UK-China Relations

Debate between Catherine West and Emma Lewell

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West]

I can certainly confirm that the audit will be made public before the end of the spring. Dates in the diary with the Foreign Affairs Committee are a matter for the Chair of that Committee, and anyone who dares to go against that Chair will be a very frightened individual indeed! I am sure that at any invitation, the Foreign Secretary will appear before the Committee, to speak on any topic. The House will have seen the marked difference between this Government, who are working hard to protect and pursue our interests, and the previous Government, who failed to stand up for British interests by having the difficult conversations with China that are so necessary.

I turn to national security. Any Government’s first duty is to keep the country safe, and we remain fully committed to that mission. We have taken strong action through the National Security Act 2023, which gives us robust powers to protect our industries and institutions. The UK is clear that attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, undermining democracy and the rule of law, are utterly unacceptable. That is why we invited some of the British national overseas passport holders who have personally been put at risk by those sorts of disgraceful actions. That is why our defending democracy taskforce is driving a robust and co-ordinated response across Government and law enforcement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand), who is a doughty campaigner for British national overseas passport holders, made a very important point. The Government are taking a reasonable and proportionate approach to creating secure and resilient growth for the UK. With careful handling, national security and growth can be mutually reinforcing. We will continue to bolster resilience to economic shocks and tackle economic-based threats to national security. I ask anybody who has personal experiences and is concerned about any BNO passport holder in their constituency to write to me or to the Minister for Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), immediately.

Growth and economic security, of course, are crucial and we cannot ignore China, given that it is the world’s second-largest economy and our fourth-largest trading partner, worth over £110 billion per annum. That shows why the partnership is so crucial for UK and global growth. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) said, it is so important that that growth must be secure and resilient. He was quite right to point out a number of threats to that growth—including questions about public procurement, intellectual property and tech—and how it dovetails with our domestic industrial strategy. As he is aware through the role that he has here in Parliament, the domestic industrial strategy will be developed in concert with the China audit. I welcome his experience in understanding the depth of complexity around materials, in particular, and I look forward to hearing more about his expertise in that area.

On climate, in particular, and net zero, it is also essential that we engage China on global challenges. As the world’s largest investor in sustainable energy, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the largest producer of coal, the choices that China makes are critical to global efforts to tackle climate change, not just in China but across the world.

On human rights, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised issues on which we need to challenge China. He is aware that it is our duty, as the Government, to hold China to account on its human rights record, including its repression of people in Xinjiang and Tibet. I refer him to the item 4 statement at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, fresh off the press, which reflects his concerns about freedom of religion or belief, which he has raised in this House on a number of occasions.

I turn to the UK’s long and historic relationship with Hong Kong. Forgive me if I run out of time, Ms Lewell. I hardly need to tell the House how deep and strong our people-to-people and trade links with Hong Kong are. That is why the Government will continue to stand with the people of Hong Kong. Since the launch of the British national overseas visa route, we have granted more than 219,000 applications, and we will continue to welcome and protect all Hongkongers who have made the UK their home in recent years. The Government recognise the ongoing erosion of rights and freedoms that are threatening Hong Kong’s way of life.

I briefly turn to Taiwan, which the Opposition spokesman raised. The UK—

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order.

Local Radio: BBC Proposals

Debate between Catherine West and Emma Lewell

Thursday 22nd June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

That is not me, no.

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has pre-empted a point that I will make later in my speech.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

As somebody who understands the ins and outs of local government, does my hon. Friend agree that BBC local radio, which often takes a much more detailed approach to a problem than other media, is very important to those who want to follow local government decisions? It often provides really good scrutiny—much better, in fact, than that provided nationally.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. At a time when people are losing faith in politics and politicians, it is vital that all voices are heard, not just in this place but in local government.

Disgracefully, the BBC started these cuts during the pandemic, asking more than 100 staff to take voluntary redundancy, stripping back the schedules, forcing all shows to have four-hour slots with solo presenters, and axing specialist programmes. That set the scene for homogenising practice at all local stations, making it easier for the BBC to make the cuts that it wants to make now and merging everything from 2 pm onwards. For the nation’s flagship broadcaster to introduce those changes without consulting the fee-paying public is pretty galling.

As a fee payer, I am angry that my views were not sought, but I am angrier about the loss of jobs and talent at the BBC that these changes will cause, and the loss of service to my fantastic constituents. Digital exclusion in the north-east is the highest in England. The north-east is the region with the highest proportion of disabled people, and my area of south Tyneside has the largest elderly population in the north-east, a group who have already been battered by the changes to the over-75s licence fee. Those are the very groups who not only listen to local radio but rely on it the most. When the BBC’s director general appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, he said that the changes were “critical for local democracy”, but when it comes to the north-east he is simply wrong—these changes are quite the opposite.

The director general also claimed to have empathy with striking staff, yet MPs across this House have heard how disgracefully staff have been treated, how he is presiding over a toxic culture of fear and paranoia and how the reselection interviews related to the cuts in local radio have been embroiled in workplace bullying. Little wonder that in a recent survey, less than one quarter of BBC television and radio staff said they had confidence in the their senior leadership team. I pay tribute to those workers, and their union, who have bravely spoken out not just for themselves but for their 5 million-plus listeners—more than listen to Radio 1 or 5 Live.

Local radio employs some of the best journalists we have in the country. Anyone who is in doubt should just re-listen to the disastrous round of interviews that the previous and brief incumbent of No. 10 did last year. She underestimated and undervalued those journalists, just as their employer is doing now. We are now in a scenario where the BBC is blaming the Government, as its revenue is down from the licence fee freeze, and the Government are simply saying, “Well, that’s up to the BBC.” The reality is that with these changes the BBC is not adhering to its own charter, it is not delivering on contributing to social cohesion, and at the same time—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Catherine West and Emma Lewell

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

12. What steps he is taking to ensure that all ministerial correspondence relating to the Government’s response to the covid-19 pandemic will be made available to the public inquiry.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

13. What steps he is taking to consult with covid-19 bereaved families on the public inquiry into the Government’s handling of the covid-19 pandemic.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Catherine West and Emma Lewell

Wednesday 24th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

What steps the Government are taking to support the recovery of the Northern Ireland economy from the effects of the covid-19 outbreak.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

What steps the Government are taking to support the recovery of the Northern Ireland economy from the effects of the covid-19 outbreak.

Funeral Poverty

Debate between Catherine West and Emma Lewell

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David; I thank you for allowing me to sit through the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on securing the debate. Funeral debt affects a growing number of people, but the private nature of grief and the social pressure to provide a decent send-off means that those people do not always have a voice. One of the things that we should always do in this place is speak up for the voiceless so the hon. Gentleman has done those people a great service by calling this debate today.

Perhaps like other hon. Members, the issue first came to my attention through a constituent who had got into serious debt paying for their brother’s funeral. At the time, I assumed that such cases were relatively rare but, sadly, that is not the case. More than 100,000 people are living with funeral debt, while others struggle to meet the costs, end up selling their possessions, or turn to friends or family to cover the cost. These debts are significant. Royal London’s national funeral cost index shows that the average debt is £1,318.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend know that since 2004 there has been an 80% increase in the price of funerals, but wages and benefits have increased only fractionally in line with inflation—if not, they are struggling to keep up with inflation? The average social fund funeral payment was £1,225, which means that there is a huge gap in what is affordable. Would she congratulate Quaker Social Action on its excellent work in this regard?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I would definitely like to thank Quaker Social Action, which I have done a lot of work with over the past 12 months. I am aware of some of the quite startling stats about this growing problem mentioned by my hon. Friend. I really do not think it is going to go away; it is going to get worse. Worryingly, as she said, the cost of a funeral service continues to rise well above the rate of inflation and the average debt is rising.

Losing a loved one, as most of us will sadly know, is one of the most difficult experiences we face in our lives. It shakes us and changes our world forever. In the middle of that personal turmoil, the last thing that people need is money worries. People will always feel a strong duty to do right by others when they depart, which makes it especially painful for those who are not able to provide what they see as a fitting service for their loved ones. That is why we need to have a really serious conversation about funeral affordability.

Hon. Members may be aware that in the previous Parliament I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill. The aim of my Funeral Services Bill was to approach some of the issues around funeral affordability. At the centre of the Bill was a call for the Government to carry out an overarching review of funeral affordability. When researching the issue, it quickly became clear how many factors affect the price of a funeral and how many Departments have a stake in it. Making funerals more affordable is not simple and requires co-operation between the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Ministry of Justice; only a cross-departmental approach can work. I hope that the Minister can give us a commitment that the Government will begin to look strategically at funeral poverty.

I am aware that there is not enough time to cover everything, so I will focus on one thing that should be reformed urgently: the way in which social fund payments operate. Funeral payments give people much-needed support, but the system has some major flaws. A funeral payment covers all of an applicant’s necessary costs plus up to £700 of other costs. That might sound reasonable enough, but, in fact, those other costs include things such as funeral directors’ fees and ministers’ fees—things that we can agree most applicants would consider necessary. The £700 cap was set in 2003 and has not kept pace with the rising cost of funerals, so funeral payment awards are increasingly inadequate. The average award is just over £1,300 at a time when the average funeral costs £3,700. If the cap on other costs had risen with inflation, it would stand at just under £1,000 today. As we have heard, funeral costs rise even faster than inflation. Although I appreciate the comment by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys that the social fund is a contribution, the reality is that if we want funeral payments to be fit for purpose, that cap needs to rise.

The other issue is the way applications are administered. At the moment, the DWP requires an invoice from the funeral organiser before it can process a claim, which means that people have to commit to a service before they know the value of the funeral payment they will receive. Inevitably, that means that some people commit to a funeral service they cannot afford and end up in severe debt. The process is completely backwards. The DWP urgently needs to look at how it can give applicants a clearer idea of the support they will receive, which will help people to make a more informed decision about the kind of service that is right for them.