Computer-generated Child Sexual Abuse Material

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is vital that the police and other security forces and agencies take action on this issue as a matter of urgency. The point that the noble Viscount has made is valid and correct. From my perspective, we have to send a signal from Parliament and from the Government that this type of misuse of those apps is simply not acceptable.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, upload prevention technology is already being used by platforms in private messaging environments to detect harmful content such as malware, and, as we have just heard, experts such as the Internet Watch Foundation have confirmed that the same approach is feasible for detecting known child sexual abuse material, yet platforms continue to falsely claim that such scanning is impossible. What steps will the Government take specifically to ensure that Ofcom is testing and challenging these claims so that such arguments cannot be used to evade compliance?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The legislation is clear that this type of material is illegal and punishable by offences under the law. Ofcom is now drawing up resources and an examination of priorities to be able to report back to the Home Secretary by April on how we can enforce that legislation. There are extreme penalties for providers that break that, and they need to be aware now and to prepare. It is illegal, it will be punished and Ofcom will draw up advice to the Government shortly.

West Midlands Police: Maccabi Tel Aviv Match

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I first congratulate the noble Lord on the announcement yesterday of his retention in the House through his new peerage. I think I have already said but will re-emphasise that the Home Office has commissioned two reports: a report into the intelligence surrounding the Maccabi-Aston Villa match and the failures that have eloquently been put to the House today; and a report, by 31 March, on the wider issues that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned. Again, I could comment, trail or examine but, as we have commissioned a report for 31 March, it is better that we await its conclusions, which will be shared with the House for comment, criticism or support.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, the Times reported that UEFA was present at the Birmingham safety advisory group meeting and that UEFA advised that the Villa-Maccabi game should go ahead. Is my noble friend the Minister able to confirm this? If not, can he urgently write and clarify UEFA’s position, whether it attended any part of the SAG meeting, either online or in person, and what advice UEFA offered about the viability of the game?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend and hope I can help her by saying that my understanding of what has been said to date is that UEFA was not directly represented at the meeting, but was involved in wider discussions on the admission of fans. The Home Office was not party to those wider discussions, but I hope that the wider investigation, as I have already indicated to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, will examine that. The Policing Minister herself said in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee that we are exploring processes around the role of the safety advisory group when considering sensitive events of national significance. Whether external bodies comment on those matters will be part of that reflection.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I was pleased to add my name to Amendments 266, 479 and 480. I also support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Nash.

I do not want to repeat the points that were made—the noble Baroness ably set out the reasons why her amendments are very much needed—so I will make a couple of general points. As she demonstrated, what happens online has what I would call real-world consequences—although I was reminded this week by somebody much younger than me that of course, for the younger generation, there is no distinction between online and offline; it is all one world. For those of us who are older, it is worth remembering that, as the noble Baroness set out, what happens online has real-world, and sadly often fatal, consequences. We should not lose sight of that.

We have already heard many references to the Online Safety Act, which is inevitable. We all knew, even as we were debating the Bill before it was enacted, that there would have to be an Online Safety Act II, and no doubt other versions as well. As we have heard, technology is changing at an enormously fast rate, turbocharged by artificial intelligence. The Government recognise that in Clause 63. But surely the lesson from the past decade or more is that, although technology can be used for good, it can also be used to create and disseminate deeply harmful content. That is why the arguments around safety by design are absolutely critical, yet they have been lacking in some of the regulation and enforcement that we have seen. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give the clarification that the noble Baroness asked for on the status of LLMs and chatbots under the Online Safety Act, although he may not be able to do so today.

I will make some general points. First, I do not think the Minister was involved in the debate on and scrutiny of—particularly in this Chamber—what became the Online Safety Act. As I have said before, it was a master class in what cross-party, cross-House working can achieve, in an area where, basically, we all want to get to the same point: the safety of children and vulnerable people. I hope that the Ministers and officials listening to and involved in this will work with this House, and with Members such as the noble Baroness who have huge experience, to improve the Bill, and no doubt lay down changes in the next piece of legislation and the one after that. We will always be chasing after developments in technology unless we are able to get that safety-by-design and preventive approach.

During the passage of the then Online Safety Bill, a number of Members of both Houses, working with experienced and knowledgeable outside bodies, spotted the harms and loopholes of the future. No one has all the answers, which is why it is worth working together to try to deal with the problems caused by new and developing technology. I urge the Government not to play belated catch-up as we did with internet regulation, platform regulation, search-engine regulation and more generally with the Online Safety Act. If we can work together to spot the dangers, whether from chatbots, LLMs, CSAM-generated content or deepfakes, we will do an enormous service to young people, both in this country and globally.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 479 and 480, which seek to prevent chatbots producing illegal content. I also support the other amendments in this group. AI chatbots are already producing harmful, manipulative and often racist content. They have no age protections and no warnings or information about the sources being used to generate the replies. Nor is there a requirement to ensure that AI does not produce illegal content. We know that chatbots draw their information from a wide range of sources that are often unreliable and open to manipulation, including blogs, open-edit sites such as Wikipedia, and messaging boards, and as a result they often produce significant misinformation and disinformation.

I will focus on one particular area. As we have heard in the contributions so far, we know that some platforms generate racist content. Looking specifically at antisemitism, we can see Holocaust denial, praise of Hitler and deeply damaging inaccuracies about Jewish history. We see Grok, the X platform, generating numerous antisemitic comments, denying the scale of the Holocaust, praising Adolf Hitler and, as recently as a couple of months ago, using Jewish-sounding surnames in the context of hate speech.

Impressionable children and young people, who may not know how to check the validity of the information they are presented with, can so easily be manipulated when exposed to such content. This is particularly concerning when we know that children as young as three are using some of these technologies. We have already heard about how chatbots in particular are designed in this emotionally manipulative way, in order to boost engagement. As we have heard—it is important to reiterate it—they are sycophantic, affirming and built to actively flatter.

If you want your AI chatbot or platform not to flatter you, you have to specifically go to the personalisation page, as I have done, and be very clear that you want responses that focus on substance over praise, and that it should skip compliments. Otherwise, these platforms are designed to act completely the other way. If a person acted like this in some circumstances, we would call it emotional abuse. These design choices mean that young people—teens and children—can become overly trusting and, as we have heard in the cases outlined, reliant on these bots. In the most devastating cases, we know that this focus on flattery has led to people such as Sophie Rottenberg and 16 year-old Adam Raine in America taking their own lives on the advice of these AI platforms. Assisting suicide is illegal, and we need to ensure that this illegality extends to chatbots.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If I may, I will take away those comments. I am responsible for many things in this House, including the Bill, but some of those areas fall within other ministerial departments. I am listening to what noble Lords and noble Baronesses are saying today.

Currently, through Online Safety Act duties, providers of those services are required to undertake appropriate risk assessments and, under the Act’s illegal content duties, platforms must implement robust and timely measures to prevent illegal content appearing on their services. All in-scope providers are expected to have effective systems and processes in place to ensure that the risks of their platform being used for the types of offending mentioned today are appropriately reduced.

Ofcom currently has a role that is focused on civil enforcement of duties on providers to assess and mitigate the risks posed by illegal content. Where Ofcom may bring prosecutions in some circumstances, it will do so only in relation to regulatory matters where civil enforcement is insufficient. The proposed approach is not in line with the enforcement regime under the Act at the moment, which is the responsibility of Ofcom and DSIT.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My noble friend is making really important comments in this regard, but on the specific issue of Ofcom, perhaps fuelling much of the concern across the Committee are the comments we have heard from Ofcom. I refer to a briefing from the Molly Rose Foundation, which I am sure other noble Lords have received, which says that uncertainty has been “actively fuelled” by the regulator Ofcom, which has told the Molly Rose Foundation that it intends to maintain “tactical ambiguity” about how the Act applies. That is the very issue that unites us in our concern.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that and for her contribution to the debate and the experiences she has brought. The monitoring and evaluation of the online safety regime is a responsibility of DSIT and Ofcom, and they have developed a framework to monitor the implementation of the Act and evaluate core outcomes. This monitoring and evaluation is currently tracking the effect of the online safety regime and feeding into a post-implementation review of the 2023 Act. Where there is evidence of a need to go further to keep children safe online, including from AI-enabled harms, the Government will not hesitate to act.

If the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will allow DSIT and Ofcom to look at those matters, I will make sure that DSIT Ministers are apprised of the discussion that we have had today. It is in this Bill, which is a Home Office Bill, but it is important that DSIT Ministers reflect on what has been said. I will ensure that we try to arrange that meeting for the noble Baroness in due course.

I want also to talk about Amendments 271A and 497ZA from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which propose that smartphone and tablet manufacturers, importers and distributors are required to ensure that any device they have is preinstalled with technology that prevents the recording and viewing of child sexual abuse material or similar material accordingly. I acknowledge the noble Lord’s very valid intention concerning child safety and protection, and to prevent the spread of child sexual abuse material online. To that end, there is a shared agreement with the Government on the need to strengthen our already world-leading online safety regime wherever necessary.

I put to the noble Lord, and to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on his comments in support, that if nudity detection technology could be effectively deployed at scale, there could be a significant limiting impact on the production and sharing of child sexual abuse material. I accept that, but we must get this right. Application of detection technology that detects and blocks all nudity, adult and child, but which is primarily targeted at children, would be an effective intervention. I and colleagues across government want to gather evidence about the application of such technology and its effectiveness and impact. However, our assessment is that further work is needed to understand the accuracy of such tools and how they may be implemented.

We must also consider the risks that could arise from accepting this amendment, including legitimate questions about user privacy and data security. If it helps the noble Lord, Lord Nash, we will continue to assess the effect of detection tools on the performance of mobile device so that we can see how easy it is to circumvent them, how effective they are and a range of other matters accordingly. The Government’s focus is on protective measures within the Online Safety Act, but we are actively considering the potential benefits of the technology that the noble Lord has mentioned and others like it in parallel. There will be further future government interventions but they must be proportionate and driven by evidence. At the moment, we do not have sufficient evidence to ensure that we could accept the amendment from the noble Lord, but the direction of travel is one that we would support.

Non-Crime Hate Incidents

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Metropolitan Police has said that it will still record information collected from non-crime hate incidents, which is in line with the code of practice introduced by the previous Government in 2023. Ministers decide on issues, but we have commissioned a review of the 2023 guidance which is being undertaken by former colleagues of the noble Lord at a senior level in the police: the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing. It is important that we receive their review and then we can determine whether we agree with the recommendations. Ministers decide, but we have commissioned a review, and it is important that we allow it to report.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, over the past two years, we have seen levels of antisemitism reach new highs, and while some antisemitic hate speech reaches the criminal threshold, it can also be sub-criminal. Does the Minister agree with me and organisations such as the Antisemitism Policy Trust that documenting such incidents is central to building an intelligence picture of hate hotspots and that a simple renaming of these incidents to “intelligence reports” would help a great deal?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is an important use of non-crime hate incidents. As I said earlier, there have been 82,490 race hate crimes, 7,164 religious hate crimes and a range of other offences falling within that. One reason why it is helpful is that it guides where other government resources can go, such as the £70.9 million available to protect faith communities, including, regarding the issue that my noble friend mentioned, the £18 million to the Jewish community protective security grant. It has an important function, but we have to assess it in the light of the use of police time, which is what this review is about. However, my noble friend’s point was very well made, as was that of the noble Baroness, that it helps secure an intelligence picture.

Manchester Terrorism Attack

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I am starting from the basis that protest is legitimate—and that can be protest on a range of issues. People can march and protest and make their point known. However, there are thresholds beyond which harassment, criminal incitement or physical incitement to activity are criminally sanctioned. The police have made arrests and will continue to do so on a range of issues, if people cross that threshold.

What we are looking at, which I hope will assist the noble Baroness, is that at the moment the police have powers to stop, reroute and time marches that are going through or appearing in areas where there could be additional heightened tension. We know what those examples could be—but at the moment the police can do that on a one-off basis. What we are saying in the legislation that we are potentially bringing forward is that, if that continues over a period of time, the police will have additional powers to look at putting in steps to protect the community. That is important, and we shall try to do that at some pace.

The noble Baroness mentioned individuals who might be seeking to radicalise others or cause others to take action of a criminal nature. There is a threshold to that in legislation, currently, and if that threshold is crossed, individuals can be taken to court for those offences.

As a side issue to that, the Government are establishing further an antisemitism working group to provide advice to the Government on antisemitism generally. We are working closely with the government adviser on antisemitism to look at the most effective methods to tackle antisemitism, and we want to ensure that we continue to challenge extremism and, if people go over that criminal threshold, they are brought to account.

That may not satisfy the noble Baroness today, but I hope that she will recognise that the prime objective of this Government is to ensure that people can live their lives in peace, free from intimidation, harassment and religious persecution. That is for any faith, but particularly in this circumstance today for those of the Jewish faith.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, my eight year-old daughter already has to go into and out of her Jewish school every day with a heavy security presence. There are security guards on the door and there are security doors in and out. She asked me if we should stop going to synagogue following the horrors of the Manchester attack. In the wake of this event—and I have listened to all the contributions—I think the ultimate priority of our Government must be to ensure that people of all faiths, including the British Jewish community, can worship and practice our religion without fear of being murdered on British soil. In that spirit, can my noble friend confirm when the Government are planning to publish an extremism strategy, what references it will have to previous publications, including the Shawcross, Khan and Walney reviews, and when they are planning to publish a hate crime action plan?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope my noble friend will accept that I find it very sad to hear her initial comments relating to her daughter. No child should have to go to school to be faced with people who are protecting her from those who are trying to kill her or her family. That is a deeply disturbing comment that my noble friend has made, but I understand why she has made it. It deeply saddens me that that is the society we have come to in certain parts of the United Kingdom.

I cannot give my noble friend specific answers on her points because it might sound glib if I say “shortly”, which is what I would say. I will certainly ensure that energy is put into the publication of further information to widen the response of government. I hope that further announcements will be made soon to ensure the protection of the Jewish community, particularly given the concerns that she has raised. As I have mentioned, we will be bringing forward a range of measures shortly, which were trailed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the Statement earlier this week.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

I am conscious of time, but specifically on that point, I bore witness to the attack on the Jewish business in north-west London last May. It reverberated throughout the entire community. I have never seen anything like the glass that was smashed and the paint that was daubed. It dominated the area for a whole weekend because it could not be cleared up because it took place over the weekend. In the interest of community cohesion, I point to that as a very strong example, coupled with all the other points people have made about why this is a violent organisation and how it directly intimidates and attacks people. Its impact goes far wider than what we are discussing today.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

I pay tribute to the work the noble Baroness has done over many years, at immense personal cost, in fighting antisemitism. She is completely right about this. I know the owners of that building. I went to see it afterwards. I know how deeply shocked they and other Jewish residents in that area were after that attack.

I want to pick up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about the defence and security relationship between Britain and Israel, which is of huge importance to our national interest. People who argue for boycotts or banning defence exports to Israel need to be careful about this, because the RAF would not be able to get its planes off the ground without Israeli technology. British soldiers would have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan without Israeli defence equipment. Israeli intelligence has prevented terror attacks here in the UK. We have to be careful when people suggest undermining that relationship. People who argue for that would have a great deal of difficulty explaining to the public why they want to put our Armed Forces at risk because they are so obsessed with this. There are 200 land-based conflicts in the world and the only one that people seem to care about is the one involving Israel. We have to ask ourselves why that country is singled out and held to standards that never apply to any other country.

The final point I want to make about Palestine Action is this: if the only country you campaign against, the only country you think should be abolished, or the only country you think should never have been established in the first place just happens to be the only Jewish one, do not tell me that you are not a bunch of antisemites.

Music Festivals: Hate Speech

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say to the noble Lord that Glastonbury is a splendid, multicultural festival, celebrating the best in British and international music, and is a showcase. He will know that the organisers of Glastonbury and Emily Eavis, who is now the main organiser, on behalf of her father who founded the festival, have also issued a statement condemning the comments that were made by the individual and are now being investigated by Avon and Somerset Police. So, we can have a good festival, but we can still have within it an appalling potential act which needs to be investigated. I still think, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture still thinks, that it is important that we ask serious questions of the BBC about how it managed that incident when it was clear that it would potentially lead to the type of incident that the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, has raised in the House today.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, here we have an artist who gleefully spouted hate speech and incited violence, the largest festival organiser in the country who gave him a platform and a public service broadcaster that has yet again showed scant regard for the Jewish community, which has totally lost trust in the BBC. Does my noble friend the Minister have confidence in the senior leadership of the BBC to properly grip this issue, to implement material changes and to make sure that this does not happen again?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend goes right to the heart of the Question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. Individuals from any community, in this case the Jewish community, have the right to enjoy their lives without intimidation, threat or harassment, or indeed calls for death to be implemented on sections of a community. There is a role for peaceful protest and for argument about who and what happens in the Palestine-Israeli situation; that is perfectly legitimate. It is not legitimate to move that into harassment, intimidation or death threats.

With regard to the BBC, as I have mentioned, my right honourable friend is in active negotiation and discussion with the chair of the BBC. I am sure she will make further statements. Indeed, this very morning at DCMS Questions in the House of Commons, she answered further questions on this. There are certainly lessons to be learned, but I reassure my noble friend that members of the Jewish community, and indeed members of any community who face harassment and intimidation, deserve the support of the law, which is why Avon and Somerset Police are currently investigating to see whether that criminal threshold has been crossed.

Counter Terrorism Policing: Arrests

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord and can reassure him that not just British citizens but any citizens in the UK who face threats from a regime such as Iran will have the protection of our security services. It is extremely important that we do that. The noble Lord has raised the issue of the Charity Commission before, and I share his concerns around Iranian-aligned centres in the UK and the malign influence that they have on our society and on individuals. The Charity Commission is undertaking inquiries into both the Islamic Centre of England and the Al-Tawheed Charitable Trust, and we in the Home Office are tracking closely the progress of those investigations. The Charity Commission has said that it takes this matter very seriously. I know that it is examining robustly evidence of wrongdoing and making referrals to other agencies where appropriate. Following the noble Lord’s intervention, I will again put down a marker with the Charity Commission and ask about further progress. But, essentially, I hope he accepts that the case is made, the commission is on the case, we share that concern and I hope we will get speedy resolutions.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo many of the calls that have been made to thank our police and security services for the hard work they have undertaken, and in particular the work they did over the weekend. As has been alluded to, last year the head of MI5 said that, since 2022, the UK had faced at least 20 plots backed by Iran, which represented potentially lethal threats to British citizens—UK residents as well as Iranians living here. The arrests over the weekend suggest that more plots can now be added to that score. I echo the calls from many noble Lords across the House, including my noble friend Lord Cryer, for proscription of the IRGC. Perhaps I might press the Minister once more on proscription. I listened very closely to what he said and we look forward to the report that has just been concluded by Jonathan Hall KC. When do the Government expect to respond to that review, and will my noble friend share with the House whether he expects that in the review there will be recommendations specifically on the proscription of the IRGC? If not, what process could lead from the review to the ultimate proscription of the IRGC?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, whom I welcome to the House: this is the first time I have had the opportunity to answer a question from her since she joined.

It is important that we keep these matters under review. As I said in response to earlier questions, we are doing that. As a result of the incidents on 3 May, the security services and the police are making further assessments, and we are updating as a result of those incidents to ensure that we can make an up-to-date assessment. We will update the House as soon as we can on the outcome of those assessments. As I have said already, this is an ongoing investigation and until the end of the investigation we cannot take specific action accordingly.

I do say, and have said, that the proscription status of any organisation is now being examined by Jonathan Hall KC. That examination is taking place because, in the past, many of the threats were from organised groups or individuals; they were not state-backed terrorist threats. Therefore, we specifically asked Jonathan Hall KC to advise the Government on how we approach proscription for organisations that might be linked directly to a state. That review is due shortly, we intend to publish it shortly and we intend to try, if possible, to publish the Government’s response at the same time. I hope that the noble Baroness will be as patient as she can be, because we will be taking action on resolving how we deal with state threats. Having commissioned Jonathan Hall KC, we want to have the results of his deliberations and to respond to them, because they will help advise the Government on the best course of action.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Friday 11th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

Of course I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend, especially when it comes to Worcestershire, our home county. I will turn to that specific point in a few minutes.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I listened very closely to what the Secretary of State just said about the benefits of immigration. He will know that there are many pressures on our public services, particularly our national health service, up and down the country. It is already difficult, particularly for GP surgeries, for example, to recruit people from beyond Europe. The concerns of those surgeries are that, post 29 March, they will have to pay an inordinate amount and spend an incredible amount of time processing documents in order to get the doctors we so desperately need because we have a shortage of GPs and many other healthcare professionals. We have a vacancy rate of 10% in our national health service.

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to talk about the benefits to our public services of immigration, such as doctors and nurses in the health service. That was partly recognised in the change I made last year to remove nurses and doctors from the tier 2 cap. The new immigration system set out in the White Paper, which refers specifically to benefits for the public sector, is perfectly compatible with the needs of the public sector.

The White Paper sets out proposals for a secure and streamlined border. EU visitors will be able to come to the UK without a visa and will continue to be able to use e-gates. In keeping with our position that the EU should not automatically receive preferential treatment, we announced at the end of last year that the use of e-gates would be extended later this year to nationals of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States. That is evidence that the UK is open for business and committed to ensuring the swiftest possible entry for visitors.

In line with the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee, our future immigration system will contain a route for skilled workers. We will expand the definition of skilled workers to encompass those in mid-skilled occupations. The route will be uncapped, and we are removing the resident labour market test for highly skilled workers. The Migration Advisory Committee argued that it burdened businesses with unnecessary bureaucracy and was ineffective. Both those changes will greatly assist businesses and speed up processes.

We will retain the protections that exist for British workers, such as the skills charge. For intermediate-skilled jobs, we will engage with employers and businesses to consider whether a form of the resident labour market test would still be appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Few debates in this House have ever had such an impact on the people of Liverpool Wavertree and on the country as the one we are conducting this week. Every home, every business and every citizen in Liverpool will feel the impact of Brexit. The stakes could not be higher for jobs, the price of our goods, wages, the cost of mortgages, businesses large and small, our economy and our standing in the world. It is hard to see what has changed since the Prime Minister delayed the meaningful vote in such a discourteous fashion before the Christmas recess. The only tangible change is that the hands of the clock have moved ever closer to the Brexit deadline, with the Prime Minister presenting her false choice of her deal or no deal. She should tread carefully.

There are those who wish to see Britain crash out of the EU without a deal in place, as the final act in their anti-EU drama. No responsible Government should even entertain the prospect of a no deal Brexit, and it is beyond belief that that option has not been ruled out, given the uncertainty that it is creating across our country and the billions being spent in preparation for that possibility. We should be crystal clear about what a no-deal Brexit would mean for our constituents and the country, including for our food prices given that 30% of our food supplies come from the European Union. Our gas and electricity prices would also increase disproportionately, having an impact on the poorest and most vulnerable, as about 5% of our electricity and as much as 12% of our gas is imported from the EU.

With no alternative currently in place, our constituents will no longer be covered by the European health insurance card, and will need to pay for health insurance when they go abroad. The manufacturing sector that I represent in my constituency will be hard hit, with firms relying on just-in-time production unable to properly guarantee their production. I have heard from many of my constituents, including Rob, the owner of a small chemicals business, who would struggle to source raw materials or maintain the same level of sales. He is an employer, and many of my constituents rely on jobs in his firm.

Worst of all, our public services, including the national health service and social care, would suffer as we would be unable to recruit from countries within the EU. In the Select Committee on Health and Social Care, we heard that there is a real threat to medical supplies. The permanent secretary at the Department for Health and Social Care told us that he was having sleepless nights over the continuation of imports of vital medical supplies, and that the issue was very complex.

In Liverpool, we are proud of our universities, and we have welcomed students and academics from across the EU. Our university leaders tell us that crashing out of the EU is one of the biggest threats to our higher education sector. The Russell Group reported just last week that postgraduate student enrolment from EU countries has already fallen by 9% this academic year, starving our universities of cash. More than 100 universities have warned of an academic, cultural and scientific setback from which it would take decades to recover, because a no-deal Brexit would isolate and hobble Britain’s universities.

Those are the things that we can predict with confidence, but the real threat comes from the unintended consequences—the 1,001 things that we cannot foresee that will have a negative impact on our citizens’ lives. The bottom line is that things will be worse for most of the people we represent. That is the reality that we are contemplating in this debate. Our politics is broken and our system has failed, and neither the Prime Minister’s deal nor the no-deal scenario has the support of a majority in this House. Our Parliament is in a state of gridlock, so how can we break it? The Prime Minister could draw a magical rabbit from the hat—a political masterstroke of some kind—that breaks the logjam and enables Parliament to move ahead beyond the current paralysis. While we live in hope, the chances of that happening appear incredibly slim.

The opposition to the Prime Minister’s deal is about more than the backstop on the Northern Ireland border, critical though that is. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) for analysing the debate that was abruptly brought to a close before Christmas. He found that Members from across the House had many concerns about security, migration, citizens’ rights, and trade and the economy, which was the No. 1 issue. However, the backstop, on which we are told this whole debate rests, came fourth.

[Mike Gapes]

As somebody who was involved in negotiating the Good Friday agreement, I regard the backstop as an essential guarantee of that agreement and of long-term stability in Ireland. Although I disagree with the Government’s position for the reasons that my hon. Friend is setting out, the backstop is not the problem. The problem is with the future framework and other things.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for articulating clearly that, although the nub of the issue has rested on this point, there are actually many other issues. For many colleagues on both sides of the House, the backstop is not the issue that is consuming them. In The Daily Telegraph this morning, an unnamed Minister said that the Prime Minister is likely to lose by 200 votes next week because the situation will not be resolved by addressing the backstop alone. If the vote is lost next Tuesday, a motion of no confidence in this Government should be brought immediately, and we should see whether there is a majority in Parliament for a general election. With fewer than 80 days to go until we are due to leave the EU—around 40 sitting days—time is pressing.

If the vote falls next week, we will break the gridlock only by giving the country a final say with a people’s vote, but that does not mean a rerun of the 2016 referendum. The world is a different place nearly three years on. Some 1.4 million young people who are eligible to vote today were too young to have their say in 2016, and the most recent analysis shows that 72.5% of my constituents now support remaining in the European Union, with 74% of people wanting a people’s vote. Those percentages are hardly surprising, because Liverpool is proudly a European city. We were the European city of culture in 2008—a year that generated an economic impact of £753 million. In just the past five years, European structural and investment funds have provided Liverpool with nearly £200 million, which has allowed us to invest in hundreds of local enterprises and jobs. People understand the enormous benefits that EU membership has afforded us for decades, and it is regrettable that the Government will not even confirm that funds that the European Union has already committed to Liverpool to the tune of millions of pounds will be guaranteed post Brexit.

Young people, whose lives will be most affected by the decisions taken in this place, should be allowed a say on their future. New facts have come to light. The lies of the leave campaign have been exposed, including, as the House heard earlier from the Home Secretary, the leaflets and Facebook advertising that people were bombarded with telling them that millions of people would come here from Turkey. That was just not true. We have heard strong suggestions of Russian influence in our referendum in line with Russia’s desire to disrupt and weaken the western allies, and it is deplorable that we have not yet seen a full and proper criminal investigation. Rather than the unicorns and rainbows that too many of the public were sold, we now have a much clearer sense of what Brexit actually means for our economy, for jobs, for our public services and for businesses, and public opinion has shifted based on the harsh realities rather than the false, shiny promises on the side of a bus or threats of a Turkish invasion.

Let the people have a say with a people’s vote. Let us be open and honest with the country: there is no better Brexit. There will be no Brexit dividend, just Brexit chaos and misery. There is no better deal than the one we have already. On every analysis, Government receipts will be lower than if we had remained in the European Union. Of course, we could choose to spend money differently, but that is not a dividend. The decision will affect us for decades to come, and it is in the national interest and for the sake of the people of Liverpool, Wavertree, who sent me to this Parliament, that I will vote against the Government’s motion next week.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

This is a matter for the Electoral Commission, but exaggerated claims were made on both sides of that debate, as indeed—I think this is fair to say—they are generally made on both sides in general election campaigns. However, people listened to those claims on both sides, and they came to a democratic decision, and that is the foundation of trust in our country between politicians and the people who give them their jobs.

[Luciana Berger]

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), does the Foreign Secretary accept that many points of evidence and facts have come to light that were not available at the time? In 2016, the referendum was on the principle of our leaving; now we know exactly what it looks like in practice. On the basis of what we now know and from listening to what our constituents and the country want—we only have to look at the polling, which is being done almost daily, to know that this country has moved—they now, seeing the reality of it, actually want to have a final say on the Government’s exact deal, rather than on the principle, as back in 2016.

[Mr Hunt]

I gently say to the hon. Lady that last year we had a general election in which both parties set out what they thought the shape of the Brexit deal should be, and over 80% of voters voted for parties that wanted to leave the EU and leave the single market.

The task before us is to recast our relationship with our nearest neighbours while preserving the bonds of friendship that all of us in this House prize so highly. We need to go about that task with every confidence in our strengths as a nation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex rightly reminded us. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex brought home the momentous importance of this task, reminding us, with the sense of history we admire so much, that this is one of the most important decisions the House has taken since the war. As he powerfully said, the moment has come for all Members to come together in the national interest.

On defence and security, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) spoke with passion and eloquence—partly in French—et je voudrais dire à mon amie, “Ne t’inquiète pas”. Contrary to Sir Richard Dearlove and Lord Guthrie, that means, “Don’t worry”, because there will be absolutely no impact whatsoever from the withdrawal agreement on our relationship with NATO, our intelligence partnership with the United States or, indeed, our membership of the “Five Eyes”.

Police Funding Settlement

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

On Merseyside, we have seen a cut of more than 1,000 police officers since 2010, which is a 24% decrease. Despite the very best efforts of our police, they simply cannot provide the same level of service. Levels of certain crimes are going up and our police are under incredible pressure, as we have seen in the increase in the number of 999 calls.

I listened closely to the Minister. Will he categorically confirm that, of the £161 million increase in grants to the police, almost all—£152 million—will be eaten up by higher pensions? That will mean that inflation and pay increase costs will have to be met by council tax payers—it is about £24 a year, which we are not guaranteed to raise. That means that Merseyside police will just stand still. How on earth is that an acceptable state of affairs?

[Mr Hurd]

The settlement allows police and crime commissioners to absorb the increase in costs that they face while hopefully enabling them to continue their plans for recruitment and for filling in capability gaps. Like many other police forces, Merseyside police is stretched and does incredibly important and difficult work. Although the hon. Lady voted against it, I hope she welcomes the additional public investment of £5 million in Merseyside police, and that she will support a funding settlement that could increase funding into Merseyside police by up to £18 million this year, of which £8.6 million will come from central Government grant.