5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I agree. That goes back to the point I made a moment ago that too many of these companies see their residents as a soft or easy touch. They think that their residents will just suck it up and simply write the cheque.
I agree with my hon. Friend and with his constituent, Alex Roll, who has been in contact with me via Facebook. I take the point that my hon. Friend makes on her behalf, and that she makes on behalf of countless others, which is that these companies are inclined to effectively hunt with the hounds and run with the hare at the same time. When somebody dies and the property then goes up for sale—sometimes, because of the restrictive covenants, the resale can be a slow and difficult business—not only do these companies receive a fairly significant clawback at the point of sale, but they demand service charges to be paid while the property is vacant or while probate is awaited. They really are trying to milk it from both ends, and I just do not think that stacks up in the court of public opinion as being fair or justifiable. One should be able to say, “This property is vacant. We will not levy the service charge, as that will effectively be included in the clawback that we get at the point of sale,” because there is clearly no resident in that property using those services.
The hon. Lady expresses it very well, and I agree with her assessment entirely. It is the age and vulnerability of many—the “anything for the quiet life” factor—that is being exploited to the max. I want to mention specifically the hon. Member for Surrey Heath—although in this campaign he is very much my hon. Friend. We have been working together very closely on issues relating to Cognatum. He has Mytchett Heath in his constituency, and the issues being raised by his residents mirror those being raised by mine, and it is not a pretty picture.
I think it manifests itself in all quarters of the United Kingdom, but not all companies are culpable. My other campaign is on the regulation of the funeral sector; it is the rotten apples in the barrel that give the whole sector a bad name. It is on them that attention should be focused.
I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because we want to hear from the Minister. I am told that Cognatum and its subsidiaries claim small companies exemptions, meaning that there are no independent audits and the directors control the financial disclosures. Inconsistent and exceptional accounting items suggest financial irregularities. The company operates on a “going concern” basis, despite significant inter-company debts, and the auditors do not sign the reported financial statements, raising accountability concerns. That suggests, as the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) and others have suggested, the need for regulation. I have two asks of the Minister. The first is to have a thorough assessment of the effectiveness and independence—or rather, the lack thereof—of the Association of Retirement Housing Managers. They are populated in the main by current operators. Effectively, colleagues are being asked to mark other colleagues’ homework. I do not think that is sustainable or desirable, and it needs looking at. A number of my constituents believe that there is a rather lackadaisical approach to following the requirements of section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. I know that the Government have been doing some work on that, so it would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say. In closing, I am grateful to colleagues from across the House who have supported me in this endeavour. I pay tribute again to the hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Honiton and Sidmouth for the work that the three of us have been doing with regard to Cognatum. We did say that there would be an Adjournment debate if Cognatum was not prepared to engage and try to pull up its socks and improve the operation and service that they give to their residents, so this is a debate literally of their own making. This sector has grown up quite quickly; it is still quite novel in this country. People are still finding their way, and I think we are probably only on the first or second generation of residents experiencing the pitfalls of both resale and clawback issues and the lack of accountability that exists in the management and maintenance of many of these places where people live. These people have chosen to live there. They have invested a significant sum of their money so that they can live a retired life in dignity.
That is a good suggestion. Anything has to be better than the status quo, which is neither defensible nor indeed desirable.
The hon. Gentleman has been frightfully patient. I will give way to him.
I agree. There is a common theme coming through, which is the age, the vulnerability, the “anything for the quiet life,” the “We’re not empowered to ask questions,” and maybe not being digitally alert. Some bigwig from a company comes along and attends a meeting. In the case of Cognatum, they tell us, “Don’t worry, Mr Hoare, Dr Pinkerton and Mr Foord, because we have a tenant representative on the board.” How is that tenant representative chosen? They are chosen by the board of Cognatum—they are not elected by fellow residents at all—so a poacher chooses potentially another poacher to mark their own homework. There is this vulnerability: this “anything for a quiet life”; this “are we empowered to ask questions?” Indeed, the tipping point for me was when one of my constituents, who was asking perfectly legitimate questions in a perfectly civil way, found on his doormat a letter from Cognatum’s solicitors saying, “We think you are being vexatious and we are considering your lease arrangements.” Effectively, they were saying, “Ask any more questions, sunshine, and you’re out on your ear.” That gentleman is over 80. I do not think that is the right and proper way to treat anybody. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) raised a distressing case, obviously causing concern to him, to his constituents and to their friends and family. I hope that the comments and observations made in the debate have convinced the Minister that the status quo cannot continue. While we all call for a lighter regulatory approach and so on, this is a particular area of operation that has grown swiftly and autonomously, and is now crying out for reform. Reform of the association and rigorous enforcement of the section of the Act that I quoted would be a good starting point.
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. It is heartening that she so clearly recognises the seriousness and urgency of the child safety issue before us. I welcome the spirit of today’s statement in two capacities: as shadow Secretary of State and as a mother. Every parent wants to know that, when their child inevitably picks up a phone, they have done everything reasonably possible to protect them from exploitation, abuse and harmful content. We should take a moment to remember children such as 16-year-old Murray Dowey, who took his own life just hours after being tricked into sending an intimate image online. No young person should ever be put in that position, and no family should ever have to endure such a tragedy. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on device-level protections, particularly the commitment that children will be prevented from taking or sharing nude images on their devices. That is a huge practical step, which has the potential to prevent immeasurable harm. I remember raising device-level protection from the Back Benches before summer recess, so I am pleased that this work is being pursued. But although the good intent is clear, the execution is often more challenging, so I would welcome more detail on the Secretary of State’s plans, including on what exactly can be done to ensure that tech companies take more responsibility in this space. Before recess, the Government set technology companies a clear three-month deadline. Ministers said that if sufficient progress was not made, they would act. The Secretary of State’s assessment today is that progress has not been good enough, so the House now needs to know exactly what will happen next. We have heard a commitment to primary legislation, but “as soon as we can” is not yet a timetable. When does the Secretary of State expect to introduce the legislation? She has also said that the Government may reassess whether legislation is necessary if companies make sufficient progress in the meantime. What precisely would constitute sufficient progress and who will make that judgment? I would welcome clarity on the devices themselves. Is the aim for these planned protections to apply only to new phones and tablets, or will companies be expected, wherever technically possible, to push them through software updates to devices already in use? Millions of phones are in young hands at this very moment. Protecting only the next generation of devices would leave a large gap. Where older devices cannot support these measures, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the scale of that problem? The Secretary of State also said today that “there is a central role for Government in shaping…technology for good”. It is a very broad proposition, and I hope that she can reassure the House about exactly what she means by it. The Opposition want to see device-level protection and support further exploration, but it is just one part of a far larger picture. I pay tribute to the shadow Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), who has led the charge by the Conservatives for stronger online protections for children. As His Majesty’s Opposition, we have relentlessly pushed for restrictions on social media for under-16s. To be frank, the Government got to the right place in the end, but we did have to drag them kicking and screaming. Can the Secretary of State therefore confirm that the under-16s social media restrictions remain on course for early 2027, and that the necessary age assurance and enforcement arrangements will be ready in time? There is considerable common ground across this House. We want parents to be more empowered, children to have stronger protections, and technology companies to take responsibility for the content they display to young people. I look forward to working constructively across the House with the Secretary of State and the Ministers towards these worthy goals.
I want to come in on the matter of trust. One of the most trusted media or news sources is local media, with 42 million readers a week. I never miss an opportunity to say that the News Shopper is great. Does my right hon. Friend think that this is an opportunity for the BBC, which has done some great work with the local democracy reporting service, to enhance its effective work with local media so that we do not lose that trusted local news source?
Earlier this year, I met the Suffolk Liberal Jewish Community. Who thought that there would be such an organisation thriving in the genteel countryside of Suffolk? On the point about antisemitism across the country, will the hon. Lady join me in paying tribute to the small organisations that go out of their way to combat antisemitism and support Jewish communities across the UK?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing today’s debate. As always, we agree on virtually everything, so I will not repeat many of the things he said. I am also in broad agreement with the Government’s goals and much of the Green Paper but, like my right hon. Friend, I have two areas of concern. First, I am concerned about the dynamics and practicalities of the future of television distribution after the switch-off of digital terrestrial television, provided most frequently through Freeview. That will take place in either 2034 or 2044, and it could have a profound impact on remote and rural communities in particular, such as parts of my Droitwich and Evesham constituency. Secondly, I am concerned about the thorny issue of prominence. It is a noble ambition to counter misinformation and to ensure that trustworthy news is more accessible and discoverable, but it raises important questions. What exactly do we mean by trusted? Who decides what qualifies? How will such a system be enforced? The Government have made it clear that a DTT switch-off is coming, so the question is not simply whether the transition will happen, but how it will protect vulnerable users and those at risk of being digitally excluded, notwithstanding all the positive reasons for the change, which my right hon. Friend outlined some moments ago and which I will not repeat. As the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) highlighted, in recent times of trouble, including storms and fires, we have seen how vital these services are, particularly when other forms of media, such as broadband and mobiles, may be switched off, and we must consider that security aspect to the debate. The prominent media trade body Radiocentre has highlighted the potential impact of DTT switch-off on radio transmission costs. Without appropriate financial mitigation, it could put services, local coverage and listener choice at risk. Commercial radio shares much of the same transmission infrastructure as DTT; if there were a switch-off, the costs that are currently shared between television and radio could instead be transferred to radio broadcasters, creating a significant new cost burden from 2035 onwards and potentially increasing transmission costs by more than 50%. That is deeply concerning, particularly in rural communities. Many rural households still face unreliable broadband infrastructure, while others—particularly elderly households and those on lower incomes—may struggle to afford the internet contracts required to replace free-to-air television. We must not a create a situation where people who have relied on television for decades find themselves unable to access news, entertainment and, importantly, essential public information. The Government must adopt a general rural-proofing approach to this transition, so that no community and no generation is left behind. On a related point, the effects of that wider shift are already being felt in and around my constituency. The iconic Droitwich transmitting station in Wychbold closed its long-wave services in June this year, and I was disappointed that Historic England could not list the station. Furthermore, there are security aspects to retaining long-wave capacity. It is very difficult to block analogue radio signals—at least, it is much more difficult than blocking their internet equivalent—and long-wave transmissions have shown their usefulness in times of crisis. In a future wartime scenario, the UK might be thankful to have retained the infrastructure required to broadcast to the nation and beyond over distances of hundreds of miles. We then come to the issue of prominence. The Green Paper proposes new approaches to make trusted news easier to find on social media and to make public service media content more prominent on third-party platforms. The policy objectives are clear and noble but, as always, the devil is in the detail. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon said, there are concerns about how that will be executed and about the vital protection of things that we hold dear, such as freedom of speech, the freedom of the press and its ability to hold us to account as politicians. We have to strike the right balance between ensuring that people can access reliable information and protecting the fundamental freedoms that underpin our democracy. We must be very careful not to drift towards a society in which free speech is constrained, open and honest debate stifled, and the exchange of new ideas discouraged. The Government must therefore ensure that their definition of “trusted” content does not become a proxy for Government-approved content. There have been, and still are, authoritarian regimes around the world that have adopted such an approach to media regulation. I do not admire such regimes or such strategies. Therefore, although I recognise that a consultation is ongoing, I would appreciate the Minister’s responses on those issues in his reply.
That is some brass neck, Mr Speaker. I am astounded that the Minister can stand at the Dispatch Box and expect credit and gratitude for giving a little bit of support to a sector that his own policies have undermined and destroyed—two pubs a day closing down, and 100,000 jobs lost in hospitality and tourism. Will he instead adopt the Conservative policy of 100% business rates relief and actually support these sectors, rather than giving hypocritical warm words?
Order. I appreciate how important this statement is, but questions must be short. Foreign Secretary, please keep your answers short too.
Order. Asking more than one question just denies other colleagues the opportunity to contribute.
Order. I do not need any contributions from those I have not called to speak. I call Munira Wilson to finish her question—quickly, please.
Order. This session has been conducted with good tone and temperament, and that is how it should continue.
Order. I will have to cut people off if they continue asking long questions, and that will ruin their social media shots if that is what they are here for. There are far too many people still wishing to contribute. You are only going to disappoint your own colleagues. Keep your questions short. I call the Foreign Secretary.
Further to my online petition, which to date has received over 9,000 signatures, I rise to present a paper petition against the expansion of the local government boundaries of Leicester city council. Prior to the summer recess, the Government announced proposals for local government reorganisation in Leicestershire. The plans would have placed the villages of Anstey, Birstall, Cropston, Glenfield, Kirby Muxloe, Leicester Forest East, Thurcaston, Braunstone Town and Thorpe Astley within the Leicester city council area. While I welcome yesterday’s announcement by the Government, the 9,000 residents who have signed this petition have made their views crystal clear. They want it to be a permanent pause. They do not support an enlarged Leicester city council area. The petition states: “The petition of residents of the constituency of Mid Leicestershire, Declares that the petitioners oppose any proposal to extend the boundaries of Leicester City Council in a manner that would incorporate the communities of Braunstone Town, Thorpe Astley, Leicester Forest East, Kirby Muxloe, Glenfield, Anstey, Thurcaston, Cropston, Birstall and Wanlip into the City of Leicester; and further declares that these communities possess distinct identities, histories and local governance arrangements, and that any boundary changes which remove them from their existing district and parish structures would undermine local representation and community cohesion. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt and reconsider any proposals for the expansion of Leicester City Council’s boundaries, and to ensure that the views of local residents are fully considered before any changes are implemented, thereby protecting the character, identity and independence of the aforementioned communities. And the petitioners remain, etc.” [P003235]
I rise to present a petition on behalf of 563 constituents from East Grinstead, Uckfield and the surrounding villages, as well as a further 1,364 people who have signed online. For over five years, the Copthorne hotel has housed asylum seekers, depriving the community of both a local employer and a much-used and much-loved community space. Since 2023, my constituents have seen other hotels opened for asylum accommodation close before the Copthorne hotel. There is a palpable sense of frustration within the community. They have played their part and the length of time that the arrangement has continued is simply unacceptable. My constituents urgently want clarity on when the hotel will close. The prayer of the petition is as follows. The petition states: The petition of residents of the constituency of East Grinstead and Uckfield, Declares that the Copthorne Hotel in Copthorne should be returned to its former use as a major local employer, valuable Gatwick Airport accommodation and a highly valued community hub, in line with the Mid Sussex District Council motion passed in September 2025. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to facilitate the return of the Copthorne Hotel—used as asylum accommodation for the last six years—to its original and proper use at the earliest possible opportunity and before the current planning permission expires. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003236]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing this debate on an issue important to so many of her constituents. Despite having been in this role for only a couple of years, I have too often stood opposite Ministers to condemn violence against and, on solemn occasions, mourn the loss of life in the Jewish community—people targeted for no reason other than being Jewish. When those tragedies happen, we seem to find ourselves in the same post-tragedy discourse, with public figures stating that antisemitism has no place in our society, rightly acknowledging that it is an evil that must be vanquished. Yet how hollow must those words ring when British Jews know that another incident could merely be round the corner? When the Golders Green attack occurred, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was right to state clearly: “This is a national emergency”. As with any emergency, there is no single solution. It requires multiple measures, but underpinning those must be a willingness to tackle the underlying ideologies that allow this hatred to fester. Today the facts are stark. Having visited the Community Security Trust’s headquarters, I join hon. Members in recognising the organisation’s incredible professionalism. The CST data released in August showed that between January and June, antisemitic incidents reached the second highest total ever reported to the trust in the first six months of any year. That is a disgrace. Prior to October 2023, the CST had only ever recorded monthly incident totals exceeding 200 on five occasions. In the first half of 2026, the organisation logged more than 200 incidents of anti-Jewish hate in every single month, and more than 300 a month from March to June. Those incidents ranged from threats to life, assaults and arson to damage and desecration of Jewish property and abusive behaviour. But there is another statistic that should stop every Member of this House in their tracks. The latest Home Office figures show that in England and Wales, there were 106 police recorded religious hate crimes targeting Jewish people for every 10,000 Jewish people. Across the population as a whole, the equivalent rate was 1.7 recorded religious hate crimes per 10,000 people. If we put those figures alongside one another, the disparity is extraordinary and horrifying. On that population-adjusted measure, the rate of recorded religious hate crime targeting Jewish people was more than 60 times the rate in the overall population—I repeat, more than 60 times the rate. Religious hate crime is concentrated against Britain’s Jewish community, and on an extraordinary and horrifying scale. In modern Britain, that fact should shock every one of us: it is a stinging indictment of where we are and why this debate is so necessary. It also illustrates why the Government were right, in the summer, to allocate further police resources to tackling the issue. Ultimately, across matters of enforcement, we need to increase police presence, see urgent prosecutions, put a moratorium on hate marches, implement maximum sentencing and deterrence, conduct a comprehensive audit of counter-terrorism cases involving antisemitic motivation, deport foreigners who express antisemitic views supporting violence or terrorism, and better use existing powers to ensure that hatred cannot be targeted at Jewish communities. The question I have is this: is enforcement enough, when the ideas that fester continue to be popular? Many of us across this House were fortunate enough to go to university; yet, as has been said, polling conducted for the Union of Jewish Students earlier this year paints a horrendous picture. How can someone feel safe when one fifth of the university campus would not share a house with them and one in four have seen behaviour targeting Jewish students? Can the Minister confirm when the Government will publish the Bell review into antisemitism in schools, and whether they will accept its recommendations in full? There is nothing intellectual about prejudice, there is nothing progressive about excluding Jews and there is nothing enlightened about recycling vile conspiracy theories that are centuries old. The same polling found that 16% thought it was not antisemitic to claim that Jews control the media or government. We need to tackle the ideologies creating this mindset, because antisemitism does not begin with an attack on a synagogue. It begins with ideas and conspiracy theories. It begins when Jews are treated as a sinister collective and ancient prejudices are allowed to spread under new guises. The need to tackle this across communities is unfortunately clear. Polling by Policy Exchange this year found that more than two in five British Muslims believed that Jews had too much power over the media, weapons manufacturing and the banking system. We should be capable of saying two things at once: the overwhelming majority of British Muslims are not responsible for antisemitism and should never be treated as though they are, but when antisemitic attitudes exist within any communities, we do that community and British Jews no favours by being frightened to confront them.
I agree that opening doors is part of the solution, but I also agree that we have to tackle antisemitism wherever it might be, and it is most prominent. The same applies to antisemitism on the far right. Hatred does not become acceptable because of the politics of the person expressing it. These views go to the heart of the problem. It is not enough merely to have resources to protect the Jewish community. We must combat the intellectual idiocy that upholds and spreads antisemitic views. The test of a liberal democracy is not whether the majority feel safe; it is whether minorities can live openly as themselves, without fear. I have taken a sombre tone because it is impossible to look at the current situation with rose-tinted glasses. However, for the vast majority of people, antisemitic hatred remains abhorrent. The university polling showed that many recognise this hatred when they see it, with 82% deeming calls to “globalise the intifada” to be antisemitic. That majority matters, but a tolerant majority cannot afford to become a silent majority. My request to the Government today is twofold: first, to use the powers of the state unapologetically to protect Jewish people, and secondly, to go further upstream, work with the Jewish community, listen to Jewish students, challenge institutions that allow antisemitism to flourish, confront extremist ideology regardless of where it originates and, when making decisions in response to events in the middle east, remember that British Jews must never be treated as proxies for the actions of an Israeli Government. Whatever our political disagreements, that principle should be utterly uncontroversial. I know that Members across the House want to see the Jewish community safe, but wanting is no longer enough. When the population-adjusted rate of recorded hate crime targeting Jews stands at more than 60 times the overall population rate, when Jewish students are questioning whether they belong on their own campuses and when Jewish families require security simply to practise their faith, we have to recognise the scale of the emergency before us. That is not simply a problem for the British Jewish community; it is a test for Britain, this Government, this House and our country, and it is one we cannot afford to fail.
I pay tribute to all the Falkland Islands veterans in my own constituency and, indeed, around the country, and to the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster), who is no longer in his place. Is it not the case that we should all be seeking to de-escalate the rhetoric, but at the same time send a very strong signal—a resolve—to President Milei, that if we are required to do so, this country will once again defend the Falkland Islands militarily and, in between that, certainly defend it economically?
Can I welcome the moral, legal and ethical thread running through the Foreign Secretary’s statement that the life of a Palestinian child is as precious as the life of an Israeli child? He is right to talk about consensus on the two-state solution. Where there is not consensus is on the timing of recognition of a Palestinian state. He will know that eight Members on the Opposition Benches joined the Saudis, the French and the British Government in recognising a Palestinian state last September. I am glad there is also consensus, including from our Front Bench today, that we want to protect the viability of a future two-state solution. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is action that is now required to reconcile those two positions, so that we have a viable state in the future?
Many commentators have commented about public sector productivity underperformance. EY tells us that the public sector has underperformed to the point where it has cut GDP growth by 3% since 2019. The Institute for Government highlights an average of nearly 1% underperformance every year for that same period. Morgan Stanley reminds us that in the last year private sector productivity was up 1.8%, but public sector underperformance dragged it back into negative territory. Despite that, public sector pay was up over 6% last year, against private sector pay up just 2.8%. Why are the Government rewarding poor performance and does the Chancellor think that is sustainable?
I, too, applaud the Foreign Secretary for finally taking some assertive, confident steps to deter Israeli ambitions in the west bank, but I am perplexed as to why he is waiting nine months. The diggers may well have started in E1 by then. So, first, can he just explain in a little more detail why he is waiting so long? He has got a majority; let us get on with it. Secondly, has the Foreign Secretary made it clear to the Israeli Government that if this deterrent does not work, he is willing to take further steps and this is not the end of the story? Thirdly, I welcome his embrace, finally, of the strength of international law. Does he recognise that the security of Israel, Palestine and the United Kingdom stands in the impartial application of international law across the world? Will we see a pushback against American attacks upon the institutions that underpin international law? Finally, as part of the accountability that he has talked about, can we please have a UK-led investigation into the murder of our own citizens who worked for the World Central Kitchen? The Israeli Government have declined to conduct a criminal investigation, and officers of the IDF who were involved in that operation have been out in the media boasting that they would do it again.
T9. Nearly 100,000 hospitality jobs have disappeared in two years. Pubs, hotels and restaurants across the Scottish Borders are struggling with higher employment costs. When will the Labour Government cut their tax on jobs?
I welcome the Chief Secretary to her new position, but what words of comfort could she give the residents of Salisbury in Wiltshire, a unitary authority? We are not part of a combined authority and we do not have a metro mayor. Since this Government came in, we have seen the lowest settlement or one of the lowest three settlements on police funding and local government funding, and we have seen the withdrawal of funding for our road network in the south of Wiltshire. There is a concern that, with the focus elsewhere in big urban metropolitan areas, rural England will be forgotten. Is that not likely to be the case?
Sam Moody is my constituent. He is the chief executive of Rockhopper. During my time in this House, he has been absolutely scrupulous in following the laws of this country and respecting the Falkland Islanders. Will the Minister reassure him and the whole House that this Government will protect the interests of Rockhopper, whatever commercial arrangements it has in place, knowing that Rockhopper has always complied with legislation and respected whichever Government have been in power?
Fuel duty is catnip for a Chancellor desperate for revenue, but it is no sin tax, because for millions of Britons, vehicles are lifelines not luxuries. The imminent rise in fuel duty comes as tankers are ablaze in the strait of Hormuz. Must family budgets also go up in flames?
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this debate and setting out the issues in his usual, informed way, based on his expertise. I also thank all other colleagues who have contributed. The way we consume broadcast media is moving away from the traditional channels towards the huge amount of content available on demand and on video streaming platforms. I was struck by the Minister’s introduction to the Green Paper, in which he referred to watching “Noel’s House Party” on a Saturday with his family. I did the same, but that experience would be totally alien to many young people today—as reflected in the data, which shows that YouTube was the most watched service in the country last year. It was seen by more people every month than all BBC channels combined. Furthermore, video streaming services account for three quarters of all video time for audiences aged 16 to 24. The Green Paper is therefore right to grapple with some of the questions and implications. Let me begin with an area that has not been mentioned where there is common cause, namely the proposals on listed events and adding on-demand rights to the free-to-air listed sports regime, which we strongly support. However, one of the most controversial areas that has been covered in the debate is the plan to impose new regulations to make trustworthy news providers more easily discoverable on social media platforms. That may be well intentioned, but it is also deeply problematic and could undermine freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the free society that we enjoy. Are the Government really saying that the state will be the arbiter of what is trustworthy? Where would that leave channels such as GB News, which Ministers and right hon. and hon. Members have criticised and refused to appear on? Media organisations would benefit from the prominence regime only if they received approval from the state. That effectively means that a state body would decide what journalism people see. That would also have the effect of reducing visibility for independent content creators, community journalists and new media voices, thus undermining a free press. How would trustworthy news be defined? The paper suggests building on the recognised news publisher definition. That potentially covers thousands of titles and is so broad as to be meaningless. Many think this is simply an attempt to impose press regulation by the back door. The press regulation panel is explicit that only news publishers approved by a regulator should benefit. That would be completely unacceptable.
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the licence fee and the independence that it provides. Ministers need to focus on consumers and citizens. Platforms are built around personalisation, with individuals determining the sources of content they trust and want to access. User controls and labelling already exist. The Green Paper refers to misinformation and disinformation around the horrific Southport killings, in part to justify these proposals. However, we should note that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation said that the information released by authorities after those appalling attacks was inadequate and led to those who wanted to spread disinformation being able to do so. Police forces now share more information as a result. Furthermore, where there are major incidents, people tend to turn to more traditional news outlets, whether that is local papers, radio stations or public service media. More broadly, Ofcom found that more than three quarters of people think it important to check different sources if they are unsure whether a news story is true. That provides some reassurance.
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman illustrates the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon. We should be having more and much longer debates about precisely these issues. I hope the Minister will at least rule out any notion that to qualify for prominence, if such a scheme is put in place, a publisher would need to sign up to a state-approved regulator. On the proposals for the digital switch-off from either 2034 or 2044, latest Barb data shows that 2.6 million households rely on terrestrial TV because they do not have broadband or internet-connected TV. However, usage is also declining; we have heard about the pressure that that puts on broadcasters using those channels to get to a declining level of households. For many of my constituents, including older people, people in low-income households, and those in rural and remote areas, Freeview remains essential. By 2034, according to the impact assessment in the Green Paper, 1.5 million households could still be reliant on traditional broadcast platforms. There are serious challenges to be addressed, not least in respect of proper broadband access. The Government must therefore have answers and must have what the Secretary of State referred to as “watertight” plans. Any switch-off date should be treated as conditional, setting out the tests that need to be met and the support for all those who may otherwise be left behind. I call on the Minister to provide clarity on the timeline for the decision on switch-off, and a commitment that vulnerable and rural communities will not be left behind. On the broader issue of the prominence of public service media content on video platforms, chapter 4 of the Green Paper states that the Government’s preference is that that be subject to “industry-led, voluntary agreements”. That must be the right approach. YouTube is already talking to public service providers on that basis, but there is no attempt in the Green Paper to qualify any legislative costs or impact should the Government go down that route. It is clear that transferring the concept from linear broadcast and prominence to that approach without imposing excessive costs will be challenging. In conclusion, the Green Paper focuses on a changing landscape and poses a series of fundamental questions that we need to spend more time considering.
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The middle east and north Africa contain multiple wars, protracted civil conflicts and severe humanitarian crises. Of the 193 UN member states, what exactly does the Foreign Secretary think explains the relentless focus—morning, noon and night—on the one Jewish state, a country covering just 0.01% of the world’s surface? Does he really think that all the antisemitic, Corbynista, activist crowd, and unintegrated, sectarian, immigrant groups, will again vote for his party if he panders to their unhealthy obsession?
Like other Members, I had the privilege of going to the Falkland Islands last month. I thank the Commander British Forces South Atlantic Islands and all his staff for their welcome and professionalism. While there are clearly domestic issues going on in Argentina, the cold hand of China is not far from sight, whether it be illegal fishing in the blue hole, secret missile bases in Neuquén, or nefarious activity in Antarctica. What discussions has the Minister had with European and US counterparts about dealing with the threat that China poses, given that it is in all our interests in the free western world that the Falkland Islands remain British in perpetuity?
22. What estimate he has made of the average annual cost to motorists of discontinuing the 5p fuel duty reduction from December 2026.
I cannot believe the Minister just said he wanted to give families breathing space when the RAC Foundation has found that, since fuel prices increased due to international issues earlier this year, the Treasury has raked in £1 billion extra from the VAT on fuel. How can it possibly be fair on motorists or give them any breathing space whatsoever to carry on with another fuel duty hike in January?
The Conservatives will save our high streets, and may I explain to the Chancellor why that is important? Donna, who ran the Beverly Card Company, saw this Labour Government increase her business rates from £135 a month to £840 a month. That is why in February, after 30 years of her running it and having won national awards, the business closed. She will have to make payments for the next four years for those business rates. Will the Chancellor stop trimming, support the Conservative plan and abolish business rates altogether for the 250,000 high street businesses? He needs to stop talking and sounding sympathetic, and actually do something that makes a difference to our high streets.
The Chancellor is going around lauding an apparent cut to business rates, but it was his Government who reduced business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure from 75% to 40%. If he goes out there and speaks to the owner of any average pub, they will tell him that their business rates have almost doubled. Why will he not answer the question as to why he cannot and will not follow the Conservative plan to cut Labour’s spiralling welfare bill to fund the abolishment of business rates for hundreds of thousands of high street businesses across our country?
The Minister has spoken about sovereignty, and she is right, and she will be aware that under the Offshore Minerals Ordinance 1994, any decision on exploration has to come to this country. It just so happens that the very Energy Secretary who banned new licences in the UK will now be that decision holder. Can she rule out that if the Falklands asks for exploration in its area on oil and gas, this Government will not block it?