Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill
I call the shadow Minister.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill
With the leave of the House, I call John Grady to wind up.
- Hansard source
Licensing Hours Extensions Bill
I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
Licensing Hours Extensions Bill
Order. Sir Christopher is a parliamentarian with enough experience to know that that is a very, very long intervention. He has been here from the start; he could have chosen to contribute in the debate.
- Hansard source
Licensing Hours Extensions Bill
As we have not yet heard from the Minister, I am not prepared to take a closure motion at this time.
- Hansard source
Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill
I thank the hon. Member for introducing this important Bill, which I support. He talks about the impact of diseases that puppies might have when they are brought in. Does he agree that there are also diseases that have potential impacts on human health, often for the veterinary surgeons or nurses who are looking after them? For example, diseases such as Brucella canis could lead to miscarriage for a lady if she is looking after one of those puppies while pregnant.
- Hansard source
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. It is a pleasure to reach this milestone in the Bill’s journey through the House of Commons. As we know, livestock worrying has devastating consequences for both animals and farmers. In Committee, I and other Committee members shared the experiences that had resonated with us of farmers having suffered attacks to their livestock. The damage of a livestock attack can be horrific, causing brutal injuries that are tragically often fatal. There are instances of stress causing pregnant livestock to miscarry, and separation of mothers and their young leading to hypothermia or starvation. I have seen pictures from farmers in my constituency of the aftermath of attacks that have mutilated their calves beyond any hope of keeping them alive. The consequences of an attack, no matter the scale, are profound, and attacks are sadly all too common. The data from the recent National Sheep Association survey speaks for itself: 96% of respondents had experienced incidents in the last 12 months, and 98% agreed that there is an urgent need for additional police powers. The responses highlight that livestock worrying remains a huge problem for the sector and show just how important it is to deliver the Bill.
- Hansard source
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
I thank the hon. Member for his insights as a vet, and for emphasising what so many people across the House know: these changes are vital. May I also say how grateful I am to the hon. Members who took the time to serve on the Bill Committee? I am truly grateful for their support and contributions, and for the conversations I have had with many of them about the Bill. As we heard in Committee, the Bill will modernise the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, ensuring that it reflects the needs of modern-day farming. The Bill strengthens police powers, so that they can do their job more effectively. Specifically, it gives the police powers of entry, and allows them to seize and detain dogs and to collect evidence—changes that farmers in my constituency have specifically told me are necessary. The Bill will also increase the penalty—and we hope, in turn, the deterrent against livestock worrying. The fine is currently capped at a maximum of £1,000; that will go up to an unlimited amount, to reflect the severity of livestock worrying from an animal welfare standpoint, as well as the economic toll an attack can have on farming. Farming has diversified, and therefore the scope of livestock requiring protection has increased. I am delighted that camelids such as alpacas and llamas will now be protected under the Bill. Anyone who has driven down country roads, such as those in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, will know that farmers move livestock. In recognition of that, the Bill includes roads and paths as locations where an offence may take place; that will give farmers greater reassurance when moving livestock. As I said in Committee, the legislation puts animal welfare and farmers right at its heart. Today marks exactly one year since the general election. I am deeply proud and grateful that in my first year as the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, I have been able to introduce a Bill in my name that will make a genuine difference both for animal welfare and farmers. This is precisely why I stood for election, and it is testament to the strength of this Parliament that an Opposition Back Bencher can help deliver meaningful change in the law that will have a real and lasting impact. We should all be able to enjoy the countryside, and there is no finer countryside than in Chester South and Eddisbury. However, that enjoyment comes with a responsibility to preserve and protect it, and to support those who care for it every day: our farming community. The Bill gives us the opportunity to act to protect our countryside, support our farmers and strengthen animal welfare. I hope that Members from all sides of the House will join me in backing it, just as they did in Committee.
- Hansard source
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
With the leave the House, may I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the majority of her remarks? Of course, we disagree about the Conservative record on animal welfare, but I thank her for her personal support and that of the Government for the Bill. I would like to thank to a number of people who have contributed to this legislation. The Bill commenced its journey in the last Parliament as a private Member’s Bill under the sponsorship of Baroness Coffey, and it is fitting that she has expressed her intent to take the Bill through the other place. I am grateful for her support and wish to put on the record my sincere thanks. I thank again all Members who have been involved in and spoken during the passage of the Bill. It has been a pleasure to work with colleagues, and I am incredibly grateful for their involvement. I also want to acknowledge the contributions made today that rightly emphasise that the Bill is not about targeting dog owners. I am a dog lover myself, and I know that the vast majority of dog owners are responsible and care deeply about animal welfare, whether it is dogs, sheep or, indeed, alpacas. The Bill is about ensuring that we can all enjoy the countryside responsibly. I thank the team in the Public Bill Office and at DEFRA who have worked so hard to progress the Bill. I also thank my brilliant, very hard-working team for all their help, and particularly Joel Hetherington for his invaluable support. Finally, I thank the farmers in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury who have shared their experiences with me. Their insights into the devastating impact of attacks and the difficulties of securing prosecutions under the current law have been invaluable in shaping the legislation. It really has been a team effort, and the difference we can make as a result of this Bill will be felt across farming communities. It is for them that we have brought this legislation forward, and I could not be prouder to have played my part in delivering it. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The charity sector includes hospices, such as Acorns children’s hospice in Walsall. Hospices are being hit by the Government’s damaging rise in employer national insurance, which was mentioned in an earlier question. Given that in his opening remarks, the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism praised the Chancellor for his success in securing funding for his Department, will he speak with the Chancellor and urge her to do all she can to reinstate long-term funding for our hospice sector?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
I associate myself with the tributes to Diogo Jota. I understand that his brother was also killed in the accident, and my heart goes out to their family. Since the Secretary of State’s statement on Glastonbury on Monday, it has come to light that the act in question had spouted equally vile rhetoric at another concert just a few weeks ago. Given that the BBC is seemingly able to pull live broadcasts when things go wrong at football matches, for example, it is extraordinary that it did not happen on that occasion. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the discussions she has had with the BBC? Why did the same thing not happen on this occasion? What due diligence did it carry out about the acts that were performing? Given that we are still waiting for a response on the previous Hamas documentary, is she satisfied with the conversations she has had and the urgency with which the organisation is acting?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I have to say that I am as disappointed as she is that the BBC has not been able to come back with even basic facts. There were hundreds of BBC staff there, and it is not acceptable that it is unable to identify who ultimately had the final decision on whether to broadcast. The chairman needs to inform her, as a matter of urgency, who that was and what action they are going to take. While I absolutely understand the independence of the BBC, just as artists cannot hide behind artistic expression for vile commentary, the BBC cannot hide behind independence from accountability. I hope the Secretary of State knows that she has the full support of the Opposition as she pushes it for greater clarity.
- Hansard source
NHS 10-Year Plan
I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.
- Hansard source
NHS 10-Year Plan
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
NHS 10-Year Plan
Order. Some 60 Members wish to participate. Clearly, the statement will likely impact every constituency in the country, so I understand why so many hon. Members wish to question the Secretary of State. It is our intention to try to call everybody, but there is important business later that has to be reached. May I urge brevity on all Members, and short answers on the Secretary of State? Health Committee member Jen Craft will now set an example.
- Hansard source
NHS 10-Year Plan
I call Select Committee member Josh Fenton-Glynn.
- Hansard source
NHS 10-Year Plan
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
- Hansard source
NHS 10-Year Plan
I call Warinder Juss—not here.
- Hansard source
NHS 10-Year Plan
Order. Some 20 Members are still seeking to ask questions, and we have an important debate to follow. The questions are getting longer, and so, I fear, Minister, are the answers. Can I urge brevity again, please?
- Hansard source
NHS 10-Year Plan
I am sure that the hon. Member for Harlow will wish to correct the record.
- Hansard source
NHS 10-Year Plan
Finally, and with thanks for his patience, I call Richard Baker.
- Hansard source
NHS 10-Year Plan
May I thank the Secretary of State for answering in excess of 65 questions, and the shadow Secretary of State for being in attendance throughout the entire proceedings?
- Hansard source
British Film and High-end Television
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Dame Caroline Dinenage will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I shall call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, not the relevant Government Minister. However, Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
- Hansard source
NHS 10-Year Plan
Does the NHS 10-year plan include an assisted dying scheme? If the present private Member’s Bill runs out of time at the end of this parliamentary Session, and thus falls, will the Secretary of State reintroduce the legislation as a Government Bill in the next parliamentary Session?
- Hansard source
British Film and High-end Television
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the ingenuity of her statement. I am tempted to ask her if she is offering a prize to the first person to identify all the film titles she smuggled into it. Could she perhaps enlarge a bit on one of the more disappointing responses, as negative as it was, from the Government to which she referred? That is the recommendation that the Government should at least conduct research into the possibility of a statutory deposit scheme for the moving image, which I assume is a bit like having a copyright library for films in which every film gets deposited. Although I appreciate the limits on capacity of the BFI, would researching such a possible scheme not be a positive move to the advantage of posterity?
- Hansard source
Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress
It is often said in times of financial crisis that some institutions are too big to fail. Unfortunately, in this case it is a question of some campaigns being seen as being too big to succeed. I am quite sure that the real reason why the Department for Work and Pensions is so resistant to this cause is not that it does not recognise the justice of the WASPI women’s cause, so eloquently set out by the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), who has given excellent leadership on this cause through the all-party parliamentary group. Rather, behind the scenes— I do not know this, but I am sure that I am right—it is putting forward arguments along these lines: “There are so many of them; the bill will simply be too great. What’s more, they’re only going to get between £1,000 and £3,000 each, which won’t be anything like full financial compensation, so what’s the point in giving in to this demand?” I am quite sure that if the numbers were fewer and the overall bill was not so significant, we would not see this resistance to an obviously valid and viable cause.
- Hansard source
Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress
I do indeed. Of course, in any event, the women realise that they will not get anything like full compensation, but they want the symbolic acceptance and acknowledgement of the injustice that they have received. As we have heard from those on both sides of the House, this resistance puts at stake the credibility of the ombudsman system itself. Undermining that will have a knock-on effect: in many future cases, the bill for implementing an ombudsman’s recommendations and findings will not be anything like as large, but people and institutions will be emboldened to defy the ombudsman. One of the best short summaries of the case was put forward in a previous Labour manifesto, which said: “a generation of women born in the 1950s have had their pension age changed without fair notification. This betrayal left millions of women with no time to make alternative plans—with sometimes devastating personal consequences. Labour recognises this injustice, and will work with these women to design a system of recompense for the losses and insecurity they have suffered.” Admittedly, that was the 2019 manifesto, and Labour at that time was led by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), but that does not mean that the manifesto was wrong in what it said. It was absolutely right in its summary and its recognition that something must be done. Indeed, when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was in opposition in the last Parliament, she was cautious in what she said about the ombudsman’s report, but she did acknowledge the following: “we will take time to give the report proper consideration too, and continue to listen respectfully to those involved, as we have done from the start.” She added: “we won’t be able to right every wrong overnight.” That would have been the basis for at least an attempt to give the symbolic redress and acknowledgement that I think most fair-minded people agree is due. If the Government had come back and said, “We can’t implement the ombudsman’s recommendations in full at the moment, but we shall try and do it in stages, or over a period, or will at least go some way towards a symbolic acceptance of the wrong that has been done,” I think most reasonable people would have understood the situation and have been willing to at least consider some sort of compromise.
- Hansard source
Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress
Yes. In a way, the Government have fallen between two stools. The report, as we have heard, anticipated that the Government would be reluctant to the right the wrong done to so many people at once, but nevertheless the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman felt that justice required compensation to be paid. It knew that there would be this Government resistance, so it must have meant a lot to the ombudsman to still go down this highly unusual route of trying to present its report directly to Parliament, because it felt it would not get far by dealing with the Government directly. One might have expected the Government to offer a scheme that fell some way short of the ombudsman’s recommendation, but their outright rejection of any restitution at all is rather insulting to the women whose complaint was upheld by the ombudsman. As we have heard, despite the DWP claiming to accept the findings, and even apologising for its maladministration, it is not offering a penny in restitution, and is relying in its response on a deeply unconvincing polling exercise that supposedly found that nine out of 10 of the affected women knew in advance that their state pension age was going to change. If that was the case, why did so many of them carry on as if nothing was going to change at all? A few moments ago, the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) asked about the nature of the sampling that was done; only some 200 women born in the 1950s were included in the sample of nearly 2,000 people surveyed, which led to that misleading result. I know the Minister has a great deal of expertise and a strong track record on issues of this sort from his former career, before he came to this House. I therefore appeal to him to at least reach out the hand of negotiation and discussion; to accept the offer that reasonable people are making to the Government; and to sit down and talk to them, and not to let the whole thing go through the courts, which would lead to an adversarial deepening of hostility and, inevitably, a less desirable outcome for everyone concerned.
- Hansard source
Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress
Will the Minister explain to the House why not one single speech in this debate until his has taken the line that he is taking? Everyone who has spoken in this debate believes that some compensation, at least symbolically, should be paid.
- Hansard source
Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her leadership of this campaign. The situation is worse still than she paints it to be, for the ombudsman made clear that the “DWP has clearly indicated that it will refuse to comply” with the ombudsman’s recommendations, inviting Parliament to step in to resolve the matter. This is officialdom closing ranks, is it not?
- Hansard source
Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress
The purpose of this place is, of course, to make laws, to amend them and sometimes, if we are in opposition, to stop laws being made. But it has another purpose: to hold those with power to account. We do that as individual constituency MPs all the time, taking up cases on behalf of constituents, but this case not only affects the WASPI women in my constituency; I take it up for all the WASPI women, inspired by the leadership of my friend, the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), and others across the House. It is unusual in this place for Government Members of Parliament and the official Opposition—Labour MPs and Conservatives—the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the DUP and Plaid Cymru to all come together in common cause. That speaks volumes. It says that we recognise that these women were unjustly treated. But it is not just our recognition that counts; the ombudsman too recognised exactly that. When an ombudsman states that maladministration in DWP’s communication about the Pensions Act 1995 resulted in the complainants losing “opportunities to make informed decisions about some things and to do some things differently”, and that that diminished their “sense of personal autonomy” and financial control—and that is just one of its findings; maladministration, inappropriate communications and the failure to deal with complaints punctuate the ombudsman’s findings—for a Government not to respond to the ombudsman is frankly unacceptable.
- Hansard source
Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress
I do agree with that. It was a case powerfully made by the hon. Member for Salford that this case is very much about the relationship between the ombudsman and Government, and between this House and Government. That connection between independent scrutiny by the ombudsman and our ability as a House to hold the Government to account lies at the heart of this issue, and that is exactly what I was about to say. This question is about the WASPI women, but it is also about something still more profound. I hope the Minister will recognise that, in the decisions he takes, he will set an important precedent—a precedent that will affect exactly those kinds of relationships. I will reveal to the House what the Minister already knows: when this matter was considered by Ministers, a submission would have come forward from officials. I have no doubt at all that it would have offered several options. Option A might have been to satisfy the WASPI women in full; option B might have been to come to a partial settlement, which they perhaps would have accepted; option C would have been to do nothing. The Government chose—despite all the pledges in opposition by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Work and Pensions Secretary and the Prime Minister himself—to take that final option of doing nothing. I find that very surprising. Knowing how reasonable the campaigners are, I suspect that, had a partial settlement been offered, they might well have met the Government halfway. They might have understood that the cost was substantial and that they had to compromise to some degree—although let us just explode one myth: that all these women are privileged and advantaged. Many were not. Many, when they faced a longer period before they could retire, were in ill health. Many had caring responsibilities. Many were hard up. In campaigning for those women, mindful of those disadvantages, we are speaking for people who otherwise would be powerless. Minister, it is not too late to get this right. For the WASPI women have a just cause, and surely, in the name of decency as well as in the name of good democracy, justice must be done.
- Hansard source
Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress
The Minister is right to say that no party—indeed, no previous Government—can be excused in this respect, because this matter covers the time in office of several Governments. The difference is that members of his party, in opposition, said, “This injustice can’t go on. I have been a longstanding supporter of the WASPI campaign”, and that Labour “will compensate” the WASPI women, as it is “their money”. That was said by the current Work and Pensions Secretary and the current Deputy Prime Minister.
- Hansard source
NHS 10-Year Plan
There is much to welcome in today’s plan, particularly the proposal to bring back family doctors, which I tried to do but frankly did not succeed in doing when I was Secretary of State, so we all wish him well with that, but does he agree that as we seek to transform out-of-hospital care, it is vital that we do not take our eye off the ball and allow another Mid Staffs inside hospitals? Does he also agree that it is essential that the CQC gives overall ratings and calls a spade a spade when it comes to the quality of care in hospitals, so that we know whether the care delivered by hospitals in our constituencies is outstanding or good, and if not—if it requires improvement or is inadequate—that action can be taken, and lives can be saved?
- Hansard source
Christians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
The Christian town of Taybeh is the same town as Ephraim in John’s gospel where Jesus went before his passion. This town is entering a new passion: there was a violent attack by extremist Israeli settlers on the town on 26 June. There is a continuing pattern of crops being destroyed and outposts being set up, and it is happening all over the west bank. This is outrageous racial cleansing, deliberately designed to prevent a two-state solution and to drive out the people who have tended their crops there for 2,000 years. Will the Church of England call out this outrage every day of the week in an attempt to put some sort of pressure on the Israeli Government?
- Hansard source
NHS 10-Year Plan
As always, the Secretary of State makes a good fist of an impossible job, but I think we all know in our heart of hearts that this model, which takes 38% of public funding, is unsustainable in the long term. He mentions the Australian outback; I have been a voice in the wilderness, urging him to replicate the excellent Australian system, which is a mix of public and private. I will not do that again now, but may I ask him to at least look at Australia’s pharmaceutical benefits scheme, which ensures national procurement of medicines, so that people who have a medical card there get their medicines cheaper than people here?
- Hansard source
Charities: National Insurance Contributions
8. What recent assessment she has made of the potential impact of changes to employer national insurance contributions on charities.
- Hansard source
Charities: National Insurance Contributions
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations puts the cost at £1.4 billion. That is right, isn’t it?
- Hansard source
Project Spire
6. What statutory powers the Church plans to use to facilitate Project Spire.
- Hansard source
Project Spire
A number of Members this morning have lobbied for expenditure to repair their churches, and the hon. Lady has told them to lobby the Government—the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—for that money. At the same time, the Church has already spent £5 million on this project, with the aspiration of taking it to £1 billion, when the Charity Commission has yet to deliver its verdict on whether that is within the charitable objectives allowable. How has that been allowed to happen?