UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Margaret Ferrier

  • Margaret Ferrier – 2022 Speech on Srebrenica

    Margaret Ferrier – 2022 Speech on Srebrenica

    The speech made by Margaret Ferrier, the Independent MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, in the House of Commons on 14 July 2022.

    I thank the hon. Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for securing a debate in memory of the Srebrenica massacre in 1995 during this official week of remembrance. Let me also welcome the Minister to his new position. It is a pleasure to take part in the debate, and it is a real privilege to wear this beautifully crafted flower of Srebrenica.

    In January we marked Holocaust Memorial Day in this Chamber, as we do almost every year. In those debates we promise never to forget past genocides and atrocities, and the contributions are always moving and insightful. We all pledge to do our part so that never again will something so terrible happen on our watch. 1995 was only 27 years ago: what happened in Srebrenica occurred within our lifetimes, for some of us within our children’s lifetimes, or even our grandchildren’s. What we in the UK were experiencing during that summer was similar to what we are experiencing now: we were going through a record-breaking heatwave, and a Conservative leadership competition was coming to a head. My point is that history repeats itself. Throughout history we see cycles—sometimes coincidental, like those examples.

    We are seeing the resurgence of radicalised far-right extremism across the developed world, despite these memories of recent atrocities being so painfully close. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, that harmful rhetoric is spreading, and has been for a long time. We saw it in Trump’s America, the so called free world; France has grappled with the same growing sentiments, and the UK has seen an uptick in right-wing extremism too. It still exists, it is still prevalent, and it is still incredibly dangerous.

    Between 1992 and 1995, during the Bosnian war, just under 100,000 Muslims were murdered there, 50,000 women were subjected to rape, and 2 million people were displaced. This was a campaign of terror that was thoroughly planned, and executed with terrifying determination. It was July 1995, though, that saw one of the worst atrocities in post-war Europe. Over the course of just a few days, more than 8,000 people were murdered in this genocide by Bosnian Serb forces. Most of them were Muslim men and boys, separated from their families and taken away to be killed, and buried in mass, unmarked graves. As the Bosnian Serb forces began to panic and try to cover up their crimes, bodies were dug up, moved and reburied, sometimes more than once. Some are yet to be found. Mothers will have passed away in the intervening years, without the closure of knowing their child’s final resting place.

    1995 was also, by chance, the United Nations Year for Tolerance, and the world year of people’s commemoration of the victims of the second world war. That is in direct contrast to the events we are here to remember today, for today in Bosnia and Herzegovina tensions are high once again, and there is a very real possibility of renewed conflict. While it is not the root cause of the tensions, the amendment of the country’s criminal code to include acts of genocide denial certainly triggered a reaction from Milorad Dodik. A series of actions and threats that could tear the country apart followed. Secession and upheaval in that part of the world would have a devastating impact on stability in the region, and that in turn would have an impact on stability in Europe more widely.

    There is someone else whose influence cannot be overlooked. President Putin has deliberately emboldened Dodik, offering support and courses of action he knows would be deeply damaging because he is focusing on what he personally has to gain. Dodik in turn has emboldened his supporters. Dangerous and divisive rhetoric is rife in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Hatred left unchecked spreads like wildfire. It has to be controlled or it will consume everything it touches and burn faster and hotter until all that is left is destruction and the charred remains of surroundings that were once warm and familiar, now warped forever. What Putin has done in Ukraine is a frightening preview of his plans. Right now he is testing the waters, seeing how far his power extends. It is a hard reality that some, like Dodik, will have been inspired by his actions and his perceived dominance. Hatred, prejudice and racism dehumanise their targets, and we have to restore dignity to the 8,000 people needlessly murdered at Srebrenica. These were people with lives, families, friends and colleagues; people with faith.

    Remembering Srebrenica was set up in 2013 and it has a crucial mission. It leads the yearly commemoration of Srebrenica in the UK and educates on the significance of the events in July 1995. It holds over 2,000 commemorative events each year across the UK in schools, prisons, town halls and places of worship. Its work and support mean that the UK is the only country to mark this anniversary on a national level outside Bosnia and Herzegovina. Internationally, we have a moral duty to play our part in preventing future atrocities. At home, we must focus on eradicating division and hatred in our society and communities. We cannot afford to take our eye off the ball.

    Politics is often, by its nature, divisive. What it should do, though, is unite. We all come into it for the same reason: because we care about our communities and our country. When we are elected, we are given a platform, and if we make it into government we are presented with a unique opportunity to push forward a legislative agenda and shape the future of our country. That is why this Government must ensure that they are not feeding into hatred and right-wing extremism. Policy making is important, and this Government have shown that they are willing to tolerate certain forms of discrimination. It is time for that to be corrected. This year’s memorial week has the dual themes of combating denial and challenging hatred. I have spoken a lot about the hatred aspect, but combating denial is just as, if not more, important. If we do not learn from history, unfortunately we are destined to repeat it.

  • Margaret Ferrier – 2022 Speech on the Restoration of the Palace of Westminster

    Margaret Ferrier – 2022 Speech on the Restoration of the Palace of Westminster

    The speech made by Margaret Ferrier, the Independent MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, in the House of Commons on 12 July 2022.

    The building we are standing in today is more than a building; it is a symbol recognised the world over. Politics aside, it is a great privilege to work here. It is a beautiful and historic landmark and, as we have heard, a UNESCO world heritage site. I would like to thank the building for making a timely demonstration in this Chamber yesterday, in preparation for today’s debate; I think its point has been heard, although the water leak has now, thankfully, cleaned up.

    That attachment to this place on the part of many Members has made planning for restoration difficult. It is not hard to see why many colleagues would not want to relocate for so long; so much of British life has been dominated by Westminster, and so a small and convenient world has built around us. Departments are a stone’s throw away, along with media headquarters, businesses and charities. There is not much that is so far out of reach that we could not run back in time for a vote if the Division bell rings. Around that point, there is lots to unpack: the centralisation of British politics; and the view of a distant and far removed from reality “Westminster bubble”. We will each have our own views on that, and certainly employment in such an exciting and meaningful profession should be spread further across the UK. However, that is a broader discussion and I would like to use my time to speak specifically about the Palace and the works themselves.

    Every day we are here, we see groups of schoolchildren excited for the tour. Families, both from the UK and from farther afield, come in their droves too, as do our constituents. This place is iconic—a must-see for tourists from all over the world.

    This is an old building, but actually for the most part it is not as old as some might think. After almost the entire palace was destroyed in 1834, a public competition was held for architectural designs for its replacement. It was actually political reasoning that led to the gothic-inspired choice, designed by Charles Barry, that led to the building we see today. It is interesting to know that the neoclassical style that was popular at the time was seen as symbolic of republicanism and revolution, so the preferred options were designs of gothic and Elizabethan influence.

    The palace is old enough, though, that the place needs a little sprucing up. Construction started in 1840 and most of the site was completed in 1860. That puts various parts of the building at around 160 to 180 years old. There is no doubt about it—we need to invest in some changes, and we have known that for a long time. This is about not just a cosmetic facelift but the preservation of history, and most importantly the safety of everyone that works here or visits. We have heard about Notre Dame; that brings into sharp focus the absolute necessity for fire safety in a building such as this. Of course, it is something that has been on the minds of many colleagues recently, in a slightly different context, too. Fire suppression systems must be a priority, and I know that for those working closely on the project it absolutely is.

    I was lucky enough to join one of the tours put on by the restoration and renewal team last month, to see parts of the palace that we often pass by without thinking about them too much, like the art painted directly on to the stonework on the staircase up to the Committee corridor. That art has considerable historic significance, but it cannot just be lifted off the wall and put away while the works are carried out. Accounting for all these moving parts, the quirks and character of the building, will require a strong strategy. Naturally, the costs involved in bringing the building up to the necessary standards are huge; the restoration and renewal body puts the numbers at between £7 billion and £13 billion.

    It is vital that the costs are necessary and deliver value for public money. Restoration works must happen, yes, and they have been in the works for a very long time. A lot has changed in the wider country in that time, though, and many of our constituents are facing astronomical rises to their living costs. We have a duty to ensure that the cost of this project is scrutinised and that taxpayer money is not wasted when it could be better used elsewhere.

    The majority view of the public, according to quantitative quarterly public polling, is that they care deeply about this place and want to see it restored. The strength of that feeling might vary regionally or across parts of the four nations—I do not know—but it shows that largely, constituents are interested in protecting our heritage. That polling also found that 70% to 80% of the public felt that an important benefit of the restoration was the jobs that it would create. While the jobs themselves might not be political, they would be protecting our political institution, the cornerstone of our democracy, and the prosperity that creates must be shared equitably.

    I mentioned the need for a strategy, and want to say now that I believe that a decant of Members, peers and staff is probably the most efficient way forward. I hope that we will see some more detailed and convincing proposals on that in the near future, to carry out these works as swiftly as possible and without costly delays charged to the taxpayer. That may mean that everyone needs to move out for the duration. We cannot expect our staff, or the staff of the House, to work in a building that could potentially be a hazard, literally crumbling before our eyes. So the quicker colleagues all move out, the quicker colleagues can all move back in and the quicker the Palace can be restored to its former glory.

  • Margaret Ferrier – 2022 Speech on Fifth Anniversary of Grenfell Tower Fire

    Margaret Ferrier – 2022 Speech on Fifth Anniversary of Grenfell Tower Fire

    The speech made by Margaret Ferrier, the Independent MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2022.

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing today’s debate and on circulating the briefings to help ensure that Members were well prepared to speak.

    Tuesday marked five years since the tragedy at Grenfell Tower, and I want, first and foremost, to pay tribute to the 72 people whose lives were lost—men, women and children who were taken from their family, friends and neighbours far too soon and in the worst way. For those who knew them and loved them, their grief will never leave them. The trauma suffered by the survivors also weighs heavy here today. I cannot even begin to imagine how difficult this anniversary is for them every year, with the painful memories and emotions with which they have to live. On this anniversary, I have been keeping the survivors, the victims and their loved ones in my thoughts, and I am sure that the people of Rutherglen and Hamilton West have been doing the same.

    What is so striking about the events of 14 June 2017 is the way that it resonated with so many of us, and the way that it still does today, half a decade on. London immediately entered a collective mourning for its lost residents. The entire United Kingdom mourned, and, as inquiries and investigations began, we all realised that the UK was sitting on a ticking time bomb. The disaster could have happened in any number of similar buildings across the nation.

    Late last year, Channel 4 aired a documentary on the events at Grenfell, which was deeply emotional. I spoke in Westminster Hall not long after it aired, and I will reiterate today one of the key messages that I took away from the programme. It was desperately sad to understand that residents in Grenfell Tower felt that this had happened precisely because they were living in social housing.

    They felt unseen and unheard, overlooked until the very worst happened, because of the outdated stigma that exists around council housing and the people who might live there. Having learned what we now know, the fact that it was social housing was a huge contributing factor in why costs were cut and existing concerns were not addressed.

    As I have said before, social housing is one of the great privileges of living in the UK and it should see investment reflective of that. No one should have to live in a home with potential safety risks just because it is a council property. While the Building Safety Act is a necessary milestone in improving the building safety system, the job is not done. There is work still to do and, for so many, justice to be done.

    Grenfell Tower and the surrounding community were just like many areas of London and indeed the UK: dynamic, talented, culturally diverse and economically deprived. As Imran Khan pointed out at the Westminster Abbey memorial this week, 85% of those who died that night were people of colour. That is not an accident or coincidence; it is symbolic of the many levels of discrimination that the UK still grapples with. It is important to recognise that fact, to think about all the reasons behind it and to acknowledge it so that we do not see it repeated.

    Imran Khan also said that many of the survivors and the families of victims have told him personally they have little faith in the public inquiry or the political appetite to act on its findings. They despair at the inquiry’s reluctance to face head-on so many aspects of this tragedy that are crucial to understanding what happened: the impact of race, class and disability. Even that service at Westminster Abbey faced criticism from some families of the victims for its lack of inclusivity of families from different cultures or faiths.

    On Monday, The Times published a short note, penned by Natasha Elcock of Grenfell United, Kamran Mallick of Disability Rights UK, and Sarah Rennie and Georgie Hulme of CladDAG, in which they highlighted that 40% of disabled residents died that night. None had evacuation plans. The note pointed to the Government’s refusal to place a legal duty on building owners to provide personal emergency evacuation plans for disabled residents following the inquiry. That shows lack of regard for disabled people. What message does that send?

    I hope the Minister will respond to that point in his closing speech, and I hope that it will be a substantial response. This is 2022, and the world has moved on from the times when a disabled person was seen as less important. They are just as entitled to respect as anyone else, and to peace of mind in the safety of their homes.

    Grenfell Tower still stands, a looming presence, a husk of the building it once was both physically and sentimentally. It represents something much larger than its physical size—the ignored red flags and warning signs predating the tragedy by years, the awfulness of that summer night in 2017, and the inequality and injustice that led to the fire.

    The failure to look at similar tragedies and learn from them is one of the hardest pills to swallow. In fire after fire, we know that cladding was the contributing factor. The Garnock Court fire in Irvine in 1999 was a moment of realisation in Scotland and led to the immediate removal of that cladding on all buildings. There were also the fires in Knowsley Heights in Merseyside in 1991 and Lakanal House in London in 2009. The all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue raised concerns in this area for years with a number of Ministers, but they fell on deaf ears.

    I take this opportunity to pay tribute to our late colleague and chair of the APPG Sir David Amess, who was a vocal advocate for fire safety and championed the cause regularly in this Chamber. The APPG, of which I am a co-vice chair and which is chaired by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), has today provided a statement setting out its position on current policy. I hope the Government will take note of the points made and consider them closely.

    Nothing will ever bring back those lost. Nothing will ever erase the pain for those who loved them. But the Government cannot ever allow this to happen again. Whatever recommendations are made, they must be implemented whatever the cost. In memory of the 72 victims of Grenfell Tower, whatever happens to the building now must be agreed with the survivors and the bereaved. It should be a fitting tribute, a memorial that keeps in clear focus the events of that dreadful night so that it is never, ever forgotten.

  • Margaret Ferrier – 2022 Speech on Achieving Economic Growth

    Margaret Ferrier – 2022 Speech on Achieving Economic Growth

    The speech made by Margaret Ferrier, the Independent MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, in the House of Commons on 18 May 2022.

    The Queen’s Speech presents the Government of the day with an opportunity to stand back, take stock and realign their priorities. There are aspects of the new legislative programme that are welcome, and aspects that are less so. Most concerning are the things that are missing from it altogether. I will start with levelling up. Regardless of any personal views we might hold about the intricacies of the agenda or how it is implemented, I am sure that most of us would agree that the principle of targeted and meaningful local investment is not a bad thing. Each one of us could point to projects in our constituency that not only deserve such investment but would return it tenfold.

    There is an enormous patch of derelict land at Shawfield in my constituency that had been vacant for decades. Opportunity was wasted because the land suffered from the big problem that, until recent years, nobody had the patience or the vision to invest the time and money to fix its contamination with hexavalent chromium, a carcinogenic chemical—anyone who has seen the movie “Erin Brockovich” will know how dangerous it is.

    Remediating the site will cost tens of millions of pounds. Clyde Gateway, a publicly backed community regeneration project that reinvests its profits in new projects, has taken on this mammoth task. It has already remediated huge amounts of land, but the majority of the site is still unusable. The location is perfect, and Clyde Gateway has already proved with its redevelopment of remediated land that it is profitable. The site would serve as an excellent hub outside the Glasgow city centre boundary for businesses and residents alike. I have even heard rumours that the Cabinet Office has looked at some of the remediated land to house its offices.

    The project is a no-brainer, and I hope it is successful in bidding for the levelling-up fund. It will transform the local economy, but it needs vision and funding. Through my extensive conversations with the executive director of Clyde Gateway over the years, I have found that funding streams such as the levelling-up pot pose their own challenges. Although it is vital to ensure that public money is not frittered away, being too prescriptive stifles the ability to access and use the money to its fullest potential. I encourage the Government to consider how different project types, such as Shawfield, might be even more successful and economically beneficial to communities if their funding streams have more flexible criteria. Of course, the most important thing is to make sure that the levelling-up fund is distributed equitably across the four nations to projects that will bring the most economic value.

    I am glad to see the Government finally bring forward plans for community access to cash, an issue on which I have bored Treasury Ministers to tears, as the most vulnerable in our communities are the most reliant on physical cash. Although we have accelerated our progress towards low reliance on cash over the past two years, it remains essential to protect cash and restore ease of access.

    I look forward to the proposals on the sustainability of the ATM system, making sure all ATMs are free to customers without risking the affordability of maintenance for providers. I am also interested to see more of the measures on consumer rights and protections and the economic crime Bill, which is increasingly crucial at a time when people have less, if any, disposable income.

    I spoke last week about Safe Hands funeral plans and the devastating impact of the company’s collapse on victims who face losing thousands of pounds they simply cannot afford to lose. I agree that strengthening this area of our statute book is essential. We need strong reform of limited partnerships and the role of Companies House, although I reserve judgment on the efficacy of the Government’s proposals until the details become clearer.

    I am also eager to see the energy security Bill. It is high time—to be honest, it is too late—that the Government addressed the price crisis that is hitting households so hard. Over the past few months, this issue has been high on the list of reasons for constituents to seek support from my office. It has been so frustrating to see the Government offer so little to help the millions who are struggling to keep up. It is not just households, either: there is currently no price cap for businesses, and smaller businesses are finding themselves at real financial risk. The Government advertise themselves as the party of business, so they must do more to back up that claim.

    There are quite a few Bills that we need to see in detail as soon as possible, including the Brexit freedoms Bill to address retained EU law, the Bill of Rights and the national security Bill.

    I said I would return to the things that are missing from the Queen’s Speech, and I will focus on a big one. This year’s Queen’s Speech skirted neatly around the very large elephant in the room—an elephant that, for some reason, the Government are determined to ignore. At the very least, they do not want to make eye contact with it, perhaps because they know that, at the end of the day, they can leave the metaphorical room. Everyone else though—our constituents, the taxpayers and voters—is stuck in that room, eye to eye with the elephant, every single day. The room gets tighter, conditions worsen and the walls are constantly closing in. There is no sunlight and, seemingly, no escape. The Government failed to adequately account for the single biggest, most immediate and pressing crisis this country is facing: the cost of living. We are all acutely aware of it, and colleagues on Benches across the House will agree that we are fortunate that we do not feel it in quite the same way as many of our constituents do. The only way to achieve economic growth is to invest in our people. The Government are not doing enough of that, and that is incredibly short sighted.

  • Margaret Ferrier – 2022 Speech on Safe Hands Funeral Plans

    Margaret Ferrier – 2022 Speech on Safe Hands Funeral Plans

    The speech made by Margaret Ferrier, the Independent MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, in the House of Commons on 12 May 2022.

    I thank Mr Speaker for granting this important Adjournment debate. I know that my constituents and other hon. Members’ constituents who have been affected will be grateful that the situation has been recognised with due seriousness.

    On the first day of the Easter recess, my constituent Patrick Hughes called my office following the collapse of Safe Hands Funeral Plans, which had gone into administration the week before. Quite understandably, he was extremely anxious about what would happen next. Some years ago, Mr Hughes had bought a policy or plan with Safe Hands at an initial cost of about £6,300. It was a significant investment, but it was worth it: he was paying for peace of mind that his family would not have to worry about finding the money for a funeral when the time came.

    Funerals do not come cheap, but we all want to be able to give our loved ones the best send-off we can. A key attraction for Mr Hughes and for so many like him was the security that they were being offered. “Nothing can go wrong,” they were assured. “This is a smart investment: your plan is guaranteed and your family will be grateful that they won’t have to worry about it at their time of grieving.”

    To date, Mr Hughes has been contacted exactly once since the business went into administration: with the initial letter informing him of the collapse. Like the many thousands of policyholders in the same boat, Mr Hughes tried to make contact with Safe Hands or its administrators to get some answers about what would happen next. His letters went unanswered. The phone lines would not connect, or the phone would just ring out. Panic began to set in.

    Customers were told that the company was

    “uncertain that the funeral plans will be able to be fulfilled”

    and that they should consider their plans

    “terminated with immediate effect”.

    People were realising that it was becoming very likely that their life savings had been lost. Safe Hands was not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Anecdotally, I understand that it was regarded in the wider funeral industry as a cowboy—a reputation that did not reach its customers in time for them to reconsider their investments.

    The thing is that such plans, if provided by reputable companies and regulated properly, could be immensely beneficial. They really could give some peace of mind. That is why, along with the sector and colleagues, I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s plans to bring funeral planning services under the remit of the Financial Conduct Authority this July. The plans, which include assessments of providers, fund protection measures, stricter advertising rules and bans on cold calling, will hopefully protect future customers from falling victim to the scams of unscrupulous companies such as Safe Hands. I appreciate the letter that the FCA sent me in advance of this debate, setting out how the regulatory reforms will work; I look forward to taking up its offer of a meeting to discuss them in more detail.

    Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)

    I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate. As an example of the kind of advertising that the company has been doing, it promised that customers’ money would be kept by an entirely separate and independent company. Is she aware that the trustees set up a company called SHFT Properties Ltd and that every single person who has ever been a director of that company was also a director of Safe Hands Plans Ltd? Does she share my frustration that directors of companies that repeatedly tell such blatant lies to con their customers are allowed to carry on as directors of other companies to this very day despite the chaos left behind in the wreckage, as has happened with Safe Hands Funeral Plans?

    Margaret Ferrier

    I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—and I shall have more specific thanks to give him a little later in my speech. I completely agree with the points that he has made. I know that the Government intend to introduce legislation relating to economic crime and impropriety during the current Session, and I hope the Minister can confirm that it is something they are seriously considering.

    I was particularly happy to note the FCA’s clear focus on consumer protections, and I fully agree with their approach in wishing to ensure that customers pay a fair price, that the plan meets their needs, that the money is looked after responsibly, and that they have all the information they need in order to make an informed decision. Unfortunately, however, that announcement is just too little, too late for many of Safe Hands’ customers.

    Let me provide some context by explaining the way in which Safe Hands worked. Customers’ money was put into a trust and then reinvested. These funds are supposed to protect customer investments, and, indeed, that is how the plan was sold to my constituent Mr Hughes. The trust should have been overseen by independent trustees whose job is to make sure that funds are not misappropriated, and are ring-fenced from the funeral provider’s business assets. When Safe Hands suddenly left the market after withdrawing its application to be an approved seller under the upcoming FCA rules, administrators found a significant shortfall between the value of this trust and the cost of the funeral plans that it would need to finance.

    Apparently, what the administrators found was that the trust’s assets had been wildly overvalued. What was even more concerning was that most of the assets were actually owned by third parties, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant). Reports indicate that over £60 million of the trust’s reported £64 million valued assets were high-risk investments based offshore. If that is true, we are talking about fraudulent misappropriation of the trust’s assets. I will refrain from speculating on who might have benefited from all of this, which can only be described as a scam.

    Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)

    The hon. Lady has made an important point. The constituents of many of our colleagues will be affected by this I have been contacted by a Mrs Hall of Knaresborough, who has been caught up in it. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is critical for funds that are supposedly secure to be managed in an effective way, and that there should be regulatory consumer protections to ensure that those who are looking for certainty at what will be a very difficult time for their families can have that certainty?

    Margaret Ferrier

    As the hon. Gentleman says, many constituents of Members have been affected, throughout the UK. It is very important for people to have that certainty, because uncertainty is an extra worry for them.

    It is likely that a number of similar smaller funeral plan providers will soon exit the market before regulatory measures become effective. They may be unwilling, or even unable, to meet the requirements for regulatory approval, and that has the potential to leave customers of those companies in the same position as the customers who went with Safe Hands, with no plans and no guarantees about retrieving the money that they have put in. I know that the FCA is also looking at this issue pre-emptively, with the aim of minimising risk to people who have already invested in plans with such firms. Hopefully the work that it is already undertaking will mitigate any potential further harm to vulnerable consumers, but for customers of prepaid funeral plan companies that will shortly be exiting the market, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

    Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)

    I congratulate the hon. Member on securing a debate that affects so many of our constituents. As she has said, there were plans in the offing for the FCA to have a role with companies such as Safe Hands. Does she share my concern that more was not done to warn people, given that this had already been flagged up? It seems to me that not enough was done in that interim period, and, as she has said, we could see even more people affected by other companies acting in a similar way.

    Margaret Ferrier

    I entirely agree. As I said earlier, it was a case of too little, too late. More people need to be aware of these plans and what they may mean. I look forward to the FCA’s introducing that regulation at the end of July, which is not too far in the future.

    For customers of Safe Hands, there is the potential for some support in the form of Dignity plc, one of the UK’s largest providers of plans. Dignity has put a plan to the administrators which would allow them to step up and cover some of the shortfall left by Safe Hands, providing immediate support where it is needed most urgently, and planning to work with other customers and their families in the longer term to find solutions that will not leave customers with nothing in place. Dignity believes that, because of its business model as a plan provider with a wide network of funeral directors, it is uniquely placed to offer that support. It has already fulfilled in full the funeral plans of all Safe Hands customers in the four weeks following the collapse of the firm.

    Dignity is also already preparing for the regulation requirements that will come into effect, but even as of last night, at my last check, the information offered by the administrators through the frequently asked questions page on the Safe Hands website was insufficiently clear or reassuring. They make numerous references to Dignity’s offerings, but reiterate that customers should consider their plans cancelled with no guarantees around how much money customers will see returned, if any at all. There is a lot of “options being explored”, and “updates will be provided”, but a disappointing lack of commitment.

    My constituent, Mr Hughes, really only has one immediate plea, and that is for some clarity and some willingness to proactively engage with customers. Maybe it is impossible for administrators to provide reassurances in the true sense of the word—maybe the financial realities of the situation just will not allow for that—but how difficult can it really be to ensure that the victims of this unfortunate situation are kept abreast of updates and to let them know periodically how the work is developing and that they are not being overlooked or forgotten? Mr Hughes has explained that there is so much information, so much speculating and so many customers shouting in the hope of being heard that he struggles to cut through the noise. What he needs is reliable, clear information to enable him to understand what has happened, why it has happened, and what might happen next, not only for him but for his family and his children. He worries about the worst happening while all this remains unresolved, and about the additional distress that this uncertainty will cause.

    When people decide to invest in a prepaid funeral plan, it is often on the back of an event in their life that has made them come to terms with their own mortality. Maybe they are just reaching old age, maybe they have had a worrying medical diagnosis or maybe they have recently lost a loved one. That means that they are emotionally vulnerable and that they need to be sure that their investment is protected, particularly when the majority of those that choose a prepaid plan are doing so because their estate might not leave much more for their children or family than the cost of a funeral, and perhaps not even cover that.

    We are in a cost of living crisis. At a time when people are struggling with the stress of paying their energy bills, putting food on the table or meeting their general living costs, it is unthinkable that, resulting from the collapse of Safe Hands, some of those people will face the added stress of trying to finance the funeral of someone they care about—a funeral that, as far as they were concerned, was already paid for, either partially or, in many cases, in full. I understand that any business needs to turn a profit. That is the nature of the game, but in this emotionally charged market based on one of the few guarantees we have in life—death—sensitivity is required. To prey on that customer base is absolutely disgusting.

    While Safe Hands certainly does not represent the standards of the industry as a whole, we know that, intentionally or not, other firms have put their customers’ money and funeral plans at risk by not seeking approval ahead of the regulations. For reasons I hope Dignity understands, I am cautious about enthusiastically throwing my support behind any company in the currently unregulated pre-paid sector at the moment, but I would like to thank Dignity for proactively reaching out and sharing some information with me ahead of this debate. I would also like to thank the all-party parliamentary group for funerals and bereavement and its chair, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). I know that it continues to engage with the Treasury on this matter to try to ensure that dignity is maintained. I also want to thank the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), who organised the cross-party letter to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy last month. This provided a co-ordinated display of the feelings held by constituents.

    I hope the Minister will be in a position to provide the assurances that Safe Hands and its administrators have been unable to provide, and I urge him and his colleagues in the Treasury and across Whitehall to find a way to ensure that these people who have lost hard-earned money do not miss out on a dignified goodbye when that time sadly comes, for the sake of Mr Hughes and the 46,000 others like him, their families and friends and the people who love them most in the world.

  • Margaret Ferrier – 2021 Speech on Animal Testing

    Margaret Ferrier – 2021 Speech on Animal Testing

    The speech made by Margaret Ferrier, the Independent MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, in the House of Commons on 16 December 2021.

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak today on this issue and for granting this important debate.

    I have said many times, and in many debates in this House, how passionately I feel about animal welfare. I know I am not alone among my colleagues in that respect, and I know I am not alone in my constituency. We are a nation of animal lovers, and that is why animal rights consistently sits in the top ranking of issues I am contacted about. It was only two months ago that my constituency broke into the top 10 for the number of signatories to an e-petition that prompted a Westminster Hall debate on this very issue. We, as a nation, care.

    Looking to the future of testing on animals, there are several angles of the argument we need to consider. First, does the scientific evidence support continued animal experimentation? Next, on the morality of testing, can we justify knowingly submitting animals to suffering in the name of science? There is also the international context to consider. Are we willing to go from a world leader on animal rights to merely following the law? I will do my best to cover those questions today.

    It will come, I hope, as no surprise that public opinion overwhelmingly supports the replacement of animal experiments with human-relevant techniques. Now would be a good time to reflect on that fact as it is, after all, the public who elect us to this place, and it is both our responsibility and greatest privilege to represent their views here. In February, YouGov polled the UK in partnership with Cruelty Free International. That polling found that 68% of people support phasing out animal testing in favour of alternatives. In Scotland, 79% of adults found it unacceptable that animal testing continued while other methods were available. In September, further polling found 65% of respondents wanted to see a binding plan in place to phase out experiments. Two thirds wanted a target date for the end of testing. And if that does not convince you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will appeal to the politically minded among us. Almost 70% have a favourable view of MPs who support the phasing out of animal testing. Now is the time to step up.

    Let me turn to the first of the questions I posed earlier, on the scientific argument for testing. In October’s debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), set out the justification for testing. I have great respect for the Minister and do not doubt his passion for these matters, but in my opinion the argument was hinged on a flawed principle. First, that animal testing is

    “vital for identifying benefits for humans, animals, and the environment.”—[Official Report, 25 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 41WH.]

    I will make no comment about the contradiction there of animals suffering for the benefit of other animals. That it is the legal framework in which we currently work.

    Let us look at the first point: that animal testing is a necessary evil. Some 92% of drugs that show promise in animal trials fail to reach the market, most commonly because of poor efficacy or safety that was not picked up in animal trials. For treatments for complex and poorly understood conditions, failure following success with animal trials is almost a certainty. For example, on Alzheimer’s, the chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation has said:

    ‘We’ve cured mice engineered with this disease over 500 times. The mouse models don’t translate into humans.”

    We would be forgiven for assuming that animal testing is only used as a last resort. We hear all the time that animal experiments are used only where there is no alternative, and it is true that that is the intent of the law. The duty is currently on the researcher applying for a license to prove there is no alternative to animal testing. Not only are applications not approved by experts in the subject matter, but analysis of Home Office documents show that this is treated as a tick-box exercise by some researchers. There are no rigorous checks and balances in place. There is the continued approval of mice testing for Botox products, despite the availability of approved non-animal methods, and the fact that most products are used for cosmetic purposes.

    Dogs have a special protection in legislation and are allowed to be tested on only if there are no alternative suitable species. Last year, however, 4,340 licensed procedures were carried out on dogs in Great Britain. Dogs are mostly used for repeat dose toxicity testing, where they are given daily doses of test substances for about four weeks, sometimes longer. Once the experiment is over, the dogs are put to sleep so that researchers can examine the effects of the substance on their internal organs. Although continued research and development into viable and reliable human-relevant methods remains essential, and progress must be made at pace, there are existing methods available. I question, then, why 3 million animal experiments were carried out in 2020. In fact, no application for animal experiment was refused by the Home Office last year. In one specific case, a simple one-word answer was provided to justify why there was no alternative to animal testing. Perhaps that is why, in my recent pursuit of information on Scotland-specific animal research data and unnecessary animal deaths at testing facilities, the Home Office has been so reluctant to provide any meaningful responses at all.

    How can we recognise the sentience of animals and not recognise the hypocrisy of allowing them to suffer in the name of medicine, when those medicines are not even reaching the market? How can that be justified? Not by the existing legislative framework, to start with. Although it may be legally permissible, it is not morally permissible. It is time for the Government to commit to a reform of the animal testing law. Although they acknowledge that, actions speak louder than words, as the old adage goes. If they do not do this, the UK risks falling behind our international partners.

    We have heard this Government’s exclamations about how Brexit presents opportunities untold. Whether that is true remains to be seen, but I ask them to seize this moment: let us make this issue one of those opportunities to cement ourselves once more as a world leader. The European Parliament recently voted in favour of an action plan to accelerate the move away from animal testing across the bloc. It backed the establishment of a high-level group to work with member states to draw up an ambitious plan, with concrete actions. Germany has committed to a plan to support innovation through animal-free research. The Netherlands has initiated its transition programme for innovation without the use of animals, in order to become a front runner in this area. The US Environmental Protection Agency has released its first update to its plan for reducing animal testing, with concrete steps towards its goals and metrics to monitor progress. We must be proactive here.

    So where do we start? Funding is crucial. Current funding through NC3Rs is not enough if we are to replace animal testing. Its annual budget is about £10 million. By comparison, it is estimated that in 2019 the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research together provided £1.8 billion in funding for UK medical research, and medical research charities provided £1.9 billion. NC3Rs does not even focus solely on animal experiment replacement. The Chancellor’s autumn Budget committed £5 billion to health research. I encourage the Minister today to commit some of this funding to the development of human-relevant science.

    In tandem with funding, a clear and ambitious strategy is essential. That means a joined-up approach across Government and stakeholders. We can see the approach the international community is starting to take. Some good suggestions from animal charities that I have heard include the use of target setting, as we have seen with our climate change commitments, and the immediate discontinuation of funding for projects using animal experiments in areas that have proven poor translation rates to human trials. Research techniques need the space to continue modernising. Continuing to rely on outdated principles, legislated for half a century ago, is stifling development. If we look back into history at all the advances made in medicine and technology, we see that they are filled with methods and practices that were seen as innovative and state-of-the-art at the time, but that we would not dream of using now. That is precisely where animal testing should lie: necessary in the past maybe, but necessary no more—it is not ethical.

    I also agree with calls for a dedicated Minister with the sole portfolio of accelerating animal-free science. At the moment, lines of responsibility for these issues are too muddy. They are divided up between the Home Office and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and, even then, there is overlap with a number of other Departments. The Home Secretary has statutory duties to support the development of non-animal testing, but it is often overlooked, which, when we think about the knock-on effect on drugs, economic policy and public health, is difficult to accept. Stakeholders say it is difficult for them to know which Minister they should be engaging with—a clear sign of how low this is sitting on the list of priorities. It must be addressed urgently.

    I mentioned earlier my own difficulties in obtaining specific animal testing data from the Home Office, where the responsibility for this policy is supposed to lie. When I tabled a written parliamentary question asking for the number of unnecessary animal deaths at licensed testing facilities, the answer was:

    “No such estimate can be made”.

    When I followed up to ask what plans there were to record this information in future, the answer was that

    “the Home Office does not hold information on, nor has plans to record future deaths of animals that occur at licensed scientific testing facilities.”

    That demonstrates the urgent need for better oversight. How can we accurately assess the legitimacy of animal testing and the associated suffering and death if the Ministers responsible do not even register the full necessary data?

    In conclusion, I thank the charities that work so hard for change in this area, and I thank them for the information that they have made available to aid this discussion. They are Cruelty Free International, Animal Free Research UK, OneKind and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

    I reckon the Minister and I are the last two in the Commons today, or among the last three. I thank him for taking the time to respond to my Adjournment debate, and wish him a very happy Christmas break.

  • Margaret Ferrier – 2020 Speech on Covid-19

    Margaret Ferrier – 2020 Speech on Covid-19

    Below is the text of the speech made by Margaret Ferrier, the SNP MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, in the House of Commons on 11 May 2020.

    I express my condolences to those who have lost their lives to covid-19. It is easy to forget amid the daily statistical reports that behind each number is a person who was loved by their family and friends and was an irreplaceable part of the local community. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the efforts of key workers in my constituency, who are helping to save lives and keep essential services running. From nurses to delivery drivers, they are all heroes in my eyes, and I am continually impressed by the way that they have adapted and continue to adapt in challenging circumstances.

    In times of national crisis, our choice of words matters. We need to provide clear and consistent information to the public about what we are asking them to do and why. It is regrettable that the “stay alert” slogan for England was briefed to the media before MPs and that no consultation with the devolved Governments took place beforehand. On a basic level, the “stay alert” message can be interpreted as an end to lockdown and as throwing caution to the wind, which could have disastrous consequences for public health. The threat of a second wave remains very real, and the infection rate could move upwards rapidly again. We only need to look at Germany to observe the consequences of lifting lockdown too soon. Now is not the time for caveat and nuance in tackling coronavirus. We need a clear and unambiguous approach like that taken by the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to reinforce the clear message to stay at home.

    Lockdown has not been an easy decision to implement, and it does not come without cost. It has taken its toll on our constituents, and we are all anxious for their wellbeing. We know that businesses are struggling right now, and we want to support them to survive in the months ahead and rebuild over the longer term. From hairdressers to shows and everything in between, they need stability now in order to prepare for the post-coronavirus economy.

    Just as with the lockdown measures, we must not rush into winding down the job retention schemes that give businesses security now. Indeed, we must look at options for extending those schemes for sectors that may struggle to reopen with social distancing. No country is going to avoid the economic impact of coronavirus, but the question comes down to whether recovery puts the wellbeing of society first or tries to carry on as if nothing has happened. We risk creating another lost generation if we do not learn from the innovations that have been born out of necessity during this crisis.

    Flexibility in policy making will be crucial in adapting to the challenges of our post-coronavirus future. That is as true when approaching the question of easing lockdown measures as it is with many other aspects of Government policy. A unitary, one-size-fits-all approach has not always ​been the most desirable approach to managing the crisis. To take just one example, France has designed its exit strategy on the basis of levels of infection. The areas of highest infection continue with more restrictions, while areas of low infection see more relaxed measures.

    To conclude, the reality is that we will be living with coronavirus for some time to come. We owe it to our constituents to be honest about the challenges that that will bring and how we can help them to navigate the new normal. Judging by the messy and unclear manner in which the UK Government changed their coronavirus advice, I am unconvinced that they will bring forward the kind of innovative thinking we need to build a sustainable, long-term recovery from coronavirus across these islands.

  • Margaret Ferrier – 2020 Speech on the Elgin Marbles

    Below is the text of the speech made by Margaret Ferrier, the SNP MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, in the House of Commons on 2 March 2020.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to debate a subject that has long been of historical interest but has taken on new significance in the current political climate.

    The Elgin, or Parthenon, marbles are one of the British Museum’s most notorious artefacts. In the early 1800s, Thomas Bruce, the seventh Earl of Elgin, gained access to the temple of the Parthenon and other buildings that comprise the Acropolis in Athens. With a team of assistants, Thomas Bruce removed many items of significant cultural interest, including 57 slabs from the frieze of the Parthenon. The excavation was completed in 1812, and the marbles were eventually sold to the British Government in 1816 and placed in the British Museum.

    The legality of the excavations that Elgin performed remains fraught with controversy to this day. At the time of the excavations, Greece was ruled by the Ottoman empire, and the Parthenon itself was used as a military fort by the Ottomans. The vulnerable position that that imperial occupation placed on Greece, coupled with Elgin’s privileged position, made it easier for him take the action that he took in removing the figures, metopes and frieze panels from the Parthenon. Elgin claim to have obtained a firman, or written permit, from the sultan to access the Acropolis in carrying out the removal of sections of the Parthenon frieze, as well as other parts of the Acropolis. Some allege that Elgin bribed the Turkish authorities to obtain permission to enter the Acropolis, while others suggest that the exchange of gifts between Elgin and the sultan was customary at the time, given Elgin’s position as British ambassador to Constantinople.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; I asked before the debate for her permission to intervene. Does she not agree that the significance of having the Elgin marbles in situ in the British Museum is that that gives a taste of, and indeed encourages people to make the journey to, historically and culturally rich Greece, particularly Athens, to see more, and that this must be part of any discussions regarding any return of the Elgin marbles to the people there?

    Margaret Ferrier

    I agree that many visitors will have enjoyed a visit to the British Museum and marvelled at these fantastic sculptures, but the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to discover that I believe they should actually be repatriated to Athens where they could be appreciated in full in their original context. However, I thank him for his intervention.

    The only record of the firman that we have is an Italian translation of the document, and the veracity of the document remains heavily disputed. Although a Select Committee of the House of Commons eventually voted to purchase the marbles from Elgin in 1816, the stand-out feature of the Committee’s questioning of Elgin was the vagueness of his responses regarding the permission given to take the Parthenon sculptures. According to Geoffrey Robertson QC’s excellent book, ​“Who Owns History?”, Elgin was unable to produce the firman during the Committee’s consideration of the purchase of the marbles and, astonishingly, told the Committee that he never kept his own personal copy of the permissions he was given.

    Those admissions by Elgin himself led many people to denounce his actions in taking the marbles, even among those who supported their purchase by the British Government. Lord Byron was one of the most vociferous critics of Elgin, denouncing his actions in the strongest terms:

    “Dull is the eye that will not weep to see

    Thy walls defaced, thy mouldering shrines removed

    By British hands, which it had best behoved

    To guard those relics ne’er to be restored”.

    Elgin’s actions were not the only source of controversy at the time of the sale of the marbles to the British Government. The public’s reaction to Elgin receiving £35,000 from the Government—around £3.5 million in today’s money—was understandably angry. In the same year that the British Government purchased the marbles, a cartoon by George Cruikshank depicted a satirical figure of John Bull purchasing the marbles while his children cried out for bread. That is not the first time that the House of Commons has made decisions that benefit the privileged few at the expense of the many.

    Whether or not the firman is authentic and the means used to obtain it were dubious or illegal, the legal position on the marbles has, to date, favoured their retention in the UK. The British Museum Act 1963 is the primary piece of legislation here, and it makes it clear that the objects and collections of the British Museum are held by its trustees. Disposal or selling of objects in the British Museum collection is forbidden except in limited circumstances, which include printed materials where duplicates exist or objects that were illegally looted by the Nazis.

    The general principle of that legislation and subsequent amendments to it is designed to protect cultural assets and provide the proper independence between Government and museum trustees. Because the legislation is drawn up in that manner, the Greek Government have been disinclined to put the legal position to the test in international courts. However, there is scope for the British Museum Act to be amended to cover the specific circumstances of the repatriation of the Parthenon marbles. I believe that potential amendments to legislation should form part of a process of mediation and dialogue between the Greek Government and the UK Government regarding the future of the Parthenon sculptures.

    I turn to some of the other arguments that are often used to justify the Elgin marbles staying in Britain. Those who argue for retention of the marbles use cultural preservation as a key support. Their argument, encapsulated in the universal museum declaration, effectively places immediate cultural preservation above considerations of the circumstances in which treasures and other artefacts of major cultural significance were acquired. Some go as far as to suggest that Elgin’s actions were heroic and that the marbles would have been destroyed had he not acted in the way that he did by bringing them to Britain.​

    I have some sympathy with the idea that, had they not been acquired by museums outwith their countries of origin, many of the world’s cultural treasures would have been lost. Sadly, we have seen some despicable acts of cultural vandalism in recent years. In Syria, we have seen Daesh’s wanton destruction of parts of Palmyra, the great mosque of Aleppo and the old city of Damascus, which are just a few of the culturally significant sites that have suffered in that brutal conflict. But to compare what has happened in Syria with the proposed repatriation of the Elgin marbles would be to compare apples and oranges. The parts of the Parthenon frieze that have been retained in Greece have survived two world wars, a civil war, a military dictatorship and bankruptcy of the Greek state.

    Regardless of views on whether the marbles should be returned to Greece or remain in Britain, it is reasonable to suggest that they would be preserved and secured for many years to come. Both Greece and the UK can offer outstanding museum facilities to showcase the marbles, and the new Acropolis Museum has already demonstrated how that would work in practice. The argument on cultural preservation comes down to one question: artistically, does it make sense for the Parthenon marbles to be reunited, placing them in one location where they could be appreciated and admired the world over? That is not only the right thing to do; it would enable the marbles to be appreciated in the original context in which they were sculpted.

    Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)

    I am enjoying the history lesson, 204 years after the Select Committee of this House thoroughly investigated the acquisition and found it to be totally legal. However, the hon. Lady says the marbles could be better appreciated in Athens. Why does she think they could be better appreciated in Athens? Last year, the British Museum had over 6 million visitors, viewing 50,000 items, including the Elgin marbles, out of a total collection of 8 million objects, for free, while the Parthenon Museum in Athens, which destroyed many layers of archaeology in its construction, attracted 1.8 million visitors at a cost. Those marbles are seen in an international, classical, archaic Hellenistic context in the British Museum that is just not available in Greece. They are possessions of the world, and the British Museum, as a world museum, is the best place for everyone to appreciate them, rather than this petty nationalism about sending them back to a city state that does not exist any more.

    Mr Speaker

    Order. That is taking complete advantage, Mr Loughton, and you should know better, given how many years you have been here.

    Margaret Ferrier

    I think the only answer to that is, how arrogant! How arrogant to feel that we are the only ones who can house the Parthenon sculptures. I am sure many Greeks will be listening to that this evening.

    Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)

    Will my hon. Friend give way?

    Margaret Ferrier

    I am sorry, but I need to make some progress.​

    As I said, this would enable the marbles to be appreciated in the original context in which they were sculpted. That is perhaps best summed up in the poetry of Constantine Cavafy:

    “It is not dignified in a great nation to reap profit from half-truths and half-rights;

    Honesty is the best policy, and honesty in the case of the Elgin Marbles means restitution.”

    Campaigns to return the Elgin marbles to Greece have been a feature of the cultural landscape for many years, with many celebrities backing the campaign. Most memorably, the original host of “Fifteen to One”, the late William G. Stewart, delivered a speech in favour of their return in a 2001 episode, after all the contestants were eliminated in the first round of the competition. Although a popular teatime quiz show might not have been the best place to air his views, William G. Stewart’s actions highlighted people’s strength of feeling towards the acquisition of these incredible sculptures.

    When public opinion on the return of the marbles has been tested, there has been consistent support for returning them to Greece. The most recent opinion poll by YouGov showed that more people in Britain favoured the return of the marbles than opposed it—by a margin of 37% to 23%. Proponents of the reunification of the marbles have rightly pointed out that there is a moral case for their return. In an Intelligence Squared television debate, which is available on YouTube for any hon. Members interested in the subject, both sides of the debate acknowledged that the circumstances in which the Elgin marbles were returned to Greece would be emblematic of Britain’s status in the world.

    Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)

    This is ever so slightly tangential, but my hon. Friend mentioned Intelligence Squared, and it famously hosted a debate between Professor Mary Beard and the man who is now Prime Minister. Is she as perturbed as I am, given the important role that the British Museum has in this debate, by reports at the weekend that the Government are trying to keep Professor Beard off the board of the British Museum, perhaps because of her remain views? Does she agree that the Minister might want to respond to that in her closing remarks?

    Margaret Ferrier

    It is very disappointing to hear of the treatment of Professor Mary Beard. It reveals a crucial flaw in the argument against the return of the marbles, but it would be entirely within the UK Government’s power to appoint trustees who supported repatriation. However, I understand that the British Museum is going to take matters into its own hands and appoint her anyway.

    Those in favour of repatriation of the marbles suggested that returning the marbles to Greece would portray Britain as a benign influence in the world, keen to do right by others. Those in favour of retention said that their return would mark the decline of Britain’s status as a global power. Either way, repatriating them would mark a sea change in how Britain was viewed in the world, but handled correctly, it could demonstrate that Britain was willing to ditch the colonial mindset for good. For me, the most prescient comment in the debate came from the former Liberal Democrat Member for St Ives, Andrew George, who remarked:

    “We can persist in clinging on to the Greek marbles, as excuses wear thin, until we’re forced in some kind of cringe-making and rather shameful climbdown to hand them over in some decades to come.”​

    That brings us to the twin questions, why hold this debate and why raise this issue now? Last week, the UK Government published their much-awaited mandate for trade negotiations with the EU. Like many of my colleagues on the SNP Benches, I fear the economic impact on my constituents of a future trade deal with the EU.

    Brexit also reveals this Tory Government’s delusions of grandeur, as it will expose the power imbalance that we face in negotiations with the EU27. The EU’s negotiating mandate contains an additional clause that calls on both parties in the negotiations to

    “address issues relating to the return or restitution of unlawfully removed cultural objects to their country of origin”.

    It is utterly apparent to me that Brexit will fuel demands for Britain to return the Elgin marbles to Greece. Greece’s Culture Minister has left us in no doubt about their position on the marbles, saying that the

    “right conditions have been created for their permanent return”.

    Next year marks 200 years since the Greek uprising against Ottoman rule, so it should be of no surprise to Ministers that Athens will be stepping up its demands for the return of the marbles. No doubt the Minister will boast of the strength of the UK’s negotiating position in the talks to come with the EU. I also expect her to repeat the same intransigent rhetoric that has been a hallmark of the Government’s position on the status of the Parthenon sculptures. As we have seen from this Tory Government throughout the Brexit process, however, that novel imperialist mindset is akin to the emperor’s new clothes.

    I fear that the UK Government are in for a nasty surprise when we get down to the nitty-gritty of trade talks, and calls for the Elgin marbles to return to Greece may prove irresistible as negotiations drag on throughout this year. Whether by intention or by accident, the UK Government might well lose their marbles much sooner than any of us anticipated.