Access to Broadband Services
Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) on securing the debate and making such an impressive introductory speech. Indeed, I agree with all his points, so I will try to keep my remarks brief.
As with other Members—especially those who represent rural areas—the need for better broadband is something that fills my inbox almost weekly. As the hon. Member put it, broadband and digital connectivity have become the fourth utility, so it is no surprise that in my constituency, where 14% of premises can receive speeds of only up to 10 megabits per second, a lot of people are concerned about improving their digital connectivity, given the demands of education, businesses and leisure. Sadly, in Ceredigion the percentage of premises that cannot receive what Ofcom describes as decent broadband is 2.2%, compared with the UK figure of 0.2%.
As others have, I place on record my belief that there has been great progress in recent years in improving broadband infrastructure, in Ceredigion as well as in other parts of the United Kingdom, but there is more that we should do. As others have mentioned, the Government could make changes to the gigabit voucher scheme and Project Gigabit to accelerate progress. One concern among my constituents in communities that do not have decent broadband—certainly not gigabit broadband—is that they will have to wait several more years before any progress is made with their communities.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Knowing my hon. Friend’s constituency, I am sure he will recognise the problem faced by the small community in Nantmor and Beddgelert in my constituency, where there is no mobile signal—an EE Home Office mast is in place, but it is not turned on—and a history of electricity outages, not over hours but over days. Analogue copper lines were switched off earlier this year, and the community is now awaiting a decision on whether the exchange will be eligible for a fibre community partnership. This is a real challenge—a real crisis—for many of our communities, and they have nowhere else to turn.
Ben Lake
I thank my right hon. Friend for that important point. In the 21st century, it is rather strange to stand here and talk about communities in the United Kingdom that are completely cut off from the outside world, especially during severe weather events. She mentioned a community around Beddgelert. I also have communities, such as Cwmystwyth, that have been told that, as soon as the copper landline network is switched off, they will have to depend on a broadband connection. Sadly, Cwmystwyth does not have one, and it does not have mobile signal, so it is left without any form of communication in the event of a storm.
As has been pointed out already, adequate and improved broadband infrastructure in rural areas can make a significant contribution to the community in not just a social but an economic sense. This afternoon, I received an email from a constituent who explained that she works for a company—a charity, as it happens—that is based and does work across the UK. She very much wants to stay in Ceredigion to continue that work, but she depends on a decent broadband connection. Sadly, where she lives is unlikely to receive an upgrade any time soon.
The last census showed that the population of Ceredigion constituency had dropped by 5.9%. We will not get into the technical detail of why that happened, but we know from covid in particular that a number of people who were doing hybrid working decided to relocate to Ceredigion. So rolling out good connectivity across the county would make a massive demographic contribution. It is probably worth emphasising that it would also make a contribution to the delivery of public services, getting staff into our schools, care homes and other important public services, which is something we already struggle with.
One thing I would like to emphasise is the good work that the Government have done to date on the gigabit voucher scheme. Ceredigion is very fortunate in being one of the pilot areas. I have tried to gauge the demand from communities to sign up to the vouchers, and I am pleased to say that communities in Ceredigion responded very positively—I believe it is one of the best areas in terms of the number of declarations of interest. Since then, community co-ordinators have gone to considerable effort to ensure that communities are aware of the different options and that they register their interest and their vouchers, and some communities have succeeded. Some communities in Ceredigion have had their broadband connections improved considerably, and it has made a fantastic difference.
However, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) mentioned, others have found themselves caught in a bit of a limbo in recent months, because the voucher funding does not seem to be forthcoming from BDUK. It is possible that that has to do with work the Government are doing with Project Gigabit in mapping out the intervention areas, and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that.
Nevertheless, some of the community co-ordinators and those participating in the schemes are growing restless. In Wales, they have seen the best part of a decade of promises of improved connectivity that have come to nothing, so it is inevitable that people start to question whether the schemes will actually work for them. I fear that a lot of the demand and interest will dissipate the longer we go without any real progress. Will the Minister clarify whether the Government intend to accelerate some of the voucher schemes in the interim as we wait for the Project Gigabit areas to take off? It strikes me that, where community areas have engaged with each other, organised and registered an interest, we might as well get on with connecting them. Even if that means that it is only a couple of hundred or 1,000 premises in Ceredigion, it is better than nothing.
That brings me to Project Gigabit and the intervention areas. Although I very much welcome the fact that the Government are investing so much money in that endeavour, I have a concern about part of Ceredigion—sadly, we have been split in two in this process; the north is in a type C procurement contract, and it remains to be seen what the south-west Wales lot will look like. The point I want to raise with the Minister and seek his assurances on is that we will not drag our feet in making a decision, as opposed to the south-west Wales lot. I have already heard rumours that a decision might not be made until summer 2024. I am told by industry officials that, once contracts have been awarded, there will be a good six months of scoping, surveys and all the preparatory work and that, depending on where people are, it could then be two or three years before the connection is sorted. That concerns me because many of these communities will be in rural areas that do not have a mobile signal. They have no alternative methods of connectivity, and that is holding them back.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) mentioned, many of the hardest-to-reach properties lack any other form of communication. There needs to be greater co-ordination and prioritisation of the effort to connect the hardest-to-reach areas. By co-ordination I mean that we should think about the areas that lack a mobile signal, full fibre or broadband of any description and ensure that the digital switchover of landlines is paused. I know that that will entail work with BT and Ofcom, but that co-ordination is essential if we are to ensure that communities are not cut off.
In terms of prioritisation, I can foresee a situation with the Project Gigabit and intervention area approach whereby residents who currently enjoy superfast broadband download speeds of 17 megabits per second will be connected to full gigabit, which is great—fantastic. At the same time, constituents who currently lack any broadband whatever will still be left waiting. Will the Minister assure me that there will be some prioritisation and that premises that currently receive decent broadband are perhaps second in line to those that lack anything at all?
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Sir John Whittingdale)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) for obtaining the debate and setting the subject out in an extremely constructive fashion, which I think has been maintained throughout. I welcome the contributions from all Members present. As has been observed, we have been on a tour of the nations of the United Kingdom, although I must say that I miss the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who would normally be with us. As a result, we have not heard the voice of Northern Ireland, but we have covered the rest of the UK comprehensively.
A number of points were made in detail about the situation in the constituencies of hon. Members, and as much as I can I will respond to some of the points raised. I will make a few general comments to begin. I add my own congratulations to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) on his recent wedding, and indeed to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant)—although I am not quite sure that it is the same degree of congratulation—on shadowing me on the Opposition Front Bench. Nevertheless, my congratulations to him on his promotion.
As has been said throughout this debate, and as is certainly recognised by the Government, broadband is now an essential part of life. It will go on being so as more and more services are provided online. That does not mean to say that we must neglect those who do not have access—that still remains important. I will say a word about digital exclusion, which was mentioned, but broadband is an essential. The Government have set ambitious targets, and I agree with the observation of the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) that the appetite for broadband speed will go on increasing. That is why the Government shifted from originally having a target of superfast roll-out, which is relatively modest compared with the gigabit ambition of 1,000 megabits per second. That is about futureproofing. It is about ensuring that as more and more technologies and services become available, the connection is already in place to allow people to take advantage of it and for the economy to grow as a result.
Project Gigabit, which has been the main focus of this debate, is a £5 billion investment to support nationwide gigabit-capable broadband. As has been mentioned, we have set a target of 85% coverage by 2025 and nationwide coverage by 2030. In response to the requests made by the hon. Members for Rhondda and for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) for targets, we have set those two targets, but BDUK will respond in due course to the Public Accounts Committee in setting out a delivery programme, so there will be more detail on how we get there and how progress will be made. We have already made astonishing progress. Consider that in January 2019, gigabit coverage was 6%, and now—four years later—it is at 77%. That is an astonishing achievement. However, in a sense, the more we are successful in extending coverage, first, the more vocal are the complaints from the people who do not have it, which is perfectly understandable—
Liz Saville Roberts
Will the Minister provide further advice on the process of approving a pre-registered package request under the gigabit broadband voucher scheme? My understanding is that there is an element of uncertainty about that.
Sir John Whittingdale
I will come on to say a word about the gigabit broadband voucher scheme. To some extent, the Project Gigabit procurements have taken over from it, but if the right hon. Lady has a specific question, perhaps she would let me have the details, and I will be happy to supply an answer.
As I said, the main thrust of achieving the extension of coverage has been through the commercial roll-out, which has resulted from the competition that we have encouraged. Over 100 providers are now investing over £40 billion to roll out gigabit-capable broadband. We continue to believe that an active, competitive market—I will say a word about Broadway in a second—delivers the best results for consumers.
There will always be areas of the country where commercial roll-out is not viable, and it is in the first instance to address those elements that Project Gigabit was established. It includes local procurements, regional and cross-regional procurements, and the gigabit broadband voucher scheme. A large number of companies are now involved, and we are signing procurement contracts regularly. We have so far awarded 12 Project Gigabit contracts to improve digital connectivity in Cornwall, Cumbria, Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire and Northumberland, and we have a further 24 local and regional procurements under way. I was delighted a few weeks ago to visit Orford in Suffolk, where £100 million is being spent under Project Gigabit to extend coverage to another 80,000 premises. In Norfolk, £114 million is being spent to extend coverage to 62,000 premises. That is being mirrored across the country. As I said earlier, however, we are conscious that that will still leave some people outside the scope of those procurement packages, and they will obviously continue to press for coverage to be extended to them. As we extend coverage, the remaining premises will be, almost by definition, in harder-to-reach areas, so reaching them may require more innovative and inventive solutions, but the 100% target is a real target and we are confident that it can be achieved.
I want to say a little about Scotland, because the debate was obtained by the hon. Member for Stirling. As he will know, 71% of premises in Scotland can now access a gigabit connection, and 96% can access a superfast connection of 30 megabits per second. I am pleased to tell him that 93% of premises in his constituency now have access to superfast speeds, and 56% can access a gigabit-capable connection, which I think is a little higher than the figure that he quoted from the House of Commons Library. The figure I have been given is 56%, which I hope is correct and perhaps a little more up to date—demonstrating that we are extending the degree of coverage by the day. Considering that in January 2019 the figure for his constituency was 1%, I hope he will recognise that that is a significant achievement.
We are working closely with the Scottish Government on the issue. I recently had a call with Scottish Government Minister Richard Lochhead to discuss the programme being conducted by the Scottish Government through the R100 initiative. R100 was perhaps ambitious, in that it set a target of 100% coverage by 2021. Obviously, that has not been achieved and some procurements still have to take place, but we are anxious to work along with the Scottish Government and the testing of the market for those procurement contracts is now under way. Stirling has also benefited from the gigabit voucher scheme, with 120,000 vouchers issued so far under the scheme and its previous iterations.
Oral Answers to Questions
Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
The Government absolutely appreciate the unique importance of heritage steam railways in this country in promoting our industrial heritage and supporting tourism. We are in regular communication with the industry.
Liz Saville Roberts
I am lucky to have seven heritage railways in Dwyfor Meirionnydd, and steam engines were designed to be run on coal. Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, they face a crisis in the supply of suitable coal. The sector is working to develop alternatives to coal, as required by the net zero agenda, but it needs help. Will the Minister commit to supporting heritage steam to ensure the survival of our industrial heritage?
Nigel Huddleston
I have had several conversations with the right hon. Lady on this topic, as I have with colleagues from across the House, and I understand the complexities and challenges. She will be aware that some of the issues that need to be resolved may be outside DCMS’s portfolio. Ultimately, the sourcing of fuel supplies is a commercial arrangement. However, I will be happy to continue to work with her and facilitate further conversations across Government.
Online Harms White Paper
Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Wright
I can confirm that. We are concerned here with user-generated content, not with the activities of journalists or their editors. I would go further and say that it seems to me that the press—both local and national—and recognised journalists who do a good job of producing authoritative, sourced work are part of the solution, not part of the problem, particularly to the disinformation that has been identified across the House as one of the fundamental harms we are concerned about.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am grateful for advance sight of the statement. I welcome the principles of the White Paper, and particularly the establishment of a statutory duty of care to users, but I note the proposal for codes of practice that are not compulsory. Is there not a risk that companies will be allowed to fulfil the duty of care as they see fit? How will the effectiveness of the alternative approaches that companies are allowed to take be evaluated, and how will the regulator sanction companies that fail to abide by their own policies?
Jeremy Wright
I think there are two points worth making in response to the right hon. Lady. First, how well the platforms hold to their own terms and conditions may well give the regulator a good indication of how well they are complying with their overarching duty of care. Secondly, she is right that the White Paper envisages that a platform might say to a regulator, “We don’t wish to follow the codes of practice,” but if a platform chooses that path, it must be able to demonstrate to the regulator that the approach it takes instead is at least as effective in dealing with online harms as the codes of practice would have been. Of course, if the platform did not succeed in persuading the regulator that it had done that, the overarching duty of care would continue to apply to it. The duty does not rely on the codes of practice for its ongoing effectiveness.
Cairncross Review
Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Wright
As my hon. Friend knows, and as I have reported to the House, the Somerset County Gazette was the first newspaper I ever appeared in, so I have always had a soft spot for it. What she said is right; it is important that all media outlets take responsibility for checking what they put into their particular publications, whether they are online or not. She can expect that we will be taking up many of the themes that her Select Committee has so expertly covered in its inquiry.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I rise as the chair of the cross-party group for the National Union of Journalists and also as a former local newspaper reporter for the Caernarfon and Denbigh Herald and the Holyhead and Anglesey Mail. Let us face facts: it is not the BBC that is closing down local papers or debate on local democracy. The Cambrian News has been a vital source of news for almost 160 years in mid-Wales. There is a responsibility there for Government to maintain that tradition. The recommended tax relief measures are welcome, but does the Secretary of State not agree that by making Facebook and Google pay for the journalist content they use, he would be taking a first pragmatic step in offsetting the huge loss of advertising revenue to the tech giants, which is what is closing down local papers?
Jeremy Wright
When the hon. Lady has the chance to read the report in full, she will see for herself that the focus of the report is not criticism of the BBC, and it is important that is recognised. So far as payment for content by the online platforms is concerned, when she reads the report she will see that Dame Frances does not suggest we pursue that. Fundamentally, her concern is that if we did that, we may in fact see less news in total. That is not the objective that she or we would have.
Digital Images and Consent
Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Meg Hillier
Absolutely. I will go on to highlight some of the expert advice we have had about where there may be possibility for change or interpretation of the law as it stands. Currently, the law does not appear to recognise the difference between viewing someone naked, and filming or photographing someone naked without their consent. I put it to Members: should it be legal for someone, whether a stranger, partner, spouse or friend, to film another person naked without their consent when they are in a private situation? Most people would say no. None of us would want bad law made in hurry, so I understand the Government may not want to rush into this, and although the initial response may have been disappointing, I get where they are coming from. However, they do need to tackle this issue. This may not be affecting that many people now, although we do not know the full extent of it, but this issue is not likely to go away while people have mobile phones in their pockets. It causes great distress, so the Government do need to think about the impact on the individuals concerned and they have to consider a way forward.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Does she share my concern that the sheer plethora of legislation—30-plus pieces, one of which dates back to 1861—to deal with digital abuse is unsuitable for the 21st century? Does she agree that criminal justice professionals need training in this area, as well as our needing to consider new powers?
Meg Hillier
I thank the hon. Lady very much for that. She rightly highlights the fact that there is law in this area but it does not fit modern purposes and it is very complicated for people to navigate their way through. It is not beyond the wit of Government to pull some of that together, perhaps under a future legislative vehicle, if not a law in its own right.
Everybody has a camera in their pocket and everyone has a laptop with a tiny camera in their bedroom. The Government responded to me, saying that:
“we would not necessarily want to criminalise all photographic images depicting naked people without consent because there might be legitimate use for that data in some circumstances.”
I asked the Minister what circumstances those might be, and I am going to go on to talk about some of that in a moment. The Government also say it would be unreasonable to seek consent in all cases, and they give the examples of a streaker at a sports event or a public event that involves nudity. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you are so busy in the House that you may not have noticed that there are sometimes naked bike rides around Parliament Square. There is a big difference between what we are discussing and someone choosing to get on a bicycle naked in Parliament Square—I do not think anybody would say that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in those circumstances.
The reasonable expectation of privacy is used to define a “private act” under section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It states that a person commits an offence of voyeurism if
“(a) for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he observes another person doing a private act, and
(b) he knows that the other person does not consent to being observed for his sexual gratification.”
The Act goes on to state that:
“For the purposes of section 67, a person is doing a private act if the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy”.
Those words are important in this context. It goes on to say
“and—
(a) the person’s genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only with underwear,
(b) the person is using a lavatory, or
(c) the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.”
The Crown Prosecution Service appears to have dismissed Emily’s complaint about the video as the circumstances were such that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. Even if she had been in the room consensually with another person, there is not a reasonable expectation that the other person would not “observe” her sleeping naked in bed. However, the law does not appear to recognise the difference between “observing” and, crucially, recording for posterity, regardless of intent to distribute or publish. Had the image been published or distributed, we would have been having a different debate today.
The 2003 law appears to address a “peeping Tom” scenario—that is, someone secretly viewing or observing a private act. The issue I am raising today is the situation of someone being photographed or filmed without consent when doing a private act—surreptitious filming of a private act—when they would reasonably expect not to be filmed without giving their consent. That is what happened to my constituent.
I should also make a very clear divide between this issue and revenge porn. If things are published or distributed, that is a very different area. That is not what I am talking about today, although it is of course a very serious issue.
I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who has also been pursuing this matter. A response to him from the CPS gives me some hope, and I hope that the Minister will take heed of these words. It states that
“the conclusion could be reached that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of being filmed naked whilst asleep. However, the law is far from settled but this is certainly an argument which could be reasonably advanced.”
It is often the case that when there is more than one lawyer, there is more than one opinion, and I suspect that Government lawyers have come down on one side at the moment but will, I hope, take those words away and consider them.
If we asked most people whether they would be happy to be filmed or photographed doing a private act without having consented, by any other person—a partner, a spouse or a stranger—despite that other person having been present in the room, most would say no. I am not just assuming that. An opinion survey helpfully carried out by Opinium found that three in four—76%—of UK adults think that it is currently illegal in the UK to video without their consent someone over 18 who is naked. That is the general expectation of the public, and is way out when it comes to the law. Four in five UK adults would support a change in the law so that videoing someone over 18 who is naked, without their consent, becomes illegal in all circumstances. Of course, that latter point is from an answer to an opinion survey, and I recognise that for the Government to legislate they would have to consider carefully whether they wanted to cover all circumstances and how it would be defined, but the Government are here to legislate. They have drafters. They could work through how this could be delivered.
To highlight the distress, when I was researching this matter in preparation for today, I came across a debate on a Mumsnet forum from 2013—this is not new, sadly. This demonstrates the hurt and damage that this does. The person writing was a married woman checking emails on her husband’s phone, and she writes that
“something made me look at his photos. I found some taken of me, asleep on the sofa, photos of my cleavage. There was also video footage of me getting undressed in the bedroom the night before. Disgusted, I challenged him that night…We had a big row, he promised the photos were not posted on the Internet, and that he didn’t know why he’d done it.”
She goes on
“fast forwarded to now and I’ve just found some photos of me taken on our recent holiday, me asleep on the sunbed, photos of my bottom, and my breasts. I feel sick. I can’t trust him anymore”.
That underlines the human hurt in a situation such as this.
If we look at the criteria under which the media have to operate, we can see that although the use of photography in the press is self-regulatory, the editors’ code of practice for the Independent Press Standards Organisation states:
“It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy”.
Many Members of this House are very well aware of that. However, nowadays everyone is a photojournalist in respect of their own, and others’, life story. Many young people, in particular, record their lives online and it is time for better regulation in this area.
Since I wrote to the Government, there has been some progress. The Secretary of State for Justice said yesterday that he is reviewing the law to make sure that it is fit for purpose in relation to upskirting. He has indicated that he is looking at the matter, and I urge the Minister, who I know is a very reasonable and thoughtful woman, to take away what I have said, talk to the Ministry of Justice, because I recognise that this issue falls between the two Departments, and urge the Secretary of State to consider taking forward this issue in the review of upskirting and in the review of the use of digital photography. There are many victims out there who have not come forward, but even if there is only one, it is one too many to have this distress. It is time for the Government seriously to consider proper legislation.
Cambridge Analytica: Data Privacy
Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matt Hancock
I agree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s statement—or question, Mr Speaker. I agree with him that the attitude of the social media giants has been, “Government should get out of the way, because we are doing things differently and better.” It may be a good thing for 95% of us that we are better connected and can use social media in positive ways, as many Members do, but there are serious risks and downsides that need to be addressed properly and appropriately. They are best addressed through legislation where necessary. The parallels he makes are telling.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
This is not simply a matter of Cambridge Analytica using data allegedly handed over by a social media provider; this is a matter of Facebook behaving as though its users are raw material to be exploited. Its apparent willingness to do this has been increasingly linked to concerns about the integrity of our democracy. Surely, now is the time to require social media providers to conform to a compulsory code of conduct?
Matt Hancock
Indeed. A compulsory code of conduct in some areas is in the Bill, especially with respect to the treatment of children. We have a statutory code of conduct in the Digital Economy Act 2017. This whole area is one where we have to ensure that the liberal values, to support freedom but not the freedom to harm others, that we apply through legislation to many other parts of our lives are brought to bear on the online world as well. That is what I mean when I say that the wild west is over.
Passchendaele
Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), who gave a poignant account of the canaries and in particular his family history. As someone who also grew up in south-east London, I appreciate many of the stories. I wonder whether this will interest the Minister as well. My grandfather, Oliver Frederick Noyes, enlisted with the Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry. He was from Salisbury. The Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry saw service in the third battle of Ypres. It is a sort of pride. There have been so many references already to the people of Wales, to all the people who were affected by the conflict and in particular to Hedd Wyn, to whom I would like to turn.
The county of Meirionnydd was the home of Ellis Humphrey Evans, one of the hundreds of thousands of casualties at the third battle of Ypres, a campaign described by the Prime Minister of the time, David Lloyd George, Earl of Dwyfor, as
“one of the greatest disasters of the war”.
To his superior officers in the 15th Battalion of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, 30-year-old Private Evans was most likely just another raw rural recruit, conscripted into the Army because of a surfeit of sons already working on the family farm. Ellis Evans died on 31 July, shot in the stomach—we have heard about the soldiers’ prayer; being shot in the stomach is one of the most agonising things that someone could suffer—on the first day in the battle of Pilckem Ridge. He is buried in Artillery Wood cemetery. There is a war memorial in the centre of Trawsfynydd, which commemorates his death and the loss of 32 other men from the community or nearby army camps. This is where the story changes key. Ellis Evans could just be the smudged portrait in a dog-eared photograph, forgotten by the third generation, save for the fact that we do not remember him as Ellis Evans; we remember him as Hedd Wyn—not as Private 61117, but as a chaired poet, prif fardd Eisteddfod Penbedw, eisteddfod y Gadair Ddu, which was held in Birkenhead.
Ellis Evans, whose literary name was Hedd Wyn, grew up in a community where poetry in the strict rules of cynghanedd flourished. Men—it must be said that at the time they were probably almost exclusively men—from all social backgrounds could win accolade in metrical, alliterative poetry whose unbroken tradition can be traced over a millennium and more.
Sixteen days before his death, Private Evans had posted his entry for the 1917 Eisteddfod of Wales to the adjudicators. He had come second in the previous year’s Eisteddfod and he was never to know that this time he would be victorious. The winner of the awdl in the Eisteddfod is awarded a chair. The winner’s chair at the 1917 Birkenhead Eisteddfod was draped in a black cloth, Y Gadair Ddu, the black chair, crafted by a Belgian refugee. It became, of course, the symbol of mourning for every Welsh-speaking farmhouse, manse and worker’s cottage—the bond of tragedy to unite mothers bringing telegrams to the chapel minister to translate from English into Welsh. Our stories are our common heritage, and what we choose to remember becomes our history. Some stories are more retold than others.
Parc Cenedlaethol Eryri, the Snowdonia National Park Authority, is to be commended on taking the initiative to bring together a national investment worth £4 million, with support also from the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the Heritage Lottery Fund and the Welsh Government. This money has enabled the purchase and renovation of Hedd Wyn’s family farm, Yr Ysgwrn. It has just reopened this year as a publicly owned treasure for the nation. Perhaps the Minister might appreciate visiting Yr Ysgwrn; it is an impressive place.
Before this initiative was taken, Hedd Wyn’s nephew, Gerald Williams, made sure the door was open to visitors. I remember taking my daughter, Lisa, there 10 years ago. Only the ground floor could visitors see: a kitchen to the left, parlour to the right; the kitchen with hooks in the rafters, a fire always in the range and—this made an impression on me—layer upon layer of wallpaper to keep the place smart, for this house-proud family.
The parlour was the place where people would keep their Eisteddfod chair, and there it was—it was full of Eisteddfod chairs and newspaper cuttings. Visitors could pore over the Gadair Ddu. It was there; we could put our hand on it, brittle with romantic Celtic ornamentation, and repaired—again, we could see this—with dark wax to match the colour of the dark wood.
Although this makes for a romantic story, it was, of course, history at its most vulnerable. There is a pathos in the solitary guardian, Gerald Williams, but it took almost a century for the authorities of Wales to committee —“committee” is a verb in Wales—their way to safeguarding the symbols of Wales’s national war poet.
The film “Hedd Wyn” was released in 2005 and became the first Welsh-language film to be nominated for an Oscar. It is to the credit of the director Paul Turner and script writer Alan Uwyd that this film has been shown to generations of school students.
To close, here is Hedd Wyn’s englyn to his friend David Owen Evans of Blaenau Ffestiniog, who was killed in the trenches—and we find this on gravestones across Wales and also on the memorial in Trawsfynydd:
“Ei aberth nid a heibio—ei wyneb
Annwyl nid a’n ango’.
Er I’r Almaen ystaenio Ei dwrn dur yn ei waed o.”
There has been some discussion in this debate about pacifist attitudes and celebrating war. It would be beneficial if we could put energy, time, emotion, imagination and funding into building peace as vigorously as we do into addressing war.