Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)
And—
Showing every spoken contribution, including 142 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{4639BBED-8A1A-4F2E-8C78-6041925CEEF2}"> </QNum></strong> I would like to ask your view on several things under the heading of political finance and disinformation. On political finance, could you comment on the benefits of a ban on crypto donations, on the potential benefits of a cap on individual donations, and on the potential benefits of an annual spending cap—not just a cap on spending during the regulated period—to avoid gaming of the system? On disinformation, do you think the Bill does enough to tackle disinformation? Perhaps you could comment on proposals for an advert repository and for a ban on deepfakes. Do you think that a ban on deepfakes needs to operate not just during the regulated period, but also outside it? <em><strong>Dr Garland:</strong></em> I will address those questions in that order. On crypto, yes, we would support a ban, or at least a moratorium, because there are many risks with crypto. They mirror the same risks in political finance across the board, but crypto is moving quicker than our regulations are keeping up, so we would very much support that being looked at. On a donations cap, we are very out of step with most other European democracies, and comparable democracies, in having no ceiling at all on donations. That is a huge risk area and speaks to the risk around foreign donations as well. There is also a huge risk in how the public view our political finance regime. We heard earlier that confidence is pretty low. People see that millionaires have more influence in their democracy than they do, because we have moved so swiftly to an era where there are many multi-million pound donations. Having no ceiling at all is a risk, so I would very much support a donations cap. That can be supported by spending limits all year round, because quite often, the campaign does not limit itself to the regulated period. I would support that. I would say that deepfakes are probably something for the other people you will be hearing from this afternoon; we have not looked at that area in detail. We have looked a lot at the imprints regime, and although I am very supportive of extending the imprints regime, it does not tell voters everything. An ad library would mean that we can increase transparency for voters, and enable them to see things such as who is paying for the ads and who they are targeted at. Often, that can highlight misinformation as well, so I would strongly support the amendment about an ad library.
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{3CDD472B-71E2-45D1-9FFA-3EC9121F476F}"> </QNum></strong> I would like to return to the question of your experience of having the franchise extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, and particularly to the topic of political literacy. You have given a few examples of work there. What conversations are happening nationally to ensure maximum co-ordination and investment in supporting political literacy, particularly with the extension of the franchise? Is there anything further you would like to say on that? Do you feel that the Bill sufficiently addresses the issue, and what lessons can be learned for supporting political literacy among over-18s as well? Is there more to be done in that space, and what has your experience been in that arena? <em><strong>Robert Nicol:</strong></em> Registration at 14 and votes at 16 have been embedded for quite some time, but I view this Bill—if it was to pass—as an opportunity to promote registration further. We are proud of the registration levels that we have been able to achieve, but there are still gaps and we want to make sure that we can narrow them as much as possible. I would welcome any involvement in trying to re-promote that across the franchise when the legislation does come into place. The question of wider political literacy is quite interesting. We have heard much about the missing millions and so on in the Electoral Commission’s reports. No doubt, every single electoral registration officer wants to make sure that, for everybody who is eligible and wants to be registered, that facility is available to them in the format and means that best suit their needs.<span id="33" class="column-number" data-column-number="33"></span> The answer to political engagement and literacy will probably not come from a middle-aged guy. It will come from within our communities; that is where the engagement really has to happen. I think I am right in saying that there are particular funding streams available for some community groups around this. That has to be the appropriate way; the message that we are getting out there has to be delivered by trusted voices—people who are trusted in their communities to give accurate information. Some of the stuff that we give out is complex and difficult to understand. There is no single message or delivery method that will get that to everybody who needs it, so it is wider than just administrators in terms of enthusing the electorate, both to be registered and to actually take part in the process. <em><strong>Malcolm Burr:</strong></em> It much depends on how much effort is made by everyone in the system. It is one thing having the right to vote, but our rights are arid without the feeling that participation makes a significant difference. It is always a work in progress. As an electoral administrator, it is a work in progress largely with our schools, and with the Electoral Commission, which does good work producing materials, generally. But of course, not all young people are in schools; you have to use other local media to encourage participation and show what the exercise of your right means practically. As an anecdote, I always try to invite as many young people as the rules will allow to election counts. You see then where the process goes; you see what is done with your vote and how it makes a difference—along with other votes, obviously—and what candidates then say when they are elected or not elected, and what they talk about. It is very important to show that system and the difference that voting makes. In Scotland, we have the experience of the independence referendum in 2014. That showed, in respect of all groups, that when the electorate feel there is an issue at stake, they turn out in huge numbers to vote. That is the example of that. As Robert Nicol said, accessibility is also important. We tend to think of accessibility in terms of voters with disabilities, but accessibility is beyond that; we have to look equally at how we reach hard-to-reach groups in the younger franchise. It is a combination of good publicity, good education and good appreciation, as much as possible, of how the voting system and casting your vote affects and changes things. It is a whole process. Sorry for the long answer. <em><strong>Karen Jones:</strong></em> I have two points, if I may. I do not disagree with my Scottish colleagues. Young people helping to co-design some of the communications and engagement methods is important. I think Robert made the point about people of our generation maybe not being the obvious people to go and engage with young people, so there is an opportunity there to involve young people in how we go about those exercises. An evaluation report about the experience in Wales referred to the timing of some of these activities. Young people have periods when they are very busy sitting examinations and so on, so there are periods within a year when it is possible to get better levels of engagement. That was a practical lesson that we drew from the experience in Wales.
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{669F129C-C076-40FF-A05B-F51B60C76715}"> </QNum></strong> You both mentioned disinformation. Do you think the Bill does enough to tackle disinformation? Are there additional measures that are not yet in the Bill that you would welcome—for example, a real-time repository of online adverts, or further measures to tackle online disinformation? I am open to your suggestions. <em><strong>Harriet Andrews:</strong></em> For me, part of that democratic education piece would include support for young people to engage with disinformation. A really important part of preparing them is preparing them to engage with that work on disinformation. Also, as I said at the very beginning, we need to think about where the sources of information for young people are. I worry that if we focus too much on just, “We need young people to be educated about how to engage with disinformation,” and we do not try to create places they can go to that are trusted sources of information, we are putting a huge amount of pressure on young people to deal with a really complicated information landscape.
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{E0903363-19F1-45BF-A485-6607941FCFE9}"> </QNum></strong> Thank you both for your work. You have made a powerful case for the danger of not better regulating disinformation. Can you share any lessons observed from how other countries have perhaps done this better? We have talked about the proposal for a repository of digital adverts. We have talked about deepfake labelling. What about other forms of disinformation, such as bot campaigns? Secondly, do you agree that we need to regulate not just during the regulated period but all year round, because disinformation has corrosive effects all year round? Thirdly, do you have any comments on the need for better enforcement of existing imprint laws? Finally, you referenced the Rycroft review, which of course covers only foreign interference. Are we paying enough attention to domestic disinformation? <em><strong>Azzurra Moores:</strong></em> There were lots of good questions there. You ask what more could be done on bots. Chris raised a proposal to increase the Electoral Commission’s investigative powers. For those of you looking at the amendment paper, that is new clause 25 tabled by Emily Darlington. Tackling bots is going to be really complicated, but we think a really important first step is to give the Electoral Commission investigative powers on the back end of platform data, to try to understand the scale and scope of the problem. Part of the reason we cannot do much more at the moment is that we have a real evidence gap—a real evidence deficit. We need to start giving our regulators, which are on the frontline, more ability to understand the scale of the problem. For us, that would be a first step. I am intrigued to see what the Rycroft review publishes. Demos gave evidence to Rycroft, and we highlighted that foreign misinformation is obviously impacting our democracy, but so is domestic misinformation. We are waiting to see what he publishes before going further on that. On international counterparts, we have recommended that this Government establish a critical election incident protocol, modelling what happens in Canada. It is quite a complicated protocol, and it is proposed in new clause 26, but essentially, if there was any interference with an election—if there was an information crisis that impacted the integrity of the election—there would be a published protocol on what officials would do to react to that. We are a real outlier here in the UK, compared with the other Five Eyes nations, in not having a public protocol. We think this elections Bill is another really important opportunity to say, “We know there are vulnerabilities. We know there are risks. We need to <span id="86" class="column-number" data-column-number="86"></span>establish transparent public protocols so that, should any of these interferences happen, we have a set of measures that mean we know how to react in that instance.”
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{5A7D251D-00A3-483E-8696-28A5362DFC00}"> </QNum></strong> You have answered many of the questions that I had. Thank you all for your work. Briefly, do you have a view on where the cap on political donations should be, or how it should be set? That is a question for each of you. And should we have a cap on annual spending, to get away from the gaming of the system around regulated periods that Dr Power referred to? Where should it be set, and how? <em><strong>Duncan Hames:</strong></em> We propose that a cap of £50,000 annually from any one donor is reached by 2030. That would still be much higher than in a number of other jurisdictions that have introduced donation caps, such <span id="93" class="column-number" data-column-number="93"></span>as Canada, France, Italy and—from July—Australia. If it were phased in, with a cap reducing year by year between now and then, that would provide time for political parties to adapt. We have done our own modelling, which I would be happy to share with the Committee, in which we look at the effect of that cap on overall party fundraising. I think you will find that, although we have recently had an arms race in campaign spending—not least because the spending limits were raised so dramatically just before the last general election—political parties fought all sorts of elections and referendums in the previous decade without needing anything near the kind of money that was available in the last general election, when nearly £100 million was spent. <em><strong>Dr Power:</strong></em> I agree that we absolutely need a cap on donations. I am less wedded to a level as much as to the idea that there needs to be a cap that people can get around the table and agree to, and which seems fair. To not have a cap on donations risks much more than to have one. It is absolutely essential. We have seen the effect that can have in countries that do not have caps on donations, particularly the USA, and the effect that the very rich can then have. What I mean by that is not an effect on the outcome of politics but an effect on the process of politics. You end up with about 400 individuals accounting for 75% of total party donations. Given that we are discussing the Representation of the People Bill, that is not a situation in which people are represented. It is essential that we find some way—in a Bill called “Representation of the People”—to fix the system properly such that the people feel represented. A cap on donations is essential and well within the remit of the Bill. On a cap on spending, I align with the 1998 CSPL review, as well as Jack Straw when he introduced the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. He said that there has been an “arms race” in spending and that we should always set a spending limit below the extent to which we expect to spend at an election. Until 2023, that limit was set at £19.5 million, if you stood a candidate in every constituency, which does not happen. If we say that the limit was £19.5 million, that should have been the baseline, and there was no good justification for it to be uprated in 2023—in fact, I think there is a good case for bringing the limit down further still. It would not have an effect on the good that money does in a system, which is to enrich debate and to allow political parties to get their positions across.
- Hansard source
Middle East
In the Foreign Secretary’s statement—all six pages of it—there was not a single word of criticism of the illegal, reckless action of Trump and Netanyahu in launching the strikes that have set off this conflagration in the middle east. If the Foreign Secretary is not prepared even to criticise that, what hope can the British people have that the UK Government are standing up to the aggression of Trump and Netanyahu behind closed doors? Can she assure us that she and her Government are showing more backbone behind those closed doors? And can she assure us that she is investing in building a special relationship with allies we can really rely on, who believe in human rights, diplomacy and peace?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
In 2020, the now Prime Minister proposed legislation to ensure that any UK military action could take place only if there were a legal justification, a viable objective and the consent of the Commons. Does the Secretary of State endorse the principles outlined by his party leader, and will he therefore support my Armed Conflict (Requirements) Bill?
- Hansard source
Strait of Hormuz
The Minister and the Prime Minister have talked about the UK being willing to participate in a “viable, collective plan” to reopen the strait of Hormuz, but does the Minister really think that President Trump has a viable plan, given that he had no plan for the illegal war, nor any legal justification for the war he has launched? Given that, will the UK be absolutely unequivocal that we will not give in to Trump’s bullying demands, but will instead stand up for British interests, and will we make it absolutely clear that we will not be dragged into a catastrophic, illegal war in the middle east?
- Hansard source
International Women’s Day
Four weeks ago today, I was in college, a plumber learning how to plaster, and today I am in Parliament as an MP. Being here is the honour of my life, but I do not want this to be unusual or exceptional. I truly believe that anyone doing a job like mine should get a seat on these Benches. Where I am from, we are taught to look after each other, to look out for each other, to stick up for each other and to stick together—to see each other as human. I am so proud of that humanity and that people in Gorton, Denton, Burnage, Levenshulme, Longsight and Abbey Hey feel that way too. It is in our blood and in our bones—we see each other as human. Where I am from, we give a nod to the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst. We remember the farm worker and seamstress Hannah Mitchell, the trade unionist Mary Quaile and the mill worker Annie Kenney—and, of course, Elsie Plant, who is from just down the road from me and who I named one of my beautiful greyhounds after. I think of these brilliant women a lot, and especially today as we debate International Women’s Day. I think of many others, too, from pits, slums and factories; the women who changed the system so that I could be here; the women of colour whose names we will never know because history did not bother to recognise or remember them. But we do today, because <span id="559" class="column-number" data-column-number="559"></span>without their struggle, their fight and their determination to stick together, none of this could be possible. It is bittersweet to recognise these brilliant people but to be reminded that we still need to try to be them. The constituency that elected me is the 15th most deprived in the country. It has suffered decades of neglect and broken promises. We see that every day right in front of us, in the litter and fly-tipping, the state of housing, the struggle for a job you can build a life on, the filthy and polluted air, and the reduced life chances—the sheer unfairness of it all. My constituency has been hit hard by the ongoing cost of living crisis. None of this is fair, none of it is right and none of it happens by accident. So I very much share my predecessor’s strong commitment to tackling health inequalities and putting local people and all our communities at the heart of decision making. That is how we begin to turn things around, to give people agency and a genuine chance of a better today and a better tomorrow. To the girls I saw photos of, going to school on International Women’s Day dressed as Hannah the Plumber, with their overalls and spanners, and the trademark hair. To the 10-year-old boy at HideOut who rock-climbed an incredibly high wall with me, saw me become suddenly very terrified of how far up I was, and said, “Don’t ever give up. And if it’s scary looking down then just look at what’s in front of you.” To the women in my life who have had my back and fought for equality alongside me. To the men I work with—especially the lads on my plastering course, who dealt with my new-found spotlight in the middle of our training very well. To those men who will suffer the effects of this unequal society through their mental health. To the veterans I know who were willing to risk everything, and came home and found that society was turning its back on them. To the white working classes, who are always lumped into one group and never appreciated. To everyone who will have nowhere to sleep tonight, or will barely exist in a cold, damp and insecure home. To my trans siblings who get blamed for everything. To the Muslims everywhere, who are constantly, and often violently, scapegoated. To the disabled people who cannot access the world because of structural inequality that is completely fixable. To the people of colour, who have to work harder at everything. I do not always get it, and I will not say that I always understand it, but what I do know is what it feels like to be looked down on, to be let down and left behind, to be less worthy because of something about me. Our struggles may be different, but our humanity is the same. We always stick together, we always fight for each other, and that is what I want us to take forward from International Women’s Day, and to do that every single day. The cleaners, bus drivers, nursery workers, foster carers, home carers, unpaid carers, teaching assistants, bin collectors, warehouse workers, delivery drivers, school dinner staff, lollipop wardens, supermarket workers, posties, library staff, kitchen porters, farm workers, mechanics, ground workers, scaffolders, electricians, plasterers and plumbers—we deserve to be here; every single one of us. And I will make space for you to come and join me, to get to have your say.<span id="560" class="column-number" data-column-number="560"></span> From the bustle of Longsight market, the many Irish pubs in Levy, Sue’s chippy, and Tony at California Wines in Gorton, to the amazing young people at HideOut, the best hash brown butty at Cafe Plus in Denton, and the women-led social enterprise at Dahlia Café on Burnage Lane—you are the best of our brilliant communities. I want to put Gorton and Denton on the map by championing the positives about our community: the spirit, the warmth, the grit, and the way we help each other out every single day. Whether it is our neighbours where we live, or our siblings in places like Afghanistan, Gaza, Sudan and Iran—wherever we are, we deserve to live freely as the human beings that we all are. We do things differently in Manchester, and it makes me proud every single day. Now I want to make Abbey Hey, Levenshulme, Burnage, Longsight, Gorton and Denton proud of me. Thank you so much for putting your faith in this plumber and newly qualified plasterer. Together, we can make hope normal again, and we will look after each other, whoever we are, because where I am from, that is just what we do.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
It was a privilege to be here for the powerful and effective speech from the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). When literally thousands of venerable members of the legal profession are saying so clearly that jury trial restrictions will not be effective or practical and may be counterproductive, and that they threaten our rights, surely the Government must listen. The Green party’s reasoned amendment sets out clear reasons for the awful court backlog that is letting down so many victims—it talks about Conservative underfunding over many years—and sets out the missing resources that will help to properly solve it. It is rare for us to agree with some colleagues on anything, but the fact is that we are all right on this point. We need alternatives to the restrictions on jury trials in the Bill, including intensive listings, more sitting days, legal aid investment, better buildings and better services to deliver defendants to court. The Green amendment also raises the question of whether these measures are yet another part of the Government’s wider attack on civil liberties. They are building a toolkit for tyrants also out of digital ID, <span id="250" class="column-number" data-column-number="250"></span>facial recognition surveillance on our streets and the erosion of fundamental asylum rights—all things contrary to our British values and which should not be packaged up for this or any future Government to use against minorities, protesters and dissidents. This is all so dangerous. Can the Minister truly deny that the growing acceptance by juries of defences of proportionality or necessity in some protest cases was not a factor in the inclusion of the unnecessary and dangerous curtailment of jury trials in the Bill? The category of triable either-way cases where jury trials will be restricted includes several of the specific offences created or made more serious by successive Governments in the wake of successful non-violent protest action. By successful, I mean non-violent actions that have—yes—caused inconvenience but which did what non-violent direct action is for: directly aiming to prevent harm to people or the environment, or to create a stir that raises public awareness of serious injustice. Actions made into more serious offences have included interference with infrastructure, blocking roads or demonstrating in airports, specific tunnelling offences, conspiracy to lock on to each other during protests, or symbolically using statues in actions, as well as some kinds of noisy protests—for being annoying. Along with the wider principle here, I am so concerned, in connection with rights and liberties around dissent and resistance to state power, that juries could no longer be able to judge the public interest or proportionality of the actions of defendants of these kinds of charges. Such people have achieved so much progress throughout our history—that, nobody can deny. The Bill should not affect our citizens’ rights in this way. It should be about real investment in our courts to ensure that justice is not delayed for the victims, who we all care about.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Given the recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report that says that the Treasury’s excessively narrow focus on fiscal rules leads to dysfunctional policy making, and given recent global events showing the uncertainty of fiscal forecasting, does the Chancellor recognise that it is time to move to a more flexible and strategic approach to fiscal rule-making and fiscal policymaking?
- Hansard source
Middle East: Economic Update
The Iran crisis highlights the urgent need to speed up the UK’s energy system transition to clean, green, cheap renewables and energy efficiency. The last time that energy prices went through the roof due to illegal international aggression, in 2022, normal people paid the price while huge energy giants raked in billions of pounds in windfall profits. Will the Chancellor guarantee that in responding to this crisis, she will do everything possible to protect ordinary households and ensure that no energy company makes profits from this war?
- Hansard source
Immigration Policy
Aside from the cruelty of asking people who have fled war and persecution to re-justify their already-recognised refugee status every 30 months, how does the Minister plan to pay for this huge additional administrative burden? As we have heard, the Refugee Council has estimated that it will cost £725 million over 10 years, but he contests that estimate. Perhaps he can tell us how much he thinks it will cost, and why—when our NHS and schools are crying out for funding—he is spending taxpayers’ money on scapegoating migrants instead.
- Hansard source
Social Cohesion Action Plan
Muslim people across the country face intensifying, dehumanising and often violent racism every day. Now that we have a definition, I am desperate for the conversation to move towards action. How quickly will the Government now move from definitions towards a clear and funded road map for action, including proper monitoring and accountability?
- Hansard source
Local Museums
The hon. Member is making an important speech, and is particularly talking about small independently run museums. Does she agree that, since many local museums are owned and run by local authorities and face the risk of closure because of severe underfunding, the Government must ensure that local authorities have sufficient funding to keep those local museums open, especially given that all the research shows that they have a huge benefit in our local economies? In Bristol, for example, our arts and culture sector created nearly £900 million of economic and social value this year.
- Hansard source
Spring Forecast
The result in Gorton and Denton shows that voters want bolder action from politicians against sky-high privatised bills and rents and want no families to be left struggling in poverty. Will the Chancellor listen and scrap her dysfunctional fiscal rules, starting with scrapping the overall family benefit cap, which still means that over 200,000 children are not getting the help they need to live if not a nice life, at least one without needless grinding hardship?
- Hansard source
West Bank: Illegal Settlements
The Minister says that he is concerned by the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements and the expansion of settler violence, and he says that he is considering concrete steps. He refers to previous actions, but it is now many months since the last concrete action by this Government. Actions speak louder than words. It is now way past time to end all settlement trade and impose new sanctions on those responsible for this violence.
- Hansard source
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity
<em>rose—</em>
- Hansard source
Middle East
My party and I stand with all the brave Iranians who condemn the vile regime in Iran. We also condemn the deeply irresponsible and illegal attack by the US and Israel on Iran, which was launched in the middle of nuclear negotiations and led by Trump—a clearly unstable loose cannon—and Netanyahu, a war criminal. The UK must stand unequivocally against this reckless action. <span id="599" class="column-number" data-column-number="599"></span>Will the Prime Minister publish the legal advice that he received on the initial American and Israeli strikes, not just the more recent advice on the defensive posture? Will he also commit to a vote in this House on any UK involvement in this war?
- Hansard source
Point of Order
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) incorrectly attacked the reputation of Mothin Ali, deputy leader of the Green party, by saying that he had protested in support of the ayatollah. He certainly did not. Mothin Ali attended a CND and Stop the War anti-war protest, in support of his principles of being anti-war, pro-democracy and pro-diplomacy. What advice can you give me about correcting the record regarding this serious false accusation?
- Hansard source
Point of Order
<em>indicated assent.</em>
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
Why don’t you tell your party leader?
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the resounding victory of my hon. Friend the new Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) in the by-election was a victory for hope over hate? And does he not recognise that he sounds like an extremely bad loser?
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that I like to start with the positives and the areas of common ground. I warmly welcome the fact that this Bill has come forward and a number of measures in it. It is very positive that the Government are taking forward votes at 16—something that the Green party has campaigned for since the year dot. It is really good that there is some commitment to improving transparency on political funding. I very much welcome what the Secretary of State was saying earlier about getting rid of the political control of the strategy and policy statement over the Electoral Commission. I also welcome the increase in the commission’s fining capacity. Those are all really positive measures, but there is much more to do. We need stronger action to stop disinformation, get dirty money out of politics and improve trust in our political system. Briefly, on votes at 16, let me say that 16 and 17-year-olds are engaged, active, interested and really passionate about the political system. It is right that they should be—they will have to live with the decisions that we make for longer than any of the rest of us—so I very much welcome the extension of the franchise. As young people themselves say, it is crucial that the investment is made in supporting political literacy, both in schools and more broadly, to ensure that young people—and all of us—have the political literacy to engage actively in the political process, which is an increasing challenge because of the grave threat of disinformation. We have heard from the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) and a range of other Members about the problems, and there is a clear need to place duties on the large online platforms to ensure that AI-generated or manipulated content is flagged and controlled. While the Rycroft review is very welcome, it is not enough, and serious concerns remain about external influence on our politics. I repeat my call for a Mueller-style investigation into Russian and other influence on British politics. We need to know what attacks were made in 2016 and since so that we can have greater clarity and transparency over our politics. I warmly welcome the points made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) about the importance of a transparent register of political adverts. We need to know who is saying what to who so that there is transparency, because currently we do not know that, and really disruptive and disinformative things are happening. As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) said, we must have, at a minimum, a cap on donations and a full ban on crypto-donations. That is critical. It is really quite extraordinary that the Thailand-based crypto investor Christopher Harborne has been allowed to <span id="671" class="column-number" data-column-number="671"></span>donate £9 million to Reform UK—I notice that its Members are still not here. We also need annual spending limits, so that our politics is not distorted by money being spent around the edges of elections, for example. What else is missing? We need to scrap voter ID, which is a barrier to political engagement and has no justification, and we need increased investigative powers—more money and teeth for the Electoral Commission. It is a profound irony that the Representation of the People Bill does not tackle the fundamental problem with our representation. True representation of the people requires seats to match votes and every vote to count equally, so I call on the Government to take this opportunity to bring forward proportional representation. Ensuring that everyone’s vote counts equally is the principled thing to do, and it is the popular thing to do.
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
I will not, because of the time. The British Social Attitudes survey shows that a majority of all political supporters are in favour of proportional representation, and of course, it is pragmatic and will improve our politics—
- Hansard source
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
I pay tribute to all the young women who have risked so much to stand up and push for justice in relation to the vile and corrupt web around the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and to the crimes and abuse that they suffered as children. Let me turn to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Transparency about the workings of an organisation is a key way to prevent corruption—sunlight is the best disinfectant—although I appreciate that a police investigation is ongoing and must not be jeopardised. Green MPs support the Liberal Democrat motion. We note that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) apologised and gave his reasons for saying—when he was in office in 2011—that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was doing an excellent job. That was during the debate held in this House by the late Paul Flynn, the formidable former MP for Newport West, to whom other Members have referred. The royal family is sheltered from scrutiny in too many ways, and it is now very clear what a risk that poses. We have heard many examples of MPs facing restrictions on what we can ask about royal activity, but it is reasonable and right that we should scrutinise fully <span id="212" class="column-number" data-column-number="212"></span>any work that they do on the country’s behalf, and consider how those restrictions might be removed. As I understand it, section 37 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 exempts communications between relevant authorities and members of the broader royal family—not just the King—from being released under freedom of information requests. It really is one rule for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of us, a situation which the Minister condemned earlier. I believe that that serious transparency loophole for royals must be closed. It could mean, for example, that if trade envoy positions are filled by members of the royal family, it would—predictably—be significantly harder for the press, public and MPs to ensure that things are above board, and to get details when things go badly wrong. One example of the effect on transparency is demonstrated in <em>The Guardian</em> today. In a profile piece, the author Andrew Lownie, who wrote the biography “Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York”, talks about stacks of his freedom of information requests being rejected by different Departments. That is why the Humble Address is so important: it would uncover whether those restrictions in the FOI Act were part of the equation in making the appointment. My early-day motion 2769, which has the support of MPs from six political parties, calls on the King to release all communications between members of the royal family and the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. Obviously, that is just the start of what is needed, which is why I am very grateful for this motion. If the reports that the royal family were aware of concerns about Andrew’s financial dealings ahead of his appointment are correct, there are serious questions about whether and how that knowledge matches the King’s statement following Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest, in which he suggested he had only recently learned about his brother’s misconduct. It is reasonable to raise those questions and find out what advice was given from the palace—including from the King—for or against the appointment. The royal family’s reactive co-operation with any investigation cannot be enough, because it suggests that they are waiting to be asked by the police, rather than proactively checking their records and visitor logs, speaking with palace and Royal Lodge staff to encourage them to share information with the authorities, and ensuring that there is an effective whistleblowing policy within the palace. We also need to be able to scrutinise the exact provenance of the £12 million payout from Andrew to the brave, late Virginia Giuffre. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should never have been a trade envoy for this country, but that is not the only matter that requires urgent transparency. His relationship with the child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein has turned the nation’s stomach. We also need to know who in the royal household knew what and when, as well as what he did when he was trade envoy. As part of that, I hope that the Minister will make it clear today that royal freedom of information exemptions—which have for too long allowed royal power to act in the shadows, and to conceal important truths from MPs and the public—also need to go.
- Hansard source
Online Harm: Child Protection
I had understood that the hon. Member’s party was keen on public consultation, and there is clearly a lot of public concern about the very real problem of online harms and the need to protect children. I am therefore puzzled by the fact that she is seeking to control the parliamentary agenda in just a couple of weeks’ time with rushed-through legislation and without any substantive proposals or consultation. If she is concerned about the scope of the consultation the Government have announced, why not try to amend that scope? Why not emphasise the importance of parents in particular having their voices heard rather than rushing through legislation that will probably be quite flawed if there is not sufficient time to ensure that everybody’s voices are heard in this conversation? It feels like politicking, to be honest, rather than a substantive engagement with the details of the issue.
- Hansard source
Online Harm: Child Protection
I have received contact from hundreds of parents in my constituency and from some young people sharing their huge concern about online harm caused by engagement with social media, so I fully understand the sense of urgency in the Chamber and the desire for quick action. The Government said in January that they would consult. They reiterated that they would consult, and they reiterated that commitment 10 days ago. I understand that the consultation is due to start in March, and the Minister has talked about bringing measures through before the summer. Can he commit to acting with real urgency and bring that consultation forward? What is the delay? Will he commit to bringing legislation—
- Hansard source
Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities
<em>rose—</em>
- Hansard source
Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities
I was waiting for the appropriate point to pre-empt the fact that the hon. Lady is clearly talking about banking hubs in rural areas. In my constituency of Waveney Valley, the market town of Bungay has been told that it cannot have a banking hub because there is already one seven miles away in Harleston, but of course in rural areas, proximity does not necessarily mean accessibility when it comes to travel times or public transport access. Does the hon. Lady agree that, in determining the criteria for banking hubs, real accessibility in rural areas needs to be accounted for, and there needs to be flexibility in the system to achieve that?
- Hansard source
Access to NHS Dental Services
The <em>Daily Mirror</em> reports that of the nearly 1 million urgent dental appointments that have been commissioned by integrated care boards since April, 900,000 have not been taken up because of strict rules around the scope of treatment. Meanwhile, in my constituency and around the country, too many people are going without the treatment that they need. Will the Minister update us on when the Government expect to meet their targets on urgent appointments?
- Hansard source
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill
The Government should have brought this Bill forward as soon as they were elected 19 months ago, but they failed to do so. They could have listened to the families and children—with more than 200,000 children affected—enduring the overall benefit cap before making their final plans, but they failed to do so. Ministers still could have listened to the many hon. Members, including myself, who said on Second Reading that the policy was too narrow. They could have widened the scope of the Bill, but they failed to do so. The Bill is not wrong, but it fails to do right by far too many children. I speak in support of new clause 1, which has wide cross-party support. It would mandate a full assessment within six months of the families left in poverty by the failure of the Government to tackle the overall benefit cap, showing its impact on each of our constituencies and the families we represent. We need to know who is left out from the help provided in this Bill, including those who are left in poverty. We also need to know the wider impacts as the change takes hold. That includes the removal of exemptions, because this Government are seeking at the same time to remove people from the few qualifying benefits that exempt people from the cap, including disability benefits. This wider attack on benefit claimants threatens to make the gap in the Bill even worse.
- Hansard source
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill
I thank the right hon. Gentleman sincerely for that intervention. When I raised this matter on Second Reading, Ministers gave answers that echoed, rather horribly, the prejudicial, stereotypical arguments that we heard moments ago from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), implying that leaving the cap in place would incentivise people to work, when we know that it really only drives people into poverty. We also have excellent proposals in new clauses 3 and 4, which have the same goal. I appreciate fully the request for consultation and the provision of cost estimates in new clause 4. New clause 3 is very helpful in looking at the impact of the Bill on families with disabled people and on mental health, which are all important considerations. The debate on Second Reading and today, and the amendments, reflect a near consensus across many parties —excluding the Conservative party—that the Government are not going as far as they should. The fact is that the overall benefit cap is just as cruel and just as driven by prejudice and stereotype as the two-child limit, and the Conservatives should never have introduced it. Those affected include nearly 1,000 families in my constituency—a high proportion due to our excessive housing costs.<span id="131" class="column-number" data-column-number="131"></span> That is the point: whatever extreme examples those on the right wing of politics wave around, these families do not get to keep and enjoy the funding they get from social security; instead, it goes straight out again on the absolute basics. Sky-high rents are responsible for most of the higher living costs putting people on benefits, with the money they receive, often on top of hard-won low wages, going straight out and into the pockets of landlords. This cap punishes the wrong people. Today I want a clear commitment from the Minister to set out how the Government will collect data, analyse it, and report back to this House very swiftly on the families that they are not helping with this Bill. Then I want a clear commitment for the Government to fill this huge gap in their child poverty strategy, which is something that many charities agree with. Some might call this a U-turn, but through another lens it can be seen as a very welcome last-minute equaliser. Real help and more support, not spin and delay, is what these children’s lives deserve.
- Hansard source
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill
Will the Minister tackle the point that I made in my speech? There is a possibility of people being denied disability benefits, as the result of separate work for which he is responsible, and potentially falling into the cap by losing the exemptions. That worries me greatly with respect to my own constituents.
- Hansard source
Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving
I welcome the ambition in the White Paper, particularly to ensure that young people are supported earlier. It has to be the right aim that more young people can be supported within mainstream settings. Is the Secretary of State committed to understanding the reasons for the big increase in the number of young people who cannot be supported in mainstream school and to providing the necessary funding and support to schools? Does she accept that, at the same time, there is not currently enough capacity in alternative provision for young people for whom mainstream school is not working?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
<Question HRSContentId="{743C69C0-B349-40A9-A915-EE9E99BECC42}">T6. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{46B3BE21-FBAA-4AD4-9A28-532C1039CDB1}"></QuestionText>In the past seven months, I have been contacted by 18 constituents who have faced unacceptable delays in getting responses from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency about licensing issues where a review by the medical team is required. Each time I have intervened and each time the issue has been resolved, but it is not the mark of a functioning system that an MP has to intervene in every complaint to get a response. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that constituents can get a response from the DVLA without having to mobilise their MP every time?</Question>
- Hansard source
Independent Water Commission: Final Report
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this debate. He shares my passion for tackling water pollution, which is why we work together on the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution, which I set up when I joined this place to represent the interests of my constituents and citizens across the country who are passionate about the issue. I did so in recognition of the fact that, unfortunately, the all-party parliamentary water group has a secretariat run by the water industry. It was therefore vital to get citizens’ voices into Parliament on this issue.
- Hansard source
Independent Water Commission: Final Report
I thank the hon. Member for that clarification, and I am delighted to hear that in this Parliament that has been changed. Historically, it was run by the water industry, which is why it was necessary to set up a new group. I will confine my comments today to the two elephants in the room: ownership and agriculture. They are effectively missing from the Independent Water Commission. They are effectively missing from the water White Paper. That is frankly extraordinary. Why did the Government prevent the Cunliffe commission from looking at those two crucial issues? Without addressing them, we cannot tackle the problems in the water sector. Privatisation of water has comprehensively failed. Privatised water companies have paid £85 billion in dividends to shareholders since privatisation, and they have racked up debts of £65 billion. All the while, leaks have been proliferating, infrastructure has been crumbling, there has been a failure to build reservoirs, and customers have been paying hand over fist for poorer and poorer service. It is completely unacceptable. Nearly every river in England is polluted. England’s bathing water quality is the fifth worst in Europe. England’s surface water quality is the seventh worst in Europe. Over 1 trillion litres of water were leaked in 2024. I have already mentioned the £85 billion paid to shareholders and the £65 billion of debt. Privatisation will cost customers a further £22 billion over the next five years, because that is the return on capital that has been set by Ofwat. Around a third of customer bills now service corporate debt, and Ofwat allowed bills to go up by 26% this financial year alone—an average of £123 per household. That is a failing water system. No other country in the democratic world has privatised its water system to the degree that we have in this country. It is clear that a market-based approach to the water sector simply does not work. Water is a natural monopoly. Customers have absolutely zero choice. Water is a public good and should be in public hands, so that it works for public benefit. Why did the Government prevent the Independent Water Commission from even looking at that question?
- Hansard source
Independent Water Commission: Final Report
We need to bring water companies into public ownership, because only by running water for public good will we tackle the scandal that has been caused by privatisation in recent decades. Some 82% of the British public want water to be in public ownership. That is more than the percentage who want the railways to be in public ownership, so why are the Government so opposed to it? They are very fond of citing completely imaginary figures about the supposed cost of doing so, but Thames Water, for example, apparently has a market <span id="286WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="286WH"></span>value of £4 billion, judging by the last market offer, and faces a repair bill of £23 billion, so in effect its value is nil. We could take it into public ownership at zero cost and run water for public benefit. The second lacuna in the work of the Independent Water Commission and the water White Paper is agriculture. Why did the Government prevent the Independent Water Commission from looking at agricultural pollution? We know that diffuse agricultural pollution is half the problem, so we cannot ignore it. It is another elephant in the room, and we have to focus on addressing it, together with farmers, who are crying out for support to do that. To give the Independent Water Commission some credit, it did actually look at the issue and mentioned it in its conclusions. It says on page 20 of the final report that “agriculture has the most significant environmental impact on water bodies in England and Wales.” In fact, almost the very next sentence cited the River Wye in my North Herefordshire constituency, where problems relating to diffuse agricultural pollution have led to huge economic, social and environmental problems. A few pages later, the Independent Water Commission said that the Government’s water strategy “should be cross-sectoral, setting out in one place the requirements on all the sectors impacting on or interacting with the water environment…including agriculture”. Yet on only one of its 50 pages did the Government’s White Paper talk about agriculture. That is not a comprehensive, joined-up strategy. As the Independent Water Commission pointed out, “achieving a future environmental target for water…will depend more and more upon reducing the contribution of agricultural pollution.” We must work with our farmers—the stewards of our land—to tackle this problem. It is more than half the issue, and the Government can no longer ignore it. I beg the Minister to please give it the same attention that we rightly give to the water and sewage companies. Without a comprehensive approach, we will simply fail to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas.