Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that, particularly at a time of increased geopolitical risk, we must protect our nation’s food security and therefore our most valuable agricultural land. We do want to see more solar, which is one of the cheapest forms of energy, but, as he said, on brownfield sites, rooftops and away from our best agricultural land. That is why our recently published national infrastructure planning rules set out the requirement for solar not to be placed on what is described as the best and most valuable versatile land where possible. The Secretaries of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are ensuring that developers and planning authorities strike the right balance so that we can deliver what my hon. Friend wants, which is more British food grown here at home.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I went out recently with Chris McEwan, the mayoral candidate in Teesside. It was clear that residents are really worried about crime. Levels in Tory-run Teesside are among the highest in the country. The residential burglary rate is 52% higher than anywhere else in the country. When will the Prime Minister realise that he has lost control not only of his party, but of crime in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

Mr Speaker, what a joke! We have police and crime commissioner elections across the country, and the hon. Lady really should look at the record. Under this Government, crime has been cut by 50%, and we have 20,000 more police officers. Let me give her the facts, because this is why it is so extraordinary to hear what she said. People with a Labour police and crime commissioner are more likely to be victims of burglary and twice as likely to be victims of robbery. The facts completely speak for themselves, so people should vote Conservatives for safer streets.

Debate on the Address

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I, too, pay tribute to His Majesty on delivering his first Gracious Speech as monarch. Unfortunately, when we see the scale of the challenge facing our country, the programme for government is clearly not up to the task. There is no ambition or vision to get the economy growing again or to break down the barriers that are holding people back. It was one of the longest Gracious Speeches with the fewest actual Bills proposed. Anyone would be forgiven for thinking that the Government have given up. All it seems to contain is sticking plasters, gimmicks and divisive politics. I fear that the nasty party is well and truly back.

I rise to speak in the debate on behalf of my constituents. At this stage in the evening, there may be few of them watching, given the champions league game that is happening tonight, but I am sure they will catch this speech on catch-up.

The Government have finally announced some reforms to leaseholds, yet, despite the wait, they do not go nearly far enough. This weekend, I was out speaking to residents in Newcastle Great Park in my constituency, which is one of the largest new housing estates in the north-east. Some residents have lived there for over a decade. They are paying service charges on top of their council tax, yet they are left with hazardous pavements and roads and have been waiting for promised community facilities for years on end. Residents are left in limbo without any real plan for when their estate will be finished and adopted. Children are growing up and leaving home before a proper pavement appears outside their house.

Residents deserve certainty at the very least about the timescales within which adoption should take place. Since 2017, the Government have promised to

“legislate to ensure that freeholders who pay charges for the maintenance of…facilities on a private or mixed use estate can access equivalent rights as leaseholders to challenge the reasonableness of service charges.”

That would provide real hope for residents, but it seems that this is yet another missed opportunity.

On top of people’s frustrations about the state of their estate, they tell me that they cannot get to work or school because of the lack of buses—that is despite the Government cancelling the largest rail infrastructure project in a century and using some of that money to maintain the £2 bus fare subsidy. Across Newcastle, we have lost vital bus services that were essential for accessing local services, visiting family and friends, and getting to school or work. While the extended £2 cap on the bus fare is clearly welcome, it is just not enough. If there was ever an example of a short-term sticking-plaster solution, that must be it: capital funding spent on a short-term revenue fix that does not even fix the problem. We have a broken Government presiding over a broken system, which is preventing people from getting on. Residents want a much greater say over their bus routes, and Labour has a plan to deliver that.

What was there in the speech to offer hope that the increasing challenges we see in health, transport, education and living standards will be addressed? Child poverty is up, mortgage costs are up and the strain on family finances is getting worse by the day. What happened to levelling up? It is not happening round my way.

Newcastle and the north-east have outstanding universities, yet 40% of graduates are working in roles where a degree is not required. That figure is much higher than the national one and even more so when compared to London. We have an incredible pool of talented graduates who are forced to either leave the north-east or chase too few graduate jobs, yet the Government, instead of focusing on spreading opportunity around the country, are focused on reducing the number of graduates. Why should bright, ambitious and hard-working people in the north-east settle for that?

It does not have to be this way. We do not have to settle for this. The north-east, with our proud industrious history and our current untapped potential, could lead the world in skilled jobs in clean energy power generation, whether in onshore or offshore wind, or electric car manufacturing. We could be investing in skills in the north-east, giving employers the tools and resources to ensure that there is a workforce that meets local demand and grows the local, regional and national economy. Far from steaming ahead, we are actually rolling back on previous green commitments. Where is the ambition? Where is the hope for a better future?

Labour’s plan to quadruple offshore wind, double onshore wind and triple solar would not only provide those jobs now but bring energy bills down and secure our future. We could power Newcastle and the north-east and lead the world in offshore wind and electric car manufacturing by delivering infrastructure projects rather than dither, delay and more cancellations. Newcastle and the north-east could drive investment and drive economic growth.

Everyone in the Chamber can feel it: we are in the dying embers of this Government. They are tired, out of ideas and lacking direction. They have given up on levelling up; they are more interested in dividing communities than in making life better for working people. Rather than sticking-plaster politics, we need a mission-driven Government focused on our national renewal. The country is crying out for change—even the Conservative party is—but the answer to that is clearly not more Conservative Government.

We have the ideas and the ambition for this country, and we are ready to serve. It is time for a Labour Government.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

With the greatest respect, I would say to my right hon. Friend that this is also about the people of Northern Ireland. It is about the communities in Northern Ireland and the businesses in Northern Ireland. Whatever happens with the politics, those people will benefit from this agreement, because they are being impacted by the implementation of the protocol, and this framework ensures that we have resolved their concerns and the challenges that they face. They must be uppermost in our mind, and I hope very much that this framework does provide the basis for parties in Northern Ireland to move forward together positively to consider power sharing, as I hope they will look forward to doing. But this agreement, first and foremost, is about the people in Northern Ireland and the benefits that it will bring to them, and I hope that it will have my right hon. Friend’s support.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

This agreement is clearly welcome, but the Prime Minister must recognise that the Government’s approach prior to this point caused damaging uncertainty, put Britain’s reputation at risk, and undermined business confidence. He must want to do everything possible to make amends for that. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill continues to generate massive uncertainty with its regulatory cliff edge, so in this new spirit of renegotiating decisions and taking a more mature approach, will the Prime Minister also commit to reconsidering the Government’s approach on that issue?

[The Prime Minister]

No. It is that approach—talking about it in the hon. Lady’s terms—that creates the uncertainty. It is a perfectly reasonable thing for the United Kingdom to re-examine all the retained EU law that we inherited and decide which bits are for us to keep, which bits are worth scrapping, and which bits are worth amending. That is entirely the appropriate course of action for a sovereign nation, and in doing that, we can provide benefits to families, businesses and communities across the United Kingdom. That is what this Government will deliver.

Papers Relating to the Home Secretary

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right that there are standards that have to be followed. When the issues are around important Government business, it is a problem when somebody has breached those standards to the point of effectively being sacked and then is reappointed just six days later. That is what people across the country will not understand.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend. She is making an excellent speech. This is an incredibly important debate. Is not the problem that the standards being observed in the Government have just sunk too low? Reappointing somebody six days after such serious security breaches brings into question the level at which the Government think it appropriate to guard our national security. The response of Members on the Conservative Benches today suggests that they do not take it seriously either, and that needs to change urgently.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. There has been a real sense over many years now that the respect for standards in public life from the Government and the Conservative party has been deteriorating and has been undermining standards in our important institutions. The Prime Minister promised us that there would be something different. Instead, what we have is more of the same.

The Cabinet Office has already recognised that the Home Secretary broke sections 2.1 and 2.14 of the ministerial code. There are further serious concerns that she may have broken it a third time and also ignored legal advice that the Home Office was breaking the law. Yesterday morning, her successor and predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, said that he had had clear advice—legal and policy advice—about dangerous overcrowding at Manston, about being in breach of the law, and about the need to take emergency measures, which he then took. We have deep concerns about how the Government could have allowed this situation to develop in the first place, why they badly failed to crack down on the criminal gangs that have proliferated in the channel and why they allowed Home Office decision making to collapse, so that only half the number of decisions are being taken each year compared with six years ago and only 4% of last year’s small boat arrivals had their claims determined, so that there is now a huge backlog of cases that has led to overcrowding and the last-minute use of costly hotels in inappropriate locations.

However, there is also a serious question whether the Home Secretary has just made things worse by ignoring legal advice and allowing dangerous overcrowding, leading to even more last-minute inappropriate procurement and running up substantial legal liabilities when she should have an alternative plan to cut the backlog and cut hotel use instead.

Early General Election

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 619781, relating to an early general election.

The petition calls for an immediate general election to end the chaos of the current Government. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.

As we gather in Westminster Hall this afternoon, the drama of the current Government is once again playing out in the Chamber and on the news channels. Many Members are keen to question the Prime Minister, who has failed to come to Parliament to account for events, and a Chancellor who was appointed by the Prime Minister just last week to try to sort out the utter chaos. I am sure many more Members would be here to speak if there were not such an important clash with business in the House.

I am particularly disappointed that there are no Government Members here to speak for the petitioners, who would like to hear not only Opposition views on the petition but Government Members’ views. It is no wonder that the petition, which is still open, has been signed by more than 632,000 petitioners—the number is going up as we speak, by about 1,000 signatures an hour. The numbers make this one of the most popular petitions considered by the Petitions Committee to date. As its Chair, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the petitioners and pretty much anyone I have spoken to in the last few days, weeks and months about the state of the country.

The petition is clear in its demand. It states:

“Call an immediate general election to end the chaos of the current government…so that the people can decide who should lead us through the unprecedented crises threatening the UK.”

It goes on to explain:

“The chaos engulfing the UK government is unprecedented. Over 40 ministers resigned leaving departments without leadership during cost of living, energy and climate crises. War rages in Ukraine; the Northern Ireland Protocol has further damaged our relationship with Europe; recession looms; the UK itself may cease to exist as Scotland seeks independence. This is the greatest set of challenges we have seen in our lifetimes. Let the people decide who leads us through this turmoil.”

I pay tribute to Darrin Charlesworth, who set up the petition. Little did he know, I suspect, that the chaos that led him to start the petition would develop further into the mini-Budget U-turns, the market turmoil, the sacking of the now ex-Chancellor and the extraordinary scenes we saw this morning of the new Chancellor reversing the entire platform that the Prime Minister stood on. Perhaps he had the foresight to see how much worse it could get. There were plenty of warnings and, sadly, it is not over.

The scenario facing us when the petition was started was the horror of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, inflation reaching a 40-year high, unaffordable fuel bills, record backlogs in our NHS and a looming winter of struggle ahead. Unfortunately, weeks on, with a new Prime Minister and now a second Chancellor, things have only got worse.

Those who signed the petition were expressing their frustration at a governing party spending a summer focused inwards, choosing themselves a new leader, rather than dealing with these multiple crises. Rather than speaking to and engaging with the country and setting out a vision of what they should expect from a new Prime Minister, those of us outside the Conservative party—99.7% of us—were left looking on, with no input into the process and precious little scrutiny, as planned televised interviews on the BBC and Channel 4 were cancelled. It was far removed from the scrutiny of an agenda for government that would happen in a general election campaign. After recent events, particularly this morning, we can see why such scrutiny matters.

We live in a parliamentary democracy. It is not the first time that a Prime Minister has changed during an election cycle, but we are now on to the fourth Conservative Prime Minister in little over six years. The last three were replaced not by the electorate, but by Conservative MPs and members. That is frustrating for the public, who have no say in who their Prime Minister is or in their programme for government.

The real boost to the number of signatories to the petition came once the new Prime Minister had been chosen. Concern was heightened by the fact that she received the backing of only 31% of her own MPs in the final ballot. By comparison, in 2019, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) received 51% of votes in the final ballot, and in 2016, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) received 60%. It did not end well for them, so is a Prime Minister with less support among her parliamentary party destined to fare any better? In the light of recent events, clearly not.

Most of the policy proposals that were set out in the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign and hastily enacted in the disastrous mini-Budget had no mandate whatsoever. The 632,000-plus people who signed the petition represent nearly eight times the number who voted for our current Prime Minister. Some may ask, “Why does that matter? The Prime Minister won under rules set by the Conservative party, which is currently the largest party in Parliament.”

This is not without precedent: in 1976, when Harold Wilson announced his resignation at Prime Minister’s questions, the then Leader of the Opposition asked if there would be an election. She said:

“In spite of the political battles, we wish the Prime Minister well, personally, in his retirement. His decision has come at a time of great financial difficulty and of unprecedented parliamentary events. Is he aware that the best way to resolve the uncertainty and to give the new Prime Minister the authority re-required would be to put the matter to the people for their vote?”—[Official Report, 16 March 1976; Vol. 907, c. 1123.]

I do not often find myself agreeing with the late Margaret Thatcher, but on that point I—and the petitioners—do. Lady Thatcher was not wrong about lack of authority; we are seeing its consequences unfolding before our eyes. Weeks into office, any semblance of authority that our Prime Minister may have had has been shattered, along with confidence in her and in this Government’s ability to govern. Over the weekend, one of the Government’s own MPs described her as being like “the chairman” while her new Chancellor would act as “the chief executive”—they were not even trying to hide the fact that she is in office but not in power.

Then, there is the mini-Budget. The then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), proclaimed that he wanted to “bet big” on the British economy. We have seen just how reckless that was. The question remains: who gave the then Chancellor and the Prime Minister permission to gamble in such a way with our public finances, bypassing the checks and balances that go with such a fiscal event, including the growth forecasts and spending commitments calculated by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility? How on earth was that allowed to happen? Not even the 81,326 Conservative party members who voted for the Prime Minister gave their permission for it.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies warned that the mini-Budget contained

“the biggest package of tax cuts in 50 years without even a semblance of an effort to make the public finance numbers add up.”

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research said that the uncertainty caused by the fiscal event was directly pushing up longer-term borrowing costs. The Government lacked the mandate to make those disastrous changes, and they still lack the mandate to try to clean them up. Although the package has now been scrapped, the damage to the UK will be long lasting: higher borrowing costs, higher mortgage rates and damage to our reputation for years to come. This will never be forgotten.

Many are rightly asking, “What is the point of this Government now that their showpiece policies—all rainbows and unicorns—which they spent the summer waxing lyrical about, landed calamitously and were swiftly withdrawn the moment they met reality?”. When Downing Street cannot govern, it is incapable of stepping up to the significant and pressing challenges our country faces. We desperately need a Government who can.

What is left of the Government’s programme? Although the Budget has been reversed, we still have fracking. Despite the Conservatives’ own 2019 manifesto pledge that they

“will not support fracking unless the science shows categorically that it can be done safely”

and the fact it is a policy that few can support, the Government are seemingly still intent on lifting the ban on fracking licences without any consultation, assurances on safety or local planning considerations.

Then there is the current debate around benefits uprating. The right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak)—three Chancellors ago, remarkably—promised that benefits would be uprated in line with inflation, but the current Prime Minister has not confirmed whether that will be the case. Concerns have been heightened by commitments made on pensions but not on the uprating of benefits. Working parents, disabled people and the poorest pensioners are already being hit by the skyrocketing cost of living. The Government have no mandate for inflicting unconscionable misery on the poorest in our society. I know that many Government Members feel the same.

Without a mandate, Government MPs will find it even harder to justify the lifting of the cap on bankers’ bonuses at the same time as the poorest are set to be punished. Indeed, the lifting of that cap is one of the only other measures in the mini-Budget that is left.

Today marks the United Nations International Day for the Eradication of Poverty and the start of Challenge Poverty Week. Some 41% of babies, children and young people are growing up in households in receipt of universal credit or legacy benefits; that figure is 52% in my region of the north-east. The failure to uprate benefits with inflation will have a devastating impact on those households, compounding the already shocking levels of child poverty in the UK.

Where is the mandate from the public for this Government to preside over the poorest in our country being made poorer and increasing numbers of children growing up in poverty? Where is the democratic accountability for a Government that have no mandate for the policies they seek to pursue? Why should anyone trust this Government to clean up the mess they have made in the past few weeks? Would we ask a person who started a fire in our house to be responsible for putting it out? Of course not.

Far from a fresh Administration buzzing with new ideas, we have a tired, worn-out and weak Administration, going round in circles and damaging our reputation at home and abroad. The spectacle of our great country being led by Government MPs desperately clinging to power and trying to distance themselves from the past 12 years is embarrassing to watch.

The petitioners have very clear asks: for there to be an end to the chaos engulfing the Government and our country, and for the people to have the chance to decide who should lead us going forward. Will the Minister say how the public can have confidence in the competence of a Government that just days into office took such a reckless, irresponsible gamble with the public finances? After being forced to abandon her entire policy platform just weeks into office and sack her Chancellor, what authority does the Prime Minister now have? When will people on the lowest incomes have confirmation that benefits will be uprated with inflation, as promised by the Government only weeks ago? How can the country have faith in anything the Government say when, over the past few weeks, they have backtracked on most of their promises and appear set to do so again, after warning of “difficult choices” to be made? Most importantly, when will the public have their say on how they want this country to be governed?

It is in the Government’s gift to call an election. Failing that, Government Members can join with Opposition Members to put things right. Whatever Government are elected, they will at least have the support of the British people.

It is not just the 632,000 petitioners who believe that the public deserve a say. In January, the current Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), stated that

“the mandate is personal rather than entirely party and…any prime minister would be very well advised to seek a fresh mandate.”

Earlier this month, the former Culture Secretary, the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), tweeted that

“No one asked for this”,

and that if the Prime Minister

“wants a whole new mandate, she must take to the country.”

The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) has stated that there should be an election soon because

“we can’t expect people to put up with the psychodrama of the Conservative party indefinitely.”

I could not agree more, but those Members need to put their money where their mouths are on this matter.

Darrin Charlesworth, the petition’s creator, said that the Prime Minister has “torn up” the manifesto that saw the Government elected, and the

“major change in direction and policy requires a general election, regardless of which party happens to be in power.”

He feels that the current situation is a

“dangerous distraction from the business of running the country”

and believes

“it needs to come to a decisive end with a general election immediately.”

Aside from the over 632,000 petitioners who agree with Darrin, a poll out today from “Good Morning Britain” found that an astonishing 93% of respondents want a general election. Similarly, Channel 4 found that only 8% believe that the Prime Minister should remain. The situation is completely unacceptable and unsustainable.

Since 2010, our country has faced monumental changes: a coalition Government, a referendum in Scotland, Brexit, parliamentary gridlock, the illegal proroguing of Parliament and a pandemic. The previous Prime Minister oversaw the complete erosion of standards in public life, before being forced from office as scandal caught up with him. Those seismic changes and the ensuing chaos have tested our constitution—and our patience with the Government—to the limit. After their 12 years in office, the country deserves a chance to have its say on this Government and their programme. Today, as with most days, we all woke up to another chaotic day in politics. It is damaging and exhausting, but it does not have to be this way.

This is not about party politics. Many who signed the petition will have voted Conservative at the last election and may do so again. What nobody voted for was this chaos, which is caused by the lack of the clear mandate that any Government would need to have the authority to face up to the challenges ahead. MPs have a duty to the public to govern in the national interest. The petition calls on the Government to do the right thing and put an end to the uncertainty and lack of authority by giving the people their say. If the Government have any hope of rebuilding trust with the electorate, they should do exactly that—today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Thank you, Mr Mundell, and thanks to the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. As we know, the debate took place at the same time as some important business in the Chamber—an urgent question from the Leader of the Opposition and a statement from the Chancellor—so I am grateful to hon. Members for being here, and for their contributions. I thank my hon. Friends the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for Newport West (Ruth Jones), for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who spoke from the Front Bench, as well as the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), who spoke for the SNP. They clearly put how untenable this situation is for our country.

I thank the Minister for his reply. He is clearly on a difficult ticket today. I was struck by how powerfully his response made the case for a general election. Indeed, we are in unprecedented times, and he gave us an interesting lesson in history, but all that history will tell him and us that a general election is the only way to get out of this crisis. Nothing he said today will have persuaded anybody watching this debate otherwise. It is disappointing that, despite the Minister being present, not a single member of the governing party came to speak either for or against a general election. Nobody was here to represent the petitioners from those constituencies who wanted this matter discussed. I will leave it to the 632,000 people, and that number is growing, from every part of the UK who signed the petition to speculate why that might be.

We are hearing reports that the events we are missing in the Chamber very much underline the current shambles at the heart of Government. The fact that the Leader of the House had to reassure the Chamber that the Prime Minister was not hiding under a desk shows how low the bar now is, and I guess we should be grateful that she is not hiding in a fridge. The fact that the Prime Minister turned up just in time to not answer any questions, and left before questions started again to the Chancellor, shows how weak and undermined her position is. As the shadow Chancellor clearly said, she is in office but not in power, and that is unforgivable for the people of this country, who need strong leadership and Government—whoever provides it—at this time.

The petition calls for an end to the chaos, because the situation is not sustainable. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, was unable to say how a Government without a mandate, and without authority, will be able to get any of their agenda through Parliament. The Minister made great play of the importance of the Government having the confidence of MPs in Parliament. Whether they have that confidence has not been properly tested, but from what we can see, confidence in the governing party is lacking. That is degrading for our democracy, and unacceptable for the people we are here to serve. Our country faces serious crises. We are living through a cost of living crisis, an energy crisis, a climate crisis and, now, an economic crisis that is entirely of the Government’s making—no matter what they say. Households are already paying the price for that.

The situation is untenable. The Prime Minister’s authority has disappeared. This country cannot function to its greatest potential without a functioning Government. Whatever the governing agenda might be, none of it reflects what was promised in the summer. We will have to wait and see whether it can be delivered through Parliament. The fact that we are even wondering shows how unsustainable the situation has become. A lack of confidence will already be impacting people’s investment decisions and our ability to grow. The only anti-growth coalition at the moment is a Government who are unwilling to ask the public for a mandate to deliver a programme that they believe in.

The time has come. Government Members need to recognise that we are here to serve the public. The public can decide; they can vote to put this Government back in power, or they can choose something different, but that should be a choice for the people in this country, and not for us in this room.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 619781, relating to an early general election.

Tributes to Her Late Majesty The Queen

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

My thoughts, prayers and condolences, and those of communities across Newcastle North, are with His Majesty the King, the royal family and the country as we mourn, remember and celebrate the incredible life of Her late Majesty.

On learning the news of her passing yesterday, as I am sure was the case for many, I shed a tear. I was asked by one of my children what the Queen meant to me, and it was only when I thought about how I would answer that question that I realised the profound impact her ever-presence had had: a strong, steadfast matriarch, unwavering in her calm, measured, dignified approach, no matter the challenges thrown at her or at our nation—and there have been many.

So often she captured the mood of her country, shared our joys and provided comfort. Her intervention during the pandemic, a time of such anxiety and unease, was pitch-perfect and soothed the nation. The tributes have been global—as was her reach—and, at the same time, so deeply personal; a unique, unrivalled and personal connection to millions of people across the globe. As I am sure is the case for many Members across the House, on every school visit I make, I am asked whether I know the Queen. Although Newcastle can seem a long way from Buckingham Palace, Her late Majesty is felt very closely.

We in Newcastle have been privileged to have had many visits from Her late Majesty over the years. Images of her visits show the sheer joy that she brought every time she came, whether to open Newcastle’s Eldon Square, to visit the Millennium bridge, or to visit the city library. Indeed, I was only recently in Eldon Square buying new school shoes for my children, and we stopped and remarked upon the prominent plaque marking her visit to open it in 1977. Her legacy will live on for many years to come.

Her late Majesty had a particular connection with our Metro service. She opened the Tyne and Wear Metro in 1981, naming the Queen Elizabeth II metro bridge over the Tyne and travelling on the 4020 metrocar. The original 1981 metrocar received a makeover for this year’s platinum jubilee and for the golden jubilee, when she got to travel in a golden metrocar.

Her late Majesty’s love and knowledge of horses is, of course, legendary. We were honoured to have her visit Newcastle Gosforth Park racecourse in my constituency for the famous Northumberland Plate race day. The photos from that day show her beaming from ear to ear in the way that only racing can bring about.

There is such a rich life of duty, service and deep faith to reflect on; there is so much to learn from her life and her example; and there is so much to do to ensure that her legacy endures. May perpetual light shine upon her. May she rest in peace. God save the King.

Standards in Public Life

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I think we have said that arrangements will be put in place. [Hon. Members: “When?”] In due course.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Quite frankly, this stinks. The Minister does us all a disservice today, because standards in public life do matter, despite what anyone on the Government Benches might say. People need to be sure that the people who make decisions and work in organisations that work on their behalf can be trusted, and we no longer have an independent ethics adviser since he resigned. Does the Minister not believe that it is urgent that a new ethics adviser is found and put in place, because otherwise how can anyone trust this Government to uphold standards and investigate breaches effectively?

[Michael Ellis]

I have already said that the matter is being given the closest attention by the Prime Minister and by Downing Street. We do focus on standards in public life, as we do, as I have adumbrated before, in the list of matters that are available to those who seek to make complaints and wish to make complaints. In the interim period, people can make complaints to their permanent secretary, or the permanent secretary of the relevant Department, and that appears to be what happened in this case in 2019.

COP26

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We will hold all coal producers, importers and mining countries around the world to their commitments to reduce our global dependence on coal. They have made them in black and white in the Glasgow climate pact and we will hold them to account.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I am sorry to cast a shadow on the mutual backslapping here today, but there has been widespread concern that the Prime Minister simply lacked the leadership we needed to see, given that he had the presidency of COP26 and the G7 chair. Does he not recognise that we are a country that now routinely threatens to renege on its international commitments and that has cut international aid—what it is putting back does not make up for the cut and we are one of the only G7 countries to do that? Does he not recognise that he simply lacks the credibility and trust that we currently need to lead on this issue and that he needs to sort that out?

[The Prime Minister]

The Opposition have had a very tough job this afternoon, because they have tried time and again to congratulate the UK Government on achieving a success at COP26, while simultaneously attacking the UK Government for whatever failings they see——I think they should stick with their initial script.

Covid-19 Update

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thoroughly congratulate the people of Ynys Môn on what they are doing and on keeping infection rates down. I hope that they will continue to work with the rest of the country to follow the guidance and save lives.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Thousands of women are carrying the anxiety not only of bringing new life into this world in the middle of a pandemic, but of potentially having to go into labour alone. Despite changes to the Government’s guidelines, too few hospitals are allowing women to take a birth partner into hospital with them. As somebody who experienced very painful and long labours, I cannot bear the idea of a woman facing that alone. In order that we do not look back in shame on how we treated pregnant women and new mothers during this period, will the Prime Minister do what he can to make sure that hospitals do their bit to ensure that women do not face labour alone?

[The Prime Minister]

I wholly share the hon. Lady’s feelings about the vital importance of allowing women to have a birth partner with them during labour. As she rightly says, we have changed the guidelines to make that possible, but if she has particular cases in mind where this is not happening, I would be grateful if she would write to me with the details.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I would be very happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss that. The Conflict, Stability and Security Fund exists to do just that and we need to think about how we maximise the use of all our UK efforts to help the most vulnerable, so I look forward to debating with him.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Going into this pandemic, many of the world’s poorest countries were spending more on debt payments than their own healthcare. The current suspension of payments is welcome, but will the Government go further and support the cross-party multi-faith call, co-ordinated by the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, to cancel those debts and enable those poorest countries to focus on tackling the virus and climate change?