Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Nigel Evans and Geraint Davies

Monday 20th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a terrible Budget from a busted-flush Government. We have heard from the other side, “Give them another chance—the new Tory dynamic duo of Rishi and Jezza.” They certainly talk the talk on growth, debt, inflation and the NHS, but do they walk the walk? The answer is no.

We have seen stagnant growth for 13 years, with no real prospect of it being any better than the worst in the G7 in the year to come. Let us compare that with what happened under a Labour Government. In 10 years we saw the economy grow by 40%, and we used the money to double investment in health and education and lift a million children and a million pensioners out of poverty. With that level of growth—that trend growth—we would have been £11,000 better off in terms of average wages. The Prime Minister says “That’s not my fault”, but during much of the time during which we have seen this decay and mismanagement, he was the Chancellor.

What about debt? Since the last Labour Government, debt as a share of the economy has doubled from 45% of the economy to 90%. That is an appalling record, and an indictment of this Government’s failed austerity platform. As for inflation, the Government’s ambition is to halve it from 10% to 5%. According to the forecasts it will be 3%, so it should not be that difficult. People seem to think this will reduce prices. Obviously, if inflation is 10% and then becomes 5%, prices will have gone up by 15%; and if the Government are offering workers at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea 2%—in fact, a 13% pay cut—it is no wonder that they are on strike. This Government are busy causing strikes left, right and centre. If the RMT’s original bid of 7%, from before it went on strike, had been accepted, we would not be in the position where now the workers are—deservedly, in fact—getting 14%. We have had this disruption and chaos because of Tory mismanagement, because the Government will not negotiate. They just create strikes.

We are told that we have to live within our means. That is all very well for the Chancellor, who is a millionaire, or indeed for the Prime Minister, who is a billionaire. He has his hedge fund Theleme, which appreciated from £7 billion to £39 billion after the Government decided to buy the Moderna vaccine as recommended by the then Health Secretary, who has since made his money in the jungle.

What about waiting lists? We have waiting lists of 7 million people—are we going to get those down under this Government? We know that the cost of treating someone with low nourishment is something like £7,000 compared with £2,000 for someone who is properly fed, yet in Britain today one in four people are in food poverty. The inequality created by this Government is making the health service worse, not better, and the billion pound that they have put into pension fund tax relief will not make it better. The workers are being blamed, of course, for inciting pay demands, but wage growth is in fact down now, year on year, from 6% to 5.7%, at a time when inflation is well over that.

Who else is going to pay? Of course, homeowners have to pay. They have to help bring down inflation. How? By bringing down the price of houses by 8%. So new homeowners will see mortgage rates double or triple from 2% to 6% at a time when the value of their houses is going down—and they are supposed to be the growth creators of the future. The Bank of England’s base rate has gone from 0.1% in November 2021 to 4% now. The economy has gone out of control under Tory mismanagement.

And what about businesses? The Government talk about businesses, but we now have record insolvencies. They are up 30% since 2020. Material prices and energy prices are going up, borrowing costs are going up and demand is weak, so businesses are struggling.

We have heard about R&D in this debate, and as I have mentioned, in Wales 1,000 university staff at the cutting edge of developing green growth initiatives are being sacked because the promise of us getting “not a penny less” after the withdrawal of the EU structural funding has been broken by this Government. We are talking about losing innovative projects to turn waste plastic into nanocarbon tubes for electric vehicles. We are talking about converting steel slag heaps back into raw materials such as iron ore. We are talking about work with Tata Steel on cladding for homes that stores solar energy as well as absorbing it. On infrastructure, Wales has had just a 1.5% share of rail enhancement for decades for 5% of the population—we are not even getting our 5% for HS2.

There has been profiteering—we have seen the oil companies and the retail companies making profits out of the Ukraine war and the pandemic respectively, and we have seen natural monopolies such as the water companies profiteering. It is not good enough. The Tories are saying, “Trust us again”, even after the inflation, after the debt, after the lack of growth, after one in four have been living in poverty and after a 15% cut in trade. No, no, no! We want a stronger, fairer, greener future, and that will only come with a Labour Government. Let us have an election, put the country out of its misery and build a better future with the Labour party.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Could Members who have taken part in today’s debate please make their way to the Chamber, as this will be the 43rd and final contribution from the Back Benches?

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Geraint Davies

Report stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We have two more Back-Bench contributions, and then we will move on to the wind-ups. I advise Members who have taken part in the debate to make their way to the Chamber.

[Geraint Davies]

This is the second shameful bit of legislation the House has seen this week, the first being the Bill that will sack nurses for striking to feed their family.

The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill risks a bonfire of fundamental rights and protections, both at work and for the environment, that have evolved over our 47 years in the EU. I say that because the Bill will get civil servants to look at all the thousands of laws, rules, rights and protections by the end of the year and to decide either to abolish them, to change them—not specifically to improve them, because this Bill is deregulatory —or to continue them. If the civil servants do not have time, the laws, rules, rights and protections will end by default.

Various protections and rights are likely to fall out of bed because civil servants do not have enough time to look at them. Of course, 100,000 civil servants are now going on strike, and 80% of these laws are in DEFRA, which has only three people looking at retained EU law. There are currently enough problems in DEFRA, including the sewage being pumped out along our coasts and rivers where we used to have so-called EU blue beaches. There are air quality problems, with 63,000 people dying prematurely each year at a cost of £20 billion. Of course, the EU wants to get to the World Health Organisation target of 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030, but we will leave it until 2040. The Minister’s assurance that we will do as well or better than the EU is farcical.

One in four people in Britain is in food poverty, and we do not have enough people to pick the fruit or butcher the meat. We cannot export to the EU, and half of businesses are now no longer exporting to the EU. Millions of crabs, lobsters and prawns are dying from pollution off the north-east coast. People in DEFRA have enough to do without being distracted by looking through every bit of legislation and deciding whether to change, continue or abolish it, which is frankly ridiculous. They have enough on their plate—sadly not north-east crab.

The abolition of rights by default is a major risk that will come back to haunt us all, whether on rights at work, environmental rights or other rights. The other key issue, obviously, is the loss of democratic control. We were told that we would take back control, but this Bill gives all the power to Ministers and civil servants. They will look at 47 years of legislation and decide which bits to cherry-pick, which bits to forget and which bits to inadvertently drop. That is not democratic. This is not democratic and it is not what people voted for. Furthermore, it is going to be snatching from the devolutionary settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We saw the instincts of the Government only yesterday, as we did on the sacking of strikers, the stopping of protests and the introduction of photo ID. Those things all show the sort of Government we have and whether we can trust them with this issue—obviously, we cannot.

Finally, this Bill is an attempt to have divergence for the sake of it. I am proud to be the trade rapporteur for the Council of Europe, charged with embedding democracy, human rights, the rule of law and sustainable development into international trade agreements. That requires our coming together over a set of rules to protect our fundamental values and our environmental future, but this Bill does the opposite. As has been pointed out, it will have the impact of reducing the amount of trade that stimulates our economy. Altogether, this is a farcical rush to wave a banner of “Taking back control”, but underneath is the pirate ship with a flag of, “Let’s take control from you, do what we want and destroy your rights and protections.” Therefore, this will make the economic crisis even worse than it is already. What we want is not a weaker, poorer, dirtier Britain, which is what this Bill and others will bring about. We want a stronger, fairer, greener future, which will happen only with a Labour Government.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I know that Christmas was a few weeks ago, but here is a late present: I am not putting the clock on you, Mr Rodda, so if your speech is over six minutes, so be it.

Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

Debate between Nigel Evans and Geraint Davies

Monday 18th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member to accuse Opposition Members who have no connection to the council that he is talking about? He is abusing his privilege to talk about corruption and then pointing at us and saying that it is our fault. It is completely out of order.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I would have brought Mr Bailey up. I am listening very carefully to what is being said. It would help if people did not chunter so that I can hear both sides clearly.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Geraint Davies

Monday 28th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Geraint, you will have to sit down at 7.50.

[Geraint Davies]

I have just come back from Lithuania. Hundreds of women have escaped to there, having lost their democracy as a result of Putin’s bombing and his oppressing his people at home. At the same time, we have a situation in Hong Kong where democracy is being taken away. Yet here we are taking away the right to peaceful protest, which has given us the suffragettes, climate change activists, peace campaigners and trade unions. This horrific bit of legislation will completely undermine the right of trade unionists to picket, at a difficult time in our economic evolution; it is purely terrible and it should not be brought forward. It is completely unnecessary, it will be very damaging to trade union relationships and it will drive protests underground, which, taken alongside the right for covert intelligence agents to act above the law, may lead to unintended consequences and will put the public at risk. Democracy and our public are at risk from this dreadful Bill, and it should be reversed as quickly as possible.

[Kit Malthouse]

It is traditional to express gratitude to Members for contributing to a debate, but after that nonsense, I am afraid that I cannot unequivocally offer that.

I welcome the support across the House for the amendments in lieu on food crime. I am afraid that amendment (c)—which was tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy)—in lieu of Lords amendment 72B is unnecessary and misdirected, despite her attempts to patronise me. It is unnecessary because, as I said, the Government have already committed to collecting the data that is described and they have additionally committed to consulting on a new public sexual harassment offence before the summer recess. It is misdirected because the Government’s original amendment responds directly to a specific recommendation of the Law Commission. Furthermore, our commitment to consult on a public sexual harassment offence speaks to another Law Commission recommendation that we explore the merits of such an offence, as well as the significant attention to that issue in our previous debates. I take into account the entreaties from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) to go faster and harder on this matter.

By contrast, the idea of contemplating that any additional new offence addresses

“intimidatory offences aggravated by sex or gender”

is untethered to any particular rationale or proper discussion to date. In fact, I would go further in saying that we need to move away from the preoccupation with hate crime laws. I was struck by the words of Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws in the other place:

“Most men do not hate women, but somehow from boyhood they breathe in this sense of entitlement”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 2022; Vol. 820, c. 797.]

However, Lords amendment 58B focuses not on addressing that entitlement, but on hostility—the legal test for hate crimes. The broader point by the Law Commission is that the concept is naturally unsuited to confronting the widespread and abhorrent behaviour most often directed against women and girls. Hate crime laws instead turn on those visceral occasions that befit the word “hatred”, such as a racial slur uttered during a crime.

The fact that hate crime legal models are poorly attuned to the sorts of behaviour that we want to tackle was put very well by Rape Crisis in the Law Commission’s report, which said of crimes against women and girls that

“these crimes are rooted in power and control, not hatred, making the gender/sex an ill-fitting protected characteristic in the hate crime framework.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) made the same point in the last debate on this matter.

The point is that we need to think carefully about the right model for the particular problem that we want to address. An entirely bespoke solution, which addresses the root drivers of this behaviour, is more likely to succeed. The alternative, as proposed in Lords amendment 58B, is an offence that is poorly targeted and consequently never used, so let us now do the proper groundwork—I give an undertaking that we will do that—in identifying the right legal solution to the particular nature of these crimes. I hope that all Opposition Members will contribute to the consultation that we have committed to introducing before the recess. We are already exploring whether a public sexual harassment offence is that solution, and that is what the Law Commission also spoke about.

On the Lords amendments relating to public order, we have heard yet again the ridiculously misconceived claims that are peddled about these amendments. The Public Order Act has always sought to balance the right to peaceful protest with the rights of others to go about their daily lives. All we are doing is a modest updating of a legal framework that is more than 35 years old—I thought that would have been supported by the party who banned any protest within a kilometre and a half of Parliament—and does not reflect the realities of policing protests in the third decade of the 21st century.

To suggest that any amount of noise and disruption is acceptable is saying to the British public, adversely affected by a protest, that their rights do not matter and that they should just put up with it. Their rights do matter. Of course, we must accept that protests can be disruptive and cause inconvenience, but a line must be drawn somewhere, and the provisions in the Bill simply enable the police to draw that line where it becomes necessary and proportionate to place restrictions on a protest to protect the rights of others.

It is more than a year since the Bill was introduced. It has been thoroughly debated and scrutinised by both Houses. The unelected and, as I said, partially hereditary House has exercised its right to ask us to consider certain matters again. We have done so once already. We should again send these amendments back to the Lords, and that House should now accept the will of this democratically elected House and let the Bill pass.

Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 58 and proposes amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.

A Division was called.

Copyright (Rights and Remuneration of Musicians, etc.) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Geraint Davies

Friday 3rd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies]

The point I was making is that the share that is given to up-and-coming musicians is not enough. The right hon. Gentleman may claim that 1 million streams is not very much, but I would very much enjoy a small fraction of that for this speech anywhere it was shown. It is a lot for a musician to break through that million mark. I appreciate that, in the global marketplace, there are stars who break through into the billions, but that is not the point. The point is that we in Britain should be nurturing our young people to come forward as composers, artists, performers and song writers. If they are going to have the facility to invest in their own skills, equipment and song writing, and if we are to have a situation where we have a broad diversity of people and the future music industry is not completely reliant on people with rich parents, we need to give due reward on streaming to those people who will create the joy and music of the future.

There are new opportunities—TikTok, YouTube and so on—that did not exist in the past for people to express themselves; it is not the case that someone cannot possibly achieve everything without a label and therefore they need this immense amount of money. As was briefly mentioned, the managing director of Universal does not pay British tax, but in addition, the way the finances are managed is such that some artists are paid in dollars and the Exchequer here does not see the fruits of British production, which we should enjoy as well as the artist having their due rewards.

The fact is that music is integral to Britain’s identity here and abroad, whether we go back to the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and Annie Lennox or look at what we have now in Adele, One Direction or whatever. The point has been made already about the hundreds of thousands of people in the industry and its importance for the export and tourism markets. I think we are duty bound to feed the people who are the creative engines of that success, and not to allow it to be sapped away through blood-sucking multinational corporations that hide the tax and keep the revenue and exercise market abuse and dominance in an atomised market of well-meaning people who, in their younger years, often sign contracts without the privilege of a huge legal team behind them to give them cover, so if they are fortunate in being successful, they find they are ripped off by these big labels and then are unable to go back and look at that contract again. Many of those contracts, of course, contain non-disclosure agreements, so we do not really know what is happening.

In a nutshell, we are talking about an industry of a collective of people who provide joy, happiness and exhilaration for the globe as well as Britain, and they have done so particularly during the pandemic, which has been so valuable for people’s mental health. It is important that those artists also have remuneration into the future; they should be able to plan for their retirement. I therefore agree that there should be a cut-off clause for contracts.

The Bill should progress to Committee stage. There has been a lot of debate, and that is a reason for it to be considered in Committee. It is all very well saying the issue should go to the Competition and Markets Authority. It should have gone to that authority; this is clearly an oligopolistic abuse. There is a case, of course, for artists to form themselves into a co-operative situation. It would be good if there were alternative forms of retail, through a sort of “good” music brand, so that we could move forward.

This is a first step that we should not resist because we are bombarded by the vested interests of the massive labels, which make billions of pounds while our people, who we want to nurture, are not getting a fair deal. We do not want these springs of creativity to dry up, so we need to move forward now and, in parallel with that, we need to look at the market abuse. We must continue on an iterative basis to improve the lot of up-and-coming and existing people in this great music industry of ours, hold our head up high and get back to the global No. 1 in the charts.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The Minister has indicated that he would like to make a contribution at this moment in time, but don’t worry—the debate then can continue after the Minister.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Geraint Davies

Report stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who gave an eloquent speech about smoking. What he did not include, and what the Minister is not considering, is the mass passive smoking from air pollution, which causes 64,000 deaths a year. I know that I am in danger of being outside the scope of the Bill, but I will make this point just briefly, because it is about public health.

Indoor and outdoor air pollution is endemic. It costs £20 billion a year. We could simply ban wood-burning stoves, which 2.5 million people have and which contribute 38% of the PM_2.5 emissions in our atmosphere. That is particularly problematic in poorer areas. I make this point partly as I chair the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution, but this is a critical public health issue, so I feel that the Department of Health and Social Care should look at it centrally, rather than leaving it to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as an air quality issue.

I turn to the comments by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who sadly is not in his place, about free choice in advertising. Advertising is not about free choice; one would not need to advertise unless one was trying to convince somebody to do something they would not otherwise do. That is not to say that advertising is always bad—good things and bad things can be advertised—but let us be straightforward.

As it happens, I have a background in multinational marketing; I have been involved with PG Tips and Colgate toothpaste—good products. However, the reality is that if someone wanted to make money from a product such as a potato, which is intrinsically good for people, they could impregnate it with salt, sugar and fat, make it into the shape of a dinosaur, get a jingle and call it “Dennis’s Dinosaurs”, and make a lot of money out of that simple potato. That is the way a lot of processed foods work.

Going back to the point about diabetes and added sugar, it is important to remember that diabetes in Britain costs something like £10 billion a year. There is a compelling case for the Government to do more about added sugar, as opposed to natural sugar; obviously, we could discriminate between the two, though a lot of manufacturers will say, “Are you going to tax an apple?”. Clearly, when a child or adult can find a huge bar of chocolate in a shop for £1, we have problems, in terms of the amount of sugar we are supposed to have. Henry Dimbleby put forward a national food strategy, which is worth a read. He makes the key point that reducing the overall amount of money people have—for instance, through universal credit—has a major impact: we find that when universal credit goes down, consumption of alcohol and smoking go up.

It is important for the Department of Health and Social Care to have an idea of how the nutrition of particular natural foods can be increased through better farming. An app will be available next year that will enable people to test a carrot in their local shop. The carrot will have different levels of antioxidant, depending on how it is grown. If it is organic and not impregnated with all sorts of fertiliser and chemicals, it develops a natural resistance to pesticides and is much better for human health. The Government should, in this post-Brexit world, be actively encouraging local high-value, high-nutrition products for export and local consumption.

A whole range of public health measures that need to be moved forward are not in the strategy; but some are, such as those raised by the hon. Member for Harrow East.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Christian Wakeford. Do you wish to remain seated?

Points of Order

Debate between Nigel Evans and Geraint Davies

Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for advance notice of her point of order. It is not for the Chair to comment on the DVLA, but I can say that I am aware from other Members of Parliament that responses are simply not coming forward from it. I am concerned to hear that right hon. and hon. Members are not receiving responses, especially if the service is described as a hotline. The hon. Lady’s point will have been heard by Members on the Government Benches; I hope that speedy action is taken. She might wish to discuss the matter with Clerks in the Table Office, who will be able to advise her on ways to pursue the matter.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. With respect to the DVLA, you may be aware that a deal with the unions was on the table to ensure greater productivity and safety, but it was ripped off the table by the Secretary of State for Transport. Had it not been, we might be getting better responses to the public. May I, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, urge the Government to get on with getting both sides together, so that we can get a proper service, rather than punishing the workers and putting them at risk?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That was a point of information rather than a point of order, but I am sure that it was heard by Members on the Treasury Bench.

Health and Care Bill (Programme) (No.2)

Ordered,

That the Order of 14 July 2021 (Health and Care Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:

(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.

(3) Proceedings on Consideration—

(a) shall be taken on each of those days in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and

(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Geraint Davies

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Geraint Davies.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

Diolch yn fawr, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Bill as it stands is frankly damaging to our armed forces, as it removes the protection of the law from many who have suffered injustice while serving our country, and it means war crimes may go unchallenged and that they might be dragged into the International Criminal Court.

As it stands, the Bill is bad for our international reputation and, indeed, for those who so gallantly protect our country because, unfortunately, it will stop people bringing legitimate cases of negligence, bullying and worse against the Ministry of Defence that are over six years old, while at the same time turning a blind eye to cases of war crimes and torture that are over five years old, all in the name of reducing the number of so-called vexatious cases.

In the case of Iraq, there have been 1,000 supposedly vexatious cases in the past 17 years. Of those, 330 have been settled—in other words, the Government have paid up and accepted liability. Some 414 remain ongoing—in other words, the Government have not applied for them to be struck out as being vexatious—and 217, only 217 out of 1,000, have been withdrawn or struck out. Many of them have been unmeritorious as opposed to vexatious, by which I mean they have been poorly pleaded or there have been errors of law. That is no surprise, because the Government have made savage cuts to legal aid. Many soldiers do not have law degrees and are traumatised by the experience about which they are bringing their case. There were about 10 unmeritorious cases in 17 years, which is fewer than the number of Government cases that have been rejected in court. Perhaps the Government should put their own house in order.

Let us also remember that, at the moment, the courts will not hear cases of historic facts unless they pass the test of being equitable—in other words, that fairness requires it—so we do not need the six-year limit. What is more, claimants face substantial costs to the Ministry of Defence in cases that are found to be unmeritorious, which is a clear deterrent.

We now have a situation in which the MOD can delay evidence in the name of national security and evade prosecution for negligence or worse. A constituent came to me who had been on an exercise with the military, and he had been hooded, stripped and tortured. He ended up with post-traumatic stress disorder, alcoholism and basically a lifetime of mental health problems, and we are still trying to get compensation. Clearly his case would be ruled out by the Bill.

There is the famous case of an Army cadet who was sexually abused by her instructor, and she did not bring it up until she was an adult. Again, the six-year rule would have meant that her case was not heard. There is the case of a Territorial Army officer who was subjected to racist abuse over many years, to which his superiors turned a blind eye. That case would not have been heard under the six-year limit. The cases go on.

I have no hesitation in supporting the Lords amendments on the duty of care, on the facility for cases to be reopened by the Director of Service Prosecutions when new evidence emerges, and on the facility for members of the armed forces to bring civil claims against the Ministry of Defence.

Finally and crucially, the Bill bans the prosecution of war crimes, including murder and torture, after five years, which is appalling, especially as it can take decades to investigate some of these crimes. We all know what happened after the second world war, for instance. The Government can sit on evidence for years. In a particular case in Britain, which involved the execution of unarmed civilians by British special forces, they sat on the evidence for more than a decade. We cannot justify a blanket pardon for war crimes and torture after five years of their happening, otherwise we will end up in the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

I very much support the amendments from the Lords that try to make the Bill a bit better. In essence, though, my view is that the Bill was not necessary and that it should have been completely scrapped, which is why I voted against it in the first place. None the less, I urge Members to vote for the Lords amendments today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Diolch yn fawr.

Lifetime Skills Guarantee and Post-16 Education

Debate between Nigel Evans and Geraint Davies

Thursday 1st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

I very much welcome any improvement in access and flexibility and lower costs for learning. Will the Secretary of State consider the condition of first-year students, who are just leaving childhood and often have never left home before, but are now going into self-isolation in individual rooms, sometimes with collective provision for bathrooms and kitchens, which makes them both isolated and vulnerable? Therefore, their physical and mental health are at risk. Then they have online learning that they could actually do at home. I wonder what consideration he has given, with the Chancellor, to ensuring that they do not end up running into debt for a diminished education. Perhaps they should be going home and the universities should be supported through these difficult periods, so our universities and students can be—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Geraint, I am sorry to interrupt you. Is there any chance you can ask a question about the statement that has just been given, please?

[Geraint Davies]

I wanted to ask about how those considerations fitted in with the statement. On the one hand, I welcome what has been announced. On the other, I want investment for young people who are in those conditions. Maybe there is a transfer between the two.

Business of the House

Debate between Nigel Evans and Geraint Davies

Thursday 1st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We are now going to the place where I was educated by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman)—Swansea West.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be familiar with hospitality venues across Swansea, including Wind Street. Across the UK, such venues are having their trade restricted for public health reasons. When will we have a debate on how, given that that is in the public interest, the public purse should pay the costs, rather than individual business owners? Will the Leader of the House ensure that such a debate includes all right hon. and hon. Members, in accordance with my Remote Participation in House of Commons Proceedings Bill, by allowing them to participate and speak remotely? That Bill, of course, was presented on my behalf by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), because the Leader of the House would not allow me to speak. When will he lift restrictions and allow us to debate the important issue of ensuring that businesses do not have to pay the cost of public health restrictions?