Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Gareth Snell

2nd reading
Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to debate the vital issue of water and how this Bill may be improved. The Secretary of State will be relieved to hear that I intend to focus on water quality tonight, rather than his selling of farmers, fishermen and family businesses down the river—we dealt with that this afternoon at the London Palladium summit.

Across the House, we agree that there are fundamental problems facing the water and sewerage industry that span decades. While we enjoy high-quality drinking water across the UK, there are, sadly, some streams, rivers and beaches where sewage is discharged with disgusting results, chiefly because our Victorian-era sewerage system cannot cope with a larger population and increasingly volatile weather. We Conservatives recognised that when we entered government in 2010 and started the enormous and decades-long task of turning things around.

[Gareth Snell]

And how is that going?

[Victoria Atkins]

I will come on that, and the hon. Gentleman will regret asking that question.

I am going to set out our record on water, because it is important that this Government act on the facts rather than believing their own rhetoric—as was demonstrated, sadly, by the shameful betrayal of farming and family businesses in Labour’s Budget of broken promises.

Since 2010, the number of designated bathing waters has increased. We have seen a significant improvement in water quality ratings, with more waters rated as “excellent” or “good”, and an increase in blue flag beaches. I gently point out that England performs better than other parts of the UK when it comes to leaks, drinking water quality and bathing water quality. I understand why Labour Members—including the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah), who is no longer in her place—have raised the issue of dividends, but it is an inconvenient fact that over 65% of dividends were paid out during the New Labour Government era, with a decline over the 14 years that we were in government.

There is more to be done, which is precisely why we want to help the Government to improve their piece of legislation. It is also why the work of the last decade must be seen as part of this giant infrastructure project. We were the first Government in history to set out that storm overflows must be reduced. To do that, storm overflows had to be monitored and measured. I have to say that I was surprised that the Secretary of State was so dismissive of the need to monitor. As a Home Office Minister, I was painfully aware that we needed to monitor, for example, reports of sexual violence against women, because once it is measured, we can manage it.

It is surprising that the Secretary of State does not appear to think that monitoring storm overflows matters. The reason why is that the previous Labour Government monitored just 7% of storm overflows in 2010. He cannot say that there are more overflows than ever before, because the previous Labour Government did not measure them. The fact that we increased monitoring to 100% of storm overflows means that we know the frequency and have been able to build a body of work on top of that. [Interruption.] He asks what we have done as a result, and I am very happy to help him with that. The data has empowered enraged residents to demand that their local streams, rivers and beaches be cleaned up. It is a critical part of the decades-long work on our water systems that is required, but we were not content with maximising monitoring. The data must be used—

Emergency Summit on Knife Crime

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Gareth Snell

Friday 22nd March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I am very sorry to hear of the events that the hon. Gentleman has witnessed in his constituency in recent weeks. On resources, we are putting up to £970 million extra into policing next year, and the £100 million is in addition to that, to help those areas that are seeing the highest surges in violent crime. The youth endowment fund is important because it will run over 10 years. We want to lock that money in for the next decade, so that it is a funding source for organisations that can make a real difference in young people’s lives.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I politely say to the Minister that she has referred to “county lines” an awful lot during this exchange, but that makes this epidemic sound a bit like some sort of cartographic exercise, and it really is not. We should be calling it “child criminal exploitation”, because that is what it is, in the same way that we stopped talking about “child prostitution” and started talking about “child sexual exploitation”. These young people are the victims, and calling it out is the first step.

In response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth), the Minister talked about coastal and rural communities. We are neither of those. We are a small city that has never had to deal with this, and there are small towns up and down the length of Staffordshire that have never had to grapple with this issue. Our police force is doing the best it can with reduced resources, but our police and crime commissioner is closing police stations, which does not help. When the Minister writes to my hon. Friend, can she talk about what specific help will go to those small communities that are not the Manchesters or Birminghams, as well as how the families in those communities will be involved? Parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles are the ones who see these young people day in, day out and will spot changes in their personalities. If we can identify these young people early on, we can prevent this from becoming the problem that it is in other places.

[Victoria Atkins]

I accept the point about the phrase “county lines”, which has been used over a couple of years. It does not do justice to the horrors of the exploitation of the children involved in it, but it is the terminology used, and it seems to have gained credence among the police, law enforcement and the charitable sector. For the time being, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will use it as a short-hand, but I always acknowledge that this is child exploitation.

The role of parents is something I am very concerned about, having met far too many mums, dads and grandparents who have lost loved ones. There is much more that I want to do to help parents and family members spot the signs of a child who may be beginning to take the wrong path, and I am trying to bring to fruition various ideas at the moment. I hope I will be in a position to say a bit more, perhaps in a few weeks’ time. I am very conscious of that point, and I will update him when I am able to.

Modern-day Slavery

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Gareth Snell

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Snell]

We can see from that thoughtful intervention why my right hon. Friend is absolutely the right person to co-chair the review of the Modern Slavery Act. As I said, every statistic is a person whose life has been turned upside down. At the moment, an individual who is found to have been through modern slavery gets 14 days’ support. I do not know about anyone else in the Chamber, but that does not seem sufficient to me. In fact, 45 days really is not enough. The Government made that commitment last October and they should implement it now, but I ask that they do so as an interim step. As my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee says, that would be a step forward, but it would not be enough to establish a pathway for recovery.

There is something the Government could do today to give some semblance of an impression that they want to do something about this issue. They could announce that they will support Lord McColl’s Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill, which has been through the House of Lords and has its support. If they guaranteed Government support for that Bill so that it could proceed in Government time sooner rather than later, I am sure that it would get cross-party support and be one of the fastest pieces of legislation to pass the House of Commons.

That Bill would extend support to 12 months—it would give people who have been through horrendous situations a year’s support. Someone who comes out of modern slavery and needs help should receive it because the state and the people want to give it to them, not because of benevolence and charity. Charity is a cold thing—it is self-selecting. The state should be there to provide help and support. I am sure the Minister will be able to indicate one way or the other whether the Government have any interest in supporting Lord McColl’s Bill. I am sure Opposition Members would be happy to vote with the Government if they did support it.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) pointed out, there are organisations doing work in this area. I am going to talk again about the Co-op Group’s Bright Future partnership. That organisation has brought together charities, providers and first responders to give people who have been through modern slavery a way into paid employment—a route back to dignity without waiting for charity. By 2020, more than 300 victims of modern slavery will have been given their lives back through that project. We should commend the Co-op Group for leading the way with that work. I know many other companies are looking at the Co-op Group’s work. All I can say to them is, “Go and ask, and help. They will help you become part of this life-changing partnership.”

We need to prevent people from falling back into slavery. The 45-day period does not give those who are entitled to be in the UK enough time to apply for the required benefits, and it does not give those who are not entitled to be in the UK time to apply for leave to remain. It simply sets them up to fail on day 46. As a society, we simply must not allow that.

I am conscious of the time, so I will wrap up with some very quick points. I am aware that the Minister has a file of information to inform her reply, but I ask her to focus on six very simple areas.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

Just the six?

[Gareth Snell]

Just the six, yes. I have written them down, so it is very easy. Will the Government consider expanding section 54 to cover public bodies and smaller corporates? That would be a good step. Will the Minister update us on the Government’s role in creating a database to properly enforce and actively police modern slavery declarations? Will she update us on where the Government are with the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner post and guarantee that person’s independence? Will she, as an interim measure, implement the 45-day support that her Government promised in October 2017? Most importantly, if she confirmed that the Government were willing to support Lord McColl’s Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill, we could all leave this place very happy people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Gareth Snell

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

24. What steps his Department is taking to tackle modern slavery.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

The Government remain committed to stamping out the despicable crime of modern slavery. We have strengthened the operational law enforcement response and introduced world-leading requirements for businesses to report on slavery in their supply chains, and we are now transforming the support that we provide to victims.

[Gareth Snell]

Kevin Hyland, the independent anti-slavery commissioner, stated in his resignation letter that he had too often felt that his independence was subject to the discretion of the Home Office, rather than being on a statutory basis. What will the Minister do to ensure that the next commissioner is given the independence that he needs for his role to be flexible?

[Victoria Atkins]

May I record our thanks to Mr Hyland for the invaluable work that he did as the commissioner? The whole point of the role of the commissioner is that it is independent, so we very much look forward to filling the position with a similarly robust and independent person in due course.

Data Protection Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Gareth Snell

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Victoria Atkins]

No, forgive me. I have been very generous with interventions. I am going to make some progress, and then no doubt others will intervene on me in due course.

I turn to the charge that the exemption has no basis in EU law. Article 23 of the GDPR allows member states to restrict the application of certain provisions of the regulation to safeguard important objectives of general public interest. Immigration control constitutes one such objective. We see immigration as an important matter of public interest, and the GDPR allows member states to exempt rights where that is the case. We are not alone in our belief that immigration is an important matter of general public interest. The Irish Government clearly stated that in their own Data Protection Bill. Clause 54 of the Irish Bill gives powers to make regulations restricting certain rights and obligations under the GDPR to safeguard important objectives of general public interest. The list of such objectives in the Bill includes matter relating to immigration.

Opposition Members have talked about their concerns about the fact that these provisions may be covered by paragraph 2 of the schedule. I want to reflect on the outcome of the debate on this provision in the House of Lords, which contains many noble Lords who are extremely learned in the law, have much experience of campaigning on immigration rights and so on. We listened very carefully to the concerns raised at Lords Committee stage, and as a result the Government tabled amendments at Lords Report stage to narrow the scope of the exemption so that it no longer covers the right to rectification and data portability. In response to those amendments, Lord Kennedy of Southwark said:

“The amendments tabled by the Government provide important clarification on what is exempt, limit the power in Bill and seek to address the concerns highlighted during the previous debate and today…I am happy to support their amendments.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 December 2017; Vol. 787, c. 1590.]

Furthermore, in a Division on a Liberal Democrat amendment to strike out the immigration exemption, the official Opposition abstained. I wonder what has changed between their abstaining on that amendment and accepting that the Government’s amendments were sufficient, and today. Nothing has changed since the Bill left the Lords, so perhaps the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill can help us with why their position has changed.

I hope I have been able to satisfy the Committee that this provision is necessary and important.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. Will the Minister give a tangible example, as she has done in other cases, of where an immigration case may require exemption under paragraph 4—in other words, a case in which a crime has not been committed and therefore would not be covered under paragraph 2(2)? The cases she has mentioned so far would, on the face of it, be covered by paragraph 2(2), because a criminal act had taken place or was about to take place.

[Victoria Atkins]

There may be occasions when there is a person we have lost track of whose status is irregular. If we know they have a child, we will seek from the Department for Education assistance to find the whereabouts of the child. That child has not committed a criminal offence, so I would be very concerned to ensure that the Home Office, Border Force or whoever else acted lawfully when seeking that data in order to enable them to find the parent or whoever is the responsible adult, as part of the immigration system.

Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement and Education) Bill

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Gareth Snell

Friday 3rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I completely agree. That goes to the point about protection. I am not saying for a moment that 16-year-olds are not capable of forming judgments, and I hope that no Labour Member tries to misrepresent me, because if they do, I will intervene on them. My hon. Friend is exactly right—it is about a gradation of protections moving away until the person reaches the age of 18.

[Gareth Snell]

I am inclined, in part, to agree with the hon. Lady’s model of civic republicanism that allows for responsibilities and rights to be earned. However, at the age of 70 people are no longer allowed to serve on a jury, so is she suggesting that those over 70 be disenfranchised because they no longer have those responsibilities to go with their rights?

[Victoria Atkins]

I am sorry, but I did not hear the hon. Gentleman’s point. If he was trying to say that—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. This is not acceptable. If the person who has the Floor cannot hear an intervention from someone on the other side of the House, then, de facto, there is something wrong in this Chamber and people must be quiet so that we can debate properly. Would the hon. Gentleman like to remake his intervention?

[Gareth Snell]

I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Lady already understands my point. As somebody aged 70 can no longer serve on a jury, I am suggesting that, according to her argument, she might want to consider reducing the franchise.

[Victoria Atkins]

I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman said “over 70,”; I thought that he said “over 17”. I do not agree with him. First, it would be a brave politician who wanted to take votes away from people aged over 70. Perhaps some of my colleagues will send out press releases about that after the debate. On the hon. Gentleman’s point—this is also applicable to service in the armed forces, and so on—by the age of 70, an individual will have been available for civic duty for more than 50 years. [Interruption.] This point also applies to those who have been discharged from the Army. Someone who has had more than 50 years’-worth of civic responsibility does not lose any rights. That is the difference between 16 and 17-year-olds and people who are aged over 70.

A point has been made about taxation. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) made an interesting and fair point about national insurance; some 16-year-olds pay national insurance. At the risk of worrying the Chancellor in the run-up to the Budget, I can see merit in the suggestion that if people do not have the vote before 18, that element of taxation should be taken away from them. I appreciate that that is an uncosted proposal, and I am not suggesting for a moment that we adopt it, but I can see the merit in it. Indeed, 16 and 17-year-olds are exempted from paying council tax, so there is already a precedent, which could be extended further.

My final point—to answer the intervention by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine)—is that I do not see how we can say that someone can vote to elect their representative in this place and yet not have open to them the privilege of standing for Parliament. We would effectively be saying, “You cannot vote for yourself. You may have been born in your constituency and spent your entire life there, but you cannot stand for Parliament to represent that constituency.”