Martin Wrigley MP: speeches

Speeches

• 6 May 2025 · Parking Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend. I have spoken to a former employee of one of these private parking companies who was dismissed for whistleblowing. In my constituency of Newton Abbot, I have received numerous complaints about the behaviour of some private parking companies and the tactics they use, which include breaching data protection rules by hiding data and failing to comply with subject access requests. They have created a culture of “charge first, think second” and their default position is to refuse appeals. They also use equipment that is designed to be awkward or even to fail, such as machines that will not take cash or card payments, and then they deny appeals, arguing that drivers could have paid by app. They “double-clock” people coming in and out of car parks more than once, even if they have paid for tickets. One victim of this practice appealed and won because the company involved could not provide evidence to support the charges that had been made, but it took the company a further six weeks to cancel the charges. Other tactics include deliberately targeting people who do not respond to their threatening letters, which are often issued with the wrong address or similar, and selecting them for court action. The companies know that these people are the most likely not to turn up, thus obtaining a default judgment, and that the cost of setting aside a county court judgment is greater than paying it off. There is also a constant use of trumped-up bailiff charges, many times the price of a normal parking fine. In my constituency, Norma, an elderly driver, forgot to display her blue badge. She received a PCN for £100, which she paid but appealed. She was not offered the discount rate applicable under the company’s own code until I intervened.

• 6 May 2025 · Parking Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely—this is something that they should not have to put up with. Norma felt bullied into making the payment to avoid threats of escalation. Complaints go into a flawed process: appeals are simply denied, and the supposedly independent appeal system acts as little more than a tick box, with no real opportunity to argue reasons. This is immediately followed by continued threats of enforcement, action and increased costs—and it goes even further than that. Private parking companies seem to have licence to go much further than any other form of organisation. Why can such companies set up automatic number plate recognition or CCTV, have cameras literally hidden on any old building—often really high on outside walls—to film entire streets and into the houses opposite, and have them running 24/7 with a 360° view using night vision, when councils or the police would never be allowed to do such a thing? Why are private parking companies allowed to use such cameras with no restrictions, especially when councils cannot use them at all for off-street parking, since the Deregulation Act 2015 banned camera use for parking contravention in council car parks? We urgently need an independent regulator. The public need information on how the camera systems are used and who is recording. We need to ensure that the appeal system is working, and that faulty parking machines are rapidly fixed. We need a cap on the maximum penalty charge that can be issued for contraventions. We need a proportionate and responsible debt recovery process for operators to use for non-payments, and we need responsible behaviour and transparency from the companies operating in this area. Critically, a new regulator will provide a single code of practice, so that all private parking operators follow the same rules, and a single independent appeals process. In 2010, indiscriminate wheel clamping and towing on private land was described as a licence to print money due to the firms’ rogue conduct. The practice was banned by the local transport Minister, the then Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who said: “The rules governing parking on private land should be proportionate and should not result in motorists being intimidated or forced to pay excessive fines.” Rather than the private parking lobby and finance world learning its lesson, it reverted to an industry based on outrageous practices, charges and threatograms. Let us end this situation. I ask the Minister to take urgent action.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State give way?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State give way?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State. I have just been reading about his core reforms, and I note that, as he has said, core reform 3 changes the way in which the season for bathing is determined. However, it continues the principle that water is not tested by the Environment Agency throughout the year. This is an important omission that must be rectified. During a bathing season, the water can become polluted. Will the Secretary of State consider introducing all-year-round testing for our Blue Flag areas?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State give way?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  Coming back to community hospitals, I came to this House to try to save Teignmouth community hospital, which has been under threat of closure because Torbay, its parent hospital, has such a massive maintenance backlog that it cannot afford to maintain both itself and Teignmouth hospital, so it is shutting down community hospitals. In Devon, we have just three principal hospitals: North Devon, which we understand is under pressure, Torbay, which is under pressure, and Exeter. We need the community hospitals. Will the Minister stop Teignmouth hospital from being shut, so that we can maintain it until it can be rebuilt?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Residential Estate Management Companies · Hansard source

  More

  In the town of Teignmouth in my constituency of Newton Abbot, FirstPort has been buying up other management companies, and the sinking funds—the contingency paid by residents—appear to have disappeared: they have been sunk. Does my hon. Friend agree that that should be looked into?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Non-disclosure Agreements · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that we need to change the social contract for companies such that they no longer take all the benefits of limited liability and simply focus on shareholder value? Will he support my better business Bill—the Company Directors (Duties) Bill—which will have its Second Reading on 4 July, and meet me to discuss it? The Bill is backed by some 3,000 businesses, the Institute of Directors and others. As I mentioned, it would balance the responsibility of company directors with the interests of shareholders, employees and the environment; fundamentally change their basic responsibilities in how they run their companies; and therefore turn the purpose of the company to good, including that of the employees. It would prevent many of the circumstances that we are describing today.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Non-disclosure Agreements · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) on securing this important debate. We have heard from Members how widespread this issue is: we heard about the hospitality industry and the creative industries, we just heard about teachers, and the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) told us that it occurs in every HR department. I am horrified that it also happens in the NHS. I was approached by a constituent whose employment as an NHS nurse was terminated, but I do not know many of the details, because she cannot speak to me about it. Her employment was terminated due to—how can I put it best?—a medical condition that she suffered and is now over, but she cannot talk about it, and it has given her issues ever since. I do not know how many people in my constituency fall into that category, because, as the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley said, they cannot talk to us about it.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Non-disclosure Agreements · Hansard source

  More

  I fully agree. Absolutely—people do not know what they can do. Will the Minister investigate how widespread the use of NDAs is in the NHS? Given that it is probably in the Government’s power to ban it in the NHS without primary legislation, will he take steps immediately to have it stopped and seek what recompense is required for those who have suffered it? I agree absolutely that this practice must be stopped entirely. It is just one of many poor practices that are carried out by some businesses—not all, but some—often unwittingly. That is why I introduced my Company Directors (Duties) Bill, which will have its Second Reading debate on 4 July. Right now, the company directors’ duties say that they must put shareholder interests first and might have regard to other things. My Bill—I hope the Minister will consider working with me on making it happen—would change company law so that directors have a duty to balance the interests of shareholders, employees and the environment. I seek the support of Members present to make the Bill law; I hope that we can have further discussions to see what we can do to get it into the Government’s schedule. Until we put that balance at the foundation of the company directors’ duties, it will be impossible to get rid of circumstances, such as those the hon. Member for Congleton described, where company directors behave badly. I fully support the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley on all the issues that she identified and will happily engage and do whatever I can to advance work on them.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Community Buses: Category B Licence Holders · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency is fortunate to have both Dawlish community transport and Newton Abbot community transport. They provide vital services for many people who would otherwise be isolated and lonely but, like many other volunteer groups, they are finding it hard to recruit. Recruiting drivers for their minibus services is a particularly. Anyone who took their driving test before 1997 automatically got a D1 minibus class licence, as I did. Since then, younger drivers have had to take a new driving test; the estimated associated training and costs are between £800 and £1,800. Will the Secretary of State work with me to add exceptions to D1 requirements to cover community transport and other volunteer community groups?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Community Buses: Category B Licence Holders · Hansard source

  More

  18. If she will make it her policy to allow holders of category B driving licences to drive community buses.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Hobhouse. I would be delighted to invite the Lib Dem leader of Somerset council to elaborate on the condition in which he found the council when he took over, if I thought that the hon. Member for Broxbourne wished to read it; I suspect he would not. I thank the Minister and the Government for some things, such as for including the districts in the final invitation to participate in this process. I thank them for not allowing Devon county council in its outrageous attempt to stop the elections in Devon, knowing that 66% of the existing Conservative councillors now intend not to re-stand. I wonder why they wanted to stop the elections. They put forward a proposal that had no consensus across Devon whatever. I also thank the Minister for the multi-year settlements that are in sight, stopping the hand-to-mouth and “Hunger Games”-type funding that has been the scourge of local councils across the country. I am, however, very worried about the timescales, the volume of work and the cost of the work required of local councils. I am particularly worried about what might happen with the projected 2027 elections if the timescales are not met. Will the Minister clarify the dates that we are looking at in this process? Which are fixed and which flexible? How will the process be managed as we go through, and should we not meet the fixed dates that are set out so far? What will happen with multi-year settlements for councils that are not involved in this first phase of reorganisation? Can we expect to see those coming through sooner rather than later, please?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  The issue with most such situations in the past has been not only a short period of time for councils to respond, which they typically have managed to do, but the prolonged period of radio silence once those responses have been sent to Government. Can the Minister assure us that the Government will respond quickly to the proposals, so that councils can get on with them?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Online Safety Act: Implementation · Hansard source

  More

  If the Government fully support our concerns about small but harmful sites, will the statutory instrument be reworked to bring them back into category 1, as the Act states?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Online Safety Act: Implementation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) on securing this debate. We have heard some consistent themes coming through. We have heard about Ofcom perhaps misinterpreting what the House intended with the Act. We have heard about the importance of the Ofcom code of practice, how it is constructed and how it drives online platforms’ behaviour. We have heard from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) about the importance of conformity across different platforms. We have heard that regulators might not be fulfilling the expectations of this House. We have also heard from the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) about lawful but awful content and about how we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I think there is a feeling that the Act does what it does, but that the interpretation has not been what was hoped for and that there is still much more to do. We heard from the hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) about the “legal but feasible” loophole, and also about bringing in safety by design, which became a consistent theme throughout the rest of the conversations. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) talked about the design to protect children and the framework’s lack of mitigation on livestreaming, and said that seven-year-olds and 17-year-olds are treated the same. That is clearly not right. The hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) impressed upon us the urgency and importance of the children’s safety codes. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) cited the astonishing fact that 83% of 10 to 15-year-olds have phones—that is an amazing proportion—and also mentioned cyber-bullying. Other hon. Members spoke about other areas, but the same things came up. As a member of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and, until recently, a tribunal member with the telecoms regulator—that responsibility has now moved to Ofcom—I have seen the importance of the codes of practice and how long it takes to revise them. Thirty years in the telecoms industry showed me how tough age assessment can be. I have also spent time delivering app stores, but before the age of Google and Apple phones. It is clear that the hard-won amendment to include smaller sites with harmful content has been lost through its exclusion from the statutory instrument. In the Bill Committee, the Minister said that we must do everything in our power, and that there is much more to do. We have heard a lot about what needs to be done, and we urge the Government to do it. We urge them to look again at the exclusion of small but harmful sites and to continue to look at how we can improve the implementation of safety by design.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Google Quantum Computing Chip · Hansard source

  More

  3. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the development of the Google quantum computing chip.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Google Quantum Computing Chip · Hansard source

  More

  Learning from the successful Y2K, or year 2000, prevention of systems failures, what progress has the Secretary of State made in considering post-quantum cryptography to prevent the so-called Y2Q—year to quantum—end of privacy, and what support is being provided for the development of quantum computing in the UK after the recent announcement of the Willow chip?

• 5 Feb 2025 · English Devolution and Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for allowing the people of my constituency to vote in the Devon county council elections this year, and I congratulate her on seeing through the tired Tory administration, which was seeking to avoid the voters’ verdict. May I ask her for an assurance that when she sends out her invitation to the two-tier areas, that will include district councils as well as the county council, so that we get a representative view from across the entire area?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely—I am. The Secretary of State’s decision to proceed with this narrow interpretation of the Online Safety Act provisions, and the failure to use the power they have to reject Ofcom’s imperfect advice, will allow small, risky platforms to continue to operate without the most stringent regulatory restrictions available. That leaves significant numbers of vulnerable users—women and individuals from minority groups—at risk of serious harm from targeted activity on these platforms. I will set a few more questions for the Minister. How do His Majesty’s Government intend to assess whether Ofcom’s regulatory approach to small but high-harm sites is proving effective, and have any details been provided on Ofcom’s schedule of research about such sites? What assessment have the Government made of the different harms occurring on small, high-harm platforms? Have they broken this down by type of harm, and will they make such information available? Have the Government received legal advice about the use of service disruption orders for small but high-harm sites? Do the Government expect Ofcom to take enforcement action against small but high-harm sites, and have they made an assessment of the likely timescales for enforcement action? Will the Government set out criteria against which they expect Ofcom to keep its approach to small but high-harm sites under continual review, as set out in their draft statement of strategic priorities for online safety? Was the Minister aware of the previous Government’s commitment that Select Committees in both Houses would be given the opportunity to scrutinise draft Online Safety Act statutory instruments before they were laid? If she was, why did that not happen in this case? Will she put on record her assurances that Online Safety Act statutory instruments will in future be shared with the relevant Committees before they are laid? For all those reasons, I will vote against the motion.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I do not have the benefit of having gone through the Act in its entirety, so I appreciate the input of hon. Members on this subject. It is that one word: “or”. Amendment 245 entailed moving from a test of size “and” functionality to a test of size “or” functionality. That is not, as far as I can hear from what the Minister has said, what is causing the problem; it should be giving the Government the opportunity to keep that in there. In setting these categorisations on just size, they are ignoring that. The Minister also mentioned that the Act did not give the Secretary of State the power to allow somebody else to put organisations or sites into these categories; no, that is not what is being asked. It is about a recommendation from Ofcom for the Secretary of State to bring those smaller types of sites into the category. What this change does is remove the powers to stop those small sites that promote misogyny and racist hatred and those things that are very harmful, and which we saw examples of in the summer. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee is looking into those events at the moment, as I know, because I sit on the Committee. However, those powers are being thrown away, and an opportunity is being missed, because the powers for setting the thresholds have been misinterpreted. I beg the Minister to take a moment and look again, because the Government are getting this wrong.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister raised the issue of age verification, which is good. However, she did not say how “harmful to adults”, “harmful to vulnerable minorities” and “harmful to women” are categorised. Children are protected in this case, but those other groups are not. Also, in response to the answer that the Minister just gave, the difficulty is not the Ofcom powers; it is the obligation on the provider. If we have not put a provider into category 1, it does not have the same level of obligation as category 1 companies do. No matter what powers Ofcom has and no matter what fines it imposes, it cannot get such companies to give those commitments to a category 1 level if they are not in that category. Removing the section is not giving Ofcom the tools it needs. The Minister was absolutely right earlier when she said that there is much more to do. Why drop this ability to put other sites in category 1?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I am disappointed in this statutory instrument. I recognise the Minister’s acknowledgment of the small sites, high-harm issue, but the issue is far more important and we are missing an opportunity here. Can the Minister set out why the regulations as drafted do not follow the will of Parliament, accepted by the previous Government and written into the Act, that thresholds for categorisation can be based on risk or size? That was a long-argued point that went through many iterations. The then Minister accepted the amendment that was put forward and said: “many in the House have steadfastly campaigned on the issue of small but risky platforms.” —[ Official Report , 12 September 2023; Vol. 737, c. 806.] He confirmed that the legislation would now give the Secretary of State the discretion to decide whether to set a threshold based on the number of users or the functionalities offered, or both factors, with the change ensuring that the framework was as flexible as possible in responding to the risk landscape. That has been thrown away in this new legislation. The Minister just said that we must do everything in our power, and yet the Government are throwing out a crucial change made to the Act to actually give them more power. They are getting rid of a power by changing this. The amendment was to ensure that small sites dedicated to harm, such as sites providing information on suicide or self-harm or set up to target abuse and hatred at minority groups, like we saw in the riots in the summer, were subject to the fullest range of duties. When Ofcom published its advice, however, it disregarded this flexibility and advised that regulation should be laid bringing only the large platforms into category 1.