Sport: Team GB and ParalympicsGB

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Nusrat Ghani

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) to the House and congratulate her on a very eloquent, gracious and personal maiden speech. She has shown today that she will make great contributions to this place over the coming years. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my declarations when I was Sports Minister—I may touch on that in a moment. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the Sports Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), and the shadow Sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) on their roles.

As a former Sports Minister, I know that the role has upsides, but it also comes with a lot of hard work and graft. The role often involves dealing with the downsides of sport—regulation, racism in cricket, head injuries in rugby, financial distress and so on—with sports governing bodies, and coming up with solutions in challenging areas such as trans, where we are all trying to ensure we get the right balance between accessibility and fairness and safety. I know how hard governing bodies work on that, and I know that will be a challenging area for the Minister.

There are some upsides, too. I know there is a lot of noise at the moment around declarations and attending sporting events, but as Sports Minister it is the hon. Lady’s duty and responsibility to get around the country and be a champion for all sorts of sports. I hope the noise around that does not stop her from doing her job. That is really important, because not all sporting events are Wimbledon; the job is also about championing disability sports, women’s sports and lower league sports around the country. I want to see her at those events every weekend. She will not get criticism from me for doing any of that.

There is another downside to being Sports Minister. On calls with Sports Ministers from around the world, they all introduce themselves as the former world champion of this and the former gold medallist of that. Then it comes to the Brit and it’s like, “I’ve got a medal from sports day at my school back in 1984.” Slightly embarrassing! The other downside, I am afraid, is often being required to be in photos along with a lot of very fit, handsome and beautiful people, which is slightly challenging, or being invited to enter the ring to spar with a world champion boxer. I would get asked, “Minister, would you like to participate in the 100 metres final?” with journalists waiting there with cameras just to humiliate you. “No, thank you very much!” But it is an amazing job and one that I enjoyed very much.

If you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to say a huge thank you, as I have never had the opportunity to do so. I was appointed Minister for sport and tourism in February 2020. It was the job I had always wanted. A few weeks later, however, we were in lockdown and there was no sport and no tourism. As a result of the work with the various sports governing bodies, in particular Sally Munday and Dame Katherine Grainger at UK Sport, and Tim Hollingsworth at Sport England, and the incredible team at the Department, we were able, over time, to get sport up and running again. I am really proud that we did, because we all know how important it is to health and mental health. And let us not forget that sport is a major economic contributor to the UK. It is a massive export earner for the UK. There are hundreds of thousands of people involved in sport and supported by sport, plus it makes us all feel good and unites us.

That brings me to another point, which the Under-Secretary will find out about at some point in the future, should she ever be unfortunate enough to be reshuffled into a different role. A number of Members would say to me, “We used to like you when you were Sports Minister, but not so much now,” because the role is not particularly party political. I am glad that that will be the tone of today’s debate.

We should not and cannot take the amazing success of our Olympians and Paralympians for granted, and we are all here to applaud them today. They have put in an incredible amount of personal effort to achieve that success. The United Kingdom punches way above our weight in sport. That is not an accident. I think all of us would applaud the work of John Major, for example, on the initiative back in the 1990s to ensure that money went into sport—which was often controversial—through the national lottery. That has continued ever since. I know how difficult it is to argue for money for sport, but sport is so impactful on the health and mental health of the country.

What incredible success we saw this year, not only in the medal haul, which is important, but in the personal success stories and personal bests. The medals are a really good indicator of our global success, in particular —my God!—that of the Paralympians. They were second in the medal table again. That speaks volumes of the United Kingdom. We champion people with disabilities: we applaud them and literally put them on a pedestal. The Paralympics is a way to show what people with disabilities can do, as opposed to focusing all on the time on the things they cannot do.

The UK has a fantastic global reputation, in particular for disability sport. I thank everybody involved: not only, as I say, the governing bodies UK Sport and Sport England, but the broadcasters who put the Paralympics on TV at prime time. The British public watched the games in their millions. That is not the case in many other countries around the world. The Under-Secretary is probably being approached by other sports Ministers from around the world saying, “How do you do it? You have incredible success. How did you come second to China in the medal table?” and TV is one of the reasons why.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, we are very successful. Back in 1996, we got just one gold medal. We are the only country to have achieved gold medals in every single Olympics in the modern era. That is remarkable, and funding is fundamental to that. From 1996, because of co-operation and taking politics out of a lot of it, we have had a broad consensus on backing sport. Long may that continue.

I would also like to take the opportunity—many of us in the House are very proud of our constituents who participated in the Olympics and Paralympics this year—to applaud Olympic swimmer Matt Richards, Matt Skelhon, Issy Bailey, Rebecca Redfern and Matthew Redfern on their incredible success. I know—I have met them multiple times—that they have very proud parents.

Let us not take sport for granted. We like to applaud our sportspeople for very good reasons. Funding is majorly important. I express my huge gratitude and thanks to the sports governing bodies, UK Sport and Sport England, for what they did during the pandemic when I was Sports Minister, as well as for what they do now. I applaud them; they make us all proud. I applaud the Olympians and Paralympians too. They make us feel good and we are so proud to support them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I should put on record my thanks to Emily Craig, a gold medallist from my constituency who comes from Mark Cross and for whom Rotherfield recently organised a tea party. If the Minister wants to win a gold medal, she should definitely come to my constituency.

Budget Responsibility Bill

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Nusrat Ghani

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 9, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

“(c) or any changes to the government’s fiscal targets.”

This amendment requires the OBR to produce and publish a section 4(3) report at the time new fiscal rules are announced by the Treasury.

[The Chairman]

With this is will be convenient to take the following:

Amendment 2, page 1, line 25, at end insert—

“(2A) In any case where the Office has acted in accordance with subsection (2), it may notify the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests of the circumstances in any case where it considers those circumstances may be relevant to—

(a) the Ministerial Code, or

(b) the functions of the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests.”

This amendment enables the OBR to notify the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests where the OBR considers that any instance where the Treasury had not requested a report under section 4A(1) in advance may give rise to consideration of compliance with the Ministerial Code.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 25, at end insert—

“(2A) Where the OBR prepares a report in accordance with subsection (1) or (2), it must take account of the impact of the measure or measures on—

(a) the UK’s compliance with, and

(b) the fiscal cost of meeting,

the UK’s net zero target as set in section 1(2) of the Climate Change Act 2008.”

This amendment requires the OBR to report on the impact of fiscally significant measures announced by Government on the UK’s statutory net zero target.

Amendment 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert “or

(b) the measure, or combination of measures, is likely to have an impact on—

(i) the cost of government borrowing,

(ii) interest rates, or

(iii) the rate of growth of gross domestic product.”

This amendment broadens the definition of fiscally significant measures to those which fall below the costing threshold, but have wider fiscal effects, by affecting either the cost of government borrowing, interest rates or rates of economic growth.

Amendment 6, page 2, line 4, at end insert

“or if the condition in subsection (3A) is met.”

See the statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 7, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(3A) The condition in this subsection is that the measure, or combination of measures, forms part of category of measures with a cumulative impact on—

(a) public sector net debt,

(b) public sector contingent liabilities, or

(c) both,

that exceeds a specified percentage of the gross domestic product for a specified period.

“Specified” means specified in, or determined in accordance with, the Charter for Budget Responsibility”

The purpose of this amendment is to extend the definition of fiscally significant measures to include measures with a cumulative impact on public sector net debt or contingent liabilities when taken together with other measures in the same category, such as public projects with private sector partners.

Amendment 3, page 2, line 16, leave out “28” and insert “56”.

See the statement for Amendment 4.

Amendment 4, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

“(6A) After the publication of a draft under subsection (6), the Treasury must consult—

(a) the Office for Budget Responsibility,

(b) the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons, and

(c) such other persons as the Treasury considers appropriate.

(6B) When a modified Charter so as to include provision by virtue of this section is laid before Parliament, the Treasury must also lay before Parliament a report on the outcome of consultation under subsection (6A).”

The purpose of this amendment is to impose a requirement on the Treasury to undertake a full consultation and publish the outcome of that consultation prior to revision of the Charter for the purposes of the Bill.

Clause 1 stand part.

Clause 2 stand part.

Amendment 10, Title, after “measures” insert

“and of any changes to the government’s fiscal targets”.

This amendment is consequential to Amendment 9. It would amend the long title of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. May I first take the opportunity to congratulate you on your election? I promise to try not to try your patience over the coming weeks, years and so on, but we will see how things go.

I wish primarily to speak today to amendment 9 and, of course, consequential amendment 10, which effectively seek to ensure that the fiscal lock proposed in the Bill should also include any changes to the fiscal rules and would require the Office for Budget Responsibility to produce a report on their effect on public finances. The Office for Budget Responsibility was of course constructed by a Conservative Chancellor following the poor forecasting record of the previous Labour Government. Between 2000 and 2010, the then Labour Government’s forecasts for economic growth were out by an average of £13 billion, and their forecasts for the budget deficit three years ahead were out by an average of £40 billion. Their forecasts therefore lacked credibility, and to re-establish confidence and credibility the OBR was created by the Conservative Government.

Labour lacked economic credibility in the past, and I am afraid it still lacks it now. The facts simply do not stand up the false claim that the Government have inherited the worst economic circumstances since the second world war; they transparently have not. Contrary to the rewriting of history that the current Labour Government are attempting, when we took over from Labour back in 2010, inflation was 3.4%. When they took over from us, it was 2.2%. The annual deficit is half what we inherited in 2010, unemployment is about half what it was in 2010, and we handed Labour the fastest economic growth in the G7. The dominant political and economic narrative since the second world war is in fact, as has been widely commented on, that every single Labour Government end up with unemployment higher at the end of their time in power than when they took over from the Conservatives preceding them.

The British public should not be taken for fools. Just because Labour keeps claiming something, that does not mean that it suddenly becomes true, which is why clarity over plans and rules is so important. The fiscal rules are of course restrictions on fiscal policy set by the Government to constrain their own decisions on spending and taxes. The fiscal rules set by the previous Government said that the debt to GDP ratio should be falling within a five-year horizon, and that the ratio of the annual budget deficit to GDP should be below 3% by the end of the same period. Labour’s manifesto for the election proposed the following fiscal rules: balancing the current budget, so that day-to-day costs are met by revenues, and that debt must be falling as a share of the economy by the fifth year of the forecast. On the surface, therefore, the debt rules appear to be broadly the same under the new Government. The Government have even said that they have an “ironclad” commitment to reduce Government debt. It is therefore critical what definition of debt is used for the fiscal rules. Clearly, any changes to the fiscal rules are financially significant decisions because they affect how much the Government can borrow and spend.

On Second Reading, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury said:

“Our fiscal rules are non-negotiable.”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1263.]

Great, but why then has the Chancellor repeatedly failed to rule out that she will change the definition of debt in her fiscal rules to allow, presumably, for massive borrowing? The Government cannot run from the scrutiny that they should be subjected to if they are considering making such a change. We believe that our amendment requiring an OBR report on changes to the fiscal rules is entirely consistent with the Government’s stated policy intent, and should therefore be fairly uncontentious. After all, on Second Reading, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that

“the announcement of a fiscally significant measure should always be accompanied by an independent assessment of its economic and fiscal implications, in order to support transparency and accountability.”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1211.]

We agree, and not accepting our amendment would be contrary to those goals, because clearly changing the fiscal rules would be a fiscally significant measure in anybody’s book. Furthermore, the Chief Secretary said that

“fiscal discipline and sound money is the bedrock of our plans.”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1213.]

Well, changing the fiscal rules would be changing the foundations and that bedrock.

Transparency and clarity are important in relation to the public finances, because Ministers should never forget that it is not their money that they are spending; it is the public’s money. The public have a right to know how their money is being spent, and government is about making difficult choices with limited resources. With Government spending being above £1.2 trillion per year, the British public recognise that the Government clearly have choices. It is not an endless supply of money, but it is a very, very large amount. In the last few weeks, the new Labour Government chose to spend the public’s money on pay settlements for their union friends rather than on supporting pensioners. Those settlements are estimated to cost about £10 billion. They also chose to spend £8.3 billion on a public energy company and £7.3 billion on a national wealth fund, so far from inheriting a £22-billion black hole, they have actually just spent £25 billion creating one within their first few weeks of coming to power.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. My understanding is that the Government have not published an impact assessment, as would normally be the case for something with such a significant impact. I think that speaks to the whole narrative that we are hearing from the Government: claiming one thing when the facts speak differently. As I said, far from inheriting a £22 billion black hole, they have actually spent, or committed to spending, an additional £25 billion. That is a choice that they made, so the claim that the Labour Government are having to take the winter fuel allowance away from millions of pensioners as a response to unexpected financial constraints simply does not stack up against the facts, or indeed the words of the Chancellor herself, who on 25 March 2014—yes, a decade ago—said:

“We are the party who have said that we will cut the winter fuel allowance for the richest pensioners and means-test that benefit to save money”.—[Official Report, 25 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 174.]

That is a direct quote in Hansard from the current Chancellor, so no, the Government’s restriction of winter fuel payments is not a response to financial circumstance; it is a long-established, clearly stated Labour policy intent—a deliberate policy choice, but a policy that they conveniently forgot to tell the public about in the run-up to the last election.

I hope, however, that the Government can be straight with the public on this point about the fiscal rules, accept the amendment that we are proposing, and provide assurance to all Members and the outside world that there is no sleight of hand here. We want the Bill to work as they say it is intended to, and to include financially significant decisions, such as on the levels of Government borrowing and the fiscal rules. I would therefore appreciate it if the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed in his wind-up that the Government do not intend to change the definition of debt in their fiscal rules or practise some accounting trick to hide the level of Government borrowing, and that they do indeed wish to be clear and transparent about the public finances. If Labour Members vote against our amendment, it will merely prove that they are planning to change their fiscal rules in the Budget to borrow more money, increase debt, and run away from independent OBR scrutiny—the very opposite of the stated intent of the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)]

I call Dr Jeevun Sandher to make his maiden speech.

Football Index Collapse

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Nusrat Ghani

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Nigel Huddleston]

With regard to compensation, as I have said, there are procedures that we cannot move from. It is also very clear that we strongly sympathise—everybody strongly sympathises. As a constituency MP, I also have constituents who have been impacted by the collapse and who have lost money. We have heard today anger and frustration about the genuine hardship—both financial and, of course, mental—caused by the collapse. However, we do not think it would be appropriate for the Government to use public funds to cover losses to individuals resulting from the collapse of a gambling company. Consumers staking money on gambling is not the same as their placing money into other things, such as savings products. Furthermore, the Gambling Commission does not have any statutory powers that would enable it to offer redress for losses suffered as the result of a gambling operator collapsing.

I know that I need to leave time for the hon. Member for Blaydon to respond to the debate, so I will briefly refer to a couple of other points that hon. Members have made. On the Insolvency Service investigation, BetIndex entered into administration on 26 March 2021 and administrators are required to report to the Insolvency Service on company directors’ conduct. Following information received from the administrators and the Gambling Commission, the Insolvency Service has confirmed that it is investigating the conduct of BetIndex’s directors.

The hon. Member for Blaydon asked for a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South. I will pass that request on, rather than make a promise on his behalf, but I am sure that he will receive that request with respect. I will also ask him to respond to a couple of other items that she asked about. Please be in no doubt of the seriousness with which the Government take all the matters that have been highlighted today, and the gambling review will indeed be announced in the coming weeks.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

Ms Twist, you have about a minute in which to wind up.

Events Research Programme

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Nusrat Ghani

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Lady is correct in highlighting the difference between professional and non-professional choirs. In accordance with performing arts guidance, non-professional groups of up to six people can now sing indoors. They can also perform or rehearse in groups of up to 30 outdoors, or in multiple groups of 30 outdoors, provided that the groups are kept separate. Those limits do not apply to commercial activities. We all know from our mail bags that this is an area of importance to our constituents, and we want to get choirs up and running again in all formats as soon as possible.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

I fear there is a two-tier system when it comes to data. The data tends to exist for football, motor racing, tennis and horse racing, yet there is no data to support outdoor events in my constituency. The Black Deer festival takes place in Eridge park. It is a music event. It is completely covid-safe, with track and trace and a covid manager in an outdoor area, yet it had to cancel, which has knocked our local economy and is undermining local jobs. What advice and support can the Minister give to Gill, who has unfortunately had to cancel the Black Deer festival, which was hoping to host around 10,000 people in an arena fit for 40,000?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I was very sorry to hear that the Black Deer festival has been unable to take place this year. I know that is enormously disappointing to many of my hon. Friend’s constituents and indeed to her, because I have spoken to her about this. She has lobbied very effectively on behalf of the festival and all the stakeholders, including Gill, who has also been in contact with the Department. I am afraid we have not been able to make every event, including many incredibly worthy events, ERP events, even in phase 3. But I must say to my hon. Friend that it is not true they are all sporting events; a wide variety of events—indoor, outdoor events, music events, business events and so on—are all part of the events research programme, because we want to get learnings across multiple sectors.

Flybmi

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Nusrat Ghani

Monday 18th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

Absolutely. The reason for Flybmi going into administration is that the business has just reached the end of its road. We have an overcapacity here and the power is with the passengers in the choices they make. Those passengers who are now struggling to get home and in distress must be recognised as well, but that is the market we are in.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and the reassurances she has given those who are directly impacted. Does she agree that the UK aviation industry is actually a success story? We have the third largest aviation sector in the world and we would like that to continue to be the case. Will she therefore assure me that she and her Department are working with the industry to make sure that it is planning effectively for all Brexit scenarios? Perhaps the Opposition would like to help out on this by reducing uncertainty by voting for the deal.

[Ms Ghani]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. People who are nervous about uncertainty need to vote for certainty, which would be the Prime Minister’s deal. We should not undermine the UK aviation sector. It is incredibly healthy, even though there are a number of challenges, especially in respect of how passenger numbers are going up. Interestingly, there is far more capacity than there are passengers, so shopping around for a good deal is important. What has come out of Flybmi going into administration over the weekend is that we should remember to make sure we are securing our tickets in a way that means they are insured, so that we can get compensation or refunds.

Kashmir

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Nusrat Ghani

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

First, I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on securing this debate and on being such a strong advocate for Kashmir and Kashmiris in the Chamber.

In 1947, India and Pakistan partitioned, bringing about the largest migration of people in history, with more than 14 million people—refugees—crossing the newly formed India-Pakistan border for safety. One border disputed to this day is Kashmir, a small piece of land in the Himalayas which today is an unstable home to 12 million Kashmiris. On 24 January 1949, the first group of United Nations military observers arrived in Jammu and Kashmir to oversee a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Almost 70 years later, India and Pakistan have evolved but Kashmir is still a region beset by political disagreement, violence, and human rights violations. Its population is just 12 million, yet more than 3,000 people have disappeared during the past 70 years and the conflict has left more than 47,000 people dead, including 7,000 police personnel. The death toll continues, with both India and Pakistan at an impasse, as was depressingly noted in a House of Commons Library research paper on Kashmir. It stated:

“Currently, the two governments”—

those of India and Pakistan—

“are engaged in a process of rapprochement. This is not the first such process, but it has given rise to optimism.”

That paper was written in 2004, and India and Pakistan have still got nowhere. Optimism has run dry, and bloodshed and bullets in Kashmir have taken over.

UN observations have taken place at various times since 1949, at considerable cost, but to what effect? Resolutions have been passed calling for ceasefires, for security forces to be withdrawn, and for a plebiscite giving Kashmiris the opportunity to decide whether to join India or Pakistan, or even to determine their own future—that is the cornerstone of any civilised democracy.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

The UN clearly has a pivotal role to play in Kashmir, but does my hon. Friend believe it has sufficient skills, resources and political will to do what we are expecting of it in securing peace?

Defending Public Services

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Nusrat Ghani

Monday 23rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who as always represents his constituents with great passion.

I intend to focus on matters in the Queen’s Speech that relate to communications and the digital economy. In her Gracious Speech, Her Majesty spoke of legislation to be introduced to

“improve Britain’s competitiveness and make the United Kingdom a world leader in the digital economy”.

I wholeheartedly support that aim, and a great deal has already been achieved. Britain must be a nation where technology continuously transforms the economy, society and government. The UK has embraced digital transformation, and it is one of the most advanced digital economies on the planet. The internet as a UK industry sector has surpassed manufacturing and retail, and represents the second-biggest economic sector. That has come about as a result not just of the Government’s policies, but from the entrepreneurial efforts and passion of British businesspeople.

According to the Centre for Retail Research, UK consumers will spend an average of £1,372 per person online this year. Online retail as a percentage of total retail is 23% in the UK, which is more than double that of Germany and three times that of the US. A key driver of that is the underlying strength and sophistication of the UK’s financial services industry, and consumer confidence in the security of credit card and financial information online. That is not the case in many other countries, and lack of confidence in the security of online financial data has inhibited the development of the digital economy not only in the developing world, but across many countries in Europe. UK consumers’ online habits are so strong that, when asked what other lifestyle habit they would give up for a year instead of giving up the internet, 78% said they would rather give up chocolate; 21% said they would give up their car; alarmingly, 17% said they would give up showering; and most alarmingly of all, 25% said they would give up—I am not sure how to phrase this, Madam Deputy Speaker—intimate relations.

[Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

Can you elaborate on that or give an example?

[Nigel Huddleston]

Later on, perhaps, but I will spare my blushes now.

Digital is a UK success story. At 12.4% of GDP, the UK internet economy is the largest of the G20 countries—it is double the size of the US internet economy, three times that of Germany and nearly four times that of France. I have said this many times in the Chamber but it is often overlooked: the G20 average is 3.5% of GDP.

The digital economy employs more than 1.5 million people and is growing at more than double the rate of GDP growth. Clearly, we are already in a leading position in the world. The issue is not so much about becoming a world leader in the digital economy, but retaining and further strengthening our leadership position. Broadband plays a key role in that. We have made huge progress—superfast broadband of at least 24 megabits per second is available in 90% of homes and businesses in the UK, up from a mere 45% in 2010. Ofcom statistics show that business connections sometimes lag behind domestic connections, and companies such as BT Openreach need to do much more to get businesses connected and to improve customer service overall, particularly in remote and rural areas.

The broadband market remains confusing to many consumers and businesses. Research commissioned by Ofcom found that around half of small and medium-sized enterprises found that information about suppliers and tariffs was difficult to compare. I am therefore pleased that the Government are making progress to improve competition, particularly by making the switching process clearer and easier in both the broadband and mobile markets.

On the specific digital measures announced in the Queen’s Speech, I very much welcome the digital economy Bill, which will deliver on the manifesto commitment to roll out universal broadband and increase competition. The new electronic communication code will make it easier and cheaper to build mobile and superfast broadband infrastructure. We must protect and support our digital industries, which is why the introduction of equal penalties for infringements of online and physical copyright is so important. I warmly welcome the proposals to protect children with age verification for accessing online pornography.

The BBC has played a key role in shaping how we are educated, entertained and informed in the UK, via radio, TV, print and online. The BBC iPlayer is one of the most-used digital content sites in the UK. According to last year’s annual report, in January 2015 alone, 264 million iPlayer requests were made. Similarly, more than 27 million unique users in the UK went to BBC News online each week in the first three months of 2015. Those numbers will be higher now.

The BBC has clearly played and will continue to play a key role in the future of the UK digital economy. I therefore welcome the proposals in the recent White Paper to secure the BBC’s future. Many people have been in contact with me about the future of the BBC, expressing suggestions and concerns. I am glad that many of those fears were allayed in the White Paper. Contrary to the predictions of some, there was no wholesale destruction of the BBC, no abolition of the licence fee, no meddling with TV schedules and no instruction not to make popular programmes. Instead, there will be a longer charter, clarity on funding, improved governance, and opportunities for more commercial exploitation of the BBC’s hugely valuable content library. The simple fact of the matter is that the BBC will be in a stronger not weaker position as a result of the recommendations in the White Paper.

There is much to be praised in the Queen’s speech, and I am confident that the focus on the digital economy and technology will have long-lasting consequences that will benefit the UK economy for decades to come.

Tenant Farming

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Nusrat Ghani

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Nusrat Ghani]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Tenancies need to be flexible but, if a tenant farmer wants to explore their industry and their business, they need the opportunity to extend their tenancy. Farmers can struggle if their tenancies are short; those things are not facilitated by short-term tenancies. I referred to the Government’s welcome move to extend tax averaging from two to five years, but it is odd that that example of good Government policy is undermined by and inconsistent with tenancy terms, which are, on average, shorter than the period allowed for averaging farm profits. Similarly, many tenants cannot even begin to think of the Government’s 10-year countryside stewardship scheme. What is the point when they cannot guarantee being there for the length of the scheme?

At the moment, landlords can offer short terms for high rents at little risk to themselves, but they leave the tenant in endless uncertainty and hold back investment and long-term sustainable land use. Such tenancies can be particularly difficult for livestock tenant farmers, who see limited returns. I spent a morning with my constituent Elizabeth Buchanan of Black Ven Farm in Nutley, testing for tuberculosis—I assure hon. Members there is no TB on her farm—and she said to me:

“It encourages short-termism of the worst sort.”

I tried to get other quotations from tenant farmers in my constituency, but they were concerned that raising them in the Chamber might reflect badly on their landlords. That is an issue as well.

Some have argued that legislation to impose long-term security on tenancies is the answer. As a free-market Conservative, I do not wish to see that kind of imposition, but we should not be afraid of providing incentives for longer-term tenancies. Landowners get 100% agricultural property relief from inheritance tax if the person who owned the land farmed it themselves, or if it was used by someone else on a short-term grazing licence, or if it was let on a tenancy that began on or after 1 September 1995—after the introduction of the farm business tenancy. For all other landowners, the level of relief is set at 50%.

What if we restricted the 100% relief to landlords who let their land for five years or more, or perhaps even 10 years or more? There are obviously disadvantages for landlords in doing that, despite the advantages for the tenants, so we could offer them something in return. For example, we could give landlords who are willing to let for a longer term the ability to declare their income as trading income for tax purposes and easier mechanisms for ending tenancies if there is a breach of contract. Other alternatives include reforming stamp duty land tax, which currently disincentivises landlords from offering long-term tenancies, to end the discrimination against such tenancies.

The Conservative party, which I and the Minister are proud to be members of, often talks about its long-term economic plan. Will the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with tenant farming representatives and the Treasury on the possibility of making the changes I have suggested? How will those issues be dealt with in his Department’s upcoming 25-year food and farming plan? Let us make the long-term economic plan a reality in the farming industry and incentivise long-term tenancies to promote investment and economic security.

I am delighted to be a parliamentary representative for the Conservative rural affairs group, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). I recently spoke to Richard Haddock, who has just departed as chairman of the group. He said that we must work harder

“for the working farmer, not the landlords, because the landlords have the asset of the land and can borrow against it. If a tenant farmer wants to diversify, he does the work and takes the risk, but the landlord still takes the cut.”

The farmer increases the value of the landlord’s asset, but is often cheated out of many of the rewards that are owed to him.

A couple of weeks ago, the Prince’s Countryside Fund released new research showing that half of UK farmers no longer make a living from farming alone. They have to diversify to make their businesses sustainable, but diversification is a risk. Why would they take that risk if they do not know how long they are going to stay on their land and are at risk of eviction once their tenancy lease is up—especially if the landlord takes a cut from the diversification enterprise?

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

In my constituency, like my hon. Friend’s, many farmers are making huge strides in diversifying their incomes, whether through farm shops or holiday lettings. Does she agree that the short-term nature of some tenancy agreements inhibits such planning and diversification? Should the Government provide incentives for longer-term diversification in farms?

[Nusrat Ghani]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is reading my mind—I hope to go on to that. For tenant farmers to diversify, which they have to in order to keep their business thriving, they need some assurances that they can reap the rewards of their investment in the land they take care of.

Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to ensure that farmers have an incentive to diversify, so that they and the rural economy can benefit from new initiatives and enterprise? Also, how is he communicating the 25-year food and farming plan to local authorities, so that they may support tenant farmers and local businesses to survive?

In Sussex, in particular, the problem many tenant farmers face is that there is simply not enough land available to them. They want to expand, invest and diversify, but they cannot. Often, that is because they are out-competed by developers, who simply have more financial leverage with landlords. Understandably, those landlords are looking for the most profitable way in which their land can be sold. The most profitable way for the landlord, however, does not necessarily mean the most profitable way for the rural economy. Will the Minister describe the action the Government are taking to ensure an increase or, at least, to prevent a decrease in the availability of land to tenant farmers?

President Eisenhower of the United States once said:

“Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you’re a thousand miles from the corn field.”

He was right, of course—it is easy for us consumers to take those who are striving in green fields for granted, and to expect a steady supply of meat, vegetables and dairy products at respectable prices. The food security of our country lies on their shoulders, and the role of farmers in Sussex and elsewhere in keeping food on our table in an unstable world is vital.

In January, my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) led an important debate on food security in this Westminster Hall Chamber. He highlighted how, as the world’s population grows and with increasing unrest and conflict, as well as what may be considered fractured relationships between Russia, China and the United States, the ability of some regions to produce food that can be turned into affordable imports for us in Britain is not guaranteed. He also made the valuable point that every tonne we import is a tonne less that is available to other nations, which might not have the ability to produce as we can. So we must empower our farmers to produce, and not limit their capacity by withholding land, saddling them with excessive regulation or disincentivising them from diversifying and investing.

Views on the European Union within the farming community are mixed, but in my opinion the EU does itself no favours when it issues regulations about crop rotation and the size of a hedge to recipients of the basic payment scheme. Such regulations all cost time, money and effort, and do not help British farmers—already adhering to high standards—to achieve a competitive edge, especially when the basic payment scheme payments are delayed, as they have been. Furthermore, landlords are known to take advantage of the basic payment scheme: if they know what the farmer is receiving, they can put their rent up accordingly, meaning a higher charge for the farmer before they even start producing.

Today, I have focused on tenancy security, but tenant farmers face many challenges—tax issues and incentives, tenancy succession, encouraging new entrants with loan schemes, and the arbitration process are all causes for concern. Time does not allow me to speak about those concerns in any great depth, but they and the interests of tenant farmers should be heard. I am grateful for the opportunity to have contributed in a small way, and I hope that other Members will do the same now and in future.

Deaths of Journalists: Conflict Zones

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Nusrat Ghani

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nusrat Ghani]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point: the numbers are vast in the past 50 years or so. I hope that the Minister will respond on that, and I will ask him to do so towards the end of my speech. The International Federation of Journalists puts the number even higher than the CPJ, saying that at least 112 were killed last year.

Professional journalists in conflict zones, such as those working for the BBC and Sky, are fortunate to have extensive support from their employers. Employees of those organisations undergo hostile environment training in preparation for travelling to conflict zones to check that they are adequately prepared for the dangers that they will face.

Recently, a member of staff working for a major British media outlet in the middle east was approached by a man who verbally abused him, accusing him of being a traitor and a collaborator. His companions intervened, but another eight people arrived on the scene carrying batons and knives. The journalist ran away and took refuge in a nearby shop. However, two of his companions were heavily beaten up and received hospital treatment from the injuries they sustained.

The incident was reported by the staff member to the high risk team, which subsequently deployed a security adviser to the country to conduct a security review for that individual, and put additional security measures in place to support the staff. However, increasingly, our news comes not just from professional journalists, whose names, faces and employers we recognise, but from stringers and citizen journalists. Stringers are unattached freelance journalists and citizen journalists are members of the public—independent voices.

The ability of citizen journalists to share stories has an effect on professional journalists. The pressure to go deeper into conflict zones is greater. One of the defining features of a war reporter these days is that they are embedded in the conflict. Today, they are on the frontline, or in enemy territory.

Increasingly, we understand that many of the world’s conflicts today are conflicts of narrative. In the middle east, Daesh wants to control what the conflict looks like. It wants a monopoly over stories and images. More than ever, the narrative is what people are fighting over. Daesh wants to recruit with images, and the reality disseminated by journalists challenges that propaganda. Any citizen journalist can break the propaganda machine. Anyone with a phone is an opponent.

Daesh sees journalists as spies. It sees them as western actors who seek to disrupt the Daesh narrative by reporting on its weaknesses and failures, and that makes them a target. The philosopher Walter Benjamin said:

“History is written by the victors.”

That remains true, but the victors, and the course of the fight, are now a consequence of what is written, and that is even more the case now than it was in Benjamin’s time. That makes it even more important that we protect and honour those journalists, whether professional or citizen.

The BBC’s Lyse Doucet said last year:

“We often say that journalists are no longer on the frontline. But we are the frontline...We are targeted in a way we never have been before... now journalists are seen as bounty and as having propaganda value.”

Journalists in conflict zones are not ordinary members of the public. They tell the stories that allow us to understand what is truly going on in the confusion and propaganda of warfare, and they carry out a vital public service.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate her on securing this very important debate. Does she agree that the pace of news in the modern age means that we can no longer wait for dispatches to be informed about what is going on in conflict zones? Journalists are best positioned to give us this real-time accurate information of what is really going on.

[Nusrat Ghani]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Conflict is changing incredibly quickly. Lots of chaotic terrorism acts are happening all over the world, and, quite often, we rely on journalists to be our eyes and ears on the ground.

My discussions with journalists and their employers in recent days have highlighted what I consider to be a gap in the service provided by the Foreign Office to those taking risks to bring truth and to hold people to account. Will the Foreign Office consider making it the policy of British embassies and consuls abroad to hold a register of journalists working in conflict zones within the relevant country at any one time? At the moment this process is ad hoc. On registration, the embassy would and should provide a security briefing on the situation in that country or the neighbouring country if it is in conflict, increasing the ability of journalists to protect themselves, and their employer’s ability to ensure that they are acting according to legitimate and expert advice.

The role of foreign Governments in the protection of journalists is an important one. Will the Minister outline what expectations the Foreign Office currently has of foreign Governments to do everything they can to protect journalists who are British, or working for British-based media outlets, and to challenge them to extend that protection to their own local journalists? Will he consider making it a requirement for negotiations with foreign Governments, especially when embarking on diplomatic relations with emerging democracies, that the protection of journalists is an issue on the table?

The British Government have rightly identified Bangladesh and Pakistan as critical countries in the region and we have partnered with them as a result. Yet in Bangladesh, for example, bloggers are killed by al-Qaeda and others because of what they write. Last year, over 40% of journalists killed in Bangladesh were killed by Islamic extremists because they just disagreed with the words that were written.

In Pakistan in 2006, it is documented that the Government prepared a list of 33 columnists, writers and reporters in the English and Urdu print media and tried to neutralise the “negativism” of these writers by making them “soft and friendly”, and one could interpret that as going a bit beyond a friendly chat. I have more up-to-date testimonies, but the journalists concerned were reluctant for me to raise that on the Floor of the House today. Will the Foreign Office consider making it a requirement that countries that we are partnered with show clear intent to protect the rights of journalists, both professional and citizen? We must not flinch from exporting our proud British values of freedom of the media and of expression.

I will finish by talking about Ruqia Hassan, a citizen journalist in Syria who used her Facebook page to describe the atrocities of daily life in Raqqa, until she went silent in July last year. It has been reported that her last words were:

“I’m in Raqqa and I received death threats, and when Isis [arrests] me and kills me it’s ok because they will cut my head and I have dignity it’s better than I live in humiliation with Isis.”

It has been speculated that her Facebook page was kept open for months so that other citizen journalists could be lured in and so that they too, in turn, could be silenced.

Naji Jerf, a 38-year-old activist who reported for the website “Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently”, was also murdered late last year following his final work, “Islamic State in Aleppo”, which exposed human rights violations in the city. His murderers disagreed with him that anyone should hear about those violations. I believe he is the fourth person from “Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently” to have been murdered so far.

Individuals such as these are part of conflict, and through our consumption of news we are complicit in their participation, but they take the risks. We must honour their bravery, and their pride in what they were, and still are, doing, by highlighting their contribution not only to our understanding of what is going on in conflict zones, but also their contribution to ending conflict by shedding light on it, and we must do all we can to defend their right to do what they do, and protect them as they go about it.

Mobile Telecommunications Market: Contracts

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Nusrat Ghani

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that transparency is particularly important for the elderly? People are often encouraged to get a mobile phone by their children or grandchildren in case of an emergency, but they are not always technologically savvy enough to know what kind of tariff or package is right for them. They are at high risk of being hugely over-charged when their contract comes to an end, particularly as they get older.

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Research by Which?, and others, has shown that as we go through the age brackets, the number of people switching goes down. Many more people in the elderly age groups are on the wrong contract, and many more do not really know what the process of switching involves. I know that Age UK campaigns on that issue.

What can be done about this issue? The good news is that some progress has already been made. In July, Ofcom launched a consultation on consumer switching, seeking views on a range of mobile switching options. I await the results with interest. The Government have a strong record on consumer affairs, and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills recently set out six specific proposals, or principles, on switching intended to cover a range of industries including not only the mobile sector but broadband, banking and energy. In these, the Government recognised that consumers should be able to switch quickly, at an agreed date, for free, with access to data in a format that can be easily understood and that the switching process should be gainer-led, eliminating the need to contact both losing and gaining operators. I believe we are unique in Europe in still having a loser-led system for switching.

Things are moving in the right direction. I am aware that some operators themselves are keen on the gainer-led system, including Three. In many ways, I feel I am pushing at an open door on switching. I am confident about progress on switching, but further work is needed on contract transparency and tariffs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

I completely agree. I am focusing on the contract side of things today, but it is absolutely the case that when consumers consider moving operators they look at maps of coverage and whether they can get a 3G or 4G service. That is one of the points to consider. Often they are then persuaded that an alternative operator will fulfil their needs, only to find out when they open the phone at home that that is not the case. There are no repercussions to that and no compensation. That is a major concern that needs to be addressed.

[Nusrat Ghani]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the design of mobile phone plans. Does he support encouraging mobile operators to have flexible plans that allow people to pay for a combination of data, calls and texts that reflects their needs, instead of their having to pay more for a plan with unnecessary extra minutes, just because they want more data?

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that touches on the whole purpose of this discussion. Many people are either on plans with services they never use, in which case more flexibility would be appreciated, or paying a penal rate for services they did not anticipate using but ended up using. That is costing consumers hundreds of millions of pounds a year—I think that £885 million a year is spent on out-of-tariff charges, for example.