Dental Healthcare: East Anglia
I thank the Minister for reiterating the Government’s commitment to reforming the dental contract. Please will he set out a timescale for that work commencing?
Showing every spoken contribution, including 142 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Storm Darragh
Storm Darragh brought 96 mph winds, flooding and power outages, and it came hot on the heels of Storm Bert, which brought severe rainfall and terrible flooding. Given the strong evidence that links increasing frequency and severity of storms with climate change, may I ask for the Minister’s response to the comments of Emma Pinchbeck, the new chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, who said at the weekend that the UK was “not ready” for these increasingly severe impacts of climate change? What are the Government doing, and what will they do, to make adaptation an urgent national priority?
- Hansard source
International Human Rights Day
I thank the hon. Gentleman—my hon. Friend—for securing this debate on such an important day. He is right to draw particular attention to the experiences of defenders of indigenous communities and environmental rights defenders in Colombia and elsewhere. Back in October, in my capacity as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary human rights group, I hosted a roundtable here in Parliament with speakers from the Colombia Caravana. <span id="865" class="column-number" data-column-number="865"></span>It brought together lawyers from 24 countries who had recently conducted a fact-finding trip in Colombia. They highlighted the increasing power of illegal armed groups, particularly in areas with no or limited state presence, and the serious threat that those groups posed to human rights defenders. We heard powerful testimony from the leader of an indigenous people’s reserve, who spoke of the threats to which his community was subject and called for the UK Government to do everything possible to ensure that UK companies were held to account for the impact of their actions. Would the hon. Gentleman support his call?
- Hansard source
Finance Bill
I would like to echo the arguments made by the hon. Members for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) and for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) . I rise to speak to whether clause 18 and schedule 3 should stand part of the Bill. I argue that both should be omitted, to remove the proposed new tax relief for carbon capture and storage installations as currently drafted. The tax regime for oil and gas is riddled with reliefs, exemptions and loopholes. The windfall tax introduced by the last Government was widely reported, but was slightly less reported was the increased tax relief that went along with it, which allowed oil and gas companies to deduct 91% of their capital investment costs from their tax bill. We are now many years into an escalating climate crisis, and one that the oil companies have known they were causing since at least 1977. There is absolutely no excuse for public subsidies that incentivise fossil fuel companies to expand their operations. So while I welcome the increase in the rate of the energy profits levy and the reduction of the investment allowance, I want to highlight the fact that, because of other reliefs that still exist, North sea oil and gas companies will still be able to offset 84% of capital expenditure against tax in relation to their expansion of operations.
- Hansard source
Finance Bill
As we heard earlier, it is vital that there is strong Government support and a dedicated plan to ensure transition to alternative job opportunities for anyone working in the oil and gas sector. Having a background in the renewable energy sector, I strongly support Government incentives and policies that will help that sector to expand, so that we create jobs and skills. My amendments would reverse the Government’s tax relief on the conversion of oil and gas infrastructure to carbon capture and storage installations. There are many other reliefs in the tax regime that should be addressed, but they are out of the scope of the Bill. Carbon capture and storage is a complex area. There are different types of technology that use different techniques. I support further research and development in relation to the hard-to-abate sector, but CCS cannot be used as a fig leaf to hide the expansion of fossil fuel operations. In reality, after years of hype, the result is very little carbon—less than 0.1% of annual emissions—being captured globally. Most of the carbon dioxide that has been successfully captured has been used to extract more oil. The UK has also been criticised for targeting most of its CCS at so-called blue hydrogen, the use of which would increase our long-term reliance on gas and generate more carbon emissions. The proposed tax relief is too blunt an instrument to make a useful contribution to decarbonisation. The role of CCS is still relatively untested, so it is vital that we do not bake in over-reliance on that technology. Public funding for CCS should be restricted to research and development, and to projects that would clearly help to decarbonise hard-to-abate sectors. It absolutely must not be a green light for fossil fuel companies to carry on with business as usual and an expansion of operations. Will the Minister explore the idea of reviewing the measures, in the light of what I have suggested?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
In Brighton’s non-academy sixth-form colleges, the current teacher strike action stems largely from the Government not providing the same funding to cover pay uplifts as they do for schools and academies. Will the Secretary of State urgently correct that unjustified funding anomaly?
- Hansard source
Planning Committees: Reform
In advance of these proposals, has the Minister made any assessment of the number of senior local authority planning officers who move on to work directly for, or as private planning consultants to, large developers? Will he consider something I would like to see done anyway, which is registers of interests, gifts and hospitality, and bringing senior planners under the wing of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, or a similar independent body, so that we can have the transparency we really need?
- Hansard source
Skills Training
The Secretary of State will be aware that all analyses of the supply of green skills, such as the recent global climate talent stocktake, show a massive undersupply of such skills. Demand is growing at double the rate of supply. What are the Government’s plans to address that important shortfall, and will the Secretary of State or her officials meet me to discuss how such plans might include unblocking the approval of new qualifications—for example, the currently blocked natural history GCSE?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Today, a hugely significant report from Amnesty International finds that Israel has perpetrated three acts against Palestinians in Gaza that are prohibited under the genocide convention. The Government have repeatedly said that it is for judicial bodies to determine whether genocide is taking place, but that utterly fails to take account of the obligation to prevent under the convention. If the Government have a duty to prevent, they cannot wait until a court has made a determination before taking action to—again, I emphasise—prevent. In the light of Amnesty’s report, would the Government be prepared to make time to debate this matter, which goes to the heart of UK compliance with international law?
- Hansard source
Future of Farming
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will focus my comments on areas where I think we can achieve a degree of cross-party agreement. I have already heard agreement that farmers are the stewards of the land. We can agree that farming is a diverse sector, and farmers as a group are very diverse, which we need to bear in mind whenever we make policy. I would like to discuss four issues that farmers in my North Herefordshire constituency have raised with me. First, farmers need long-term policy certainty. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) talked about record investment in farming, but in real terms it is effectively static. What we need is a significant ramping up of Government support for the farming sector. The Nature Friendly Farming Network has called for a doubling of the farming budget, which is a call that the Green party strongly supports. We need far more investment in environmental land management schemes, as well as the long-term certainty that farmers need to make decisions to put land into those schemes. Secondly, farmers tell me that they want better regulation of the food sector, such as a more even balance of power between farmers and supermarkets. Too many of them feel under the cosh as price takers, not price makers. That is a real problem. There is also the phenomenon of farmwashing, whereby supermarkets pretend that their food is grown on lovely family farms all over the UK when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. We need clear Government regulation on that. The third issue, which has already been mentioned, relates to the Government’s role in public procurement. I am glad the Government are taking some initiative on that, but there is far more that could be done, particularly to ensure that schools provide universal free school meals based on the procurement of local, sustainably grown food—
- Hansard source
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
I share the hon. Gentleman’s aspiration for getting more funding into the NHS. On Friday, in the debate in this House on supporting people at the end of life, hon. Members from across the Chamber highlighted the importance of getting more funding and support for palliative care, but Sue Ryder warns that financial pressures, such as the rise in national insurance contributions, could force closures of crucial hospices, which patients desperately need. Noting the wider case that the hon. Gentleman is making, would he join me in urging the Government to review and revisit the impact that the measure will have on health and care providers, and the wider voluntary sector?
- Hansard source
Grenfell Tower Inquiry
I am here to talk about the people, their treatment and their rights, and I am sorry I do not have more time to do the topic justice. I had been a London Assembly member for one year in 2017 when the Grenfell disaster happened, and it had such a huge impact on my work and on me personally. I will never, ever forget the many things that I saw and heard. I will never forget the smells, the burned debris on garden hedges, the community’s shock and heartbreak, and its spirit as it called me and many other elected representatives down there to try to deal with the issues that they themselves were dealing with and identifying. The people around Grenfell, the victims, the 72 people killed that day—they are constantly in my heart when I work on any related issue. I was also a councillor in Camden, and a few days later five of our blocks had to be evacuated due to related issues, so I have a perspective of dealing with a non-fatal but nevertheless disruptive evacuation and incident. Let me rattle quickly through a few of the recommendations relating to people, and to these issues. I am desperate on behalf of the residents I represented then, and those I represent now in Brighton Pavilion, where we have a huge number of medium and high-rise blocks that need work. For no good reason I still see many of these issues emerging in relation to the treatment of residents in blocks, the information they can get out of their landlords, the slowness of the action, and the fact that substandard work is still being done on many people’s blocks—I should not still be doing this so long afterwards. Let me start with the recommendations related to management. The way that the TMO treated its residents was abysmal. We have seen much evidence for that, but the report gets to the heart of it when it states that however “irritating and inconvenient” it may have been to deal with those residents, “for the TMO to have allowed the relationship to deteriorate to such an extent reflects a serious failure on its part to observe its basic responsibilities.” The housing ombudsman echoed that, speaking of gross imbalances of power. Residents who ask questions, or who start to organise their neighbours to have some kind of collective voice that might get things done, are still talked about as troublemakers, as militants, or as a nuisance. I am still encouraged not to listen to those residents when there are issues, which is not correct. I also want to focus on transparency of information—these things are the basic building blocks on which resident trust can possibly be built. In 2017 I was having trouble getting fire risk assessments from Camden council. I went to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which responded in a fantastic way. She was clear that councils needed to publish those assessments proactively, yet here I am representing residents in Brighton, and it has taken 18 months. My predecessor, Caroline Lucas, first asked the council to publish its fire risk assessments when she realised that it was not complying with the ICO’s recommendations. I wrote to the council about the issue back in September when I realised that was the case, and finally last week I was told that some assessments would be published imminently. That is just not good enough from councils. I do not even know where to start when trying to get information about non-council landlords. It has been ridiculous on behalf of so many residents. <span id="112" class="column-number" data-column-number="112"></span>Finally, I want to talk about the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and its recommendations, which are tremendous. The humanitarian response on the ground was nowhere near good enough—
- Hansard source
Social Housing Supply
I welcome the Secretary of State’s warm words about improving affordable housing availability. Does she agree that the affordability of housing is closely related to the bills that people have to pay—energy bills in particular? Will she ensure that all new social housing from this stage forward is built to the highest possible standards of energy efficiency, to save people’s bills?
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I thank everyone who has spoken so far. This has been a very respectful debate, and I do not think any of us here have not shed tears at the messages that our constituents have sent us this week. I have received so many profoundly moving letters, postcards, emails and other messages sent to my office, and numerous people have told me about their personal experiences of loved ones facing really hard choices at the end of their lives. It is very moving. This is a big decision for us. Well-informed public opinion shows that a very large majority of people want the option to choose assisted dying in the circumstances envisaged by the Bill, and this level of public support reflects the fact that the law, as it stands, too often forces people to endure horrific deaths. I have heard so many stories from constituents of the trauma and pain that they have witnessed in loved ones. Too many people are affected by the current law in truly painful ways, and too many of those who are able to do so now seek unregulated, distressing and unsafe alternatives, because there are no legal options. Those who wish to end their lives at the point when their suffering from a terminal illness becomes unbearable may act too soon. They may take their own lives, and do so before they reach a point at which they require assistance—in secret, leaving a legacy of shock and confusion, instead of peacefully planning an ending to their final few months. Some of the testimony that I have seen from family members and partners who face the consequences of these secret decisions are truly heartbreaking, because the current law also makes it a prosecutable offence for anyone to advise or assist someone in this horrible situation in any way, thus putting at risk anyone who even knows. Several people have also raised concerns about coercion with me, and I have listened very hard. I aim to cast a vote today that will protect people better. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) made, very well, the point that the Bill will be a clear improvement on the current law in respect of safeguards against potential coercion for terminally ill people, and we should all listen to that argument. Like the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), I do have one constructive point to make. I think we should be discussing it during the Bill’s ensuing stages, which I hope we will vote for. It concerns the time limit. Other jurisdictions already allow for different time limits, or no time limits for terminally ill people, or a separate time limit for a number of well-known, specific neurological diseases, in which the period of terrible suffering can be much longer than six months.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I am sorry, but I have no time. Like many other Members, my colleagues and I have heard many concerns expressed about the availability of palliative care. I hope that we are seeing the start of a <span id="1065" class="column-number" data-column-number="1065"></span>much more open conversation about the practical problems that people face at the end of their lives—something we are generally not comfortable with talking about in this country—and about the provision that we do not currently make for people in anything like an adequate way. We must do better and, like other countries, make sure that we see improvements in palliative care at the same time as making this change. While we do not have to choose between the Bill and better palliative care, we do have to give dying people the right to choose which ending is right for them, so please, please, vote for the Bill today.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
In Brighton Pavilion, we love our grassroots music venues, and we often need to make robust use of the “agent of change” principle to protect them when it comes to licensing and planning, but it is hard work to enforce that and ensure that it happens. Is the Minister having any discussions with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government about putting the “agent of change” principle on a statutory footing?
- Hansard source
Sewage Discharges: South West
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for bringing this debate before the House. On the question of public <span id="895" class="column-number" data-column-number="895"></span>ownership, does he think that the independent commission on the water sector regulatory system might be better off if it were tasked with at least considering how public ownership of water companies might work, rather than the current situation, in which this supposedly independent commission has been banned from considering one of the possible solutions to the problem?
- Hansard source
Finance Bill
This Finance Bill should be a chance to begin the vital work of transforming our economy to make it fairer, to restore public services, and to make our economy greener by investing in urgent climate and nature action. As such, I welcome the focus on public investment. However, overall, the Green party’s view is that the Bill lacks vision for our future and does not deliver the ambitious and hopeful change that people voted for in July. I would argue that that is because it seeks to answer the wrong question. The Bill should not be designed to focus purely on growth for growth’s sake, but should instead focus on more modern and rounded ways of measuring economic success that deliver wellbeing, a liveable future, better standards of living and good-quality jobs. When delivering the Budget, the Chancellor referred to growth 32 times, but she did not mention climate or nature once. When the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s analysis warns that current spending plans will see inequality and poverty increase while average disposable incomes fall, the Government’s plans clearly are not going to deliver a fairer future for us all. The Finance Bill was an opportunity to set things on the right track, because that is possible with the right choices. I was elected advocating specifically for a transformative wealth tax—for those with the broadest shoulders to bear the greatest financial responsibility for transforming our economy. Therefore, I very much hoped that this Finance Bill would seek to tax all kinds of wealth much more ambitiously to fund our future.
- Hansard source
Finance Bill
I thank the hon. Member for that question—I always enjoy her contributions. Later in my speech I will talk about a specific model that I would propose, one that I put forward in the general election and that has the support of a number of researchers and academics. There are lots of models out there, including those that look at examples from other countries.<span id="872" class="column-number" data-column-number="872"></span> I am glad that the Government are taking steps to close the unfairness gap in the tax system, whereby income from working is taxed at a higher level than income from wealth or assets. Reforming capital gains tax has been a major policy priority for the Greens for some time; it is long overdue, and I commend the Chancellor for grasping that particular nettle. However, the Finance Bill could and should go even further, focusing on the very wealthiest in society. Over the past 10 years, the UK has become an increasingly unequal country. Between 2020 and 2022 alone, billionaire wealth in the UK increased by almost £150 billion. The five richest families in the UK are wealthier than the bottom 20% of the entire population. That last stat can be replaced with a more recent one: according to the Equality Trust, the UK’s five richest families now own more wealth than the bottom 13 million do. Both are startling facts. To answer the question posed by the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), a wealth tax of 1% annually on assets above £10 million, and of 2% on assets above £1 billion, would demonstrate that this Government are serious about fairness. Figures that are backed up by researchers and academics suggest that such a wealth tax could raise tens of billions during this Parliament—much bigger than a number of the figures quoted by other Members today. It would show that the Government are serious about fairness, about transforming the economy and about investing for a better future.
- Hansard source
Finance Bill
If the hon. Gentleman is aware of my campaigning background, he will know that I have been one of the strongest advocates for accelerating to move to renewable energy for decades, with all the benefits that brings for reducing bills. If he heard the Westminster Hall debate yesterday, he will know that we need to combine speed on renewables with bringing communities with us and assessing all the options available, and we had cross-party support in arguing for that.
- Hansard source
Finance Bill
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would let me make a little more progress first, please. A wealth tax would go a long way towards funding the public services that our economy relies on and to delivering nature and climate-friendly policies that will benefit us all. For example, by maintaining the winter fuel allowance for pensioners, while investing in the roll-out of the street-by-street insulation programme, we could bring down household bills and carbon emissions and at the same time support the most vulnerable households with energy bills over the winter months, preventing hundreds of avoidable deaths. There are also nature-based solutions that would help to protect against the flooding chaos and misery caused, for example, by Storm Bert recently. Preparedness or adaptation is often neglected when it comes to climate action, yet this week has demonstrated what a difference it can make.<span id="873" class="column-number" data-column-number="873"></span> A wealth tax could see charities and not-for-profit health and social care providers, for example, exempted from the planned increases in national insurance contributions for employers, in recognition of the significant work they do in our communities and the significant further strain that this planned change will put them under. As Community Action Suffolk has warned, this financial challenge may be a step too far for some organisations that “deliver vital services keeping Suffolk residents safe and well”, and reduce pressure on other public sector systems, including the NHS. The Government have taken, or have sought to take, some steps towards taxing wealth in addressing the real problem of very wealthy people investing in farmland to avoid paying inheritance tax. However, the way in which they have gone about doing so is resulting in huge problems. It is clumsy because it is impacting on small farms that may, on paper, have assets worth several million, but if the farmer is not actually earning any income, or very little, they never actually see the benefit of that. The Exchequer Secretary is back in the Chamber, and I would ask him whether, in considering the agricultural property relief—I know it is planned for a further year’s Budget, so there is time for the Government to look at this—he will look at the work of tax analyst Dan Neidle. Dan Neidle has highlighted that the Government’s own intentions of rightly clamping down on tax avoidance will not be met under the current plans, which will impact far more small, ordinary farms than the Government have admitted. His proposals include an alternative suggestion for meeting the Government’s stated aim of clamping down on tax avoidance, not affecting ordinary farmers.
- Hansard source
Finance Bill
First, I have welcomed the measures in this Budget on non-doms and capital gains tax, and I have argued for the Government to go much further and be much bolder with a genuine wealth tax on the very richest. I am very happy to set out the measures I want, which are bolder than the Government’s, to raise capital. On farms, as I say, I would urge the hon. Member and the Minister to look at the work of people such as Dan Neidle, which suggests ways in which the Government could better achieve their own stated aim of rightly preventing people who often have no interest in farming from investing in farmland in order to avoid inheritance tax. I spoke to many farmers last week, as I am sure did Members across the Chamber, and those with ordinary farms in my constituency told me that typical Suffolk farms of 320 acres may be worth £3 million to £5 million on paper, but if they are always in the family—if they are never sold and those farmers are earning very little income—they are not realising the benefit of that. The farmers I spoke to were extremely distressed about how much pressure they are under for generating very little income, with all the work they do and want to do for <span id="874" class="column-number" data-column-number="874"></span>our natural environment. We need to look at the detail of what is being proposed, while welcoming the main aim of clamping down on tax avoidance that the Government are setting out. I make these points conscious that the Government chose to table an income tax charge motion on Budget day, thereby restricting scope for amendments to the Bill today. I wish to put on record my disappointment at that decision, because an “amendment of the law” motion would have demonstrated a commitment to a much broader debate, greater scrutiny, and a healthy willingness to engage with alterative views. I expected better on that, as I know did my constituents. Although I will seek to amend the Bill to take account of the compelling case for a wealth tax, the scope for doing so has been deliberately and unnecessarily constrained by the Government in what Ruth Fox of the Hansard Society called a decision to prioritise “ministerial control and convenience over robust parliamentary scrutiny.” Before concluding my remarks, I wish to mention one other aspect of the Bill that relates to the urgent climate action we need to take. That must be about scaling up renewables, but it is also about the transition away from fossil fuels. Hidden in the Bill and the Budget is the Government’s intension to subsidise carbon capture and storage—a fig leaf for new fossil fuel projects—and failing to end the obscene subsidies, including tax reliefs, that are handed out to the oil and gas sector. I hope to pick that up further, and for it to get more scrutiny as the Bill progresses.
- Hansard source
Finance Bill
I am about to finish. In conclusion, Green MPs will vote for the Bill on the basis that we welcome a number of improvements and investments. We are constructive in supporting improvements that move in the right direction and the investment that has started in the NHS, and I want to see that committed to and expanded for the NHS and social care in further years. We look forward to further debates about how that can be strengthened to deliver a coherent vision of a greener, fairer future for all.
- Hansard source
“Get Britain Working” White Paper
The Secretary of State has given us some positive new spending plans today, but she has also given some mixed messages to young people, with some investment on the one hand and new conditions, which she calls responsibilities, on the other. Will she commit herself to working with and empowering young people to shape this new spending in local areas and potentially challenge any new conditions on support? I am thinking in particular of neurodiverse young people, whose perspectives are vital and who are worried about what this will mean for their wellbeing and life chances.
- Hansard source
COP29
Low-income countries were extremely disappointed by the finance agreements at COP—$300 billion does not come anywhere near the level of need. Critically, there was no clarity on how much of it would be grants, as opposed to loans, which would plunge global south countries further into debt. Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the potential dominance of loans and an overreliance on the private sector, and does he agree that considerable public finance could and should be raised through taxes on the most polluting companies?
- Hansard source
Electricity Grid Upgrades
I welcome the chance to discuss matters like this in Westminster Hall—where, in my experience, there is an opportunity <span id="208WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="208WH"></span>to look at the issues and options calmly and without party political point scoring. We must deliver the energy transition at speed, and with community inclusion. The upgrades to the electricity grid are vital for net zero, but how this is done will shape public trust. We can, and must, achieve rapid progress and meaningful community engagement. My constituents in Waveney Valley—like much of East Anglia—face floods, droughts, and farmland at risk of submersion: they understand the urgency, and voted for action in the election. The grid upgrade is essential to connect renewable energy capacity and end reliance on fossil fuels. Indeed, I have spent the last 10 years leading national environmental charities advocating for and advancing renewable energy, speeding up the transition, and advocating for strengthening the grid. The question is how we can best do that. There are significant concerns over this proposed pylon route, as we have heard—concerns about the impact on sensitive nature and heritage sites, including the rural landscape, about the impact on farming, and about the implications for local traffic. This is not just about convenience. We need to make decisions that are right for the long term and resilient to the future climate changes that we face. I want to zoom out, as other speakers have done, and talk about the overall climate emergency and climate breakdown that we are grappling with and working to address. We have seen in Parliament over recent decades a broad consensus on the need for action to be taken: the Climate Change Act 2008 was passed with cross-party support, and the 2050 net zero target was embedded by a later Government, with broad support across the House. We have not had the kind of polarisation that we have seen in the US, and we need to maintain that strong support and to avoid the issue being weaponised so that it becomes divisive and is used for political point scoring, but we risk that happening if we do not take people with us and if people are not heard. The energy transition must be done with communities, not to them—communities need to feel engaged and heard to maintain their support. People want to see action taken. Speed and proper community consultation can go hand in hand; indeed, they must. The best way to accelerate the energy transition is for communities to feel consulted and involved from the outset. If people believe projects are imposed on them without proper engagement, there is a risk of slowing progress and undermining trust in the renewable energy revolution—a revolution that must happen. That is why I want to see us use the time that we have right now. The National Grid consultation closed in July and we face a long delay until a planning application is expected at some point next year—we are not sure when. During this time, other options can be properly considered, and that is all I am calling for: a proper consideration of all the options. National Grid has acknowledged that undergrounding is possible—it is doing it in two small sections of the route—but there remain significant concerns.
- Hansard source
Electricity Grid Upgrades
As the hon. Member knows, we are about to move on to the Front-Bench spokespeople, so I would like to finish my points. These issues need to be <span id="209WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="209WH"></span>properly considered and the alternatives must be properly examined, including undergrounding more or all of the route, as we have heard, or an offshore grid. Such things are being done in other countries. Indeed, a 2020 National Grid study indicated that an integrated offshore approach could be more cost-effective than piecemeal alternatives. That is why all the options need to be properly considered, and why constituents need to be listened to. People are saying that they feel let down. One of my constituents said: “So far, we have been subjected to a series of lies, called NIMBYs, and told our rural area is unimportant.” Another said that there is a failure “to engage with the local community and…to prove the pylons are better than other more sensible alternatives”. They want the Government to start listening. The rapid deployment of renewables must happen. The principle is clear: decisions about infrastructure must be made with communities, and we must maintain and build public trust. All connectivity options must be properly assessed. My constituents are keen to support the energy transition, but they need respect and consultation, and to be shown that the impacts are being properly considered and any compensation packages are clearly set out. The energy transition is not a choice between speed and community support. With thoughtful planning and meaningful engagement, we can, and must, achieve both.
- Hansard source
Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants
The ICC, the world’s highest criminal court, has “reasonable grounds” to allege that the Israeli leaders are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The other world court, the International Court of Justice, has found that there is “plausible” risk that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians and that Israel’s occupation and annexation are unlawful. I ask the Minister two questions. First, does he agree that the UK has obligations under international law to prevent genocide, to bring Israel’s unlawful occupation to an end and to bring suspected perpetrators of grave breaches of international law to justice? Secondly and quite simply, what will the UK do differently as a result of the decisions of the ICC and the ICJ? The Minister says that he will pull out all the stops. We have heard many suggestions here today, including stopping the export of F-35s. What will the Government do differently?
- Hansard source
Storm Bert
This weekend, residents in my constituency were flooded yet again. The same thing happened only five weeks ago, and after that event I met people at my surgery who showed me footage of floodwater spewing out of their toilet into the downstairs area, and of their sodden houses. I met more than 100 residents in the village of Eardisland who expressed concerns that I know are widespread in the county and the constituency. On that occasion in October more than 100 households in Herefordshire were flooded, yet the flood recovery framework was not initiated because Ministers felt that the flooding was not widespread or severe enough. Will the Secretary of State please consider the terms under which the flood recovery framework is initiated? It provides vital support that councils can pass on to help that recovery: immediate grants for communities and businesses, with council tax and business rates relief. Will he think about how that is triggered and consider giving the responsibility to local authorities, which are far the best-placed agencies to judge when it is required? In addition to everything we need for flood resilience, that immediate support is crucial at times like this.
- Hansard source
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation
I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing this debate, and I thank everyone who has taken part so far. I particularly thank the hon. Member <span id="429" class="column-number" data-column-number="429"></span>for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), who laid out precisely how abusers can benefit from abusive lawsuits, which continue, with a growing impact in silencing those who speak out in the public interest. I also thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) for mentioning the McLibel case, which is a classic of the genre of using legal might against the smallest and most local publishing operations in an effort to stop grassroots public-spirited campaigning. As the Anti-SLAPP Coalition says: “Without a dedicated anti-SLAPP law, everyone in the UK remains at risk if they choose to speak out on matters of public interest, undermining the democratic health of our society.” The case I will talk about today is that of Ben Jenkins, a citizen who made critical posts and comments in various forums about GreenSquareAccord, the housing provider with which he co-owns his home as a shared owner. In my work as an elected representative—as a local councillor, as a London Assembly Member, and now as an MP— I have often met, worked with and supported people like Ben. These campaigners speak up when their housing provider fails, when their complaints disappear into the system and when their attempts to work with others to show the patterns in the impacts on fellow residents are delegitimised. We have all seen how those dynamics worked around the disaster at Grenfell and how the residents were treated before the fire in relation to the ongoing issues in the building. Such situations are all too common, and it is exactly the kinds of concerns that local grassroots campaigners bring out that the big, powerful companies and organisations that operate these homes most want to suppress. We can see why the dynamic of SLAPPs comes into play in such cases. Ben Jenkins has faced a series of serious legal threats from his social housing provider. He spoke out about the company’s inadequate response to residents’ concerns, including drug taking in corridors, poor quality repairs and safety risks. It is very much in the public interest for Ben to speak out freely on such issues, because safety in housing completely depends upon maintaining good standards and public accountability. Ultimately, that depends on this kind of whistleblowing. Residents in his block had tried to raise the issues through official channels, but had not been adequately listened to, so taking things to a higher level was legitimate in this case. No one is saying that Ben did not send a lot of communications and did not publish negative information about his housing provider, but people should be free to do that, and Ben’s activities have been vindicated in their substance. The evidence of the issues in his block is well documented. Images and video footage were published by ITV, which reported the issue based on Ben’s public campaigning. There were also many complaints by other residents posted to Facebook. Those have since been taken down, but there was an admission by the housing company in response to ITV that residents’ complaints had not been adequately handled. Jenkins and numerous other residents have now received payouts, and the Housing Ombudsman has found that the housing provider had failed to adequately respond to a series of serious complaints, including a rat infestation, a broken boiler, a burst toilet cistern, noise complaints and a roof that needed to be repaired. By speaking out about these issues that needed to be dealt with, Ben faced a series of legal threats for his campaigning. <span id="430" class="column-number" data-column-number="430"></span>He was accused by GSA’s lawyers of harassment, of copyright infringement for using the logo on his blog and of putting himself forward to complain on behalf of tenants who should have contacted the company directly. I have heard that familiar phrase many times before. GSA claimed that Ben Jenkins’s criticism was excessive and targeted individual employees, who he named on social media. GSA also said that the criticism was so frequent that it prevented the company from being able to respond to other residents’ issues, which obviously GSA was clearly doing. It demanded in its legal threats that Jenkins sign undertakings to avoid legal action himself, including a commitment to refrain from “any conduct that causes or is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to any of the Claimant’s employees, agents or contractors”. That condition was so broad that Ben Jenkins felt he had no choice but to refuse. The letter itself threatened that failure to sign these undertakings could incur “legal costs which are likely to run into thousands of pounds”. That phrase is clearly a threat to someone living in affordable housing. Ultimately, Ben Jenkins signed a more limited series of undertakings, but he refused to take down his website criticising the housing provider. The battle with GSA has had a serious ongoing effect on Ben’s mental health. He hopes that by shedding a light on these matters, the wellbeing and safety of residents will be protected and the proper upkeep of homes across the UK will be ensured. He wants to contribute to the raising of awareness about the challenges faced and ensure accountability. I hope that the Minister will look at this case, these issues and abuses of legal proceedings and the use of bullying lawfare, where money and resources are used to shield the powerful from proper public scrutiny when they should be held to account. Will the Minister look at bringing in new action to put in a robust, broad and compressive Bill to prevent it from happening?
- Hansard source
Local Bus Services: Travel to School
In the statement on bus services on Monday, I asked the Secretary of State about extending concessionary travel to children and young people. Her response was to suggest that MPs should talk to our individual local <span id="354" class="column-number" data-column-number="354"></span>authorities about this, but that is not the approach that we take to concessionary travel for pensioners. I have just been contacted by somebody aged over 16 who cannot afford to go to college because it would cost £1,500 a year, and her family just cannot afford that. Is it not the case that concessionary bus travel for children and young people should be extended on a national basis, rather than having this postcode lottery?
- Hansard source
G20 and COP29 Summits
Time is running out at COP29 and the clock is ticking on the climate crisis. I welcome the leadership shown by the Prime Minister in attending COP29 and setting ambitious targets for the UK. The need to agree a global finance goal is vital, and making progress in Baku is clearly challenging. Will he assure me that he is pulling out all the stops this week to ensure that an agreement is reached and that it will be adequate to meet the needs of the poorest countries? Will he assure the House that the UK’s pledges will be primarily in the form of grants?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
First of all, I thank the Leader of the House for mentioning Ask Her to Stand Day. Despite the progress that has been made on women’s representation in politics, it is shocking that we are still not where we should be in terms of having a 50:50 Parliament and full representation at all levels. It has already been mentioned this morning that Monday is White Ribbon Day, a crucial day for raising awareness of the terrible problem of male violence against women and girls. The case of Harshita Brella, which came to light in the past week, highlights how vital that work is. West Mercia Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre has been in touch with me this week to highlight the fact that funding in this area is still not sufficient and is not fairly distributed according to need and population. Although we have a Westminster Hall debate next week, does the Leader of the House not agree that this issue is so important that it needs to be debated in Government time? May we have that debate?
- Hansard source
Flood Preparedness: Norfolk
Thank you, Sir Christopher. I hope that other hon. Members understand the need to prioritise Norfolk Members in this debate on Norfolk flooding, though I know we share concerns about the issues. I will try to summarise my remarks.<span id="170WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="170WH"></span> I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this crucial debate and for highlighting the underlying issues to be tackled, including maintenance and understanding the climate risks and the reasons for these problems. I also thank the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for his comments; I look forward to the first Norfolk flood summit. Like other hon. Members, I have countless examples in my constituency. On Mill Lane in Needham village and in Shelfanger and Winfarthing, residents have been significantly affected by flooding in recent years; some have been unable to return to their home since Storm Babet. There were 14 homes badly flooded in a single night, which highlights the extreme impact. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) will be pleased to hear that I also have examples from the Suffolk part of my constituency, because we need to ensure that we look at the issue region-wide. To expand on other Members’ contributions, I will focus on nature-based solutions, which have a big part to play in addressing the issue upstream. Slowing down, capturing and storing rainwater brings additional benefits, improving biodiversity, sequestering carbon, enhancing soil life and creating valuable wildlife habitats. The River Waveney Trust in my constituency is doing fantastic work on projects in places such as Diss and Gissing. It is using funding from DEFRA to carry out work that restores floodplains, plants trees, creates ponds and installs leaky dams. Such things are having a practical impact in reducing flooding and flood risks, but at the moment those works are often carried out by excellent but small charities fighting over pots of money that are not big enough. The DEFRA funding of £25 million needs to be much bigger if we are to tackle the problem at scale across the country. I know that the Minister is committed to addressing the issues and is listening, so I am looking for more funding. I highlight my private Member’s Bill, the Nature-based Solutions (Water and Flooding) Bill, which would require public bodies and water companies to allocate at least 10% to 25% of their budgets to nature-friendly management schemes, ensuring more widespread adoption of nature-based solutions. I hope that the Minister will consider it among the reforms that are being looked at, and that it will get some support from colleagues in Norfolk and beyond. To ensure that others can speak, I will conclude. I hope that the wide-ranging concerns that have been raised today are taken seriously, that adequate funding is put in place, that we ensure that there are joined-up solutions to addressing maintenance, that there is no more buck-passing, and that nature-based solutions get proper focus and attention.
- Hansard source
Children’s Social Care
I warmly welcome today’s statement. The Secretary of State is right that it is long overdue, and that early intervention is key. Too many children in this country are in care because they and their families did not get the support and help that they needed, when they needed it. <span id="32" class="column-number" data-column-number="32"></span>She referenced the report led by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), which stated that we need a revolution in family help, and specifically a £2.6 billion temporary injection of financial support to make the shift to prevention. Can she make that commitment?
- Hansard source
Bus Funding
I welcome the statement, and I particularly welcome the change in funding mechanisms—the move away from hoop-jumping, jam-jar funding to something that takes proper account of local needs; I hope very much that it will take proper account of rurality. However, I want to ask about another issue. Pensioners get free bus travel but children do not. In my rural constituency, the cost to people who do not fit the very narrow definition of those eligible for free bus travel is £1,000 a year. Is it not time to extend concessionary bus travel to children?
- Hansard source
Nature-friendly Farming
<Question HRSContentId="{5E727856-51A9-4B70-9685-A942E443599B}">8. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{AD06DCBA-1275-4F36-83A6-F9B82ECC3389}">What steps he plans to take to support nature-friendly farming.</QuestionText> </Question>
- Hansard source
Nature-friendly Farming
I recognise the very welcome shift towards nature-friendly farming, which offers environmental, social and economic benefits—not just nature protection, but good healthy food and good jobs—yet the farmer-led Nature Friendly Farming Network argues that the agriculture budget needs to be more than doubled to £6 billion a year. Will the Minister press his Treasury colleagues to put more money into nature-friendly farming to secure a sustainable future for UK farming?
- Hansard source
National Insurance Contributions: Healthcare
Since the Budget, I have been contacted by GPs, care providers and charities in my constituency, all expressing concern about the impact of the rise in employer NICs on their ability to serve the most vulnerable in our community. Will the Minister reconsider the change by finding a way to exempt the charitable sector in the same way as <span id="924" class="column-number" data-column-number="924"></span>the public sector? I have written to Ministers and tabled early-day motions on this issue. Will she take this opportunity to assure the charitable sector that it will not be impacted by the measure?
- Hansard source
Facial Recognition: Police Use
I thank every Member here for coming to this debate and I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing it in the first place. I have worked on this issue for many years. In my previous job, I attended and observed the first deployments of live facial recognition by the Metropolitan police, which is many years ago now. Since then, the gap between its increasing use and the lack of a legislative basis has grown wider and wider. In that time, many thousands of people have had their personal data captured and used by the police when there was absolutely no reason for that. Many people have been misidentified, but the accuracy issue is not my main concern. The unlegislated use of the technology is incredibly worrying. In my previous job on the London Assembly, I asked the Met and the Mayor of London many questions about that. I asked for watchlist transparency, but I did not get it. I heard the initial promises—“Oh, it will be very transparently used, we will communicate it, and no one will have to walk past it without knowing.” All those reassurances just faded away, because there is no real scrutiny or legislation. We need to debate the subject from first principles. As other Members have pointed out, we have had proper debates about identity cards and fingerprint and DNA data, but not about this extremely intrusive technology. It is more concerning than other technologies because it can be used on us without our knowledge. It really does engage our human rights in profound ways. For all those reasons, the use of facial recognition by the police has been challenged by the Information Commissioner, the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, the Biometrics Commissioner, London Assembly members, of whom I was one, Senedd Members and Members of Parliament here. The only detailed scrutiny of the technology has resulted in calls for a halt to its use; I am thinking of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee has also called for primary legislation. That is the <span id="218WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="218WH"></span>absolutely key question. The EU has had the debate and looked at the issue in detail, with the result that over there what is used so much by the UK police is restricted to only the most serious cases of genuine public safety. That absolutely needs to happen here. The legislation needs to look not just at police use of the technology, but private use. I have seen its use by private companies in the privately owned public space in King’s Cross. Data from there has been shared with the police; the police initially denied knowing anything about it and then later apologised for that denial. If private companies are collecting data and sharing it with the police, that needs to be scrutinised. If private companies are using the technology, that needs to be legislated for as well.