Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and John Bercow

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

May I just say that I am not ignoring the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)? I am conscious that she has Question 6, on which another party wishes to come in, so it would perhaps be better for her to wait until then. We look forward to hearing from her in a few minutes.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

I wish you all the best for the future, Mr Speaker, and thank you for chairing DEFRA questions with such patience and consideration over the last few years.

We know that there are loopholes in the Hunting Act 2004 which are being exploited. A Labour Government would strengthen the hunting ban, so may I ask what the Conservative Government have been doing to stop foxhunters from breaking the law?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and John Bercow

Thursday 9th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are now considerably better informed about the asparagus situation.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

Last week, the House made history by declaring a climate and environmental emergency. The Labour motion that was passed gives the Government six months to table urgent proposals to restore our natural environment and tackle devastating climate change. That means that the deadline is 1 November. The clock has started to tick. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the Cabinet has met to discuss the urgent nature of the motion? When will he publish a timeline that clearly sets out how the UK can reach net zero emissions by at least 2050?

Environment and Climate Change

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and John Bercow

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am proud to be part of a Parliament that has passed a motion declaring a climate and environment emergency. However, I want to draw attention to the fact that the motion included a certain set of actions for the Government to carry out. It calls on the Government

“to increase the ambition of the UK’s climate change targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 to achieve net zero emissions before 2050, to increase support for and set ambitious, short-term targets for the roll-out of renewable and low carbon energy and transport, and to move swiftly to capture economic opportunities and green jobs in the low carbon economy while managing risks for workers and communities currently reliant on carbon intensive sectors; and further calls on the Government to lay before the House within the next six months urgent proposals to restore the UK’s natural environment and to deliver a circular, zero waste economy.”

Mr Speaker, may I ask what parliamentary levers are available to this House to ensure that such action is taken?

[Mr Speaker]

The process of government, and the process of scrutiny of Government by Parliament, otherwise known as continuing debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and John Bercow

Thursday 21st February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

Hon. Members are absolutely right to raise the issue of insect decline, but it is not just about insects. We know there have been huge declines in many birds and mammals, too. I am sure that like myself, Mr Speaker, as a child you enjoyed grubbing around for grass snakes and slowworms.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed.

[Sue Hayman]

It is now much harder for new generations to do that. How will the draft environment Bill, which has been roundly condemned as toothless, ensure that this appalling ecological meltdown will be properly tackled?

Ivory Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman]

I just want to reiterate that Labour is not opposing the Bill. We have sought to strengthen it in Committee and today, and I trust that the Minister and Conservative Members who served on the Bill Committee would agree that we have demonstrated out earnest desire and efforts to do so.

It is good that there is clear, widespread, cross-party recognition that this comprehensive ban on the sale of ivory is needed. I thank the Bill Committee Clerk, Gail Poulton, for her tireless work with Members, for supporting me and my team and for her expert guidance. I also thank all members of the Committee from both sides of the House, including the Minister, for participation in a good-natured and thorough debate throughout. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), and my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), who is no longer in her place, but was wearing a marvellous elephant dress earlier. I thought I was doing well wearing ivory-coloured clothes, but there we are. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Blaydon (Liz Twist), and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) for his introductions to Obi-Wan narwhal. I thank all those hon. Friends for their support, time and dedication over the last few weeks. I also thank all the different organisations that have given us their time and expertise.

I would go as far as to say that there has been agreement in principle from all parties in the House for the premise behind the vast majority of the Labour amendments in Committee. All we were doing was seeking to increase transparency, remove conflicts of interest and clarify the definitions in the Bill. I will just highlight a few key concerns that came up in Committee.

We discussed an annual register of items exempted for having artistic, cultural or historical value. This was strongly supported by conservation groups during the Committee’s evidence hearing, and it would ensure public confidence in the ivory ban and that any exemptions applied were fair. Despite not supporting our amendment, the Minister provided an assurance in Committee that steps would be taken to ensure the utmost transparency and public confidence. In time, it would be interesting to have more detail on those assurances. We also asked for assurances regarding the potential abuse of replacement certificates, as the Bill currently includes no limit on those. Again, it would be interesting to hear from the Minister more about how any potential abuse could be eliminated.

The Committee heard that the National Wildlife Crime Unit has only 12 members of staff to cover its whole area of operations, right across the UK, and that this number includes administrative staff as well as enforcement officers. This level was a cause for concern in Committee, given the expanded responsibilities of the unit under the Bill. The Minister mentioned the potential for this being dealt with in the autumn statement—I think that is actually the Budget now, but it moves so often—so we would be grateful if the Minister acknowledged that these concerns exist so that they can then be addressed at that point.

The Committee also heard how the internet plays a central role in the sale of ivory products. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined plans for proactively policing and monitoring this online activity and mentioned what kind of resources would be needed.

This Bill is a welcome step forward for the future of global elephant populations. I look forward to working with colleagues right across the House to ensure that we continue to do everything in our power to stamp out the global ivory trade and preserve these iconic animal species for generations to come.

[Mr Speaker]

A number of people still wish to speak, and we have 15 minutes remaining.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and John Bercow

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The House will certainly want to be kept informed about the haggis situation, and I am sure the Secretary of State will not disappoint us in that regard.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, I am sure that you would agree that plastic pollution is one of today’s great environmental challenges. The Secretary of State has mentioned the importance of recycling a number of times, so I am concerned by reports that the Government have been opposing the new EU targets. Will the Secretary of State explain why the Government are opposing the new recycling targets?

Points of Order

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and John Bercow

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I will allow the hon. Lady to respond briefly.

[Sue Hayman]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. To clarify, the letters were signed “Trudy Harrison, MP”, and across the top it said “MP”. She described herself as an MP. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We cannot and will not have a debate on the matter. The hon. Lady was courteous enough to give me advance notice of her intention to raise this point of order, for which I thank her, and I have attended both to the substance of what she has said and to the remarks of the Minister.

I must say to the hon. Lady that, disquieting though the experience might have been, and relatively irregularly though it might occur, it is not clear to me that the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) has broken any convention. It is certainly a convention to notify another Member of an intention to visit his or her constituency in a political public capacity. It is also a very well established convention that a Member of Parliament should not purport to represent or offer to represent people who are not her or his constituents. [Interruption.] Order. Writing, however, in a campaigning context on party notepaper, though it might not happen very frequently, is not—and I have some experience of these matters—a demonstrable breach of a long-standing convention.

I say to the hon. Lady, whose concern I treat very seriously, that I appreciate that concern, but it seems to me that courtesies between Members of the House, which are important, are best arrived at and adhered to by informal discussions between colleagues. It is not desirable that they should ritually be attempted to be resolved by being raised on the Floor of the House with the Chair. That is to say, to be clear, that they are not matters of order but matters of informal agreement and understanding. It is much better if such understandings can be reached between neighbouring colleagues.

Criminal Finances Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could advise me. I have been to Downing Street today, along with a constituent who had travelled all the way from west Cumbria to hand in a petition. Unfortunately, we were turned away at the gates. I was told that I would not be allowed to go to Downing Street to hand in a petition that had been booked in through the proper procedures. We had been offered a time to hand in a petition about health services, so it was understood what the petition was about. However, when I asked the security officer from No. 10 Downing Street why I was not allowed to hand in the petition, as had been agreed, he told me that today was “not a good day”. When I pressed him, he told me that I could hand in the petition “after Thursday”.

I am concerned that I have been prevented from handing in a petition that was properly booked in, through the proper procedures, because of a by-election, and that this has been politicised. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, on what is my best course of action?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving me a moment’s notice of it. She is clearly concerned and aggrieved. My initial response is to say to her that this is not a point of order for the Chair, or, for that matter, a subject for the House authorities. I understand her concern, not least in terms of personal inconvenience, and I trust that her point of order has been heard on the Treasury Bench. It is very much a matter for Ministers, with whom it has not been registered, but I repeat that it is not a matter for the Chair.

Third Reading

HMRC Estate

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and John Bercow

Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

You are proposing to close a very modern office in Workington. The NAO report says that the average distance between offices that are being closed and the regional offices is 18 miles, with most within 50 miles. However, Workington has been paired with Liverpool, which are 142 miles apart according to Google maps—a journey of three hours. To me, the situation is completely unacceptable. The workers in Workington cannot transfer down to Liverpool, and I cannot see how they can be reskilled to work in equivalent jobs in Workington. I would love to know your suggestions on that. As I say, this is just unacceptable.

[Mr Speaker]

I have no plans to close that office. To my very great life impoverishment, I have to admit that I am not aware of having been to Workington to date, and I certainly would not take it upon myself to presume to close something that I have not even visited.

Points of Order

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and John Bercow

Monday 25th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I shall come to the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), who has a wholly different point of order, in a moment. Let me first respond to the initial point of order and to the hon. Gentleman’s response to it. I am at a disadvantage for the very simple reason that if anything offensive or unparliamentary was said by the hon. Gentleman—I emphasise the word “if”—I did not hear it. If I had heard what I have subsequently been told was said—which I have no intention of advertising to the Chamber because it was unparliamentary—I would have deprecated it. Suffice it to say that immoderate language is always to be deprecated, whether it is uttered from a sedentary position or when a Member is on his or her feet. I did not hear it, and I cannot therefore comment on it. [Interruption.] Order. I am not prepared to get involved—or to subject the House to getting involved—in an ongoing exchange. Suffice it to say that at the time there was some discontent between the two sets of Benches and I did urge people to calm down. I stand by that. I am genuinely sorry if there are Members who feel offended, but I cannot condemn that which I did not hear. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness has made his point, which I have heard, and no further exchange is required on that matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman: a complaint was made to me that he had used bad language and that he had deployed an expletive. I did not hear any such deployment and therefore the hon. Gentleman has been convicted of nothing. An allegation has been made. It was reported to me—[Interruption.] Order. There is no reason to accuse anybody of dishonesty. A Member whom I respect reported to me her understanding that bad language had been used, but I did not hear it. A complaint has been made and the hon. Gentleman denies any such impropriety. I think the most sensible thing is to say that we let it rest there. However, for the avoidance of doubt—I am referring not to the hon. Gentleman or to any other particular Member—bad language should of course not be used in this Chamber, whether out loud or sotto voce. We ought to conduct ourselves in a more seemly manner. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response and the hon. Lady for her courtesy. Please let us park it there for today.

[Sue Hayman]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions on Wednesday last week, in his response to my question about support for independent pharmacies, the Prime Minister stated:

“We are supporting rural pharmacies—there is a specific scheme to help there”.—[Official Report, 20 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 916.]

Since then, I have seen a letter from the National Pharmacy Association to the Prime Minister, advising him that this is untrue and asking him to set the record straight. Can I ask your advice, Mr Speaker, on how I can best go about correcting the record as to the existence of this fund in order to ensure that rural pharmacies do not waste their time looking for a fund that does not currently exist?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and John Bercow

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is a very serious situation if Ministers cannot hear the questions. It is also a considerable discourtesy to the people of Scotland if, when we are discussing these important matters, questions and answers cannot be heard. Let us please try to have a bit of order.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

6. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport and Ministers of the Scottish Government on the effect on communities in Scotland of the partial closure of the west coast main line.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and John Bercow

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Sue Hayman.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

I know that the Prime Minister is aware of the flooding that has taken place in my constituency and the damage to the town of Cockermouth. I had a call from a constituent this morning who said that insurance companies are refusing to help my constituents until they have paid the excess in full. Does he agree that that is absolutely outrageous? Some of the excesses are up to £10,000. What can be done to ensure that insurance companies fulfil their obligations to my constituents?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and John Bercow

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

Workington court in my constituency is one of the courts up for closure. I want to ask the Secretary of State about the impact that that will have on my constituents getting to courts. He recently said that when looking for courts up for closure:

“What we tried to do was to make sure that the time it will take for any citizen to travel to court remains less than an hour.”

Currently, it takes less than half an hour for 83% of my constituents to get to court.

[Mr Speaker]

Ahem.

[Sue Hayman]

I will be very quick.

If the court is closed, 58% will take up to two hours if they have a car, and 43% will take over two hours by public transport. Does the Minister consider that acceptable, and will he look at it again?