Hereditary Titles (Female Succession) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Chris Clarkson

2nd reading
Friday 23rd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Clarkson]

As with many things in life, the best way is to suck it and see, so I absolutely—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am truly sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady in the middle of such an interesting and important debate, but I am required to do so.

Terminal Illness (Support and Rights) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Chris Clarkson

2nd reading
Friday 18th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. For the avoidance of doubt, the hon. Gentleman has the floor. If he wishes to give way, that is entirely up to him.

[Chris Clarkson]

I said in the previous debate that I enjoy Friday sittings, because people introduce Bills to address concerns that are probably not covered by current legislation.

I agree with quite a lot of what the Minister said. There is a great deal of support in the current framework, but the point of the Bill, as I understand it, is to try to address the places where that support is not getting to people who need it in a timely fashion. The example of a person having to go to an employment tribunal when they may have only a few months left to live is very powerful, because it throws the situation into stark relief.

Part of the problem is that we can go into abstraction, because there is no ticking clock showing how much longer we have on this earth. People will have myriad concerns at that moment in their life. They will want to tidy up their affairs and they will want to make sure their family are looked after, but they will probably also forget to take care of themselves in the way they normally would. They might lose out because they do not necessarily know what support is available, as they will be so busy trying to ensure that, when they exit the stage, those around them are able to carry on, and we do not want them to lose out. Nobody in this country should ever be in a position where they are not able to look after themselves properly. People should die with dignity. Dying well is a good way of looking at it. We need to remove the stigma that attaches itself to being terminally ill. I am the son of a cancer survivor. We were very lucky, but many families are not. That moment crystallises people’s thinking about what has to happen in a very short period of time.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton North on bringing forward this Bill. It is a worthwhile piece of legislation, and I can tell that he has given it serious thought and has worked with partners. I implore the Minister to make good on his promises to bring together people from the various Departments that will be affected. We have a good suite of things available. The special rules for the end of life provide pretty powerful protections but, as we saw in the previous debate, even where we have a framework that is supposed to work, it is not always the case in lived experience.

I would like to see the Bill continue in some form down the legislative pathway, which will rely on us all working together to understand where pressure needs to be applied to things that are not working, and where best practice can be enhanced by looking at other sectors. I look forward to seeing what comes next, but I go back to my original point. We need to lean on the existing protections. We need to better understand what levers we need to pull and how we can apply best practice where we have it, so that we can ensure that everyone around us has the option to live with dignity and to die well. I look forward to having a conversation with the hon. Member for Stockton North, because the Bill has piqued my interest. As I said, I like Friday sittings because I get to think about things I would not normally think about.

Points of Order

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Chris Clarkson

Wednesday 20th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. The behaviour that she describes is indeed unacceptable. She asks for my advice; I will give the same advice that I gave other hon. Members a few minutes ago. The Parliamentary Security Department is a most efficient and hard-working organisation. I am constantly in touch with it on behalf of Members, as is Mr Speaker. I meet the Director of Security regularly, and get updates on matters that affect Members. We take these matters very seriously indeed, and it is simply not acceptable that the hon. Lady feels unsafe going to her constituency. It is very important that these matters are dealt with, not only for the sake of Members of this House, their families and friends, but for the protection of the democracy for which we all work, and through which we defend freedom in this country. I hope that the hon. Lady will bring the exact details to me privately, because the exact details should not be discussed on the Floor of the House.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. What my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) says is all too familiar and depressing. I have had my own experience with Labour party attack ads, but that is not the issue that I want to raise in this point of order.

On Monday, in the debate on confidence in the Government, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—I have notified him of this, and he has acknowledged the notification—mentioned my sexuality, and told me that I should be ashamed to support the Government. The Chair ruled that that was in order, and I accept that. However, all too predictably, the next morning, my inbox was full of the vilest, most threatening and homophobic abuse possible. It specifically referenced the hon. Gentleman and support for what he said. This is not my first experience of senior Members of the Labour party dishing out abuse, and of my having to live with the consequences. Madam Deputy Speaker, may I seek your guidance on how we ensure that Members are mindful of the consequences of the language that they use in the Chamber, and how it may affect other Members?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is appalling that—[Interruption.] We will not have an exchange while I am answering a point of order. It is unacceptable and extremely concerning that the hon. Gentleman has had death threats; it is a dreadful situation. As I said in answer to other points of order, the parliamentary security team will take this matter very seriously. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is saying that the incident was sparked by something that an Opposition Member said about him in the House; I was present when that happened, so I can say to him what Mr Speaker has said on many occasions, and what the other Madam Deputy Speaker said at the time: “Erskine May” makes it clear, and we all know, that good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary debate. All Members should employ good temper and moderation at all times, no matter how strongly they feel about the matter under debate. If the hon. Gentleman continues to have difficulties, I hope that he will come directly to me privately, so that the parliamentary security team can look at the problem.

Bills Presented

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, Kit Malthouse, Secretary Greg Clark, Mr Simon Clarke, Lucy Frazer, Alan Mak and Richard Fuller, presented a Bill to make provision about the regulation of financial services and markets; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 146) with explanatory notes (Bill 146-EN).

Firearms and Hate Crime Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Luke Pollard, supported by Sir Gary Streeter, Mr Ben Bradshaw, Karin Smyth, Abena Oppong-Asare, Mrs Sheryll Murray, Anne Marie Morris, Alex Sobel, Alyn Smith, Selaine Saxby, Valerie Vaz and Caroline Lucas, presented a Bill to prohibit the keeping of pump action firearms in homes, with exemptions for professional pest controllers and farmers; to make provision about medical requirements for holders of firearms certificates; to make provision about the disclosure of mental health concerns relating to holders of firearms certificates; to extend offences of stirring up hatred to cover hatred on the basis of sex or gender; to make motivation by misogyny an aggravating factor in sentencing for violent crimes; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 147).

Bus Services Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Helen Morgan, supported by Richard Foord, Tim Farron, Wera Hobhouse and Jamie Stone, presented a Bill to place a duty on the Government to ensure that every town with a population of more than 10,000 people has a regular bus service operating seven days a week, and that local health services, including hospitals and GP surgeries, are served by those buses; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 148).

Elections Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Chris Clarkson

Report stage
Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It will be obvious that a great many people wish to speak and that we do not have very long. We have to finish this stage of the Bill at 9 o’clock, so I shall immediately impose a time limit of five minutes.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

I cannot promise to be as succinct as I was in my last speech before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, which clocked in at a loquacious 10 words, but I will do my best.

I rise to support the Bill having been on the Committee; I am confident that we have before us a sensible and necessary package of measures to ensure the continued robustness of our electoral system. Before speaking to the general merits of the Bill, I would like to speak to some of the new clauses and amendments selected for discussion. With a Bill of this size and complexity, Members will have a range of views on these issues, but I am quite disappointed to see that some of the things we voted down in Committee have found their way back for a second go.

I will start with some of the measures proposed by the Scottish National party. As a member of the Electoral Reform Society, I have to say that I have a small amount of sympathy with new clause 3, but I do not think its proposals belong in this Bill. However, I will cheerfully have a conversation with the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) if he wants to bring them forward another time.

Although I understand the motivations behind new clause 4, I cannot be the only one to have baulked at the long list of organisations required to provide our personal data to the state. On the whole, registering to vote should be positive affirmation of someone’s intention. Simply adding everyone to the list will not increase participation and make people exercise their franchise. It will just be more names on a list.

New clause 5, I am afraid to say, is completely beyond the pale. When we deprive somebody of their liberty as a result of their criminal acts, we deprive them of their most fundamental freedoms, including the right to exercise their franchise.

New clauses 6 and 7 and, by extension, new clause 14, are opportunistic and completely unprecedented. No EU state allows British citizens to vote in its parliamentary elections. That we should extend the franchise to EU members when, even as a member of the European Union, we could not, is completely and utterly inconceivable. The UK already has one of the widest franchises in the world, allowing Commonwealth and Irish citizens to participate in our general elections. If someone is that committed to participating in our democracy but they cannot because of their nationality, they are more than welcome to apply for citizenship.

As I mentioned earlier in respect of new clause 3, I have some sympathy with the provisions of new clause 13 in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), but something of that magnitude should be done not as an amendment to a Bill but as a separate debate.

I am concerned by new clause 15, because I disagree not with the general intention but with its prescriptive nature. There are any number of legitimate reasons why somebody might want to be registered in more than one area, but I accept the principle that we must do more to tackle multiple voting.

I particularly like new clause 17. I represent a borough named after its principal town—I see the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) in his place. I represent two towns in that borough that have no particular affinity for the main town and have a strong sense of their own identity; in fact, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency there will be areas such as Littleborough and Wardle that would like to be identified as such rather than as Rochdale. I have some sympathy with the idea of allowing people to describe more accurately on the ballot paper where they live. If we are not going forward with the new clause tonight, I would be pleased to see it come back at a later date.

Prime Minister (Temporary Replacement) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Chris Clarkson

2nd reading
Friday 14th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Clarkson]

I would hate to leave Members on a cliffhanger—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. A cliffhanger we have. [Laughter.]

Income Tax (Charge)

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Chris Clarkson

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

It is always interesting to get a lecture on economic probity from a member of the Liverpool Labour party.

I will start by saying that I am chuffed to bits. I am very pleased indeed. I might not have got my bid for HS4 between Heywood and Middleton, but there is still time for that, and this is a very good Budget indeed. The past year and a bit has been exceptionally challenging for the country as a whole, but now we are on the path back to normality. We are looking forward to a future, and we have a Budget that supports our ambition to get the country back on its feet.

Yesterday, the Chancellor laid out a fiscal plan not just to help larger companies and the structures of our economy but to support SMEs, the self-employed and those in low-wage employment. We want to get our high streets and local businesses back on track soon and nowhere can that be more true than in Heywood and Middleton.

I am pleased to see that the uplift in universal credit remains until October. I thank the DWP and its team for the inestimable amount of support they have given my constituents and many others who face very real hardship as a result of the difficult but necessary decisions the Government had to take to combat the pandemic. Universal credit has been one of the quiet success stories of the pandemic response. Without its flexibility and agility, many would have found themselves in a precarious position as a result of a legacy benefit system that was still far too complex and clunky to cope.

Because of the importance of safeguarding livelihoods, I also welcome the extension of the furlough scheme and the self-employed income support scheme as part of a package of measures to get people back to work safely. The vast majority of people sat at home on these schemes want to get back to their jobs and their normal lives, and allowing the scheme to run until the end of September will give businesses the headroom they need to get their workforce back safely.

There are a large number of announcements for businesses and job creation in the Budget, one of the most unprecedented being the super deduction, which does exactly what it says on the tin—it is actually super. For companies in Heywood and Middleton, it will be one of the biggest tax cuts in their history and it will get them investing, creating jobs and driving our economic recovery.

Reopening the economy will also need to take account of the fact that some jobs and businesses simply have not been able to survive the economic uncertainties of the pandemic. So, with the launch the restart scheme, hundreds of thousands of long-term unemployed people will be supported back into work. The doubling of the number of work coaches, the introduction of the lifetime skills guarantee to fund level 3 qualifications for all adults and the launch of kickstart to help 250,000 young people into jobs will provide a comprehensive framework for our future prosperity. I welcome the doubling of the incentive payment to SMEs to take on apprentices of any age to £3,000 and the £126 million to triple the number of traineeships next year. With excellent further education providers such as Hopwood Hall College and Rochdale Sixth Form College supporting my constituents, I am confident that they will be well placed to take up these opportunities.

It takes vision and courage to respond to a world crisis with optimism and ambition. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the Leader of the Opposition, responded with nothing but doom, gloom and a comedy routine that was, ironically, the least funny bit of a pretty poor performance. Rubbishing freeports, deriding world-leading employment support and talking down the north—maybe it is just the way he tells them, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before we go to Sarah Jones, I should say that, after Sarah Jones, the time limit will be reduced to three minutes. But with four minutes, I call Sarah Jones.

Additional Covid-19 Restrictions: Fair Economic Support

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Chris Clarkson

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

The past few weeks have been utterly exhausting, not just for those of us who represent Greater Manchester and local authority leaders but, more importantly, for the people we represent. Areas such as my constituency have lived with restrictions for months, and there is a real sense of never having properly left the lockdown that we all endured at the start of the year. That is why today I can only express my absolute dismay at how things have gone over the past 48 hours.

None of us—I do mean none—wanted to go into tier 3. The Minister will have heard from all 27 Greater Manchester MPs at one point or another, and even the press noted our outbreak of unity. However, as the weeks dragged on and brief and counter-brief ping-ponged their way across social media and the front pages, the likelihood of getting something that works for Greater Manchester became more and more remote. I need only look at my Twitter feed today to see that Andy Burnham, consummate performer that he is, is already rewriting the past few weeks, aided by the breathless adulation of the commentariat. The important message behind all this, however, is that 2.8 million people are now in desperate need of answers.

I watched yesterday’s press conference as the Mayor donned his carefully confected outrage and gave an encore performance of his old refrain, “Nothing to do with me.” We should let local leaders, with the support of Greater Manchester’s MPs, talk to the Government about how we will be supported over the next 28 days and beyond. The people I represent are being asked to face the toughest restrictions of their lives and livelihoods since March, and I am genuinely worried—I am sure that colleagues are, too—about the future of the people and businesses in the communities we serve. I have asked the Government to ensure that their efforts are redoubled and that any settlement with individual boroughs in Greater Manchester is conducted quickly. Despite our myriad political differences, I know that the leader of Rochdale Borough Council cares deeply for the people of our borough, and I will work with him, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) and anyone else who wants to ensure that we have the support we need.

We have been very badly let down. Andy Burnham inserted himself into this process, and at every step of the way, he promoted himself as the leader of Greater Manchester and purported to speak for us all. Some of us—I include myself in this—were willing to give him some latitude. Not unlike the First Minister of Scotland, Mr Burnham has the same sort of reality distortion field, which allows him to shrug off every broken promise and failed initiative and to emerge squeaky clean. In all honesty, who would not want some of that stardust working for them?

I am a pragmatist. I just wanted the support package; I did not care who got credit for it. Unfortunately, the Mayor did. That is why, after a demand of £65 million was made at the negotiating table and the majority of that sum—92%—was offered, Andy got up and walked away from the table, all because he wanted to brag about having got more money than Merseyside or Lancashire. That dogma and demagoguery will cost people dearly.

I am supporter of devolution, which on the whole I think has been a positive force in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but I cannot say the same for the piecemeal and patchy system that we have in England. Mayors have ill-defined and varying powers, which makes them next to impossible to scrutinise or hold to account. What this whole shabby episode has told us should be a salutary lesson for us all. Today’s last minute debate has all the hallmarks of the same opportunism that has done so much damage over the past few days, no doubt with a carefully calculated vote at the end, designed for release on social media afterwards.

I implore Opposition Members to park the opportunism. I know the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) thinks this is a good crisis that the Labour party should exploit, and I know she speaks for a lot of her Front Bench colleagues when she says that. We just need to see it in the support-U-turn-oppose approach that has characterised their hindsight-heavy behaviour. [Interruption.] Excuse me, did the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) just call me scum?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We will not have remarks like that from the Front Bench: not under any circumstances, no matter how heartfelt they might be—not at all.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is not for the Chair to decide what is accurate or inaccurate. I cannot make such a judgment, but of course I will ask the hon. Gentleman to be reasonable in what he says and to be careful of his remarks. I am sure that if he feels he has said anything that is offensive to the hon. Lady, he will undoubtedly withdraw and apologise immediately.

[Chris Clarkson]

Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should clarify that I asked the hon. Lady whether she called me that. That is what I heard.

I implore Opposition Members to look at the damage that is being done here, to follow the example of Labour leaders in the Liverpool and Sheffield city regions who put the welfare of their constituents first and to see the debacle of Andy Burnham’s failure for the learning experience it should be.