Debates between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Andrew Selous during the 2010-2015 Parliament

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Andrew Selous
Monday 1st December 2014

(9 years, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
- Hansard - -

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 73, 75 to 96, 108 to 126 and 132 to 143.

Andrew Selous Portrait Andrew Selous
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

We have heard today passionate arguments from all parts of the House on parts 2 and 4 of the Bill on secure colleges and judicial review. The Government amendments made to parts 1 and 3 of the Bill in the House of Lords have significantly enhanced it. I do not intend to explain every amendment at great length, but I will touch on some.

Lords amendments 70 to 72, 116, 117, 126 and 142 introduce important changes to the law by creating a new criminal offence that specifically targets the behaviour commonly referred to as revenge pornography. I am sure that hon. Members across the House will agree that this behaviour is intolerable.

Food Banks

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Andrew Selous
Wednesday 18th December 2013

(10 years, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
- Hansard - -

Order. I cannot hear the shadow Minister, but she is speaking perfectly clearly. There is too much noise in the Chamber. Members should have the courtesy to listen to the hon. Lady moving the motion.

Andrew Selous Portrait Andrew Selous
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe that the hon. Lady may have inadvertently misled the House by saying benefit delay was rising when it is actually falling by 6%.

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker
- Hansard - -

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a matter for debate, and I have no doubt that he will be able to put that point later in the debate. The more time we spend on points of order and on me quietening people down, the less time there will be for Members to make the points they wish to make.

Cost of Living

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Andrew Selous
Tuesday 14th May 2013

(11 years, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Portrait Mrs Laing
- Hansard - -

Indeed it is. I thank my hon. Friend for that point. It is important that we treat women fairly, and much in the Queen’s Speech will make it easier for women to go to work and look after their families and do the two important jobs of being a mother and being active in the economy and the workplace. It is through measures such as reforming how we organise child care that that will be done. That is fairness and how we eradicate child poverty and improve the position of all families throughout the country.

Andrew Selous Portrait Andrew Selous
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

On child poverty, did my hon. Friend note, as I did yesterday, that the Institute for Public Policy Research, a left-wing think-tank, has now disowned Labour’s approach to priority and is backing ours in dealing with the causes of child poverty? That is good news, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree.

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Portrait Mrs Laing
- Hansard - -

I did indeed, and my hon. Friend makes the point extremely well.

There is something that has not surprised me, but let me draw it to the House’s attention. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and many of her colleagues get excited about food banks because they believe that it is in the power of the state to do everything to help people. We believe, as a matter of principle, that power is with the people and it is up to individuals to help each other, voluntarily, if they so wish, in times of need. Food banks are not about entitlement. Entitlement and benefits are one issue, but food banks are about relieving short-term need. It is important that we should be able to do that voluntarily.

It is not nasty to make difficult economic decisions, but necessary. It is not nasty to tell the truth about having to cut public spending, but necessary. It is not nasty to reduce the nation’s debt to secure the future for our children, but necessary. It is right to construct a taxation and public spending regime that makes work pay. That is what fairness is all about—taking people on lower incomes out of taxation and not requiring them to pay benefits for those who can work but find that there is no point because they are better off not working. That is what Labour brought about, and it was wrong.

By reforming benefits and immigration laws, we are putting Labour’s mistakes right. It is wrong that people who have worked and saved all their lives have to sell their homes to pay for care in later life, and we are putting that right. It is wrong that enterprising people should be held back by the dead hand of an overbearing state. That is what Labour believes it in and it is one of the reasons made such a mess for 13 years. It was wrong and, again, we are putting it right.

Something else is wrong. Most of us appreciate the benefits of the European single market. However, it is wrong that unnecessary rules and regulations from expensive institutions are hindering our businesses and restricting our freedom. We must, as a nation, renegotiate the terms of our membership of the European Union. I am not going to mention any hypothetical amendments, Mr Deputy Speaker.