Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East
Clive Betts Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman on antisemitism, and on our love for—and on standing with—the Jewish people, both across the globe and here in the United Kingdom. Many of them want nothing more than peace and security for themselves and their families, and we will continue to work with them. I agree with his remarks and the sentiment behind them.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I very much agree with my right hon. and learned Friend’s comments about the need for all sides to work towards a two-state solution. Does he therefore understand the wider concern at the Israeli Prime Minister saying repeatedly in recent weeks that he does not support a two-state solution, either now or in the future? Does my right hon. and learned Friend understand the frustration and anger that that creates among many Palestinians, particularly young ones, and that it breeds a climate in which hostility and violence are likely to increase rather than decrease? What can he do to change the Israeli Prime Minister’s mind?
Debate on the Address
Clive Betts Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
After nine years on the Opposition Benches, it is a disorientating experience to find myself on the Government Benches, and things just got a little more topsy-turvy when I found I was speaking after the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I do not think that has ever happened before, but it gives me an opportunity to thank him for his friendship and to let new Members know that in this House they will find friends in perhaps the most unlikely places. I thank my hon. Friend for his friendship and support, and I know in that I speak for many on the Government side.
This is my first opportunity to give a substantive speech as the new Member for Lancaster and Wyre, as my constituency underwent some significant boundary changes at this election. I will break with convention slightly by paying tribute to the MP I have replaced, in the sense that most of my constituency was represented in the previous Parliament by Ben Wallace. He had served as an MP in Lancashire since the 2005 general election, first for Lancaster and Wyre and latterly for Wyre and Preston North. Ben was the MP elected in the first general election I voted in, in Lancaster and Wyre. I confess that I did not vote for the winning candidate, but his assiduous service should be noted, especially his service to the country in his role as Secretary of State for Defence.
This is also an opportunity to acknowledge the change to our electoral map at the general election. The country voted very clearly for change. I am excited to see much of the content in the King’s Speech, particularly when it comes to getting Britain building through planning reform. I was pleased to hear talk about both infrastructure and housing; it is clear to me that when we build housing it has to go with infrastructure. I hear loud and clear from my constituents along the A6 corridor, particularly around the Garstang area, that building new houses without infrastructure puts more pressure on our public services, GP surgeries and school places.
I was also pleased to see in the King’s Speech that local leaders will be allowed to take control of local bus services. This week, Stagecoach, which runs the bus services in my community, has increased the price of the under-19s DayRider, which has been met with quite a lot of response, shall we say, from my constituents—not only those attending schools and colleges, but their parents, who are often the ones picking up the tab for what is a very expensive and often unreliable service.
As a north-west MP, I am served on the west coast main line by a train company called Avanti, so believe me, Mr Deputy Speaker, bringing rail back into public ownership is something my constituents welcomed. I heard loud and clear on the campaign trail that Avanti is not a fit company to be running a so-called train service down the west coast of our country, right the way from Glasgow into London Euston. It let passengers down on a regular basis and I think it knows its time is up.
Some of my youngest constituents are running campaigns at the moment on sewage dumping. We know that Ofwat needs to have more teeth and more powers to regulate the water companies. I know that some of my youngest constituents will be very pleased to see that part of the King’s Speech.
I turn now to the point about strengthening the integrity of elections to encourage wider participation in the democratic process. In the last Parliament I had the privilege of being the spokesperson for the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, so you will forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, if this turns into something of a hobby-horse of mine. I am deeply concerned about the state of our democracy and look forward to playing a full role from the Back Benches, supporting the Government in improving the integrity of our electoral process.
We cannot lose sight of the fact that 52% turnout nationally at a general election should concern every one of us. In Lancaster and Wyre it was 58%, but I take no comfort from the fact that we are marginally higher than the national average. That is what keeps me up at night. We need to engage people in our democracy, because the alternatives are unthinkable. I support the idea of automatic voter registration.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend is aware, the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee published a report in the last Parliament proposing exactly that. We went to look at the system in Canada, which gets near to 97% or 98% registration accuracy. Some 8 million people could not vote in our election because they were not on the electoral register. We need to address that.
Cat Smith
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work of his Committee in the last Parliament, and I urge the Government Front Benchers to heed that report. Millions of people are missing from our electoral roll. If Members are concerned about the 52% turnout at the general election, they will be even more concerned to note that that figure is probably much lower because our electoral roll lacks accuracy.
However, that is not all. We need to look again at the ID requirements. During the general election, we all came across people who thought that they could not vote because they did not have ID and were not aware of the voter authority certificate. A conversation that I had in Skerton in my constituency stands out to me. A gentleman who had voted in every general election since the 1970s said: “I don’t have ID, so I can’t vote now.” He had been totally unaware that the voter authority certificate was an option, and it was far too late to apply for one a few days from polling day. That was replicated up and down the country. If we are concerned about and want to increase turnout at elections, we need to fix that. Personally, I think that that means scrapping the entire scheme, which was always a solution to a problem that did not exist, but adding more forms of ID, or including polling cards, would make it so much easier for people to take part in our democracy.
I have heard a lot from constituents who have looked at the results of the general election and raised questions about proportional representation. In the last Parliament, the Government changed the voting system for electing police and crime commissioners from the alternative vote to first past the post, and they did so in a statutory instrument Committee. I do not think that is an appropriate way to go about changing our voting systems. The public should be involved in that conversation. The general election results have led to a lot of conversations in Lancashire with people who feel that the first-past-the-post system is regressive and that we can find more progressive ways of improving our voting systems.
The Electoral Commission’s strategy and policy statement makes the electorate question the commission’s independence. If we want to build trust and faith in our democracy, the public need to believe that the commission is independent and empowered to hold political parties and candidates to account for our conduct in these things, and that it can take on new challenges, including the intimidation of candidates, which has already been mentioned. I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), who is no longer in her place.
Finally, if I may, I will squeeze in an ask of the Government on sodium valproate. There are many victims of that scandal, and they are waiting for a compensation scheme. That should have happened under the last Government, but the chaos that we have had for the past 14 years meant that it did not. I hope that those who have campaigned long and hard over many years for justice following that scandal will get it under the Labour Government.
I recognise that the Government have hit the ground running. The King’s Speech is full of legislation that I look forward to supporting to bring about the change that the country voted for.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
First, I thank my constituents in Sheffield South East for re-electing me for the ninth time. I sort of remember making my maiden speech many years ago along with the challenges that posed and the nervousness, so I pay great credit to all colleagues on both sides of the House who have done that today so ably and so well.
I was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), who spoke earlier, that there are now six Labour MPs in Sheffield. I am also reminded that, of those six Labour MPs, I am the last man standing. That is the change of balance in the House, with five women MPs for the city, and that is absolutely great. We will always continue to work together as colleagues on behalf of our city. There have been comments about the famous Sheffield tea room meetings where we come together once a month—that is quite famous.
I want to draw particular attention to issues that were raised when I was Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in the last Parliament. There are so many issues in the King’s Speech that I would like to mention, but the first is the commitment to build 1.5 million new homes. Housing has been a passion of mine ever since I was chair of the housing committee in Sheffield back in the 1980s. Clearly, we have major problems—all MPs can refer to people without homes in their constituency, or who are living with in-laws, in shared accommodation, or inadequate homes with families living in upper-floor flats.
We need to get Britain building again—it is good for the homes that people need and it is good for growth. It is an important part of our growth agenda. It is good that we will make local authorities set targets to be achieved in their local plans—not advisory ones as the previous Government did under the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023—and it is absolutely right that targets have to be met. However, if we are to build 1.5 million homes, we must recognise that the private sector and private developers will not build them. We will not hit that target without a substantial contribution from councils and housing associations—that is right in terms of the numbers. It is right also to address the housing needs of those who cannot afford to buy, and who need a decent home to rent.
My passion is to get Britain building, but building social housing as well. In trying to achieve that, it is important to draw attention to a particular development in my constituency. It right that we build on brownfield sites as far as we can. The idea that the planning changes that the Government are proposing will somehow mean that central diktat determines where houses are built is not the case. Local plans will still determine where houses are built at local level. The Sheffield local plan gives priority to building around the city centre and in the old industrial areas in my constituency.
The first development, called Attercliffe Waterside, will see up to 1,000 new homes built by a private developer Citu. The first 350 have just been given planning permission—credit to Sheffield city council, the mayor of the combined authority Oliver Coppard, and Homes England. First, the development will not create section 106 funding to help with affordable housing. The mayor will have to put in £4 million to build on a brownfield old industrial site. These sites are more expensive to build on—we must understand that. It is right that we build on them as a priority, but they are more expensive. We need that contribution from the mayor, and he has put it in. Secondly, there will be no social housing on this site, as a purely commercial venture. Homes England has been extremely good; it will provide some subsidy so that a significant number of those homes will be social housing, which a housing association will manage. That is great, but it will cost money.
I hope the Government will listen and work in partnership with the 20 local authorities that have just written to them to ask for a joint agreement on how we build social housing in this country. They are saying, “Look, we are going to have challenges not just about building the homes but about net zero, building safety and decent homes standards. We need the Government’s commitment that the funds will be available to deliver on those homes.” Otherwise, as a Select Committee report said a few months ago, all the money that should be going to build new homes will go on those other priorities, because the first duty of landlords in the social housing sector is to look after their existing homes and tenants. It is important that the Government listen to that and have a long-term clear view of what rent policy will be, because that is where most of the income will come from to fund social house building. It is right that the Government revisit the unfair decision about debt in social housing that was put on councils in the 2010 settlement by the coalition Government, because that burden stops councils from going ahead and doing what many of them want to do. There are issues that I hope the Government respond positively to.
I must mention local authorities. Given my passion for local government and devolution, I welcome what the Prime Minister said about devolution—not just to mayors but to local councils. I welcome his recognition of the current challenges of financing local councils. There have been eight councils with section 114 decisions in the last year. Of those, 19 were given permission to borrow capital in order to fund revenue. That is not sustainable in the long term. Yes, there is a recognition there, but can we really carry on with local government finance based on a council tax system that looks at 1991 valuations and, according to the last Secretary of State Michael Gove, is regressive? I am not sure that a Labour Government can sustain that. I hope for proper discussions with local councils about a new system going forward.
Finally, on my own constituency and going for growth, I want to see early decisions about small modular reactors. We can build those in Sheffield: Sheffield Forgemasters is in my constituency. Hydrogen should be supported—that is in the proposed legislation—and ITM Power, a major hydrogen company, is in my constituency. I welcome the work being done with Boeing by the University of Sheffield on sustainable aviation fuels. Boeing is now developing research into light-bodied frames for aircraft. Again, that is a contribution to jobs, helping to equalise wages and living standards in my constituency, and to net zero. I hope to see those measures come forward as a matter of urgency.
Oral Answers to Questions
Clive Betts Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is an excellent campaigner on behalf of her local farming community, and I know she has been working hard with Gareth Wyn Jones to raise its voice, especially where there is so much concern. Conservative Members are supporting farmers with more money to grow more British food, in contrast with the plans she highlighted, which would decimate farming communities in Wales and are the opposite of what is needed. While we will always back our rural communities across the UK, Labour would take them back to square one.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The independent regulator will put fans back at the heart of football and help to deliver a sustainable future for all clubs. That delivers on our manifesto commitment. The Government are engaged in discussions with industry, and that was part of our King’s Speech, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I am glad he brought up Bury football club, because it was my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) who ensured £1 million of funding to safeguard that football club, and that is what we are doing to communities up and down the country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Clive Betts Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister (Dominic Raab)
I have been asked to respond on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is attending the G20 leaders’ summit in Bali.
After the missile strike in Poland yesterday, we reaffirm our solidarity with Poland, we express our condolences to the victims and we are working with our allies to determine precisely what happened. The Foreign Secretary will be making a statement shortly.
Mr Betts
I begin by associating myself with the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments. I am sure the whole House will want to reaffirm our complete support for Ukraine and for Poland in the face of Russian aggression.
When he got the job, on his first day, the Prime Minister promised “integrity, professionalism and accountability”. I assume that the Deputy Prime Minister agrees with that promise and would expect all Ministers to follow such principles. Therefore, does he also agree that the Prime Minister should ensure, in line with his promise, that no Minister who has a complaint of bullying upheld against them should continue to serve in his Government?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his shared solidarity on the issue in Poland. He is right to quote what the Prime Minister said, and I take it as an article of personal faith that we behave with absolute integrity and accountability. I am confident that I have behaved professionally throughout, but immediately on hearing that two complaints had been made—I believe they were made yesterday; I was notified this morning—I asked the Prime Minister to set up an independent investigation, and of course I will comply with it fully.
Doncaster Sheffield Airport
Clive Betts Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Fletcher
Maybe we need to sit down with the Mayor of Teesside and see how he worked it out, because I have been told that he has exactly the same powers as Mayor Oliver Coppard and that Mayor Oliver Coppard has twice as much money as he does, yet he has bought an airport and he is moving forward with it.
Regarding the fact that DSA said it did not want the loan in April, this is why I want a public inquiry. I have been very careful about what I am saying, although I know I can say what I choose in this House, because I am telling the hon. Member what I have been led to believe. I want a public inquiry so that the people of Doncaster and South Yorkshire can get to the bottom of this question. If what I am saying is true, it is a disgrace.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman was just asked a direct question. It does not need a public inquiry to work out what the factual position is. Will he say very clearly what powers he thinks the Mayor has to go in and intervene with Peel, which clearly does not want to engage and does not want to sell?
Nick Fletcher
Exactly the same again: Peel did not want to sell to Ben Houchen, but it did sell to Ben Houchen. It is no good sitting there and saying it did not—it did. Oliver Coppard has twice the money and exactly the same powers, and his job is economic growth for the area. Ben Houchen bought an airport off Peel that Peel never necessarily wanted to sell.
I will make some progress. The next question is where we are now. The combined authority failed to set up a mayoral development corporation and Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council failed to start a compulsory purchase order. They both say they cannot, but it is the threat that counts in a business deal. That is why I have championed the Civil Contingencies Act; it may not be viable, but it is the threat that counts.
I have tried to work collegially on this and, to be fair, in week 10, on the Friday before the announcement was to be made, the combined authority came up with a deal to cover Peel’s losses for 13 months. Although that is not a Ben Houchen deal, at least it was something. Peel would not lose any money, it would get the local council, the combined authority and the Government on-side, and it would get me off its back. If, 13 months from now, no buyer had been found and the airport was still making a loss, at least Peel would have tried; local jobs would have been saved during a cost of living crisis, the airport would have supported the local economy through this period and businesses on site would have had time to get their contingency plans in good shape. But no—Peel still says no.
There is something Peel is not telling me, and again, a public inquiry is needed. Why would Peel want to annoy local and central Government, its customers, its staff, the local people and me, when it could have its losses covered, and still say no? There is something Peel is not telling me, so a public inquiry is needed.
In the last week of the initial six-week consultation, the combined authority’s big idea was to put the airport on the market. These are the people in charge of economic growth for South Yorkshire. Five weeks after I, a Back-Bench MP, had written to Virgin Atlantic, British Airways, Ryanair and numerous other airlines, our devolved authority in charge of economic growth went to the market.
I really cannot get my breath, but it is day 45 of this saga, and the combined authority is only just going to the market with our airport. I have tried to be collegial throughout my time dealing with this matter, to show a united front against Peel, but it has been harder than anyone can imagine—not being allowed to join meetings and, when I am, having to sit and listen every to reason why things cannot be done rather than reasons why they can.
Finally, we have three consortia around the table with Peel. Those talks went on through last week, but as yet I have heard no more. There is little time; people are about to lose their jobs. I have to ask whether we would have stood a better chance if the combined authority had gone to the market in week one instead of week five. I am sure we would.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for securing this important debate and for his tireless work over the past 105 days to save our airport. And it really is our airport across South Yorkshire, with Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham, Sheffield—we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), near Huddersfield and West Yorkshire, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) is here to show support and how important the airport is for Nottinghamshire. The airport is a community asset and something close to our hearts. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley mentioned Concorde and the Vulcan, and it is an iconic and important part of our history and culture.
This is also about jobs, and the economic and social value that the airport brings to our region. There will be many things we disagree on—there already are—but we all agree on one thing: we want to save the airport and try to make it work. No one wants to play the blame game and we all, including Labour Members, want to pull levers to put on Peel the pressure that my hon. Friend for Don Valley was talking about. Let us be honest: Peel is ultimately at fault, as we have seen in Sheffield, Manchester and the Tees Valley, where it wants to close airports and build housing or industrial estates in order to get the rent. Let us be honest about what it is trying to do, and say that we as elected Members want to try to stop it doing that.
In some places Peel has been successful, as we have seen in Sheffield, but in other places it has not been. That is crucial, it is not a partisan point, and we should look at a case study. I was a geographer at school, and we would write case studies and give an example of something. We have the case study of Teesside and the Mayor of Tees Valley, when Peel was in a pretty similar situation—obviously we have more money in South Yorkshire than they do there—and Peel wanted to sell the land for its airport and build houses and an industrial park.
I looked intensely at why Ben Houchen has been so successful. I do not believe it is just because he said, “I want to save an airport,” which he clearly did and has done. That was not his game. His game was, “I want to make the Tees Valley a better place, with better jobs, a better community and better society, and the airport is part of that.” We do not have the same approach. We talk too much about the airport in isolation—of course an airport is important—but we should be talking about how the airport in South Yorkshire is integral to the prosperity of South Yorkshire, and how it fits in with wider plans, whether those are freeports, industrial zones, or bus franchising—Members will know I am a big advocate of that. How does the airport fit in with the wider communication plan? We cannot see the airport in isolation, because ultimately that might fail. We need to see how it combines the whole of our region together.
Mr Betts
I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is asking for. He must accept that the airport in Teesside is costing an awful lot of public money. Presumably he is happy for the Mayor of South Yorkshire, if Peel agreed, to put in just as much money, perhaps £20 million out of the £30 million a year. He then argues for franchising. Does he accept that choices have to be made? The Government have not given the Mayor an unlimited budget. Presumably he wants everything to be spent out of that £30 million, when that clearly is not possible. Is he saying we should give Peel an open cheque and it can have what it wants? That is what he seems to be saying.
Alexander Stafford
The hon. Gentleman has brought my speech on a bit, because what I am asking for is vision. I am asking the South Yorkshire Mayor for a vision of South Yorkshire. I want to know where South Yorkshire will be in five, 10 or 20 years’ time, and what my children will experience when they grow up in South Yorkshire. I do not want them to have bus franchising here or an airport there. I want to hear,
“South Yorkshire is going to be a better place, and this is how we’re getting there.”
We are talking about money and bus franchising, but ultimately we need that to feed into a wider vision. The whole point of the South Yorkshire Mayor, or any Mayor—I still have great reservations about the mayoralty, because I do not see that vision coming.
We speak about being unpartisan, and I will pay credit to what happened in Manchester, as well as in Tees Valley and the west midlands, where the Mayors have visions of what they want their regions to look like. I do not know what vision our Mayor has for our region. He probably wants to save the airport, and we have talked about bus franchising, but that is not a vision. In order for the airport to work, it needs to be part of a wider vision of prosperity. It is about how Sheffield is linked to Doncaster, and from Barnsley down to Rotherham, and how each part of it fits that vision. When the Mayor has set out the vision—I hope that it will be a good vision—he should use the levers of power available to him to make it a reality. He should say to the people of South Yorkshire, “I have my vision and this is where the airport fits into it. These are the levers—the powers and the £900 million given to me by the Government—that I will use to make that vision happen.” He may or may not say, “We need to save the airport,” but I want to see how that fits into the vision and how it all goes together.
We have already heard about the Civil Contingencies Act, the £20 million loan and lots of things. That is too piecemeal. The failure here is not necessarily the failure of the airport. The failure is of vision and of the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority. The success in the Tees Valley is because its Mayor has a vision, knows what he wants to do and is combining those. We do not have that in South Yorkshire. That is the ultimate failure.
Dan Jarvis
I recommend that the hon. Gentleman spends a bit of time with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) to get a sense of the realities of local government finance. The reality is that the revenue that the Mayor has at any one time to expend is very limited. The hon. Member for Don Valley mentioned the £30 million of gainshare; there is a very strict split between capital and revenue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East made the point that there are a range of other financial commitments that the mayoral combined authority has to service. There are other infrastructural investments that have to be made. The job of the Mayor is to look at things in the round and work out what money is available and where it can best be deployed.
The hon. Member for Don Valley did not mention the sum of £20 million, which is a very significant commitment from the mayoral authority. As I have said to him previously, in April 2022, when we had gone into purdah and I was going to be Mayor for a couple more weeks, the Peel Group indicated that it did not wish to continue developing the loan proposal at that time. That was an offer in good faith that had been worked up between senior officers in the mayoral combined authority and senior officials in the Peel Group, but they took the decision that they did not want to continue those conversations. That is the reality of it.
Mr Betts
Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that parts of South Yorkshire sometimes think that the way forward is to have a row with other parts of South Yorkshire rather than working collectively, as the Manchester authorities appear able to? This is not about Doncaster’s airport versus Sheffield’s trams. Sheffield is a major city. Major European cities have light rail systems; Sheffield needs and wants a light rail system. It should not be about having one or the other or fighting over the scraps; it should be about arguing collectively for extra money for the infrastructure that we need in each of our areas. That is why Sheffield MPs are here tonight to support Doncaster Sheffield airport—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am getting confused about who is intervening on whom. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) has the Floor. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) has intervened on him. Have I just let the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) intervene on the hon. Gentleman intervening? Aargh!
Mr Betts
I am sorry if I confused you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I hope that I did not confuse anybody else at the same time. I was intervening on my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) to ask whether he agrees that it is unfortunately all too common among some people in South Yorkshire to start a blame game between the constituent parts of the authority, rather than working collectively as Sheffield Members are here to do tonight.
Dan Jarvis
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s important point. The truth of the matter is that every Member of Parliament in South Yorkshire wants Doncaster Sheffield airport to stay open. We all want that, which is why we are collectively frustrated that we have not had the opportunity to get around the table with a Minister and voice our concerns in that kind of forum. It is a good thing that we are having this debate tonight, but let us be honest: it is only a quirk of fate that we have been able to have this elongated discussion. It is only because today’s business ended sooner than normal that hon. Members have the opportunity to put their concerns on the record.
Doncaster Sheffield Airport
Clive Betts Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katherine Fletcher
My hon. Friend is a lady of foresight and vision. I could not agree with her more.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Many of my constituents really value Doncaster Sheffield airport and want to keep it open. I hope that, putting aside party politics, the Minister will congratulate Oliver Coppard, the Mayor of South Yorkshire, on the efforts he has made on a constructive, cross-party basis to engage with Peel and other potential investors to try to keep the airport open.
The Minister referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) as being partisan. Does she not accept that it looks partisan indeed when Ministers are prepared to meet Government Members but not Opposition Members? Will she correct that and have a joint meeting?
Health and Social Care Update
Clive Betts Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
My right hon. Friend is right to consider the issue on a broader scale, but of course, we will be focusing on that with the local NHS. There are certainly some parts of the country where there is not the same provision and discharges are not happening to capacity, while in other parts of the country there are extraordinary amounts. That is what we need to focus on locally.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Yesterday, the County Councils Network produced a statement saying that there is a crisis in social care, which echoed the findings of the Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The Secretary of State’s announcement of £500 million is welcome, but all it does is replace the funding stream that was cut in April, and will do exactly the same job. When is she going to recognise the enormous financial gap that councils are facing and the poverty pay that is not attracting care workers into the sector, and actually come forward with a real policy? If she wants the money, why not cancel the cut in corporation tax and use that funding to create real benefits for people in social care?
Tributes to Her Late Majesty The Queen
Clive Betts Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
On behalf of my constituents and the citizens of Sheffield, I pay tribute to the Queen and associate myself with the wonderful comments made from both sides of the House this afternoon.
I met the late Queen on a number of occasions as a Member of Parliament, but I want to refer to the first time I met her back in May 1991, when I was leader of Sheffield Council and she came to open the Sheffield Arena. We built a raised walkway into the middle of the arena for the opening, and I had to walk alongside her down to the microphones. Before we did the walk, royal officials came to me and said “Councillor Betts, there is a rather steep drop on one side of the walkway. Make sure you are on that side of the Queen when you walk along.”
Before we began the official opening, the Queen talked to me and others with knowledge and understanding of what was going on in the city, of the loss of jobs in steel and engineering, and of the effect on people’s lives and employment. She showed empathy for what was happening in our city. When we walked out to do the opening, there was a trumpet voluntary—we do things properly in Sheffield. The Queen stopped after a little bit and said, “Do you think they have seen us come in?” I said, “Your Majesty, they don’t normally do trumpet voluntaries for the leader of the council.” Then she said, “Do you know what we do next?” I said, “I rather hoped that you’d done this sort of thing before.” But she had a laugh; she enjoyed the opening. She put me at ease and I relaxed.
My simple memories of the Queen, from that and future occasions, were of someone with a real understanding of, and interest in, the issues of concern to her subjects and my constituents. She had a personal warmth and a lovely sense of humour, and she put me at ease through her approach at a time when I was frankly extremely nervous, though she took what was happening in her stride. On behalf of my constituents, I simply say thank you to an incredible sovereign for an incredible life of service. God save the King.
Ukraine
Clive Betts Excerpts(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is right. Since those demonstrations, 14,000 Ukrainians have died fighting for their freedom. He knows that country well, and he knows that it will continue to defend itself and fight for liberty.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The simple truth is that whatever else Putin does in the next few days he has already invaded another sovereign country. The Prime Minister has spoken about this being a first round of sanctions with potentially more to follow. Can we be absolutely clear that that further round of sanctions is not dependent on Putin going into western Ukraine and attacking there, that it is simply a matter of trying to co-ordinate with our allies on this and that we can expect that further round of sanctions in the next few days?
The Prime Minister
Just to be absolutely clear, I know that the House wants us to hit Putin with absolutely everything that we have today, but what we want to do is prioritise unity among the alliance and among our friends and work in lockstep with them. There will be more to come.
Covid-19 Update
Clive Betts Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very powerful and important point: we should not bully or demonise those who, for medical reasons or for whatever reason, simply cannot get vaccinated. Of course that is right, but it is also very important that people understand the benefits to them and their families of getting boosted in particular. The benefits are overwhelming—they are there for everybody to see—and I am afraid that that tragic statistic about the people in ICU is also plain for all to see.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Government were right to encourage people to get tested over the holiday period. Like many of my constituents and thousands of people across the country, I went around several pharmacies, and all I saw were notices in the window saying, “No lateral flow tests available.” That is the reality of the situation, so I ask the Prime Minister two simple questions: first, what steps did he take before the holiday period to get an assurance for himself that tests were going to be freely available? Secondly, when did he become aware that millions of tests were locked away in a warehouse and would not be available until after the holiday period?
The Prime Minister
We took every possible step to step up our supply of tests. We tripled the supplies, and deliveries went up to 900,000 a day. To listen to Labour Members, Mr Speaker, you would not believe that this was the country that was conducting more tests per head than any other in Europe. They are simply refusing to give credit where it is due. I appreciate that huge numbers of people want to be tested, but we are doing our level best to meet demand.