Oral Answers to Questions
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kit Malthouse
As new Ministers take their positions over the summer, their diaries will naturally be reviewed. If the hon. Gentleman experiences significant delays in achieving the promised meeting, he should write to me.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I mentioned, the public sector fraud authority will be announced shortly, but I think this attack on PPE is simply misplaced. The fact is that everybody in the country was calling for PPE—[Interruption.] In the world, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General helpfully points out. There was a dire and urgent need. Contracts were issued quickly to build up supplies, and there was not ministerial involvement in the award of contracts. Some 19.8 billion pieces of PPE were delivered; it was a successful effort to meet a dire need where the socialists opposite would have dithered and delayed.
Sue Gray Report
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, I think I am just going to repeat my previous answer.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s leadership—his behaviour—drives the culture not only in our politics, but in our country. It also gives licence to others to behave in a similar manner. So if he is genuine in his apology, and—[Interruption.] Will he, first, ensure that the ministerial and Members’ codes have the Nolan principles incorporated into them and put them into statute? Secondly, will he condemn those Oldham Conservative candidates who delivered toxic racist and misogynistic leaflets during the recent local elections? His chairman has details of that.
The Prime Minister
I would be very happy to look at those details if the hon. Lady will send them to me.
Debate on the Address
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Davis
My right hon. Friend is right. He has been the icebreaker in this argument, which I refer to as the Redwood argument. We have record tax collections this year because of fiscal drag and for a variety of other reasons, including underestimates by the Treasury. That is money that we should give back to the people. We do not need to balance the budgets twice over. We need to get that right.
There are respects in which we need to reinforce or increase what is in the Queen’s Speech. My favourite line in the Queen’s Speech is the same every year:
“Other measures will be laid before you.”
We are Conservatives. We believe in a property-owning democracy. Governments of all powers and all persuasions for 30 or more years—since Margaret Thatcher, in truth —have failed on that issue. Two thirds of my generation bought their own home; today it is a quarter. That is a scandal. I approve of the Prime Minister talking about the right to buy for housing associations—I should do; I first came up with the policy in 2002 when it was my responsibility, and we still have not implemented that policy. However, it will not solve the problem. We are at least a million houses short, in a period in which the population has increased by 7 million. We are about 100,000 houses a year short in what we are constructing, in addition to that million.
We need to find a way of addressing the issue that does not hit what people call the nimby problem, in which people, when objecting to things, talk about protecting their environment. We need to find a way around that, and we need to look very hard at what was done in the 1920s with garden villages and garden towns. We need to use the increased wealth that they create to pay for the community centres, surgeries, schools, roads and wi-fi that are necessary. There would be plenty of added value to make the farmers rich at the same time. Politically, it would not be straightforward, but it would be an easier policy than we might think.
We Conservatives are also believers in social mobility. I think all Members are believers in social mobility. We used to be the best on that in the developed world; now we are among the worst. When inequality is greater, social mobility is more important. Indeed, the only real moral argument for an unequal society is that everybody has an opportunity and a chance to take part. In the last 20 years or so, the top 1% of the population have roughly trebled their income whereas the median has roughly flatlined, so there is a stronger argument for social mobility today than there was before.
The best mechanism for social mobility is the education system, and there are some good proposals in the education Bill in the Queen’s Speech. Adding to the academy system will help at the margins, however, and will not solve the problem; it has not solved it for the last 20 years and it will not solve it now.
The great scandal is that half of children from free school meals families are failed by the education system by the time that they are 11. They cannot meet the requirements in English or mathematics to make progress in education, so their lives are effectively over in terms of social mobility at that point. We need to get a grip of that, which means re-engineering our classrooms and helping our brilliant teachers with more artificial intelligence, more software support and more augmentation. The technology is there now—it exists, it is proven and it is available. I hope that the House will not laugh too much when I say that I went to see it demonstrated at Eton of all places, where it was brilliant at bringing on the weakest children.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that if a child is hungry, as many of our children are because they are living in poverty, that will not help their educational attainment?
Mr Davis
I agree entirely; I have arguments that I will not deploy today on universal credit and so on that relate directly to that point. One of the outcomes of having a technologically augmented teaching and assessment system, however, is that the teacher knows within days if a child has a problem that they did not have before and if their educational performance suddenly falls, perhaps because the parents have separated, there is trouble at home, they are going hungry or whatever. The hon. Lady is right and I agree with her basic premise, but technology would help even with that if we did it. I want to see us do that and deal with the scandal.
The last area that I will speak briefly about is the fundamental one of healthcare. We all support the national health service and no doubt applauded the brilliant staff—doctors and nurses—who did a fantastic job. We tell ourselves over and over again that we have the best healthcare system in the world, but that is simply not true. We have those committed doctors and we now spend more than the OECD average on healthcare, but we are not delivering more than the OECD average. Whether it is on survival rates in all the different categories of cancer care, coronaries, strokes, diabetes or whatever, we are not doing as good a job as we should be for the money, work, skill and commitment that go into it.
My argument is that we should look at the other countries that are doing better than us, such as Germany, France, Estonia, Austria, Sweden, Canada or Australia. They all have different systems that are all free at the point of delivery. I was a beneficiary of the Canadian system, which is an insurance-based system that is free at the point of delivery and supported by the state if people cannot afford it—and it works better than our system. We need to look at those other systems and learn from them. We need to stay with the fundamental principles of the health service but learn and improve what we can.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I want to look at the context of this Queen’s Speech. We have escalating poverty; there is absolutely no doubt about that. We know that 14 million people are living in poverty, over 8 million of whom are in work. We also know that 4.5 million children living in poverty and, again, more than half of them are in working families. There is an increase in pensioner poverty, and an increase in the number of disabled people living in poverty. The net effect of the autumn Budget and the spring statement is that there will be 1.3 million more people living in absolute poverty, including 500,000 children. When we talk about social mobility and educational attainment, as many Conservative colleagues have been doing, we need to recognise that that is the context.
I chair the all-party parliamentary group on health in all policies, and we had a session on health inequalities with Professor Sir Michael Marmot a week or so ago. He described how the UK and the United States are outliers among advanced economies in terms of our life expectancy and our healthy life expectancy because the length of time that we are expected to live in good health is actually falling, and we should be really ashamed of that. We also heard from another academic, Professor Clare Bambra, who has been looking at the regional impacts of this. She has developed estimates showing that £13.2 billion a year is being lost because of this differential in health. The lower healthy life expectancy that we are seeing is the product of structural inequalities, which have got worse under this Government.
People say, “Well, what can we do about that? We’re doing the best we can.” That is absolute rubbish. We have the highest tax burden in 70 years. That is a Government choice. We have escalating energy costs and food costs. Again, the Government refuse to accept that they need to do more on this. The Opposition parties and the chief executives of various companies—Tesco was the latest one, this morning—have been saying that there should be a windfall tax, which would not be inflationary. But again, the Government have refused to act. There is no emergency Budget, no help with energy bills, and no scrapping of the national insurance contributions that are adding to the burden that people are feeling. There is nothing on social security support for people in work or out of work, or for pensioners. There is just 3%, when we know that inflation is currently at 7% and predicted to go to 10% by the end of the year. On top of that, the Government have now decided that they are going to move people who are on legacy benefits across, through the managed migration process. That has to happen in the next three months, and the impact, according to the Government’s own documents, is that nearly 1 million more people will be worse off. A million more! These are Government choices, unfortunately.
There was nothing in the Queen’s Speech on retrofitting our homes so that we can not only help people with the cost of their energy use but reduce the demand for energy, and nothing on how we are going to transition to support for businesses that produce and stimulate sustainable green jobs. There was nothing on tackling the inequality that is depriving our citizens not just of opportunities but of the ability to live long healthy lives. If the health of our children is a litmus test of how our society is doing, we must conclude that we are doing very badly, given that we have the highest level of infant mortality in western Europe.
There was nothing on the Government’s pledge to double research funding to find cures for the diseases that lead to dementia, which is the most common cause of death in this country; it is what people over 60 dread the most. There was nothing on how to correct the injustice experienced by disabled claimants who have lost their lives and by their families and friends, and nothing about an inquiry that will investigate how this happened. What we do have is more of the same from the Government, including stripping British citizens of their human rights and protections under the law. We will have to see whether such privations are restricted to the many, not the few. Some people clearly believe that the Government make laws for others that they do not need to abide by themselves.
To illustrate the Government’s thinking and how they are oh-so-skilfully packaging their Bills in emotive and divisive language, we helpfully have the Brexit freedoms Bill. The Government say it is designed to get rid of red tape, such as those annoying employment rights that try to hold abusive employers to account, or those troublesome health and safety regulations designed to stop us dying at or from our work.
Even more fundamentally, where is the legislation that will build back trust and confidence in our politics and our politicians and that reinforces that politics is about public service and serving our communities and our country, not ourselves or our mates? Legislation must address the inequality not only in income and wealth, but in power too, including in political power. Where is the legislation that would put the ministerial code on a statutory footing, as it is in the devolved nations, underpinned by the Nolan principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership? Where is the legislation that would make lying to this House and to the people of this country a sackable offence? Where is the legislation that would make it an offence to lie about a candidate in speech, in print or online during an election in order to influence the outcome? The Representation of the People Act is clearly inadequate in today’s digital age.
We do not need to see the results of the many surveys that show our citizens do not trust us; we just need to look at the turnout at last week’s elections, especially in our part of the world, Mr Deputy Speaker. We must change the culture of our politics. Being an honourable Member, whether in this Chamber or a local authority, should mean something. Our constituents must know that we will act with integrity and decency and that we will be on their side. However, with people allowed to stand in last week’s elections who based their campaigns on misogyny, racism, division and hate, and with others dishing out leaflets containing Trump-esque QAnon conspiracy theories to rabble-rouse, I am afraid that we are a long way from where we need to be.
Easter Recess: Government Update
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The best and most decent thing we can all do is help our constituents with the issues that matter most to them, and the hon. Lady mentions the No. 1 and No. 2 issues.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Trust and confidence in our democracy is at an all-time low. Does the Prime Minister accept his part in that lack of confidence and trust? Should we not put the ministerial code on a statutory footing, and have it underpinned by the Nolan principles, in the same way that it is in the devolved Governments?
The Prime Minister
I repeat what I said earlier: there could not be a clearer expression of the robustness of our democracy than that all of us must be held to account. I have been held to account, and I apologise very sincerely.
Appointment of Lord Lebedev
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Ellis
To return to where I started, there are so many issues that affect people’s lives that we could be debating today, for example: my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s income tax cuts, the first in 16 years; the 5p cut in fuel duty; or my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary’s plans to make sure that any child who falls behind in English or maths gets the support they need to get back on track. I find it surprising, at the very least, that the Opposition have chosen this particular motion, one that, at best, would compromise the ability of an independent body, which is respected for its independence, to fulfil its mandate simply to make a short-term political point. At worst, it would be negligent of the long-term consequences to the key role of the House of Lords in scrutinising the Executive and being a revising Chamber, and the valued expertise and specialist knowledge and experience of its Members.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I think lots of my colleagues would say that we have tabled the motion because it gets to the heart of who we are as a country and a democracy. Given the Prime Minister’s long-term relationship with the Lebedev family, what does the Minister think it looks like not to have published the Intelligence and Security Committee report before the 2019 general election?
Michael Ellis
That is not relevant to this debate. I will tell the hon. Lady what this debate looks like: it looks like the Labour party is focusing on an individual because of who he is. It is doing so unfairly and improperly, and it is seeking to break a process. The reality, as we have heard, is that Labour Members have also supported this individual, socialised with him and sent him messages of support. There is nothing wrong with that. I do not criticise Labour Members if they have sent supportive text messages to Lord Lebedev. I do not criticise anyone in this House for doing so. As the owner of newspapers, no doubt he interacts with a large number of individuals, even though he is a Cross Bencher. What I criticise, and what I urge the House to exercise with considerable caution, is how it looks to attack an individual because of his heritage or because of his extraction. That is the key point.
The other key point to make here is that confidentiality in respect of the process ensures that it operates in the interests of the Labour party and the Conservative party, and that the process of appointing peers of this realm is a fair and dutiful one. The probity and the confidence of the system would be compromised if we broke it. If we said that henceforth we cannot ask people to send in confidence their opinions of individuals whom the Leader of the Opposition or the Conservative party have put forward for a peerage, anyone would know in future that if they wrote to the commission in confidence it could then be out in the public domain. They would not do it and that would damage the process. I would have thought that is rather obvious.
The Government believe that to ensure the ability of the commission to conduct robust vetting and to provide advice that is not compromised, the process should continue to be conducted confidentially, with disclosure at the discretion of the Prime Minister, who is ultimately responsible for making recommendations to Her Majesty on appointments to the Lords, or of the commission, as a body independent of Government and responsible for the vetting of nominations.
Before I sit, I would like to address, if I may, the use today of the Humble Address procedure. The House itself has recognised the need for this process to be used responsibly. The Government response to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s 15th report said:
“The Government therefore agrees with PACAC that this device should not be used irresponsibly or over-used.”
The Procedure Committee observed in its May 2019 report:
“The House, by its practice, has observed limitations on the power: it does not use the power to call for papers which Ministers do not have the authority to obtain, nor does it use it to obtain papers of a personal nature.”
That is a fundamental point. Today’s motion is a breach of that process. It demonstrates why the motion is unwise and irresponsible. Motions such as the one before us today crystallise the potential tension between the use of the Humble Address procedure and the responsibility of Ministers not to release information where disclosure would not be in the public interest. We have heard it said that the particular peer himself does not mind whether that information is released, but I submit that that is irrelevant. What we seek to do is protect the process, more than the individual, and that verifies that. The responsibility of Ministers, which I take very seriously, is carefully to balance and weigh up the need for the transparency and openness that we all try to achieve against the equally important, long-standing and competing principle in respect of data protection legislation, which the motion challenges. The Government reiterated, in our response to the Procedure Committee report, the principle of restraint and caution in recognition of the importance of ensuring that the wider public interest is protected.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is bang on; he speaks in a very straightforward way, but I think that is what the public expect. We are not talking about undermining the fundamental freedoms—in fact, we are going to strengthen them, including free speech. We are making sure that those who do us harm or have been convicted of serious offences can be returned home without elastic interpretations of rights scuppering the process.
Debbie Abrahams
Contrary to the comments of the last questioner, the Law Society has said that the Government’s Human Rights Act proposals
“do not recognise the significant benefits that have been achieved…through the HRA”,
while the General Council of the Bar says that the HRA
“has worked and continues to work well.”
Given that those who work in our justice system reject the need for changes and only despots and tyrants like Putin object to human rights other than their own, why does the Justice Secretary not scrap these proposals and stop wasting taxpayers’ time and money?
Dominic Raab
We are of course familiar with the views of the Law Society and others but respectfully disagree, and in the end it is not solely our job to listen to legal practitioners, important as they are, or indeed to serve their interests, but also to stand up for victims and the public and make sure we have a common-sense approach to justice. [Interruption.] I respectfully disagree with the hon. Lady; she might want to put herself on the side of the criminals, but we will put ourselves on the side of the victims.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
That was, of course, one of the subjects that I discussed this morning with Volodymyr Zelensky. Many people looking at it will wonder why it is impossible to interrupt the progress of those tanks with airstrikes from a drone, for instance, which we know that the Ukrainians have. Technically and militarily, however, it turns out that, unfortunately, it is not as easy as people might think. The tragic reality is that Vladimir Putin is going to continue to grind his war machine forwards if he possibly can. That is why it is vital that we continue the military support that we are offering and that, together with the United States and all our friends and partners in the west, we intensify and accelerate the programme of economic sanctions that is already hurting.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
With great respect, let me repeat and reinforce what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely). The legal profession and everybody involved in assisting those who wish to hide money in London and in assisting corrupt oligarchs have been set on notice that their actions are under scrutiny. If they break the law, and if they undermine the interests of this country and advance the interests of Putin’s war machine, they will pay a price.
Ukraine
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is completely right. It is why one of the first things we did was to strengthen our presence in Estonia in the way I described, and why our Canadian friends are strengthening their presence in Latvia. We will make sure that we give the Baltic states, which seceded from the Soviet Union to become free and independent in that amazing moment, all the security they deserve.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
There is overwhelming evidence that Russian state actors have been involved in trying to disrupt and destabilise western democracies by using social media platforms such as Facebook. What are the Government doing to ensure such platforms are not used in these events?
Sue Gray Report
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I want to say how passionately, vehemently and emphatically I agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks, which I could not quite hear. He is completely right. That is the priority of the British people and that is the priority of the Government.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
As limited as the Gray report is, the findings are still incredibly damning. There are multiples issues related to failures of leadership and judgment. Given that the Nolan principles and standards of public life describe the centrality of integrity, honesty and leadership, how can the Prime Minister continue?
The Prime Minister
I really think that the hon. Lady needs to read the report carefully. I am afraid that the conclusions she has drawn are not ones that I support. We are following Sue Gray’s advice and changing the way that No. 10 runs. We are going to do things differently, but I cannot agree with what the hon. Lady says.
Human Rights Legislation
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dominic Raab
Let me be clear that, as we have set out at some length, there are some things that we cannot do. We cannot send people back to the arms of a torturing tyrant in violation of article 3. Even if we came out of the European convention, there would be other international treaties and frankly, morally, I do not think that is the right thing to do. The reality is, however, that the majority of the challenges that we have had—70% of those in relation to foreign national offenders—have come under not article 3 but article 8. That is a good example of why this reform will be meaningful and far-reaching, and will have the support of our constituents.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
My fear is that the consultation on our Human Rights Act is more about giving more power to the Executive and there being fewer challenges to it than about meaningful reform. Will the Justice Secretary answer my earlier question on which of the following breaches of human rights, on which the courts ruled that the Government could be challenged, will no longer apply: rights against torture, rights against medical experimentation on British military personnel, or rights preventing discrimination against disabled people?
Dominic Raab
Of course it is right to say that in none of those areas will our reforms prevent accountability through constituents being able to bring cases to the courts. I will correct the hon. Lady on a broader point. If she looks at the consultation, she will see that it is not about accumulating authority or power to the Executive; it is about the separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branch. As the goalposts shift on human rights, which is fundamentally a legislative function, hon. Members on both sides of the House should be responsible for that, and ultimately should be responsible to our constituents for that.