelting and steel production. During the 19th century, the Black Country became noted for its iron and steel industries. Wrought iron production, chain making and the manufacture of locks and nails were central to the region’s economy. Those industries became essential to Britain’s railway, maritime and construction sectors. As you know well, Ms Vaz, as a Walsall MP yourself, in parts of Walsall our major contribution as a borough was the leather industry. The origins of Walsall’s leather industry lay in the middle ages, and it continued to grow in the 17th and 18th centuries. I will use this opportunity to speak about the lorinery trade, which is what it is known as. Many of the town’s leather goods trade pioneers were bridle cutters; by settling in Walsall, they could call on the skills of local loriners for their bits and buckles. In the early 19th century, leatherworking became an important local trade, providing employment and manufacturing opportunities right across the borough, including in my constituency. After 1840, the development of the town’s leatherworking industry gained pace. The coming of the South Staffordshire railway to Walsall in 1847 gave a boost to the trade, and by 1851 there were 75 firms making bridles, saddles and harnesses. Horses were an essential part of Victorian life. There were around 3.3 million horses in late-Victorian Britain, which provided a huge market for Walsall’s manufacturers. In the last decades of the 19th century, the Walsall leather trade entered a golden age of prosperity: exports boomed and Walsall firms sent their products all over the British empire—sadly, foreign wars were a particularly lucrative source of trade. At the turn of the 20th century, Walsall was home to nearly a third of Britain ’s saddlers and harness makers, and it remains best known today for making saddlery and harness, yet from 1900 those trades began a long decline as, one by one, the traditional roles of the horse were challenged and replaced by the engine. The great age of the horse had ended. Walsall firms had to adapt to this changing world, or they would have disappeared. Some had been making light leather goods, such as travelling bags and hatboxes, since the 1870s, but from 1900 onwards they concentrated more on that type of work. Since the 1960s, the light leather goods trade has met with tough competition from overseas producers, and Walsall’s surviving leather goods firms have concentrated on the luxury end of the market. Goods for some of the world’s most famous brand names are made in our borough. Indeed, one of Walsall’s most famous clients was Her Majesty the late Queen Elizabeth. The late Queen was rarely seen without her Launer handbag. I must share this little story, although most people have probably seen the sketch: in the famous platinum jubilee sketch with Paddington Bear, the Queen pulled a marmalade sandwich out of one of her bags, which was proudly made in Walsall—the bag, not the sandwich. I believe the Launer handbag is still a favourite of many royals. Walsall is not known only for its handbags. Canals and waterways were critical to the Black Country’s industrial success, and they remain integral to our local communities today. We have regularly hosted the Inland Waterways festival of water in Pelsall in my constituency, and we have the Canalside festival each August in Brownhills. Our canals, rooted in our industrial heritage, play a key role today, providing wildlife corridors and opportunities for walking, cycling, and simply enjoying being outdoors. Our canals are a good example of how the region has adapted to changes over the years. Canals were critical to the Black Country’s industrial heritage, enabling the transportation of raw materials like coal and iron to local furnaces and workshops. The Wyrley and Essington canal, which dates back to an Act of Parliament—the Birmingham Canal Navigation Act 1792—runs through a large part of my constituency. Originally built to transport coal from the mines near Wyrley and New Invention, it was later extended to Wolverhampton and Walsall, terminating at Ogley junction near Brownhills. The Wyrley and Essington canal is affectionately known locally as the “curly Wyrley”, which derives from the fact it is a contour canal, twisting and turning to avoid gradients, and thus the need for locks. On the subject of transport, it would be remiss of me not to draw a link between the role canals played in our past and the role transport will play in our future. Transport connectivity is essential to our communities, unlocking opportunities and access to jobs and education. That is why it is vital that the Government honour the commitment of the previous Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, to deliver the train station in Aldridge, which I am always talking about, and will continue to do so. As we look to the future, improving transport links and, most important, delivering that train station, will unleash opportunities, enabling us to rediscover the vim and vigour of our industrial spirit, with access to good jobs, better connectivity and opportunity for the next generation as well as our own. I will conclude by wishing everyone a happy Black Country Day, even though it was actually last week, but that is the way Westminster Hall debates work. I am so pleased that the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury was able to secure this day for the debate. It has been an absolute pleasure to participate and to have this really important opportunity as a Member of Parliament to celebrate the heritage of the area that I am deeply honoured to represent.
Both.
I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of gene editing. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I secured this debate as gene editing provides immense opportunities to the United Kingdom in boosting growth in our agricultural sector, in supporting our world-leading life science industry and in better protecting our environment for future generations. Being able to diverge from the European Union on the regulation of gene editing is a genuine Brexit opportunity, but there is much concern that the Labour Government’s EU reset will pause or even reverse the progress made in the UK in setting out a new path to regulate that exciting technology and, in doing so, will sacrifice a key opportunity to help our farming community. Almost all our domestic animals and plants are the result of thousands of years of selective breeding. Gene editing is best thought of as a modern enhancement of that technique. It is often referred to as precision breeding. It allows scientists to make changes to a plant or animal’s DNA, cutting the DNA strand and then adding, deleting or altering sequences to give beneficial traits, which make for things like disease and drought-resistant crops, or indeed more nutritious crops.
The hon. Gentleman is a champion of the farming community. He and I, in my previous role, often discussed farming issues, and we both hugely support the importance of food production as a key part of our food security. He is right to draw attention to the fact—I will come to this—that gene editing and gene modification are often confused, when they are very distinct. The crucial point to share with the House is that the changes in gene editing are limited to those that occur naturally or through conventional selective breeding. That is the distinction I will come on to with gene modification. By using gene editing, we can get to a desired trait more quickly. Science therefore accelerates something that could happen naturally, as opposed to being an artificial intervention. Let me give an example of how gene editing can provide a win-win in practice in our farming community. I represent North East Cambridgeshire, which is the centre of UK sugar beet production. That crop has been severely impacted by virus yellows disease. At the moment, the only way to tackle it is by using a seed treatment, Cruiser SB, which is toxic to pollinators such as bees. Given the downsides for nature, the treatment needs to be granted emergency authorisation on a year-by-year basis. The last time that the authorisation was not made available was in 2020, and 25% of the national sugar beet crop was lost. Without authorisation of something that is accepted as damaging to nature, the crop fell by a quarter, which is a severe consequence. That led to an economic loss of about £67 million, in an industry involving 10,000 jobs. After some years of approval the current Government have decided that authorisation will again not be available in 2025, which has left the sector with a lot of uncertainty. But instead of requiring us to choose between nature and crop yields, gene editing provides a better solution. Under the previous Conservative Government, a £660,000 grant was made jointly to British Sugar, the agricultural biotechnology company Tropic, and the world-leading plant science institute, the John Innes Centre, to fund gene editing research into sugar beet resistance to virus yellows disease.
I very much agree. I will come on to public sentiment towards gene editing, which is extremely favourable, but it is helpful to have cross-party support because this is a win-win, as I have said. It boosts yields, helps farmers and reduces the cost of pesticide. It is also a huge benefit to nature. The hon. Member is right to praise the John Innes Institute, which is world leading. That is another reason why we should seize the opportunity that science offers.
The hon. Lady raises an important point. By embracing innovation in the technology, we can lead and, by leading, show the benefits to farming and nature that the EU may wish to follow. The EU regulation is cumbersome. It brings gene editing within the fold of gene modification. The pace of change is slow and its scope more limited. It is better to move ahead and show the benefits, rather than wait for the back-marker to see if they eventually come to the table and make the changes, many years after elsewhere in the world has moved on. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the pace of regulatory change and the sluggish nature of the EU. The opportunity of this technology is not far away. I mentioned a moment ago the grants that we had awarded for research into virus yellows disease. Researchers hope to have plants by the end of this decade that, if successful, will do away with the need for the harmful treatments and the dilemma that Ministers face as to whether to grant emergency authorisation. That would protect British sugar beet farmers from potentially catastrophic losses, while also increasing crop productivity and resilience, and at the same time increase sustainability and bring direct benefits to nature. I have long believed that there is an opportunity to see farming and nature not as opposites, but as complementary, and we can boost farming in ways that also are beneficial to nature. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) talked about the public response, and he is right to do so. I am pleased to note that the public at large support gene editing because of its environmental and economic benefits. A recent study found support among the public at 70% across the population as a whole. Interestingly, that rose to 80% among generation Z, so there is widespread support among the public. But if we are to realise the benefits and capitalise on that public support, we need to get the regulation right. That brings me, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) mentioned a moment ago, to European regulation. Back in 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that gene-edited crops are subject to the same 2001 legislation as gene-modified organisms. Yet, as we touched on, the two techniques are very different and should not be confused. Gene editing speeds up changes that could occur naturally or through conventional selective breeding; it is unlike gene modification, which is where DNA from different species has been introduced to another, creating new types of plants and animals that could not have come about through natural methods. As a result, gene editing is a much lower and different risk, and should be treated in regulation differently from gene modification, but that is not the position of the European Union. Even the European Commission has realised that its regulatory approach is not fit for purpose, but progress is remarkably slow in changing it. While it is working on its own legislation, it will come years later and be more limited in scope than what we have done in the United Kingdom. After Brexit, the UK was able to diverge, which is why the previous Conservative Government brought forward the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, which removed precision-bred plants and animals from the existing genetically modified organism regulatory system. The Act created a new framework for their oversight and provided the Secretary of State with powers of secondary legislation. I commend the Government and the Minister on pressing ahead with the required secondary legislation to bring this new system in for plants, which is due to come into force in November. So why the need for this debate? This debate is needed because I fear that the current optimism is a high point in this journey and that we are about to see the UK surrender the advantage that will help our farmers and our nature, and that has been gained with the primary and secondary legislation in place. To prevent that, I am seeking assurances from the Minister in three key areas: implementation, further expansion, and funding. First, on implementation, the Prime Minister’s EU reset at the UK-EU summit included plans for sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. To achieve that, the EU has suggested that dynamic alignment will be required of the UK, meaning that all relevant EU rules will apply to UK goods. As a result, some experts have suggested that there would need to be a pause on the UK’s progress in taking forward more effective regulation of gene editing, and that we would need to then wait while the EU spends potentially years putting in place its own more limited reforms. Waiting would hold back centres such as the John Innes Centre, UK science and development, and give up our hard-won commercial competitive advantage in terms of the sector and the jobs it employs. I mentioned how important gene editing crops will be to areas such as my constituency, and to leading businesses such as British Sugar, which works with over 3,500 growers and is concerned about alignment on this matter. It would urge the Government not to sacrifice the UK bioscience sector’s progress on gene editing in the UK-EU trade negotiations and to recognise that delaying the use of the technology in the UK would put us at risk of falling behind other countries using it. I wholeheartedly agree with that analysis and assessment. Will the Minister confirm that the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 will come into force in November this year, and that there will be no delay? Secondly, on further expansion, I note that only regulations on gene editing plants have been brought forward. It was always the intention that plants would be first, and that regulations relating to animals would come second. This will provide another opportunity compared with the European Union. Discussions at an EU level suggest that animals will be excluded from its regulations, whenever they eventually emerge. It is vital that we capitalise on that opportunity, too. Will the Minister confirm that it is still the Government’s intention to bring forward the required secondary legislation under the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2023 to remove precision-bred animals for the existing genetically modified organism regulatory system? Finally, on funding, I know the challenge that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers will be facing when it comes to negotiations with the Treasury, having been within both DEFRA and the Treasury, and given that farming is seemingly not a priority for the Labour Government, with £100 million of cuts to farming and countryside programmes announced in the spending review. Given that spending backdrop, one might have thought the Minister would want to maximise opportunities to boost farming and nature, which do not come at a cost to the Treasury.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that builds on the earlier intervention on public support. One of the sweet spots of this area of policy is that it is beneficial to farming—because it cuts costs on things like pesticides and increases yield—but it is also hugely beneficial to nature, in terms of climate change. It is also beneficial for the public purse, because gene editing is a way of using science, in essence, to drive productivity and nature-beneficial schemes, rather than simply spending public money. For context, I am sure the Minister will have seen the farming figures this morning. The Government borrowed £20.7 billion in June alone—the highest figure since records began, with the exception of June 2020, during peak covid. That is not an isolated figure. If we look at the previous month, the Government borrowed £17.7 billion in May. That was also the highest on record for May—again, with the exception of May 2020. So the Government are borrowing record sums, and the Department’s budget is under pressure—all the more reason not to sacrifice genuine scientific opportunities, particularly those that, as we have explored, have widespread public support. Will the Minister recognise that gene editing jointly serves the goals of food production and protecting nature, and ensure that we do not give away our competitive advantage? Specifically, will he confirm that the £12.5 million from the recent farming futures research and development fund for the precision breeding competition—aimed at mid-stage precision breeding projects—will be paid in full? Will he also confirm that funding will be made available directly to farmers to take part in field trials, so that the science actually progresses? In conclusion, gene editing is a genuine Brexit opportunity. It can boost economic growth, support food production, help protect our environment, and give us a competitive advantage over other countries. To sacrifice that as part of some UK-EU reset negotiations would be a serious mistake. It would be another example in a long list of decisions where the Department has been overridden by the Treasury. There is still time. The legislation is in place; the regulations are there. Can the Minister confirm today that gene editing will continue to be a priority, and that the UK Government will secure the advantages that it offers?
Hiding in plain sight, but not discussed in this Chamber since the general election, is the spending of millions of pounds on the repair of this building, with Members expected to commit later this year to spending billions of pounds into the future. The lack of debate or any meaningful transparency comes despite the majority of Members of this House being newly elected last July. Instead, the detailed costs and any vote on options are being delayed until later this year—ironically, they will probably come at around the same time that the House is expected to vote on a Budget, which many people expect to include tax rises. Members of the House, and members of the public, might reasonably ask why the Leader of the House has not held any such debate since coming into office. This issue speaks to a wider principle. Are decisions best formulated in private when some of the numbers remain uncertain, with reliance placed on internal controls and external advisers giving assurances, or is it better to have transparency—not least on an issue of great public interest? A lesson that, as a Minister, I learned from covid is that it is better to have transparency and an open debate about the trade-offs early than to hold discussions in secret and allow the benefit of hindsight after the event. Supporting greater transparency has been a theme of my time in the House, whether in my initial four years on the Public Accounts Committee or when as a Minister I overruled official advice to disclose information to the National Audit Office during covid. Since being elected as Chair of the House’s Finance Committee, I have repeatedly raised concerns in private about the financial management of the House and the multibillion-pound restoration and renewal programme, but I feel it is necessary to raise these issues on the Floor of the House today. Before doing so, I place on record my thanks to Mr Speaker, because I know he cares deeply about taxpayer value—an issue he has championed on many occasions. I want to reassure Members that I will not disclose any information I have received in my role as Chair of the Finance Committee or in a private capacity. The crux of the issue is that there needs to be a complete reset of the R and R programme. The books need to be open to the public, and we need to bring the public into the debate about how we balance the needs of a world heritage site with modern security, accessibility —for example, for those with a disability—and value for money. Updated costs need to be presented. Currently, millions of pounds are being spent working up multiple options, despite our now being in the fifth year of this work. Indeed, those options are gold-plated, often based on decisions taken by Members who are no longer in the House. There is remarkably little visibility of this issue. The most recent costs presented go back to 2022, and even then the cheapest option was £8.6 billion to £13.8 billion, with others costing more, and that is without inflation and with no other significant additions. Those costs exclude the work Members will see on the northern estate, which is not part of the R and R programme, yet the public would associate the two, not least because that work is a key part of any decant. We also know that there are precedents for costs increasing massively. If we take the example of the Elizabeth Tower— the most recent example in this House—the costs started at £29 million and finished at £89 million, which is a 209% increase. If we look at this morning’s news, we can see how the costs of Sizewell C have increased. There are known risks in plain sight. In its first report, the National Audit Office cited changes to programmes as a key risk, yet we know that the sponsor body set up at the start has been scrapped. We know that we started with one option and then went up to two and then three, but with A and B options, so in essence we have four options. Who knows, but there could be a fifth on the way. The governance is opaque. Let me give the House an example. The key body that oversees the programme has met only once this year and only twice since the last annual report. However, if we look at what is in the public domain, the first paragraph of the annual report says that “the R&R Client Board and R&R Programme Board will mean sufficiently robust and detailed information will be available to the new Parliament to support decisions on the way forward for R&R.” We have not debated it once, and the governing committee has met only once this calendar year. I am conscious of the time, so I will canter through some of the other issues. In short, security is often presented as a reason for not being transparent, but I would draw Members’ attention to the very welcome intervention by Baroness Smith in the House of Lords in her exchange with Lord Hayward about the Carriage Gates, which cost £9.6 million. I am told that they still do not work particularly well. Just last week, this House debated a mistake that was made by an official in the Ministry of Defence, with Members complaining about both the cost to the taxpayer and whether that was covered up. How confident are Members that no similar examples exist? I simply ask Members: are they aware of the costs of the work on the northern estate, of the trade-offs and how they are being shaped, or of the cost of any delay? How confident are they that when they are asked to make such decisions alongside a Budget, they will have the information they need? I will finish with one final example. Just as with High Speed 2, hiding something in plain sight involves producing lots of brochures and lots of literature. Colleagues can see that one of the recent quarterly updates states on page 4: “R&R Surveys…ONGOING… Budget…ONGOING… Develop House of Commons…Plans…ONGOING… Costed proposals…ONGOING… Invitation to tender…NOT STARTED”. It includes no meaningful information. Indeed, the annual report has financial information only on the final two pages, pages 29 and 30. This is not a new issue. Lord Morse, in his 2022 report, noted: “Parliament has a historically poor reputation for its contract management and commercial acumen.” I believe issues should be shared with the public, the trade-offs discussed, and Members of this House, particularly new Members, given sight of these issues. I have called repeatedly in private for there to be greater debate. Today, I want to do so on the Floor of the House.
I am sure we can all say amen to that. There are 34 Members seeking to intervene in this debate, and we need to go on to the wind-ups at about 6.30. Work it out for yourselves: that is about five minutes a head. I am not going to put a time limit on at this stage, but it may mean that some people drop off the end if colleagues are over-zealous with their time.
Order. No.
Order. I think the Father of the House was reaching his peroration. I am fully aware of the friendship between the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and Sir David, but he will have the opportunity to make his case shortly.
Order. We are beginning to play “beat the clock”. I understand that the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) has some important information about the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster that I am sure Members will wish to hear, so I do not propose to impose a time limit immediately. After he has spoken, I shall impose a time limit of five minutes.
Order. I call Jodie Gosling.
Order. Before I hand over to the Chairman of Ways and Means, I would like to say that this will be my last session in the Chair for the foreseeable future. I thank colleagues for the courtesy with which I have been treated, and thank you in particular for the tributes that you have paid to my friend David Amess. David and I signed on the register on the same day when we came into the House. I am very grateful to you all.
For residents of New Court Place care home in Borehamwood, wheelchairs are their lifeline. However, they are being badly let down by AJM Healthcare, their NHS wheelchair provider, with multiple unresolved assessments, bad communications and waiting times for repairs and replacements unbelievably extending to four years. Residents with physical and intellectual disabilities feel let down, overlooked and traumatised. In tackling health inequalities, can I urge the Secretary of State to look urgently at this provider and come to the aid of people who desperately need our help?
Given the Minister’s helpful references of a sartorial nature to his opposite number, may I congratulate him on his carefully understated choice of necktie today? I shall certainly remember to bring my dark glasses next time he is on parade. Can he explain to me—as an ardent Swiftie myself—what protection performers, such as the son of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh), have against their tracks being uploaded by anyone to a service such as YouTube, whereby it is possible for people to enjoy their music without apparently paying them any royalties at all?
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Is not the real problem, as identified by the FSB and articulated by the right hon. Gentleman, that there is an unholy alliance of Eurocrats and bureaucrats, of separatists and globalist corporates, who are acting in a way that is injurious to the interests of small and medium-sized businesses that trade across our United Kingdom?
My hon. Friend, with typical generosity, says that we are all trying to get this right. I established that that is largely true, with the possible exception of the EU itself. There are those in the European Union, stung by the wise decision of the British people to leave that awful body, who have never really accepted that decision and have made life as difficult as possible—both for this country and for the businesses described by right hon. and hon. Members in this debate.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will know that long ago—indeed, before we were born—tens of thousands of young men were sent to a far off place to witness the first British nuclear tests. Ever since, some of us have been campaigning for their interests. Earlier this year, the Government announced that there will be a review into the blood and urine tests taken at the time of those tests; you will appreciate the significance of that, Madam Deputy Speaker, because of the risk of radiation poisoning. The Government have said that the review will be published, but we have no clarity as to when. There are tens of thousands of these records, which are being examined as we speak. Have you had any notice from Ministers on when they will come to the House with an interim report? These men are now elderly; they are dying, of course, because of their age, by the week and month. However, I, along with the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and the descendants of these men, will not give up this fight. It is vitally important that the Government are clear about when those tests will be published—I wonder if you could help in that regard, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Will my hon. Friend give way?
My constituents in Cranleigh have no train service and no direct bus service to the Royal Surrey County hospital in Guildford, which is a big issue for older residents who do not drive. Does the Secretary of State agree that some of the empty rooms in Cranleigh Village hospital could provide a very good opportunity for the expansion of neighbourhood health services, and if he has not been briefed on this pressing issue by his officials, may I brief him, or one of his Ministers, on it in the autumn?
Obviously, my first concern is my constituents who work in the refinery in the neighbouring constituency, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers). I am sure that the Minister will give them reassurance about enhanced redundancy. Also, may I ask a question on behalf of my rural constituents in North Lincolnshire—and I declare an interest, as I live there? This is a deeply rural area, where we rely on heating oil because we are not on mains gas. What impact will closure of the refinery have on the price of heating oil?
I rise to talk about Lord Anderson’s report on Prevent and the death of our wonderful fallen colleague and my dear friend, Sir David Amess, which was published last week. It is obviously appropriate to make this speech today, in the Sir David Amess Adjournment debate, which is rightly named in his honour. However, it is sad that this speech aims to draw attention to the way in which he and his family have been and are being let down by the Home Secretary and this Government. The House is well aware that the Sir David Amess family would like a full statutory public inquiry into the death of their beloved father and husband. Last March, they met the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary at 10 Downing Street. They were supported by their former MP Anna Firth, leading London lawyers, and public affairs expert Radd Seiger, all of whom continue to support and help the family on a voluntary basis. At that meeting, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister asked the family to go away and work with Lord Anderson, to see if he could answer the dozens of questions they still have about why the killer slipped through the state’s safeguarding nets. Against their better judgement, the family did just that. They met Lord Anderson, along with their advisers and Anna Firth, in his chambers in the Middle Temple. They provided Lord Anderson with all the questions that they still needed answering, and they waited patiently for his report, enduring several more months of stress and anxiety. Both the Home Secretary and Lord Anderson specifically promised the family that they would see the report first, and in good time, so that they had time to read and digest it, and take advice, before being subjected to the glare of the media. You can only imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, how deeply distressing the whole media circus is for the family. Unbelievably, yet again, that did not happen. The family first learned that the report was imminent from an article in The Guardian, and when they received a text from a journalist saying that the report was due to be published soon. Clearly, rather than keep their word to the Amess family, the Government chose quite deliberately to leak the report to the press first. That is an absolute disgrace. The Amess family should have seen the report first, not last. That is a simply unacceptable way to treat any grieving family, let alone that of a distinguished parliamentarian. Once again, the Amess family were bombarded by the media, causing them great pain. All the media wanted, of course, was their individual soundbite, before the family had any opportunity to even read the 170-page report. The Home Secretary should feel thoroughly ashamed. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to apologise to Lady Amess and her family for this latest insult. The Government really need to do far, far, better on how they treat the victims of heinous crimes. Critically, however, there is now no doubt whatsoever, following Lord Anderson’s work, that there must be a full public inquiry on why the string of failures that led to Sir David’s murder were allowed to happen, and on who was responsible, who will be held to account, and what will be done to ensure that there is no repeat. The Amess family have been told repeatedly by the Home Secretary and successive Ministers that lessons had been and would be learned by Prevent, including the lessons set out in the Prevent learning review, which took place shortly after Sir David’s death and was published earlier this year. Heartbreakingly, Southport happened three years later. The two cases are virtually identical. In both, the killer was well known to the authorities and to the Prevent programme, yet was allowed to slip through the safeguarding net. It seems, therefore, that lessons have not been learned. The Amess family feel that both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister were paying lip service to their agonising search for real answers when they finally met them at No. 10 in March. The family were assured by both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary that they took the family’s concerns extremely seriously, that they too felt the loss of Sir David acutely, and that they would leave no stone unturned to help the family find the answers that they needed. I will finish with the words of Katie Amess herself—
I will end with the words of Katie Amess herself—
He was.
In the words of Katie Amess herself, “Despite Lord Anderson’s review, the vast majority of our questions about Prevent’s failures remain unanswered. We still do not know why basic checks like social media monitoring or verifying school attendance were not carried out before the perpetrator was released from the programme. He was meant to have seven sessions. He had one, over a cup of coffee at McDonald’s, and was then released. That is simply not good enough, yet Anderson skates over it, ignoring the catastrophic consequences that followed for my family, and our country. Critical records, including minutes from panel meetings and vulnerability assessments, have either been withheld or were incomplete. That does not help any of us. Transparency is essential, yet we continue to face obstacles in accessing these documents. Other than the killer himself, there has been no accountability for my family. The review revealed alarming gaps in the handling of the killer after he was referred. Unsubstantiated claims were made about his supposed progress, yet no one has been held to account. This isn’t about process, it’s about people’s lives and our right to see that those who let my dad down are held fully responsible. Key individuals involved in the case were not interviewed, and the Coroner refused to engage with Lord Anderson, having already refused us an inquest. A full statutory inquiry would compel all those involved to give evidence under oath about the failings. My dad gave his all to this country, and yet he, and we, are being denied the most basic of human rights. It feels like they are trying to hide something, to shut this tragedy down. A statutory public inquiry is the only way to compel witnesses to testify and documents to be disclosed… On behalf of my family, I now call on the current Home Secretary and Prime Minister to do the right thing and to order the inquiry, just as they rightly did for Southport. They told my mother and me and Anna Firth that we could come back to No 10 if we were not happy with Lord Anderson’s review. Well, we most certainly are not happy with it, and I will be asking my team to write to them to request that further meeting they promised us. A public inquiry would honour my father’s legacy by ensuring real accountability and preventing future tragedies. Lastly, my father dedicated his life to public service. The very least he deserves is a thorough investigation into how his murder could have been prevented. We owe it to him and to every potential future victim to get this right. We have had review after review since my father died. We now call for a public inquiry.” Let right be done.
Hear, hear.
The NHS 10-year plan identifies antimicrobial resistance as “a critical threat requiring urgent action.” AMR kills 35,000 people in the UK every year and 5 million globally and rising. Why on earth are the Government covertly axing the Fleming Fund without telling Parliament? Will the Secretary of State publish an impact assessment of the effect of the Fleming Fund’s closure on our domestic health security?
I commend my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), for bringing this urgent question to the House before it rises. I also pay tribute to Max Caller, whose retirement has been announced in the last few hours; he has dispatched his Herculean task with considerable distinction. The Minister will be aware that Labour is now imposing the contract, which the Conservative Opposition leader, Councillor Bobby Alden, urged the Labour leadership to do a year ago. Does he understand that my constituents in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, who come under Birmingham for local government purposes, have had their patience tried beyond endurance by this bankrupt Labour council? Is he aware that recent polling suggests that only 5% of Birmingham residents are likely to vote Labour next May? My constituents—and, I have no doubt, those of the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr—are counting the days until next May comes and we can get rid of this dreadful council.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if I could seek your guidance. It has now been 36 days since the Home Secretary came to the Dispatch Box to give a statement on the possibility of a national inquiry into the grooming gangs; indeed, it has been seven months since the Home Secretary, back in January, indicated at the Dispatch Box that there would be five local rape gang inquiries. This is causing a huge amount of concern for many victims and survivors of this heinous crime. Yet here we are on the last day before recess without an update from the Home Secretary at the Dispatch Box on the timings, who the independent chair will be, the funding arrangements, and, dare I say, whether Keighley and the Bradford district will be included. I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker: under Standing Orders, is there any mechanism for you to ensure that the Home Secretary comes to the Dispatch Box before the end of the day to provide an update on the national inquiry into grooming gangs?
It is a pleasure to speak in the Sir David Amess summer Adjournment debate, which is one of my favourite debates of the year, because it gives all parliamentarians the opportunity to talk about the fantastic places and communities we represent. We are blessed to have an excellent network of charities in Keighley and Ilkley tackling mental health issues. Andy’s Man Club, Nebula Girls’ Group, AWARE and Missing Peace Wellbeing and Support all do fantastic work. I was privileged to host them recently at a mental health forum in Ilkley alongside Dr Caroline Rayment, where we brought together a range of stakeholders to talk about the challenges facing younger people. I thank Dr Laura Spells, who came along to give hugely compelling and deeply worrying evidence about the damage that smartphones are doing to our young people. I look forward to continuing to work with Dr Caroline Rayment and those stakeholders to tackle the mental health challenges facing our young people. In Keighley and Ilkley, we like to do things properly. That is why just last weekend it was excellent to attend two standout shows from both ends of the musical spectrum. Beat-Herder is one of the highlights of the UK festival calendar, and it was fantastic to go along and support the independent show created by six lads from Keighley. I want to say a huge thanks to Jamie Foxon and Nick Chambers for organising that event. At the other end of the spectrum, the BBC definitely has competition, because Silsden Proms on the Farm was a roaring success for another year running. I pay tribute to Stuart Clarkson, William and Eileen Jowitt and their team of 10 volunteers who put that fantastic event together, raising money for Sue Ryder Manorlands hospice and the Silsden Methodist church. I know that many who attended that fantastic music event visited Olive & Green and Isherwoods butchers beforehand to ensure that their picnics were as good as they could be. I also attended the Oxenhope straw race, which is in its 50th year. For those in the House who do not know about that event—crikey!—it is where everyone gets dressed up in fancy dress and runs down the Worth valley, having a pint or two in the pubs along the way. The event has raised more than £500,000 for local charities across Keighley and the wider Worth valley. I commend Robin Wright and his team for the excellent work that they have done in bringing it together. Let me say a huge well done to our local Salvation Army, whose victory programme teaches young people for free how to make cheap and nutritious food. I was lucky to meet some of them just this weekend; I had a great chat with many of them about the challenges they face. I say a huge thank you to Imogen Stewart and her team for the work that they do alongside Rachel to provide those teaching sessions for many people across Keighley. It is vital to give young people the skills to stay on the right path, and that is why I want to say a huge thank you to Switch Hitters boxing club. I particularly thank Jonny Greenwood for getting it going in Keighley. The club is doing excellent work. I attended it, but I did not get involved in the boxing sessions myself—I have confirmed that I will go back with my shorts on so that I can take part. I felt slightly intimidated by some of the lads from Keighley in their boxing gear, but I will go back and give them some support, because sports clubs do a huge job in providing confidence to young people from across Keighley. Ilkley is lucky to be the official host of Yorkshire Day on 1 August. We were lucky enough to host it a couple of years ago in Keighley, and we will now host it in Ilkley, which will be a huge success for all residents across our area. I wish all Members across the House a very happy recess. I hope that they will be out door knocking, speaking to as many constituents as possible and advocating as strongly as possible for the things that matter to them at a local level, as I will be.
There are about 16 colleagues bobbing. For me to try to get them all in, I will have to reduce the speaking limit again to four minutes. It may reduce again.
A portion of Southend West was represented by David Amess, and I call the new MP for the area.
Order. I am trying my best to get everybody in, so the speaking limit is now three minutes.
The coolest speech by far.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the shadow Minister.
Far too smooth. I call the Minister.
I call Bob Blackman to wind up the debate.