Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justin Madders and Dominic Raab

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to not only his constituents, but the Polish community in particular for their big-hearted support for the people of Ukraine. As a leading donor—I believe the second largest donor to Ukraine—we have committed a further £174 million in aid, bringing our total to £400 million. But that will also support those countries in close proximity to Ukraine—its neighbours—and first and foremost will be Poland.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Q11.   On 28 April 2018, when he was Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister is reported to have attended a party at a castle in Italy, where he met a former KGB officer. That was just weeks after the Salisbury poisonings and immediately after he attended a NATO summit on Russia. If that is not astonishing enough in itself, it is also reported that he travelled there without any security detail or officials present. So will there now be an investigation into what sounds like a complete failure of national security?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is talking total nonsense and I do not have anything to add to what I have already said.

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Debate between Justin Madders and Dominic Raab

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Back in June, I tabled a written question asking what the total cost to the taxpayer was of the merger. The Department could not provide an answer at the time. Can the Secretary of State do so today?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Over time, I am very confident that we will be able to deliver administrative savings because, of course, of back-office staff and other efficiencies. Of course, the work in terms of calculating the short, medium and long-term effects will be part of the CSR, and if the hon. Gentleman wrote to me, I would be very happy to write to give him a more detailed response.

UK Telecommunications

Debate between Justin Madders and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point about interoperability that was lost on some of the earlier remarks, and he is right in his assessment. On transparency—I appreciate that these are difficult issues for the House to grapple with—we have put as much into the public domain as possible. The telecoms supply chain review’s final report was published in July 2019, and the National Cyber Security Centre’s analysis is available on its website.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary said that measures will be put in place to protect sensitive intelligence data, and in due course his judgment will be found to be correct or not. Given that he has described Huawei as high-risk, my constituents will rightly be asking what protections are in place for their sensitive data.

[Dominic Raab]

The crucial reassurance that I can give to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents is that their data will not be at risk at all because of the geared, leveraged and calibrated set of restrictions, including the exclusion of high-risk vendors from the core functions —the sensitive network operations—and the various other restrictions, including the 35% cap, on operations at the network level. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the package in the round, he will see that it is the right approach to protect not just the network’s resilience, but the integrity of individual data, while also ensuring that we are open for vital investment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justin Madders and Dominic Raab

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I apologise, Mr Speaker. With permission, I would like to group questions 4 and 6, and I refer to the answer that I have just given.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking to ensure that women who were unable to pursue pregnancy and maternity discrimination claims due to the cost of employment tribunal fees are able to bring forward their cases.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Government’s research into maternity-related discrimination shows that one in nine mothers reports that they were either dismissed, made redundant or treated so badly that they had to leave their job. Following the Supreme Court case brought by Unison, the union I used to work for, what specific action are the Government taking to identify those who could have brought claims but did not because the Government acted unlawfully?

[Dominic Raab]

The Supreme Court judgment was clear on fees and we immediately stopped charging fees in response. We are putting in place the detailed arrangements to ensure that those who paid fees are refunded. We will shortly announce the practical detail that the hon. Gentleman is looking for. As I indicated a moment ago, those who could not apply to the tribunal because of the fee will now have the opportunity to do so.

[Justin Madders]

I understand that the Government are considering how to approach the system, but will the Minister rule out any type of up-front fee to access justice in employment tribunals in the future?

[Dominic Raab]

We are clear that we are accepting the Supreme Court judgment. If the hon. Gentleman would like to read the judgment, he will see that it makes clear that there can be, in principle, a place for fees in the justice system. We need to strike the right balance between taxpayers subsidising the justice system and those who benefit from it making a contribution, but only when they are able to do so.