Oral Answers to Questions
Saqib Bhatti Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her answers. When she cancelled the national citizenship service and announced a consultation on the national youth strategy from the Dispatch Box, she started to lay out how she intended to fund the strategy. That was over two months ago. Since then, the cost of borrowing has reached its highest point since 1997, and it is quite clear that significant spending cuts are on the way. Can she tell the House in further detail what plans she has for revenue and capital spending under the national youth strategy? Can she guarantee that the Chancellor, in a desperate attempt to save her job, will not balance the books by putting the burden on the backs of our young people?
Lisa Nandy
This is getting a little bit tired. Young people should be the focus of this House. We have already announced that £100 million of dormant assets funding will be dedicated to the provision of services, facilities and opportunities to young people, and for 2025-26, we are allocating over £85 million of capital funding to creating fit-for-purpose, welcoming spaces for young people, including through the new better youth spaces fund. We are being driven by the needs of young people. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that in addition to leaving us with an incredible economic mess, the Conservatives left us with a series of commitments to young people that did not address any of their needs, and no single youth strategy. Frankly, they should be ashamed.
Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities
Saqib Bhatti Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this important debate. He made an impassioned speech, and may I be the first to say on record that I think he will have a long and fruitful career in this House? I hope I have not just given him the kiss of death. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said, the strength of feeling on this issue is demonstrated by the turnout for this debate. I thank every Member who has contributed.
Charities play a huge part in our lives, providing critical support to individuals who face poverty, illness and injustice. One of my many privileges as the Member of Parliament for Meriden and Solihull East is to have many fantastic charities in the local area. It is always inspiring to meet the volunteers who do so much to support people, year in, year out, wherever those volunteers come from.
In my constituency, I have the Colebridge Trust, which strives to get more people into work, improve health and tackle the effects of loneliness. I have the Lily Mae Foundation, which was set up to help support parents who suffer the unimaginable trauma of baby loss—I had the privilege of jumping out of a plane for it not so long ago. I also have the fantastic Lily’s Tea Parlour in Chelmsley Wood, which helps struggling people by offering warm food, drink and a safe space.
Alongside the great local charities in my constituency, like many Members, I also have Age UK and Marie Curie. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East made the case for the challenges that they face and will be facing as a result of this Budget. Supported by an army of volunteers, these organisations are enormously important features of our high streets, towns and our society.
On a national level, the UK is one of the most generous nations for charitable giving. Our charities are a huge source of pride for people in this country, and Members across the House must always continue to come to Parliament to do all they can to stand up for the UK’s charitable sector.
The country’s charitable spirit can be seen by the fact that the British public donated an estimated £13.9 billion to charity in the last year. In our communities, local people gather regularly to take part in charity bake sales and sports fixtures and watch performances where ticket costs are donated to local charities. In some respects, some of the nation’s favourite cultural pastimes are deeply intertwined with supporting our charities, and there is no doubt that these charities bring all of us together.
But in spite of that, our charities are under threat. I have been contacted by a number of charities about the impact of this Budget. Local mental health charity Birmingham Mind told me that
“the rise, combined with current financial pressures, presents serious challenges for charities like ours”.
The brain injury charity Headway contacted me estimating that the proposed changes will push up its costs by tens of thousands of pounds, forcing it to “reduce services” and potentially putting employees at
“risk of redundancy or reduced days”.
Birmingham-based Services for Education, run by its formidable chief executive, Sharon Bell, wrote to me to say that
“the impact of national insurance changes will hit”
it “hardest—unfairly so.” She paints a very concerning picture about how the charity will be forced to limit the fantastic services it offers because of this unprecedented cost.
When the Chancellor delivered her Budget of broken promises, she did exactly what she promised during the election that she would not do: she significantly raised employer national insurance. What is even more concerning is the devastating effect that this has had on the charity sector. Just a day after the Budget, more than 7,000 charities came together to sign an open letter co-ordinated by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, warning that the sector’s increased national insurance costs would amount to £1.4 billion a year. They all called on the Chancellor to either exempt or reimburse charities for these additional costs.
Let me tell the Minister that the impact is already being felt, and it is dire. Over Christmas, the chief executives of five domestic abuse charities made it clear that increased national insurance would force them to cut services, run down reserves and even make redundancies. This will have a catastrophic impact on the safety of vulnerable women and girls. Has the Minister had discussions with the Minister for Women and Equalities about the possible impact on women in this country? Has she spoken to the Chancellor? And where is the impact assessment?
More than 110 chief executives of homelessness charities in England have warned that these changes could cost the sector between £50 million and £60 million. Can the Minister give cast-iron assurances that homeless people will not lose vital support, especially over this cold and wet winter, because of the unprecedented rise in NI contributions?
The Opposition voted to exempt charities from the additional costs of NI increases. I regret that a staggering 348 Labour Members voted against that amendment, which will have a far-reaching impact on charities that provide essential services. Will the Minister give certainty that the Chancellor’s job tax will not have a negative impact on charities? And can she be certain that the Chancellor will not be coming back for more?
BBC: Funding
Saqib Bhatti Excerpts(2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Let me start by wishing all Members and you, Mr Mundell, a very merry Christmas. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this valuable debate, which has been a spirited one with some interesting points. I will pose some questions to the Minister in, as it is Christmas, the most constructive way I can.
The BBC plays a fundamental role in the lives of the vast majority of people in the country, and its scope is impossible to underestimate. The National Union of Journalists estimates that 91% of British adults use BBC television, radio or online each week. As a number of Members have pointed out, its global reach is equally important: 426 million people access the BBC every week via the World Service and its worldwide and global news services.
The BBC’s reach and reputation is rightly a source of pride for people in the UK. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon pointed out, as we approach the renewal of the BBC’s royal charter in 2027, there is no denying that the Government must recognise some of the challenges that the organisation faces, not least in respect of its sustainability, with decreasing licence fee uptake and decreasing revenues.
The issue of trust has been brought up. The social contract that exists between the licence fee payer and the BBC is fundamental. Unless we ensure that people have faith in the BBC and its role in society, endless questions about its relevance and importance will continue to be a factor in public discourse. Failure to address that will undermine trust in the BBC.
The BBC is one of our great institutions. Since its founding, it has promoted the very best of Britain at home and abroad. It has guided our nation through war, economic and political crises and much more. It needs to be trusted, especially as we see our adversaries like Russia and China bolstering the reach of their own state broadcasters. We also see the concerning impact of AI and misinformation domestically and around the world. We must emphasise the issue of trust. We are clearly seeing a trend in the questioning of the BBC’s credibility, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), who was an excellent Minister on these issues, as was my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon.
Recent funding figures are a cause for concern. A 2015 report by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee found that some view the licence fee as “anachronistic” and
“harder and harder to sustain”.
Its conclusions are verified by the fact that licence fee income between 2022-23 and 2023-24 went down, and there were fewer licences in force at the end of March 2024 than the end of 2023. That clearly suggests that more people are reluctant to pay the licence fee because they are not believing in the BBC or trusting it. This is a foundational challenge for the Government. This country needs the BBC. The challenge is for the Government and the BBC to make that case. I hope the Minister will recognise that in her response.
We must also recognise that the way that people, especially our younger generations, engage with media has altered dramatically in the past decade. The covid pandemic accelerated some of the trends that have dramatically transformed the media landscape. It led to a surge in online streaming companies, which now dominate the market. As we approach the review of the royal charter, we cannot ignore the radically different media environment that the BBC is operating and competing in compared with that of just 10 years ago. The Government must understand that unless there is genuine reform of the BBC and how it functions, it will continue to be an analogue service in a digital world.
There is no denying that the licence fee model was conceived at a time of linear viewing, when watching programmes at the time of broadcast was commonplace. The reality is much different now. The BBC competes in a far more crowded market—a market that can be accessed at any time, anywhere. Licence fee payments will not increase if the BBC does not continue to strive to adapt to the rapid changes in online media that we all have to interact with. What discussions is the Minister having with the BBC to ensure that its funding remains sustainable over the next 10 years, in the light of a radically different media landscape? I acknowledge that these are not easy questions; they require leadership and clarity, so I hope the Minister can provide some of that in her remarks.
The issue of local radio has also been brought up, and the Government should seek to engage constructively with the BBC about its future. The BBC has 39 local radio stations that currently reach 5.7 million listeners. Under the terms of the current royal charter, the BBC has an obligation to reflect the diversity of the United Kingdom in both its output and its services and must meet the needs of its regions and communities. As the National Union of Journalists sets out, local radio is a lifeline for often-isolated rural communities and provides an invaluable source of news and education for so many, especially elderly people in our communities. At a time when elderly people are feeling more and more marginalised, it would be wrong to make further cuts to local radio, which provides essential information and entertainment for millions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon made some excellent suggestions in that regard, and I hope the Minister can address his concerns.
I want to turn to Ofcom, because the question of BBC funding raises other issues that have been brought up in a number of different ways when it comes to the BBC’s impartiality. As Ofcom is the broadcasting regulator and has the role of challenging broadcasters, especially in an ever more competitive environment, there are clearly questions that the public will want answers to. In the past decade, the BBC has had many new competitors, and I want to raise the issue of GB News. Ofcom recently fined GB News £100,000 for its programme with the former Prime Minister in February this year. Many people believed that was not correct, and I also question it. The Government should question Ofcom’s remit, its scope to deny freedom of speech, and whether its fines are proportionate in the circumstances, as we enter an ever more competitive media landscape that is fundamentally different compared with the previous decade.
I wish you a merry Christmas, Mr Mundell, and I thank all Members for their contributions; I hope they have a happy new year.
Draft Local Digital Television Programme Services (Amendment) Order 2024
Saqib Bhatti Excerpts(2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to see the work of the previous Government come to fruition. The Minister is right: we should be proud of our local TV services, and we should not underestimate their importance to our local communities. As Members will be aware, and as the Minister set out, licences for a local TV multiplex for all 34 local TV services are due to expire on 25 November 2025.
In April 2022, the previous Government published their broadcasting White Paper, which outlined the ambition to make changes to the local TV licensing regime. The changes, which will be implemented through this statutory instrument, will enable the extension of a local TV multiplex licence until 2034, and make it subject to the same conditions that apply to national digital terrestrial television multiplexes. A consultation run under the previous Government for 14 weeks from 7 June 2023 on options for the renewal or relicensing of individual local television services received numerous responses, including from current licence holders, media and telecommunications companies, and members of the public. Overall the responses were supportive of the proposed approach.
His Majesty’s official Opposition support this SI, which implements the necessary changes proposed by the last Government. The existing regime for local TV does not allow Ofcom to renew licences for the local TV multiplex or individual local TV services. The SI will enable Ofcom to run a renewal process that provides scrutiny but is not burdensome. I hope the Minister agrees that that balance is key in this endeavour, because for small and micro-businesses a lengthy and costly process will be problematic. Without the SI, Ofcom would be required to launch and run a new licensing round for the local TV multiplex and individual services, which risks putting a disproportionate burden on those businesses without any tangible policy benefits. I hope that this approach provides stability for local TV services over the next licence period.
I am of course concerned that the disastrous Budget set out earlier this year is already affecting business confidence. Will the Minister provide detail on how the Government will support collaboration and investment in the sector? How are the Government supporting local TV services to overcome some of the challenges they face, including to their financial sustainability? I shall be grateful if the Minister, in answer to a point raised in the other place, gives details of the steps the Government are taking to ensure open competition in future licensing rounds.
More broadly, I am sure we all agree on the importance of local TV services and the significant economic and social benefits they bring to viewers across the UK. The previous Government published their vision and ambition for the sector, outlined in the White Paper. We are yet to see any new proposal from the Government, but we have been promised a local media strategy. Will the Minister inform the Committee when that will be published, and say whether it is being developed with industry input?
Oral Answers to Questions
Saqib Bhatti Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
The Budget has created a perfect storm for hospitality and tourism businesses across the country. UKHospitality is sounding the alarm, saying that the Budget is a “blow” for the tourism and hospitality sectors. According to the Minister’s impact assessment, how many jobs will be created as a result of lowering the national insurance threshold, and how many businesses will close, as we suspect they will? What does his impact assessment tell him will be the impact on ethnic minority communities, women, and those with disabilities for whom the tourism and hospitality sector is a huge employer? Will he tell the House whether he even has an impact assessment for one of the most damaging and regressive taxes that we will ever see?
Online Safety Bill
Saqib Bhatti ExcerptsTuesday 19th April 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
I am a great believer in the good that social media has done over the last few decades. It has transformed the way we interact, share ideas and stay connected. Social media has allowed a global conversation about global challenges such as climate change, poverty and even the conflict that we are witnessing in Ukraine. However, there is a dark side to social media, and I would be surprised if there were any Member of this House who had not experienced some form of it. The online world has become like the wild west: anything goes. Indeed, it was just last year when the whole country was gripped by the success of our football team in the Euros, and as I sadly watched us lose another penalty shoot-out, I turned to my wife and said, “You know what’s going to happen now, don’t you?” And it did. The three players who missed penalties, all young black men, were subjected to disgusting racist abuse. Monkey emojis were used to taunt them, and were not taken down because the Instagram algorithm did not deem that to be racism. Abuse on Twitter was rife, and the scale of it was so large that it restarted a national conversation, which I am sad to say we have had many times before.
On the back of that, I, along with 50 of my colleagues, wrote to the major social media companies: Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and TikTok. We asked for three things: that all accounts be verified; that the algorithm be adjusted with human interaction to account for differences in languages; and that there be a “three strikes and you’re out” policy for serial offenders, so that they knew that they would not be allowed to get away with abuse. Unfortunately, not all the companies responded, which shows how much respect they have for our democratic processes and for the moral duty to do the right thing. Those that did respond took long enough to do so, and took the view that they were already doing enough. Clearly, anyone can go on social media today and see that that is not true. It is not that the companies are burying their head in the sand; it is just not very profitable for them to make a change. If they had the will to do so, they certainly have the skill, innovative ability and resources to make it happen.
I fully accept that, in this legislation, the Government have taken a different approach, and there are clearly different ways to skin this cat. The 10% of turnover for fines, the clarity on what is allowed in companies’ terms and conditions, and effective enforcement may well draw a clear line in the sand. I call on the social media companies to heed the message sent by 50 of my colleagues, and to once again recognise their moral duty to be positive and good players in society. We have an opportunity today to set a standard, so that when an aspiring young boy or girl wants to be in the public eye, whether as an athlete, a media star or a politician, they will no longer think that being abused online is an inevitable consequence of that choice.
Oral Answers to Questions
Saqib Bhatti Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Dorries
That is a central purpose of the Bill. As a result of the work by the Joint Committee and others, including the Law Commission and those who have examined the first edition of the draft Bill, when we bring the Bill to the House there will be improvements and enhancements that will go even further in relation to those who use their power on the internet—those big tech companies and others—and the legislation will be there to provide the reassurances that I think the hon. Gentleman is looking for.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Last year, with 50 of my colleagues, I wrote to five of the major social media companies calling for meaningful change and asking them to recognise their moral duty to make this change. Only three of the five even bothered to reply to the correspondence, which makes me concerned that they are not taking the matter seriously enough. Will my right hon. Friend be characteristically robust about ensuring meaningful change in the forthcoming legislation?
Ms Dorries
I am disappointed to hear about the response from the tech companies, but frankly not surprised. We will bring forward legislation that introduces criminal sanctions, including pretty steep fines—10% of global annual turnover, which could be as much as £18 billion, so they will be considerable. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should not be having to do this. Those organisations have a moral responsibility to provide the protections that young people require. It is their responsibility to ensure that illegal material is no longer placed online, that they remove content that is legal but harmful, but most of all that they protect young people and children. The Bill will have those three considerations at its heart. The companies could be doing what they need to do right now—they do not need the Bill. They could be removing those harmful algorithms right now.
Oral Answers to Questions
Saqib Bhatti Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Attorney General
I do not recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. What he ought to do, if I may respectfully suggest it, is to look at what this Government have done. It is on the record that the Government are achieving those issues that we have been discussing, namely: an increase in available criminal offences; an increase in the means by which to prosecute; and more resources to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in order to achieve the prosecutions. The Government are highly focused on that. If he wishes to write to me about the contract, we will refer it to the appropriate place.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Lucy Frazer)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
I know that the Crown Prosecution Service liaised with external stakeholders through the pandemic, because I spoke to the Director of Public Prosecutions in my role as a former Justice Minister. I am aware that the CPS continued to engage proactively with local communities throughout the pandemic. This engagement assists the CPS in improving its policies and practices. For example, feedback from the CPS’s external consultation groups has helped to develop a joined-up criminal justice system approach to domestic abuse cases.
Saqib Bhatti [V]
I welcome the Solicitor General to her new position.
Many of my constituents in Meriden are deeply concerned about recent events and violence against women and girls. Can my hon. and learned Friend please tell me how the CPS is working locally to better understand these issues and to respond to violence against women and girls?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is right to raise this vital and important issue. The CPS works with victims groups through the Violence Against Women and Girls external consultation group and it also regularly engages with people at a local level. Last month, the CPS West Midlands chaired a meeting with independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advocates to discuss these issues. That forum meets four times a year to discuss casework with victims’ groups and specialist services.
Oral Answers to Questions
Saqib Bhatti Excerpts(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Oliver Dowden
I reassure the hon. Lady that I remain firmly committed to the fan-led review, and events such as the meetings to discuss racism that I mentioned will help to frame it. Certainly, the events relating to football finance over the past year have demonstrated the need for that, and we will be making further progress on it this year.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) [V]
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and that is something that I have raised with social media companies. I know that many people are concerned that the moderators are not actually based in the United Kingdom, and speed of response is crucial. Through our online safety Bill, we will require social media companies to take swift and effective action against criminal abuse online, and as part of that we will put in place effective user reporting and redress mechanisms.
Online Harms Consultation
Saqib Bhatti Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Oliver Dowden
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about privacy. Clearly, if it was up to individuals within those companies to identify content on private channels, that would not be acceptable—that would be a clear breach of privacy. That is why we will rely on technology and AI and so on to identify trends that can be used to spot that kind of thing. I urge him to go along to some of these tech companies and see the advances that they are making, because it is very instructive.
As I said to the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), end-to-end encryption takes a whole other level of challenge. The Home Secretary and I are actively engaging with Facebook, for example, to discourage it from using end-to-end encryption unless it can put appropriate protections in place. Those conversations are ongoing.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Earlier this year I participated in a roundtable with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and I advocated for this, so I welcome the statement, especially the immediate removal of antisemitic material. There are those who would consider that this might be a slippery slope to an attack on our freedom of speech, but does my right hon. Friend agree that instead it creates a framework to ensure that our fundamental right to freedom of speech is protected from those who seek to corrupt or even abuse it ?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are taking measures to guard against things such as antisemitic abuse, but we have taken two very clear decisions: first, we are protecting press and journalistic freedom; they will not be subject to this legislation for exactly the reasons he outlines. Secondly, we will ensure when we draft the legislation that it does not create a situation whereby Government or social media companies can start putting their worldview onto their output. There must be reasonable grounds for taking content down—they cannot just take it down because it does not cohere with their worldview.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).