Health and Disability Reform

Debate between Mel Stride and Chris Bryant

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for a sensible set of questions. He refers to the importance of bringing GPs together with advice and support to get people into work. That is very much the focus of our fit note reforms, upon which we have a call for evidence at the moment.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his swift response to my request earlier this afternoon for support for the people at Everest in Treherbert, who look likely to lose their jobs in the next few days.

Depression and anxiety are real, are they not? It is not just a question of people pulling up their socks, as some in the crueller parts of the commentariat have suggested. All too often, talking therapies are least available in the areas with the highest levels of economic inactivity, so how are we going to change that?

On the intersection between mental health and physical health that is acquired brain injury, does the Department even know how many people who have had an acquired brain injury are in receipt of PIP or of universal credit? If the Minister does not know the answer today, will he write to me? If both he and his Department do not know the answer, as I bet is the case, will he make sure that the Department finds out before it implements something that could provide even more problems for people who are trying to get their lives back together?

[Mel Stride]

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the jobs situation in his constituency. Let me reassure him that my Department will do whatever it can to assist with those circumstances.

The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that depression, anxiety and mental health conditions are very real, and in many cases extremely severe, which is why I am absolutely determined that we should do whatever we can, where appropriate, to provide as much support as possible to people. As for his question about acquired brain injury and how many PIP recipients are in that situation, I do not think he would expect me to know off the top of my head. It would be rather impressive if I did know. I will, as he has suggested, write to him.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

You have never impressed me before, and I have known you a very long time!

[Mel Stride]

That is probably fair. As the hon. Gentleman points out, he has known me for a very long time, and I recall that when we were at university together he was a young Conservative, as I was. How things have progressed, or perhaps I should say regressed, since then?

Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill

Debate between Mel Stride and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Hosie. May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship? It takes me right back to all those Finance Bills that we got through together, which were immensely entertaining and rewarding.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

That’s not true!

[Mel Stride]

No, they were—beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as it were.

I thank all Members for supporting and attending the Committee, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport. As the Minister at the time that the Bill was introduced, she was particularly helpful to me and encouraged me to bring these measures to the House.

The Bill is a short, two-clause Bill with a simple objective: to allow the relevant approving authorities to extend immunity from seizure beyond the current 12-month period allowed for in legislation in cases where museums are unable to return loaned objects from abroad because of unforeseen circumstances. The relevant approving authorities are the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in England, Ministers in Scotland and Wales, and the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland. The Bill will allow the relevant authority to extend the period of protection for up to three months. This power may be exercised on more than one occasion in relation to a particular object.

The Bill enjoyed strong cross-party support on Second Reading, and no amendments have been tabled. For the following reasons, I hope that the Committee will feel able to support the Bill’s passage to Report and Third Reading.

It may be helpful if I explain why the Bill is important for our museums and galleries, and for the institutions abroad that so generously lend their art treasures for the benefit of the UK public. The Bill seeks to amend part 6 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which provides immunity from seizure for cultural objects on loan from abroad in temporary exhibitions in museums and galleries in the UK. Under section 134 of that Act, cultural objects on loan from abroad to exhibitions held in UK museums and galleries approved under the Act are protected from court-ordered seizure for a period of 12 months from the date the object enters the United Kingdom. That legislation was adopted in response to growing international concern that works of art were in danger of being seized while abroad by those who claimed that they were owed money by a foreign state or because of territorial disputes between countries.

Section 134 of the 2007 Act provides that an object will be protected against seizure throughout the UK if it meets the conditions under section 134(2) and it is brought here for temporary public display by a museum or gallery that is approved under section 136 of the Act by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport or the appropriate authority in the devolved Administrations. The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for approving institutions in England, and the devolved Administrations have similar powers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. To gain approval under the Act, institutions must demonstrate that their procedures for establishing the provenance and ownership of objects are of a high standard.

In 2007, it was considered that 12 months was an adequate period to allow objects to arrive in the UK and to be returned following their inclusion in a temporary exhibition. Section 134(4) of the 2007 Act therefore provides that the protection continues

“for not more than 12 months beginning with the day when the object enters the United Kingdom.”

The only exception to that, in which case the period can be extended, is where an object suffers damage and repair work is required.

There are now 38 institutions across the UK that have been approved for immunity from seizure, and where objects on loan from abroad have received protection. Exhibitions such as “Tutankhamun” at the Saatchi Gallery in 2019, which was visited by more than 580,000 people, would not have been possible without immunity from seizure being in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I rise, finally, to express my gratitude to you, Mr Hosie, for your excellent chairmanship of the Committee; to my hon. Friend the Minister for his support and remarks; and to Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Wirral South.

[Chris Bryant]

Before the right hon. Gentleman finishes, I wonder whether he might like to correct the record? The Laughing Cavalier is not actually laughing at all; he is simply smiling. That name is a 19th century invention. It would be better to go back to the original title.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for a typical intervention. I can picture the Laughing Cavalier at the top of the stairs, I think, at the Wallace Collection—what a marvellous painting. The hon. Gentleman is right: the Laughing Cavalier is smiling, but perhaps he is none the less having the last laugh when it comes to his title.

I was in the middle of thanking the hon. Member for Wirral South very much indeed for her support. I also thank the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, for the encouragement she gave me at an early stage. I thank our Clerk, Adam Mellows-Facer, for his superb clerking of the Bill and the help he has provided, as well as all the officials at DCMS who have been engaged on the Bill—their support was invaluable.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Health and Social Care Levy

Debate between Mel Stride and Chris Bryant

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I rise to welcome, broadly, the motion. It seems to me that social care is one of those issues that parties of both colours have grappled with for many years, yet now we are at last at the point where a Government have the courage and are sensible enough to actually come forward with some realistic proposals. As to the breaking of manifesto commitments, no party ever wishes to do that, but listening to the Opposition it seems to me as if the global pandemic never occurred, as if the economy never shrank by the greatest level since 1709 during the great frost of that year, as if millions of jobs were never imperilled, and as if this Government never had to step in fiscally in a way that probably no Government outside wartime have ever had to do, and with such positive effects.

When it comes to the honesty or otherwise of what the Government have done, I think they have been upfront, very clear and very honest in making it clear that they have broken that commitment, unlike, I have to say, the less straightforward way in which, repeatedly in this debate, the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor have ducked the fundamental question: what is the Opposition’s alternative plan? In response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), the shadow Chancellor, when asked why Labour had supported an increase in national insurance in 2003, said, “Well, we had a plan.” I humbly remind her that that was 18 years ago. What we need to see now is a plan from the Opposition, as well as the criticism.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have known each other for a very long time. I just hope that he could explain to my constituents why it is right that practically everybody in the Rhondda would have to sell their home to meet the £86,000 cost, whereas next to nobody would have to do so in his constituency.

[Mel Stride]

First, the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of my constituency is obviously rather deficient, because I expect that mine shares many characteristics in common with his. I do not dispute the fact that any major fiscal move, such as putting up national insurance and bringing in this levy in this manner, will have associated complexities and difficulties. My pledge to the House is that the Treasury Committee will, I am sure, after private discussion, decide that we wish to look more closely at a number of the issues that are being raised in this debate, including the one that he mentioned.

Let us be honest about the options that were available to the Treasury. How could we have squared the circle and funded £10 billion-plus a year? The first thing that the Treasury could have done is to seek to cut expenditure in other areas, yet I have no doubt that if it came forward with any proposals of that nature, the Opposition would have fiercely resisted that as austerity all over again. We have to understand that on the current projections, there are many unfunded commitments, including, for example, keeping our railways going, going for net zero, additional funding that will be needed for school catch-up and so on.