Lords Chamber

Wednesday 17th December 2025

(began 1 hour, 55 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
15:07
15:07
None Portrait Oral questions: Closing the employment gap for blind and sight-impaired people Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-

leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper. My
15:07
15:08
15:08
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that question and I absolutely for that question and I absolutely agree with him. It's not political, and I know that his approach to this is not. And I'm grateful for the way that he approaches these issues. There are different views on the statistics on that, and we can have a conversation elsewhere, which I'll not depends on how how the definitions are made, I think. But but either which way? The question the fact is that disability employment gap is far too big and it needs tackling.

And certainly the pandemic as he as he will know only too well. Things got worse and they haven't really recovered back to where they ought to be since. So this government has made a real commitment to engaging, specifically investing significant additional sums of money in supporting people with a range of disabilities and health conditions, including blind and visually impaired people. Back to work, lots more tailored support, investment in supported in progress supported employment programmes, making sure that there are specialist disability employment advisers and coaches who understand how they can help people, but also working with employers.

And I can talk more about that if it's helpful. But in terms of a task force, I'm not in a position to announce a task force today, but the noble Lord may be interested to know that we have announced we're going to have an independent disability advisory panel. The membership will be announced shortly, but the government is taking very seriously the need to listen to voices of disabled people, including blind and visually impaired people, as well as talking to the organisations that support him.

And I would really welcome having further conversations with him about how we can get this right,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because the the Minister. Acknowledges that acknowledges.
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:38
None Portrait Oral questions: Whether the £3 billion investment in additional places for children with special educational needs will involve the construction of new settings, or adaptations of existing educational establishments Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-

Fourth oral question Lord Addington. Order Paper.
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:47
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Well, can I first of all say that I'm. I'm very pleased that the that I'm. I'm very pleased that the noble Lord is one of the teachers. The over 2000 teachers that we've been able to retain in the classroom over and above, despite his busyness in this house as well. I'm very glad that the pupils of Mossbourne get the benefit of his teaching as well. Look, the previous opposition Secretary of State for education described the Special educational needs system as a lose, lose, lose system.

I agree with her about that. That's why this government is taking by the horns the requirement to reform the system. It's why my hon. Friend George Gould, the Minister, is at this very moment engaging in widespread conversation with parents, with teachers, with children themselves about how we can reform the system so that it identifies children earlier. It provides the support that they need where necessary. It provides that really specialist support for those with complex needs, but it helps parents and children to feel more confident that their needs are being met.

And we will have more to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say about that in the white paper that we will publish next year. My Lords. That concludes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. That concludes. Oral questions for today. My Lords, those members who wish

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, those members who wish to leave, may they do so Has Has to Has to be Has to be in Has to be in committee Has to be in committee on Has to be in committee on the unauthorised entry to football matches. Bill Lord Brennan, of canton. My Lords, I understand that
15:50
15:51
15:51
15:51
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Lord David? >> I'm grateful to the noble Lord. When I said on November 27th, it will be soon. I think December the 18th is soon and it will be 18th is soon and it will be published tomorrow. And I know that noble Lords and members of this House have been pressing me to publish the statement as soon as possible. It will be delivered in the House of Commons tomorrow, and I stand ready to deliver the statement in this House, if the opposition so wishes at the earliest opportunity, which I expect now will be in the New Year.

The noble Lord asks whether there will be cuts in services, and also why the statutory has been inverted, commas delayed. Let me remind the noble Lord this is a strategy with an ambition to cut and halve the violence against women and girls over a ten year period. That is a significant, complex, deliverable commitment. And in order to achieve that commitment, we have consulted through 12 meetings with across the sector a range of individuals across government and the police organisations and women's organisations involved in domestic violence.

So the strategy will be published tomorrow. I hope it will be welcome. It will be full. It will have a series of measurable metrics to achieve that halving of violence against women and girls. But it is complex. But I hope the noble Lord will invite me to deliver a statement in the new year, and I will happily do so in more detail. He asks about cuts in funding. We will be announcing a package of funding measures tomorrow as part of the Violence Against Women and Girls strategy.

But let me say to him that to date, the government has announced in May of this year £19.9 million investment in violence against women and girls. We have put in place a £53 million investment in July of this year to fund the four year roll out of the drive project, the housing and local government departments put £19 million in this year to look at domestic abuse safe accommodation. Local authorities will receive 500 million over the next three years to support safe accommodation, and the Ministry of Justice have committed half £1 billion to invest in vital support services to help domestic abuse victims navigate the process of justice.

And that's so far. Tomorrow, the strategy will set out in more detail funding options, deliverables and the strategy to deliver that half cutting over the next ten years and I hope the noble Lord will welcome it when he comes.
15:54
15:55
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
It's absolutely right. And the noble Lady will know that my colleagues in the Ministry of colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, who are responsible for the prosecution element of that, are going to be reviewing and again in the strategy tomorrow, which she will see, that there is a real commitment to up the number of prosecutions and to ensure that the criminal justice outcomes are made on this issue. It's also important that we give confidence to victims of rape, both male and female, to come forward to report their rapes in the first place and to be taken seriously by the authorities.

And that, again, is one of the aspects of the strategy that will, I hope, be able to be further developed when that comes forward in due course. As I've said, the strategy, the House has both opposition from bench spokespeople have said delayed. There hasn't been a violence against women and girls strategy. Currently, there is not a violence against women and girls in this ten year period, so a delay of some, what, 15 months since the manifesto commitment was given at the general election to put in place a strategy to halve women and girls violence over ten years.

I think that that's a reasonable timescale to have produced a strategy. We've wanted to get it right and I believe with the document produced tomorrow which members can get from vote offices on both houses tomorrow will be available and I hope that they will look at it over Christmas and come back and challenge me on the contents in the New year. Lord.
15:56
15:58
15:59
15:59
16:00
16:00
16:01
16:01
16:02
16:02
None Portrait Amdt. 34C Lord Shinkwin (Conservative)
-

>> I rise to speak to amendment 346C. Dangerous. Careless. Or 346C. Dangerous. Careless. Or inconsiderate? Syphon review, and inconsiderate? Syphon review, and in doing so, I welcome the other amendments in this group in the amendments in this group in the names of my little friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Mitchell of Dulwich. 346C is a modest and reasonable amendment which does exactly what it says on the tin. It would require the Home Secretary to institute a review, and I quote, assessing the effectiveness with which operators of bicycle courier services ensure that their employees and contractors conduct themselves on the roads in such a way as to avoid committing the offences.

In section 106, the review, which must be published within a year of that section coming into force, would recommend any changes to the law which the review determines may be necessary, and the rationale for this amendment is similarly simple. It seeks to probe how the law could be changed to ensure that companies which contract for services of delivery cyclists bear some responsibility for the conduct contact of those cyclists on the roads. Now, noble Lords have not been surprised to hear that I approached this issue from the perspective of a civil, settled person whose condition makes me extremely vulnerable to the impact, and I use the term advisedly.

The actual physical impact of being hit by an individual riding one of these e-bikes in, to use the legislative terminology, a dangerous terrace or inconsiderate way. To put it bluntly, the impact would be catastrophic. I would not expect to survive. So I completely agree with my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe, who said on day six of committee that you take your life in your hands when you cross some roads in central London. I do quite literally every day on my way to and from your Lordships' House.

Now, I entirely appreciate that whether I live or die is neither here nor there. In the grand scheme of things, it would be a shame if my Mattel's but the Earth would continue to turn. I know that equally and major, I'm just one person and I think of all those people with visual impairments, for example, who literally risked life and limb just stepping outside their front door. So you should consider the impact on them as well, not just in terms of their independence, their mental health and wellbeing, all of which will, of course, bring associated costs for the NHS and social care services, but also their employment prospects for why would anyone want to risk going to work, given they could end up in hospital before they even got to the office as a result of being hit by a cyclist on a bike while they are walking along the pavements, or trying to board a bus from one of those so-called floating bus stops, I cite this group as just one example, and of course there are people with mobility impairments like mine, or simply older people whose reflexes are not as sharp as they once were.

To highlight how the dangers presented by dangerous Tellus or considering cycrin online bikes, particularly by courier delivery cyclists are having a far greater impact on our society than we perhaps realise. My Lords, I would go so far as to say that the effect has been to airbrush out of the bigger social picture. Whole swathes of society. So I'm not suggesting that an assessment of impact should be disability exclusive. I would argue that such an impact alone merits a rebuke.

And I said to the Liberal Prime Minister, I'm not laying the blame at the door of government per se. The member's explanatory statement accompanying the amendment refers to the companies which contract the services of delivery cyclists bearing, and I quote, some responsibility for the contact surface. The point being that the responsibility is shared, but none of us either. In Parliament, all the government can deny that we also share responsibility for addressing the problem, in our case, by providing the most effective legislative framework to facilitate the change.

We all want to see safer streets, and I'm reminded of what the Lord Livermore Lord Rook Russell of Liverpool, said in day six of committee about us having made a huge strategic mistake in terms of not factoring in the need for safety from the outset. When e-bikes were introduced. And I agree with him. Sadly, some people, especially in the Department of Transport, appear not to they, and I dare say there are non-disabled and a bit slow on the uptake, so we need to make allowances.

I still do not seem to have woken up to the fact that this experiment has gone badly wrong. My Lords, that needs to be the starting point of the review. There must be a recognition, a fact which I sense the Minister implicitly acknowledges that there is a significant and growing problem which will simply be dismissed by officialdom's obtuse obfuscation of while we are where we are, because if we don't recognise that where we are is bad, then we cannot move on line.

The e-bike hiring companies and companies such as Justeat deserve to be in the dock, not in the saddle. When it comes to this review. Yes, there will be part of the solution, but right now they're doing very nicely. Thank you very much for being a big part of the problem. So they turn up, be allowed to set or influence the review's terms of reference, or sit on the review panel. That should be done by those most affected by dangerous terrorists or inconsiderate cycling, not by those whose irresponsible indifference means they are profiting from putting people's lives at risk.

My Lords, in conclusion, I believe the case for a review is compelling. As my little friend Baroness Stowell said on day six of committee courier delivery service, e-bike users are the worst perpetrators. It is time we reviewed the situation. I beg to move.
16:12
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. 106. Insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. >> I rise to. >> Speak to my amendment 460 to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speak to my amendment 460 to support a targeted, enforceable measure that holds delivery platforms to account for their platforms to account for their operational model and oversight failures contribute to dangerous cycling on our streets. This is not about blame for individual riders alone. It's about closing our regulatory gap so that companies who profit from rapid, app driven deliveries also carry responsibility for foreseeable harms linked to their business models and practices. Now, if noble Lords want a bit more excitement in their lives than the excitement of participating in this debate, then then invite them to accompany tonight when we rise to walk along Millbank, Horseferry Road, Marsham Street, past the Home Office.

The excitement will come from them dodging out of the way of dozens of Deliveroo couriers belting along the pavements, delivering to the thousands of flats in this area. Even more excitement may come when I manage to confront one of these riders and we have an exchange of views, but not usually a meeting of minds. When I do manage to stop them and I stop them because when I see them belting along the pavement, I drive straight for them and my chair is heavier than theirs.

So they're the ones who are forced to dodge out of the way. But when I do manage to, to, to, to to speak to them and I stop on those massive fat tire illegal bikes, I can say with all honesty that every single one I've seen is a recent arrival to this country. Half do not speak English and do not know the law on riding bikes on the pavement. The other half do know the law, and they tell me to go away sexually, and that they will do what they like and who will stop them.

Now, if I'd said that a month ago, I might have been accused of racist comments. But on the 5th of December this year, the Home Office issued a press release that that targeted action they and the police had arrested 171 food delivery couriers for criminal activity, and six of them were illegal migrants facing deportation, the Home Office press release said. It comes as Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has been targeting people working unlawfully in the gig economy. Border Security Minister Alex Norris also said also met representatives from food delivery firms to encourage them to do more to tackle the abuse.

The issue, such as using facial recognition checks to prevent riders sharing their identities with people who do not have permission to take up work in the UK, Norris said November's action ought to send a clear message. If you're working illegally in this country, you will be arrested and removed, he added. We're tightening the law to clamp down on illegal working in the delivery sector to root out this criminality from our communities, unquote. So said the Home Office Minister. Good on you, Minister, and good on the Home Office, because you've you provide proof of what I've encountered every night for the last two years on the streets of Westminster, within hundreds of yards of this building.

But good luck to you in trying to send them back to Eritrea or Somalia or whatever, because there's bound to be some immigration judge who will block you and cite bogus human rights reasons why they cannot be deported. But that's your problem, and not for today. However, my Lords, my amendment supplements what Minister Norris was doing. He exhorted the food delivery companies to do more to tackle the issue. My new clause gives a power, the police, the power to financially penalise the food delivery companies, since money is the only thing which will make them change.

Why must they change? Independent research shows that gig economy delivery riders face higher collision risk and are under greater time, pressure and incentives to ride unsafely than riders directly employed by restaurants. A major study by University College London found gig riders were more likely to be reported for speeding, running, running red lights, distracted from their app notifications and be involved in collisions resulting in vehicle damage or injury. And the European Transport Safety Council and other road safety bodies have echoed these findings and warned that payment structures and app design can create foreseeable incentives for risky riding.

Transport authorities and local government bodies have repeatedly raised alarms about illegally modified e-bikes, unsafe batteries and the fire and collision risks they pose. Transport for London and London boroughs have called for stronger regulation of conversion kits and uncertified lithium ion batteries, and have urged national action to improve product safety and data collection on e-bike incidents. National reporting and safety reviews have similarly warned that modified e-bikes used by couriers can reach speeds far beyond legal limits and present both collision and fire hazards.

But, my Lords, it's not just modified e-bikes. The ones I see every night are these massive fat tire bikes, which are officially for hill climbing and off road use, but are the main Deliveroo Just eats and Uber eat bikes I meet every day. My Lord, I just did a Google search to buy one of these bikes. I came hundreds and hundreds of pages and let me just quote two examples the hideous, hideous not hideous. Well, it's the same thing, really.

B6 electric bike 48V, 15.6 amp battery, 1200 watt motor, 20 inch diameter and four inch fat. Tires weight 50.7kg. Recommended top speed 25 miles an hour but en bloc to 50km/h. The second one, the Tesla X9 all wheel drive, 4000 watt dual motor electric mountain bike, 48 volt, 30 amp Samsung battery weight 48kg 64km/h and the ASBO is a suitable for off road and commuting. My Lords talk about giving up two fingers to the law. Commuting a 48 kilogram bike capable of being sick of 64km/h, advertised as suitable for commuting.

Of course, the sellers will say that the commuting they envisaged was was probably a sheep farmer going from his house to check on the sheep up on the mountain. And that's what the commuting was. My proposed clause is proportionate and necessary and it's narrowly focussed. It empowers the police to issue fines to delivery companies, where a rider delivering on their behalf is convicted of causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling. Now, of course, Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Justeat will say they're they're not the employer.

I'll have no control over what bikes these private individuals use. But my Lords, that won't wash. And they have vicarious liability for the so-called independent riders they use to deliver their food. They can and should vet the drivers and regularly check that they're riding road legal bikes. Of course, they don't do so at the moment because there's no financial penalty if they don't and they will not listen. I'm afraid to. Nice. Mr. Maurice Norris from the Home Office. My new clause is not a punitive measure for its own sake.

It's a lever to change corporate behaviour where evidence shows platform design, pay by drop models, weak onboarding and poor vehicle checks create foreseeable risks that companies can and should mitigate. The combination of legal precedent on vicarious liability and the empirical and enforcement evidence I have cited shows that companies can be held accountable when their systems materially contribute to harm. So could I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, where he's got to with his consultation on police powers, on disposing of seized vehicles which have been used? Antisocially.

In his written reply to me of 19th September, he said that the consultation closed on 8th July and conclusions will be published shortly. Well, you can't get more antisocial than using larger legal bikes on our roads and pavements and injuring pedestrians. And and I've given the Minister some ideas to work up here in my new amendment. Now, before I conclude, my Lords, could I just give a bit of extraneous advice to noble Lords on all sides? And that is never, never to order food supply by these food aggregators, since there are 40% chance you're going to be ripped off.

I was on the Food Standards Agency until recently, and the public and noble Lords may think they're getting food cooked in the nice named restaurant with a good rating for taste, quality and hygiene. But up to 40% of that food these days is now cooked in virtual kitchens and multi cooked warehouse warehouses. Some grubby, cheap joints under the arches with the same cooks are mass producing kebabs, pizzas, tikka masala, curries, burgers, what have you. However, my Lords, that's just helpful advice for so so you can avoid food poisoning.

But that's for another day. Let me conclude my my Lords, by saying this. I know the noble Lord. The Minister is a decent and caring. Well, I presume Lord Katz is also the noble Lord. Lord Katz is also a decent and caring man, and getting back to the amendment, I say that that I'm sorry that I believe both Ministers have to follow a Department of Transport like that. You can't that these probably don't both believe in. But that's collective responsibility for you.

The Ministers are not blind. They know the carnage out there in the streets. They know the flagrant abuse of our laws, which cannot be enforced no matter how many police we have. If there's no way to identify the thousands of illegal bikes being sold and used, and no way to identify the riders as a noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe said last week, then there's nothing they can do. The law breaking and dangerous to our pedestrians are not the fault of the Home Office, but the fanatics and the Department of Transport who are obsessed with permitting a cycling free for all.

One day, my Lords, they will have blood on their hands when that happens. Happens. I hope they are never able to sleep easily at night. So I urge the House to support this amendment and all other amendments on this bill in previous groups, future groups which are seeking to make our streets safer for pedestrians and which the Department of Transport simply doesn't give a about.
16:22
Lord McColl of Dulwich Portrait Lord McColl of Dulwich (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> My amendment 481. Seeks to address the specific. Part that address the specific. Part that delivery services play in the broader criminal activity. Delivery broader criminal activity. Delivery riders make regular deliveries to residential accommodation, which often houses vulnerable people, but the identity of these riders is unknown because they they wear masks and helmets and despite anonymity of these riders, they can wander around inside these residential accommodation with impunity, especially because the outside door of these flats is often controlled remotely.

And some of the delivery elevators actually open into private apartments. And as has been mentioned already, a vulnerable 80 year old lady opened the door of her flat from the lift and was confronted by one of these helmeted, masked foreigners. And when she tried to shut the door, he prevented her from shutting the door by putting his foot to his foot across the threshold into her apartment. You can imagine how frightened that she was.

Besides the fear that these riders can stoke, they can also commit crimes within the building. And some of them actually put graffiti all over the place. So there's a real problem here. Now, the other thing that we have to bear in mind that these people are these often involve human trafficking, and they can be in the county, in the country illegally. As has been mentioned this month, as has been mentioned already, 171 illegal delivery riders have been arrested.

So there's a real problem. This amendment of mine is the first step in addressing all of this criminal behaviour. It enables an accurate diagnosis of the problem, the impact of which is particularly felt by, by by the most vulnerable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in our society. I beg to move. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to support all three amendments, but particularly the one put forward by Lord Shinkwin it. one put forward by Lord Shinkwin it. I've made amendments which are about general concerns about cyclists putting pedestrians at cyclists putting pedestrians at risk. The government didn't accept those, but I think what's different about these amendments is, first of
16:25
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
about these amendments is, first of all, it's not beyond coincidence that the three people who propose those amendments, these amendments have got physical challenges they overcome every day. And although all of us as pedestrians face challenges with cyclists, if you can't get out of the way, you can't see them coming and you're going to sustain more grievous injuries. Should you be hit, then that group in society is even more vulnerable than everyone. So I think the fact that they've made this case, we should listen carefully.

I have to say that generally this government and even the Lib Dems, I think, are just a little bit complacent about responding to the general point about cyclists being held to account. There's almost a patting on the head. There's not that many people dying. There's not that many people getting injured compared to being hit by cars. Well, there were 25 killed by cyclists over the last ten years, and it mattered to those families. And I think it should matter to the government to take some action.

Lord Shinkwin amendment merely asks for a review to gather evidence, particularly in the more narrow area, rather than just general cycling. But in terms of commercial operations who employ cyclists. Now, the link between the cyclist and the employer has got more, even more vicarious than it has been in the past, because many of them are on zero hour contracts. They provide the cycles themselves. I don't think they always visit the operating centres of their employer. So the employer says, well, we didn't buy the bikes, we don't see the bikes.

What's it got to do with us about what they do when they're working for us? But I've been out, as I mentioned a few days ago, with the City of London police, and these people are clearly operating on behalf of the commercial company. There is a vicarious liability for the employer, I would argue, but there's no way that that link is being established at the moment. One thing that the commercial, if the employers were or the companies were able to do, would be to look at the data on the bikes, they could establish how often they were being operated.

And sometimes this is beyond normal employment practice. They could establish which streets they went on because many of them are going the wrong way down certain streets. And it'd be fairly clear if they were to look at the data. But I think at the very least, what this review might want to consider is that an employer could start to do more positive things than just employ sanctions. They can start to educate their cyclists, they could start to reward them for better behaviour.

Many employers now have HGV drivers. Bus drivers have schemes which are advertised on the rear of the vehicles. If you don't like the way our driver is driving, please let us know. Well, they could do that for cyclists and you might say, well there's no registration plate. Well I argue for registration plate, but if you don't like that idea, they could have highlighters with details on the back, advertising which company they were employed by and who you might report it to if you weren't happy with the driving of that cycle.

So you're starting to bear down on some of the accountability I think would gradually improve road safety. I think that I'm sure that the government aren't lying to the problem. I think what's happening at the moment is that people are worried about the amount of bureaucracy that would be needed to be put in place and are frightened of having to establish that bureaucracy. And I understand that as an administrative burden. But I do think it's important to start to make incremental steps, to start to have some impact in this really important area.

And my only final point, which I would like to make, is that the very least this review could do is to establish some data on which we could all debate. This is insufficient that anecdotes would drive policy, but I think the anecdotes are so frequent and so obvious that in fact there is underpinning data, but it's not being collected at the moment. A review like this would start to collect data, inform policy and make sure that any changes that might be proposed were reasonable ones that would be likely to have some effect.

And just finally, just to say that at the moment, I think that the employers are claiming wilful ignorance, basically as a defence, we don't know. It's nothing to do with us whatever they do while they're out cycling. But it does matter and it has something to do with them. If they're operating a business in which it's putting people at risk, they might actually be concerned about their own brand, but it appears they're not. But of course, they don't carry the brand apart from Deliveroo on the bike.

Well, perhaps they could do more by putting some more identifying features on the back. And my my very final point is just that at the moment, even if you don't accept the three arguments and the three amounts being put and some of the amendments I've put, I've seen no positive response by the government to any of the arguments put to them. They just say, we don't want to do it. Well, it's not a good argument and I don't think it's sufficient.

And I think there is some need for some constructive response to, I think, some reasonable challenges and the vulnerable in society, I think, feel it most. But most of us see it every day. It's about time somebody took it seriously, and I don't think the government is.
16:31
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page