Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Wendy Morton

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 1st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is an absolute pleasure to speak here today in support of the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield). She has clearly done a tremendous amount of work, on top of the preparations and foundations that had been laid by the right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Ms McVey), who first presented the Bill to the House. As someone who has taken two private Members’ Bills through this place—my aim is to make it a hat trick, but who knows? It is all down to the ballot—I really appreciate how much hard work my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes has put into getting the Bill this far. I sincerely wish it a safe and secure passage through its remaining stages here and in the other place, so that it can take its rightful place on the statute book.

My hon. Friend has a prison in her constituency, and she therefore brings a huge amount of experience and knowledge to the debate. I cannot bring any such experience, but I know that my constituents are very interested in the Bill, as I am sure all our constituents are. The fact that this topic has frequently been raised at Home Office questions is a further indication not only of the fact that the Government take the issue seriously but of the interest in it from Back Benchers and from our constituents.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that even those of us who do not have prisons in our constituencies understand that people who have been locked away to protect the public should not be able to communicate with their former criminal associates in our constituencies?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes a valid and pertinent point. People who go to prison should not have the connections and privileges that those of us in the outside world enjoy. I know that a lot of my constituents would take that point on board as well.

The main aim of the Bill is to authorise public communications providers to disrupt the use of unlawful mobile phones in prisons. When I was reading the background papers for the Bill, I was interested to note that in 2016, approximately 13,000 mobile phones and 7,000 SIM cards were found in our prisons. The number of phones represented an increase from 7,000 in 2013. Those shockingly high numbers are a further indication of why the Bill is so important. I hope that it will make it easier for the governors of our prisons to tackle this problem. It is a way for us to show that we are on their side.

The illicit use of mobile phones undermines the safety and security of our prisons and enables criminals to access the internet. It is unacceptable that criminals should be able to continue to direct illegal activity from behind bars. The Bill will create a new power for the Secretary of State to authorise public communications providers to interfere with wireless telegraphy in prisons in England and Wales, in addition to the existing authority that can be given to governors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. What we are trying to do here is tackle the problem while keeping a focus on what prison is all about. It is about trying to reduce reoffending, and about rehabilitation.

A number of years ago, I visited an organisation in the north of England and met one of its pastoral workers. He explained to me how some individuals seemed to go through a revolving door, in that they would go into prison, come out, reoffend and go back in. It is not right for those individuals to be caught up that sort of lifestyle, nor is it good for others in prison. Importantly, it is also not good for our communities, so my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) makes an important point. It is worth remembering that almost half of all prisoners are reconvicted within a year of release, and the cost to society of reoffending by former prisoners is estimated to be up to a staggering £15 billion a year, so this Bill is vital.

I had intended to ask the following question of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, but I failed to intervene, so perhaps she or the Minister will clarify this later. Will the Bill create an extra burden on prison governors? My understanding is that it will not and that it will actually make their job a lot easier, but it is important to get clarity on that for those listening to the debate.

If we can take this Bill through Parliament and if we can transfer powers to public communications providers, that will enable us, the Prison Service and prison governors to stay a little more ahead of the curve or at least keep close to it. We all know how quickly mobile technology, and technology in general, can change, and we so often hear how quickly new powers that we have legislated for can become out of date because those who seek to do us harm are one step ahead of us. I therefore hope that the Bill will go some way towards addressing that.

[Kevin Foster]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill’s key purpose is to shift powers to the providers? Ultimately, it is the providers that have the technology and the teams of skilled people. The Bill also is about them ensuring that their networks are not being used to continue criminal activity by those behind bars, from whom the public should be protected.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. The Bill will hopefully give the initiative to those who are at the heart of technological advancements so that we do not have to legislate again if we are behind the curve after six months or a year. This is about the Government working in partnership with prisons, governors, the Home Office and providers. If we can get it right, that has to be the way that we continue to move forward. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton is nodding. I appreciate that she cannot contribute to the debate, but it is so good that she is here and lending her continued support to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes.

I want to touch on one or two other points about mobile phone use in prisons, which is often raised in the Chamber. If I check my record, I think I will find that I have asked questions about it. As Mr Speaker knows, I frequently ask questions on various topics that affect my constituents and my constituency—as he would of course expect. The Government have made it clear that the illicit use of mobile phones undermines the safety and security of prisons and enables criminals to access the internet, which should not be the case. In addition to the Bill, other action is being taken to tackle the issue of mobile phones in prisons because the number of devices seized continues to be high, as I said earlier.

Some £2 million has been invested in detection equipment, including handheld detectors and portable detection devices. Every prison in England and Wales—I sadly note that no Welsh colleagues are here today, but I am sure that they are listening to the debate—is being equipped with technology to strengthen searching and security, including portable detection poles that can be deployed at fixed points, such as at reception, and extra portable signal detectors to use on the wings in support of searches. In September, an invitation to tender was launched for the testing and purchasing of new equipment to block mobile signals at close range. Other new technology is being trialled, including body cameras, to tackle the threat posed by contraband smuggled into prisons, which includes mobile phones.

This is a further example of the Government’s continuing good work to support those working on the frontline—in this case, our prison officers and governors. A few weeks ago we debated the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill, which is another good example of the Government and the Opposition working together to protect the protectors.

I will support the Bill, I sincerely wish it good and safe passage through the House, and I look forward to following its progress.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak on Second Reading. It will come as no surprise to those who follow my contributions in this House that this is exactly the sort of Bill that I like to be here to support on a Friday. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) has picked up the Bill, following on from the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Ms McVey), and introduced it, having been lucky in the ballot. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), I had a private Member’s Bill passed in the last Session and came to watch the doffing of caps as it received its Royal Assent. It is always good to see people coming forward with ideas, and it is a reminder that Back Benchers can make a difference in this place.

[Wendy Morton]

On Back Benchers introducing legislation, does my hon. Friend agree that sometimes what seems like a small piece of legislation—often just one or two clauses—can make a big difference? I believe this Bill will do that.

[Kevin Foster]

My Bill will make a big difference to the future of community radio, and this Bill will hopefully make a big difference to protecting many of our communities.

As I said in my earlier intervention, this is not just a Bill for people who have a prison in their constituency. This is about preventing people who have been sent to jail by the courts—particularly those who have been jailed as a deterrent and to protect the public—from continuing their criminal activities via modern technology. A Victorian designing a prison such as Dartmoor, which is remote and outside Princetown, would have thought prisons keep people away from communication. Many of our jails are located away from populations.

The idea for keeping people in prison is not just to punish them but to protect wider society. That means preventing people from running their activities in prison. When most of our jails were built—even 20 years ago—the explosion of technology would have been unimaginable. At that time a phone call could have been made via a mobile network, but people now effectively have an entire computer on their smartphone. They are able to tweet, to use social media and email, and to go on encrypted sites. These forms of communication are all far beyond any unopened letter, and our law clearly needs to keep up to date with that huge change. Even when the rules were passed a few years back, smartphones, smartwatches and various other items of wearable tech that could be smuggled into and used in prisons would have been unimaginable.

I welcome the Government’s action to stop contraband getting into prisons, but there is an obvious solution, which is to block the signals. That technology exists, and the onus should not be on a governor to turn over a whole jail to try to find every last phone. Likewise, people on duty need to be alert at all times, so use of technology is not a sensible part of their working day.

The onus should also be put back on the operators. Most operators will be up for this, because I cannot see any national network wanting to install a mobile mast to deal with demand from a local prison. They will not want to do that. [Interruption.] Mobile phones can sometimes even be heard in this Chamber, which shows their reception. [Interruption.] I do not know what on earth that is. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend on that. Modern phones can monitor someone’s heartbeat and health, and do a range of other things. We have just touched on how they can even be used to determine location, which becomes a real issue as this technology gets more accurate. One of the great train robbers was helicoptered out of a prison, so knowing exactly where someone is in a large complex can be a very useful piece of information for someone looking to carry out a violent break-out. Making it clear that someone cannot just be pinned down via mobile phone or a piece of wearable tech is one of the things—

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) for giving us the benefit of her wisdom. I was concerned that you might look at this Bill and think that there is perhaps some use for it here in the House of Commons, Mr Speaker—let us hope not! On a more serious point, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) was touching on security and safety in relation to the mobile phone that went off a few moments ago, and he was making a salient point. Does he agree that at the heart of this Bill there is something important in relation to the safety and security of prisons, all the prison staff and everybody who resides in a prison?

[Kevin Foster]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on that. I suspect that someone might propose an amendment in Committee to say that we should define this Chamber as somewhere where certain things can be interfered with, particularly the noise of a mobile phone.

This Bill is about public protection. It is not about putting in place a rule just to spoil someone’s fun. It is about taking someone offline and stopping them using technology for harassment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) discussed, for the purpose of continuing to manage their criminal gang, for locating exactly where someone is in a jail or for intimidating prison staff. I will not provide names, as it is not appropriate for me to do so and I do not have this person’s permission, but I have had to deal with a member of our prison staff who was badly assaulted while doing his duty in one of our prisons. He explained to me that sometimes certain prison staff will be targeted by some of the inmates and by gangs outside. Again, technology does not help us on that, as it allows images to be taken, people to be located and others to see who is there. We forget that a mobile phone is not just a way of communicating; it is a way of recording almost everything that is going on.

[Wendy Morton]

I wonder whether this Bill will also help to reduce prisoner-to-prisoner bullying and harassment that could occur through mobile phones.

[Kevin Foster]

It has the potential to do so, although there will always be issues with those who are confined in spaces because of violent offences and the backgrounds they have. My key concern is preventing their being able to do this outside and to continue intimidating victims. I have a particular concern about those on remand intimidating witnesses. The whole point is that they are in on remand to prevent them from absconding and from interfering with a witness, who may be the main part of the evidence against them. An ability to communicate outwards opens up opportunities to do so or to co-ordinate with people with whom they should not be co-ordinating via a mobile phone. The technology is in place, which is why it is right that through this enabling Bill—it does not set out the whys and wherefores—we are allowing providers to switch off those phones. As I mentioned earlier, they do not want their networks to be used for these purposes. They want to ensure that they are secure.

I am conscious that time is moving on. I am pleased to support the Bill and I note the work that is being done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills pointed out, when about 13,000 mobile phones are seized in prisons each year that is not just a minor problem. I welcome the efforts being taken in every prison in England and Wales, and, given that the operators work on a UK-wide spectrum, I hope that there would also be co-ordination with authorities in Northern Ireland and Scotland—although no Members from those two nations are in the Chamber—to crack down on people in jail.

I suspect another technology we will return to is drones, and how they start to impact on safety and security in prisons. We have seen dramatic footage online and in the media of what is happening, and it would be interesting—although probably not in this Bill—to discuss how we can use technology as it develops to prevent drones from entering certain areas or to interfere with their command signals. That will probably not just be an issue for prisons, and I know that a Bill on drones is forthcoming. That will be a good thing for us to debate.

It is absolutely right that today’s Bill has been introduced, because, ultimately, it provides that stop. We can do a lot of work, we can have body scanners, checks and cell searches, but ultimately the way to kill off a mobile phone is to break its signal and stop it being used. We need to say to the operator that they have the ability to do so, and that there are ways in which they can locate a phone that is being used, as we have seen in cases of missing persons or that have tracked back what was happening with a phone. Fundamentally, a mobile phone regularly being used within the confines of a prison wall is a mobile phone that should not be being operated. It should be switched off. It is a potential breach of the sanctions.

As has been said, people are sent to jail as a punishment for criminal offences or because, in order to protect the public, it is in their interest to take away an individual’s liberty and certain ways of communicating. None of us would suggest that someone on remand for a sexual offence should be able to put letters into the postal service without their being monitored; the situation should be exactly the same in this instance and with electronic communication.

[Wendy Morton]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill sends out a strong signal to those in prison that the use and holding of a mobile phone will not be acceptable anymore?

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It will send out a strong signal by helping to cut off a signal; ultimately, that is what the Bill will do.

I am conscious that we are on Second Reading. There will clearly be opportunities in Committee and on Report to explore the Bill in greater depth, and any commensurate orders that the Government introduce to implement it will offer the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny.

I totally welcome the Bill, which is part of our catching up with modern technology and ensuring that people are kept safe. That is why it is vital that it is given its Second Reading and that it has Government support. I am certainly looking forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister’s comments. I welcome the debate so far and hope all hon. Members will give this Bill the Second Reading it deserves.

Crown Tenancies Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Wendy Morton

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He championed this Bill in the Session last year, so I am pleased he is in Committee today. He makes an interesting point with his question about how many Crown tenancies there are. It has been estimated that about 500 Crown tenants fall into this category. Most Departments have a number of Crown tenants—examples include the Forestry Commission, the Department for Transport and of course the Ministry of Defence, which I will come on to later because its accommodation is slightly different.

At the moment Crown tenancies probably number in the hundreds. Members of the armed forces who live in service accommodation are not Crown tenants; they get a licence agreement, not a tenancy. However, the Ministry of Defence has plans from 2018 to grant tenancies to service personnel and their families who occupy service family accommodation, which means that some 45,000 service personnel in England and Wales will become Crown tenants and will benefit from the provisions in the Bill.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

To be clear in my own mind and for the benefit of the Committee, the MOD is looking to alter its licence agreements to tenancies anyway, so service personnel will become Crown tenants and then benefit from this change, which will give them added protection. Is that how it works?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is right. It is useful to clarify that. I understand that he has a particular interest in the MOD. For a number of years, I was a forces wife, and although we did not live on married patch, I understand the importance of the Bill. When the MOD makes that change, military families will get the extra protections.

I believe that the assured tenancy regime gives Government Departments ample flexibility to carry out their business. It works for private landlords and I see no reason why it should not work for public ones too. Of course, there will be exceptional circumstances where it is necessary to get possession of a property quickly, and it is important that we provide for those circumstances.

The Bill contains five key measures. First, it brings most Crown tenants within the assured tenancy regime and gives them the same level of protection as tenants of private landlords. Secondly, it retains a specific exemption for properties that have been compulsorily purchased by the Department for Transport in order to build the high-speed rail scheme between London and the west midlands.

Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Wendy Morton

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 3rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I shall deal with the point in some detail when I speak about amendment 3. However, I agree that the thrust of the Bill is to enable community stations to go on to DAB. Theoretically they are already able to do so, but at present the scale is so large that very few operators of community stations have that opportunity. The example of London is often given. London’s local area is London, so community station operators wishing to operate in a particular part of it would find it extremely difficult to do so, because they would have to pay the costs of transmission to London. The sponsor’s message about an MOT for a car in Croydon is unlikely to be very relevant to someone living in Barking and Dagenham.

As I said in Committee, the Bill should be seen as the first stage of a three-stage process. It provides a legal framework for Government action. Without it, the DAB community sector simply will not exist, and the 10 trials will disappear. It also provides for a very limited ability to amend primary legislation through the affirmative procedure for specific purposes. That reflects what was done with community radio in 2004 and with local television in 2012, in strikingly similar circumstances and for strikingly similar purposes. I know that Members rightly wish to be careful about provisions of that kind, but I think that this provision makes sense, given its striking similarity to parliamentary precedent. The second stage will be the orders that will be necessary to create the detailed structure, which will be subject to detailed consultation. The third and final stage will be the issuing of licences by Ofcom to the individual multiplex operators.

Amendment 1 asks for public consultation. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Digital and Culture confirmed on Second Reading that the Government would initiate a full consultation on the details of how the new licensing scheme for small-scale digital radio multiplexes should operate. That consultation will enable the Government to take account of the different views expressed by community and commercial radio operators, and provide appropriate protections to ensure that licences offered by Ofcom are taken up and the position of community stations wanting DAB carriage are protected.

[Wendy Morton]

I am not expecting a timeframe to be set today, but may I stress the importance of ensuring that the consultation process is long enough to allow community radio operators to feed in their views?

[Kevin Foster]

My understanding is that the Government will have a suitable timescale to allow all to contribute. It is also worth saying that groups like the Community Media Association are already well aware of this Bill and its provisions, and I suspect that many operators, in particular community stations, will be starting to think about the contributions they will wish to make to the consultation.

My hon. Friend is welcome to intervene again if I am wrong, but I assume that her amendment is to ensure that the consultation requirement will apply to orders made under the Bill, rather than requiring a statutory consultation on each individual licence issued under those orders.

[Wendy Morton]

Yes, I confirm that.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I therefore hope Members will accept that if every order under this Act were required by statute to be subject to a full public consultation, that would strike at the heart of the intention behind this Bill. The intention is to create a regulatory framework that can be flexible and adaptable within a defined area under this legislation. It may therefore not always be appropriate for every order made using this power to be preceded by a full public consultation. The Government do need to have the flexibility to act quickly to correct deficiencies or make minor and technical changes without having to wait for the conclusion of a consultation—a consultation that could make very little sense to all but a very small number of those involved in the technical side of digital radio.

The technology is moving on significantly. Obviously, internet stations, which are not regulated at all, are able to broadcast with no licence as such, but, with technology moving on and new technologies developing, things can become even more simple, and it is right that the Government have the ability to reflect that, but more serious changes would need to be the subject of consultation. However, if statutorily we say that any order under this power needs to have a consultation, that could be inhibiting or, as I have touched on in previous debates in the House, could lead to consultations that very few people will wish to engage with, or feel there is anything meaningful to be said, as effectively they are about technical details.

My understanding is that once the initial consultation on the new regime is complete, the Government will set out the detailed licensing and regulatory arrangements in an order, which will in turn be subject to debate by both Houses of Parliament before coming into effect. There is also parallel work for the Government to do with Ofcom on other detailed arrangements relating to the functioning of the new licensing regime. I hope that gives my hon. Friend the explanation she needs as to what consultation will happen, and she will agree to withdraw her amendment.

Turning to my hon. Friend’s second amendment, I fully appreciate the sentiment behind it—touched on in the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake)—particularly given the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for promoting legislation that benefits charities, although I hope that for the reasons I am about to set out she will also agree to withdraw this amendment.

Under the Bill, proposed new section 258A(4)(c) already enables the Secretary of State to

“require small-scale radio multiplex services to be provided on a non-commercial basis.”

This gives an opportunity for a requirement to be placed in a licence, where appropriate, that it must seek to provide a basic infrastructure to an area, rather than be done on a profit-making basis.

As I mentioned on Second Reading, we must be clear that a multiplex is about providing the infrastructure for small-scale DAB operations; it is not the individual services we would tune into, although of course inherently we need the infrastructure for those services to exist. This means that part of the objective behind the amendment is already provided for in the Bill. It would not be the right approach to definitively require through this Bill that small-scale multiplexes be provided on a non-commercial basis in every instance, because this issue will be subject to the consultation.

I believe there are likely to be opposing views in the future consultation as to whether services on the multiplex should include those being run on a commercial basis, and I would not want to prejudge the consultation by closing off this option in the Bill. I would also state that while it is not a specific aim of the Bill, any future move to have a totally digital broadcast system for radio would require an option being provided to small-scale commercial stations to move on to DAB. The current system of national and local multiplexes does not do that, as evidenced by the lack of growth of genuinely local stations going on to existing multiplexes.

The evidence from the 10 trials indicates nearly 70 unique radio services being provided, and the breakdown of them by Niocast Digital—also quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds—showed that 18.3% were existing community stations, 9.2% were existing commercial stations and 72.5% were new formats. I hope this will give significant comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that community stations are getting on to DAB when this kind of structure is in place, as we have seen with the trial schemes, and as I would envisage being the case under the Bill’s provisions. Again, as mentioned earlier, the detail of how the new licensing regime should operate will be subject to full consultation and the detailed arrangements will be set out in an order. In turn, that will be subject to debate in both Houses of Parliament, again providing an opportunity for Members to ensure that community radio objectives are included.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

The Bill gives permission for some of these multiplexes to be run not for profit, effectively as community multiplexes, and there is some evidence that other operators—I gave the example of a university or a local authority—might wish to provide the infrastructure. I make it clear that we do not want to get into the game of local authorities running radio stations—that is not a council’s job. We could run the infrastructure under this licence for not-for-profit purposes, but a commercial station that makes a profit could be carried. The key issue is that, at the moment, someone can go from running an internet radio station in their bedroom to running a small-scale FM operation, and then build up their business and their listeners to become a more significant company. Under current regulations, someone wanting to go on to the digital system in some areas needs to be turning over £1 million a year to be able to pay the broadcast fees as part of that turnover. That is why this Bill is so important.

I am conscious of time, so I will wind up. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills to withdraw her amendment for the reasons that I have outlined. I also urge the Community Media Association and groups such Radiocentre, which have been active in contacting Members, which I welcome, to work with the Government through the consultation to produce the best outcome that can deliver the objectives that I have outlined. This Bill is about opening up an opportunity, giving community stations a chance to go digital and helping stimulate creativity as we have seen in the 10 trial areas. I will say more on Third Reading, but, for now, I hope that my hon. Friend has received the assurance that she needs and will withdraw her amendment.

[Wendy Morton]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his explanation. He has gone a long way to reassure me by explaining the work of the trials. I see this as the start of the process. For that reason and for the need to keep this Bill flexible, I will, with the leave of the House, withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Third Reading

Parking Places (Variation of Charges) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Wendy Morton

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 3rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.

I welcome the broad thrust of the Bill, not least in the context of my time in local government. When we wanted to do something to support retailers at Christmas or some other event, we found that altering parking charges in a local authority car park or other location required a formal consultation, although the likelihood of someone writing to us to say “I would like to pay more to park my car” was virtually nil. When I was both the cabinet member for economic regeneration and the deputy leader of a council, we were spending thousands of pounds to achieve next to nothing. In some cases, we would find that we were not able to do what we wanted to do.

My new clause is intended to probe the views of the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick), and those of my hon. Friend the Minister, with whom, when we occupied our respective posts in adjoining local authorities, I had exchanges for many years on everything from regeneration plans to council tax. It is a pleasure to see him in the Chamber today, and I look forward to hearing his comments later.

The current consultation procedures are intended to protect motorists and town centres from higher charges, but I wanted to make it clear beyond doubt that the Bill’s aim was to make it easier to reduce parking charges rather than making it easier to increase them. The Bill will certainly be helpful to Torbay. Each year, we have winter charges and standard charges. Standard charges apply throughout the summer and are slightly higher than the discounted winter rates, because in winter large car parks near a beach are unlikely to be particularly full. We do have some hardy swimmers, though, and there is usually a large event every Boxing day in both Torquay and Paignton. I see the Minister nodding: he is welcome to join us for a nice refreshing dip on a Boxing day morning. The requirement is to get one’s hair wet, to show that one has really gone into the water.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

As always, my hon. Friend has brought to the House a wealth of experience of the council in his constituency. May I ask him how the new clause would work in practice?

[Kevin Foster]

In practice, it would work in the same way as the Bill, but it makes it absolutely clear that the Bill deals only with circumstances in which car parking charges are being lowered temporarily, and that there is no prospect of orders, for instance, to increase them. Local newspapers have strongly defended the requirement for formal notifications and consultations, and rightly so, but the new clause is intended to make clear that that will apply only when parking charges are not being increased.

[Wendy Morton]

Is my hon. Friend saying that he does not think councils should be able to raise parking charges if they need to do so?

[Kevin Foster]

No. I think it is clear that if a local authority decided that raising charges was appropriate, it would be able to do so under the existing procedures, although consultation would be necessary, and, obviously, the authority would be answerable to its electors. Any authority considering increasing car parking charges must carefully consider the overall impact, not just whether it will get a couple of thousand pounds extra from a car park. The Local Government Finance Bill Committee this week heard evidence—the Minister was present—from the Federation of Small Businesses about the impact that increasing car park charges can have on town centres and on businesses. Local authorities will in future have 100% retention of business rates, and if a town centre is not regenerating and does not have people shopping in it, that will hit the bottom line as much as not getting an extra 10p from each car that parks in the car park.

[Kevin Foster]

I do not think my hon. Friend’s intervention is heavy-handed at all; it is right that we discuss probing amendments to Bills robustly on the Floor of the House. There is already some provision in this regard. My own authority, Torbay, held the Torbay airshow last year. It was clear that one of its car parks would be very congested, so to avoid undue congestion it closed the car park for the day of the airshow but arranged for to be booked via a separate means. The solution met the need on the day, but if it was put in place more widely and challenged there would be a question about whether it was the right way to proceed. It was just a fix for the day.

If a council is going to look to take money out of large events in the manner suggested—for a market day-style event—it should go through a proper consultation process. One way of ensuring that large crowds do not come to events is for people to attend, park in a car park and feel they have been ripped off for parking; traffic congestion reduces the following year, because no one comes back. There is clearly a balance to be struck. It is great to have events that draw people into town centres. I am the Member for Torquay and Paignton, and most days of the week my town centre has problems with lots people wanting to park and shop, causing congestion; that is quite a pleasant problem to deal with, compared with the issues of the decline of the town centre that we have seen over the last 30 to 40 years.

I believe in local democracy. Councils do need to have the ability to decide to increase parking charges, and ultimately be accountable to voters for that. We can all think of instances of a council controlled by our party deciding to make a quick buck out of car parking, but paying the price for it at the ballot box shortly afterwards.

[Wendy Morton]

On raising car parking charges and car parking charges in general, must not revenue from car parking charges—the Minister might confirm this later—go into improving parking facilities and not go to other parts of council funding?

[Kevin Foster]

No, councils can make a reasonable surplus from their car parking and contribute it to their bottom line. It is a shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) is not present, as I think he would confirm that the town council in Stratford-on-Avon owns the car parks, rather than the district council, and, given the popularity of Stratford as a visitor destination, almost funds its operations—legitimately—through its car park ownership.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. To be clear, I absolutely welcome the thrust of the Bill, as I have said on a couple of occasions, and making it easier to reduce car parking charges by having two separate systems. The Bill removes the need for formal adverts in local newspapers and reduces the length of consultation periods when prices are being reduced, but I tabled the new clause to probe whether that is the Bill’s definitive intention. I do not note any specific wording stating that the Bill is purely about decreasing parking charges. I accept that that is absolutely the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth, and I look forward to the Minister confirming that that is the Government’s intention, but I felt that it was appropriate to explore the matter further. I had hoped to see specific mention made of reducing charges, and I will consider withdrawing my new clause based on the commentary I hear today, but it is right to explore whether the Bill is purely about decreasing car parking charges.

A decrease in charges could perhaps be used to encourage people to attend special events. Classic examples of when many councils may decide to use such measures are Armistice Day or Remembrance Day. Many councils have a policy of not enforcing standard parking charges on certain days of the year, but that is legally a bit messy. People should pay in theory but may see a sign saying, “We are not enforcing the rules today.” The Bill would allow that sort of thing and allow discounts on particular days or for particular events. The other classic examples are Christmas day and Boxing day. Both are easily included in orders about off-street parking, but that is more difficult with moveable feasts. I fully accept that councils should not draw up exhaustive lists of every single event or every day on which they may want to take 50p off car parking or make it free for an hour or two. As I have said, I welcome the thrust of the Bill, but I want it to be clear that it is only about creating a system to make it easier to reduce, not increase, car parking charges.

The Bill is worthwhile and I am delighted to see it making progress. It is about reducing burdens, reducing bureaucracy and ensuring that money is not spent on pointless consultations—something that I will mention in the not too distant future when discussing my Bill—but I want its intention to be clear. That is why I tabled the new clause, which I hope will provide the basis for some debate, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments. Again, I stress that I absolutely welcome the Bill, making it easier to reduce car parking charges for particular events, but that is not explicit in the Bill.

Our legislation and debates should be clear. Someone sat in the Gallery or watching at home should be able to understand our exact intention from reading the Bill and when we make provisions. If I go down the Dog and Duck tonight and say, “Someone is thinking of making provisions about something under legislation,” the response would be, “What on earth are you talking about?” not, “Oh yes. They’re talking about offering a discount deal in the car park the next time there is an event.” That is why it is appropriate to explore the Bill in more depth on the Floor of the House and to suggest this new clause. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply and to deciding whether to press the new clause to a vote.

[Wendy Morton]

I want to say a few words about my hon. Friend’s new clause. I can see the sentiment behind it, because he is drawing attention to the Bill’s title: Car Parking (Variation of Charges). I appreciate that that is the jargon and legalese of this place, but to a member of the public, a taxpayer or a constituent, “Variation of Charges” does not make it 100% clear whether the Bill is about prices going up or down, so I now start to see why my hon. Friend tabled his new clause. That said, I read it for a while and tried to understand where it would fit in the Bill, which is why I asked at the start of the debate how it would work in practice. Quite frankly, I could not see its point—[Interruption.] I suppose I must apologise to my hon. Friend. He made a good argument, but I am not going to agree with him on this occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I totally accept the intention of this noble and worthwhile Bill, but it is not made absolutely explicit to someone who picks up the Bill or reads it on the Parliament website that it is about variation down, not variation up. That was the point of tabling the new clause.

[Wendy Morton]

That was the point that I was endeavouring to get across. It is about the wording. My hon. Friend referred to speaking to constituents at the Dog and Duck. I do not think we have a Dog and Duck in Aldridge-Brownhills—if I am wrong, I am sure that somebody will soon tell me—but we do have many other good watering holes. When we get an opportunity as Members of Parliament to ensure that our constituents fully understand the legislation that we are taking through this place, that can only be a good thing. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the new clause to a vote, because I know how I will be voting. I will be speaking on Third Reading because my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) has promoted a good, straightforward Bill that will help constituencies, constituents and local authorities right across the country. I am looking forward to listening and contributing further over the course of this morning’s debate.

Leaving the EU: the Rural Economy

Debate between Kevin Foster and Wendy Morton

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

My answer to that is short and simple: absolutely yes.

Agricultural support is being maintained until 2020 to provide stability while a new agricultural policy is being developed, and we are guaranteeing for their lifetimes any agri-environment schemes that are already in place or are agreed in future, even if they run beyond our departure from the EU. Anything we can do help to build a sense of stability will be good for the industry.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Wendy Morton]

I am going to continue because we are short of time.

One of the issues that local farmers have raised with me is the workforce and the need to attract the next generation—which is why this stability matters—but also the need to ensure that the agricultural sector has the workforce it needs for today. That is why it is so important to recognise that the PM has said she wants to protect the status of EU nationals already living here.

Turning more directly to the motion, it is disappointing that its primary focus is on farming and fisheries. Vital though those industries are, as are the comments we have heard today, let us not forget that in a rural economy there is also tourism. There are also the very many small and medium-sized enterprises in other sectors that come together to form the backbone of our rural economy. In fact, the rural economy is part of our country’s economy as a whole—the economy that Government Members continue to build and strengthen further. I acknowledge that there will be challenges in the Brexit era, but let us understand that there will also be opportunities, and go out there and find them.

Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Wendy Morton

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 13th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

FM is an analogue transmission, and most community stations currently broadcast on FM. With DAB, people tune in using the name of the station. On a digital radio, we search not for a frequency but for a station name. You never know, with more opportunities for digital radio there could even be a station called Hedgehog DAB Community Sound— a local station dedicated to promoting the benefits of having the hedgehog as our national animal. I know that my hon. Friend takes that matter very seriously and that he has brought it to the House on several occasions.

Many of us probably already listen to digital radio and will wonder how this Bill fits in, what its purpose is and what small-scale multiplexes are. Three national digital radio multiplexes currently broadcast between 10 and 19 stations each. Those are the most popular stations—I will not give them any promotion as they really do not need it—that can be heard in virtually every part of the United Kingdom. Different transmitters across the country broadcast a selection of services that does not vary from location to location, and about 97% of the UK’s population can receive one of the three national multiplexes. There are also 58 local commercial DAB multiplexes, covering approximately county-sized areas. Each broadcasts up to 14 commercial radio stations as well as the relevant local BBC station for the area. According to figures from the Library, over 90% of the UK’s population should be covered by one of those multiplexes. In my area, for example, I can receive BBC Radio Devon and some of the commercial services that currently operate on DAB.

However, one instantly realises that there is a real gap between all that and what most people recognise as the third layer of radio: community radio. We have national radio, regional radio and then the small-scale community radio stations that many people know and love.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that community radio is an oft-forgotten layer? We hear about the big names in radio, but community radio reaches right into the heart of many local communities.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting observation. In some cases, community radio can become quite famous across the country—I will touch on hospital radio later—because it reflects the community in which it is being broadcast. As I will go on to say, some communities have different language services that would not necessarily have an appeal across the UK, but they speak to a particular need and provide people with what they want to hear. There is an explosion of opportunities on the internet, so it is strange that what one can get on to the radio is restricted. We even have the bizarre situation in which many areas can receive more TV channels, broadcast free-to-air to homes, than radio stations. That contrasts with the situation that most of us will remember from about 20 or 25 years ago when we still only had the main analogue TV stations, but radio had started to expand. The Bill seeks to expand that sort of choice so that people can get more local news and things from their local community that mean something to them, but not necessarily to an entire region.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

At the moment, they are, in effect, operating under a trial basis that Ofcom has created. If the Bill did not proceed, I suspect that they would be able to continue on a trial basis, although I have seen indications that they might not be able to do so, because it is a trial. To be blunt, if the current system is reinforced by the failure of the Bill, with Parliament deciding that it would rather stick with having the national operators and the current 58 local areas and that it did not wish to see things on a smaller scale, at some point those radio broadcasts would need to be brought to an end. My guess is that some might move purely to internet broadcasting, restricting their audience, and others might seek to switch to a community FM licence. This could be one of the few examples of this Parliament saying, “We can see a new technology breeding, coming on and creating new opportunities, and creating more diversity of media, but we would rather you all went back to just FM only, with the national operators the only ones able to take advantage of this.” In other debates we sometimes get a misleading picture presented that people in this country get their news from only one source, which is palpable nonsense when we think about the number of options that exist. If we do not want to create the type of opportunities this provides, having seen what they are, that would be a negative step. I see the Minister indicating agreement with that element of my comments. I am sure he will wish to comment on the future for those stations if we do not seek to create a permanent structure of small-scale multiplex licensing. It is safe to say that the future would be rather grim.

We know that the technology works, and we know the operators who did this succeeded and created new services. So the technology is there and the gap in the licensing is there, so the next thing to address is whether the demand exists.

[Wendy Morton]

Will my hon. Friend say a few words about preparedness and whether the infrastructure is in place? Is it going to be financially viable for some of these community radio stations to move on to the multiplexes?

[Kevin Foster]

The infrastructure currently is not in place, and we are dealing here with creating the licensing for small-scale multiplexes to allow its creation. On the costs, we know that the existing multiplexes work reasonably well for larger-scale operators; as I have mentioned, those with a turnover of more than £1 million might find this an option for them, although some would debate whether there is, in effect, a monopoly in some areas. I am not looking to affect that situation; I seek to create an opportunity for small-scale operations. The feedback from the industry is strongly that the opportunity is there and the technology is there in an affordable way, particularly with the potential use of tall buildings, rather than having to build separate broadcast masts, but the opportunity of licensing is not in place legally.

As I have said, this is not about forcing anyone to do anything: the Bill does not compel the Minister to provide a service by subsidy; and it does not compel the BBC to spend licence fee money in setting something up—it gives people an opportunity to set something up. My strong belief is that there is genuine demand to take this step, for reasons that I will set out in a moment, but if we do not do it, we are merely blocking it out in legislative terms. We have seen the impact of the trial, with new services coming along. We have seen those develop and flourish, but if we do not want to create that opportunity, we have to ask why not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), who talked with so much passion about her local radio station. She is a good advocate for all things in her constituency.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on presenting the Bill. I will shed a little light on his hard work and determination in pursuing a slot for this important Bill. Reference has been made to the sleepover at the House of Commons to secure Bill slots, a well-known practice to those of us who are determined to try our best to get legislation on the statute book. All I will say is that a number of us were there that night, and there was no DAB radio to entertain us, but we certainly had the “Bong! Bong!” of Big Ben chiming throughout the night. I leave it at that.

The Bill is techy in parts, but it is very important and much needed. It will create a lighter-touch licensing regime for the new small-scale radio multiplex services that have come out of the Ofcom small-scale DAB trial. It was pleasing to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) refer to the word “dab”, and during my research I sought confirmation that we are talking about DAB—digital audio broadcasting—and not the viral dance in which a person leans into their elbow as if they are sneezing. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to know that I will not be doing any dabbing in the Chamber today.

Let me get back to the more serious aspects of the Bill. About 250 community radio stations and 200 smaller commercial stations are currently transmitting on FM and do not have the opportunity to broadcast on digital radio. Near my constituency, we have Ambur Radio in Walsall and a number of local radio stations in the Birmingham and west midlands area. I hope that if the Bill proceeds through this place and gets on to the statute book, more community stations and more local stations will be encouraged to start up.

There are two reasons why such stations do not have the opportunity to broadcast, the first of which is the insufficient capacity available on local DAB multiplexes. As we have heard, a multiplex is a way of broadcasting digital radio, whereby a number of DAB radio stations are bundled together to be transmitted as digital data on a single frequency in a geographical area. That is a much more efficient way of transmitting stations than FM, AM and other analogue methods. The second reason is the prohibitive costs of broadcasting on these existing DAB networks. DAB broadcasting is currently transmitted via three national multiplexes, Digital One, Sound Digital and the BBC’s national DAB service, with an additional 58 local commercial DAB multiplexes covering county-sized areas, but the cost of broadcasting on such a multiplex is quite large. These multiplexes have a limited capacity and can carry only a certain number of stations, meaning that the biggest county or countrywide stations can afford to broadcast, whereas smaller community stations, which serve a much smaller area, are simply priced out of broadcasting on the multiplex.

We have heard a lot today about Ofcom’s work and the trials it has been doing. This Bill seeks to address the issue of capacity by enabling Ofcom to modify the various procedures, provisions and conditions that are attached to the award of radio multiplex licences so that more local and community stations can be broadcast on small-scale DAB multiplexes. Surely that must be a good thing for all Members and all of our constituents.

For several years now, the Government have been discussing the digital radio switchover, and I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay refer to that in his speech. Much like the digital television switchover in 2012, the digital radio switchover will see broadcasts moving from the current analogue platform to a digital one. For that to happen, however, criteria would need to be met before starting any process of digital switchover. I was therefore pleased to hear him assure us that the Bill is all about choice and opportunity.

[Kevin Foster]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the focus here is on giving an option for community stations to go on DAB—nobody is going to be forced to go off FM? I am happy again to give the reassurance that the Bill is about giving an option for the third tier of radio, community radio, to go on to DAB if it wishes to do so. Nothing in the Bill would force those wishing to stay on the current analogue transmissions to move away from them.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful again to my hon. Friend for giving us all that welcome reassurance.

There are many reasons why DAB and the digital switchover is important—the first, and most essential to this Bill, is choice. My hon. Friend has just reassured us again on that. The variety and quantity of stations available is the main motivation for listeners to use DAB. A huge number of stations are available, and we have heard many examples given this morning. These range from stations that play jazz music non-stop all day, children’s stations and religious stations through to those that play only heavy metal—I have not listened to any of those. The FM spectrum has only limited space and is currently very crowded. DAB provides a greater space, meaning more stations and therefore more choice for consumers and more space for local communities.

Broadcasters are currently paying double transition fees on FM and DAB, as they broadcast the same station on multiple platforms. Cutting their costs allows broadcasters to invest further in the technology of DAB. Surely that must be a good thing. Digital radio offers the possibility to develop content and innovation much better than analogue does, be that scrolling text or slideshows, and the ability to pause, rewind and record live radio. Many people have come to expect that as the norm now. As with most things, there are naturally some negatives to DAB. We heard earlier that reception is currently far from perfect, often being described as a cliff-edge—as you may know, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is either a perfect signal and reception, or absolutely nothing at all. I am hoping you are on the same wavelength as me today.

Homelessness Reduction Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Wendy Morton

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 28th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss). I share her support for the Bill, but I could not help noticing one or two specific points that she made. There was, for example, her talk of local government funding. My memory goes back reasonably well over the last two years, and I am reminded of what the current “Strictly Come Dancing” star and former shadow Chancellor Ed Balls said about the extra funding that Labour would make available to local government. It was a round figure, to say the least, and it was not the figure 10.

It has been interesting to hear some of the comments that have been made today, but I want to return to the welcome and genuine cross-party spirit that produced the Bill. As a constituent pointed out to me on Twitter a few moments ago, we need to be clear about the fact that homelessness is not always visible. It is not just about people sleeping rough on the streets. Indeed, most homelessness is not about someone sleeping in a shop doorway, although that may be the most visible manifestation of it, and obviously the most concerning. Much of it involves people who are not in appropriate accommodation, such as families who are living in houses that are too small for them and their needs, or people who are sofa surfing. Some people do not have a home of their own, and would be out on the street but for a kindly family member or friend who says, “Here is the sofa”—or the floor—“and you can at least be somewhere warm and dry.” That, however, is not much of a step up from being out on the street.

[Wendy Morton]

Could not those sofa surfers, and others who are not actually visible to us when we walk around our constituencies or around London, be described as “the hidden homeless”? Does that phrase not encapsulate their situation?

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Wendy Morton

Report: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak on the second day of consideration of this very important Bill and to follow hon. and right hon. Friends and colleagues, as well as the many learned friends and colleagues—[Interruption.] I did not quite expect to hear that noise from the skies during my opening comments; I do not normally have this sort of impact.

I do not wish to disappoint people, but unlike my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) I sought neither inspiration nor cake from Kipling. Instead, I turned to the American scientist and author Neil deGrasse Tyson, who wrote very perceptively:

“Any time scientists disagree, it's because we have insufficient data. Then we can agree on what kind of data to get; we get the data; and the data solves the problem. Either I’m right, or you’re right, or we’re both wrong. And we move on. That kind of conflict resolution does not exist in politics or religion.”

Very wise words, I think.

I believe that the advantage scientists have over the rest of us who base our judgments on instinct or hope should also be available to the people who keep us safe, our security personnel and the agencies in which they so importantly serve. I appreciate the sensitivities and difficulties with this topic of bulk powers, but I feel that the Bill has had a lot of scrutiny. It has been a long time in gestation, and rightly so.

Our security services need data, the raw information—perhaps from dozens of sources. They need the hundreds, perhaps thousands of pieces with which to build a picture of the threats that face us, and they then have the knowledge to take the right action against them. In today’s world in which data are all around us, our security personnel need to be able to collect them and to have the right, with safeguards, of course, to pull them all together.

There was a good deal of discussion on Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report on the nature of bulk powers and bulk review. It saddens me that a notion seems to have developed among some that the security services, given the chance, will use new powers to hoover up all the information on us all without any control at all. I think that that perception is false. Why? As we have been told, the bulk powers referred to in this Bill are already provided for in existing legislation. The Bill brings them together and, importantly, makes them subject to robust statutory safeguards.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that, as mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), having one Bill that brings consistent tests to this area and to the use of this power makes eminent sense and that that is why it should be supported?

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. He is absolutely right; it makes sense to bring these powers together and, while doing that, to consider the safeguards.

Yes, the Bill provides our security and intelligence agencies with the ability to obtain data in bulk in order to identify new threats and to learn more about existing threats, but I feel that it does not confer on them new and sweeping powers. Our intelligence agencies have bulk collection powers but they do not conduct analysis of the data in an indiscriminate manner without reasonable suspicion—it would not be lawful for them to do so. In the modern world these powers, which already exist, are crucial. Bulk capabilities are crucial.

To investigate a target, our agents need to be able to acquire its communications in the first place. When a target is overseas, bulk interception is one of the key means, and may be the only means, by which we can obtain communications that would otherwise not be available. This is especially so if that potential threat is operating in an area where we have no strong diplomatic link or where the governing authority is not in control of all its own territory. We know from yesterday’s debate that bulk powers and their use have been instrumental in keeping us safe from threats abroad and, indeed, at home. It is worth noting that the bulk powers in the Bill have already played a significant part in every major counter-terrorism investigation of the last decade, including in each of the seven terrorist attack plots disrupted since November 2014. They have been essential in identifying 95% of the cyber-attacks on people and businesses in the UK discovered by the security and intelligence agencies over six months. Here at home the existing powers have been used to identify serious criminals who were seeking to evade detection online and could not be pursued by conventional means, supporting the disruption of more than 50 paedophiles in the UK in the past three years.

I would like to quote the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who is no longer in his place but who has been contributing to today’s debate. He is a former Attorney General and not, if I may say so, a man who lightly allows liberties to be chipped away. He said of the Bill:

“The present Committee and its predecessor are satisfied that the Government are justified in coming to Parliament to seek in broad terms the powers that the Bill contains. None of the categories of powers in the Bill—including the principle of having powers of bulk collection of data, which has given rise to controversy in recent years—is unnecessary or disproportionate to what we need to protect ourselves.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 836.]

Of course, some will disagree with the former Attorney General and they rightly have the opportunity to do so, but I happen to agree with him on those points.

Finally, I want to touch on calls from Labour and the SNP on Second Reading and in the Public Bill Committee for independent validation of the operational case. We should recognise that the Government have listened and, in response to those calls, have confirmed that David Anderson QC will undertake a review to inform the passage of the Bill through the House of Lords. Parliament will then be able to decide.

I will support this Bill as one that codifies the law as much as it extends it, and that builds robust safeguards against intrusion while at the same time safeguarding the public. I believe that it is an extremely important Bill—important to our country, important to the people of our country, and important to our constituents.

Brain Tumours

Debate between Kevin Foster and Wendy Morton

Monday 18th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Buck. Along with others, I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on introducing this debate. Maria Lester should also be congratulated on raising this issue; I do not wish to state the obvious, but without her petition there would have been no debate here today, so we would not have had the opportunity to share many personal stories and to raise this important issue with the Minister. It has also been an opportunity for me personally to learn more about this subject. As a newer Member of Parliament, I am still struck by how often constituents come to us and share their very personal experiences and stories with us; it is often very moving and very touching.

An earlier speech touched on people’s ignorance of this subject matter. In doing research for today’s debate and in sitting here listening, I, for one, have learned an awful lot—and I am sure I have an awful lot more to learn. As we heard today, the Petitions Committee released its report on funding for research in March. That report called for more investment in research into brain tumours and revealed the distress of many sufferers and their families whose lives have been devastatingly affected. It also helpfully explored the reasons behind the historical underfunding of research under successive Governments. I was quite shocked to read that brain tumours are the ninth most common cancer in the UK and they kill more children and adults under 40 than any other cancer—yet, while the incidence is increasing, there has been little extra allocated to research. That is one reason today’s debate is so important.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes powerful points. While I congratulate my constituent, Peter Jordan, on his efforts—he recently completed the Plymouth half marathon to raise funds for this cause—does she agree that, given the figures she has mentioned, what we need to see is real commitment from the Government to funding research?

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Yes, I do hope that the Government are listening today. We must continue to raise this matter. As a local MP, I recently read a heartbreaking email from a grandmother about her grandson. I then received an email from a mother, telling me about her son. At that point, it hit home that the grandmother’s grandson was the mother’s son. It highlighted to me that it is not just sons, daughters or grandchildren who are affected, but cousins, aunts, friends and colleagues; it extends way beyond the immediate family. Those emails compelled me to come along today and speak in this debate. The young boy sadly passed away, aged just 14, after surgery, chemo and radiotherapy, seven years after being diagnosed with a high-grade tumour. I cannot imagine how that family must have felt. Sadly, as we have heard from the many examples shared with us today, that family is not alone.

Charities, clinicians and scientists do amazing work. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) spoke about people who raise money through charities, doing sponsored runs, marathons and all manner of things for causes that are very close to their hearts. Yet, although technological advances help, brain tumours remain very difficult to treat and continue to take many, many lives each year—too many lives. I conclude simply by saying that I am looking forward to the Minister’s response, especially on how to raise awareness, how to improve research and, ultimately, how to improve the outcome for patients and their families.

Yemen

Debate between Kevin Foster and Wendy Morton

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will bear in mind the time limit. It is a great pleasure to follow the thoughtful speech by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), given the passion he brings to this issue as a result of his background.

The first point for me is this: why does this conflict matter to us in the UK? Why has the MP for Torbay taken time on Thursday afternoon to come along to this debate? For me, there are three clear reasons. The first is Yemen’s geographical location. Back in Victorian times—I made this point recently during an urgent question on this issue—Suez was one of the key trade links for the then British empire, and it is still one of the seven key maritime pinch points. Therefore, stability in Yemen matters to global trade. Given that Aden was, for many years, a British protectorate, there is also a moral duty on us to retain an interest in the area and how it has developed. In many ways, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) touched on, we have played quite a significant role as a country over the last 100 years in shaping what governance on the modern Arabian peninsula looks like.

The second point is that problems do not stay within one nation’s borders. We have seen that dramatically illustrated in Syria, with the refugee crisis. The UN warned back in December that 14 million people are what it terms “food insecure”—an interesting way of describing people who may starve if they do not get assistance.

The third point is humanitarian concern. My predecessor in Torbay brought to my attention on social media today some of the heart-breaking images coming out of Yemen as a result of the conflict. Those very much reminded me of a statement by Robert E. Lee:

“It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it.”

The right hon. Gentleman very personally illustrated the impact on people on the ground.

It is also worth remembering the security threat that exists in the midst of this conflict, and that is what I will focus my brief remarks on. In the middle of the battle between the Houthis and the forces loyal to President Hadi is al-Qaeda. Both President Hadi and the Houthis oppose al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which has staged numerous deadly attacks from its strongholds in the south and south-east. Western intelligence agencies now consider al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula the most dangerous branch of al-Qaeda because of its technical expertise and global reach.

[Wendy Morton]

Does my hon. Friend agree that regional instability makes this issue even more urgent? We need to find a peaceful solution to the problem so that we do not create a bigger vacuum, into which organisations such as al-Qaeda can move.

[Kevin Foster]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Where we have spaces in conflicts—especially spaces where no Government and no system of law and order exists—these groups are able to fester, grow and develop their abilities. We saw that in Afghanistan during the time of the Taliban, and we are seeing it in Syria, where a civil war has allowed Daesh to grow, fester and build its capabilities. As we have seen in Yemen and other parts of the middle east, having these spaces where no Government exist creates a danger to our security and global security, and we cannot just ignore that.

With President Hadi’s co-operation, the US has been carrying out operations, including drone strikes, but the advance of the Houthi rebels has seen that US campaign scaled back. Therefore, a quarrel between two enemies of al-Qaeda is making it easier for al-Qaeda to develop and become more of a threat. As we have heard, there is the prospect of the fighting spilling over into neighbouring countries, not least into Saudi territory. While we all have our views about some of Saudi Arabia’s bluntly appalling domestic policies, such as the lack of religious freedom and the use of the death penalty in a way that we in this country find unacceptable and certainly would not contemplate, we must sometimes be careful what we wish for, because some of the potential alternatives in that country are not those of a modern, liberal, western democracy.

Looking back to the Arab spring of 2011, many of us, perhaps naively, hoped that it would be very much like the 1989 “velvet revolution” that swept through eastern Europe, sweeping away dictators and despots and replacing them with the relatively modern democracies that we have today. Yet experience shows that some of the forces that have been unleashed since 2011 have not been those of freedom and tolerance—in fact, quite the opposite.

It is therefore right that we work with the Saudi Government and the wider coalition to try to bring peace to Yemen based on a United Nations resolution. With regard to our supporting the Saudi armed forces, I have to say—this may be a point of difference with some Opposition Members—that I would rather that is done by our forces, who have human rights and international law ingrained in their operations, than potentially by some other countries’ forces who have within the past 30 years engaged in things that we would find unacceptable.

We cannot just ignore this situation. We cannot turn a blind eye while we see children being dragooned into fighting for rebel groups and terrorist organisations, and a three-way war threatening to spill over and threaten the security of some key maritime routes and the stability of the wider region. It is not for the UK to do this on its own, and we are not doing it on our own. We need to make sure that international law is applied and that all parties to the conflict respect their obligations. I think that ultimately, working with our partners through the United Nations, we can bring peace. I welcome the interest in this subject expressed in this debate.

Central and East Africa

Debate between Kevin Foster and Wendy Morton

Monday 25th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who always speaks with such knowledge on matters concerning Rwanda and, indeed, Africa. Conflict rarely stops at international borders—refugees do not stop at a border—so when there is instability and insecurity, the worry is that that will spill over into a much wider area.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting point. As we regularly see on our TV screens, the focus is on the issues in the Mediterranean, but does she agree that the long-term solution is about tackling the causes of poverty and conflict in sub-Saharan and central Africa? That is what prompts people to start on the journey through the Sahara, where many of them die even before getting to the Libyan coast.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes a very interesting and valid point. I was about to move on to the issue of migration and to talk a little about refugees. We are hearing and seeing—as well as holding such discussions in the Chamber—many debates about economic migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, and about the movement of people across Europe. It is even more important that we tackle the root causes and do what we can to maintain stability in the home country. That means that democracy is a crucial element in development. Strengthening global security also matters, as does corruption, which we have already discussed this evening.

To bring my short contribution to a conclusion, I want to thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for bringing this debate to the Chamber because it is important to remember and keep in our minds Burundi, Rwanda and the whole of the region. It is sometimes very easy to think about different parts of the world, which are also important, but there are ongoing issues in many such countries and the countries of the region need us to keep them in mind. We must ensure that the Government’s diplomatic and humanitarian actions continue, and that we keep the focus on such countries. I will listen carefully to what I am sure will be an interesting update from the Minister.

NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Wendy Morton

Friday 22nd January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

Absolutely. As I am explaining, the amendments, worthy of consideration though they be, are not necessary in the light of the research I have done, and they would fundamentally change the objectives of the Bill.

The amendment to make

“provision for one trustee to be appointed by the NHS institution…for whose benefit the charitable trust exists”

is an interesting one, but again I do not believe it necessary. Under the new independent charity model there can be a “blend of trustees”, meaning there can be a link to the hospital—on the proviso that the NHS members remain in the minority. That is important. When we are seeking to move away from Secretary of State appointments to a more independence model for special charities, it is the word “independence” that is crucial. These charities are seeking to be independent of Government for fundraising and many other purposes.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend may be aware that the Public Accounts Committee recently considered a report on the sustainability of NHS trusts, many of which are in deficit. Does she agree that if they had a right to appoint a trustee, it could reinforce in the public’s mind that these charities are about back-filling money into the NHS that could or should be provided by the Government rather than being independent charities providing extra money to what is provided by the Government and the public sector?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The key point of my private Member’s Bill is to enable this group of charities to achieve what they said they wanted in the consultation, which is a shift away from the Secretary of State’s powers to appoint so that they can demonstrate independence. The charity world has moved on so much since charities were first created, and the model of governance needs to change in the same way.

What makes this particularly interesting is that previous rules surrounding the appointment of individual trustees were restricted to one linked person only. In any case, I believe that the new arrangements in the Bill—not the amendments—are far better and far more beneficial because this “blend of trustees” helps further to help and enhance communications and understanding by both the charity and the trust. Surely that can only be a good thing.

If I may, as the Member in charge of the Bill, I would like to touch on amendment 9, which deals with the use of the NHS logo and was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). I shall not make too many references to fashion. Although I could make many a link between logos—and, indeed, brands—and fashion, I shall leave Members to draw their own conclusions about the fashion, style or otherwise of my hon. Friend. To be fair, he raised the issue of the NHS logo on Second Reading, so it is only right for him to bring it forward today as an amendment for consideration. I bow, if not to his fashion sense, to the grace and eloquence of his style in speaking to his amendment today. Perhaps we could share some lessons.

The term “logo” can be defined as a symbol or other small design adopted by an organisation to identify its products, uniforms, vehicles or perhaps a company or organisation. It is often uniquely designed for ready recognition, and I think the NHS logo fits that definition. It is instantly recognisable, and the public know exactly what it is all about. However, I cannot support the amendment because I believe it is a matter best explored through the Department of Health or perhaps through the memorandum of understanding, which is part of the move to independent charity status. It should not become part of this Bill.

At risk of sounding—hopefully not appearing—more like Hook than Wendy Darling, I will bring my comments to a conclusion by simply saying that although we have explored worthwhile amendments this morning and raised some important points, I shall not support any of those amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend makes excellent points about the difficulties in reaching everyone. In the consultation that created Cornwall Council, there was a major discussion to be had on, I believe, six district councils and one county council being merged into one. There was significant media coverage on, for instance, BBC “Spotlight” and BBC Radio Cornwall, but still, even after all that, some people will have said, “I didn’t know the consultation was going on,” or “I didn’t know exactly what the nature of the consultation was.”

I sat through discussions about future local government structures, including referendums on an elected mayor, during my time in the midlands. People could, I think, engage with some things—for example, planning decisions or social services decisions—but in terms of how a local charity board is structured at the local hospital, and who can make appointments, how they are structured and the process gone through to make them, I cannot see many people saying, “I want to go out to talk about that on a Tuesday night in mid-February.”

If we are having consultations, they should be meaningful. On the question of what is “appropriate”, we should be asking what the appropriate stage is of decision making for each item. As I have argued in the Chamber before, on major constitutional change—the voting system for this House, for instance, or whether we abolish, or significantly change, the other place—we would probably at least need a manifesto commitment, and without that people should be directly asked for their consent to make that change. In terms of the fundamental constitution, it should have the direct consent of the people, therefore. At the other end of the spectrum, however, none of us would argue that the things that this House deals with through secondary legislation would be appropriate subjects for public referendums.

We should ask what the appropriate process is, and in this case the appropriate level of consultation would more be along these lines: “Yes, the charities should talk to each other and, yes, they should go through the normal process to appoint trustees by speaking to their members, but they do not necessarily have to host a public meeting to discuss that.” If this amendment were passed, there would be the nonsense that these particular charities would be required to go through a public consultation, yet the vast majority of charities in this country, who are regulated under the normal method for charities, would not have to do so. I recognise the intention of my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Maggie Throup) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) in wanting people to be able to engage with the NHS and its services, but this amendment is not the right way of going about it.

On amendments 1, 3 and 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), I found the level of doom and disaster that was presented as possibly affecting these particular NHS charities quite interesting. If anyone listening is thinking of becoming a trustee, they might be slightly put off from doing so when they hear all the things that could possibly happen to them as a member of the board of trustees of one of these charities. I am not at all convinced that we need special provision in this Bill for these charities, rather than the wealth of charitable legislation that we already have, including a Bill currently before this House to change that legislation.

I do not think these amendments would tackle the issues, and worst of all they still give the idea that the Secretary of State is in control of a charity. As I said on Second Reading, at the heart of this Bill is independence. It is about these charities not being seen as an arm’s length part of the Department of Health—not being seen as government by the back door.

[Wendy Morton]

Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that these amendments on trustees, which seek to re-establish the powers that my Bill wishes to remove, represent a regressive step, rather than the progressive step the Bill seeks to deliver?

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is right. The whole point of the Bill is to free these charities from being, in effect, arm’s length parts of the Government. If we say, “We want to free you, but now we want to pop back in the Secretary of State having specific powers that do not apply to any other charities”, that is not a coherent argument and it would not produce coherent legislation. Hon. Members may have concerns about how charities are regulated and whether someone can go off to the Seychelles with the money, but that is a debate about the wider system of charity regulation in this country. They should not seek to put something specific into this Bill that adds another layer of bureaucracy for the charities involved, given that the whole point of the Bill is to get shot of such bureaucracy. I am not persuaded by those amendments.

Amendment 9 deals with the NHS logo. It was put forward eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), but, sadly, I will not be joining in the fashion of supporting it. I appreciate that the bodies it deals with are working closely with the NHS, but so, too, do other charities. For example, the Torbay Hospital League of Friends has its own logo and it successfully raises money for Torbay hospital. The name makes it obvious what it is linked with.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Kevin Foster and Wendy Morton

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

I could not agree more. Even I got out the knitting needles and learned how to knit again. It was a case of knit one, purl one and then drop several, but I did my bit, as did everybody else. The community came together, worked together and had a bit of fun for an incredibly worthwhile cause.

Small charities often play a huge part in our local communities. They provide something over and above, or in addition to, what the Government or the public sector provide. Those small things often make a big difference to the lives of individuals and their families.

Through my involvement with social action projects over the years, I have been extremely fortunate to get to know many charities, both in the UK and overseas. I have also spent time with other Members on projects working with charities in Rwanda.

As some Members will be aware, a private Member’s Bill of mine is going through this place, to help Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity. I had the great pleasure of visiting the hospital and seeing some of the fantastic work it does in supporting patients. It is involved in building projects and has a chapel, and it does a huge amount of paediatric research. None of that would be possible without the work of the charity and all the people involved in it.

Sadly, the results of high-profile charity crises can damage trust in charities. It is really important that we do all we can to maintain and strengthen that trust, and the Bill demonstrates the importance of having an effective charity regulator.

I support the Bill because it will provide stronger protection for charities in England and Wales. It will also equip the Charity Commission with new and stronger powers to tackle charity abuse more effectively and efficiently.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is making some strong points in support of the Bill. Does she agree that, in order to keep the flow of funds coming in from the public and from donors, it is vital that abuse is not possible and that the public have confidence that there is a mechanism to tackle it?

[Wendy Morton]

Absolutely. Trust and confidence are critical. That is why I believe that robust but proportionate action should be taken where serious mismanagement occurs. It is about maintaining and strengthening trust in a vital sector and enabling all charities, both large and small, to continue to do their work.

I have one plea, which is that the Bill needs to ensure that smaller charities are not disproportionately affected by any bureaucracy or too much legislation. It does not matter whether a charity is small or large: charities have so much to give to our country, society and communities, and I will do all I can to ensure that they get the support they deserve.

NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc.) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Wendy Morton

Friday 6th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes a useful point. The important point is that whereas the NHS charity can benefit from this new independent model, there will always be accountability. This is not public money but money that comes from benefactors and donors, so it is right and proper that the trust instilled in the process of giving is maintained at all times.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a great speech in support of her Bill. Does she agree that that very independence gives beneficiaries the confidence that their money is spent as intended and that the wealth of charity law is there to ensure that funds are put to the right purpose?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I shall explain that a little more later, but the Bill is about creating independence while maintaining accountability. I believe that we are looking for a route to enable these charities to move forward and to be on a more level playing field with some of the big charities operating across the country. Let us not forget that this is something that they have been asking for.

Collectively, across the country, about 260 charities exist to receive and manage charitable funds on behalf of NHS bodies. I am sure that everyone in the House would agree that they do fantastic work and that many Members are aware of local hospital charities in their constituencies. My preparation for this Bill made me think back to when my sister, who was five or six at the time, spent six weeks in the local NHS hospital and my mum was able to stay near the hospital thanks to accommodation that was provided either by a “friends of” organisation or a local charity that provided that sort of sheltered accommodation. Without that, she would have had to make the long journey to and fro every day. I am sure it made a huge difference, not only to her, but to the whole family.

Hon. Members will be interested to learn that just over £345 million was raised by these charities in the past financial year, supporting patients and staff right across the country. I am sure everyone in this House would agree that they make an outstanding contribution and are deserving of our support. Members may be asking why it is necessary to legislate, and that is a perfectly good question. It is one that I have asked, and I now wish to answer it. In simple terms, the Bill is good housekeeping; it is a matter of follow through. The charitable environment has moved on and there is a need to provide certainty in an already complex world and a complex structure. The Bill seeks to remove the Secretary of State for Health’s powers to appoint trustees, so it will draw that process to a conclusion. The Bill is overdue and it makes sense.

Currently, 16 NHS charities have trustees appointed by the Secretary of State for Health and are directly affected by the Bill. They are bound by charity law and NHS legislation. They are currently unincorporated and their trustees have unlimited liability. This means that the 16 NHS charities will choose either to revert to a corporate trustee model, meaning that the board of the NHS body for which the trustees were appointed acts as trustee of the charitable funds, which is how many NHS charities already successfully operate today, or, as many of the 16 have indicated they would like to do, they can convert to become independent charities without Secretary of State-appointed trustees.

[Wendy Morton]

I will come on to deal with some of those benefits later. Anyone would think my hon. Friend had read my speech, because the next words on it are “six charities”. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that no one has seen it. Six charities have already completed the transition to independence. They include Barts Charity, which raises money for Barts Health NHS Trust, including St Bart’s hospital. That was the first to convert to an independent model. The others are Alder Hey in Liverpool; Birmingham Children’s Hospital Charity, which is close to my constituency; and Guy’s and St Thomas’. The Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospital Charitable Fund has also become an independent charity. They are all able to benefit from greater independence and less bureaucracy.

[Kevin Foster]

Why was it necessary to bring a Bill before Parliament to deal with these issues and make these changes? Why could a legislative reform order not have been used?

[Wendy Morton]

An LRO was mentioned to me early on when I was doing my research on the Bill, but this Bill covers two parts; one is the Great Ormond Street part and the other is about the trustees, so an LRO was not appropriate as it was not the right vehicle to enable those things to be brought together and taken through Parliament. There was a streamlining of the process, with no duplication and less bureaucracy.

The other charity to have converted to independence is Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity. It has started the process of moving to independence. I have made specific reference to it because of its unique status and the need for specific legislative change, and I will come back to that point later. A further six have now notified the Department of Health of their intention to convert to the independent model. Another is in the process of reverting to a corporate trustee model, which will be completed by 1 April. Of the remaining nine, about half have agreed to independence, but have not yet formally informed the Department of Health, while the others are in discussion with their trustees and hospital boards. Clearly, many have made the decision, and many others are in the process of doing so.

Earlier in the summer, I met the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), and I have written to Members whose constituencies have an NHS body with trustees appointed by the Secretary of State, which would be affected by my Bill, to keep them fully informed. The Bill is supported by Great Ormond Street Hospital charity and NHS charities more generally. It also has the support of the Association of NHS Charities, with which I have met. Recently, I attended a forum where I spoke to some of the association members. I was reassured by their support for the Bill and by their feedback about how it would affect them in a positive way.

The parts of the Bill that would effect the change are intended to be brought into force on 1 April 2018, which gives this group of 16 hospital charities time to consider and to finalise their positions. Lines of accountability would also be simpler, as the new independent charities would be accountable to the Charity Commission, with the additional management bureaucracy no longer being needed.

I am grateful for the support of the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, who is in his place and in whose constituency Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity is based. During the summer, I was very fortunate to go to Great Ormond Street hospital and to meet some of the charitable trusts. I met the staff and learned at first hand about the tremendous work that they do in support of the hospital, staff, patients and families. I was lucky enough to be taken on a tour of parts of the hospital; it is the most amazing place in the world. I visited the Peter Pan ward and the chapel—I do not think that there is a Wendy ward, but who knows?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

In a nutshell, the figure is significant, and I will come on to that shortly.

The charity funds vital support services that care for the child and often the whole family: financial advice, parental accommodation, as well as spiritual support and helping families to stay together and manage their lives during what can be very difficult and trying times.

The Great Ormond Street hospital charity has a large number of donors, individual companies and, I am told, celebrities who support their work. On fundraising, Members will be interested to know that the charity raised £80,981,000 in the financial year 2014-15—an increase on the previous financial year—so the figure is indeed significant.

One of the most generous donors in its history is, of course, J.M. Barrie. As the Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity is keen to take advantage of the opportunity to move to independent status, specific legislation is required to provide for the rights to the “Peter Pan” royalties to be given to the new charity. The idea of royalties being paid to a charity is not unusual in itself. As we approach the run-up to Christmas, I am reminded of songs recorded for charity where royalties go into charitable trusts, but the relationship between Great Ormond Street hospital and “Peter Pan” is different. It is already a unique situation, and a unique solution is required to enable the rights to the crucial royalties to be given to the Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity, so that Great Ormond Street hospital can continue to benefit from the generous J.M. Barrie bequest.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous with her time in allowing interventions. Will she clarify something? Does Great Ormond Street receive royalties from only the original book featuring Peter Pan and Wendy, or does it receive them from subsequent publications and performances?

[Wendy Morton]

The charity continues to receive royalties. In fact, there are many productions of “Peter Pan” around the country in the run-up to Christmas, and the charity continues to receive royalties or agreed donations when such productions are performed. We must ensure that the charity continues to get those royalties, which makes the Bill even more important.

J.M. Barrie donated all rights in “Peter Pan” to Great Ormond Street hospital in 1929. He died in 1937, but the hospital enjoyed a further 50 years of royalties. On the eve of the copyright expiring, the J.M. Barrie bequest acquired its unique legal status, as a direct result of Lord Callaghan’s amendments to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which ensured that, despite the copyright in the work expiring on 31 December 1987, the special trustees for Great Ormond Street hospital would have the rights to royalties in respect of all commercial publications or public performances of “Peter Pan” and would hold them on trust for the purposes of Great Ormond Street hospital. The relevant provisions are found in section 301 of and schedule 6 to that Act.

The royalties are now held in perpetuity, so J.M. Barrie’s generous gift will continue to benefit very sick children and their families for as long as the hospital exists. My Bill seeks to support the continued legacy of this great children’s author from Kirriemuir in Scotland. I do not know whether any Member present in the House today has heritage or roots in Scotland, but there is certainly a link back to north of the border.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Charities depend on the money and time donated. That might mean time donated to raise funds for the charity or, as she mentions, for other work. Everyone can take part, rich or poor. An hour donated is an hour donated. As she will know, Torbay hospital’s cafeteria is staffed by volunteers. It not only raises money for the charity in the hospital but provides a service. People might have come in and heard not great news, or they might be anxious and stressed with a relative in hospital, and they get a valuable pastoral service over a cup of tea and a cake from volunteers who, in some cases, have been involved for many years. They provide an excellent service.

Today, we are naturally talking about the structures and finances of a charity. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said, we should ensure that the money cannot go on Lucky Lad in the 3.10, but we should also not forget that volunteers are at the heart of charities and how they operate and work. If the charities are truly independent, that will only enhance their ability to attract volunteers, get donations and make a difference.

[Wendy Morton]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, under this new model, charities will be able to bring in a new blend of skills and expertise, enabling them to increase capacity and build on their strengths?

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In my constituency, for example, we have many people over the age of 60 who have retired from professional careers. They reach the point in life where they wish to retire from full-time work, but they still have skills and abilities that they want to offer, and might be thinking about a social rather than a financial reward. Having more flexibility in the charities’ structures means that they can bring in more of those people. People who might be slightly reticent about being appointed by the Secretary of State, perhaps because of their previous job, might be delighted to be involved in an independent charity that is committed solely to its objects.