Social Cohesion and Democratic Resilience: Khan Review

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member on Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for securing this important debate.

Our democracy faces significant challenges threatening social cohesion and wellbeing, with the rise of extremes on all sides, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) outlined. The rampant spread of dangerous conspiracy theories and disinformation, alongside unregulated technological advances in artificial intelligence, pose a direct threat to our democratic ability and stability. Additionally, as we have seen in more recent times, politics and politicians at large, across the globe, have utilised populism to boost their own political gains at the expense of minority communities and those on the receiving end of their political attacks.

The Khan review uncovers a phenomenon of freedom-restricting harassment, where individuals are coerced into self-censorship through abuse and intimidation. That harassment is reported as suppressing the freedom of expression of individuals. Eighty-five per cent of the public acknowledge its presence in the UK and 60% perceive it to be worsening over the years. The report highlights a link between the erosion of democratic resilience and the absence of a national strategic framework.

The recommendations in the report for protecting victims of harassment and incitement are welcome and to be encouraged, as is the recommendation for a new independent office for social cohesion that genuinely works, in good faith, to balance the rights and freedoms of all with the need for social cohesion across the United Kingdom. In addition, schools should be safe havens for learning, free from intimidation. I therefore also support the review’s proposal for buffer zones around schools, to curb protests and provide support for staff and students. However, while aspects of the report are welcome, it completely ignores the role that the Government are playing in breaking down social cohesion in this country.

The recent statement by the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, on a proposed new definition of extremism is concerning, particularly due to the approach that he presents, which targets Muslim groups. On one hand, the Government acknowledge there is a problem with social cohesion and people policing their ideas and opinions. On the other hand, we have a Secretary of State targeting Muslim organisations and dangerously labelling them as extremists without an evidence-based approach or any right to appeal.

In addition, the Secretary of State fuelled speculation in the media that he would label the Muslim Council of Britain as an extremist organisation. He also took away funding from the Inter Faith Network and its work because a member of tits board was linked to the Muslim Council of Britain. The irony is that an interfaith charity that champions the work of social cohesion had to close down because the Government ended its funding—the same Government who acknowledge we have an issue with social cohesion.

It gets worse. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology used her position to target a professor over her support for Palestine by wrongfully accusing her of extremism. The result was the taxpayer footing a bill for £34,000 to pay for the price of the right hon. Lady’s libellous attack. Let us not forget that a former Home Secretary tried to silence hundreds of thousands of genuine people demonstrating for a ceasefire in Palestine by labelling the protests as “hate marches”.

Do the Government want to be part of a solution, fixing social cohesion, or part of the problem? The evidence is stacked on the latter. It is difficult to look at top Conservative figures today and not find someone who is actively working to damage social cohesion in this country. Seriously—how can we advocate for social cohesion in the UK with Susan Hall as the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London? The Conservative nominee for Mayor of London embodies a hard-right politics profoundly disconnected from the essence of London, its diversity and its values. She endorses Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Suella Braverman. She perceives London’s diversity as a weakness. Susan Hall spouts Islamophobic tropes that have stirred up division and hatred against Muslims. She likes tweets about Enoch Powell, and a tweet by Katie Hopkins describing Sadiq Khan as “the Mayor of Londonistan”.

Susan Hall is actively involved in Facebook groups sharing antisemitic, white supremacist content and racially charged threats against Sadiq Khan. That is the Tory mayoral candidate for London. The election is only a few days away, yet the Government want to lecture people on social cohesions and the impact it has on society, and the Tory candidate for London epitomises the very definition of divisiveness.

I am a proud Bradfordian, a proud Muslim, and a proud Member of the British Parliament. When we talk about community cohesion, there are vulnerabilities that Dame Sara Khan references—the issues of job security, and the issues that make communities feel threatened, and people feel otherised. These issues require people to know that they matter, that they belong, and that people care. Instead, what we have is senior people like the former Home Secretary and the former Prime Minister who compared women to letterboxes and other things. As a result of his column, there has been a 335% increase in attacks against Muslims. I associate myself with the comments that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North made about antisemitism, but I add to that the increase in Islamophobia. That is led right from the top.

When we are elected, we as politicians are expected to lead with authenticity, with congruence, with leadership that unites people. The definition of cohesion is sticking together, working together, tackling problems, and mutual support for positive futures. That is the definition of community cohesion, but is that the rhetoric we get from the Tory Benches? No, it is not. The Government need to understand the role they have played to get to the point where this report was even needed. I have been in this House since 2015— I just started my 10th year —and it is a slippery slope every year, pandering to hard-right narratives, with Members of Parliament having to apologise to the Leader of the Opposition because they have retweeted far-right conspiracies.

I get it—I completely get it. I understand why MPs ask whether a career in politics is worth it, because of the abuse we get. People are stepping down in this place, but that did not start on 7 October, and the conversation about the ceasefire—that started when Brexit was happening. That started when people in this place and the media were perpetuating headlines about people being traitors, and there was no response from the Government then. There was no condemnation then, when all those things were happening, yet here we are, with this whole review, and the Minister will stand up and say how committed the Government are, when they cannot tackle the rot from their own Front Benchers to temper their language or epitomise leadership, walk the walk and show what it looks like to lead. We certainly have not had that from the Government.

I will simply finish on this. It is not just about the issue of the mayoral election going on in London right now. Social cohesion is imperative for Great Britain, but that means leadership, and calling out people like the former Prime Minister who rubbed shoulders in America with Steve Bannon, who said, “Tommy Robinson is our hero”. Tommy Robinson is putting out videos of him fixing his tie in the House of Lords—people like that, entertained in our Palaces! That is why we have to fix social cohesion. The message comes right from the top, from the media, and from social media platforms. I am afraid that this Government certainly do not do that. It is important that the Government learn the lesson, lead by example, and do not preach something that they do not practise themselves.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Thank you. Before I bring in the Front Bench spokespeople, I remind Members that referring to other Members by name is not correct. They should use their title, ministerial positions or whatever role they occupy in the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister talks about being temperate and using temperate language. Could I please remind him to observe that when he makes his comments?

[Lee Rowley]

With absolute pleasure, Sir Mark. I absolutely intend to do so. As has been outlined, my concern is that it is important that we are very clear and very careful about the language we use, which I have sought to be, and about suggestions as to the motivations of others, which I have sought to be. Equally, it is important that we are robust about calling out cases where that care is not taken. All of us have a responsibility in this place and elsewhere to utilise the best and most careful language, assertions and arguments. Today has been an indication of where that is not occurring in places, and I will come on to that more in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is right, and everybody has that right, including me. I represent the great people of Bradford West, and 60% of my constituency is Muslim, as I myself am. I find it really offensive that the Minister is offended that I am stating facts. I am demonstrating that the Government are not walking the walk when delivering on their so-called cohesion policies or their so-called attempts to deliver equality. In fact, I am even more offended at any suggestion that my interventions are about a grievance narrative, when they are actually all about Muslims just wanting equality. We are not talking about special treatment; nobody in my constituency wants special treatment. What they do want—will the Minister give it and agree?—is equality.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions are meant to be short.

[Lee Rowley]

I thank the hon. Lady, who makes some of my case for me. However, turning to her comments, I agree with some of what she says. It is important that we build a shared understanding and a shared set of values in this country. I agree that we should be temperate with language. Where she has called out inappropriate behaviour—I do not agree with all her points—I accept that no party is perfect. I accept that some of my colleagues will have made mistakes. I accept that some words have been looser than they should have been.

However, I hope the hon. Lady will accept that that is not limited to my party or to the Government—there have been multiple examples. However, if we just trade off on the basis of who said what where, or make some kind of case that one political party is worse than the other, when we know that they have all had significant issues with community relations over many years—only one party got into the place it did with regard to antisemitism a number of years ago—we will be much poorer in the debate about this issue.

The hon. Member for Bradford West referenced facts, and I am happy to talk about some of the challenges around the facts she provided a moment ago. She knows that the Inter Faith Network’s funding was withdrawn because of a decision to appoint somebody who had a background in a particular organisation—that was a choice that the organisation made, and it appointed that person. The policy of non-engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain has been in place since the Labour party was in power. Indeed, it was the former Labour Member for Salford—the Secretary of State in the predecessor to my Department—who started that policy of non-engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain in 2009, which my party continues to this day. It is perfectly logical to extend a policy that was introduced and endorsed by the Labour party, on the basis of logic put forward by the Labour party, because of the challenges that we now have. The hon. Member for Bradford West shakes her head, but those are the facts on the assertion that she made.

[Lee Rowley]

I am afraid I will make progress. I have given way a number of times.

The hon. Member for Bradford West made a number of comments about populism and raised a number of concerns about extremism and its definition. When she next speaks in debates like this, she needs to define the specific issues she has with the definition of extremism, because that was not part of her speech when we strip back all the criticisms about individuals. We can always have a robust debate, but if we want to have a mature one, which the hon. Lady claims she does, it would be better to focus on concerns about the specific definitions the Government are trying to bring forward, and what they do and do not achieve, as opposed to spending much more time talking about individuals.

I will probably leave it there. I have many more things I could say about the hon. Lady’s speech, but maybe it is better to deal with those in another forum at another time. I will just say that I do not agree with much of her speech, and I hope that, in time, she will reflect on many of the points that were made.

Putting aside some of the challenges mentioned in Members’ speeches, and what was contained in at least one of them, I think today has shown that all of us feel extremely passionately about ensuring that we build a society that is cohesive and resilient for the long run, and about seeking to utilise what the Government can do to move forward the things we see in our individual communities, whether that be Stoke-on-Trent, Blaydon, North East Derbyshire, Bradford, Strangford—the hon. Member for Strangford is no longer in his place— or elsewhere. We also want to identify the issues that we need to deal with in the years ahead, which is exactly what the commissioning of the Khan review sought to do.

Despite the robustness of the debate, and despite my fundamental disagreements with some of the points that were made, I think it has been a useful debate and a good debate. Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North for giving us the opportunity and space to have the debate, and I am glad that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South have had the opportunity to raise specific they are concerned about within their great city. I hope that such robust debates—next time, the language will hopefully be slightly more cautious and temperate—highlight the interest and need of everybody, wherever we sit on the political spectrum, in terms of getting this matter right and making progress for the long run, which is something we all want to achieve.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I call Jonathan Gullis to wind up the debate.

[Jonathan Gullis]

Thank you, Sir Mark. I thank all Members who took part in this important debate, and I thank the Minister for his words and reflections, particularly on the Prevent funding for Stoke-on-Trent, and for saying that he will pass on our comments to the Home Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and I will continue to push for that additional uplift, to make sure that we can retain that important service.

I want to reflect on a few of the things that have been said. First, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, should rightly be horrified to antisemitic tropes, words and images projected on to buildings in Belfast, as we sadly saw happen here on Elizabeth Tower. It is completely abhorrent that that kind of thing is taking place, and the police must crack down on it.

I visited the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—in fact, I gave a talk to members of his party, as well as to the wider community—and it was great to be surrounded not only by passionate patriots and Unionists, but by members of the community who have lived side by side. They may have different religious or nationalistic views, but they have ultimately grown up side by side as neighbours, friends and colleagues, and I am immensely proud to see the way that that country has moved forward.

My own stepmother, Janet Harbison, set up the Belfast Harp Orchestra, and a member of her family was once an Irish nationalist Member of this Parliament—as you can imagine, our dinner table can be quite interesting at times. She wanted to take part in the peace process by using culture as a way of bringing the community together, and she faced death threats from the IRA, despite coming from the Republic of Ireland and despite her family’s recent history of representing people wanting a united Ireland at that stage. Even she was targeted, with people sending her images of her younger sister, alongside death threats, letting her know that they knew where her family lived. That was truly shocking.

When Janet married my father, who is half-Irish and half-English by birth, they were targeted with abuse and threats; bomb threats were literally made against them, which saddens me to my core to this day. That meant that I was not able to visit my father as much as I wanted to, purely for my own safety. Rightly, my mother and stepfather, and my father and stepmother, wanted to make sure that I was safe.

That shows how far the country has now come, which is why what happened in Belfast is so sad. To see such things being played out again—although in a different guise, using what is happening the middle east as a background—is very sad indeed for a community that has been divided on the basis of birth or religion.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, who is fellow Stokie, although I am obviously an import—my accent gives it away—while he is from there by birth and by breeding. In fact, “Brereton” is all over the bloody roads and in the names of streets, because my hon. Friend’s family were responsible for building many of them in the not-too-distant past. It is great to see him standing up again for the community that we serve, and he is right to do so.

I am proud to wear or wave the St George’s flag, as I am the Union flag. I am proud to say that I am British and English. I am proud to sing “Three lions on a shirt” as much as I am to sing “Rule, Britannia”, which will not come as a shock to the Minister. I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with many fine patriots across our great community of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, 73% of whom voted to leave the European Union in the 2016 Brexit referendum. I appreciate that there were unfair comments, and the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) talked about people being called “traitors” in this place. I was not in this place at the time, but I of course entirely understand that it would have been completely inappropriate to refer to people in that way.

It is important to understand that there was a groundswell of anger among the public, including people like myself, who voted to leave and who campaigned to leave the European Union. We felt that this place was, sadly, not hearing or representing those views and that others in this place—not the hon. Lady but others, who are no longer here—were pushing the idea that people were somehow thick, uneducated or racist in wanting to see that democratic right delivered. That fed into some of those far-right extremist groups, which were able to proliferate off the back of that.

It has taken a long time to rebuild that trust. These things led to an undermining of our democratic system, which is why 42% of people still chose not to cast a vote in the 2019 general election. That is very sad indeed and was used by groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, which actually encouraged people not to take part in the democratic process—sadly, in this case, the Muslim community, in particular.

It is very important that we use the opportunity we have in this place. I taught religious education for eight years in secondary state schools across Birmingham and London, and Islam is a religion of peace. It is stated very clearly that to take one life is effectively to take the lives of all humankind. It is therefore entirely appropriate to make it abundantly clear to extremist groups—those on the far right, but also those in the Islamic community that pursue a twisted perversion of what Islam is actually about—that that is simply wrong and abhorrent. The word “jihad”, which is sadly now used in terrorist atrocities, actually has a very different meaning—that if, God forbid, holy war is required, innocent women and children of all races and faiths are to be left aside, and all religions are to be left in peace. Ultimately, it is only done in the defence of one’s faith—

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. Could the hon. Member wind up his speech, rather than start another debate on a related subject?

[Jonathan Gullis]

I do apologise, Sir Mark. I appreciate the point. As I say, I wanted to make sure that I use this opportunity, because as Members of this place, our words carry a lot of importance. I represent a large Pakistani and Muslim community, and given the recent tensions around what has unfolded in the middle east, its members may feel that I do not advocate their particular view as much as they would like me to. I want to let them know that I do, and I will always stand up for the positive nature of that community and what it has done. Indeed, for the first time in Tunstall, we have seen the election of a member of the Pakistani-British community, Councillor Tabrase Din, who is doing great work on trying to make our streets safer and tackling the backlash in recent times, particularly around extremism.

The hon. Member for Bradford West made an impassioned speech. I would just remind her that political parties across this House have people in them who have done very silly things, and he who is without sin may cast the first stone. I remind her that it was, sadly, the Labour party that was found to have breached or undermined the human rights of those in the Jewish community, in particular. I saw that with my predecessor, Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, who suffered tremendous antisemitism at the hands of extremists, who had, sadly, proliferated in her party. I commend the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has done a lot of work to try to drive that out, despite what we saw recently in the Rochdale by-election.

No party can sit here and say that all its members have been perfect, and we have all seen and needed to call out extremism in all its forms. However, I kindly remind the hon. Member for Bradford West that calling people such as Donald Trump or Boris Johnson extremists is completely wrong and drives the feeling that they need to be marginalised even further. They are mainstream, centre-right politicians who have a view and who were democratically elected by overwhelming majorities in both their nations at different times, and they should be respected, even though we may have political differences about what they did.

It is important that we continue to have this informed debate and that we make sure that all sides of the argument are heard. Most importantly, however, we must allow mainstream views to continue to be held by mainstream parties in a good-quality, good old-fashioned democratic debate, rather than allowing the wider public to feel marginalised, so that they look to the extremist elements of society, thinking that their views will be heard or supported there. It is for us in this place to make sure that people feel that they can be heard and that their views are supported, and we will continue to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Khan Review on threats to social cohesion and democratic resilience.

Council Tax and Revenue Support Grant

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes for a Division in the House. If there are two Divisions, it will be suspended for 25 minutes. I will resume the sitting when Members currently present return to their seats.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate now resumes and can continue until five minutes to 6. Mr Loder, would you like to continue?

[Chris Loder]

I would like to remind Members present that, just before the Division, I was talking about the fairness of the specifics of the Dorset Council revenue support grant. For the past three years, Dorset has received exactly zero revenue support grant. This is the first year since my election that we have received any form of revenue support grant. At a slim £654,000, that equates to roughly 0.2% of total council income. Although welcomed, that has come only after others and I spent a long time banging the drum for the situation to change. I am afraid that it is still overshadowed by the £24 million that, for example, Wandsworth Borough Council and other boroughs receive.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) is an extremely vocal and proud champion of his local area in West Dorset. We have already spoken about this issue on a number of occasions in the short time I have been in post. He strongly advocates for his constituency’s position and the importance of rural Britain being heard in debates such as this one. I congratulate him on securing the debate and highlighting important points, even though there was a gap in the middle for other reasons.

This is an important issue, and I accept that. My hon. Friend has outlined some of the points that affect his constituency and the supporting unitary authority. It is important we discuss these issues fairly regularly. There will never be a perfect methodology, and there will never be a single answer for everything. There will always be these necessary discussions, but it is important—I say this as someone who represents a semi-rural area as well—that the voice of rural Britain is heard. He has made that voice heard loud and clear today.

In response to my hon. Friend, I want to talk briefly about the broader situation and then answer a number of the points he raised to the best of my ability in the time we have. His point is both broad and narrow. It is broad in that people should have confidence that the system works for all parts of Britain, broad in that we want a local government settlement that reflects need, and broad in ensuring that all parts of our country get the resources we are able to offer. In the usual way, there is a challenge around the allocation of resources in a system that has infinite and worthy demands on it, but very finite resources to support it.

My hon. Friend also makes a more specific and narrow point about the RSG. He has highlighted how that has changed for a number of areas across the country over a number of years. He has highlighted that Dorset has had, for a number of years, a zero or negligible grant. It has gone up slightly this year.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. First, I give permission for Members to remove their jackets if they wish. Secondly, I ask the Minister to address his points through the Chair, rather than with his back to the Chair.

[Lee Rowley]

I will do that, Sir Mark. The RSG has been in place since the late 1980s. It has been a feature of the financial and settlement landscapes for a number of years. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has indicated, the utility of the RSG and the way in which it is applied to individual areas, such as Dorset and elsewhere, has changed over recent years. That is to be expected as the local government funding landscape changes over a 20 or 30-year period.

That plays out within the context of a broader settlement, and in order to have these kinds of conversations we have to acknowledge what is within that broader settlement—not just the RSG but all the other grants, and the overall envelope within which it is offered. While I absolutely accept that there are a significant set of challenges at the moment, I hope the sector has recognised—in my experience from speaking with the sector, from unitary councils and districts to county and metropolitan boroughs, it has done—that a significant amount of money has gone into it. While there is still a challenge with inflation, it looks like £60 billion-worth of taxpayer subsidy, in one shape or form, in England will be allocated in the provisional local government finance settlement that was announced for consultation before Christmas. We will make decisions and finalise that for the sector shortly.

That figure represents a significant increase across all councils. We have also provided additional clarity about what is likely to come in the financial year 2024-25, which has been a long-standing request of the sector, irrespective of the way in which it funds its individual services. That has been welcomed by the sector, and I hope we can build on it in future years, once we are through the current spending review period.

Although it has tended to be more relevant for non-unitary councils than unitary councils, we have also given a one-off funding guarantee that meant the provisional settlement contained a floor that ensured that individual councils were able to obtain some uplift prior to deciding what they wished to do or not do about council tax. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is no longer in his place, but he raised an important point about his concerns regarding local government finance. I hope that with the provisional settlement and the clarity that we will provide shortly with the financial settlement, we have demonstrated our willingness to respond where we are able.

That is all within an extremely challenging global financial context, which we all know about, even if those on either side of the House disagree in part on the reasons for it. That is all down to challenges that were discussed at the Budget and that have been visible for a number of years—both within the immediate post-covid era and stretching back longer—across many western democracies as debt has risen, as the recovery from the global financial crisis has been attempted and as we seek to accommodate spending decisions that were made a number of years or decades ago, which still have overhang even now. We have to contextualise decisions about the financial settlement as a whole, which will hopefully be finalised soon, and how it is distributed within the very challenging financial context.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset talked powerfully about the particular pressures on children’s services and adult social care, and he is absolutely right to highlight that there have been significantly increasing challenges around both those areas in the last decade or so. That is not unique to Dorset, but is absolutely the case in all other councils, as the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) highlighted from the Opposition Front Bench when she spoke of her own experiences of adult social care.

That has been recognised in the last number of years of the financial settlement with the creation of, and then increased funding for, grants earmarked for adult social care and children’s care, including the social care grant. Over recent weeks, we have seen an additional amount made available for adult social care through the discharge fund, of which at least a portion will go through local authorities to support additional social care provision within individual localities, to help the NHS get through the winter challenges. My hon. Friend will probably also be aware of the market sustainability and improvement fund, which is due to come in in the next financial year. So there has been a response to the increasing pressures, and one that reflects greater linearity between grants that are provided by the centre and the challenges and pressures that individual authorities are facing. I hope that that further additional context is helpful.

My hon. Friend talked powerfully and at length about the specific aspects of rural funding. He made a strong point, and I will absolutely consider it more. As he will be aware, councils that have a significant proportion of rurality have already received additional funds through the rural services grant over the last few years. As part of the provisional settlement, we confirmed that that will continue in the coming years. I know that there is a debate about the quantum of that grant, but we have sought to do that. Within the funding formulas for other grants, there is a recognition of need, irrespective of rurality. As my hon. Friend rightly indicated, need is not necessarily related only to urban areas, but is also present in rural areas. I hope that, at least in part, the overall funding settlement is able to reflect that.

I want to talk about three points that my hon. Friend raised—I am not sure he will fully agree with me, but I want to touch on each of them. He made a number of points about the difference, both perceived and actual, between how different parts of the country and different authorities allocate their resources, and about the different funding that comes to different parts of the country, both in terms of what is provided centrally and what is raised. He highlighted a differential between London and other parts of the country, and that is returned to regularly. As somebody who was a councillor in London for eight years and who is now happily back home in Derbyshire as a Member of Parliament, I have seen both sides of the equation. As I say, nothing in life is perfect—no methodology is perfect, and no funding formulas are perfect. However, if there were an equivalent number of Members of Parliament here from urban areas—I know this because I used to be part of this conversation—they too would make a strong case that there are challenges, issues and problems in their areas that need attention. That is not to take anything away from my hon. Friend’s point about comparison, but it offers some context.

There are different pressures in urban and rural areas, in different geographical areas and in areas with different demographics. Ultimately, different choices are made. I have served in councils where there are significant choices around how social care is approached and where different choices are made around how leisure services and library services are approached. If we accept the principle of devolution—I know that my hon. Friend was not making this point per se—we also have to accept that there will be differences in the choices that are made, while recognising that some of those choices are down to the ability to determine things locally and some are more influenced by the overall process and decisions made elsewhere.

Permitted Development and Shale Gas Exploration

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I came to this subject 10 years ago as a neutral, because I have a scientific and engineering background and am usually driven on issues such as this by the evidence, rather than political or ideological reasons. I deeply believe that we need a very varied energy mix for this country, and obviously as much renewable as possible, but I still think that nuclear power has an important role to play because it is much safer nowadays. In a very unstable world where we still need carbon fuels—with Russia and countries in the middle east and north Africa producing oil and gas—it is very important that we have our own indigenous carbon fuels that we can turn to as and when we need to. I was therefore quite agnostic when it came to the development of shale gas production in Lancashire.

I thank the House of Commons for producing an excellent paper on shale gas and fracking on 6 November, because it has provided a great deal of background on and insight into the issue. Until fairly recently, the issue hinged on exploratory development in Lancashire and, if I may, I will look back at what has happened in Lancashire in the past. On 1 April 2011—getting on for nine years ago—Blackpool, which is not far from my constituency of Preston, experienced seismicity, or a tremor, of 2.3 on the Richter scale, which was far too large. On 27 May 2011—again, nearly nine years ago—there was a subsequent tremor of 1.5 on the Richter scale. We were told that this was due to fluid injection into a fault zone, and that the fracking company, Cuadrilla, had already mapped out parts of Lancashire and knew exactly where the fault lines were so that it should never occur again.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech. As a fellow Lancashire MP, I am sure he also hears from his constituents about their concerns about earth tremors and earthquakes caused by fracking. In response, the Government have brought in a traffic light warning system. Many of my constituents are concerned that that traffic light warning system is maintained and stays in place, despite the pressure from some fracking companies. Do his constituents tell him the same?

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

Yes, my constituents do feel the same, which is why I have risen to speak on this important subject. The city of Preston is obviously very close to these fracking sites.

To move on, the Government have insisted that controls are in place so that operators will have to assess the location of faults before fracking, to monitor seismic activity in real time and to stop if a magnitude greater than 0.5 on the Richter scale is detected. The figure of 0.5 is the one promised throughout the time that the developers were going through the exploratory phase and the development phase before they turn to production in Lancashire.

It is good to see the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) in his place. He was the Secretary of State at the time, and I recall being present in his office when he gave a great number of assurances about how fracking would be conducted in Lancashire. Of course, things have turned out rather differently from what he said at the time. He was the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change between 2012 and 2015, and he made the following statement to The Guardian. He said:

“I wanted to make sure that…we have tough regulations to tackle things like methane emissions and any pollution to make sure that we have got things like water sustainability right.”

He went on:

“If we are going to do fracking we have got to make sure that it does not hurt our environment and local communities benefit from it.”

We have yet to see local communities benefit from it. With coal, people in the north dug the coal, but it was those in the south and around London who made the profits from that. I do not want to see the same happen with fracking.

Since then, local communities have been subjected to much higher levels of seismic activity. Over a two-week period in November 2018, there were something like 30 recorded events of seismic activity with a 1.1 magnitude tremor. That is twice the level indicated by the former Secretary of State, the Government at the time or Cuadrilla itself. The people of Lancashire have had enough of this. I came to this as an agnostic, and as somebody who wanted to believe that 0.5 was the level Cuadrilla was going to stick to. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. Brian Baptie, head of seismology at the British Geological Survey, told journalists at a briefing in 2019 that the limit could safely be raised to magnitude 1.5 since that was a level similar to vibrations caused by a heavy bin lorry. I am sorry, but that is not what was promised. Since then, 50 geoscientists have sent a letter to The Times, on 9 February 2019, arguing that we should increase the limit even higher. That is not acceptable, and the people of Lancashire will not accept it.

Budget Resolutions

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

At the 2010 general election, the Conservative party promised to eradicate the deficit by 2015. Now the Government have no target for getting rid of the deficit at all. Billions have been cut from our public services over the past eight years, and we still face a budget deficit of £52 billion and a national debt that has nearly doubled since the Conservatives came into government in 2010. The Government have borrowed £670 billion over the past eight years, and my local councils, the Conservative-led Lancashire County Council and Labour’s Preston City Council, are both at breaking point because of cuts.

Turning to the tragedy of universal credit, since June 2018, 71 constituents have written to me expressing the immense problems that many of them are facing due to the transition to universal credit. I will give just one example. Stuart obtained a three-month sick note from his GP due to illness. The jobcentre then started to apply for jobs on his behalf, despite his illness. He then had to wait five weeks before he received his first payment, because of the transition. That is a disgrace, and it is happening to many people across the country who are ill, disabled and, in many cases, destitute.

One of my many local food banks distributed more than 2,000 food parcels in August, up from its normal distribution of more than 1,000 food parcels. I am reliably informed that more than half of those food parcels were given out because of benefits issues, and I am also told that the majority of those issues are because of the transition to universal credit.

The Guardian reports today that my constituency of Preston is the most improved city in the UK, which is welcome. A lot of that is due to the hard work of the public and private sectors, which are working together for the benefit of Prestonians with the encouragement of the city council. However, that has happened in spite of Government policies, not because of them. Many commercial properties in the city centre are unoccupied, derelict and neglected, despite the good work of the business improvement district to stimulate the local economy. Homeless people occupy empty shop doorways, and in the past eight years I have seen a huge increase in the number of people begging on the main street, Fishergate.

This cannot continue. This is still austerity, despite the protestations of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. It should end now.

Department for Transport

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 27th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, like a number of colleagues, will focus on community transport. As a Labour and Co-operative MP, I am particularly keen to talk about the not-for-profit sector.

The Co-operative party believes that community transport and commercial bus routes should be designated community assets that are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) said, subject to the same protections as community assets are afforded under the Localism Act 2011. Tens of thousands of people rely on these services for some of the most socially necessary journeys. The Government’s announcement that they seek to change regulations on the community transport sector was a big surprise. As a result, many such services are now under threat, and there will be a reduction in this socially necessary public transport.

Community transport is a very broad term. It includes local road passenger transport services delivered by charities and other not-for-profit organisations, typically where there is no viable commercial market. The core of community transport organisations includes door-to-door transport, informal lift-giving by volunteer car drivers, Dial-a-Ride and Dial-a-Bus, particularly for people with disabilities and mobility difficulties, and groups such as the elderly and others who struggle to get out and about. This transport is required, for example, to take them on shopping trips.

The Community Transport Association estimates that tens of thousands of people, many of whom are the most vulnerable in our communities, access this form of transport. It has outlined why these journeys are such a lifeline for many. Preston Community Transport, which is based in my constituency, is just one such community transport organisation. It claims that there are now

“significant problems as a result of the Department for Transport’s proposed changes to permits and licences. The Department has opened a consultation, but many are still very concerned about the assumptions that lie behind it, and by the fact that the Statutory Instrument to implement these changes has already been drafted. If the changes were to go ahead as proposed, the impact on Preston CT would be damaging. It would mean an almost total loss of volunteer driven transport in Preston and surrounding areas, as well as having a knock-on effect where paid drivers are used. This would damage the entire business model and we have no ability to absorb such an impact.”

Preston Community Transport represents more than 400 not-for-profit groups and organisations. On average, 38 people a day go on a trip that keeps them socially connected. It operates beyond Preston, but is part of an interconnected whole. Some areas support others, so without one piece, even services that are seemingly unconnected to the proposals, such as car schemes in Wyre, could collapse.

Ministers appear to be fixed in their belief that the changes will affect only a small number of community transport organisations and, even then, only those that “act like a bus company”. That is getting close to being disingenuous, as the evidence of likely impacts is there if we look for it. The Transport Committee’s report published in December was clear in recommending that the Government must protect the social value of community transport and that the Department

“must not use a sledgehammer to crack a nut”.

I hope the Minister will take note of community transport organisations and take the relevant action required.