Lloyd Hatton
MP for South Dorset · Labour · United Kingdom
“Q14. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his steadfast leadership in the face of two major conflicts. My right hon. and learned Friend’s efforts to successfully marshal international support for Ukraine and his work to ensure that our armed forces are not sucked into an aimless and dangerous war with Iran could—in fact, I believe they…”
“I thank the Minister for her considered statement. We recently learned that shortly after receiving £5 million from a crypto billionaire halfway across the world, the hon.”
“In South Dorset, the Lantern Trust and the Veterans Hub have recently applied for Valour funding, which would make a huge difference to both organisations as they grow the services they offer to veterans—in particular the hub, which is the first port of call for many local veterans.”
“T6. The Dorset Innovation Park already has a growing ecosystem of defence companies, including BattleLab and a proposed factory, which are developing cutting edge drone technology. The opportunities are truly immense.”
“Following initial conversations with volunteers across South Dorset, I know that they are particularly concerned that the proposed changes will harm the future recruitment of volunteers, undermine morale in existing teams and risk many volunteers leaving the service altogether.”
“I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this timely debate. As many Members have mentioned, the coastguard rescue service is an essential component of our emergency services, and that is certainly the case in South Dorset.”
The complete record
Every one of 266 lines we hold for Lloyd Hatton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 6.
“Q14. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his steadfast leadership in the face of two major conflicts. My right hon. and learned Friend’s efforts to successfully marshal international support for Ukraine and his work to ensure that our armed forces are not sucked into an aimless and dangerous war with Iran could—in fact, I believe they will—prove to be his most important legacy. Does he share my view that we must now use every diplomatic tool at our disposal, including sanctions against networks and enablers, to crack down on hostile states such as Russia and Iran?”
“In South Dorset, the Lantern Trust and the Veterans Hub have recently applied for Valour funding, which would make a huge difference to both organisations as they grow the services they offer to veterans—in particular the hub, which is the first port of call for many local veterans. Will the Minister look closely at those applications for funding, and look to support the fantastic work of the Veterans Hub in Weymouth?”
“I thank the Minister for her considered statement. We recently learned that shortly after receiving £5 million from a crypto billionaire halfway across the world, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) used a private audience with the Governor of the Bank of England to lobby against a policy that could cost that same billionaire dearly. It should not be this easy to pump money into British politics from the other side of the planet. While I welcome the measures announced today regarding the overseas donation cap, I would like some reassurance from the Minister—for me and for my constituents—that foreign-based donors will not be able to dart in and out of the country as they choose to avoid the new cap on foreign donations.”
“T6. The Dorset Innovation Park already has a growing ecosystem of defence companies, including BattleLab and a proposed factory, which are developing cutting edge drone technology. The opportunities are truly immense. Will the Minister commit to working alongside DSIT and the Ministry of Defence to help establish the park as a hub for defence firms looking to develop the very next generation of drone technology?”
“I fear that without action and direct intervention, the real impact of these changes will be devastating for coastal communities across the country. That is painfully clear from their stories. We all know that the outcome of the Court of Appeal’s ruling is wholly unacceptable and cannot be allowed to stand. For all these volunteers, we can and must do better.”
“Following initial conversations with volunteers across South Dorset, I know that they are particularly concerned that the proposed changes will harm the future recruitment of volunteers, undermine morale in existing teams and risk many volunteers leaving the service altogether. Those concerns were powerfully illustrated to me by one of my constituents, whose family have served in the service for more than 150 years across five generations. His recognition and bravery were rewarded and recognised with a Queen’s gallantry medal in 2017. Despite that lifelong commitment to the coastguard rescue service, he told me that the proposed changes could leave him unable to dedicate the time and effort that he once did. I urge the Minister to consider carefully the concerns of coastguard volunteers in South Dorset and across the country.”
“I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this timely debate. As many Members have mentioned, the coastguard rescue service is an essential component of our emergency services, and that is certainly the case in South Dorset. Whether they are locating missing and vulnerable people, responding to injured climbers, walkers and sailors or, tragically, recovering those who have lost their lives, coastguard rescue teams across South Dorset are highly skilled and essential to keeping local people and visitors safe along our Jurassic coast. That is why I am incredibly concerned about the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s changes to volunteers’ remuneration following the handing down of Court of Appeal’s judgment earlier this year.”
“Every year, billions of pounds never make their way to the Treasury coffers because of British tax havens, such as the British Virgin Islands. The upcoming illicit finance summit offers us a real opportunity to tackle tax evasion and dirty money in these havens. Ahead of the summit, does the Minister agree that we must ensure that these havens finally throw open their books, and that tackling tax dodging must be top of the agenda?”
“What if I told you, Mr Speaker, that just before the general election, a soon-to-be MP had pocketed a £5 million cash gift from a crypto billionaire who lives halfway across the world, and that soon after receiving that lucrative gift, the very same politician announced a new policy of slashing taxes for the crypto industry? You might think that something concerning was going on. Does the Minister agree that no British politician should be for sale to the highest bidder, and will the Government commit to using the elections Bill to slam the door shut on secret cash gifts to senior politicians?”
“I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I pay tribute to our armed forces and the NCA for successfully intercepting the Russian oil tanker off the coast of Weymouth and Portland yesterday. As has been mentioned, this was the first British-led operation of its kind, and it delivers a blow to Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine, which threatens our collective security in Europe. Regarding next steps, can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that any potential environmental and public safety risks have been fully considered and that the right specialist teams are on hand to assist if needed? While I fully appreciate the complexity of such an operation, may I politely urge the Secretary of State to maintain this posture and exploit further opportunities to degrade Putin’s war machine and scuttle Russia’s shadow fleet?”
“This summer, two new state-of-the-art mental health facilities are opening in Dorset: Chaddesley House in Poole and Seastone in Bournemouth. That is thanks to continued investment from this Labour Government. However, the Forston clinic in the west of the county requires fresh investment to upgrade worn-out hospital buildings. Will the Minister meet local NHS bosses, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and me to discuss securing the investment needed to finally upgrade the Forston clinic?”
“T8. I recently held a health roundtable in Purbeck and heard volunteers from Parkinson’s UK make it clear that more needs to be done so that all those living with the illness receive the robust support they need. There was particular concern that a shift away from routine check-ups could mean that many will not regularly see an experienced practitioner. Will the Minister work with me to ensure that the voices of people living with Parkinson’s are listened to and their concerns acted upon when any changes are made to the care they receive?”
“I have met the council and bus operators to push for improvements, but we should not have to deal with a postcode lottery when it comes to accessing good-quality bus services in South Dorset. I am pleased with the progress that the Government have made in bringing our railways back into public hands and bringing forward landmark new legislation for bus services, but I ask the Minister: what can we do to go further and deliver better buses in rural areas and improve the quality of the London Waterloo to Weymouth train line?”
“Buses are of course an essential way of getting around in a rural community like mine in South Dorset. They help people get to vital health services at Dorset County hospital and Poole hospital, and they ensure that people can get into the town centre and that pupils from rural villages can attend school. Yet, as we have heard repeatedly in today’s debate, too often bus services have been undermined by worsening reliability, fewer buses and the steady loss of routes. For example, in Bovington in my constituency there is no regular all-year-round bus service, which leaves the community—particularly the armed forces families based at Bovington camp—effectively isolated. A similar situation exists in Harman’s Cross, where the No. 40 bus service does not stop, despite serving neighbouring villages.”
“Although of course that is positive news, it is clear that much more must be done to improve the quality of the train service on the Weymouth to Waterloo line. Only this week, I received a complaint from a constituent describing her appalling trip on the late May bank holiday—one of the hottest days of the year, when passengers were unable to access water, and faced totally unusable toilets and bins overflowing with rubbish and used nappies. Last month I experienced all that for myself with a three-hour delay on my regular commute home to Weymouth. Since when did arriving late, dishevelled, hot and dehydrated become fashionable again? We must have work to improve the quality, reliability and speed of the service on the Weymouth to Waterloo line.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this important and timely debate. As MPs, we become champions of many local issues, and I know that for so many of us here today, public transport will be at the top of the list. I have been banging on for months about improving the quality of the Weymouth to London Waterloo service. Passengers have faced unacceptable problems, including frequent delays, often at the weekend; patchy wi-fi; no on-board food trolley service; and, for many years, no accessible toilet at Weymouth station. Over the last few months, I have been working with South Western Railway to resolve some of those issues, and I am pleased to say that finally, after many years, we have reopened an accessible toilet at Weymouth station.”
“Bovington camp in South Dorset has a long list of outstanding repairs—pothole-ridden streets, persistent fly-tipping and no working street lights on King George V Road, to name just a few. Will the Minister work with me to ensure that the Defence Infrastructure Organisation carries out much-needed repairs and fulfils its most basic maintenance responsibilities?”
“According to recent media reports, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has taken a £5 million gift from a billionaire living halfway across the world. Without the Guardian investigation, however, we would be none the wiser, and there are no controls on gifts for those campaigning before a general election is called. I remain deeply concerned, as do my constituents, that substantial funds may be making their way into British politics through the back door. Will the Leader of the House ask Ministers to consider how the Representation of the People Bill could tackle undeclared cash gifts and donations?”
“Q3. I welcome the steps taken to clean up British politics via the landmark elections Bill—the Representation of the People Bill—but we must go further. If I had received a £5 million gift from a billionaire living halfway across the world and had not come clean about what that money was for, my constituents would be furious. If the same billionaire had then bankrolled my party to the tune of £12 million, my constituents would be knocking on my door and calling for me to resign. Does the Prime Minister agree that the elections Bill must ensure that no British politician is ever for sale to the highest bidder?”
“The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the devastating record of the Conservatives, but does he share my sadness and frustration at the role played by the Liberal Democrats in hollowing out the size of our armed forces and waving through Budget after Budget that cut defence spending in this country? Will he own up to that sorry record?”
“My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she share my view that the really important thing about the pieces of legislation outlined in the King’s Speech is that they will start to drive growth and green job creation into parts of the country that have been left behind for too long and have not felt the benefits of growth and job creation?”
“To me, what is most important is that my constituents in South Dorset know that getting the clean water Bill right really matters. We are so proud of our coastline, and it is perhaps the most impressive—certainly in the south-west, if not in the whole country. Protecting it from unwanted sewage spills and failing water companies really matters, which is why this Bill matters.”
“As today’s remarks have focused on key national infrastructure, I thought I would speak briefly on the clean water Bill outlined in the King’s Speech. The water sector is another essential piece of national infrastructure that is long overdue for reform. Like many in this House, I welcome the clean water Bill with open arms. As I see it, the Bill is our best opportunity to create a water sector that puts bill payers, water users and the environment first. For too long, it has felt as though shareholders, overseas investment banks or indeed private equity firms were the first priority of the water industry. I hope that will change as a result of this Bill, and I am pleased that it builds upon the early action already taken by this Labour Government.”
“That is why a duty to operate for the public benefit is critical—it will help to overhaul the day-to-day operations of water companies and change the corporate culture at the top of many of those firms. If we look at similar sectors where that duty exists, such as public transport and buses in particular, we see that it does begin to change the culture. It is really important that the Government use the clean water Bill as an opportunity to move the water sector towards a different way of operating, with a different model of ownership. That can only be achieved if we start to compel water companies to act in a different way, and that requires a mechanism such as a public benefit duty. The Bill is our golden opportunity to put the public and the environment first, and it is our chance to fundamentally reform the water sector for good.”
“I completely agree with my hon. Friend; the Bill certainly builds on the early progress that has been made. To be most effective, the clean water Bill needs to include a meaningful duty on all water companies to operate for the public benefit. We all know that the current model of ownership in the water sector is failing both the public and the environment, and that instead of fixing crumbling infrastructure, water companies have been lining their own pockets and accumulating debt for far too long. Until the big water companies have a clear obligation to deliver both public and environmental benefits, I fear they will continue to make decisions that increase their profit shares but also vandalise our coastlines.”
“My hon. Friend is speaking wisely of the time when Boris Johnson was before the Privileges Committee. Does he believe the House should remember that that Prime Minister lost an anti-corruption champion, who resigned over the issue? Conservative Members would be well placed to remember what happened when the Privileges Committee found misdeeds and wrongdoing on the part of that Prime Minister.”
“Budmouth academy has received a record multimillion-pound investment from this Labour Government to rebuild many of the school’s buildings. However, its crumbling outdoor courts—which are home to the South and West Dorset netball league—are currently not included in the rebuild. More than 300 women and girls are part of that league, and of course the courts are also used by students all year round. We desperately want to rebuild the courts, so can the Minister work with us to explore how those courts can be included in the scope of the rebuild?”
“Member welcome that initial response and, like me, does she look to see how we can tighten up our defences against cryptocurrency in the longer term, however they may be used to try to infiltrate our democratic processes?”
“The hon. Member is articulating very real concerns about cryptocurrency and the way it can manipulate our democratic processes. Will he join me in welcoming the fact that, when the Rycroft review was published before the Easter recess, the Government responded pretty swiftly on this, and particularly on a moratorium on political donations made through cryptocurrency. Does she welcome the Government’s urgent response in the Chamber? It was clear from Ministers that they intend to get this right. The immediate response to the Rycroft review was about making sure that we get something in place straight away. From listening to Ministers inside and outside the Chamber, I know there is an enthusiasm to make sure this is done right. Does the hon.”
“In the heart of Weymouth, the Rectory is an iconic building, but it has stood empty for over a decade. We want to transform the Rectory building into a cultural and visitor centre, hosting art, boosting the local tourism economy and welcoming visitors to Weymouth all year round. With that in mind, will the Secretary of State meet me and all the key stakeholders so that we can finally crack on and deliver the exciting Rectory proposals?”
“It is worth reflecting further on the aims of new clause 47 and how it tries to strengthen this Bill further beyond the work that it already does. As we look to digest the Rycroft review, and the Bill proceeds to further stages, it is important that we give the aims in the new clause rightful consideration, and think about some of those issues around the gap in enforcement when it comes to the most egregious breaches of political finance rules.”
“I remain concerned that when it comes to the real risks posed by foreign interference, we are leaving that gap open, which would run contrary to the rightful and important aims of this Bill. The director general of the National Crime Agency highlighted here in Parliament in February that there is a “gap in law” and that “a foreign state or foreign individual—someone who is impermissible—can transfer money to someone who is in the UK, who is permissible, and that person can give money to a political party or a politician, and there is nothing to stop that. That is perfectly lawful.” There is an enforcement gap there that I know that the Minister, along with other Ministers and officials, will want to address.”
“I will just make some very brief remarks on the record. I welcome this landmark Bill, which does a great deal to bring our democratic landscape into the 21st century, but I will briefly put on the record some thoughts about new clause 47. As we digest the Rycroft review, I think that the new clause is worth further consideration, particularly about how we can have meaningful deterrence for the most egregious flouting of political finance rules. If we want to be able to deal with that issue, we also need to have effective prosecutions for serious breaches. My concern at the moment is that there is something of an enforcement gap, and I know that that is a description that the Electoral Commission has outlined as well.”
“Existing rules do not specifically require recipients to consider the risk that a donor is potentially facilitating an illegal donation. I welcome the fact that that will change as a result of this clause, which will bring about a complete overhaul of the system and I believe will improve the integrity of our democracy, help strengthen national security and help restore trust in political parties across the country.”
“Before I speak to clause 58, let me say in response to the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Hazel Grove that this game-changing legislation and the Rycroft review have both come in the first Session of a new Government. There is a clear understanding—the Minister has made it known here and in the Chamber—that the threats that we face, whether through foreign interference or foreign money trying to influence our democratic process, are severe, and we have made a robust response to them, through this legislation and by commissioning the Rycroft review last year. I want to make two points on clause 58. First, a key part of the changes introduced by the Bill is the “know your donor” principle, which will require political parties to take more responsibility for exactly who is funding them.”
“I know that this is something that Rycroft seeks to understand at a top level in his review, so I do not expect it to be dealt with in Committee—I think that would be wrong, because we had the review only just before the Easter recess—but I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts, as the Bill proceeds, on how we close down the potential problem whereby political movements, political projects or whatever we want to call them seek to gain donations outside the controls and checks that would apply if they were a registered political party.”
“I should make it very clear that the Bill goes far in strengthening controls on the sources of donations to political parties, and goes a great way to shoring up our democracy against foreign interference. However, I would really welcome the Minister’s thoughts and ideas on how we can ensure that a political party does not seek to sidestep controls on donations and loans by accepting substantial contributions from a potentially impermissible source simply because it has not yet set itself up officially as a political party.”
“In making my second point, which I think is worthy of further consideration, I think it will be helpful to provide a case study. As Members on both sides of the Committee will recall, earlier this year the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), a former Reform UK MP—I notified him that I would be mentioning him—launched a new political party, Restore Britain. Before that, however, he set up a “political movement”, and he may or may not—we do not know—have received substantial contributions from impermissible sources before Restore Britain was registered officially as a political party. The fact is that we simply do not have a clear understanding, and the current legal landscape means that there are no checks on the funds that a party may hold prior to formal registration.”
“I do not believe that the Government are rejecting that carte blanche. As I was about to say—it is almost as if the hon. Gentleman has my notes before him—the Rycroft review commissioned by this Government notes that the “know your donor” provisions are similar to the anti-money laundering checks that are required by thousands of organisations, large and small, in the private sector, the third sector and elsewhere. Those are about ensuring that financial transactions, such as a donation, are indeed legitimate. As we digest the Rycroft review, I hope and expect that the Minister will give careful consideration to what it sets out and look at the idea that “know your donor” checks should more closely mirror the due diligence checks we see elsewhere, particularly in relation to anti-money laundering regulations.”
“We therefore know that, in some cases, corporate donations can carry a significant risk of nefarious interference in the democratic process. There was much media coverage and speculation about the idea that Elon Musk, the California-based billionaire, could legitimately make a donation to a UK political party via a UK subsidiary of Tesla. When we look at some of the research conducted by CenTax or Transparency International, we see that around £1 in every £10 that comes via a company as a donation could be because the individual in question could not donate directly themselves. According to that same research, around a quarter of money donated by companies is completely untraceable. So these measures are really welcome.”
“I will keep my remarks brief. As we start the afternoon sitting, it is worth putting on the record that clause 60 goes a significant distance towards finally tightening up the rules around corporate donations, which many campaigners, including in civil society, would argue have been left unaddressed for far too long. What clause 60 seeks to do is effective. That said, and I will not repeat in too much detail the points made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, it is worth reflecting on the recommendations in Philip Rycroft’s review around revenue versus profits, and how we can tighten things up. So I am keen to understand how, as the Bill progresses, we can potentially take his recommendations into account. It is worth remembering some of the big case studies that have been a cause for concern.”
“I think there is a difference between corporate and non-corporate donations. However, what would be really interesting is to see how the Bill progresses in taking forward the Rycroft review. That is a really important point, but I will not go over it again, because it has already been well articulated by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. To conclude, the Bill takes serious steps forward in addressing some of the foul play we have seen time and again with corporate donations in the past, and there is a huge body of evidence behind that. However, I would welcome any early advice or opinion the Minister can give us on how we can work on the recommendations set out by Philip Rycroft.”
“It has already been outlined by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, but I am interested to know whether the official Opposition spokesperson agrees that the previous Government’s decision in the Elections Act 2022 to inexplicably increase the threshold for UAs was wrong, and that the intention of this Bill, which is to reduce it, is the right way forward?”
“As has been said often today, that is touched on in some detail as part of Philip Rycroft’s review; the need to ensure that the information-sharing and investigatory powers of the Electoral Commission are as effective as they need to be, and that they work in a two-way direction to ensure that that work is undertaken. I note that the Minister already touched on this at the start of this grouping, and that her and her officials will be wanting to look at it in more detail. I look forward to that, because it is important that we get this right as we make these positive steps forward in this part of the Bill. We must ensure that the Electoral Commission, as our key national watchdog for elections and the democratic process, has the powers and information at its fingertips to operate as effectively as possible.”
“I will keep my remarks brief in the interests of avoiding repetition. It is important to put on the record the changes in the Bill, which are hugely welcome. One of those is massively improving the information sharing and investigatory powers of the Electoral Commission to ensure closer working with regulators and law enforcement. It should go without saying that the commission is the key watchdog in our democratic process and that it ensures that our elections and our political parties operate with integrity day to day. That is why it is particularly important that we look at some of the points being made as part of new clause 46.”
“Does the hon. Member share my view that the old system that we inherited meant that foul play by a political party was essentially priced into the system, because the fine was so small? What the Government are doing, by increasing the fine to £500,000 for a single offence via secondary legislation, means that that type of culture, in any political party, will come to an end—no party can simply say that these fines are the cost of doing business.”
“Patients in Chickerell often struggle to access GP services in their area, and instead must travel long distances. Some years ago, it was confirmed that a new surgery should be built in Chickerell. However, significant delays mean that we are still waiting for that surgery. Will the Minister work with me and the NHS locally to finally deliver a new GP surgery in Chickerell?”
“I welcome the Government’s new call for evidence. Perhaps unsurprisingly, park home owners across South Dorset continue to be deeply frustrated with the unfair 10% sales commission slapped on all park homes. The current system feels unfair as it punishes one group disproportionately. With that in mind, will the Minister ensure that park home owners are not forgotten and finally end this unfair 10% sales commission charge, and ensure that these reforms sit alongside wider reforms to leasehold?”
“Vijay Rangarajan: As I said, I think that profit drawn from the last couple of years of public accounts would be a better metric. It would very much help, because it would show that the company had generated enough taxable profit in the UK to be able to make a political donation. It would also give parties themselves more certainty that the money they are accepting is clearly permissible and above board. Again, it is quite easy to explain to people why that is the case. As I said, some of the administration of this will need significant time to train party treasurers and all the associations in how to implement it, but we think that using profit as a metric would help.”
“Q Good morning. The Bill rightly tries to tighten up our defences against the impact of overseas interference in our democratic process. That includes the measure in the Bill to limit company donations based on the company’s annual revenue. I have a slight concern that that might leave the door ajar to the likes of Elon Musk making a donation to a British political party legitimately via a UK subsidiary company, for example. In the light of that, the Committee on Standards in Public Life suggested that the limit on donations from companies should be tied to their profit rather than their revenue. Which of the two would be a more effective way to stop the international financing of our political parties and democratic process?”