Points of Order

Dehenna Davison Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Over the weekend, I saw on social media that a number of Labour Members had the good judgment to visit the beautiful Bishop Auckland constituency, and while I am grateful to the one Member who gave me notice of their visit, that was in stark contrast to the four Members—the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and the hon. Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for Blaydon (Liz Twist), and for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell)—who did not have the good judgment to follow your advice, Mr Speaker, and notify me as the sitting MP. I have let them know of my intention to raise this issue in the Chamber today. Could you advise the House once again on how we can ensure that Members give notice of a visit to another Member’s constituency?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of this point of order and informing the Members concerned. The courtesies apply to any visits made in an official capacity. I know that election fever has taken over, but I remind the House once again that, as I said on 29 November and 22 January, when a Member intends to visit another constituency other than in a private capacity, they should make every reasonable effort to inform the Member representing that constituency. Boundary changes do not take effect until the next election, and in the meanwhile we must observe the convention of not involving ourselves with other Members’ constituencies. I have had complaints from Members on both sides of the House. Please do the right thing and stick to the conventions that we expect each other to follow.

Business of the House

Dehenna Davison Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is always nice when he can be here, rather than sending one of his many very able deputies in his place. I reiterate what I said to the shadow Leader of the House: the whole House is united against racism, not just in football, but in the country at large. Racism is a scar upon society and, although it has much declined in recent years, the fact that it still exists remains a scar. That is why the powers that will be in the Online Safety Bill are important. In the most serious cases, Ofcom will have the authority to limit or prevent a company from operating in the United Kingdom. It has always seemed to me obvious that the online and social media companies, which can see what people have searched for and said, and ping them an advert directly linked to that, have the technological sophistication to work out when people are putting racist abuse online. It is important that they follow their responsibilities.

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about opening up. He raises the level of infections, but that is not the point; it is hospitalisation and death rates, and that link, that chain, has been broken. There is now a much lower death rate and much lower entry into hospital. There is still an effect of infections, but there is not the direct link that there was prior to the vaccination programme.

Therefore, to allow freedoms to return is the right thing to do. That is the fundamental philosophical difference between the Conservatives and the parties of the left. All parties of the left are always determined that the collective should tell people how to live their lives, whereas we on the right think that mass decisions made by 60 million individuals across this country lead to better outcomes for the country than ordering people about.

As I said in the debate on EVEL, I was strongly against it in 2011, before it had been introduced. I only supported and voted for it, when it came in in 2015, on the basis that, as it was only a Standing Order, it could be abolished. So I was pleased to be the Leader of the House who did abolish it. I am delighted by the conversion of the hon. Gentleman. I think we are all coming to the conclusion that he does really like being here, and therefore he has shown great commitment to a Union Parliament. That is an enormous public service for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

As we speak, the Prime Minister is delivering a crucial speech on levelling up, which for me has been a key motivator since I became an MP. Wherever people are from, be it Bishop Auckland, Bath or Birkenhead, they should have the same opportunities to get on in life. On that note, I am currently working on a key project to bring geothermal energy to Bishop Auckland, making the town cleaner and greener, but also creating good, sustainable jobs and incredible research opportunities to help our locals. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Business Secretary to meet me in Bishop Auckland, to see the proposed site and talk about that incredible opportunity to truly level up?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am slightly disappointed that my hon. Friend is extending invitations to Bishop Auckland to other Ministers but is not giving me the opportunity to visit her fantastic constituency. I notice that she mentioned Bath in her list, along with Bishop Auckland, which of course also has geothermal energy, with the most famous spa water, which was much enjoyed by the ancient Romans when the city was called Aquae Sulis—the waters of Sulis, who was the god they worshipped.

Geothermal projects can seek capital funding from the Heat Networks Investment Project from 2018 to 2022. In terms of future support, the Government are currently considering geothermal energy as a low-carbon technology to be within scope of our new £270 million Green Heat Network Fund from 2022 to 2025. The eligibility criteria for the fund were the subject of our consultation, which closed on 29 January, and the response will be published in due course.

So there are things going on. It is really important that we level up across the whole country and have a triangulation across the map of the United Kingdom to ensure that every part of the country benefits from the levelling-up process.

Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster

Dehenna Davison Excerpts

Thursday 20th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.

Building works have long been on the minds of those in Westminster—ever since the 8th century, in fact, when St Peter and an accompanying heavenly choir descended from above to suggest to a passing fisherman that a church dedicated to him might be constructed on a site very close to where we stand today. Over the years, the view from that spot of raised ground on a marshy island between the Thames and two branches of the Tyburn has featured more than its fair share of scaffolding—the embankment of the Thames; the small palace of Edward the Confessor transformed into a sprawling complex of buildings; the construction of Westminster Hall; and the building of, first, a monastery and then Westminster Abbey itself, not to mention the creation of the neo-Gothic masterpiece whose preservation we are debating today.

Throughout the centuries, those bustling about Westminster have assented to these works because they recognise the importance of this place at the centre of our national story, and so it continues to this day, as we saw in the recent state opening when Her Majesty set out the Government’s plans to level up from within a building now receiving significant attention once again.

Such has been the zeal with which politicians of recent decades have concentrated on delivering for their constituents, however, that the present Palace of Westminster has been somewhat neglected. The Joint Committee on which I sat concluded in 2016 that the short-term fixes and sticking-plaster solutions that had prevailed in the post-war environment could no longer keep pace with the building’s deterioration. Although it recognised the limitations of the assessments before it at that stage, its recommendations for action were accepted by the House in early 2018.

Some cynics say that nothing has happened since then, but in fact, we have been a veritable hive of activity—not with bees on the roof, but with work to fix the cast-iron tiles that has made considerable progress. The encaustic tile restoration programme has been completed, in the final instance by Mr Speaker himself, who deserves congratulations for the splendour of our encaustic tiles, made in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan). Some of these significant projects upon which the building’s future depend have been able to commence and even reach a degree of completion. The risk of a serious fire has been significantly reduced, with real progress towards proper compartmentation and the installation of over 8 miles of piping for the basement’s sprinkler system.

The Elizabeth Tower’s restoration is now nearing completion, and we all look forward to hearing Big Ben’s bongs resound once again. Indeed, they were bonging earlier today, though in a slightly random fashion; we look forward to them bonging the right time, as if we had dialled the speaking clock. The escalating cost of that project underlined the importance of our establishing the right governance structure for a programme of this magnitude. That has been achieved for restoration and renewal through primary legislation diligently piloted through the House by my illustrious predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom).

The Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority set up as a result have been able to start conducting preliminary work, including the first of 100 detailed surveys of the Palace, to help them more fully understand the scale of the challenge before them. As a result, the programme remains on track to begin its main phase as planned—again, so wisely by my predecessor—in the mid-2020s. However, its ultimate approval is a matter for Parliament, and will proceed only if we can achieve the broadest possible consensus across the House.

That is why today’s debate matters, because it fires the starting gun on what amounts to a critical phase for the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. The coming months are an important period, during which we, the parliamentarians—the custodians of Westminster’s history, but also those responsible for protecting taxpayers’ interests—make our expectations clear, so that when the fully costed proposals are put before us in early 2023, we are able to approve them full-throatedly, safe in the knowledge that we are doing the right thing for our constituents and for our country in preserving both the cockpit of our democracy and the means of its proper functioning.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

Clearly, value for taxpayers’ money is a massive concern for residents right across Bishop Auckland, so will there be a limit on the spending for this restoration project?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend puts her finger on the nub of the issue. The business case will be brought forward in early 2023, and this House will have to approve it. At that stage, we will decide whether the amount being asked for is an amount we feel our constituents can afford.

Earlier this year, the Sponsor Body published its own initial thoughts on how to proceed in its strategic review. That reflected work completed in 2020, before the full extent of the pandemic’s implications for R and R could be appreciated. It recommended that a period of vacation of the Palace remained necessary and that the main temporary facilities for the Commons should continue to be provided on Parliament’s secure northern estate. However, the past 15 months have shown that we are able to function for a time without every facility and, indeed, without a full Chamber. Doing so will always reduce our effectiveness—I am no great fan of remote proceedings, and I am delighted that this Chamber will be back to its bustling norm once restrictions are lifted—but I recognise that during the pandemic we have seen that some of the ancillary services the Joint Committee considered essential to be physically present next to the Chamber have turned out not to be so. It also seems reasonable to consider how technology might be used on a stand-by basis—in case of an emergency recall, for example.

Those are the sorts of things that we must collectively think about so that we can be clear what we are asking for. So many of the assumptions made just a few years ago now seem out of date. To decant or not to decant, that was the question. I have no opposition to a full decantation if it were nobler in the mind to suffer it, other than that it, as with the entire programme, needs to represent the best value for money, not a vehicle for a consummation devoutly to be wished. Given the efforts now under way to explore a maintained presence, it may be that we can take arms against a sea of troubles. Yes, we are likely to bear fardels because of the scale of these works, but the idea of Members being marched out of the Palace of Westminster for an entire Parliament or longer now appears more fanciful than it once did.

I am encouraged by the current explorations into whether a maintained presence is possible in the Palace of Westminster during the works and look forward to the conclusion of the Sponsor Body’s explorations in this regard. That is precisely the sort of issue on which it is quite right that guidance is provided by parliamentarians, who need to ensure that during this period our ability to conduct effective scrutiny is not unduly hindered.

The strategic review contains eight so-called stretch objectives, which set out how the works might go beyond the “do minimum” basics. Do we want to install systems that provide the best levels of comfort? Given the pressing priorities elsewhere on public spending, the answer seems obvious to me, but the Sponsor Body cannot proceed unless we spell it out to it. Do we want to meet the legislative, statutory and planning obligations when it comes to questions of sustainability, or do we want to exceed them? Members will be aware that discussions around environmental priorities have already changed since 2018, given the Government’s commitments towards becoming carbon neutral and the impact this change would have on energy inputs.

On the question of disabled access, I hope that we can all agree on a cost-effective approach which provides disabled Members with accessible workplaces and visitors with access to the key democratic parts of this building. On the question of accessibility, the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) has already made clear her commitment to championing accessibility for people with autism. Her contribution on this point is one I welcome and take seriously. It is a good example of the kind of cross-party working which can help us to shape the plans.

There will, of course, be more detailed conversations on that as we consider whether we need disabled access “to all users to all areas of the building”. These can build on the opinions already heard and the information already received from many Members as part of the Sponsor Body’s strategic review. I know the Sponsor Body also wants to consult around issues like a secondary debating chamber within the Palace, for example, or how best Members would like to use the available space. The next phase of this process, involving more formal consultation, will take place over the summer when Members will be invited and encouraged to share their views directly. If I could put in a plea from the Sponsor Body: please do take the opportunity to express your views to it.

As its work progresses, each period of engagement offers the chance to give ever more detailed views as the specific proposals for restoration and renewal are further developed. For this to be useful, Members must be invited to prioritise what matters most, where money must be spent and where it can be saved. Members will need to know the cost and benefits of each aspect of the schemes, so the choices and pay-offs between paying least and getting best value are understood and grasped by all of us. Ideally, each idea would have a clear price tag attached.

The Sponsor Body will be inviting the wider parliamentary community, including Members’ staff and administration staff, to take part in this consultation period, too. But Madam Deputy Speaker, it is the views of Members as the representatives of taxpayers whose voice I want to amplify today. It is, after all, our constituents and our constituents alone who give us a seat in this place and whose views we represent. When we knock on doors at election time, we need to be able to look them in the eye and explain why the public funds devoted to this project are not being spent on local schools or hospitals or other public services. We want to level up the country, not the Palace of Westminster, so we must be clear that we are concentrating on vital works. We do not want

“To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,

To throw a perfume on the violet,

To smooth the ice, or add another hue

Unto the rainbow, or with taper light

To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish

Is wasteful and ridiculous excess.”

Our more modest requirement is merely that our democracy should be able to function properly during the period of the works and thereafter. The building’s primary purpose should not be as a museum or a tourism hotspot or as another Disneyland. It should not be, to misquote a famous advertisement campaign of the Victoria & Albert Museum, “An ace caff with quite a nice parliament attached”.

The United Kingdom’s Parliament is a place of work and has been for centuries; a collective endeavour where our primary shared goal is legislating. That is how we make a difference to the lives of our constituents. We should have the confidence and the pride in our role as lawmakers to explain this and to shape the programme accordingly. So I look forward to hearing the views expressed in this debate today and I hope Members will come forward as more details emerge throughout the year: Members of all parties, of all regions and nations, Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike; newer Members who may still be around throughout the period of the works; and time-honoured Members who understand the value of a give-and-take proper in-person debate in the Chamber, just as much as they do the usefulness of a quiet word with the Minister in the corridors of this building.

During the rest of this year and beyond we will be doing what those before us have done for centuries in Westminster: using the power of this sovereign institution to improve people’s lives. Yet as we do so, we should probably also spare a moment or two to attend to playing our part in shaping Westminster’s long history as the centre of our national life, of our island story. So when, eventually, St Peter returns with his heavenly choir, he will look from his abbey across to a building that he will be able to report back to a carpenter’s son is one that he can be proud of. In that spirit, I look forward to the remainder of this debate with bated breath, and I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

As ever, I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for his characteristically fabulous history lesson which, as so often, filled me with a warm glow at having the honour of representing my constituents in this place. He was right to highlight the importance of this place at the centre of our national story. The walls that surround us, the very fabric of the Palace of Westminster, are a central tenet of our democracy. The palace may feature on postcards, tea-towels, ceremonial mugs and—I am guessing—the screensavers of many parliamentary staffers across this place, but first and foremost it is a working office.

This is a meeting place for representatives from around our Union, and an open and accessible centre for constituents to lobby us as their Members of Parliament. It is, of course, a thriving melting pot of political plotting, which happens in every corner of the building, not just here in the Chamber. It is vital not to lose sight of the fact that even though the palace is a symbol of London and of our nation, it is home to thousands of members of staff who support our work. Those members of staff deserve to work in a building whose fabric is not crumbling around them, where they can walk around without fear of falling masonry, and where they do not have to greet the office rat alongside their colleagues in the morning.

Naturally, the restoration of a grade I listed building and a UNESCO world heritage site housing a working legislature comes with unique challenges that are not faced by other large-scale restoration projects. We must complete the works quickly in a cost-effective manner and, vitally, with as little disruption to parliamentary business as possible, because what is this place for if not for legislating effectively, and never legislating for the sake of it, but instead doing all within our power to make people’s lives better?

The restoration and renewal process has felt like a black cloud looming over Westminster for too long. Since the appointment of a Joint Committee six years ago, it seems we have had endless back and forth and um-ing and ah-ing about the best route to follow, with no clear decision making and a troubling lack of clarity and transparency. The Sponsor Body’s strategic review—itself due in October, but published in March—was full of redacted costings, including the capital costs of a number of potential decant locations for both this place and the other place. If the Sponsor Body is trusted to make operational decisions for a significant chunk of the restoration and renewal works, it must be open and honest about how much these things are likely to cost.

I cannot stress how important it is that the cost of the work is reduced as much as feasibly possible, with no gold-plating in sight, while ensuring that democracy can still be done and we can continue to change lives for the better. I know that the past year has been an economic whirlwind for my constituents right across Bishop Auckland, and I have heard far too many stories of lost incomes, despite the Government’s unprecedented support schemes. On that note, I have severe reservations about voting in support of giving a blank cheque of up to £6 billion or more against the backdrop of such intense economic hardship, with millions upon millions spent on a management report alone, before a single brick or cable has even been restored. It is completely unacceptable.

In Bishop Auckland, we are waiting patiently for the result of our bid for just £46 million from the towns fund, so just imagine what we could do with £500 million. I do have a shopping list, Mr Deputy Speaker, including restoring the A&E, a Toft Hill bypass and a new school in Shildon, but I will save that for another day for fear of getting into trouble.

After this Chamber was bombed during the blitz and the question turned to how it should be rebuilt, Winston Churchill said:

“We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.”—[Official Report, 28 October 1943; Vol. 393, c. 403.]

I would like to see it restored in all essentials to its old form. Churchill understood that the form and fabric of the Chamber is an essential ingredient of the fiery debates we hold in this place.

For that reason I would like to make clear how important it is that, whatever decant arrangements we agree on, we do not see a permanent return of hybrid proceedings. While virtual proceedings have allowed some hon. Members to spend more time at home with their families and in their constituencies in a difficult year, I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that not being physically in the Chamber is detrimental to the parliamentary experience. I heard the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) make this point even more eloquently than me earlier. Small things, such as the inability to intervene in virtual speeches, have led to a significantly reduced quality of debates.

I know that the proposals included in the Sponsor Body’s strategic review involve the demolition and complete redevelopment of Richmond House as the location for the decant, and these plans involve the construction of a number of, in my view, unnecessary and expensive add-ons. I may have spent only about 18 months here as a Member, but I would be more than happy to forgo access to new cafés, Committee Rooms, replica voting Lobbies and gyms if it meant that I was saving my hard-working constituents their taxes and stopping them being wasted. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) so eloquently outlined, we have heard alternative proposals, such as those from Mark Hines Architects, which has drawn up plans for a temporary Chamber of the same size and layout as the current one, saving over £500 million compared with the current proposals—and I am back to my shopping list.

However, I will admit that I do have some concerns about a full decant. That is not, as the shadow Leader of the House lightly alluded to earlier, because I would miss the place, though I would, but for two reasons: first, as I have already highlighted, because I believe we need the minimal possible disruption to our ability to do our jobs and to serve our constituents, but also because of the optics. In a time when the nation’s finances are stretched by the pandemic, how does it look to our constituents to demolish a 30-year-old building, only to construct a swanky new shiny one at vast expense just to be used temporarily?

My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) cannot be here today, but she asked me to represent her view in this debate, which is that we should seek both to reduce disruption to our democratic institutions and try to save our constituents money. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough highlighted a number of cost-effective possibilities, but my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton spoke to me about the possibility of shifting this Chamber into the House of Lords and moving the peers out to an alternative place, while ensuring that the democratically elected element of this place would continue to function as normal. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) has spoken eloquently about that, too.

As I highlighted earlier, given its UNESCO heritage site recognition, this place is of global significance. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), who also cannot be here today. She believes that the decant works must be carried out as swiftly as possible. In her words, although I would never try to deliver them in her usual vivacious style and nor in her accent from what I consider to be the wrong side of the Pennines: “In the era of global trade deals an extended decant risks our global perception. I am of the view no longer than six months is tenable or we risk the following with our global trading partners, ‘Well, why would I use your company for my projects when you can’t renovate an old building to time?’”

On the point about the companies working on these projects, I agree with the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) that this should be a huge opportunity for businesses right across our country to contribute.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) highlighted earlier, the devastating fire at Notre Dame cathedral in 2019 acted as a tragic reminder that we must get the restoration and renewal works done as quickly as possible. If we waste time dithering and delaying, quibbling over how best to decant the Palace, not only does that risk spiralling costs to the taxpayer, but it increases the risk of a catastrophic incident such as what happened in Notre Dame. That is why, contrary to the view of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), now is the time for this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) stated eloquently that since the restoration project was first actioned, circumstances have changed and the political make-up of this place has changed, and that is why it is right we have this debate today.

In conclusion, I implore the Sponsor Body and corporate officers of both Houses to come together swiftly to find a definitive path for the works. Members’ staff and most importantly the public need certainty over the timescale, costings and style of the works to rest in the knowledge that their democratically elected representatives will be able to do their duty to legislate, to scrutinise the work of Government and to keep the beating heart of democracy that our ancestors planted in this place alive and kicking for many generations to come.

Business of the House

Dehenna Davison Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) [V]]

Last week, I launched the all-party parliamentary group for one-punch assaults, and I put on record my thanks to all colleagues who took part in that initial meeting to get the group constituted. I launched the group following the experience of my family after the death of my father, but I have been really moved over recent days by the number of people who have reached out to me sharing their own experiences, including Maxine Thompson-Curl, Sandra Munday, Kevin Woodburn, Heidi Cox and Yvonne Henchcliffe, who have all lost loved ones to these horrific assaults. Can we make time in the agenda to get a debate in Government time to discuss the impacts of one-punch assaults and how best the criminal justice system can be reformed to ensure that all victims, or the families of victims, feel fully supported by the system?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I commend my hon. Friend for the work that she has done campaigning on this matter, which I know is very close to her heart and is obviously one of great sensitivity that the Government take very seriously. The sort of assaults that she is describing are senseless, evil acts of violence, which the Government are committed to eradicating, and we are taking steps to do so, including by more efficiently applying the criminal justice system, and with more than 6,000 new police officers already recruited from last year, which is a major step to ensuring that the law is enforced. I will of course raise her specific points with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, and the Backbench Business Committee may be a very good port of call for a debate in support of all the people she has got to join her all-party group.

Business of the House

Dehenna Davison Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Once again I welcome the right hon. Gentleman, who is such a staunch Brexiteer and who has seen the errors of the European ways and wishes the United Kingdom Parliament to make its own laws free of orders, requests, directives or regulations from the European Union. He is right, therefore, to campaign on this issue, because that is what this House is for: to make sure that we make our own laws. It does seem to me that the point the right hon. Gentleman makes is entirely reasonable: that the United Kingdom Parliament ought to be able to have its supplies entirely from the United Kingdom if that is what it wishes to do. I am not in favour of protectionism, but this Parliament is a symbol of the nation, and therefore I think he is on a very good wicket in what he says.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) [V]]

Last night, in a very rare occurrence, I took a leaf out of the book of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and asked local residents what they wanted me to ask the Leader of the House about. After some great suggestions, an issue raised multiple times was the Toft Hill bypass, a much needed bypass to the A68 that will help to alleviate traffic issues and greatly improve road safety near Toft Hill Primary School. In Transport questions last week, the Transport Secretary told me that he came armed with information about the Toft Hill bypass, but I threw him a curveball by asking about a different local transport issue. However, knowing now how incredibly keen the Transport Secretary is on the future success of this bypass, will the Leader of the House ask him to meet me and local stakeholders to discuss how best to move the project forward?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I must confess I am surprised that my hon. Friend is modelling herself on the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), as I know something of her political views; I do not think hers and his particularly coincide. However, I congratulate her on holding her local authority to account in the Chamber and representing her constituents so vigorously.

The issue that my hon. Friend raises is one for Durham County Council to consider, as it is responsible for the road in question. As I understand it, no bid from the council has as yet been forthcoming. The Government cannot currently make guarantees, but the new £4 billion levelling-up fund may offer an opportunity to support this project if local leaders make a convincing case. Further details of that fund will be announced in due course. I view it as part of my role as Leader of the House to try to facilitate meetings between Members and Ministers, so I will of course pass on my hon. Friend’s request to the Transport Secretary.

Business of the House

Dehenna Davison Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

First, I do not know why the hon. Lady thinks I do not mind about air pollution, which is a matter of great seriousness. It has to be remembered that it was the last socialist Government who encouraged people to have the diesel cars that have done so much damage to our air quality. She ought to remember that when phrasing her questions. On the animal sentience Bill, it was in the manifesto and there is every intention of bringing it forward. The Government are going to meet their manifesto commitments.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) [V]]

On 15 February last year, Emily Moore from my constituency died while in a local mental health facility. Emily had committed suicide just days after her eighteenth birthday. Her father David has been campaigning hard for better mental health support for young people. In the context of covid, there are widespread concerns about the detrimental impact of the pandemic on mental health. Is it possible to have a debate on this in Government time to see whether we in this House can find solutions to help to ensure that no young person has to follow Emily’s fate?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am incredibly sorry to hear about the death of my hon. Friend’s constituent, Emily. We pray for her soul and for the comfort of her family, and those who are bereaved.

As a society we need to do everything we can to support vulnerable and at-risk people, as well as those in crisis, and give them the help they desperately need. This is particularly true during the pandemic. We recently had Brew Monday with the Samaritans, raised by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), and that is something also to bear in mind. The Government are putting more money into and taking more action on mental health than any previous Government. Mental health funding increased to £13.3 billion in 2019-20.

The Government are clear that the best place for children to be is in school for their learning, development and mental health. That is why we have done all we can to keep schools open through this pandemic. For those children who may be struggling with their mental health, schools have the flexibility to offer a place to vulnerable children, who might include those for whom being in school helps them to manage their mental health. Schools will continue to offer pastoral support to pupils working remotely, supported by £8 million of taxpayers’ money that the Government have provided for wellbeing training and advice, while Public Health England has provided guidance for parents and carers on supporting children’s and young people’s mental health and wellbeing. What Emily’s family are campaigning for is something that I think we all support.

Business of the House

Dehenna Davison Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government are committed to spending £2 billion of taxpayers’ money to improve local bus services and we are committed to buses that have low emissions. I understand that some of those buses are made in Northern Ireland, possibly even in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, so I hope that there will be employment, prosperity and success in his constituency and in Northern Ireland as a whole.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

Yesterday I had the incredible privilege of attending a Zoom call with Schools North East and local headteachers from Whitworth Park Academy in Spennymoor and Thornhill Primary in Shildon. They raised concerns about the cost of covid to education budgets, particularly with regard to supply teacher provision and the cost of additional cleaning equipment. One of the key concerns is that those schools, which have worked incredibly hard to balance their budgets and make this work, cannot access the extraordinary funding that schools that have perhaps not been so prudent with their finances can access. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend if he will raise this with the Education Secretary to ensure that the views of local headteachers right across the north-east are taken into account on this.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I can assure the House that after business questions I always pass on to all Secretaries of State any points that are relevant to their Departments that I feel ought to be raised with them, and I return their answers to Members accordingly. However, it is worth pointing out that we have supported schools throughout the pandemic, and they have been able to claim up to £75,000 for unavoidable costs such as the additional cleaning that my hon. Friend mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced during the recent spending review that school funding would increase by £2.2 billion next year, so the Government are doing everything they can to help schools by providing the necessary taxpayers’ money to help them to get through this difficult period.

Business of the House

Dehenna Davison Excerpts

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have entire sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. This is one of the great concerns about the effects of the pandemic. The Government are doing what they can in terms of financial support by providing £13.3 billion in 2019-20, and at the heart of the NHS long-term plan is the largest expansion of mental health services in a generation. Supporting children is of particular importance, and there is an extra £9.2 million of funding for charities specifically during the crisis. Next week’s general debate will be an opportunity to raise this issue and to receive an answer from the relevant Ministry.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

A few weeks ago in the Chamber, I raised my—and my constituents’—concerns about Sunnydale School in Shildon, which has been closed since December after falling into disrepair. We have now learnt that the cost of the most basic repairs to get the school reopened is about £4.8 million, which is a vast sum. The council is obviously quite worried about this. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we really need to get our kids out of portakabins and into classrooms, especially given the school time lost to covid, and that it is vital that kids have a good education and a good school to ensure that the Government are delivering on their levelling-up agenda?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Durham County Council is responsible for Greenfield College’s buildings, supported by annual capital funding. I understand that pupils are being supported to attend the site at Newton Aycliffe due to maintenance issues at the children’s site. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that portakabins are far from ideal. In 2020-21, Durham was allocated £7 million in school condition allocations to spend on maintaining its schools. I understand that Baroness Berridge, the Minister responsible for school capital funding, has written to my hon. Friend with further details. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to campaign on this issue for the interests of the schoolchildren in her constituency, and I hope that she will continue to do so. Mr Speaker, you look as if you are encouraging her to apply for an Adjournment debate so that this issue may be further discussed.

Business of the House

Dehenna Davison Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that should concern the whole House. A great deal of support is available from organisations across the country for people who are in debt that they cannot afford to repay, and the ability of debt counsellors to help debt to be rescheduled and to help to lift the burden from people is there. I agree that it would be helpful if that were more widely known. All of us, as constituency MPs, sometimes point our constituents in that direction. I understand his point about changing the wording. Letters sent out by debt collectors ought not to be threatening. That is quite clear. I understand his point, and I will pass it on to the Chancellor.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

I was delighted to see the Government launch a taskforce to reopen Hammersmith bridge in London, the closure of which has been a congestion nightmare for hard-working Londoners, but as part of the levelling-up agenda at the heart of the Government, we need to bridge the gap between London and some of our left-behind communities. On that note, will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government will display the same strength up north in reopening the Whorlton bridge in my constituency, the closure of which for more than a year has cut off communities?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I understand that the Whorlton bridge was built in 1831, a year before the Great Reform Act—[Interruption.] No, I wasn’t here at the time. It is a fine example of 19th-century engineering—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) says that I am a fine example of 19th-century engineering. I am not quite sure that is entirely true, but I will take it as a compliment. The bridge is the responsibility of Durham County Council, which ought to listen to my hon. Friend. Bridges connect communities and ought to be repaired.