All-party Parliamentary Groups

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I rise to support the motion. I must confess that I was a little taken aback at the brevity of the Minister’s speech, but the points he made were absolutely right. We are here to support the Standards Committee’s work. I thank the Leader of the House for bringing forward this important motion, and I join the Minister in his full thanks to the Standards Committee and of course its Clerks, who we can see have put in a lot of work.

This work follows on from previous investigations, such as the report published in 2013. I of course agree with the Minister that this motion will help to safeguard Parliament from various things that could be improper, such as improper lobbying and hostile state actors, and that is why I support it. The Standards Committee is right to have conducted the inquiry now, because the current rules for APPGs were last agreed by this House almost 10 years ago.

APPGs have a long history, and they have made a significant contribution to the life of Parliament. I understand from the 2013 report that the first, created in 1939, was the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. It was established to help with the war effort and focused on the big scientific issues of the day over many years; of course, it still thrives. It is a great example of the longer-term focus that APPGs can have, compared with the shorter-term thinking of many Governments.

Another example of the value of APPGs is the APPG on autism, with which I had the pleasure of being involved for many years while on the Back Benches. I pay tribute to its former chair, dear Dame Cheryl Gillan, whom we all loved and miss very much. It is still one of the biggest and most active groups in Parliament, and much of that was down to Dame Cheryl, with her dedication and her warm and welcoming style, which drew in Members from all political parties.

That is what APPGs at their best can do. They effectively bring together and organise supporters of a particular issue or country from across both Houses and all parties. They provide space for longer-term policy development and a strong voice to Back Benchers, and they therefore have a rightful place in our Parliament.

However, the Committee found that APPGs can pose a

“significant risk of improper access and influence by commercial entities or by hostile foreign actors”.

Looking down the list of APPGs, as I did ahead of this debate, there has been a significant rise in their number since we last looked at their governance, which makes it harder for the House to monitor their practices. The Committee noted the

“real possibility of APPGs having been set up at the suggestion of, and as a result of lobbying by, a commercial interest.”

That is clearly bad practice and—this is the very thing the Standards Committee has been working so hard to prevent with its work in other areas—it could enable commercial entities to, in effect, buy access to or the influence of parliamentarians and decision makers. Throughout its inquiry, the Committee undertook extensive consultation, received written and oral evidence and came to clear conclusions, and we have to act now in support of the motion to strengthen how we run APPGs.

I think the two-tier approach to governance and regulation proposed by the Committee strikes the right balance. It safeguards Parliament where there is the greatest risk—for example, focusing on those with external financial benefits of over £1,500 in a calendar year, and having a lighter touch on those that do not. I also support the recommendation that the number of APPGs an MP can be an officer of is limited, as should be the number of officers per APPG. It is also right that we take a stand and say that no secretariat should be allowed to be provided or funded by a foreign Government, and that external members of a secretariat should not be granted parliamentary passes. I think I have understood the report correctly there.

This is about us, the House and Parliament clamping down on the risk of improper lobbying. For the record, I am not speaking from any particular experience of it having happened, but from the risk that it could, and that is very important. We all have a role to play in maintaining Parliament’s security, and I urge Members and secretariats to do their bit and to follow the new rules carefully. I think APPGs should welcome them, because they are a great opportunity to showcase that we know how to do our work properly and professionally, which can only increase the respectability and credibility of APPGs.

The Committee has said that it will provide an updated guide on APPGs, which will consolidate all the existing guidance. I think it is an excellent idea to have that in one accessible place. I suggest that it is sent in physical form to every MP’s office and that copies are made available in the Vote Office and the Library, as well as online.

Finally, I would like to see these changes as just part of a package of reforms to restore trust in politics, and in Parliament in particular. The Leader of the House and I have a shared desire to increase the transparency of ministerial interests and, for example, to make information on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests more accessible. Will the Minister convey to the Leader of the House that I reiterate my offer to support her in bringing forward these reforms as soon as possible? In the meantime, I urge everyone to support the motion if the House divides.

Tributes to Her Late Majesty the Queen

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Saturday 10th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

First, it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), and I had a feeling he would have more anecdotes than I do.

It is truly an honour to close these two days of tributes to Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I have heard almost all of them either here or in my office, and truly every speech has been superb. I am so proud of how we, her Parliament, have come together to pay tribute, and I really think we have done her proud. Colleagues have sent condolences to the royal family on behalf of their constituents, and on behalf of the people of Bristol West and my own family, I do so, too.

From the opening speeches by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, followed by the Father and the Mother of the House, to those of the Members here now and the hundreds in between, I am grateful to each and every colleague, as I also am to the Clerks, Doorkeepers and staff who have enabled this to happen. I truly thank everyone. It is impossible to do the normal round-up closing speech, so I will try to pick out themes instead, because we have explored so many of service and of faith. We have had poetry and prose, and quite a lot of comedy. There have been perspectives from history and of progress. I am aware—I hope I have my dates right—that Her late Majesty’s first Prime Minister was born in 1874 and her last in 1975. What a span of historical perspective.

Many spoke wittily of their own time with the late Queen, to illustrate her character. To pick one out, who knew that the tale of a plate of cheese delivered with a wry raised eyebrow by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), could evoke the Queen so well? We have heard many stories of mishaps on footstools, some of them with Her late Majesty saving people’s dignity, but some of them just managing to turn it into a comedy moment.

The Mother of the House and many others spoke of the significance of the late Queen as a female leader and role model. Indeed, in her Christmas broadcast in 1966, the Queen said that

“it has been women who have breathed gentleness and care into the harsh progress of mankind.”

I have thought about that remark a lot in the past couple of days.

Some colleagues spoke eloquently of their time with the late Queen in other countries—the greatest diplomat on the world stage in our corner, representing Britain—and many talked about her close bond and relationships with our armed forces and others in uniform. We have toured all the nations and every region—it seems like every village, town and city—and felt the sense of pride that she had in all of this country and all of us in it, where she shook more hands, unveiled more plaques and gifted more smiles than anywhere else.

I have learned a great deal more about how a constitutional monarchy operates from those who interacted with Her late Majesty in governmental office, and of her kindness to those whose governmental career had ended. Ardent monarchists and those with a different view alike expressed huge respect for her dedication to public service. Her ability to transcend politics and to represent the national mood meant that she was a unifying figure through which the public could share our nation’s joys and bring much-needed comfort in our country’s darkest hours. I feel that today we have transcended politics and come together.

Many speakers mentioned the late Queen’s pitch-perfect television statements during the pandemic, which so movingly connected our collective trauma in those fearful months in 2020 with the anguish instilled in the world war two generation. Remembering her invocation of Vera Lynn’s wartime message, “We’ll meet again” brings a lump to my throat—so poignant—but she also said:

“the attributes of self-discipline, of quiet good-humoured resolve and of fellow-feeling still characterise this country. The pride in who we are is not a part of our past, it defines our present and our future.”

Many spoke of how, aged just 21, the then Princess Elizabeth declared that her whole life, whether it be long or short, should be devoted to our service. That was a promise she fulfilled right until the very end. Grief, as Her late Majesty said, is the price we pay for love, but who would want to live without love? We suffer that grief willingly. Whatever the age at which our loved ones leave us, whether their life was long or short, we always grief for that lost presence—the years we are robbed of. We yearn for just one more week, one more day, just one more hour with them. Knowing how that feels, and knowing that the royal family must be feeling that right now, even in the midst of all the formalities and the public duties, we keep them in our hearts.

I hope that, by reflecting together on the Queen’s life over the past two days, we can appreciate the concept of a life well lived. Whether you are a brownie or an MP, whether you work in the NHS or in education, whether you were a key worker or a volunteer during the pandemic, whether you work in hospitality or a factory, whether you are simply a mother, a father, a brother, a sister, a friend or a neighbour, each day brings all of us a new opportunity to live up to the ideal set by the late Queen’s life well lived. That is perhaps the biggest tribute we can pay to the ultimate public servant, conscious as we go about our lives of how we can help one another, contribute to the common good and work toward an even better Britain. In the doing of duty and service, we sometimes think of sacrifice, but in the tributes offered here we can all recognise that, in fact, these make a good life. We MPs, who willingly chose our life of duty and service, can renew our commitment to them now as we celebrate the one who, though that life was thrust upon her, followed it unstintingly for 70 years. We must carry forward this Elizabethan legacy of public service for generations to come, for this truly is patriotism.

May Her late Majesty rest in peace and the legacy of the great Elizabethan age continue. May His Majesty King Charles III have a long and successful reign. Long live the King.

[Mr Speaker]

I now call the Leader of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has just told me—passing the ball swiftly down the line—that, yes, my hon. Friend’s A&E is certainly staying open, and I thank her for the point that she makes.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

Q7. Resignation of an experienced civil servant, sacking of a Government aide—with this Government it seems that allegations of bullying or just being incompetent gets you promoted, whereas standing up to it, you lose your job. What does this say about this Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

I loathe bullying, but I am not taking any lessons from a party that has presided over systematic bullying and discrimination against those who stick up for the Jewish community and for Israel in this country, and we still have yet to hear a proper apology from the Labour party or from the Labour leadership for what they have done.

Local Government Finance

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jake Berry]

I have more—I can keep going.

I welcome the subject of today’s debate, because it gives us an opportunity to look at the exciting programme that this Government have for devolution, levelling up and supporting our towns. However, it would be remiss of any Member not to take this opportunity to thank everyone who works in local government. I often feel that being a councillor is a thankless task, and I want to ensure that they hear a clear message from this House today that, on a cross-party basis, we thank them and support them in their work. Of course, councils are not just run by locally elected politicians. They have fantastic officers who support the work of the council and local communities. [Interruption.] While the Labour party seems to think it is funny that I want to thank people who work in local authorities for their work, Conservative Members think that it is important to do so.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jake Berry]

I will not; I am concluding.

Let me finish by thanking our councillors and our officers, as well as the Opposition for calling this important debate and giving us an opportunity to discuss the Government’s exciting agenda.

Lobby and Media Briefings: Journalists' Access

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s contribution. He is absolutely right that what we are talking about here today is how the Government are, ought to be and will be, committed to being open in their dealings with the press and to the principles of media freedom. That is something that we stick by firmly as a matter of principle and of practice.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I am really puzzled by what the Minister says, because lobby journalists walked out in solidarity with each other, and they said that there was no precedent for this, so either they are wrong, or she is wrong. I want to know why she is saying, as she seems to be, that the lobby journalists are wrong, that the National Union of Journalists is wrong, that everybody else is wrong and that this Government are not trying to hide from scrutiny, which is how it appears.

[Chloe Smith]

I cannot account for the hon. Lady’s understanding, but what I can say is that this Government are making themselves available across a range of briefings and across a range of channels—I have already covered that point—including social media, broadcast channels and innovations such as the people’s Prime Minister’s questions, which is a very good thing. What I can add is that the standard practice of the lobby is that all members with a press pass are able to attend and ask all questions that they would wish to ask. That is how the lobby functions, and we absolutely uphold that. That is happening twice daily and, in addition to that, we are offering further specialist briefings, which is what we are talking about here today.

Debate on the Address

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2019 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt). I hope to be working with him over the course of this Parliament to help to reform our drug laws, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), whom he so kindly mentioned.

The people of Bristol West did not vote for this Government or this Queen’s Speech. I have read the detailed briefing as well as the speech. There is a lot in there, but unfortunately there are things missing in the detail and other things missing entirely that the people of Bristol West will want me to mention. They wanted a Government whose programme treats the climate emergency as a clear and present danger needing urgent action so as to be carbon neutral by 2030, not 2050. They wanted our schools and early years provision to be properly funded—and they do know the difference between a cash rise and a real-terms rise. They want the global refugee and forced migration crisis dealt with, but the immigration system mentioned in the Queen’s Speech does not address refugees at all. They know that homelessness is not going to be solved by the warm words in the speech, but needs action. They know the importance of science and research, whether in dealing with antimicrobial resistance or getting tidal wave and wind to be more efficient and economically viable so that we can get to our carbon-neutral targets.

The people of Bristol West wanted an approach to drug policy that, as the hon. Member for Reigate said, focuses on harm reduction, saving lives, protecting victims and tackling exploitative gangs, but also provides protection for the neighbours of people involved in drug misuse or drug dealing. They want a country that values equality and human rights, and they want that to be shown in how we treat adults and schoolchildren with autism, special educational needs and disabilities.

[Crispin Blunt]

The hon. Lady is correct that drugs policy is not in the Queen’s Speech, but I would say to her and to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) that only one manifesto mentioned the issue of drug deaths, and that was the Conservative party’s manifesto.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I have to correct him; I will direct him towards the relevant page of our manifesto at another point. However, the issue is not dealt with in the Queen’s Speech.

The people of Bristol West want a Government who know the value of music and cultural industries. Again, that was not in the Queen’s Speech. I declare an interest in that area and refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I will fight for all of this for the people of Bristol West. I give the Government due warning that I will be a thorn in their side, but also a cross-party ally where I can be. I will be a campaigner for the people of Bristol West in doing whatever it takes to move this Queen’s Speech and its list of Bills, which I have been through this afternoon, to where my constituents want it to be. I will be challenging the Government not just to put more money into schools but to reverse the cuts of the past decade, whether to schools and early years, health, councils or police and fire services. I want them to be properly funded and the dedicated men and women in our emergency services and other public services to have the working conditions that they deserve. I will be pushing the Government to understand the need for musicians and others to be able to tour the European Union as they do now, no matter what happens in the next six weeks or two months, and to continue to benefit from the cultural and intellectual exchange that our membership of the EU has brought. Again, I would like to have seen that in the Queen’s Speech.

I will do everything I can to make sure that the Government’s Windrush compensation scheme actually does what it needs to do. Unfortunately there are people in Bristol West who have really suffered because of the Windrush scandal. Despite my lobbying and the hard, dedicated work of my caseworkers, they are still waiting for money that they are owed, and I want justice for them.

I will push this Government further on their health policy. Again, the Queen’s Speech makes a start but does not get to where I would like it to go. For instance, on public health, I would like PrEP to be provided for those parts of the population that need it to protect them from HIV. I would like to make sure that drug treatment is available to all who need it. I would like the Government to encourage and enable councillors and planners to design cities and towns for active, healthy living, making it easier to walk, cycle and use public transport.

I want so much for the people of Bristol West, but they also want so much for the people of the world, and I will be their champion on that, in matters of human rights and international relationships. Again, the Queen’s Speech makes noises, but it goes nowhere near far enough. The people of Bristol West want us to maintain and increase our globally respected international development and human rights work. They want the global refugee and forced migration crisis—which, again, is not mentioned in the Queen’s Speech—dealt with in ways that foster international co-operation, increasing safe and legal routes to asylum and supporting the right of all asylum seekers to work, which I believe Members on both sides of the House want. My constituents want us to reduce the inequality, injustice, conflict and poverty that all lead to the forced migration crisis, and they want us to build peace.

The people of Bristol West love science and research, so I welcome the mention of that in the Humble Address. They value our universities and colleges, and they want us to be able to contribute that knowledge to the global challenges of climate change, the decline in nature, the deadly consequences of antimicrobial resistance and the impact of diseases such as malaria and HIV/AIDS. I will campaign for all those things in this place as the Queen’s Speech is developed into a series of Bills.

The people of Bristol West want trade agreements that enhance, not cut, workers’ rights, environmental protection and a decent quality of life. I have looked at the content of the Trade Bill, mentioned in the Humble Address, and unfortunately it is not good enough. It does not do what my constituents want it to, which is to value human rights, workers’ rights and environmental protections. I am also worried at the signs that there might be less parliamentary scrutiny, not more.

I want to add something that could be allied to the provision in the Queen’s Speech on cutting hospital parking charges. This is something that is very personal to me, and it would make a huge impact to the thankfully small number of families who are affected by cancer in children, teenagers and young adults. Thankfully it is rare, but because it is rare, it is often difficult to treat, so families often have to take long and expensive journeys. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you will be aware that children in your constituency often have to travel to mine to be treated. When those families do not have much of an income, or one parent has to give up work to care for their child, as is often the case, travel expenses are yet another worry. We could attach this to the hospital parking charges legislation. The legislation could also be expanded to the families of children suffering from other serious illnesses, but I am focusing on this particular awful disease because of CLIC Sargent’s proposals for a young cancer patient travel fund, which I hope can be added to this provision.

Finally, I must say that I already miss colleagues who either lost their seats or stood down at this election—colleagues from all wings of all political parties, but particularly my own. I sat here on the last day of the previous Parliament and listened to valedictory speeches by hon. and right hon. Members from around the House, which moved me greatly, and I heard their assessments of the contribution that they had been able to make. I think in particular of my retiring colleague from Ealing North, Stephen Pound, and Alistair Burt and others who made this place richer. Democracy is poorer when good and talented people feel that they cannot continue to serve our country. This is a bit partial of me, but I also think that democracy is richer and stronger for the dedicated work of the Whips on both sides.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Hear, hear!

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Obviously I have a biased audience around me. I have been proud to be a Whip for three years, so I want to say a very personal thanks to our colleague Nic Dakin, who lost his seat. We all miss him very much already, and I believe that that also goes for the Government Whips Office.

The Queen’s Speech offers the illusion of action on many matters of great importance, but at the moment there is still too much that is implied or missing. I promise the people of Bristol West that I will do my best to persuade, cajole and challenge this Government at every step in this Parliament on their behalf.