Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Andrew Selous

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

5. To ask the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, what steps the Church has taken to support family relationships, parenting and marriage since the establishment of the Archbishops’ Commission on Families and Households.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)]

The report of the joint Archbishops’ Commission on Families and Households was enthusiastically received by the General Synod at its meeting in February. The Archbishops’ Council is now incorporating the report’s recommendations into the work programme.

[Mr Hollobone]

The key messages from the Archbishops’ Commission are unambiguous: families, relationships and love matter. The No. 1 action point from the commission is

“to maximise the protective effect of families”.

What steps is the Church of England taking to achieve that in Kettering and across the whole country?

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in this important area. I can tell him that the commissioners have had meetings with Departments and with the children’s commissioner to work alongside Government to strengthen family relationships, parenting and marriage. The Church itself wants to play a more active role in this crucial area and is producing new resources to help parishes do so. I am sure he will know that, in his own constituency, St Andrew’s Church is already exemplifying much of this good work under the excellent leadership of the Reverend Tom Houston, who trained as a youth worker prior to ordination.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Andrew Selous

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that, as far as I am aware, this area is not covered by Barnett consequentials. Again, I direct him to the advice on the Church of England website, which can be seen by churches in Northern Ireland. If there are particular issues, I am happy to have a quiet conversation with him in the Tea Room to see how we can share best practice to try to help his churches.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

3. If the Church will have discussions with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the Church’s guidance for clergy on supporting asylum seekers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous]

Both archbishops have offered to meet the Home Secretary, and the Church has provided advice and guidance for clergy to consider when dealing with requests for baptism from asylum seekers. The guidance refers to the need for discernment and recognises that there may be mixed motives on the part of asylum seekers requesting baptism.

[Mr Hollobone]

I welcome that meeting. Those who are genuinely seeking to convert to Christianity should of course be allowed to do so. But is my hon. Friend aware that there is growing concern in this country that the Church of England—naively at best, and deliberately at worst—is being seen to aid and abet asylum seekers in getting around the laws of this country and remaining in the United Kingdom? May I urge the Church of England to update its guidance entitled “Supporting Asylum Seekers—Guidance for Church of England Clergy” as soon as possible to ensure that it is in alignment with new legislation passed in this House?

[Andrew Selous]

That guidance is being updated, so I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point. He is right that clergy will always rightly tell everyone they come across about the love of Jesus, but clergy do not determine asylum claims. Of course, priests are expected to uphold the law and make truthful representations of character. I hope that reassures him. I also note that in the recent Times investigation of 28 cases heard by the upper tribunal where a claimant cited conversion to Christianity as a reason to be granted asylum, only seven were approved, 13 were dismissed, and new hearings were ordered in eight other cases.

Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure (HC 341) Church of England Pensions (Application of Capital Funds) Measure (HC 342)

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Andrew Selous

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 General Committees

[Andrew Selous]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I hope that these two measures will not detain the Committee for long.

The Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure is the latest in a series of such Measures. It makes provision for a range of matters concerning the Church of England that do not merit separate free-standing legislation. It includes provisions relating to the General Synod, ecclesiastical offices, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, Church property, elections to representative bodies, the functions of the Church Commissioners, appointments to the Church of England Pensions Board and the conduct of various types of meeting. I do not propose to take the Committee through all its 22 clauses in detail, but I will elaborate on its most significant provisions.

Clause 1 will put on a permanent basis the ability of the General Synod of the Church of England to hold remote or hybrid meetings. Temporary provision was made during the covid pandemic for the General Synod to meet and conduct its business on a remote or hybrid basis. Experience has shown that the ability to hold remote meetings, particularly hybrid meetings, is of continuing value, particularly given the inability of some members to attend meetings of the Synod for reasons of health or disability. We envisage that the Synod is most likely to continue to hold hybrid meetings with most members physically present.

Clause 2 amends the Legislative Reform Measure 2018 by removing a sunset provision. The Legislative Reform Measure enables the Archbishops’ Council—with the approval of the General Synod, and subject to the negative procedure in Parliament for statutory instruments—to make legislative reform orders that can amend ecclesiastical legislation contained in Acts of Parliament and Church Measures, within certain limits. The power to make legislative reform orders would expire in March of this year without the amendment made by clause 2 to repeal the sunset provision. The Church has found the power to make legislative reform orders a useful one; three significant orders have been made since the power came into being. This amendment will ensure that the power to make further orders remains available. The orders made so far have related to the exercise of patronage, the constitution of the Church of England Pensions Board and certain procedures of the Church Commissioners.

Clause 7 and schedule 1 make it possible for those cathedrals that wish to do so to appoint lay residentiary canons. The residentiary canons of a cathedral, all of whom must currently be ordained as priests or deacons, constitute the principal group of individuals who exercise ministry and form the praying heart of a cathedral. For some time now, the Church has sought to recognise and encourage the ministry of lay people, both in parishes and in cathedrals. The ministry of readers, who are now often called licensed lay ministers, and of lay workers is recognised and regulated by the canons of the Church of England. Some cathedrals wish to include experienced lay ministers among their residentiary canons; this Measure will enable them to do so. I should point out that no cathedral will be obliged to have lay residentiary canons.

Clauses 9 to 12 update the practice and procedure of the Church’s courts and statutory tribunals in various ways. These include provisions designed to increase diversity among those appointed as ecclesiastical judges and impose mandatory training requirements for ecclesiastical judges; to expedite decisions on permission to appeal from the decisions of tribunals; and to put the live broadcast of proceedings in Church courts on a statutory footing. Members of the Committee may be interested to know that these courts principally cover matters relating to planning permission-type issues in relation to the use and development of church buildings and churchyards, as well as clergy discipline matters.

Clause 20 and schedule 2 make provision for a range of Church of England bodies at the local as well as national level to hold their meetings remotely or to hold hybrid meetings. These include parochial church councils, diocesan synods, deanery boards, parochial church meetings, parishioners meetings to choose churchwardens, cathedral chapters, diocesan boards of education, the church buildings council, and boards of patronage under pastoral schemes.

The Church of England Pensions (Application of Capital Funds) Measure is a much shorter, technical measure. If passed, it will extend the Church Commissioners’ currently time-limited power to spend capital to meet their pensions obligations—mainly to clergy—for service carried out before 1998. Under the current legislation, the power to do so will expire at the end of 2025. This measure will extend the period for a further seven years, until the end of 2032. The ability to apply capital as well as income to meet pensions obligations gives the commissioners much greater flexibility in their asset allocation policy.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s excellent and entertaining speech. Why 2032? Normally, these things are extended by five, 10 or 15 years. Why seven?

[Andrew Selous]

My hon. Friend, who is well versed in biblical history, will know the significance of seven in the Old Testament, and indeed in the new. It has just been the case that this measure has been rolled on for seven consecutive years, so my hunch is that it has theological origins.

The pensions measure will enable the Church Commissioners to invest in a broad range of asset classes, including those where most, and in some cases all, of the investment returns come from capital appreciation—an increase in the value of the holdings, rather than from income distributions, for example dividends and interest. The ability to apply capital in this way has been a crucial enabling factor in the strong returns the commissioners have generated for the Church of England’s endowment fund. Those returns have fed through to increased support for the Church’s mission and ministry.

From 2020 to 2022, the commissioners were able to make £150 million of additional funding above the level that might have been expected. As reported to the General Synod last July, in the current spending period, 2023 to 2025, the commissioners plan to distribute 30% more than was distributed in the period 2020 to 2022. Looking over a longer period, planned distributions by the commissioners in 2023 to 2025 are more than double the equivalent in 2017 to 2019. The power provided by this measure to apply capital towards the cost of the commissioners’ historical pensions liabilities will enable them to continue to manage the endowment in the way that best serves the Church, both now and sustainably into the future. The Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament has reported on both measures and found them both to be expedient.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Andrew Selous

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

There has been an increase in the number of ordinands between 2016 and 2020, when we had 1,373 in total, including 591 starting training, which was the largest in a generation. There was a slight dip during the pandemic, but we are committed to continuing to train more priests; that is absolutely essential and is exactly what the Church of England wants to see.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

7. Whether the Church of England is taking steps to plant more trees on its land.

[Andrew Selous]

Since 2014, the Church Commissioners have planted 819 acres of new woodland in the UK. Over the last two years we have bought 438 more acres in south Wales and Angus in Scotland, to plant 350,000 more trees, subject to planning permission. Over the last five years we have planted 11.8 million trees globally.

[Mr Hollobone]

That is great news for Scotland, Wales and the rest of the world, but what about England’s green and pleasant land? England has, at 10%, the lowest tree coverage in Europe, so can we have more church trees, please, in England?

[Andrew Selous]

My hon. Friend speaks so well, not only for Kettering

but for England. He is right to draw attention to the fact that England is among the countries with the least tree cover in Europe. The Church absolutely wants to play its part in changing that. To help achieve that, it participated in the Queen’s green canopy initiative, including through work on an 8,000 mixed-tree plantation in north-west England. We also work with farming tenants across England to explore every possible planting opportunity, including planting trees in hedgerows, agri- forestry and field-scale woodland planting, and will carry on doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Andrew Selous

Thursday 28th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising an important point. The Church is partnering the Government in hosting many of the Ukrainian refugees for whom his constituents are quite properly caring.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

6. To ask the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, what steps the Church of England is taking to support family relationships, parenting and marriage.

[Andrew Selous]

It is precisely because the Church of England recognises the profound importance of families, parents and marriage that the archbishops have set up a commission on families and households, which will make recommendations to both the Church and wider society on how we can strengthen these vital relationships.

[Mr Hollobone]

According to a recent report from the Centre for Social Justice,

“Marriage has become a middle-class secret. Among high income couples…83% have tied the knot; among low-income parents…only 55% are married. This ‘marriage gap’ is a social justice issue”.

Is the Church of England concerned about that, and if so, what is it going to do about it?

[Andrew Selous]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising an extremely important social justice issue. The Church is indeed concerned about it, which is why the archbishops established the commission. Evidence shows that 50% of unmarried men cite cost as a reason for not marrying. I think we can learn from the churches that have often provided not only a service full of love and meaning but free, individually tailored wedding dresses, with the congregation helping with food, drink and flowers. Actions like these can ensure that the joys of marriage are shared equally across every income group. However, the current situation should concern us all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Andrew Selous

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point, and he is exactly right. The Church is much more than just its buildings; it is its people. This is an opportunity for all of us, as Christians, to reach out to others in need—there are many in all our communities—and that is exactly what the Church will be doing over the coming months.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

As public worship is suspended during the coronavirus crisis, what plans does the Church of England have for a national day of prayer?

[Andrew Selous]

The Archbishop of Canterbury has called for a national day of prayer this Sunday. The Church is particularly keen that all Christians reach out to look after the vulnerable in their communities, as I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). The archbishop has called for people to put lighted candles in their windows at 7 pm on Sunday as a sign of solidarity with what the nation is currently going through.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Andrew Selous

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

20. What recent assessment he has made of the likelihood of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

21. What assessment he has made of the (a) sources of funding and supply for, (b) size of the arsenal behind and (c) political implications for an Israeli-Palestinian peace process of continued rocket fire into Israel from the Gaza strip.

Gypsies and Travellers

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Andrew Selous

Wednesday 12th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I condemn all hate crime, whoever it is directed at. Actually, much of the abuse is between Travellers themselves, which I am also very much against.

Shopkeepers are too terrified to report shoplifting by Travellers for fear of retaliation, and it is not just small shops either. The staff in one supermarket are too terrified to apprehend Travellers taking and eating roast chicken from their store without paying. The fear of retaliation is real. I am aware of one business and one individual who have suffered fires after disagreements with local Travellers. There was a recent implied threat to one of my parish councils that there would be less trouble in its village next year if it did not oppose a local Traveller site expansion. We cannot accept that type of blackmail in the planning system.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

This wave of fear and intimidation in our countryside and in communities bordering the countryside is outrageous in 21st-century Britain. It is made even more outrageous by the fact that these individuals’ rights are protected by the Human Rights Act, which this Government have pledged to overturn.

[Andrew Selous]

What my hon. Friend shows is that the current policy is very bad for community cohesion. I want good community cohesion between everyone in our country.

Residents in another of my villages are terrified that a plot of agricultural land will be bought by Travellers at auction shortly. I do not think they intend to farm it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Andrew Selous

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

4. How many non-UK EU nationals (a) the UK has ever returned to prison in their own EU country under the EU prisoner transfer directive and (b) are in a UK prison.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)]

One hundred and two prisoners have so far been transferred from England and Wales under the EU prisoner transfer agreement. There were 4,111 EU nationals detained in prisons in England and Wales on 31 March 2016, with 2,967 serving an immediate custodial sentence. The transfer of prisoners from Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the devolved authorities.

[Mr Hollobone]

I was expecting a low number but the number of EU transferees back to their country of origin is absolutely pathetic. With the number of EU nationals in our prisons approaching 40% of the foreign national prisoner population, is this not just another example of the European Union, through its directives, promising us the earth but, in effect, giving the British people the square root of naff all?

[Andrew Selous]

The main mechanism by which we get foreign national offenders out of our jails, which we are very keen to do, is the early removal system, which transfers out about 1,800 a year. The European prisoner transfer agreement is therefore in addition to the early release scheme, but it may be helpful to my hon. Friend if I give him the figures. The transfer agreement was implemented only in 2013, and we got 19 out in 2014, 38 out in 2015 and 29 out in 2016, to date, with a roughly similar number awaiting transfer.

Safety in Custody and Violence in Prisons

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Andrew Selous

Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for his work as prisons Minister. He takes his role extremely seriously. I think my constituents will be very surprised to hear quite how much stuff is being thrown over prison walls: mobile phones, drugs, lethal highs and knives. Surely in 2016 we have the ability to stop this happening, or at least to minimise it? What plans does the Minister have to tackle this issue?

[Andrew Selous]

These issues are not easy. Our prisons are not like the Eden Project: they do not have a dome over the top of them. Unfortunately, it is all too easy to get things over a prison wall, as I saw when I went around HMP Rochester last Thursday morning. My hon. Friend raises an important issue. All of us, particularly as Members of Parliament, have a role in getting the message out in our communities that new psychoactive substances are lethal. They do terrible harm to the loved ones of families who inadvertently bring them into prisons. We need local communities to work with us and the police to try to stop the terrible flow of evil drugs over prison walls.

Transpeople (Prisons)

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Andrew Selous

Friday 20th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

The hon. Lady is right in that, two years or so ago, there was an unexpected increase in the prison population at a time when a quite significant number of prisons had been closed, and we were not able to move prison officers from the prisons that were closing to where the new capacity was being provided. We recognised that, and straight away we embarked on a very significant recruitment campaign. The good news is that it is now bearing fruit.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

My constituents know that the Minister is taking this issue extremely seriously, as he does all matters to do with Her Majesty’s prisons. What is the difficulty, however, about publishing the number of transgender people in prisons, and what are the merits and demerits of establishing a specialist unit to deal with these extremely vulnerable people?

[Andrew Selous]

I committed myself to providing the information on numbers in answer to an earlier question, but I assure my hon. Friend that decency is at the heart of everything that we do. We are reviewing this issue with outside stakeholders, and if we need to think again about our provision and the way in which we deal with these issues, we will consider doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Andrew Selous

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

My hon. Friend makes two extremely good points. First, we have to ensure that the training and qualifications that prisoners get are of high quality and are valued by employers. We are committed to involving employers in the reviews that we undertake. Secondly, we are looking to reconfigure the prison estate so that we move prisoners around less, but I absolutely get her point about continuity and allowing prisoners to complete the courses they have started.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Would my hon. Friend consider establishing a Queen’s award for prisoner rehabilitation, so that good employers such as Timpson and Halfords can be suitably recognised?

[Andrew Selous]

That is an excellent idea, and I will give it serious consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Andrew Selous

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

How many foreign national offenders are there in our prisons, and will any effective action be taken during the lifetime of this Parliament drastically to increase the numbers returned to secure detention in their own countries?

[Andrew Selous]

I commend my hon. Friend’s diligence in continuing to raise this matter. The answer to his second question is absolutely yes. On the specifics, 10,512 foreign national offenders were in prison at 30 June 2015. It is important to say that of those, 6,386 were sentenced prisoners; 2,231 were on remand; and 1,669 were non-criminal, mainly immigration detainees. The number has reduced since 2010. The Home Office returned more than 5,000 last year. We will ensure that all eligible Polish prisoners are considered for transfer in December 2016. We are discussing a compulsory prisoner transfer agreement with Jamaica, and we are close to signing a prisoner transfer agreement with Iraq.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Andrew Selous

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hollobone]

You are very kind, Mr Speaker.

How many foreign national offenders do we have in our prisons, and what plans are under way to send these people back to secure detention in their own countries?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)]

This Parliament would not have been the same had not my hon. Friend carried on with his diligent scrutiny of this important subject. I can report to him that at 31 March 2015 10,481 foreign national offenders were in custody in England and Wales, just over 6,000 of whom are sentenced prisoners. The Immigration Act 2014 has enabled us to cut the number of appeal rights from 17 to four. Over 800 removals have now taken place as a result of these changes. Last year, the Home Office managed to send back over 5,000 foreign national offenders.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Andrew Selous

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the number of foreign national offenders in our prisons doubled when his Government were in power. This Government have brought the number down: from 11,135 in June 2010 to 10,503. He is of course right that we have further work to do. We have signed prisoner transfer agreements with Nigeria, Somaliland and Albania, and we are actively making sure that European Union prisoner transfer arrangements take place, notably with Poland at the end of next year. We are absolutely focused on continuing to make progress on this important issue.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

When a foreign national commits a crime in the United Kingdom, they should be sent back to where they came from and banned from ever returning. Should we not also compulsorily transfer prisoners from our jails to prisons in their own countries? What new compulsory transfer agreements are the Government working on?

[Andrew Selous]

I commend my hon. Friend’s persistence, as always, on this issue. The introduction of the Immigration Act 2014 will make a significant difference. It gives us the ability to deport people first, allowing foreign national offenders to appeal in their home country later. We have reduced the number of appeal options from 17 to four, which is starting to make a difference.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Andrew Selous

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

How many foreign national offenders are in our prisons, and what steps are being taken to return them to secure detention in their own countries?

[Andrew Selous]

As always, I commend my hon. Friend’s persistence on this issue. There are 10,319 foreign national offenders in custody—down from 11,153 in May 2010—and that figure is the lowest for the end of any quarter since March 2006. That is in marked contrast to the Labour Government under whom the number of foreign national offenders doubled.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Andrew Selous

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I understand the point my hon. Friend makes, but perhaps that is the standard advice given by the police on all occasions. I can tell him, however, that absconds and escapes have fallen by 80% over the past decade, so we have got better at this, but of course we will try to ensure that no one escapes or absconds.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

What programmes are undertaken in prison to help prisoners modify their violent behaviour, and do they have to pass such courses before they are even considered for transfer?

[Andrew Selous]

We are undertaking more detailed risk assessments than there were in the past, but my hon. Friend raises an important point. Members should be aware that the number of people sent to prison for violent offences has increased by 40% over the past decade. However, I have seen very good violence reduction programmes in our prisons and am looking to spread those as widely as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

How many foreign national offenders are there in our prisons and what steps have been taken to return them to serve out their sentences in their countries of origin?

[Andrew Selous]

May I first commend my hon. Friend for persistently and regularly raising this issue? He is right to do so and I have no doubt that he will go on doing so. I can tell him that this Government, unlike the last, have removed more than 22,000 foreign national offenders. Their numbers doubled under the previous Government, but we are bringing their numbers down. Specifically, I can tell my hon. Friend that at the end of September there were 10,319 foreign national offenders in prison, fewer than the 11,153 in May 2010. The figure is down 515 from that in the answer I gave him in September’s oral questions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Andrew Selous

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

How many foreign national offenders are there in our prisons, and what concrete steps are being taken to send them back to secure custody in their own countries?

[Andrew Selous]

We have 10,834 foreign national offenders in our prisons. We have signed prisoner transfer agreements with the European Union, Albania and Nigeria and, as I said in an earlier answer, we removed 5,097 foreign national offenders last year. I can assure my hon. Friend that this is a priority for me, as it is for him.

Information for Backbenchers on Statements

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Andrew Selous

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hollobone]

I am sure that any motion that comes before the House will benefit from the contribution of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), because he has a lot to say on the issue, and quite rightly so. However, what I would say to him now is that the motion on the Order Paper this evening is not wishy-washy. We commend the Speaker on the brave steps that he has taken, we reassert the principle that Ministers ought to make statements to the House, and we note paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code. We can vote on the motion this evening or we can accept it without going through the Division Lobbies. We will be in a far better place if the motion succeeds this evening than we were yesterday.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has been extremely generous in giving way. Does he agree that we will need to see a major shift in how the media do their business? It is not just the 24-hour news cycle; it seems that the local and national media expect to be given everything in advance. They ring us before we make a speech to ask us what will be in it. Does he agree that that has to change?

[Mr Hollobone]

That is a most helpful intervention, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making it. I have huge respect for those who work in news organisations. They have a difficult job to do and, by and large, they do it very well, whether in our local newspapers or as representatives of the national media. What I would say to my hon. Friend is that news is not really news anymore. In the olden days, news used to be about things that had happened; nowadays, news is about things that are anticipated will happen. Often, by the time the event actually takes place the news has moved on to something else. The broadcasters in particular, with the appetite for 24-hour coverage, are distorting the news picture and confusing a lot of our constituents.