Huntingdon Train Attack
Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Max Wilkinson(6 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
This attack has left 11 people in hospital, one of them a member of the train staff, who is in a critical but stable condition. My party’s thoughts are with all those affected: the victims, their loved ones and everyone who witnessed such a shocking event. We also want to thank the emergency services and rail staff for their swift response, as well as the passengers who intervened to prevent further harm.
After this sort of incident, it is vital that the police are given the time and space they need to establish the full facts. That is ever more difficult due to the rapid spread of disinformation online in the immediate aftermath of such attacks. Within hours, social media was flooded with speculation over the ethnicity and race of the perpetrator, inciting racist and Islamophobic comments. While communities were still reeling from the horror of the attack, certain political figures on the hard right, including members of the Reform party, were already seeking to exploit the incident for political gain. Desperate to involve themselves in the tragedy, they reached for their dog whistles. They threw around baseless opinions on levels of crime when facts were available, shamelessly trying to turn this tragedy into yet another excuse to whip up fear and sow division.
The shadow Home Secretary’s comments today also veered into that realm. Never is an opportunity to blame foreigners missed—that is beneath contempt. At moments like this, those who aspire to leadership must calm fears and attempt to unite, not to inflame tensions. Does the Home Secretary share my view that while knife crime must be tackled forcefully, it is important that all of us must respond with arguments grounded in fact rather than trying to stoke fear?
Can the Home Secretary confirm whether the Government hold data on violent incidents involving knives or sharp instruments where three or more victims were harmed in a single incident? If so, what is the trend over the past two years, or over any other timeframe the Home Secretary has data for? Finally, she has said that the individual was not known to anti-terror police or Prevent, but when the facts are known, will she confirm that proper lessons will be learned about individuals who may pose a risk, be it as a result of mental health issues, an obsession with extreme violence or other relevant factors?
China Spying Case
Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Max Wilkinson(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
We congratulate the Conservatives on bringing forward this debate. Given recent news headlines about their own weaknesses on this issue, doing so is what Sir Humphrey would describe as a “courageous decision”. As the third party spokesperson, I feel obliged to play the role of a marriage counsellor. It is my duty to urge both sides—the Government and the official Opposition—to concede that they have made mistakes and to bring them together in the hope of finding common ground.
The Government and the official Opposition truly have more common ground on this issue than they would like to admit. The common ground is clear in the DNSA’s evidence statements, and it has become clearer as this sorry saga has dragged on. It became clearer still in yesterday’s Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy that there is barely a cigarette paper between the position of the Conservative party when it was in government and the Labour Government today. The Conservative party will not admit that, because all it wants to do is pretend that the Government are entirely to blame, which is a laudable aim for any Opposition party. The Labour party cannot admit it, because it cannot publicly concede that its position on a matter central to our national security interests is the same as that of the Conservative Government they replaced last summer. It falls to us Liberal Democrats to speak the uncomfortable parts of the truth and tell it like it is, because nobody else is willing or able to do so.
While some of their brave Back Benchers spoke out when the Conservatives were in government, the machinery of the Government were keen to take an approach on China that was far from hawkish. At the heart of this issue is the often unspoken suggestion that we must take a nuanced position on China because our economy is now vulnerable to international threats. The truth is that Conservatives and their allies aligned to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) cut us adrift from the EU, and they have left Britain more exposed to economic pressure from hostile states than we should be.
We find ourselves in a position where the Government cannot bring themselves to describe as a national security threat a nation whose spies hacked the data of 40 million British voters held by the Electoral Commission. The Government cannot bring themselves to describe as a national security threat a nation that has agreed a “no limits” partnership with Putin, despite Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Just 10 days ago, Beijing was publicly bullying the Government into granting permission for the new Chinese embassy at Tower Bridge, warning of “consequences” if the Government did not approve the plans. Is our weak international trading position, caused by the disastrous Brexit given to us by Conservative and Reform Members, influencing the Government’s decision making on the new embassy? It would seem foolish to argue otherwise.
I would draw a comparison between that and the Government’s position on Russia, which has been listed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. Given the “no limits” relationship between Beijing and Moscow, it is odd that Russia is listed while China is not. If the Government really wanted to strengthen the case for prosecution, perhaps placing China on the enhanced tier would have aided the prosecution, even absent the word “enemy”. The fact that the word “enemy” appeared on the original draft witness statement but was later removed again raises concerns about what was happening during the tenure of the previous Conservative Government. The public deserve clear answers not just from those on the Government Front Bench, but from those on the official Opposition’s Front Bench. Did the DNSA meet Ministers between the initial draft and the final version of the witness statement?
This House owes a debt of gratitude to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), both of whom have shown a great deal of bravery in the very best traditions of British public service. The DNSA’s witness statement referenced “backchannels” used to dissuade those two Members from criticising Confucius institutes in the UK. The Security Minister assured me that he was happy to speak with the Members in question last week about this very point. Has that meeting now taken place, and will the Minister let us know from the Dispatch Box what this Government’s understanding of the word “backchannel” is in that context? Does the word “backchannel” refer to the previous Government’s Whips, officials or others? The public deserve to know which element of the British state was attempting to prevent brave MPs from asking questions. If the Minister cannot let us know, perhaps someone on the Conservative Front Bench or anywhere else on the official Opposition Benches could clarify that for the House.
Finally, I turn to the involvement of the CPS in the collapse of this trial. The Government are adamant that the failure to designate China as an “enemy” is central to the failure to prosecute. I have already addressed the question of how that word was removed from the initial witness statement during the tenure of the previous Government, but I want to draw the House’s attention to the Roussev case, which was referenced earlier, that was being prosecuted at the same time. In that instance, the judge stated that
“any state which presently poses an active threat to the UK’s national security can properly be described as ‘an enemy’ in ordinary language.”
The outcome of that case was the conviction of six Bulgarian nationals last July for operating as part of a Russian espionage network. The CPS has serious questions to answer about why the China case fell apart when the term “enemy” was not an issue for the Roussev case as recently as last July.
Transparency and independence in national security decisions are an essential part of maintaining public trust. This case has thrown that trust into serious jeopardy at a time when the embassy planning application is already undermining the nation’s confidence in the Government’s approach to relations with China. Neither the Government nor the official Opposition have provided clarity. The public could be forgiven for thinking that both sides are ducking responsibility. The Liberal Democrats believe that we need a statutory public inquiry to get to the bottom of what went wrong and how influence over China policy caused the collapse of this case.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call John Slinger, who I believe has a very considerate three-minute speech.
Sport: Team GB and ParalympicsGB
Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Max Wilkinson(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Max Wilkinson
My hon. Friend makes a strong point. That could be critical health infrastructure designated under our party’s proposals.
Those pitches, pools and courts have traditionally been provided by local authorities, but the defunding of councils over many years has left many areas struggling to maintain facilities. The running costs of swimming pools are high and the need is acute. The previous Government’s swimming pool support fund is a start, and in Cheltenham we have benefited from some investment as a result, but more must be done.
In the case of athletics facilities, a lack of funding in the sector has left local athletics clubs crowdfunding to keep facilities going. I am aware of the success enjoyed by Hereford and County athletics club in saving their track. However, in my own constituency, the Prince of Wales stadium is in dire need of repairs to its track so that the Cheltenham and County Harriers can once again host meetings of the standard that they require. I urge everyone involved in that endeavour to come together and seek a solution in partnership with any willing and able organisations, without delay.
Wider partnership working at local level is certainly required to support grassroots sport, and I pay tribute to the many trusts, charities and clubs that have stepped in to fill gaps in provision left by cuts to local council budgets. In Cheltenham, however, we have one really positive story to tell. The “feed Cheltenham” leisure card, which is run in conjunction with food banks, the Cheltenham Trust and the local council, gives anyone who subscribes to our local food banks free access to our leisure centre, lowering barriers to taking part in sports and physical activity for those most in need.
As a child and a young man, I took inspiration from the sportspeople I saw in front of me: Matthew Le Tissier —whose politics remain his own—Alan Shearer, Tim Henman, Serena Williams, Darren Gough and so many more. Sadly, while I could never match Alan Shearer’s goals on the football pitch, I eventually coincided with his hairstyle, and I will take some solace from that. I enjoyed many days at the Dell watching Matt Le Tissier and others, but the majority of my consumption of sports was on free-to-air television. Today, youngsters simply do not have the same opportunity to be inspired. I urge the Government to consider extending free-to-air coverage of international cricket, rugby, golf and tennis, and even extending protection to some live premier league football coverage.
For both sporting and economic reasons, is it not time for London to have its own NFL franchise? Expanding on the success of the London series of games at Wembley and the Tottenham Hotspur stadium, it could bring many hundreds of millions of pounds to our economy every year and bring the joy of NFL to many more fans in this country.
Sport instilled in me a lifelong love of physical activity, which I am extremely grateful for—my arthritic toes are perhaps less grateful. However, that love was most recently indulged during recess at Cheltenham’s Man v Fat football club. The organiser, Jamie Baron, told me how the combination of goals on and off the pitch helped him lose two and a half stone. The club’s 38 players have lost a combined 51 kg in the past eight weeks, helping improve their physical and mental health. I was proud to join the Egg Fried Whites team against a side I am told is known as the Lardies in Red. The opportunities that lay before us if we follow their lead and embrace sport for good can help us crack the public health challenge facing our nation. In this debate, I urge Members to think about sport and physical activity not just from the elite sport perspective, but about how it can help us solve the wider challenges, including public health and fixing our NHS.