Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jo Stevens and David Lidington

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

Let me say two things. First, I believe that freedom of speech is one of our most precious inheritances from previous generations, and we should do everything we can in this place and outside to uphold that principle. When it comes to any specific case, it would clearly be wrong for me to pass comment on something that is before the courts.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

Q7. Last weekend my constituency suffered yet more serious violent crime, some in the public domain and some not, including the murder of 18-year-old Fahad Mohamed Nur and a knife attack on the congregation leaving Dar Ul-Isra mosque following Ramadan prayers. Since 2010, under Liberal Democrat and Conservative Governments, South Wales police funding has been cut by nearly £61 million. Police officers in Cardiff are running on empty. What will it take for this shambles of a Government to accept responsibility for public safety and give South Wales police the funding it desperately needs?

[Mr Lidington]

South Wales police is actually receiving up to £290 million of funding in the current financial year, which is an increase of £19 million on the last financial year. To get to grips with serious crime—no one would have anything but sympathy for the victims to whom she refers and their families—we also need to look at what drives young men in particular, towards gang membership and participation in violent crime. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in partnership with other Ministers, is now leading that work, which I hope will bring benefits to the hon. Lady’s constituency and many others.

National Security Council Leak

Debate between Jo Stevens and David Lidington

Thursday 2nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I have, I think, taken great care in the language that I have used in the House today, and I am not in the business of going around making allegations of the kind that have apparently been made outside the House. The fact is, however, that having read the investigation report, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reached the conclusion that there was compelling evidence to suggest responsibility on the part of the former Secretary of State for Defence for the leak from the National Security Council, and that was why she took the decision that she did

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister herself, as chair of the National Security Council, is ultimately responsible for the security and the integrity of its meetings. Does the Minister agree—yes or no?

[Mr Lidington]

Yes, hence her actions yesterday.

Business of the House

Debate between Jo Stevens and David Lidington

Thursday 15th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is right to point to the frankly appalling human rights record of the Iranian Government. I also take the view that, generally, it is sensible, even where we have the most profound disagreements with the Government of another country, to have diplomatic channels so that there is a means by which to communicate with that Government. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is determined to ensure that human rights remain a key element in the United Kingdom’s foreign policy. There will be an opportunity to ask about Iran on 18 October.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

Today, postal workers across the UK are taking industrial action to protect their jobs, their pensions and our post offices. The Post Office has received £2 billion of public money over the past seven years. May we have a debate about why that money has not been spent on new services, securing the future of our post offices and protecting decent jobs?

[Mr Lidington]

I regret the fact that there is industrial action, because all that will do is inconvenience customers and make it more likely that those customers will look elsewhere for the delivery of parcels and for communicating messages, rather than using Post Office services. The Post Office has indeed been given taxpayers’ money to enable it to make the difficult transformation to a world that relies increasingly on electronic and digital communications and in which there are other competitors for things such as parcel delivery. In general, this has to be a matter of commercial judgment for the Post Office management.