Offensive Weapons Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th June 2018 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The House will wish to know that Mr Speaker has certified clauses 6 to 8, 11, 12, 26 and 27 as relating exclusively to England and Wales on matters within devolved legislative competence.

Rural Crime and Public Services

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. If everyone takes around seven minutes, everyone who wishes to speak will have an opportunity to do so. If they do not, I will have to impose a time limit. Let us try to be co-operational.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek permission to raise a matter arising from comments made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) during Prime Minister’s Question Time earlier today. I have advised the hon. Gentleman of my intention to raise a point of order this evening.

During Question Time, the hon. Gentleman stated that Scottish National party Members of the European Parliament had

“voted to back the European Parliament in an attempt…to keep the UK inside the common fisheries policy”.

The records of the European Parliament Committee on Fisheries and of the plenary session show that on both occasions the SNP’s representatives voted against the proposal mentioned. I also have a letter from Ian Hudghton MEP confirming that on both occasions the vote of SNP Members was contrary to the way described by the hon. Gentleman today.

I absolutely accept that the hon. Gentleman acted in good faith, but given that it is now clearly established that his comments were mistaken, I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, about how the record may be corrected.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Chair has no responsibility for what any Member says in the Chamber. He has taken the opportunity to raise what appears to be a genuine mistake on the part of another legislature, in keeping its records, and I am glad that he has informed the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who has unwittingly made a mistake in giving a certain piece of information to the House.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) asks me how he might put the record straight. I would say that he has been wise and clever in using the device of a point of order to make sure that those on the Treasury Bench, the Hansard reporters, everyone else in the Chamber and those paying attention to these proceedings are aware that an error has occurred, and he has now taken this opportunity to put the record straight.

Serious Violence Strategy

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We are not doing very well on the target of 10 minutes per speech, which Members were asked to aim at some time ago. Speeches have ranged in length: 15 minutes, 16 minutes, 18 minutes, 19 minutes and 17 minutes—quite a lot more than 10.

[Lyn Brown]

Indeed it is!

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am glad that the hon. Lady approves of my arithmetic. I am sure that we can manage this debate without the need for a formal time limit, which limits how the debate works. Will colleagues please try a little harder to stick to around 10 minutes? Then everyone will get in and it will be fair and equal.

Windrush

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before we continue with the debate, I must announce the result of the deferred Division. In respect of the question relating to tribunals and inquiries, the Ayes were 315 and the Noes were 202, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Before I call the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) on behalf of the Scottish National party, let me say that it is obvious that a great many people wish to speak this afternoon and, although we have a lot of time, the time available is limited, so there will be an immediate time limit of six minutes on Back-Bench speeches. [Interruption.] I do not know why there is always an exclamation of amazement. I cannot be the only person who can do the arithmetic. The time limit does not of course apply to Joanna Cherry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

No, I will not give way. I want to finish my point—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. and learned Lady will finish her point. She will be heard.

[Joanna Cherry]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today I was shouted down in this House and I have received an overwhelming number of messages from members of the public, and from some journalists, about how disgraceful that was. Many of them were not SNP supporters. I am very grateful to you for defending me.

My point is this: when somebody in England cannot find a home it is not because there are too many immigrants; it is because the Conservative party has not built any social housing. When somebody in England cannot get an NHS appointment or has to wait a ridiculously long time at accident and emergency, it is not the fault of immigrants; it is the fault of the Conservative party’s austerity policies. My goodness, earlier this week we heard that the Prime Minister would not even agree to pleas from her own Cabinet Ministers to let foreign doctors in to fill vacancies in the NHS. That is shocking.

[Joanna Cherry]

That is a good try, but this is not something I thought up on the way into the Chamber. The toxic rhetoric around immigration in the United Kingdom is very well known. It is one of the reasons why there was a leave vote in 2016. Those on the Conservative Benches blamed immigrants rather than their austerity policies for the problems—[Interruption.]

I am calling for an evidence-based review of immigration policy. [Interruption.] I will very happily give evidence. [Interruption.] If I am allowed to speak, I will give Conservative Members some evidence. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. There is clearly disagreement about a particular point. That is why we have debates. The way in which we deal with disagreement is that one person puts their point of view and then a few minutes later someone else puts their point of view, but everybody must be heard and have their turn.

[Joanna Cherry]

I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The evidence has been heard over a period of years by the Home Affairs Committee, the Exiting the European Union Committee, on which I sit, and the Scottish Affairs Committee. The weight of the evidence is that, in reality, immigrants are on average more likely to be in work, more likely to be better educated and more likely to be younger than the indigenous population. The overwhelming weight of the evidence heard by the Exiting the European Union Committee is that immigration is a net benefit to the United Kingdom. The director general of the CBI, no less—normally a great chum of those on the Conservative Benches—has called for an immigration policy that puts people first, not numbers. The CBI wants an evidence-based immigration policy, the Scottish Trades Union Council wants an evidence-based immigration policy and that is what the SNP wants.

In Scotland, historically our problem has been emigration—people leaving Scotland—rather than people coming into Scotland. By 2024—Madam Deputy Speaker, I guess we are both a part of the problem—the Scottish population is projected to grow by just 3.9%, as opposed to 7.5% in England. Some 90% of population growth in Scotland is projected to come from immigration. The time has come, in this review of immigration policy, to look seriously at the devolution of at least some powers over immigration to the Scottish Parliament, and to the English regions and Wales, to recognise the different requirements across the United Kingdom.

I know that these days we are, particularly those on the Conservative Benches, terribly inward-looking, but if we look outwards—

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I have to reduce the time limit to five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I am staggered by it because there are thousands of people in the Caribbean who have lost their jobs and livelihoods, and are desperate to get back to their loved ones. But we still have no numbers from this Government.

I stood in this place five years ago and warned about the impact of the hostile environment. I told the then Home Secretary that her Bill was a stain on our democracy. In recent weeks, we have seen how the Windrush scandal has become a stain on our democracy and on our national conscience. I warned about the impact of a policy that would take us back to the days of “No Irish, no blacks, no dogs.” I stood in this place five years ago and read from Magna Carta, the foundation of our democracy, which says:

“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled…nor will we proceed with force against him…except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.”

Yesterday, in a Committee Room in the Palace of Westminster, we heard testimony from British citizens who have been seized and imprisoned, who have been stripped of their rights, who have been outlawed or exiled, and who have been treated like criminals in their own country. So I ask the Minister: how many more Windrush scandals do we need before this hostile environment, or indeed compliant environment, is scrapped? How many more injustices? How many more lives ruined? Because I will be back here in five years’ time if we continue down this road to great injustices in our own country.

In recent weeks, we have seen so many Government Ministers and Members of the House talk about the issue of illegal immigration, conflating illegal immigration and the Windrush crisis. This is symptomatic of the hostile environment and its corrosive impact. What we have seen in this House, with Members standing up to talk about illegal immigration, is a perfect metaphor for the hostile environment and how it works: a blurring of the lines between people who are here legally and illegal immigrants, scapegoating innocent people, and blaming immigrants for the failures of successive Governments. Toxic anti-immigrant rhetoric created the demand for the hostile environment. Then we got a divisive policy handed down by our current Prime Minister, pandering to prejudice and aided and abetted by a hateful dog whistle emanating from our tabloid press. This was all reinforced by politicians too craven to speak the truth about immigration and too cowardly to stand up for the rights of minorities. Conservative Members want to lecture us about illegal immigration. The hostile environment is not about illegal immigration. The hostile environment is about raising questions about the status of anybody who looks like they could be an immigrant. It is about treating anybody who looks like they could be an immigrant as if they are a criminal.

Where does the hostile environment get us to? Let me tell you. It leads to cases in my own constituency of people being dragged out of their homes, going to Yarl’s Wood, and not able to do midwifery exams. It leads to people losing their jobs and their livelihoods. So I say to Conservative Members and Members across this House, on behalf of the Windrush generation: keep in mind that spiritual and let freedom reign. It will only reign when this country turns back from the path it is on, ends the compliant environment in which I know my place, and starts along a humane path that has at its heart human rights. [Applause.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made a terrifically rhetorical speech and he deserves to be congratulated, but not by clapping. Could the House just say “Hear, hear”?

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

I am afraid that I will not take any interventions from the shadow Home Secretary, as she absolutely steadfastly refused to recognise the requests of any Conservative Members and did not give way in any way, shape or form. If she would like to take a bit of her own medicine—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) is standing at the Dispatch Box, but the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) has said that she is not taking an intervention. [Interruption.] It is not for me to decide; there is no point in the right hon. Lady appealing to me.

[Mrs Main]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall not be taking any interventions from the shadow Home Secretary, since she did not extend that courtesy to Conservative Members.

As I said, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford got to the nub of this debate. We have to ask ourselves whether documentation is needed for the Home Affairs Committee to do its business. I think that it probably is. I think she will be diligent in that task. As I said, I would like to see the information taken from the range of documentation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have had to cope with the hon. Lady saying that we cannot link the Windrush generation to slavery. I have had now to cope with her suggesting that my “Oxford English Dictionary” definition of “compliance” in my speech was wrong. Can she correct the record?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I understand that passions are running high, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair. He has made his point. The hon. Lady may address it if she wishes to, but it is up to her.

[Mrs Main]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I simply said that we have had everything thrown into this debate, apart from a discussion of the impact of what the motion would deliver.

As I was saying, I believe that our new Home Secretary is a compassionate and caring man. The fact that he has been called a “coconut”, and all the other things he has had to endure in the short time he has been in office, just goes to show that we do not live in the tolerant society that I would like to live in. The fact that he has the dignity to address those comments in the Chamber but still not be deterred from doing the right thing by the Windrush generation is to his great credit, and long may he do so.

I do not think that this debate has been characterised by good temper on both sides. When the shadow Secretary of State will not give way to anyone, it certainly does not make for a debate; rather, it makes for a one-sided monologue read from notes. The implication of the motion is so far ranging and so constraining on any future Government that it would be very dangerous to go along this route. The Windrush generation has been done a great disservice, but apologies have been made. I hope that there is a swift resolution, and I believe that under the current Government there will be.

Police Funding

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

Allow me to correct a misunderstanding. There is a separate additional funding commitment of £144 million to uplift our armed police capability. We are significantly increasing the number of specialist firearms officers. Once the uplift programme is complete, there will be around 7,000 armed officers—exceeding the number in 2010—in England and Wales who will be better trained and better equipped than ever before.

It is important that we talk about cyber-crime, not least because Labour Members do not, which is surprising because it is the fastest growing source of crime. It is quite clear that our constituents—the public—are increasingly much more likely to be exposed to crime through their computers than they are on the high street. It is a relatively new type of crime. Forces are learning how to better investigate these crimes and support the victims. There are lots of challenges, not least in aligning our local, regional and national capability, and that is why the national cyber-security strategy for 2016 to 2021 is supported by £1.9 billion of transformational investment. I could not begin to tell the House what Labour’s plans are to protect people from cyber-crime; I doubt Labour Members know.

We are living in a period of rapid change. Crime is changing, demand on police is changing, the police are changing and technology is changing everything very fast. But one thing is constant: the unconditional commitment of a Conservative Government to public safety, and upholding law and order. Labour voted against a police settlement that will see an additional £460 million of public investment in our police system next year, including a significant uplift in the counter-terrorism budget. It will mean that this country will be investing £13 billion of public money in our police system next year, which is an increase of over £1 billion on 2015-16. That is a big number. Here is an even bigger number: £55 billion. That is what the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts the country will spend on paying interest on our national debt—debt that was racked up by Labour.

Despite the constraints, we continue to invest to support the police and to work closely with them, including on the serious violence strategy, and on the development of mobile working to transform the productivity of police officers and give them more time on the frontline. We are developing a national wellbeing programme to support frontline officers, and working with the police to develop a long-term vision of what digital technology can do for British policing. All this is to ensure that we do everything we can so that Britain continues to have a modern police force that is on top of change, not chasing it, and that is fit for the challenges of the 21st century.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the spokesman for the Scottish National party, it will be obvious to the House that a great many people wish to speak and that there is limited time available. Therefore, there will be a time limit of six minutes after the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) has spoken. I give this warning in order that hon. Members who wish to catch my eye can tailor their remarks accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice regarding the amendment and correction of the record. In the previous speech, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) claimed that Labour had not supported VAT refunds to the Scottish police service. In reality, Labour’s stated position at the autumn statement was that we called for a VAT exemption of £140 million to be refunded, with the money to be ring-fenced and earmarked for the emergency services in Scotland. Will you advise me on how the record might be amended?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I think the hon. Gentleman knows—he has not been here for very long, but he is a quick learner—that that is not a point of order for the Chair. It is a point of debate in the very debate in which we are engaging at the moment. The way in which he can put his point to the House is to speak in the debate, or to intervene on someone else in order to make it. However, he does not now need do so, having made his point very well—although not, I have to say, in the right way or at the right time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am afraid that we have to reduce the time limit to five minutes.

Seasonal Migrant Workers

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

I do not think that that criticism applies only to the Home Office. I think that it applies to the entire Cabinet and, indeed, the entire Government. There is still far too much of an obsession with immigration as a bad thing that must be brought down at any cost. It is becoming clear that if the Government are to get anywhere close to delivering the headline reduction in immigration that they claim would be a good thing, the health services and the agriculture sector will suffer, as will a great many industries.

I was somewhat surprised by what was said by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). He made some valuable points, but he is in complete denial about one fact. Although this problem is not entirely the creature of Brexit, and existed to an extent before Brexit, anyone who claims that Brexit is not making the problem worse really needs to return to planet Earth. It is patently obvious what one impact—one inevitable consequence—has been, not only of the result of the vote itself but of the vile xenophobia that characterised so much of the debate. It was always going to be a consequence, and we are seeing it now, whatever the hon. Gentleman may try to tell us. It has made the United Kingdom a less attractive place for people to want to live and work in: it has made us less appealing.

The hon. Gentleman blamed part of that on the fall in the value of the pound. I wonder what might have caused the value of the pound to go through the floor so suddenly, some time towards the end of the third week of June 2016. I wonder what it might have been that upset the international economists and business people at that time of the year. It did not seem to affect the dollar or the euro, so it cannot be blamed on global changes. Perhaps the Government tend to try to blame other factors.

Even the House of Commons Library, which is not generally renowned for taking sides in political debate—indeed, it is rightly renowned for not taking sides in political debate—tells us in the briefing that it prepared for today’s debate that since the closure of SAWS, and particularly in the run-up to the UK’s exit from the European Union, employers have been finding it more difficult to recruit staff from overseas. The Government’s responses, including the assurances that we were given on 6 July 2017 about the reintroduction of SAWS or a similar scheme, have still not been taken any further.

There has been mention of a consultation paper published a couple of days ago by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The foreword is written by the Environment Secretary. We in Scotland remember very fondly promises from the Environment Secretary, who assured us that one of the consequences of Brexit would be that Scotland could have control of its own immigration policy. Perhaps the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk would like to go and tell the Environment Secretary that he had clearly taken leave of his senses if he thought that that was ever a possibility.

In all the 64 pages of the consultation paper, the word “seasonal” appears once. The crisis facing parts of our agricultural sector as a result of the inability to attract seasonal workers is hardly even recognised by DEFRA’s flagship new consultation paper—and, presumably, draft policy. When it refers to the labour force that is needed in agriculture, it talks of the investment and skills needed to mechanise. It talks of engineers and science and technology workers. It talks of things that are needed in some parts of agriculture, but those things will make no difference whatsoever to the soft fruit industry, and to other parts of agriculture where mechanisation is simply not realistic. That gives the worrying impression that the soft fruit industry will be allowed, literally, to wither on the ground.

Since the Government wrongly abandoned SAWS in 2013—and we all remember the Home Secretary who made that decision, who knew better than all the farmers, the NFU, NFU Scotland and all the rest of them, who knew more about how to run agriculture than the people who worked in it—the difficulties faced by the sector have been made substantially worse, and will continue to become substantially worse.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman and I appreciate that this is an important subject in his constituency and he has made some important points, but I point out to the Chamber that if the second debate that was due to take place this afternoon had not been cancelled, the time limit on Back-Bench speeches in this debate would have been approximately seven minutes, which is normal for a debate of this kind on a Thursday afternoon. The reason the second debate was cancelled was not in order that some Members in this debate could make speeches twice as long as they would have done in other circumstances, but because of the very unusual weather conditions under which we are operating. While Members might be aware only of what is happening in this Chamber, I have in mind the hundreds of employees in this building who will have great difficulty getting home to their families today, and every extra minute taken in speeches in here is stopping somebody getting a train and having to get a later one that might now be cancelled. The hon. Gentleman is a most hon. Gentleman and he normally sticks very carefully to time limits. We do not have a time limit this afternoon, but he has taken twice as long as he would have taken if I had put a time limit on in normal circumstances. I am sure he will bear that in mind.

[Peter Grant]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Pete Wishart]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The ruling you have just made is very important, and I wonder whether it might be worthwhile abandoning this afternoon’s business now so that Members and staff can get home sooner because of the inclement weather.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I have neither the power nor the inclination to abandon the business. I am, however, making an appeal to the decency of Members, and say that sometimes if one is making a point it can be made just as effectively if made more quickly.

[Peter Grant]

I certainly take on board your comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I was winding up anyway. Had there been a proposal from the Government to amend the Standing Orders today to bring forward the moment of interruption, I do not think any of us would have opposed that—even those of us who had known since Wednesday that we were not getting home until tomorrow.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Since that is a challenge to a point I have just made from the Chair, I say that it is not always necessary to make rules in order to have people behave with decency and consideration. The hon. Gentleman is one of the most considerate and decent Members of this House and I am making absolutely no criticism of him; I am merely pointing this out, and he is not the only Member who has exceeded the seven minutes that would have been the time limit.

[Peter Grant]

Thank you again, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The scheme was abandoned wrongly, erroneously, arrogantly by a Home Secretary who would not listen to those who would be most affected, and that continues to be the tone of most of what the Government do in relation to both Brexit and almost anything else—and of course they always say it is all the Scottish Government’s fault.

The reason why we are having this debate and having to consider reintroducing this scheme is the Government’s continued obsession with freedom of movement being a bad thing that has to be stopped. Freedom of movement of people, and of goods and services, and of ideas and beliefs, is an unqualified, unreservedly good thing, and I want to see it retained as far as possible. I ask the Minister again, although it is not her decision to make, to please go back to her Government and say to them that the way to prevent the massive disruption to our agriculture sector, and other sectors of our economy, both public and private, is not simply to urgently reintroduce SAWS to deal with the difficulties we will face this year, but to reconsider their unilateral decisions about freedom of movement, and to look again at whether we want to isolate ourselves from the biggest trading market in Europe. If we remain in the single market and the customs union most of the difficulties raised today will be reduced, if not solved entirely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman can see that the Minister does not intend to take an intervention. [Interruption.] Order. He knows that he cannot make points from a sedentary position. He has already made his points and the Minister has heard them.

[Caroline Nokes]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also heard you when you exhorted people to keep their contributions short. The hon. Gentleman has made many contributions from a sedentary position, some of which I have even deigned to answer. As I said, I will look forward to continuing to discuss these matters with colleagues across government and to making sure that the views of the agricultural sector, which have been expressed so effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, continue to be heard. I conclude by, again, thanking all Members for speaking and thanking my hon. Friend for initiating this debate.

Police Grant Report

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I have to reduce the time limit to nine minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am grateful to the idiot Minister for suggesting that he needs to talk to Sadiq Khan. Does he agree—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I do not think I can possibly have actually heard what I think I heard the hon. Gentleman say. I trust that he will immediately withdraw what he said, and say it, very briefly, in a different form.

[Neil Coyle]

I withdraw the comment, but I think that my point will make the case. Does my hon. Friend agree—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will not make a point in this Chamber by using language that is unsuitable for this Chamber.

[Neil Coyle]

And I have said that I withdraw it.

Does my hon. Friend agree with me, with Sadiq Khan and with the Home Office’s expert panel that London should receive its full share of the national and international capital city grant, which would deliver an extra £280 million to the Met?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

I will not give way. The Government will continue to invest in policing, meaning that this country will invest £13 billion next year in policing. We will do the right thing to make sure that the police have the resources they need, and I commend the motion to the House.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I remind the House that this motion is subject to double-majority voting: of the whole House, and of those representing constituencies in England and Wales.

Unaccompanied Child Refugees: Europe

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I have to put a time limit of six minutes on Back-Bench speeches, at least to begin with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I must reduce the time limit to four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I ask the Minister, whom I normally like very much, to work with Safe Passage, which has been helping Tekle and Awet, to look into those two cases. I ask him personally to update me on their progress. As he knows full well, those are just two cases among many.

There is a clear moral principle: no child should spend a second longer than necessary in a state of vulnerability and uncertainty when they have family in Britain who can provide them with safety and support. This motion is not just about moral principle, but about the law. Whatever happens after Brexit, it is vital that UK law ensures that access for vulnerable children with a legal claim to rejoin families in Britain is retained and not reduced.

The Dublin III regulation leaves a lot to be desired, but the family reunion access guaranteed by our domestic law is often even more restrictive. Some lone child refugees who have grandparents, uncles, aunts, sisters or brothers living in the UK only have a legal route to safety and family reunion because of the Dublin regulation. I want the Government—and the Minister today—to commit to working across this House to ensure that we, at the very least, replicate the provisions of Dublin III—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I will allow the hon. Lady to say her last couple of words.

[Lyn Brown]

You are very kind, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Basically, I ask the Government to replicate the provisions of Dublin III after Brexit so that we can bring these children home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I have to reduce the time limit to three minutes.

Drugs Policy

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

I would like to make a brief contribution, Madam Deputy Speaker, because there are four minutes to go.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

No—the Minister has summed up the debate.

[Paul Flynn]

There are four minutes to go.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Mr Flynn—are you making a point of order, because you cannot argue with the Chair across the Chamber?

[Paul Flynn]

I am not arguing with the Chair—I am arguing that the Minister has finished and I want to make a small contribution. Those are the normal rules of debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Mr Flynn, you have already made a contribution and the Minister has chosen not to take an intervention. She has concluded and the debate is thus concluded.

[Paul Flynn]

May I make a point of order, then, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the excuse that the Minister gave—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Mr Flynn—I am about to put the Question. You may make a point of order after I have put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered drugs policy.

[Paul Flynn]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will have heard the Minister say that she could not take a brief intervention from me because of lack of time. Could I just make the point that the Government’s policy is not evidence-based, because otherwise they would be taking clear cognisance of the evidence from Portugal and from Uruguay—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman. He has been in this House for a very long time and he knows that is not a point of order for the Chair. He wishes to continue the debate, but the debate has lasted for some hours and it is now finished.

Health, Social Care and Security

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood]

I absolutely agree. As part of the increased capital investment that the Prime Minister announced earlier this year, the £10 billion capital investment for the national health service will mean not only that new buildings such as the one to which my hon. Friend referred—the new hospital in Sandwell in the west midlands is an example—become more common, but infrastructure such as the new urgent care centre at my own local hospital in Russells Hall is provided so that our NHS can become more effective.

The Secretary of State should take great pride in the changes that he has introduced to guidance on section 135 and l36 powers, which mean that a safe place should usually be a place where patients can receive medical help, rather than the default position of a police cell. It is time for those changes to be given a statutory footing, and I hope that the new Bill will deliver that. There should be parity of esteem so that people with mental health conditions receive the same respect and equivalent status, and are treated with the same dignity, as people with physical health conditions. It is a positive step that that has been legislated for, and I hope that we will see more and more efforts to make sure that that commitment becomes a reality for constituents who receive treatment for mental health conditions.

If I may briefly speak of my own experience of the health service. As some hon. Friends know, I received rather more direct and personal experience of our hospitals, GPs and outpatient clinics than I had planned at the beginning of the year. I should like to place on record my thanks to the doctors, consultants, nurses and support staff who were all absolutely fantastic in keeping me alive so that I am here now. It has also given me the chance to work with the UK Sepsis Trust and the formidable Ron Daniels. I hope that during this Parliament the Secretary of State will have a chance to look at calls from the trust for simple measures that it is estimated would save perhaps a quarter of the 44,000 lives that are lost as a result of sepsis every year in the UK. They include instigating a national registry to record accurately the true burden of sepsis, raising awareness nationally, and looking at commissioning levers to deliver best practice and reinforce that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I call Dr Philippa Whitford.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It will be obvious to the House that a great many people still wish to speak. I have to warn the House that after the next few speakers, I will have to reduce the time limit on speeches to four minutes. I so appreciate the good wishes that everybody has given me on my re-election this afternoon, but I realise that I will not get any more now. That is fair enough; we will try to get everybody in. Still with six minutes, I call Gill Furniss.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on being back in the Chair.

During the election campaign, I spoke to many doctors, nurses and other NHS professionals in my constituency, as well as service users, and listened to what they said about the state of our NHS and social care. At each and every meeting, I listened to people, many of whom felt demoralised by the state of the profession after seven years of this Tory Government. From longer waiting times to missed A&E targets to the cancelling of operations to record numbers of nurses leaving the profession, the NHS has suffered greatly since 2010.

The anger and frustration felt during the election campaign were reflected in the result: a vote that reduced the number of Conservative Members and wiped out the majority of the Government. The public have simply rejected the Tories’ austerity agenda. I hope I shall be forgiven for being hopeful—like many others—that that would be reflected in the Queen’s Speech, which, instead, reflected a continued total disconnect between the Prime Minister and Government and the wider public.

The Queen’s Speech failed to begin to tackle the issue of chronic underfunding in our NHS. Among the top 10 economies in the EU, the UK spends the smallest proportion of its GDP on health: 9.8%, compared to a 10.4% average. If the UK only half-matched the EU average, there could be 35,000 extra hospital beds and 10,000 more GPs, and the cuts in public health budgets could be reversed.

After the election, the Prime Minister and her Ministers appeared to be listening to the electorate when they were reported to have said that austerity was over. Sadly, that was just Tory rhetoric, and far from the reality. Only this week, secret cost-cutting plans drawn up by the Tories were leaked, suggesting shocking details that could pose further danger to our NHS. Reports suggest that NHS managers are being told to “make difficult choices” to curb overspending in a drive to cut costs. Full details of those plans have not been announced; in fact, I do not believe that the Secretary of State had any intention of announcing them before the leaks occurred. Instead, they are being worked out secretly behind closed doors. They could lead to even longer waiting times, rationing of care, job losses, and ward closures in hospitals. I am deeply concerned about what that could mean for my constituents, and I ask the Government to disclose the plans fully for the purpose of public scrutiny. The NHS belongs to the public, and should therefore be accountable both to Members of Parliament and to the public at large.

As for pay, while workloads have increased, nurses have been handed a 1% pay cap for seven years in a row. That does not even cover the rise in inflation. During the election campaign, the PM said that nurses went to food banks “for a variety of reasons”. I suggest that the only reason is that the Government have made them £3,000 worse off since 2010, while continuing to give tax breaks to the richest.

We know that their current conditions are causing more staff to leave the NHS out of desperation. Many of those vacancies are left unfilled. According to the Royal College of Nursing, there are 40,000 registered nurse vacancies in England, and an average vacancy rate of 11.1%. The rate has doubled in the past three years, and we are seeing the effects in NHS hospitals up and down the country. Furthermore, the Government’s shambolic approach to Brexit has created a feeling of uncertainty among EU nationals. No wonder the number of applications from EU nurses to work in the UK has plummeted by 96% since last year.

Nurses and doctors are not crying wolf when they warn us about the health and safety issues that are arising from the lack of proper staffing levels. Has the Secretary of State made any assessment of the impact of the drop in applications on the NHS, and, if so, what action does he propose to take to ensure that it does not affect the health and safety of patients?

The proposal in the Queen’s Speech for an immigration Bill provides no details to reassure those EU citizens currently living in the UK. Labour has been calling for all their rights to be guaranteed since the referendum was decided. I concede that the Prime Minister has finally made an offer for EU citizens, but it is a half-hearted one at best, containing little clarity.

I welcome any suggestion that would help and support the NHS, and I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to reforming mental health legislation to give it greater priority. However, last Wednesday the Prime Minister gave no assurances that no mental health trust would see its budget cut this year, as 40% of them did last year. If the Government want to be taken seriously, they must back their rhetoric with the financial support that is needed. They have not done this. It is clear that the Prime Minister will find the money to cling to power, but not to secure mental health spending.

Finally, the debacle over the dementia tax revealed that this Government will gladly force the most vulnerable, particularly those suffering from long-term debilitating diseases such as dementia, to cover their own social care bill entirely. Surely we need to merge health and social care to get the best results, but we must pool the risk and not let the most vulnerable fend for themselves in old age.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

To make a maiden speech, I call Alex Burghart.