Amesbury Incident

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

Even before the World cup started, a robust and well-thought-through plan was put in place after work between my Department, the police and others to support British fans in Russia. In the light of this incident, we will certainly be reviewing that information. There is nothing at this point to indicate that the risk to fans in Russia has changed in any way, but we want to keep that under review.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Novichok was developed by the Soviet Union in the ’70s and ’80s. It is down to the Russians to fill in the gaps. If they cannot do so, the assumption has to be made as it has been. Will the Home Secretary absolutely assure us that—notwithstanding our success going into the World cup and the way in which we have warmed towards the Russian people—we will not let up on the Russian state, which stands accused of attempting to murder our citizens?

[Sajid Javid]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. He will understand that although this incident has a leading line of inquiry—the connection with the previous incident—we do not want to jump to conclusions. If it is established that the Russian state is entirely responsible for this incident as well, of course we will consider what further action we can take.

Refugee Family Reunion

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bambos Charalambous]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right that, given the uncertainty about what will happen post Brexit, we cannot be sure of anything, and these issues need to be spelled out and confirmed as soon as possible.

Why would anyone want to deprive these child refugees of the right to be with their parents and families? These are vulnerable children, some suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, dealing with the bureaucracy of being a refugee, having difficulty accessing support, in a culturally different environment and now lacking the support network of their family. Why heap that unnecessary cruelty on a child when it is obvious that a child refugee will do so much better in all areas with the support of their family?

The UK has already failed in its promise to accept 480 children from the Calais camp, which is shameful, and it is only thanks to the phenomenal work of charities such as Help Refugees that some of the Calais children living in the woods are alive today. I hope that hon. Members at least have the humanity to do the right thing by supporting the children who are already here.

Having looked at the first part of the Bill, I will now focus on the second part, which relates to legal aid. Legal aid was made unavailable for refugee family reunion cases following the passing of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. It is difficult enough for adults to navigate the myriad complex legal procedures and forms that need to be completed. With family reunion applications, there is an additional requirement: family members have to attend the closest British embassy, which will necessarily mean travelling through conflict zones. In some cases, there is a need for DNA tests, and documentation gathering is also a necessary part of applications. The British Red Cross highlighted the complexities of applying for family reunion in its report “Not so Straightforward”.

As child refugees have no other way of accessing the legal support they need because of the bureaucracy created by the Government, it is only right that they should have access to legal aid to help them to navigate this process. If the Government want to reduce the cost of the Bill, perhaps they should look at making the process of family reunion easier and therefore cheaper. Since the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act came into effect in 2013, there has been a cut of more than £600 million in the legal aid budget, which is over and above the savings that the Treasury was demanding of the Ministry of Justice. The Act is due to be reviewed this year. I am not aware of how much progress has been made on that front, but the Bill gives the perfect opportunity for the Ministry of Justice to examine the impact of the legal aid cuts, particularly in the field of family reunion, and to put some money back where it is needed.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

A few weeks ago, I spent a few days in Djibouti in Africa, and I saw wave after wave of young people—predominantly men—on the march, walking away from the refugee camp set up there, which we visited. They were leaving because there was no secondary school. We all know that the overseas aid budget causes some controversy. I support it, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if there is a finite amount of money, we are better off setting up a secondary school, rather than trying to stretch the pounds over here, which in the end deprives people of some of the opportunities I have just referenced, which we could be funding more abroad.

[Bambos Charalambous]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is right about refugee camps needing more support and the provision of education. Many people spend years and years in refugee camps and their education suffers. However, we want to tackle the cause of this. The reason that people are in refugee camps is war. Unless more is done to stop war and conflict, these refugee camps will continue to exist and there will be more asylum seekers and refugees.

There will no doubt be critics who say that this will open the floodgates, with more people traffickers exploiting young people and more migrants wanting to come to the UK. However, I remind hon. Members that the countries neighbouring Syria, such as Jordan and Turkey, have taken in millions of Syrian refugees, while across Europe, Germany, Italy and France received at least twice as many asylum applications as the UK in 2017. The UK received less than 3% of all asylum claims made in the EU last year. I also remind hon. Members that, in 2017, 3,119 people lost their lives in their desperate attempts to cross the Mediterranean to claim asylum. Even for those who make it to the UK, the asylum system here is extremely tough, with only 29% of initial asylum applications made in the UK being successful and only 35% of appeals being successful.

I want to give hon. Members an idea of the numbers that will be helped by the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. Last year, only 794 children who arrived in the UK as unaccompanied children were granted asylum. The Bill seeks to help those 794 children—that figure is less than the number of peers in the other place—and allow them to be reunited with their families. Not allowing child refugees to be reunited with their family members is morally wrong, legally wrong and inhumane. I invite all hon. Members to support the hon. Gentleman’s Bill, and I encourage the Government to bring forward a money resolution to allow the Bill to progress so that these children can be reunited with their families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

The hon. and learned Lady and I have had this exchange before. I recommend that she goes to the camp in Jordan—I found it extraordinary when I went there with Save the Children. I respect the evidence that she mentions. It is a fascinating point. The issue I have is that the aid workers I was with—they were from reputable organisations, although I will not list them—were absolutely determined that there would be a pull factor because it is predominantly the young who are on the move—I have seen them. I cannot think why I would dispute what I have heard from those on the ground.

[Joanna Cherry]

That is as may be, but there is no proper, forensic evidence to support the argument that the Bill would have a pull factor.

EU Settlement Scheme

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

We are very conscious, where there are durable relationships of the type the right hon. Gentleman describes, that it is important that that is clearly affirmed for them. We have set out in detail in the rules how we are going to address those different situations, including where UK citizens are married to EU citizens who may be living abroad and where EU citizens living here may have non-EEA partners or spouses. They will have an extension of the rights set out in the withdrawal agreement and the statements we have previously made. We will, of course, be providing further detail in due course.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

EU citizens in my constituency would be forgiven for thinking, if they had listened to Opposition Front Benchers, that this process is so complicated that they would be required to recite the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which we know that only the Solicitor General can do. On that basis, and to reassure them, will my right hon. Friend confirm that all that EU citizens have to do is prove their identity and residence and declare that there are no criminal convictions? When she does that, will she welcome all those EU citizens in my constituency to do just that, because we want them to stay?

[Caroline Nokes]

The EU citizens living in Bexhill and Battle are very important to us, as are all citizens currently living here as well as those who will arrive during the implementation period. My hon. Friend is right: as I have set out, EU citizens will be asked to demonstrate their identity and residency and to declare any criminality. I got rather anxious that this might provoke the Solicitor General into reciting the entire withdrawal agreement, but I am somewhat relieved that he does not appear to want to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, who always brings her outside expertise to the House when she speaks of such matters. It does not feel right to talk about the economic effects of domestic abuse, because the emotional and psychological impacts are of course far greater, but there is an economic side as well. We look forward very much to working on the Bill with the hon. Lady and others.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

3. What guidance his Department provides to police forces on the policing of protests.

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

The Home Office monitors protest threats, but the management of protests is an operational and independent matter for the police so no Home Office guidance or briefings have been issued.

[Huw Merriman]

Does the Minister agree that protest groups whose core aim is to disrupt legitimate business, such as meat production, should pay towards the cost of policing? Surely it cannot be right either for there to be too few police covering the protests, or for there to be fewer police elsewhere because those who are covering the protests cannot police the rest of the community.

[Mr Hurd]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, and I understand how distressing it must be for a legitimate business to be on the receiving end of a campaign of disruption. I am sure that, as a good democrat, my hon. Friend would not want to do anything to undermine the principle of peaceful protest. When that crosses the line into harassment or threats to public safety, we have recourse to the Public Order Act 1986 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Oral Answers to Questions

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. The answer to her question is yes, I will, and I ask her to send me the information, which I will take a look at personally.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Will the Home Secretary welcome the additional 200 police officers who are being recruited and deployed by Sussex police in her Hastings and Rye constituency and mine of Bexhill and Battle?

[Amber Rudd]

Yes, this is good news. The police and crime commissioner for Sussex, the excellent Katy Bourne, has told us that she will be recruiting 200 officers this year and 200 the following year. Kent has said the same, and I understand there will be another 1,000 officers in London.

Oral Answers to Questions

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s concern about an increase in assaults on police, which is why we are looking very favourably at supporting the emergency workers protection Bill—the “protect the protectors” Bill—to try to have greater safeguards through the law. On engagement with police leadership, we keep under regular and constant review the application of operational tools at their disposal, such as Tasers.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

In using the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to penalise rogue landlords and breaches in planning law, local authorities can act as a deterrent and also compensate council tax payers who end up footing the bill. Given that Sussex local authorities have used only one such power, what more can my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Economic Crime do to encourage them to use more of them?

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend is right to point out his worries. We hope that the Criminal Finances Act 2017 will give a new boost to training local authority officers to deliver on it and increase the amount we take from rogue landlords and property owners.

Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Hurd]

My hon. Friend is too generous; I was not actually answering his question, but I will attempt to do so now. His basic question is why does the maximum penalty seem to be 12 months in both the magistrates court and the Crown court? The maximum penalty is in fact six months in the magistrates court and 12 months if dealt with in the Crown court. The provisions of clause 1(4) make it clear that the provisions should be read as six months, to match the sentencing powers of magistrates. That is a drafting provision to take account of provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that have not been commenced. I hope that gives my hon. Friend some explanation. I am more than happy to tease that out in the Committee and during further proceedings.

I am keen to register the human dimension. The Second Reading debate was incredibly useful in drawing out, constituency by constituency, real human examples of the risks that our emergency workers take on our behalf and intolerable situations they find themselves in. We know those examples instinctively, but it is useful to bring the experiences together in such a debate. That is why the Bill is timely and right. I am sure every single member of the Committee would join me in expressing our gratitude and respect for our emergency workers. The statistics about the number of assaults across the range of emergency workers covered by the Bill are genuinely shocking, and the Second Reading debate brought that through very clearly. It is very clear to me and the Government that emergency workers deserve the full protection of the law. Tougher sentences for assaults on emergency workers send the clearest possible message that that such cowardly and despicable behaviour will not be tolerated.

On Second Reading, we listened to various suggestions for amendments. Concerns were expressed about whether the maximum sentence for the new form of common assault, where the assault is perpetrated against an emergency worker, is harsh enough. An increase for the maximum penalty from six months to 12 months is exclusively for the lowest level of assault, which may not involve any injury, and the act constituting the offence can be as little as a push. The offences of actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm are more likely to be used if the assault is more severe. Both those offences already have a maximum penalty of five years.

Members also raised the issue of which emergency workers were covered by the Bill. The original definition of emergency worker proposed would mean that many people working in or for the NHS, who are at risk of being assaulted because they have face-to-face contact with patients or other members of the public as a regular part of their job, would not be covered by the extra protections provided by the Bill. We want to ensure that all those working in or for our NHS, providing services directly to the public, who suffer an assault either in the course of doing their job or using their skills to provide emergency care to members of the public while off duty, are given equivalent protections to those working on the frontline in our emergency services. That definition will be considered in greater detail, I am sure, during our discussions.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Has the Minister assessed whether it makes sense for the Attorney General’s powers relating to reviewing unduly lenient sentences to have some regard to the new offence? I say that because the new offence runs alongside existing offences. I do not wish to change the drafting of the Bill, but I ask the Minister follow how the offence develops, and in the event that the courts are not sentencing as we would like, perhaps he can look at whether the Attorney General’s power should be enhanced to cover the new offence.

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for that thoughtful intervention, which I recall he also made on Second Reading. I certainly undertake to discuss that point with colleagues at the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General himself. My hon. Friend will recognise that what the hon. Member for Rhondda is doing through the Bill, which the Government support, is to put in place new measures that complement the existing legislation and send a strong signal to and through the system that we will not tolerate assaults on emergency workers. We are doing that both through the creation of the new offence and through the aggravating factor, which strengthens the hand of the system.

I was talking about how the scope of the Bill has shifted during the course of the debate. In addition to NHS workers, the original definition of emergency workers included prison officers and persons

“(other than a prison officer) employed or engaged to carry out functions in a custodial institution”,

but it did not cover those working in a situation in which a prisoner is being transported—for example, to court—by someone other than a prison officer. We believe it is important that those individuals are covered by the Bill. We will discuss that when we come to the relevant amendment.

Clause 2 creates an aggravating factor, as I signalled in response to my hon. Friend, which will apply to assaults that are not covered by the new offence of common assault against an emergency worker. The Bill places a duty on the court to consider assaults, which include actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm and manslaughter, committed against an emergency worker as an aggravating factor in sentencing. The offence will therefore be considered more serious and may merit an increased sentence within the maximum allowed for the offence. The sentencing judge must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated. Clause 2 puts the sentencing guidelines on a statutory basis, but with reference to a specific group of people—emergency workers—and for a specific list of assault and assault-related offences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I thought that was an admirably brief intervention, by my standards. The hon. Lady makes two very good points and one with which I disagree. The two on which I agree are that members of the armed forces effectively operating as emergency workers would be covered by the Bill, as would PCOs. I have no doubt about that.

My anxiety is that, if we extend the Bill to all public sector workers, such as refuse collectors, it would be difficult not to include housing officers and a wide range of others. I felt that the specific problem we have now relates to emergency workers and the dramatic rise in the number of incidents is significant. In addition, there is a moral imperative for us to stand by our emergency workers at such a moment. That is why I have resisted suggestions that we should spread further than what I consider to be emergency workers.

I will own up to the hon. Lady that there is one issue that I am not sure we have yet got right and that is in relation to St John Ambulance workers. Everybody thinks of a St John Ambulance worker as somebody who runs an ambulance service. On occasion they would be covered by the Bill, if it were enacted, because they would be commissioned by the NHS to provide ambulance services, or perhaps search services; however, in the mere provision of first aid services, they would not be covered. That could lead to an odd situation where an NHS ambulance was sitting immediately next to a St John ambulance at a football stadium and one set of people would be covered and the other would not. We may need to return to that. However, I do not want to open up to everybody who provides first aid services on a voluntary basis for every charity in the country because that would water down the provision in the Bill.

[Huw Merriman]

rose—

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

I did have a further point. I absolutely take into account the need to keep the Bill tight, because otherwise it loses its purpose, but I recall that a key point discussed on Second Reading—I used the statistics myself—was the number of assaults in hospitals, which in four years has risen from 59,000 to slightly over 70,000. What proportion of those 70,000 cases will be covered by the Bill? Those incidents are particularly prevalent in the accident and emergency side, but what about the vast proportion remaining? Would that be something that the Bill could look at in the future to ensure that all NHS staff are protected? Currently they are not.

[Chris Bryant]

Amendment 2, which I am about to speak to, would help substantially. The truth is that we do not know the precise statistic the hon. Gentleman is seeking. We might stand a better chance if we kept the provision in the NHS that gathers such statistics, but unfortunately that is being abolished, so we will rely merely on staff surveys, which are a less reliable means of obtaining information.

The good news is that amendment 2 would extend the definition of emergency worker to include all those providing NHS health services. Incidentally, I understand that the phrase “national health service health services” is slightly clumsy, but it is the only way that we could make it work. Amendment 3 specifies the provision of NHS health services, so amendments 2 and 3 have to be read together. The National Health Service Act 2006 and the parallel National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 have a different way of defining NHS services from the one I suggested we would proceed with on Second Reading. I will read the definition from the Welsh version, because it is exactly the same as the English one, apart from the word Wales is used rather than England, and I am Welsh. It states:

“The Welsh Ministers must continue the promotion in Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement—

(a) in the physical and mental health of the people of Wales, and

(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness.”

Members will acknowledge that that is a broad definition of the provision of NHS services that brings a large number of people into the ambit of emergency workers. If a nurse is working on a hospital ward and someone has a cardiac arrest, it would be difficult to argue that they should not be covered by the Bill. It is the same for a hospital orderly working in the building, taking someone down to theatre or whatever. I am delighted with the way that the Government have helped redraft the Bill through amendment 2. I hope all Members will support amendments 1, 2 and 3 and ensure that clause 3 remains part of the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman misses the point. The authority placing the contract will, of course, verify the conditions of the contract before signing it. Whether we put it together and say, “We’ve got 1,000”, is slightly the second point. The main issue is whether it is properly done. On top of that, the UK Government as a whole invest £1.9 billion into the national cyber-security strategy to ensure that we deal with threats against our companies and individuals.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

15. What steps she is taking to tackle rural crime.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)]

The Government have ensured that, through the election of police and crime commissioners, communities—including those in rural areas—have a strong voice in determining how police resources are allocated, to tackle the crimes that most matter to them. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in congratulating Katy Bourne on her work to prioritise rural crime in Sussex.

[Huw Merriman]

I certainly congratulate Katy Bourne, who does a great job. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that the police investigate all crimes and not give a perception that certain offences, particularly those prevalent in rural areas, will not be pursued?

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Of course, police will investigate all crimes. Extremely good police and crime commissioners who work with their communities, such as Katy Bourne, are able to prioritise what matters most to people. They often work in partnership with great organisations such as the National Farmers Union to come up with the right solutions for the community.

Immigration Act 2016: Section 67

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

As the hon. Lady will appreciate, I am not going to comment on a particular case today, but as soon as I leave the Dispatch Box I will chase up the case she mentions and why she has not had a response. I will make sure that she gets one as soon as possible.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Last year, I visited the Zaatari refugee camp on the Syrian border in Jordan. It was clear from conversations with parents that although they did not want to risk their children’s lives across the sea, they would if there were no jobs or education for them. Does the Minister agree that thanks to the UK Government’s 0.7% aid contribution, we are able to keep people well and safe in their own region rather than risking squalor in the European camps?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend’s excellent point highlights why it is so important for us to continue to do that work in the region. We should be proud of the time, effort and money being spent out there and of the work of the charities as well as the Government in making sure that we do everything we can to help people in the region and deal with the challenges at source. In that way, we can prevent people not only from taking the chance to come to places that are not appropriate for them but from making that treacherous journey and giving profit to human traffickers in the first place.

Health, Social Care and Security

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in response to the Gracious Speech, and to follow both the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami)—two new Members. I have to tell the hon. Member for Stockton South that, having ruptured my Achilles twice in the last two years, I will be probably be looking at a pass note for the 6 am boot camp, but it is always reassuring, particularly for me, to have another doctor in the House.

May I also praise my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden for his contribution? His constituents will be reassured by his words today, including none other than Dora Scott, a constituent in Kimpton who is in her 90s and who also happens to be my aunt. We will both be keeping an eye out for him.

In the time that I have, I wish to focus on social care and its impact on health. Bexhill and Battle perhaps has a higher proportion of retired people than many other constituencies, and that requires me to speak up on their behalf. All politicians tend to do this when they sit on the Government Benches, but I urge us to get some form of consensus on this pressing issue for all our retired constituents.

It causes me great concern that despite the extra money that the Government put into the social care system, radical reform is absolutely required. I absolutely welcome the £2 billion that the Government put in earlier this year, but that remains unfunded, due to the failure to get the tax system to pay that extra amount. I also welcome the 3% levy on council tax bills, but in my constituency, where there is a smaller proportion of council tax receipts, it falls to people to pay even more. That concerns me for another reason that was prominent in the election campaign: intergenerational fairness. Is it right, for example, that my younger constituents, who do not have a home of their own, are saving as hard as they can, are paying private rent and cannot afford a deposit, are paying more and more on their council tax bills, which means that a home of their own is even further out of sight? We must look at not just funding, but radical reform, which brings me to the manifesto on which we stood.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions funding. Does he think that England should see a change in the Barnett consequentials as a result of the Northern Ireland deal—the grubby deal or the protection money that has been offered to the Democratic Unionist party? I am talking about £30 billion to £40 billion for England, which would help greatly in the case that he mentions.

[Huw Merriman]

When I looked at the winter fuel allowance and the amount of money that we would put back into health as a result of the changes, I was concerned that, under Barnett, some of that money could end up funding Scotland, when Scotland already has the ability to make those decisions about funding. My concern is that as we devolve ever more powers to Scotland, we are not also asked to devolve ever more finance as well.

Let me come back to my main thread. With respect to social care, consensus and intergenerational fairness, I think that we should consider the ideas in my party’s manifesto. Those ideas were worthy of more thought than was afforded to them by the Opposition parties. I also found it incredibly distressing that our vulnerable constituents were receiving election literature through their letterboxes saying, “Under the Conservatives, you will be forced to sell your home in order to go into residential care.” That was put out by the Liberal Democrats, when, in fact, our manifesto was changing that current practice. They were completely misinterpreting the position—and, worse, to a group in our communities who are particularly vulnerable to that type of scare tactics.

Let me turn to pensions. Representing a constituency such as mine, I absolutely agree that we need to look after those on pensions, especially those who have been on fixed incomes and have not had much of a return over the past few years. It is true to say that the triple lock has ensured a 22% increase in pensions, whereas earnings have only risen by just over 7% and prices by only 12%. Again, we must look at intergenerational fairness and ask ourselves how we can ensure that, as well as equipping our elderly and retired constituents to ensure that they can continue with good means, we also look after those who will ultimately fund them.

I am absolutely delighted that this Government are pushing ahead with the consultation exercise. When it comes to contributions to social care, we should ask those who can afford it to take some form of individual responsibility. They should make those payments themselves; otherwise we will effectively see the taxpayer subordinated to those who end up inheriting under the system. Yes, I agree that those people have worked hard all their lives to create their nest egg and for their house, but ultimately I want to ensure that people have the best-quality social care, and that will not happen unless we reform it.

I ask all Opposition Members to think about intergenerational fairness, and to ask those people who can afford it to make more of a contribution, which means that those people starting off on the ladder, who have to think not only about buying a property but saving for their advanced age, have that opportunity as well. Without taking that type of adult decision, we will never get any further in reforming social care.

In my last 30 seconds, Madam Deputy Speaker—congratulations on your return—I make a plea on behalf of my schools. At a school hustings, at which there were candidates from all three parties, I told pupils that there was no point in getting something today, because they, more than any other generation, would have to pay for it tomorrow. Despite what has been said about our party’s popularity with the young, more people in that school voted for the Conservative candidate than any of the others, because they recognised that we have the policies to deliver for them, as well as for those who are retired.