UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2022

  • Angela Rayner – 2022 Speech on PPE Medpro and Michelle Mone

    Angela Rayner – 2022 Speech on PPE Medpro and Michelle Mone

    The speech made by Angela Rayner, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, in the House of Commons on 6 December 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That this House –

    (a) notes that the Department for Health and Social Care purchased more than £12 billion of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in 2020-21;

    (b) regrets that the Government has now written £8.7 billion off the value of this £12 billion, including £4 billion that was spent on PPE which did not meet NHS standards and was unusable;

    (c) is extremely concerned that the Government’s high priority lane for procurement during the pandemic appears to have resulted in contracts being awarded without due diligence and wasted taxpayer money;

    (d) considers there should be examination of the process by which contracts were awarded through the high priority lane; and

    (e) accordingly resolves that an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give direction that all papers, advice and correspondence involving Ministers and Special Advisers, including submissions and electronic communications, relating to the Government contracts for garments for biological or chemical protection, awarded to PPE Medpro by the Department for Health and Social Care, references CF-0029900D0O000000rwimUAA1 and 547578, be provided to the Committee of Public Accounts.

    The motion before the House is simple: this is a plea for answers, clarity and the truth. The choice that the House makes today is also simple. Our demand is clear: end the cover-up and begin the clean-up. We already know that the so-called VIP lane for personal protective equipment enabled the shameful waste of taxpayers’ money and inexcusable profiteering by unfit and unqualified providers. We know the Government have already written off £10 billion of public funds spent on personal protective equipment that was either unusable, overpriced or undelivered. Ministers have admitted that they are still paying £770,000 a day of taxpayers’ cash to store gloves, goggles and gowns. That is enough to pay for 75,000 spaces in after-school clubs, or 19,000 places in full-time nursery care. Every day, £106,000 of that money is sent to China to pay for storage costs alone.

    We already know that £4 billion-worth of unusable PPE was burned to generate power after 70 million PPE items were sold off for just £400,000. What we do not yet know is what was said in correspondence between the key participants on the Government Benches and their unqualified cronies on the make and on the take. We do not even know exactly where our money ended up, but we do know that, if Ministers get their way, the system could be used again and the scandal repeated, enriching fraudsters at the expense of the taxpayer and creating a new mountain of waste.

    Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is a scandalous waste of public money. Equally important is that our care sector and health sector were desperate for PPE during the pandemic. Specialised Canvas in my constituency changed all its manufacturing to be able to make PPE and got a large number of contracts from individual trusts, but it was completely unable to get any contracts out of the Department of Health and Social Care. So alongside the public money wastage, we also had nurses and carers unable to access PPE at the height of the pandemic when they desperately needed it.

    Angela Rayner

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He made two points, which I will come to in greater detail in my speech, but one was the lack of PPE for those on the frontline, as well as the total disrespect in the way that contracts were handed out through the VIP lane, at the expense of businesses up and down the UK that had experience and could have helped during the pandemic, but which were not party to WhatsApps or whatever else got them to Ministers and access to the VIP lane.

    Take the mystery of a PPE company with links to a Tory politician. While it is for the authorities to decide whether any law is broken, and I will not comment on the ongoing investigations, we do know that PPE Medpro was referred to the VIP lane by a sitting member of the Cabinet after lobbying from another Tory politician five days before it was even legally registered as a company. The House may recall that that particular company was subsequently awarded two contracts worth £203 million to supply PPE, with £81 million to supply 210 million face masks awarded in May 2020 and a £122 million contract to supply 25 million surgical gowns awarded in June 2020. The face masks were bought by the Government from PPE Medpro for more than twice the price of identical items from other suppliers, and the surgical gowns were rejected for use in the NHS after a technical inspection. All of them were never even used. It points to a total failure of due diligence and the rotten stench of cronyism.

    Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)

    During the early months of the pandemic, I was contacted by PPE suppliers known to the NHS—they were long-term suppliers—who told me that their offers of help were being rejected. One wrote to me and said that before April 2020

    “there was a degree of total incompetence about government handling of PPE purchases. However, by the way they scrutinised our own offers, thereafter, we believe they knew, at least specification-wise, exactly what they were doing and that senior managers were taking steps to use ‘preferred suppliers’, even though they were aware these suppliers had neither the track record nor the level of competence to produce compliant goods”.

    What does my right hon. Friend think about that?

    Angela Rayner

    I think it absolutely stinks, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right, in that the public can see through it, as can those businesses, who are pretty angry. They knew that Britain faced a situation with a global pandemic that it had not faced before and they wanted to do the right thing by doing their bit. The frustration—my hon. Friend is right to quote her business—is that there is no question that the specifications should have been known. Therefore, why was all this PPE bought knowing full well it could not be used?

    Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the mood in her constituency, as in mine, apposite these dealings is one of faith being completely shaken in the good governance and process of this nation? At the very least, people are saying that moneys obtained and goods not properly utilised have to be returned and, if circumstances so dictate, there should be criminal prosecutions long before an inquiry can progress.

    Angela Rayner

    My hon. Friend is right to capture the mood of the public on this. At a time when the public are told that we have to show restraint, at a time when they can see the finances—not least because the Government’s former Prime Minister and former Chancellor crashed the economy—it absolutely galls them to think that Ministers were not doing the due diligence that was required with the funds we needed. Now we have a situation where we are spending billions of pounds on wasted PPE and we also have thousands of pounds every single day being wasted on storage for PPE.

    Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)

    Obviously in government you have to get on and make decisions, and we do not often get to see what the Labour party would do in our place. On this occasion, we did have an insight because the Labour party recommended a whole series of people who could supply vital supplies for us during the pandemic, including a football agent supplying ventilators. What assessment has the right hon. Lady made of the quality and credibility of the Labour party’s own suggestions for supplies during the pandemic?

    Angela Rayner

    I thank the hon. Member for his comments, but I ask him: how many Members from across the House who were not Conservative Members got access to the VIP lanes? I can give him the answer: none, zilch, zero. That is the problem. The due diligence was not done on those contracts and it was his Government’s problem, his Government’s responsibility and his Government’s failure.

    Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)

    My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that there is a huge contrast in the comments of the National Audit Office on the way the Welsh Government procured PPE, in that they did not waste public money and they did get value for money. They did not end up having to explain to the House how they gave contracts to various people. Does she not agree that that is the way a Labour Government in action really works?

    Angela Rayner

    I absolutely agree. This was a global pandemic, yet it is the UK Government who are constantly criticised about these contracts and the way in which they were doled out and given. All the motion today asks for is transparency. What have they got to hide?

    Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)

    I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way; she is making a powerful speech. Today has been a really important day, because we have met members of the Fire Brigades Union from across the country who have come down to stand up for a decent salary. That is all we are asking for. What this debate illustrates is that the Government can find billions of pounds to hand over in a crisis to well-connected supporters. If the allegations about the Member from the other place are true, enough money from that alleged dividend would have settled the firefighters’ settlement in Scotland in totality—one person against every firefighter. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that an incoming Labour Government will investigate this matter thoroughly and transparently, and hold anyone who has bent the rules—however they have done so—to justice?

    Angela Rayner

    I thank the hon. Member for his point, and he is absolutely right. The Fire Brigades Union members were in Parliament and outside it today. They are frustrated, like many others who have been told that there is not money to give them a pay rise and that, actually, they are going to get a real-terms pay cut. But at the same time, billions of pounds has been wasted. As I said in my opening remarks, £770,000 a day has gone on storing this equipment. It is not acceptable to most people and most members of the public.

    Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)

    My right hon. Friend has highlighted one particular legal situation, but I am sure she is aware that the Department of Health and Social Care remains in dispute on 176 contracts for PPE worth £2.7 billion. I wonder whether she has any thoughts about that.

    Angela Rayner

    The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee is absolutely right. It is absolutely eye-watering and astonishing that 176 contracts remain in this situation. The public can see that and they are frustrated, because it is not acceptable and not okay to govern in that way. The public rightly want answers, and they want them now.

    The links between the company Medpro and the Tory peer in question were never publicly disclosed. In fact, they were denied repeatedly by the lawyers acting for those involved. We now know that the money ended up in offshore accounts directly linked to those individuals. By their own admission, this was for so-called tax efficiency. It seems that they even dodged paying their own taxes on the profits they made from ours. Only after a long legal battle was it revealed that there was active lobbying from ministerial colleagues for access to the VIP lane and substantial contracts were won by those companies. They said that the peer in question did not benefit from these contracts. That denial has been rather undermined by the latest revelations of The Guardian, rather than any disclosure of Ministers. It was only some time after The Guardian exposed those links that a Minister, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), finally told me in answer to a parliamentary question:

    “Departmental records reflect that a link between Baroness Mone and PPE Medpro was clear prior to contracts being awarded.”

    But Ministers have, for months, refused to show us those records or tell us the nature of that link and whether it was declared or discovered in due diligence.

    This was the subject of an investigation by the Standards Commissioners in the other place, yet it appears that Ministers sat on the information that they had. The question is very simple: what have Ministers got to hide? Did they know all along who was behind PPE Medpro, or was due diligence so poor that they did not realise the problem? If they had nothing to hide and no rules or laws were broken, Ministers will surely be happy to make the details of the meetings and correspondence available. While they are at it, will the Minister give us clarity about allegations made by the former Health Secretary in his new book about a separate bid for business connected to Baroness Mone?

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    Order. The right hon. Lady is venturing rather too far into the territory that I urged her to avoid. I am afraid that those are the rules, so I have to pull her up if she is actively criticising a Member of the other place. I am sorry about that, but those are the rules.

    Angela Rayner

    I was not criticising Members from the other place. I am just quoting what a Member from this place, who was a Health Minister at the time, said. I am asking this Minister today if he can give us clarity on what was said, because that is now on the public record. That is all I am asking the Minister for. I have not said that about any person from the other place—that is what a former Minister said in his diaries, so it would be nice if this Minister can give us some light on this whole murky affair.

    Let us turn to the numbers because, as they say, the numbers don’t lie. Ten: how many times more likely to get a contract a company was if it was in the VIP lane. One in five: the proportion of emergency contracts handed out by the Government that have been flagged for corruption. Three and a half billion: the value, in pounds, of contracts given to the Tory party’s mates—that we know of. Three billion: the value, in pounds, of contracts awarded that warrant further investigation. None, zilch, zero: the number of times this Government have come clean about this dodgy Medpro scandal. A cover-up, a whitewash, events swept under the carpet—and now they have been dragged kicking and screaming to the House today to give an honest account of their shameful dealings. The public are sick of being ripped off and taken for fools. They want to know the truth.

    Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)

    Is it not now clear to the public that the Conservative party believes in one thing only: how much money it can grab from the public purse, give to its cronies and friends, and steal from the pockets of hard-working people in this country?

    Angela Rayner

    My hon. Friend captures the mood of the public. They want answers—they want to know what happened to their money and what happened with these contracts at the time they most needed the Government to act responsibly—so we have tabled today’s motion and will put it to a vote.

    Let me be clear. We are not asking the Government to do anything that would undermine any chance of recovering our money or anything that would conflict with any police investigation, but for 10 months they have told us that they are in mediation. What progress has been made? When will they conclude that the mediation has failed and take action? Can they actually get our money back or are they just kicking the can down the road?

    Our motion asks Ministers to hand the records over to the Public Accounts Committee—a body that this House relies on to hold them to account for public spending—because the only logical conclusion is that they do indeed have something to hide. The public deserve answers on whether the dodgy lobbying at the heart of this scandal played a part in how vast sums of taxpayers’ cash have been wasted and whether shameful profiteering has been enabled by this Government.

    That leads me to my second simple question for the House today: will Conservative Members—the few who are in—now vote for a clean-up or for yet another cover-up? Just last week, the Government led Tory Members in the other place through the Not Content Lobby to block amendment 72 to their Procurement Bill, which would have banned VIP lanes in future procurement decisions. They voted it down. They voted to protect unlawful VIP access instead of protecting taxpayers’ money.

    The Prime Minister, fresh from writing off the billions he carelessly lost to covid fraud, is peddling legislation full of loopholes that would give Tory Ministers free rein to do it all over again. The question for the House is whether to act to prevent a repeat. Today, I say to Conservative right hon. and hon. Members: “Learn your lesson. Don’t let this shameful episode be repeated.”

    The loss and trauma of the pandemic were immense. Millions of families lost loved ones—some only got to say goodbye via an iPad as mothers, fathers, husbands, wives and friends slipped away—and then we learned that throughout that trauma, companies with WhatsApp links to Ministers were given special VIP access to contracts that have seen billions poured down the drain.

    This Government have done untold damage to the public’s faith in politics. The first step in restoring trust is publishing these documents today. The public need answers about how this happened and they need them now, but they also deserve reassurances that it will never, ever be allowed to happen again. Taxpayers’ money must be treated with respect, not handed out in backroom deals to cronies or used as a passport to profiteering.

    PPE Medpro is just the tip of the iceberg in this scandal. We now know that companies that got into the VIP lane were 10 times more likely to win a contract. We now know that many did not go through the so-called eight-stage process of due diligence, as Ministers have now admitted, and we now know that this left dozens of experienced British businesses out in the cold—businesses that had the expertise to procure PPE and ventilators precisely and fast; businesses that offered their help in our darkest hour; businesses whose only mistake was to play by the rules.

    Not a single one of the companies referred to the VIP lane was referred by a politician of any political party other than the Conservative party. The then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove)—the Cabinet member who oversaw the entire emergency procurement programme —reportedly fast-tracked a bid from one of his own personal friends and donors, who went on to win hundreds of millions of pounds of public money. Last week, he said he had simply referred the bid from PPE Medpro to officials; but we also know that he passed it on directly to his ministerial colleague Lord Agnew.

    Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)

    My right hon. Friend is making a thoughtful speech which puts every Conservative Member to shame. Is she as shocked as I was to learn that a company was put into the VIP lane by mistake, and still received a £1 million contract?

    Angela Rayner

    It is absolute negligence and neglect of due diligence in the whole process. We now know that the issue of the VIP access lane and what it did and did not do has been tested in the High Court, but we also know that there is serious concern among members of the public, and that is what the motion is about. It is about getting to the bottom of it, and I think the public deserve no less than that.

    As I was saying, the Minister passed the bid directly on to Lord Agnew. Some time later, officials discussed the fact that the Ministers’ offices were still being furiously lobbied. The former Health Secretary has also described being lobbied in words that I cannot quote in the Chamber—you have made that clear, Madam Deputy Speaker—but without giving any dates or details, so we do not know exactly what conversations or contacts happened behind the scenes. However, we do know that £3.5 billion of contracts have been handed out by this Government to their political donors and Ministers’ mates, so yes, we need an investigation into that as well. In fact, we need an investigation into every pound and penny that has been handed out, and to learn the lessons so that public money is not wasted again.

    We should not forget that Ministers had previously denied the existence of a VIP lane. Well, it existed all right. It allowed Conservative politicians to “open doors” for anyone with connections to Ministers. It was the WhatsApp highway express, and earlier this year the High Court declared it unlawful.

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) said earlier, it did not have to be this way. Governments across the world responded to the covid emergency without wasting billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and relying on dodgy backroom deals. According to the watchdog, the Welsh Labour Government managed to prevent health and care bodies from running out of PPE. The watchdog said:

    “In contrast to the position described by the…National Audit Office in England, we saw no evidence of a priority being given to potential suppliers depending on who referred them.”

    The Welsh Government created an open and transparent PPE supply chain, which is in stark contrast with the approach that the Conservatives took in England.

    Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)

    My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. With the benefit of hindsight, does she agree that the House would not have allowed the Government to have the emergency procurement powers that it granted at the beginning of the pandemic if we had known that they would be used in this corrupt manner?

    Angela Rayner

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I would go further. I know from the correspondence I have been receiving that the public feel that way, and that many Conservative voters are absolutely shocked by what they have seen this Conservative Government do. They do not believe that the Government speak to their values, yet this has happened and we have a Procurement Bill going forward where this could happen again. So for today at least, the question before the House is simple: clean-up or cover-up?

    I know that Members across this House care about our democracy, and although we disagree on many things, I hope we agree on the importance of trust in politics, the values of integrity, professionalism and accountability in public office and the public’s wish for more transparency and accountability within these four walls. Put simply, a vote for this motion is a vote in favour of the truth. This Government have presided over scandal after scandal engulfing their party. They appear to have benefited from dodgy lobbying, left, right and centre. Voting today for yet another cover-up will send another clear message to the public that this Prime Minister cares more about protecting vested interests than putting things right, and that his own promise of “integrity, professionalism and accountability” is just more hot air. After what they have put the British people through, this surely cannot be the message that Conservative Members want to send.

    Labour has a plan to turn this procurement racket on its head and tackle the obscene waste with an office for value for money, to ensure that public money is spent with the respect that it deserves. It is about time that Conservative Members got with that programme. So I say today—I hope Conservative Members are listening—let us end the cover-up and begin the clean-up, and let us start it now. I commend this motion to the House.

  • Stuart Andrew – 2022 Speech on the English National Opera

    Stuart Andrew – 2022 Speech on the English National Opera

    The speech made by Stuart Andrew, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 5 December 2022.

    This is certainly a fun way to end a Monday evening! I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) for securing this debate and highlighting the importance of the performing arts sector. I thank all other hon. Members for their contributions, and their engagement on this important topic.

    My hon. Friend is a passionate supporter of the arts and culture, and I appreciate his and other Members’ thoughts on how we can continue to support and champion the sector, particularly in this area, so that people up and down the country can enjoy the benefits of arts and culture, and what it can bring to our communities. It is worth reflecting on our commitment to the arts and culture sector. My Department secured and delivered the culture recovery fund at a time when almost all our performing arts and culture venues were closed due to the pandemic. This debate would tell a very different story if we had not provided such unprecedented support at that time; it would be a story of how we would need to rebuild a decimated industry.

    There was significant support that helped the whole economy, including arts and culture, such as the self-employment income support scheme and the furlough scheme, but the House will remember—as I reminded my hon. Friend in a debate only a fortnight ago—that the Government also supported about 5,000 organisations through the unprecedented culture recovery fund. Tax reliefs for theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries were also increased until 2024 as part of the Budget. Worth almost a quarter of a billion pounds, the additional tax reliefs have supported, and continue to support, the arts and culture sectors in the UK to continue to produce world famous content on the global stage. Taken together, those interventions have supported the sector through the challenges of covid and steered it into recovery.

    A number of members have raised with me over the past couple of weeks the issue of the increasing cost of energy bills. I assure hon. Members that we are aware of the extremely challenging situation facing organisations. My noble Friend Lord Parkinson has hosted a series of roundtables to discuss those very issues, and we will continue to do so.

    It is important for us to talk about the Government’s levelling-up intentions, because one theme is supporting cultural and heritage assets. This is another boost for arts and culture, and a recognition of its role in the economy and in our communities. Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport officials and our arm’s length bodies have been supporting the assessment and prioritisation process for the levelling-up fund, and I am pleased that the second round includes the potential for up to two £50 million flagship culture and heritage projects.

    Sir Robert Neill

    I appreciate the Minister’s remarks. I do not think the energy costs are a great problem for any of the arts companies, frankly. I gently say to him he refers fairly to the levelling-up agenda and the fund. He will be aware that the previous Secretary of State wrote to the Arts Council in February, instructing it to use the major holders of the national portfolio, of which the ENO was one, to do more of their investment outside London. ENO has been prepared to do that, but will he help me understand how something that ceases the company to exist does anything to level up, or to do more of its work outside London? Will he address the specific issues of the Arts Council’s decision?

    Stuart Andrew

    Of course I will, and I am coming on to that. I think it is important to point out that there are three main reasons why we need to have this levelling-up agenda in culture: it is important that access to arts and culture is more fairly spread; that the economic growth that comes from creativity should be felt by everybody; and that the pride of place that culture and heritage can bring to communities should be felt in every corner of the country. That is why we have asked the Arts Council to invest more in the recently identified levelling up for culture places.

    Central to all of this is our delivery partner, as my hon. Friend has mentioned—Arts Council England—and, as we have heard, it has recently announced the outcome of its latest investment programme, which will be investing £446 million in each year between 2023 and 2026. There were a record number of applications for this competitive funding, which will support 990 organisations across the whole of England. This means more organisations will be funded than ever before and, crucially, in more places.

    Dame Margaret Hodge

    I am really grateful to the Minister for giving way. It is just that I cannot stand this hypocrisy about levelling up. This is not levelling up. To cut the ENO will not level up. It is doing a fantastic job in opening up opera to other people. If the Minister sees what the Arts Council has done elsewhere, it has cut the touring grant for the Welsh National Opera and it has cut the touring grant for Glyndebourne. The result of all those three actions means far fewer people will have access to opera over the coming years as a result of crass decisions taken by the Arts Council.

    Stuart Andrew

    I will come on to those points, but I am afraid I do not accept the premise that we are not levelling up areas around the country. I just do not accept that.

    Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)

    What about Oldham?

    Stuart Andrew

    If the hon. Member will just let me speak, in Blackburn, for example, there was no funding from the Arts Council at all, but there are now four projects. We are seeing that all over the country. To bring this to life, the investment programme includes £150,000 per year to Magpie Dance, a new joiner in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. In short, I am unapologetic about this shift of support to more organisations that will be helping more people around the country and will be supporting more people.

    I understand that many hon. Friends may disagree with some of the individual decisions that have been made. These decisions were made entirely independently of Government, so I cannot comment on the individual outcomes.

    Barbara Keeley

    You are cutting them!

    Stuart Andrew

    The premise, but not the individual applications—and that is the critical point. This is an arm’s length body, and if there were any ways in which it was breaching the terms set by the Government, we would of course intervene, but it was following the instructions that were set.

    Sir Robert Neill

    Does the Minister take responsibility?

    Stuart Andrew

    Let me finish, please.

    These decisions were taken against well-established criteria by regional teams spread across nine offices across England via directors with expertise in their discipline, be that theatre, music, touring and so on, and they have been overseen by the national council, so I hope Members will forgive me for repeating my message of last week, but it is important.

    Ms Harman

    Will the Minister give way?

    Stuart Andrew

    I just want to come on to this point. English National Opera, in particular, is just one decision out of 1,700. As I say, there are 990 organisations in the next portfolio, and unfortunately 700 were unsuccessful on this occasion. Many hon. Members will have been following this coverage, and I can confirm that the Arts Council has offered English National Opera a package of support. We are keen that the Arts Council and English National Opera work together on the possibilities for the future of the organisation. I welcome many of the suggestions put forward, and I encourage the exploration of those ideas during engagement between English National Opera and Arts Council England. We need to explore all suggestions made.

    Ms Harman

    I am hoping that this speech is a sort of front, and that behind the scenes the Government recognise that the instruction they have given to the Arts Council is wrong, and that the decision the Arts Council has made is wrong and that the Government are going to do something about it. Otherwise it is too depressing to think that a Minister responsible for the arts should make a speech that does not address any of the points brought forward with great seriousness and gravity by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I am hoping that this is a bit of a front, and that there is some intelligent, creative, recognising-art-loving life behind the scenes in this Government, because we cannot see any signs of that in the Minister’s speech.

    Stuart Andrew

    I am really sorry, but I do not understand how funding more organisations than ever before, in more parts of the country than ever before, is not spreading that opportunity for artists around the rest of the country. I make no apology for that whatsoever, and I am surprised that people do not want rising talent in Blackpool or Birmingham to have the same opportunities —[Interruption.] This is not divisive; this is about trying to help other people around the country. As I said, I go back to the main point that I encourage all these ideas to be explored—of course they should be. We are keen for that to happen. Through this programme, opera will continue to be well funded, with it remaining at around 40% of overall investment in music. Organisations such as the English Touring Opera and Birmingham Opera Company will receive increased funding, and there are many new joiners such as OperaUpClose and Pegasus Opera. The Royal Opera House will continue to be funded. Those statistics are likely to underestimate the level of opera activity being funded, as some organisations in the programme will fall under combined arts.

    For those who are concerned about what this decision may mean for London, let me say that we remain committed to supporting the capital—of course we do—and we recognise and appreciate that London is a leading cultural centre, with organisations that benefit the whole country and greatly enhance the UK’s international reputation as a home for world-class arts and culture. That is clearly reflected in the next investment programme, when around one third of the investment will be spent in London, equivalent to approximately £143 million a year. I am sure hon. Friends will agree that when we step back and look at the bigger picture, it is exciting to see that it also gives opportunities to people around the country to enjoy what many have in London. I reiterate that we encourage Arts Council England and English National Opera to continue their dialogue and explore all those issues. I have said that in each of the debates—I think this is the third or fourth we have had—and I look forward to seeing the outcome of those discussions.

  • Robert Neill – 2022 Speech on the English National Opera

    Robert Neill – 2022 Speech on the English National Opera

    The speech made by Sir Robert Neill, the Conservative MP for Bromley and Chislehurst, in the House of Commons on 5 December 2022.

    It is a pleasure but also a sadness to rise to speak in this Adjournment debate, because it is not a discussion we should be having in a society that prizes excellence, attainment and opportunity. It is about the disgraceful behaviour of Arts Council England in removing the English National Opera from the national portfolio and about what some of us perceive to be a significant underappreciation of the performing arts, as opposed to other art forms, in the way we deal with our arts and culture policy—perhaps, I regret to say, in the attitude of Arts Council England itself from time to time.

    Let me set out very briefly what causes that. The English National Opera is approaching its 100th anniversary. It was founded by Lilian Baylis to deliberately make opera, in its best and most effective sense, available to everybody—I will come back to the fact that opera is not some kind of elite form in the way it is so often wrongly characterised. That is the same mission that Arts Council England was given: to make art and excellence available to everybody. Regrettably, recent decisions have put that at risk.

    For 55 years or so, ENO has had its home at the London Coliseum. It has been a nurturer of talent and, for many people, as audiences and as professional singers, the gateway to opera. It has done a great deal. It has had its challenges from time to time; the Coliseum is a large theatre, and there was a time when the company struggled to find its way in a sense, artistically and financially. It also had some brilliant times, and I remember, as a young student in London, going to the ENO when it was at Sadler’s Wells, before it moved down to the Coliseum. I remember seeing fantastic productions there that opened people’s eyes to what music can do; what that extraordinary juxtaposition of theatre, music and the visual performance can do, in a way that no other art form arguably can.

    The ENO’s unique thing was that it was affordable and it did it in English, so the barrier that sometimes makes operas and art forms seem remote did not exist at the English National Opera. That has always been one of its important calling cards. That has also meant that talented people—from Bryn Terfel to Susan Bullock and many others—started their careers and have worked their way to becoming international stars because of the ENO.

    Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)

    I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this debate, although it is regrettable that we have to have it. I can attest, as somebody who has enjoyed many particularly un-highbrow productions at the Coliseum, to what he is saying. The ENO has sought to diversify and to open its doors to the less advantaged. It has given free tickets to young people and has encouraged them to get involved with the beauty of music in an accessible way and in English at such a young age. Does he not think it is ironic that the ENO is the victim of a supposed diversification programme by the Arts Council, which is giving questionable money to all sorts of politically motivated causes up and down the country, and that this could scupper the future of such a fantastic institution that has done so much to bring the arts to those who absolutely benefit from it more than most?

    Sir Robert Neill

    I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The ENO has been about expanding horizons and expanding opportunities. The irony is also that, because of the hard work of its current leadership, and because of the work that has been done by its chair, Dr Harry Brünjes, by its board, and by its chief executive, it is on a sound financial footing.

    The ENO was praised by the chair of the Arts Council as being never better led, and the Arts Council’s internal documents show that its governance is beyond reproach. On its financial situation, risk is seen as moderate—for any company in theatre, that is, frankly, very good. It has actually built up reserves and has done all the right things, putting the operation on a much more commercially aware basis. Those at the ENO spend time bringing in musicals to cross-subsidise some of the less accessible and more challenging work, but that is an important part of their mission, too. They have done everything expected of them in the Arts Council’s own objectives, and have ticked the box on the Art Council’s own internal assessments of the Let’s Create objective.

    Why is it, then, that a company that has done everything asked of it, and succeeded, has the rugged pulled from under it by the Arts Council, on 24 hours’ notice, with no consultation, no evidence base—that we have seen—to underpin it, no strategy to underpin the approach to opera as an arts form or, generally, to the way that vocal arts are dealt with in the United Kingdom? Why is it, then, that the chorus and orchestra are threatened with redundancy and the creatives are likely to be on notice? That is all on the basis of a laudable objective of the Government to spread where the arts are found in this country. I do not disagree with that, but it is done in such a manner that the Government’s own objective is, I regret to say to the Minister, undermined and almost discredited.

    Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)

    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, although as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, it is sad that he had to do so. Does he not agree that this is the most scandalous decision, given every objective of the Government and of the Arts Council to widen participation and access to this unique form of art? The ENO is the one place where British young artists have the opportunity to develop their careers, to start performing to the public and to be seen by both national and international opera houses.

    The Arts Council worked with the theatre that I chair in east London to put on a performance of “Noye’s Fludde” by Britten. They brought in about 50 young children from Newham and Tower Hamlets in east London, who participated as actors in that production. They managed to win an award out of it, which was absolutely tremendous. Is that not all about widening participation, opening access and levelling up?

    Sir Robert Neill

    The right hon. Lady is entirely right. A few statistics bear that out: 50% of the ENO’s audience come to see an opera for the first time. I was at its new production of “It’s a Wonderful Life” only last week. On Friday I went to see the last performance of “The Yeoman of the Guard”. I have never seen a younger audience in an opera house on either of those occasions. A few months ago I was at “Tosca” when it first opened and saw the same thing—standard repertoire, some would say—young people who are enthusiastic about serious art done to an international level. To undermine that would be vandalism of the very worst order.

    Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)

    I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. I was particularly concerned to hear the news of the Arts Council not supporting ENO in the way it should, particularly as the London Coliseum is based in my constituency. I have had conversations with the Arts Council and with the ENO. Does my hon. Friend agree, as I suggested to them, that the ENO should consider a model along the lines of the Royal Shakespeare Company, which has an impressive regional base but keeps its London base because London attracts international tourists as well as British tourists? It is so important for the levelling-up agenda to have a regional base but also to keep the London flagship.

    Sir Robert Neill

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the whole point. This should not be an either/or. The whole point is to ensure that we have a secure company in London that can do its work, but ENO has been more than willing from the very beginning to do more work outside London. It planned to do a show in Liverpool before the pandemic. As it happens, other cuts elsewhere to Welsh National Opera have meant that Liverpool will get less opera now rather than more. That is a bizarre way of going about things.

    Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)

    I thank the hon. Member for introducing this important Adjournment debate. I agree absolutely with the case he sets out in his speech for the Arts Council decision to be withdrawn. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) proposed, the decision should be reviewed, reshaped and should not go ahead. It is baffling and an absolute shame that three people who have done so much for the arts—Nick Serota, Darren Henley and Claire Mera-Nelson—should have made this wrong decision. Will he join me in urging them to withdraw the decision, recognise that they got it wrong and that the ENO has exemplified levelling up, and undo this terrible mistake?

    Sir Robert Neill

    The right hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right, not least because the decision was made with no notice, no prior consultation and no ability for the ENO to go through a proper consultation process with its staff, who may be rendered redundant. I suspect that lays the Arts Council open to judicial review, but I am sure it would not want to get into that position when a compromise solution is readily available.

    Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; I am conscious of the time. That is the most shocking aspect of this sorry saga: the suddenness of the decision, the abruptness of the withdrawal of funding and the failure to even consider a phased approach or a more modulated approach, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). Nobody wants to talk about legal action, so surely the sensible way forward is for the Arts Council to think again about the gravity of its decision and to give the ENO a fair hearing at the very least.

    Sir Robert Neill

    My right hon. and learned Friend is obviously right. The perhaps unprecedented number of interventions in this Adjournment debate from hon. Members on both sides of the House demonstrates how strongly people feel about the issue. That is the message to the Minister and the ENO: people support the ENO and say that the Arts Council should think again and find a way forward that achieves the objective.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Sir Robert Neill

    I will take the remaining interventions, then close quickly to give the Minister time to respond.

    Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)

    I commend my hon. Friend for his excellent arguments and all other hon. Members who are supporting them. As MP for Woking, I have had quite a big postbag on this issue from not just opera-loving constituents, who are disgusted by the decision, but first-class musicians and singers who will effectively lose their job. I, too, appeal to the Minister to ensure that the decision is withdrawn.

    Sir Robert Neill

    I am massively grateful to my hon. Friend.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the debate. I believe, as he does, that it is outrageous that Arts Council England is withdrawing the funding. Does he agree that it is about ensuring the upkeep of our theatres, and encouraging people to visit the wonderful theatres that hon. Members have mentioned in their constituencies across the United Kingdom, especially after the impact of covid on the performing arts industry?

    Sir Robert Neill

    The hon. Gentleman is right. What I found extraordinary was the Arts Council’s suggestion that there was no growth in the audience for opera—or for “grand opera”, as it was demeaningly titled, which indicates someone who does not know much about opera. Actually, the figures from the ENO show a significant growth post covid—more than before—but the Arts Council makes no allowance for that. It has flawed figures, no strategy and a flawed consultation—a flawed approach from day one.

    Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)

    I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend on raising the subject. Seven years ago, the Arts Council was worried about the ENO’s business plan and management. The business plan has gone well, the management have done well, and the singers and musicians have done brilliantly. Is it not time to back a British success?

    Sir Robert Neill

    I entirely agree with the Father of the House.

    Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)

    I may not be able to match the hon. Gentleman’s regular attendance, but the last two productions that I saw at the Coliseum either side of covid were Les Dennis in “HMS Pinafore” and Harrison Birtwistle’s “The Mask of Orpheus”, which gives an idea of the range that is on display. It is a great London, national and international institution, and it is being ruined, so I congratulate him on what he has said, and all other hon. Members. The decision has to be reversed.

    Sir Robert Neill

    I will conclude by asking the Minister what more he needs to hear. When I was a barrister, I would occasionally say to my clients, “The evidence is overwhelming.” He should go outside, have a word and think about it. If he was the advocate, I would say, “Have a word with your clients and tell them to reflect, because there’s time to change this.” The ENO is willing to offer a way forward: it wants to and will do more outside London and it will meet the Department’s objectives, but that cannot be done on the timescale and funding that is available.

    Can we please have a proper strategy to underpin the approach to opera and a proper funding settlement to keep the ENO stable until it can go through due process? There needs to be a proper discussion about moving to a viable venue—there is all this nonsense about a place in Manchester, but no one in Manchester has even been consulted. Let us find a proper means for the ENO to perform outside London in a way that delivers good-quality art for people, and then let us sit down to consider a proper level of transition funding, as was done for the Birmingham Royal Ballet, which took five years to go and do work outside London.

    Above all, I beseech the Minister that we should maintain the chorus and the orchestra. They cannot move out of London, because they have families, so they will be made redundant and the chorus and the orchestra will be destroyed. An orchestra and a chorus take years to build up. It is not a production line; it is years of work of an ensemble coming together.

    Keep the ENO in being and it can do a vast amount elsewhere in the country. It will contribute to levelling up like nothing else. Please do not destroy it, through a misapplication, I am afraid, of a laudable policy; many of us do not disagree with the Government’s policy, but I am afraid it has been badly mishandled by the Arts Council. Arm’s length though it is, because the previous Secretary of State gave instructions to the Arts Council as to how it should do its funding, the Minister has a right and a duty to tell it, “Think again. Reflect. Come to a better solution.”

  • Jim Shannon – 2022 Speech on the Online Safety Bill

    Jim Shannon – 2022 Speech on the Online Safety Bill

    The speech made by Jim Shannon, the DUP MP for Strangford, in the House of Commons on 5 December 2022.

    It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I thank Members who have spoken thus far for their comments. I commend the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) for what she referred to in relation to eating disorders. At this time, we are very aware of that pertinent issue: the impact that social media has—the social pressure and the peer pressure—on those who feel they are too fat when they are not, or that they are carrying weight when they are not. That is part of what the Bill tries to address. I thank the Minister for his very constructive comments—he is always constructive—and for laying out where we are. Some of us perhaps have concerns that the Bill does not go far enough. I know I am one of them and maybe Minister, you might be of the same mind yourself—

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    Order.

    Jim Shannon

    The Minister might be of the same mind himself.

    Through speaking in these debates, my office has seen an increase in correspondence from parents who are thankful that these difficult issues are being talked about. The world is changing and progressing, and if we are going to live in a world where we want to protect our children and our grandchildren—I have six grandchildren —and all other grandchildren who are involved in social media, the least we can do is make sure they are safe.

    I commend the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) and others, including the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who have spoken about Zach’s law. We are all greatly impressed that we have that in the Bill through constructive lobbying. New clause 28, which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) referred to, relates to advocacy for young people. That is an interesting idea, but I feel that advocacy should be for the parents first and not necessarily young people.

    Ahead of the debate, I was in contact with the Royal College of Psychiatrists. It published a report entitled “Technology use and the mental health of children and young people”—new clause 16 is related to that—which was an overview of research into the use of screen time and social media by children and young teenagers. It has been concluded that excessive use of phones and social media by a young person is detrimental to their development and mental health—as we all know and as Members have spoken about—and furthermore that online abuse and bullying has become more prevalent because of that. The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) referred to those who are susceptible to online harm. We meet them every day, and parents tell me that our concerns are real.

    A recent report by NHS Digital found that one in eight 11 to 16-year-olds reported that they had been bullied online. When parents contact me, they say that bulling online is a key issue for them, and the statistics come from those who choose to be honest and talk about it. Although the Government’s role is to create a Bill that enables protection for our children, there is also an incredible role for schools, which can address bullying. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and I talked about some of the young people we know at school who have been bullied online. Schools have stepped in and stopped that, encouraging and protecting children, and they can play that role as well.

    We have all read of the story of Molly Russell, who was only 14 years old when she took her life. Nobody in this House or outside it could not have been moved by her story. Her father stated that he strongly believed that the images, videos and information that she was able to access through Instagram played a crucial part in her life being cut short. The Bill must complete its passage and focus on strengthening protections online for children. Ultimately, the responsibility is on large social media companies to ensure that harmful information is removed, but the Bill puts the onus on us to hold social media firms to account and to ensure that they do so.

    Harmful and dangerous content for children comes in many forms—namely, online abuse and exposure to self-harm and suicidal images. In addition, any inappropriate or sexual content has the potential to put children and young people at severe risk. The Bill is set to put provisions in place to protect victims in the sharing of nude or intimate photos. That is increasingly important for young people, who are potentially being groomed online and do not understand the full extent of what they are doing and the risks that come with that. Amendments have been tabled to ensure that, should such cases of photo sharing go to court, provisions are in place to ensure complete anonymity for the victims—for example, through video links in court, and so on.

    I commend the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), who is not in her place, for her hard work in bringing forward new clause 48. Northern Ireland, along with England and Wales, will benefit from new clause 53, and I welcome the ability to hand down sentences of between six months and potentially five years.

    Almost a quarter of girls who have taken a naked image have had their image sent to someone else online without their permission. Girls face very distinct and increased risks on social media, with more than four in five online grooming crimes targeting girls, and 97% of child abuse material featuring the sexual abuse of girls—wow, we really need to do something to protect our children and to give parents hope. There needs to be increased emphasis and focus on making children’s use of the internet safer by design. Once established, all platforms and services need to have the capacity and capability to respond to emerging patterns of sexual abuse, which often stem from photo sharing.

    The Minister referred to terrorism and how terrorism can be promoted online. I intervened on him to mention the glorification of IRA terrorism and how that encourages further acts of terrorism and people who are susceptible to be involved. I am quite encouraged by the Minister’s response, and I think that we need to take a significant step. Some in Northern Ireland, for instance, try to rewrite history and use the glorification of terrorism for that purpose. We would like to see strengthening of measures to ensure that those involved in those acts across Northern Ireland are controlled.

    In conclusion, there are many aspects of the Bill that I can speak in support of in relation to the benefits of securing digital protections for those on social media. This is, of course, about protecting not just children, but all of us from the dangers of social media. I have chosen to speak on these issues as they are often raised by constituents. There are serious matters regarding the glorification and encouragement of self-harm that the Bill needs to address. We have heard stories tonight that are difficult to listen to, because they are true stories from people we know, and we have heard horror stories about intimate photo sharing online. I hope that action on those issues, along with the many others that the Government are addressing, will be embedded in the Bill with the intent to finally ensure that we have regulations and protection for all people, especially our children—I think of my children and grandchildren, and like everybody else, my constituents.

  • Vicky Ford – 2022 Speech on the Online Safety Bill

    Vicky Ford – 2022 Speech on the Online Safety Bill

    The speech made by Vicky Ford, the Conservative MP for Chelmsford, in the House of Commons on 5 December 2022.

    It is great that the Bill is back in this Chamber. I have worked on it for many years, as have many others, during my time on the Science and Technology Committee and the Women and Equalities Committee, and as Children’s Minister. I just want to make three points.

    First, I want to put on the record my support for the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller). She is a true, right and honourable friend of women and girls all across the country. It is vital that women and girls are protected from intimate image abuse, from perverse and extreme pornography, and from controlling and coercive behaviour, as well as that we make a new offence to criminalise cyber-flashing.

    Secondly, I want to talk about new clause 16 and self-harm, especially in relation to eating disorders. As I said in this place on Thursday, it is terrifying how many young people are suffering from anorexia today. The charity Beat estimates that 1.25 million people are suffering from eating disorders. A quarter of them are men; most are women. It also reminds us that anorexia is the biggest killer of all mental illnesses.

    It is very hard to talk about one’s own experiences of mental illness. It brings back all the horrors. It makes people judge you differently. And you fear that people will become prejudiced against you. I buried my own experiences for nearly 40 years, but when I did speak out, I was contacted by so many sufferers and families, thanking me for having done so and saying it had brought them hope.

    There may be many reasons why we have an increase in eating disorders, and I am sure that lockdown and the fears of the pandemic are a part of it, but I do remember from my own experience of anorexia 40 years ago how I had got it into my head that only by being ultra-thin could I be beautiful or valued. That is why images that glamorise self-harm, images that glamorise eating disorders, are so damaging. So it is really concerning to hear in recent surveys that more than one in four children have seen content about anorexia online. It is great that Ministers have promised that all children will be protected from self-harm, including eating disorders. When it comes to adults, however, I understand that Ministers may be considering an amendment similar to new clause 16 that would make it illegal to encourage self-harm online, but that it might not cover eating disorders, because they are just considering giving adults the right to opt out of seeing such content.

    I was lucky that by the time I turned 18 years old I was over the worst of my anorexia, but when I look back at my teenage self, had I been 18 at the peak of my illness and had access to social media, I do not think I would have opted out of that content; I think I might have sought it out. It is incredibly important that the definition of self-harm absolutely recognises that eating disorders are a form of self-harm and are a killer.

    My third point is that I welcome the measures to protect children from sexual abuse online and join my voice with all those who have thanked the Internet Watch Foundation. I have been honoured to be a champion of the foundation for over a decade. The work it does is so important and so brave. The Everyone’s Invited movement exposed the epidemic of sexual violence being suffered by young women and girls in our schools. As Children’s Minister at the time, I listened to their campaigners and learned from them how online pornography normalises sexual violence. There must be measures to prevent children from accessing all online porn. I was worried that Barnardo’s contacted me recently saying that more needs to be done to address the content that sexualises children in pornography. I hope the Minister will work closely with all children’s charities, including the wonderful Children’s Commissioner, as the Bill goes through the rest of its stages.

  • Carla Lockhart – 2022 Speech on the Online Safety Bill

    Carla Lockhart – 2022 Speech on the Online Safety Bill

    The speech made by Carla Lockhart, the DUP MP for Upper Bann, in the House of Commons on 5 December 2022.

    I welcome the fact that we are here today to discuss the Bill. It has been a long haul, and we were often dubious as to whether we would see it progressing. The Government have done the right thing by progressing it, because ultimately, as each day passes, harm is being caused by the lack of regulation and enforcement. While some concerns have been addressed, many have not. To that end, this must be not the end but the beginning of a legislative framework that is fit for purpose; one that is agile and keeps up with the speed at which technology changes. For me, probably the biggest challenge for the House and the Government is not how we start but how we end on these issues.

    Like many Members, I am quite conflicted when it comes to legal but harmful content. I know that is a debate for another day, but I will make one short point. I am aware of the concerns about free speech. As someone of faith, I am cognisant of the outrageous recent statement from the Crown Prosecution Service that it is “no longer appropriate” to quote certain parts of the Bible in public. I would have serious concerns about similar diktats and censorship being imposed by social media platforms on what are perfectly legitimate texts, and beliefs based on those texts. Of course, that is just one example, but it is a good example of why, because of the ongoing warfare of some on certain beliefs and opinions, it would be unwise to bestow such policing powers on social media outlets.

    When the Bill was first introduced, I made it very clear that it needed to be robust in its protection of children. In the time remaining, I wish to address some of the amendments that would strengthen the Bill in that regard, as well as the enforcement provisions.

    New clause 16 is a very important amendment. None of us would wish to endure the pain of a child or loved one self-harming. Sadly, we have all been moved by the very personal accounts from victims’ families of the pain inflicted by self-harm. We cannot fathom what is in the mind of those who place such content on the internet. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and those co-signing the new clause have produced a very considered and comprehensive text, dealing with all the issues in terms of intent, degree of harm and so on, so I fully endorse and welcome new clause 16.

    Likewise, new clauses 45 and 46 would further strengthen the legislation by protecting children from the sharing of an intimate image without consent. Unfortunately, I have sat face to face—as I am sure many in this House have—with those who have been impacted by such cruel use of social media. The pain and humiliation it imposes on the victim is significant. It can cause scars that last a lifetime. While the content can be removed, the impact cannot be removed from the mind of the victim.

    Finally, I make mention of new clause 53. Over recent months I have engaged with campaigners who champion the rights and welfare of those with epilepsy. Those with this condition need to be safe on the internet from the very specific and callous motivation of those who target them because of their condition. We make this change knowing that such legislative protection will increase online protection. Special mention must once again go to young Zach, who has been the star in making this change. What an amazing campaign, one that says to society that no matter how young or old you are, you can bring about change in this House.

    This is a milestone Bill. I believe it brings great progress in offering protections from online harm. I believe it can be further strengthened in areas such as pornography. We only have to think that the British Board of Film Classification found that children are coming across pornography online as young as seven, with 51% of 11 to 13-year-olds having seen pornography at some point. That is damaging people’s mental health and their perception of what a healthy relationship should look and feel like. Ultimately, the Bill does not go far enough on that issue. It will be interesting to see how the other place deals with the Bill and makes changes to it. The day of the internet being the wild west, lawless for young and old, must end. I commend the Bill to the House.

  • Natalie Elphicke – 2022 Speech on the Online Safety Bill

    Natalie Elphicke – 2022 Speech on the Online Safety Bill

    The speech made by Natalie Elphicke, the Conservative MP for Dover, in the House of Commons on 5 December 2022.

    I rise to speak to new clause 55, which stands in my name. I am grateful to my many right hon. and hon. Friends who have supported it, both by putting their name to it and otherwise. I welcome the Minister and his engagement with the new clause and hope to hear from him further as we move through the debate.

    The new clause seeks to create a new criminal offence of intentionally sharing a photograph or film that facilitates or promotes modern slavery or illegal immigration. Members may have wondered how so many people—more than 44,000 this year alone—know who to contact to cross the channel, how to go about it and how much it will cost. Like any business, people smuggling relies on word of mouth, a shopfront or digital location on the internet, and advertising. As I will set out, in this context advertising is done not through an advert in the local paper but by posting a video and photos online.

    Nationalities who use the channel crossing routes are from an astonishing array of countries—from Eritrea and Vietnam to Iraq and Iran—but they all end up arriving on boats that leave from France. Since May 2022, there has been a massive increase in the number of Albanians crossing the channel in small boats. From May to September this year, Albanian nationals comprised 42% of small boat crossings, with more than 11,000 Albanians arriving by small boats, compared with 815 the entire previous year. It is little wonder that it is easy to find criminal gangs posting in Albanian on TikTok with videos showing cheery migrants with thumbs up scooting across the channel on dinghies and motoring into Britain with ease. Those videos have comments, which have been roughly translated as:

    “At 8 o’clock the next departure, hurry to catch the road”;

    “They passed again today! Get in touch today”;

    “Get on the road today, serious escape within a day, not…a month in the forest like most”;

    “The trips continue, contact us, we are the best and the fastest”;

    and

    “Every month, safe passage, hurry up”.

    However, far from being safe, the small boat crossings are harmful, dangerous and connected with serious crime here in the UK, including modern slavery, the drugs trade and people trafficking.

    With regard to the journey, there have been a number of deaths at sea. The Minister for Immigration recently stated that many people in processing centres

    “present with severe burns that they have received through the combination of salty water and diesel fuel in the dinghies.”—[Official Report, 28 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 683.]

    That, of course, underlines why prevention, detection and interception of illegal entry is so important on our sea border. It also speaks to the harm and prevention of harm that my new clause seeks to address: to identify and disrupt the ability of those gangs to post on social media and put up photographs, thereby attracting new business, and communicate in relation to their illegal activity.

    The National Crime Agency has identified links with the criminal drugs trade, modern slavery and other serious and violent crime. That is because illegal immigration and modern slavery offences do not just happen abroad. A criminal enterprise of this scale has a number of operators both here in the UK and abroad. That includes people here in the UK who pay for the transit of another. When they do, they do not generally have the good fortune of that other individual in mind. There are particular concerns about young people and unaccompanied children as well as people who find themselves in debt bondage in modern slavery.

    That also includes people here in the UK who provide information, such as those TikTok videos, to a friend or contacts in a home country so that other people can make their own arrangements to travel. It includes people here in the UK who take photos of arrivals and post or message them to trigger success fees. Those fees are the evidence-based method of transacting in this illegal enterprise and are thought to be responsible for some of the most terrifying experiences of people making the crossing, including even a pregnant woman and others being forced into boats at gunpoint and knifepoint in poor weather when they did not want to go, and parents separated from their children at the water’s edge, with their children taken and threatened to coerce them into complying.

    Last year, 27 people died in the channel in a single day, in the worst small boat incident to date. A newspaper report about those deaths contains comment about a young man who died whose name was Pirot. His friend said of the arrangements for the journey:

    “Typically…the smugglers made deals with families at home. Sometimes they turned up at the camp in masks. The crossing costs about £3,000 per person, with cash demanded in full once their loved one had made it to Dover. One of the Iraqi Kurdish smugglers who arranged Pirot’s crossing has since deleted his Facebook page and WhatsApp account”.

    TikTok, WhatsApp and Facebook have all been identified as platforms actively used by the people smugglers. Action is needed in the Bill’s remit to protect people from people smugglers and save lives in the channel. The new offence would ensure that people here in the UK who promote illegal immigration and modern slavery face a stronger deterrent and, for the first time, real criminal penalties for their misdeeds. It would make it harder for the people smugglers to sell their wares. It would help to protect people who would be exploited and put at risk by those criminal gangs. The risk to life and injury, the risk of modern slavery, and the risks of being swept into further crime, both abroad and here in the UK, are very real.

    The new offence would be another in the toolbox to tackle illegal immigration and prevent modern slavery. I hope that when the Minister makes his remarks, he may consider further expansion of other provisions currently in the Bill but outside the scope of our discussions, such as the schedule 7 priority offences. New clause 55 would tackle the TikTok traffickers and help prevent people from risking their lives by taking these journeys across the English channel.

  • Jamie Stone – 2022 Speech on the Online Safety Bill

    Jamie Stone – 2022 Speech on the Online Safety Bill

    The speech made by Jamie Stone, the Liberal Democrat MP for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, in the House of Commons on 5 December 2022.

    Clearly I am on my feet now because I am the Liberal Democrat DCMS spokesman, but many is the time when, in this place, I have probably erred on the side of painting a rosy picture of my part of the world—the highlands—where children can play among the heather and enjoy themselves, and life is safe and easy. This week just gone I was pulled up short by two mothers I know who knew all about today. They asked whether I would be speaking. They told me of their deep concern for a youngster who is being bullied right now, to the point where she was overheard saying among her family that she doubted she would ever make the age of 21. I hope to God that that young person, who I cannot name, is reached out to before we reach the tragic level of what we have heard about already today. Something like that doesn’t half put a shadow in front of the sun, and a cold hand on one’s heart. That is why we are here today: we are all singing off the same sheet.

    The Liberal Democrats back new clause 17 in the name of the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). Fundamental to being British is a sense of fair play, and a notion that the boss or bosses should carry the can at the end of the day. It should not be beyond the wit of man to do exactly what the right hon. Lady suggested, and nobble those who ultimately hold responsibility for some of this. We are pretty strong on that point.

    Having said all that, there is good stuff in the Bill. Obviously, it has been held up by the Government—or Governments, plural—which is regrettable, but it is easy to be clever after the fact. There is much in the Bill, and hopefully the delay is behind us. It has been chaotic, but we are pleased with the direction in which we are heading at the moment.

    I have three or four specific points. My party welcomes the move to expand existing offences on sharing intimate images of someone to include those that are created digitally, known as deep fakes. We also warmly welcome the move to create a new criminal offence of assisting or encouraging self-harm online, although I ask the Government for more detail on that as soon as possible. Thirdly, as others have mentioned, the proposed implementation of Zach’s law will make it illegal to post stuff that hits people with epilepsy.

    If the pandemic taught me one thing, it was that “media-savvy” is not me. Without my young staff who helped me during that period, it would have been completely beyond my capability to Zoom three times in one week. Not everyone out there has the assistance of able young people, which I had, and I am very grateful for that. One point that I have made before is that we would like to see specific objectives—perhaps delivered by Ofcom as a specific duty—on getting more media savvy out there. I extol to the House the virtue of new clause 37, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). The more online savvy we can get through training, the better.

    At the end of the day, the Bill is well intentioned and, as we have heard, it is essential that it makes a real impact. In the case of the young person I mentioned who is in a dark place right now, we must get it going pretty dashed quick.

  • Suzanne Webb – 2022 Speech on the Online Safety Bill

    Suzanne Webb – 2022 Speech on the Online Safety Bill

    The speech made by Suzanne Webb, the Conservative MP for Stourbridge, in the House of Commons on 5 December 2022.

    This is the first time I have been able to speak in the Chamber for some time, due to a certain role I had that prevented me from speaking in here. It is an absolute honour and privilege, on my first outing in some time, to have the opportunity to speak specifically to new clause 53, which is Zach’s law. I am delighted and thrilled that the Government are supporting Zach’s law. I have supported it for more than two years, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell). We heard during the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill how those who suffer from epilepsy were sent flashing images on social media by vile trolls. Zach Eagling, whom the law is named after, also has cerebral palsy, and he was one of those people. He was sent flashing images after he took part in a charity walk around his garden. He was only nine years of age.

    Zach is inspirational. He is selflessly making a massive difference, and the new clause is world-leading. It is down to Zach, his mum, the UK Epilepsy Society, and of course the Government, that I am able to stand here to talk about new clause 53. I believe that the UK Epilepsy Society is the only charity in the world to change the law on any policy area, and that is new clause 53, which is pretty ground-breaking. I say thank you to Zach and the Epilepsy Society, who ensured that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford stepped up and played our part in that.

    Being on the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill was an absolute privilege, with the excellent chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). People have been talking about the Bill’s accompanying Committee, which is an incredibly good thing. In the Joint Committee we talked about this: we should follow the Bill through all its stages, and also once it is on the statute books, to ensure that it keeps up with those tech companies. The Joint Committee was brought together by being focused on a skill set, and on bringing together the right skills. I am a technological luddite, but I brought my skills and understanding of audit and governance. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford brought technology and all his experience from his previous day job. As a result we had a better Bill by having a mix of experience and sharing our expertise.

    This Bill is truly world leading. New clause 53 is one small part of that, but it will make a huge difference to thousands of lives including, I believe, 600,000 who suffer from epilepsy. The simple reality is that the big tech companies can do better and need to step up. I have always said that we do not actually need the Bill or these amendments; we need the tech companies to do what they are supposed to do, and go out and regulate their consumer product. I have always strongly believed that.

    During my time on the Committee I learned that we must follow the money—that is what it is all about for the tech companies. We have been listening to horrific stories from grieving parents, some of whom I met briefly, and from those who suffered at the hands of racism, abuse, threats—the list is endless. The tech companies could stop that now. They do not need the Bill to do it and they should do the right thing. We should not have to get the Bill on to the statute books to enforce what those companies should be doing in the first place. We keep saying that this issue has been going on for five years. The tech companies know that this has been talked about for five years, so why are they not doing something? For me the Bill is for all those grieving families who have lost their beautiful children, those who have been at the mercy of keyboard warriors, and those who have received harm or lost their lives because the tech companies have not, but could have, done better. This is about accountability. Where are the tech companies?

    I wish to touch briefly on bereaved parents whose children have been at the mercy of technology and content. Many families have spent years and years still unable to understand their child’s death. We must consider imposing transparency on the tech companies. Those families cannot get their children back, but they are working hard to ensure that others do not lose theirs. Data should be given to coroners in the event of the death of a child to understand the circumstances. This is important to ensure there is a swift and humane process for the coroner to access information where there is reason to suspect that it has impacted on a child’s death.

    In conclusion, a huge hurrah that we have new clause 53, and I thank the Government for this ground-breaking Bill. An even bigger hurrah to Zach, Zach’s mum, and the brilliant Epilepsy Society, and, of course, to Zach’s law, which is new clause 53.

  • Liz Twist – 2022 Speech on the Online Safety Bill

    Liz Twist – 2022 Speech on the Online Safety Bill

    The speech made by Liz Twist, the Labour MP for Blaydon, in the House of Commons on 5 December 2022.

    I wish to address new clauses 16 and 28 to 30, and perhaps make a few passing comments on some others along the way. Many others who, like me, were in the Chamber for the start of the debate will I suspect feel like a broken record, because we keep revisiting the same issues and raising the same points again and again, and I am going to do exactly that.

    First, I will speak about new clause 16, which would create a new offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm. I am going to do so because I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention, and we have done a good deal of work on looking at the issue of self-harm and young people in the last two years. We know that suicide is the leading cause of death in men aged under 50 years and females aged under 35 years, with the latest available figures confirming that 5,583 people in England and Wales tragically took their own lives in 2021. We know that self-harm is a strong risk factor for future suicidal ideation, so it is really important that we tackle this issue.

    The internet can be an invaluable and very supportive place for some people who are given the opportunity to access support, but for other people it is difficult. The information they see may provide access to content that acts to encourage, maintain or exacerbate self-harm and suicidal behaviours. Detailed information about methods can also increase the likelihood of imitative and copycat suicide, with risks such as contagion effects also present in the online environment.

    Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)

    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work she has done. She will be aware of the case of my constituent Joe Nihill, who at the age of 23 took his own life after accessing suicide-related material on the internet. Of course, we fully support new clause 16 and amendment 159. A lot of content about suicide is harmful, but not illegal, so does my hon. Friend agree that what we really need is assurances from the Minister that, when this Bill comes back, it will include protections to ensure that adults such as Joe, who was aged 23, and adults accessing these materials through smaller platforms are fully protected and get the protection they really need?

    Liz Twist

    I thank my hon. Friend for those comments, and I most definitely agree with him. One of the points we should not lose sight of is that his constituent was 23 years of age—not a child, but still liable to be influenced by the material on the internet. That is one of the points we need to take forward.

    It is really important that we look at the new self-harm offence to make sure that this issue is addressed. That is something that the Samaritans, which I work with, has been campaigning for. The Government have said they will create a new offence, which we will discuss at a future date, but there is real concern that we need to address this issue as soon as possible through new clause 16. I ask the Minister to comment on that so that we can deal with the issue of self-harm straightaway.

    I now want to talk about internet and media literacy in relation to new clauses 29 and 30. YoungMinds, which works with young people, is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the British Psychological Society and the Mental Health Foundation in its proposals to promote the public’s media literacy for both regulated user-to-user services and search services, and to create a strategy to do this. Young people, when asked by YoungMinds what they thought, said they wanted the Online Safety Bill to include a requirement for such initiatives. YoungMinds also found that young people were frustrated by very broad, generalised and outdated messages, and that they want much more nuanced information—not generalised fearmongering, but practical ways in which they can address the issue. I do hope that the Government will take that on board, because if people are to be protected, it is important that we have a more sophisticated media literacy than is reflected in the broad messages we sometimes get at present.

    On new clause 28, I do believe there is a need for advocacy services to be supported by the Government to assist and support young people—not to take responsibilities away from them, but to assist and protect them. I want to make two other points. I see that the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) has left the Chamber again, but he raised an interesting and important point about the size of platforms covered by the Bill. I believe the Bill needs to cover those smaller or specialised platforms that people might have been pushed on to by changes to the larger platforms. I hope the Government will address that important issue in future, together with the issue of age, so that protection does not stop just with children, and we ensure that others who may have vulnerabilities are also protected.

    I will not talk about “legal but harmful” because that is not for today, but there is a lot of concern about those provisions, which we thought were sorted out and agreed on, suddenly being changed. There is a lot of trepidation about what might come in future, and the Minister must understand that we will be looking closely at any proposed changes.

    We have been talking about this issue for many years—indeed, since I first came to the House—and during the debate I saw several former Ministers and Secretaries of State with whom I have raised these issues. It is about time that we passed the Bill. People out there, including young people, are concerned and affected by these issues. The internet and social media are not going to stop because we want to make the Bill perfect. We must ensure that we have something in place. The legislation might be capable of revision in future, but we need it now for the sake of our young people and other vulnerable people who are accessing online information.