Housing, Communities and Local Government: Departmental Spending

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £22,567,364,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament—(James Morris.)

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call Clive Betts, I give notice that, again, there is time pressure on the debate, so I am likely to introduce an immediate three-minute time limit because we must finish by 5 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

Normally I would give way, but Madam Deputy Speaker is looking askance at me, so I think I had better move on.

The second question is can the Government not bring forward a bit sooner the apportionment of losses from council tax and business rates? Waiting until the spending review introduces an extra element of uncertainty.

I have another question about compensation for losses in the leisure sector. Many authorities—about 60, I think—of all political persuasions do not provide leisure services directly; instead, they provide them through arm’s length arrangements. Sheffield does it through Sheffield International Venues and has some magnificent facilities, including Sheffield Arena and Ponds Forge, which is an international-class swimming pool, and lots of community facilities. What we need is an assurance that income losses for councils in that situation will be treated the same as income losses for councils that provide the services directly. That is an important point for many councils up and down the country.

It still feels like local government is on a life support machine, waiting for the next bit of revenue to trickle down from the next ministerial statement, rather than having the certainty that they need to plan. Many councils are now looking at making cuts and emergency budgets and talking openly about section 114 notices. Yes, okay, the Ministry has said, “Come and see us before you issue a 114 notice,” but that is too late. We do not want councils to reach the point where they are thinking about a 114 and planning for it. We want them to have the certainty of getting funding so they are not driven into that position.

This is not just about funding for this year; it is about funding for next year as well. Many councils, including Sheffield Council, have reserves to see them through this year, but using them will just postpone the problem to next year. Also, many councils had plans for efficiency savings, which have been put on hold as managerial expertise is put into dealing with the current crisis. Efficiency measures that have had to be put to one side for the time being are another loss for councils that needs to be recognised properly.

Let us have more certainty that all the costs that local authorities incur in covid-related matters will be covered by the Government. Let us have another discussion with the LGA and consider whether it is fair that councils should have to stand even 25% of income losses. Let us have an assurance that arm’s length arrangements for leisure will be covered. Let us bring forward the commitment on council tax and business rates to before the spending review. Let us not get to the point of discussions about section 114 notices by providing certainty of funding.

Finally, there is the future. What local authorities need is a proper long-term sustainable financial settlement.

The covid crisis offers a watershed, a turning point, an opportunity to change things, but I want to put down five markers for the Government, drawing on the Select Committee’s report in 2019. First, we want at least a multi-year settlement, to give that certainty. The last four-year settlement was welcome. I understand why it has not been repeated in the current crisis, but it is certainly needed.

Secondly, we need a recognition that local authorities need a significant real-terms increase in their funding. The Local Government Association’s calculation of an £8 billion gap, even before covid came along, has to be recognised. Thirdly, if we really are to end austerity, it is not just about funding local councils so they do not have to make more cuts; it is about giving them the money to restore many of the essential services they have had to cut.

Fourthly, we have to devolve to councils the power not merely to spend but to raise resources in the first place. If we do that, however, we must recognise that some councils are less able to raise resources than others, so if we devolve more spending arrangements to councils, we will need a fall-back position—a central fund for councils to deal with the equalisation problem.

Finally, let us have a proper, cross-party, long-term funding agreement for social care. The two Select Committees proposed a solution with a social care premium three years ago. Let us reactivate that. Giving councils that direct source of funding for social care will also release funding for other essential services. I say to the Minister: think of MPs here today arguing for extra funding as allies in the battle with the Treasury to get the money that councils need to fight the covid crisis, but to fight it in a way that does not produce extra cuts to essential council services already devastated by 10 years of austerity.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We will start with a time limit of four minutes.

Business and Planning Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 29th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mike Amesbury]

This has been a constructive debate, and I thank Members across the Chamber for their positive contributions and suggestions, which I hope will be taken up in the other place. I thank the Government, and I thank the Minister in particular for his positive engagement. We are happy to withdraw amendment 2 in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I look forward to moving amendment 3. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Interpretation

Amendment made: 3, page 7, line 37, at end insert—

“(1A) Subsection (1B) applies for the purposes of—

(a) the reference in section 1(5)(a) to a highway to which Part 7A of the Highways Act 1980 applies, and

(b) the references to traffic orders in section 3(6)(a)(i) and (b) (which, by virtue of section 3(7), have the same meaning as in that Part of that Act).

(1B) The definition of “traffic order” in section 115A(2) of the Highways Act 1980 is to be treated as if it included an order under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 made pursuant to subsection (1)(b) or (c) of that section under the procedure provided for by regulation 18 of the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/1215) (procedure for temporary orders made for purposes connected to coronavirus).”—(Mike Amesbury.)

This amendment secures that the provisions about pavement licences apply where a highway is subject to a temporary traffic order under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for reasons relating to coronavirus.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I will now suspend the House for three minutes to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of hon. Members for the next.

Rough Sleeping

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Rough sleeping is not inevitable in a country as decent and well off as ours. The cost of a decade of austerity has been over 700 deaths last year on our streets and huge numbers of children and families in bed-and-breakfast and temporary accommodation. It is the defining mark of this Conservative Government. Any improvement on that record is welcome, but today’s figures show that the number of people sleeping rough in shop doorways and on park benches is more than double what it was when Labour left government. That shames us all and it shames Conservative Ministers most of all. It must end.

Today’s figures come with a big health warning: everyone, from the Secretary of State to homelessness charities, knows that these statistics are an unreliable undercount of the true scale of the problem. The figures have been refused national statistics status—a mark of

“trustworthiness, quality and public value”

Yesterday, Labour’s shadow Housing Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), wrote to the UK Statistics Authority to ask it to investigate their accuracy.

That follows new data obtained by the BBC under the Freedom of Information Act, showing that Ministers have been dramatically under-reporting the scale of rough sleeping. The BBC revealed that 25,000 people are sleeping rough in England—five times the number recorded by the Government’s statistics. Even on today’s unreliable figures, the Government are set to break their pledge to end rough sleeping by the end of the Parliament. At the current rate of progress, they will not end rough sleeping until 2037, so while the Secretary of State’s ambitious words are welcome, how does he intend to reach his target without further investment?

The announcement today that the Government will go some way towards following Labour’s proposals and fund housing for rough sleepers following the Housing First model is welcome, but we remember that the Secretary of State’s party promised 200,000 starter homes and did not build a single one. When the Prime Minster was Mayor of London, he promised to end rough sleeping in the capital by 2012, but rough sleeping doubled. We are right to be sceptical and ask the Secretary of State to clarify: by what date will these homes will be made available? How will the locations be determined? And is the funding genuinely extra, as he claims, or has it been diverted from other programmes in the Department’s budget?

It is not just that the Government have turned a blind eye to the homelessness crisis for so long—which they have—but they have refused to face up to the fact that they actively created the crisis. They have cut £1 billion a year from local homelessness reduction budgets and there is no commitment to reverse that. They have cut investment in new homes for social rent to record levels, with no commitment to reverse that, and they have failed to deliver on their pledge to end unfair evictions—the leading cause of homelessness.

Much like other symptoms of the housing crisis, such as the spiralling housing benefit bill, the funding needed to tackle rough sleeping will continue to rise if we do not invest in addressing the root causes of the housing crisis. That means more than warm words about bringing health and housing together; it means facing up to the impact of deep cuts to welfare, mental health support and addiction services since 2010. However, the Government are in denial about the root causes of homelessness. Perhaps that is why the Housing Secretary chose to appoint someone as his Parliamentary Private Secretary, with specific responsibility for rough sleeping, who thinks that sleeping rough is a lifestyle choice and who claimed that

“many people choose to be on the street”—[Official Report, 29 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 858.]

He also claimed that it is more comfortable than going on exercise in the Army— [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order.

[Sarah Jones]

That is particularly insulting to the hundreds of our armed forces veterans who are sleeping rough, who this Government have abandoned despite their years of service to our country.

As the first snow of the new decade falls on our streets outside, we must face up to the human cost of this Conservative Government: two people a day are dying on our streets; 127,000 children are homeless in temporary accommodation; and the rough sleeping figures are five times higher than the official statistics. Homelessness was tackled by the last Labour Government when we inherited a similar scale of crisis. We reduced rough sleeping by three quarters. The Secretary of State’s announcements today will not go far enough to deliver on his targets. To quote Louise Casey:

“We have gone from a beacon of success to an international example of failure”,

and we

“must not allow this issue to be ignored, we must feel its impact and act as the country we are proud to be.”

Local Government Finance (England)

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We now come to the three motions on local government finance, which will be debated together.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that powerful intervention. I have always believed that the Poles played the most extraordinary role, and paid a high price for it, in the second world war. My heart goes out to all my Polish friends; I have many, and one of my best friends at school was Polish. He could not go back to Poland until after the end of communism, because his parents had fled the communist regime there. The Poles are a wonderful, brave people. They did so much to resist the Nazis and so much to protect their Jewish population—the largest in the whole of Europe before the second world war. My heart goes out to all Poles who played a vital part in protecting their Jewish citizens as well as their own, who suffered so much.

Iby Knill was born in Bratislava. Later, she was smuggled across the border to Hungary, where she spent the first part of the war fighting the oppression of the Nazis, until she was eventually arrested as a communist and taken to Auschwitz No. 2 camp. While she was there, she teamed up with all the other women nurses, doctors and dentists—medically qualified people. She did that because, as she says in her book “The woman without a number”—again, I recommend it to all Members here—if people stayed together in solidarity, it was very hard for the Nazis to pick them off individually. She saw Dr Mengele every single day, but because she went to the camps in 1944, she survived.

Iby married a British Army colonel after the war. After his death, she began to talk about her experiences. She had come to Leeds in the early 1960s, and she taught at universities and worked for the local authority. Now, at the age of 96, my constituent Iby writes, lectures and gives talks. Indeed, eight or nine years ago, she did a talk for Members in Speaker’s House, with the blessing of the former Speaker, John Bercow. Some may remember it; it was a very moving occasion.

Iby has written another book, called “The Woman with Nine Lives”. In her books, she talks about the fact that she never had the tattoo. When people ask her about that, she says, “I do not know why I was not tattooed. Maybe it was because they ran out of ink, or maybe the officer concerned simply had to go to the toilet.” Iby’s first-hand accounts are well worth reading, and it is extraordinary that, at 96, she is still able to go around our schools and educational institutions.

Trude Silman is another survivor. She came from Bratislava during the war, on the Kindertransport. She is 91 now. She is a very close friend of mine and my wife’s: we see her every other week if we possibly can, and I was with her at the weekend. She is a contributor to the exhibition at Huddersfield University, and figures large in it. Eugene Black I have mentioned. John Chillag, who died recently as well, was another holocaust survivor in the city of Leeds. But the person I want to end my contribution by describing is someone who was born on 14 February 1920—two years before my own father was born—and died on 1 January this year, six weeks before his 100th birthday. His name was Heinz Skyte.

Heinz was absolutely extraordinary. He was the founding director of the Leeds Jewish Welfare Board and the Leeds Jewish Housing Association, organisations that have done so much for so many Jewish people who have been so underprivileged and have had so many problems in their own lives in the city of Leeds. He made an incredible contribution. He was also a great supporter of Leeds United football club. But the one thing I remember him for—I will finish with this short anecdote—is that in 1998, a year after I was elected to this place to represent my constituency, he gave a talk on the 60th anniversary of Kristallnacht. We are talking about a number of anniversaries today, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Heinz was a student of the University of Hamburg. He was born in Munich, but he went to Hamburg to study. One evening, he received a phone call on his landlady’s telephone. “You need to get out of there,” said his mother. “They are going to ransack the synagogues. They are going to arrest and beat the Jewish people of Hamburg. Go to the park, and stay there all night.” It was four o’clock in the afternoon. So Heinz stayed there all night. He saw the fires. He saw Jews being arrested, being beaten, being brutally attacked. He saw the Torah scrolls being removed from the synagogues and burnt in the streets. He saw the destruction of Jewish businesses. He told us this from his first-hand experience. It is the kind of thing that you never forget hearing.

After the night of destruction and horror was over, Heinz managed to get through to his mother, and his mother said, “Go and see our family doctor. He has retired from Munich, and he now lives in Hamburg with his daughter. Go to his flat. This is the address.” So he turned up, at six or seven in the morning. He walked through the front door to find the old man sitting on the sofa in his full Wehrmacht uniform from the first world war. If you had been a serving officer in the German army, you were allowed, above a certain rank, to keep your uniform, and there was the old doctor with his pointed helmet with the spike on it, and his Iron Cross First Class.

The Gestapo had broken down the door—they did not knock on the doors, they broke the doors down—to arrest this filthy Jew, and they had found a man with an Iron Cross, in an army uniform, with the rank of major. They did not know what to do. As Heinz said at the time, “Zey didn’t have ze mobile phones.” They could not ring headquarters to get instructions, so they left. The doctor gathered his belongings in shock, with his daughter and with Heinz, and they took the train out of Hamburg. This was in 1938. They went to Denmark, they crossed the sea to England, and they came to Leeds. The doctor lived until the 1960s. I do not know what became of the daughter.

That is a story that I wanted to share with the House because it is a story that Heinz told us from his first-hand experience. Here was one of the last living witnesses of the horrors of the holocaust, someone who himself made a recording, and—I am very proud to hear this—at his funeral on 5 or 6 January at the Jewish cemetery in Leeds, his son Peter said that until his dying day, Heinz was a member of the Labour party. He never lost those values. He was never prepared to give them up, in spite of what he did not like in our party.

So it is with that tribute to Heinz Skyte that I finish my remarks. I thank Members for all the contributions that are being made today, and I thank them for indulging me in talking about my own family’s history.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

It is a pleasure to call Brendan Clarke-Smith to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I agree with my hon. Friend. With a reinvigorated and restored Northern Ireland Assembly, hopefully we can continue to see the benefit of such programmes right across Northern Ireland. Such programmes provide an understanding that men can be unbelievably and despicably evil. We can never forget that beneath a polished smile and a well-presented press release can be the heart of prejudice and hatred.

My son Luke and his friends went to Auschwitz last year on a weekend away. I was rather surprised—not that they should want to go there, but that, as young 24 and 25-year-olds, they felt they needed to do so. They came back with some incredible stories. The Royal British Legion of Ballywalter in my constituency also went, and grown men came back and unashamedly told me that they shed tears for what they had witnessed.

As we mark the 75th anniversary of the liberation of those remaining in Auschwitz, I feel sickened and saddened by the images that are conjured. It is important that future generations understand this and feel as we do. The UN Secretary-General said after the “75 Years after Auschwitz” exhibit was unveiled:

“Understanding our history connects us to the essential human values of truth, respect, justice and compassion.”

We should be pleased to be involved in all those things.

Although it is right that we mark the horrors of the holocaust, we should not and cannot pretend that all is well in the world, because quite clearly it is not. Srebrenica, the Rohingya Muslim group in Burma and Rwanda are all examples of man’s inhumanity and brutality to man. This tells us that there are still evil people about who are intent on doing similar things.

The evil events we remember today started more than eight decades ago, but antisemitism is not called the “oldest hatred” for no reason, and neither has it been eradicated. Our Jewish brothers and sisters—we are all clearly referring to them as such, because we are in the Chamber today because although we may not be Jewish, we look upon them as our Jewish brothers and sisters—have been persecuted for millennia. Even in 2020, Britain, Europe and the world have witnessed rising levels of this sickness in society. We are reminded daily that antisemitism is alive and destructive not only across the world, but here in the United Kingdom. In this place, there have been accusations of antisemitism being brushed under the carpet, as opposed to being confronted and dealt with. Let us be clear: antisemitism was at the heart of the Nazi plan. If we, as political leaders in the constituencies we represent, are not brave enough to recognise and call out the cause and effect of the oldest hatred, we will not find a solution. Sadly, that is why I say that far too often in this place, far too many Members have stoked the flames of hatred by unfairly attacking Israel, the world’s only Jewish state.

Like the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, I stand here to support Israel and to be its friend, just as I did in a previous job in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have spoken in every one of these debates since I have been in the House. We also have to recall the Gaza border debate that took place in this House on 15 May 2018, when Member after Member stood up to denounce the state of Israel for killing innocent people. We found out a day later, of course, that 53 of the 62 killed at the Gaza border on 14 May were members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad—terrorists trying to breach the border fence to kill innocent Jewish people. We must keep in perspective the fact that hatred towards the Jewish people is clear. Nine innocent people were also killed, having been used as human shields and cannon fodder by the terrorists. Furthermore, those who denounced Israel on 15 May 2018 did nothing to alter the Hansard record of their contributions. No apologies were issued and there were no retractions; their comments stand in Hansard, despite the factual information that followed contradicting much of what was said. Such loss of life is devastating but, as in many cases in Northern Ireland, if people are killed in the midst of terrorism, they are not victims but perpetrators. I offer deep sympathies, even at this stage, to those who lost innocent loved ones at that dreadful time.

Hansard still contains the vitriol used that day, and we have to learn that careless words can cost lives and breed hatred, so there is an important responsibility on all of us. We are entitled to criticise when criticism is merited. The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire said that we can be a critical friend—so we can—but that is verbal criticism given in a decent way to bring about change. We should all be constructive, but we are not entitled to hold Israel to a different set of standards from those that we hold other nations to, including our own. There must also be opportunity to record an apology when we get something wrong.

Antisemitism is bred in many places, with the middle east being one of them. It is in our media—on TV and radio—every day. Antisemitism is a powder keg and inevitably, without peace, there will be many more times over the course of this Parliament when we will debate the issues. Let us not fall into the trap of encouraging division and hatred, and let us commit over this parliamentary term to listen to both sides of the debate. As the chair of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief, I feel it is so important that we speak up for those of a Christian faith, those of other faiths and those of no faith. I know that all Members subscribe to that same commitment. I believe that in this House we have a duty, on Holocaust Memorial Day, to do just that. We must pledge to listen to organisations such as the Israel-Britain Alliance, which sends briefings to MPs every month that offer a sober, honest and realistic assessment of the challenges faced by tiny Israel. Let us in this House commit to offer a commentary that takes the gun and the bullet, as well as assertions, institutional racism and bigotry, out of the dialogue. How better to remember the price paid by ignoring the signs and signals of antisemitism and to set a better example for people to follow so that there is never a repetition in this generation and in any other to come?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

It is a pleasure to call Scott Benton to make his maiden speech. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Protection for New Home Buyers

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I applied for this debate in anticipation of the Government’s plans to bring forward measures in this Parliament relating to building standards and safety. In recent years, I have seen numerous examples in my constituency—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Could Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quietly, because the hon. Lady is trying to make her speech?

[Kate Green]

In recent years, I have seen numerous examples in my constituency of shoddy and sometimes downright dangerous workmanship, and a lack of redress for homeowners. The all-party parliamentary group for excellence in the built environment highlighted similar issues in reports in 2016 and 2018. I therefore welcome the announcement in the Queen’s Speech of the Government’s intention to act. I hope that, by sharing some of my constituents’ experiences and concerns, I can urge speedy progress, and help to inform the Minister’s thinking as policy is developed. I also hope that he will carefully consider the issues relating to the regulatory regime, enforcement and the operation of warranties that I will raise tonight.

May I start by placing on record my thanks to Martin Scott and Paul Hargreaves of solicitors Walker Morris, and Geoff Peter of New Build Guru, who have all been generous with their expertise in helping me to prepare for this debate? I also thank my constituents for bringing their concerns to my attention. They have shown great fortitude, and a determination that the problems that they have endured should not be suffered by other homeowners in years to come.

Let me give the House some idea of the defects experienced by my constituents. At a development in Stretford—undertaken by Mr Selcuk Pinarbasi through his family companies Pino Design and Build, and Talbot Gate Developments—homeowners showed me numerous defects that they found when they moved into their new homes, including unfinished and damaged bathrooms and fittings; floors, skirting boards, bannisters, windows and doors out of true; the measurements of a downstairs WC not complying with statutory requirements to enable wheelchair access; breaches of electrical safety regulations; and an incorrectly fitted gas sleeve.

In another development, in Old Trafford, buyers found that there had been failure by the developer to comply with conditions relating to external works including boundary treatments, security, lighting, landscaping and waste disposal. That developer, Mr Jason Alexander, was also behind the development of Aura Court, an apartment block on the border of my constituency and Manchester city centre that has been the subject of a “Granada Reports” programme highlighting the dangerous and incomplete state of the block, such that Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue has put a number of enforcement notices in place. Issues there include damaged fire doors; cladding not installed on external walls and walkways; decking not installed on walkways; unauthorised window installation, affecting fire safety standards; waterlogging on escape routes; and dangerous staircase treads. Even so, the block remains occupied, despite its shoddy state.

Valedictory Debate

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Sir Patrick McLoughlin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Ann Clwyd.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann Clwyd]

Thank you very much. Yes, I remember our first few days here. If you come in in a by-election, it is always more difficult to assimilate. I am glad that my hon. Friend is still here. I have not always agreed with him, as he well knows, but I respect him for his diligence and persistence, because those are two things that a Member of Parliament needs to do: to be diligent and persistent, and not to give up.

One of the things I have been keen on is the promotion and protection of international human rights, and I have given my long-standing support to people in other countries, in the middle east, Turkey, Cambodia and East Timor. We always have arguments in this place about the arms trade, and I do hope that we are ultra-careful in future about who we sell arms to. One sadness for me is that we did not manage to get a report out in the last Session of Parliament on arms sales to Saudi Arabia. A sustained and strategic use of the parliamentary mandate and platform is therefore crucial to furthering causes and ensuring that the Government of the day are being properly scrutinised. Parliamentary questions and debates are important, and I found out that I have spoken in debates in the House 2,200 times. That is a useless fact, but somebody produced it today.

A friend of mine in the House of Lords, Baroness Quin, phoned me a short time ago. She was in the European Parliament with me, and she reminded me of various things. She and I were in Senegal for a women’s rights conference—I do not know how many years ago—and suddenly there was a phone call for Joyce Quin to say that Captain Kent Kirk had landed on the coastline of her constituency to protest about fishing rights. Joyce was getting phone calls all the time from her constituents, who had no idea she was in Senegal. Of course, very often our constituents did not realise that part of our work was travelling to other countries and contributing to debates there.

I have been committed to cross-party scrutiny through my long-term engagement with the International Development Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Committee on Arms Export Controls. I have also chaired the all-party parliamentary human rights group for many years, which has allowed me to work with colleagues from all over the world from across the political spectrum to raise awareness of serious human rights violations and breaches of international humanitarian law, as well as giving victims a voice and supporting them in getting reform and redress. Human rights is thereby depoliticised, as it should be. Some colleagues have also worked on the executive of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

I have supported the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. We do not talk enough in this place about the IPU, particularly the British group, which enables me and fellow BGIPU members to communicate concerns, including human rights, when countries sometimes have to be called out. We build greater consensus on big issues and crises facing the world, such as climate change, international development, poverty alleviation and the refugee crisis. I pay tribute to the staff and secretariat of the IPU and highlight the work of its committee on the human rights of parliamentarians, which I have chaired several times and of which I was a long-time member. My vision for the Cynon Valley, the UK and the international community is unfinished business, a lot of it, as far as I am concerned.

Most of all, I thank people in the House for their friendship, comradeship and support. I mean all sections of the House, particularly the doorkeepers, because when I was hobbling around on my new knee, I had great assistance from them. In fact, I got quite to rely on them. They gave me every help and they still do, even when I say “No, I'm all right now, thank you. I can get to the back row now, so you do not need to help me any more.” Particularly to all my colleagues and friends, I want to say that this has been a great place for building friendships. I thank you all and I am very sorry to be leaving you all.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I want to ensure that everybody gets a fair crack of the whip, so if colleagues could stick to about eight minutes, we can get everybody in and they would all have equal time.

Town and Country Planning

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the Minister to move motion 3 on town and country planning, I should inform the House that the Speaker has certified that, for the purposes of the Standing Order, it relates only to England and is within devolved legislative competence. I remind Members that the statutory instrument must therefore be approved by both a majority of all Members and of those Members representing constituencies in England.

Definition of Islamophobia

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mahmood]

That is fair enough.

Those are the issues. I am happy to an extent to see people getting frustrated, because our objective is to get a clear definition. That is what I was after, but that is not coming.

Chapter 4 of the report mentions Trojan horse, with which I am familiar. However, the way it is described in the report has no basis in the events on the ground. I was there. I confronted most of those people. I know how girls were made to sit at the back of the school because they were female, how they were all told to cover their heads and how they were supposed to move on. Two reports were done about that by Peter Clarke and Ian Kershaw. This report ignores all that work. It is therefore absurd to say that this report does something positive.

The report talks about

“Denying Muslim populations the right to self-determination”

in Kashmir. The report also mentions Palestine, but I will concentrate on Kashmir because I am a Kashmiri. There is a considerable proportion of Pandits in Kashmir; it is not just a Muslim state. If such claims are to be made in a major report, please get the facts right. Kashmiris are not all Muslims; there are also Pandits, who have long-standing heritage. In fact, the region of Kashmir was created by a Pandit. People who produce these reports must be mindful of such things.

We need balance in this issue, with we as Muslims able to condemn both sides. When radical action, radicalisation and terrorism take place, we should condemn that, just as we should condemn attacks from the right. We should all do that. This is about the mainstream in the United Kingdom and supporting the mainstream of the community. We as Muslims, given our population and the roles we play in this place, the other place and across the country, should do that, and be proud of who we are. We are proud Muslims, and we should start to move away from a victim mentality and be positive about who we are.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I know the Chairman of Ways and Means reminded colleagues that there are two debates this afternoon and asked if people could confine themselves to 12 minutes. If we cannot do that, I will have to impose a time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. To accommodate everyone who wants to speak, I am now going to put in place a 10-minute time limit.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) on securing this debate, and I commend them and their colleagues in the all-party group on British Muslims for making history by putting together the first definition of Islamophobia. This definition is the culmination of almost two years of consultation and evidence gathering. It is a concrete definition that takes into account the views of organisations, politicians, faith leaders, eminent academics, victims of hate crime and communities up and down the country. I hope that the Secretary of State will have listened to the comments made by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who has also urged the Government to adopt the definition.

To tackle Islamophobia, we need to address a number of different issues, one of which is the role of the media. In Australia, where the Christchurch killer was born, raised and possibly radicalised, there has been a lot of debate on the extent to which the media—particularly that owned by Rupert Murdoch—contributed to sowing the seeds of hate that were unleashed in Christchurch. A study published in Sydney tallied up the number of negative stories that five Australian newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch produced in 2017. It found that almost 3,000 such stories referred to Islam or Muslims, alongside the words “violence”, “terrorism” or “radical”. Authors of the study reported that

“once every second day in 2017 there was a front page that demonised and spoke negatively about Muslims”.

Yes, it was on social media where the killer spread his ideology, but we need to recognise that white supremacy and other ideologies of hate predate the internet. So while we are right to pay attention to the sheer speed and global reach of the internet, we need to talk about how hateful ideologies come into being and what allows them to flourish.

The print and broadcast media are not without their share of responsibility. Recently, in an open letter to a newspaper, Neil Basu said:

“The reality is that every terrorist we have dealt with has sought inspiration from the propaganda of others, and when they can’t find it on Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter they only have to turn on the TV, read the paper or go to one of a myriad of mainstream media websites struggling to compete with those platforms.”

He cited the 2017 terror attack in Finsbury Park as an example of where a man was

“driven to an act of terror by far-right messaging he found mostly on mainstream media”.

It is time we accepted that a large proportion of the British press incites hatred against Muslims to millions of people every day. This is not about freedom of speech; it is plain, downright lying published in our media, day in, day out. For example, a Daily Express front page has proclaimed: “Muslims tell British: Go to hell”. The Daily Star printed the headline: “UK mosques fundraising for terror” then later apologised. Or let us consider the front page of The Sun, which declared that “1 in 5 Brit Muslims” had sympathy for jihadists, accompanied by a picture of “Jihadi John” wielding a knife. Months later, it acknowledged that its claims were misleading, but such retractions are always just two sentences occupying a tiny space at the back of the newspaper.

Such inaccuracies are not restricted to the tabloid press. The Times, for example, claimed Muslims were “silent on terror”. On another occasion, it issued a correction for a story headlined “Christian child forced into Muslim foster care”, which turned out to be a complete bag of lies. The Daily Mail then picked up on that story and showed a picture of a woman wearing a veil, suggesting that this was the lady who had adopted the child. That was a lie as well, because although the woman in question was a Muslim, she did not wear a veil. The Spectator published a piece claiming that

“there is not nearly enough Islamophobia within the Conservative party”.

It is not just misleading stories that are the problem. We consistently see articles that conflate Islam with criminality: “Muslim sex grooming” or “Imam beaten to death in sex grooming town”, for example. The latter resulted in the chief constable of Greater Manchester police writing an open letter criticising the newspaper.

A study from Lancaster University highlighted that for every mention of “moderate” Muslims in the media, there are 21 references to “extremist” Muslims, and that Muslims are collectively homogenised and portrayed as a threat to the “British way of life”. A study conducted by the University of Alabama found that Muslim extremists received 357% more coverage than non-Muslim extremists; by contrast, far-right terrorists are rationalised, understood to be lone wolves, or excused because they are suffering from poor mental health, instead of recognising the hatred that actually drove their atrocious actions. We saw that in the Daily Mirror’s coverage of Christchurch, describing the killer as an “angelic boy” in an attempt to humanise him and focusing on Muslims as victims. I do not think we have seen such a description given to any terrorist who happens to be Muslim.

In opinion pieces, the problem is even more apparent. The Sun’s Trevor Kavanagh ended one column with the question:

“What will we do about the Muslim problem then?”

We all know what that means. In July 2016, Fatima Manji reported on the Nice terror attack for Channel 4. Kelvin MacKenzie attacked her in The Sun, asking why a woman in a headscarf was reporting on a terrorist incident. Musing on why Channel 4 chose Manji for the slot, MacKenzie asked,

“Was it done to stick one in the eye of the ordinary viewer who looks at the hijab as a sign of the slavery of Muslim women by a male-dominated and clearly violent religion?”

Those are just the tip of the iceberg of lies in the media about Islam.

That should lead us to ask why this is happening. The answer is simple: stories that play on public fears and feed prejudices are popular, especially in times when, according to polls, more than half of British people see Islam as a threat to western liberal democracy, and others may not see Muslims as threats but feel softer dislike and that Muslims and Islam are not compatible. The fact is that most people in this country have probably never met a Muslim person and know nothing about Islam, but their reading and understanding of Islam are derived from the media. That is why so many of them, when surveyed, express views that clearly show that they have been affected by what they read.

Research by Cambridge University showed that mainstream media reporting on the Muslim community was contributing to an atmosphere of rising hostility toward Muslims in Britain, corroborating the findings of an Islamophobia roundtable in Stockholm. Do the Minister and the Government accept that the media have played a role in the growth of Islamophobia and that that is no longer tenable?

This is not a matter of freedom of speech; it is about the choice of editors to tolerate, if not encourage, bigotry in our papers. We live in a country that rightly cherishes freedom of the press, and that must be respected, but freedom comes with responsibility, which must be upheld. To publish inaccurate stories helps the rise of the far right; the othering of Muslims has real-world consequences. The National Union of Journalists understands that and has demanded an inquiry into Islamophobia in the media. Done properly, that could have the impact that the Macpherson report had on the police and encourage a sea change in attitudes. Will the Minister commit today to set up a Government inquiry into Islamophobia in the media?

These are not just my concerns. Respectable academics and think-tanks are concerned about what is happening. Last year, in the Home Affairs Committee, the new owner of the Daily Express said:

“Each and every editor has a responsibility for every single word that’s published in a newspaper. Cumulatively, some of the headlines that have appeared in the past have created an Islamophobic sentiment which I find uncomfortable”—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order.

Local Government and Social Care Funding

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I must inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before I call the Scottish National party Front-Bench spokesperson, I advise colleagues that about 25 Members want to speak. If everybody sticks to around 10 minutes, we will not need to impose a time limit.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not get the chance to correct the Secretary of State, so it is important that I do so now. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) quite rightly mentioned the instability of the care market, but the Secretary of State provided an incorrect impression of the situation. Research by Care England shows that there are now 564 fewer care homes when compared with 2015 and that there has been a net loss of 8,119 care home beds nationwide. The Secretary of State gave an incorrect impression, and we should not carry on the debate after that sort of wrong impression has been given.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order, which is really more a matter of debate. I do not like debates to be interrupted by points of order, but she has put her point on the record.