UK-Taiwan Friendship and Co-operation

Debate between Tim Loughton and Bob Stewart

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I am enormously grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. What he is putting so well is the very many shared values we have with Taiwan, the sort of freedom, openness and innovation that the people of Hong Kong used to enjoy as well. That is surely a template for what the Chinese Communist party would like to do with Taiwan if ever it had the opportunity to do so. Does he share my great fear? The great design of President Xi, as he has made no pretence of hiding, is what he calls the reunification of China, which could only mean bringing the freedom-loving and freedom-enjoying people of Taiwan under the jackboot of the Chinese Communist party, and inflict on them the same form of intimidation and oppression the people of Tibet, Xinjiang and now the people of Hong Kong are sadly seeing?

[Bob Stewart]

My very good and hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have said in the Chamber before that if China was to develop a model much like Taiwan, it would be to the benefit of China. Taiwan is the beacon. It is a hugely successful economy. It is good news that there are some 13,000 Taiwanese students in British universities, with 4,000 at postgraduate level. By way of return, which I think is very interesting, there are an increasing number of British students studying in Taiwan. They are mainly learning Mandarin, of course.

National Security and Investment Bill

Debate between Tim Loughton and Bob Stewart

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart]

I am always a culprit on the word “you”. I have now lost my place, thanks to your intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker!

The report produced by the ISC in 2013 contained a requirement for legislation, and we are now getting that legislation seven years later, which is rather a long delay. I am delighted that the Bill protects British industry and puts safeguards on it, but it puts particular safeguards on our national security. In future, investors will have no choice but to notify the Government if the ownership of certain businesses is to change hands—thank goodness for that. However, I note that the Secretary of State will also have the power to call in other businesses if he or she has concerns about national security. That is why I am slightly against a narrow definition of national security; I would prefer it to be a bit more fluid.

The decision to call in an investment will be based on three factors: the nature of the target of acquisition; the type and level of control being acquired and how that could be used in practice; and the extent to which the acquirer raises national security concerns. The list of sectors to be covered is under consultation. I will not use a mnemonic, which until today I thought was some sort of drill, but that list includes advanced robotics, artificial intelligence, cryptographic authentication, whatever that is, quantum technologies—I do know what that is—and satellite and space technologies, in which we are world leaders. It is very important that those sectors are guarded against being infiltrated, because that is what it is—infiltration to take away intellectual property.

At the moment, the UK is almost unique among major western economies in not having stand-alone foreign investment legislation, and this Bill will sort that out. It will give Ministers the power to look at transactions overall and to review them. The Government’s impact assessment estimates that it will result in well over 1,000 transactions a year—possibly up to 1,800, as some Members have suggested. That is a lot, and it means a lot of work for a specific department of BEIS. There will only be 100 people to do that work, which is slightly worrying.

I will finish, because I was told to be short—and I have been, in six minutes—and because I had your naughty finger pointed at me, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Get on with it!

[Bob Stewart]

I am getting on with it! I am trying to finish. This is a good Bill. I hope the House will support it. I will not finish my last paragraph, because my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has stolen my thunder. This is a good Bill, and we need it.

Debate on the Address

Debate between Tim Loughton and Bob Stewart

Thursday 19th December 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I rise to support the humble address. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, but let me also say that it is a particular pleasure to see the new Speaker in the Chair—a proper Speaker who, while he may suffer from the disadvantages of not being a Yorkshireman, is a man who has strong and many opinions but does not feel compelled to inflict them on the Chamber and the country, in contrast to his predecessor. We look forward to many years of fair adjudication of debates in the House.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) began his speech by talking about déjà vu. I fear that every time a member of the Scottish National party rises to speak, it is déjà vu all over again. Earlier today the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), in true BBC Christmas repeat fashion, came out with the same old speech—to which many of us have had to listen for the last few years—about Scotland being dragged out of the EU. Well, for goodness’ sake let us have something new. The fact is that, as we all know, the United Kingdom voted to come out of the European Union and that decision was upheld in the recent general election in the whole United Kingdom, of which Scotland is a component.

It was a particular pleasure to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who proposed the motion for a Humble Address. Let me say for the benefit of those who could not see that she did so barefoot. As a founding member of the all-party parliamentary group on mindfulness, which I hope to have the privilege to chair when it is reconstituted, she said that using mindfulness techniques and anchoring herself to the floor gave her great confidence, and she demonstrated that with aplomb in her excellent speech. Let me recommend to those who are still feeling stressed by the result of the election the mindfulness classes which are available to all Members at 5.30 pm on Tuesdays. So far, some 240 Members of both Houses have taken advantage of them, and that has certainly improved the standard of debate in both Chambers. Let me also compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes)—who is the embodiment of the cheeky chappie—on the excellent way in which he seconded the motion.

In many respects, this is the easiest Queen’s Speech to which to respond on the first day, just hours after its delivery in the other place. We did, after all, have a dry run for it on 14 October, although today’s turned out to be a fuller-fact version. The 22 Bills that were promised back in October have now become 40. This is certainly no longer a wish list; it is now a comprehensive and substantial programme for government. I am therefore pleased to get in early, ahead of the, no doubt, Cook’s Tour of maiden speeches that will be made in subsequent days and weeks by the plethora of Members who have just been elected to seats around the United Kingdom—mostly, I am glad to say, on this side of the House. I wish them all well.

We also approach this Queen’s Speech on the basis of the strong likelihood that we might actually get it passed. What a joy it is—and I aim this particularly at new Members—that at last, for the first time in the 22 and a half years that I have spent in the House along with the new Speaker, we have a strong and stable Government with a decent majority and, ostensibly, support from all Conservative MPs on the same side. Long may that continue.

Let me say to those new Members, “You’ve got it easy.” The last couple of years and, in particular, the last 12 months in this place have been hugely stressful and exasperating, not knowing when you get up in the morning what will happen in Parliament that day—whether the Government will win votes or not, or whether they will be tied—and not being able to make plans, with the possibility of the House having to sit on Saturdays. We have all been prepared to do that, but the unpredictability has made nursing a constituency, and the other responsibilities that we all have as Members, somewhat more challenging, and throughout that time a Speaker was making up the rules and rewriting the discussion as he went along.

No more, Mr Deputy Speaker. This Administration will get on with the job of being in power and in government, and implementing a programme of the people’s priorities. That is going to happen, which is a real joy and pleasure for those of us who have seen the ups and downs of a Parliament that has not been at its best in recent years.

On Saturday, when I conducted one of my regular Saturday morning street surgeries, the sense of relief among my constituents was palpable. Whether they had voted for Brexit or remain, people wanted certainty, clarity and a way forward out of the maelstrom and gridlock that this place had become over recent months. However, there was one rather sad exception. In response to the general election result, the Momentum zealots who form the local Labour party and its councillors tweeted the contact details of the Samaritans, on the basis that people would be feeling depressed and driven to mental illness. That was crass, disgusting and inappropriate.

As for what we need in this country, a piece of advice was given to me in 2001, after the second Blair landslide, by a local Labour councillor whom I respected greatly. He said to me, “Tim, you need to be a good, strong Opposition”, and he was right. In this House we need a good, strong Opposition, so I take no delight in the current problems with the Labour party. For the functioning of democracy in this country, we need a good—and moderate—strong Opposition. That keeps a good Government on their toes, and I hope that it emerges in the months to come. I am afraid that the current Momentum-hijacked Labour party is not that strong Opposition, and I hope that it sorts itself out as soon as possible.

A measure in the Queen’s Speech that I particularly welcome is the plan to abolish the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. One view that united all the candidates throughout the election, certainly in my constituency, was that December elections suck. I am sure that we all spent the last five to six weeks constantly damp and constantly frozen, frustrated by our attempts to push soggy leaflets through those terrible letterboxes with the brushes. I recall that last year the Government agreed to amend the building regulations to get rid of floor-level letterboxes, and it should now be a priority for them to amend the regulations to get rid of furry letterboxes. They are a cancer on our society, whether you are a volunteer delivering leaflets, a political activist, or a professional postman or postwoman. If the Government will not do that, I will present a private Member’s Bill and we will see how well that does.

[Bob Stewart]

It is not the furry stuff but the guillotine behind it that really does your knuckles in.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir George Howarth)]

Order. Fascinating and relevant though this topic is, I hope that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is not going to embark on a whole debate on the positioning of letterboxes. I do not think that there was any mention of it in the Queen’s Speech.

Cyber-bullying

Debate between Tim Loughton and Bob Stewart

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman is right. A recent debate in this place showed what can be done when we put our minds to it and listen to people who have solutions, rather than always listening to those who focus on the problems.

The Department for Education’s own research shows that 30% of secondary school-aged children have been deliberately targeted, threatened or humiliated by abuse on mobile phones or the internet. Cyber-bullying is an even more cowardly form of what we might have known as playground bullying, because it often hides behind anonymity, done by people in the comfort of their own bedroom. However, the psychological effects can be every bit as damaging as physical, face-to-face bullying, and such bullying has the capacity to be spread cancer-like among a much wider body of peers, at the press of a button. It can undermine a young person’s confidence and self-esteem, at a time when they are still finding their own identity. It can lead to depression, truancy, self-harm and even suicide; to a fear of returning to school to face one’s friends, who may be the authors of some of this cyber-bullying; and to a feeling of being permanently unsafe.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Being bullied by electronic means could actually be worse than being bullied in the playground. At least in the playground, people perhaps have their friends around to sustain them. Being bullied privately, perhaps in a quiet place, could really prey on someone’s mind.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and of course in such situations there are no witnesses around. People suffer in silence, and there is not necessarily anybody on hand to report such behaviour to. That is why it is every bit as damaging as, and probably more damaging than, the playground bullying that he and I might have been witnesses to—certainly not part of—in our days of yore in the playground.

Nominet’s “know the net” research suggests that socially and economically disadvantaged children and young people are at greater risk of experiencing cyber-bullying and suffering its adverse effects. It is more likely to affect disabled children, young carers, children with learning disabilities and recipients of free school meals. Cyber-bullies are picking on the most vulnerable children—an even more shameful act. Facebook is the most common place for it, as we have heard. Facebook has made great strides, but there is an awful lot more it can do. Such bullying happens on Twitter, and it happens with Instagram. There are now various new modes of communicating, whereby an image is sent and it self-destructs within 10 seconds, so the evidence is gone. Those are all clever ways that can be used by malign people to bully even more effectively.

What is really worrying is that only 37% of teenagers who experience online bullying report it to a social network, so two thirds do not. Some 36% of those who do not report it said that they choose not to because it is not taken seriously and doing so would be a waste of time. Very few even report it to their parents, yet a third of all parents fear that their child is actually causing bullying on the internet, according to research by the National Children’s Bureau and McAfee. Some 45% of parents have set up Facebook accounts themselves for their own children who are under the age of 13. The recommended minimum age for having a Facebook account is 13, yet some parents are clearly ignoring that. Indeed, Facebook itself has discussed removing that age threshold. However, that is one of the few safeguards that provides guidance to parents on the age at which it is appropriate for their children to be exposed to these very powerful forms of social media. Only one in 10 parents believe that their own children are safe online, yet over a third have never had a conversation with their children about the dangers of the internet, and only one in five bothers to set up controls on their internet devices.

This is an extraordinary situation, a perfect storm. Schools are not doing enough to teach the hazards of the internet effectively. We need better sex and relationship education as armour to deal with some of the sexual abuse on the internet. Parents are afraid of appearing ignorant and do not communicate with their children about the hazards, and the social media companies are still spending too much time on maximising the number of people attracted to their sites, the revenues earned by the sites and the stock market capitalisation as the sites are launched on the American stock market. The Home Affairs Select Committee reported earlier this year that too many of our social media companies remain far too complacent and laid back about the perils of the internet for young and impressionable people.

The other big problem is that abuse of the internet lacks consequences. That was behind my earlier question to the Minister when I asked him how many people were being prosecuted and actually feeling the force of the law. How many people are being shown that what they are doing is not just a bit of harmless fun, a bit of ribbing or a bit of playfully taking the mick out of someone, but that it is dangerous abuse that can ultimately be fatal?