Lindsay Hoyle
Main Page: Lindsay Hoyle (Speaker - Chorley)Department Debates - View all Lindsay Hoyle's debates with the Leader of the House
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberUnadopted roads and pavements can cause a range of issues for residents, and this Government are currently consulting on the issue of unadopted amenities. I am sure that Members will be updated when that work has concluded, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s comments are brought to the attention of Ministers.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I bring to the House this week a matter that I have raised with the Leader of the House before: fraud. As he knows, fraud is a devastating crime that can destroy people’s life savings and plunge them into debt, and it is now the most frequently experienced crime in Britain. On Monday, the Government released their fraud strategy, but anybody would be forgiven for not noticing, because no Minister came to the Dispatch Box to speak about it, and there was hardly any media coverage.
Given how prevalent this crime is, we have to ask ourselves why no noise was made about this significant strategy. I think the reason is that a key pre-election commitment on fraud was quietly dropped. The Prime Minister himself said that big tech companies need to be held financially accountable for their role in fraud, but when the strategy was released, it did not enforce that commitment; instead, an industry working group emerged, which will talk to the industry and ask them nicely to act. The banks and financial regulators are unhappy about this—of course, the banks are on the hook for paying out compensation to customers when they are victims of fraud. They say that when they try to get big tech companies to act, those companies are far too slow and not responsive, and the only thing that will make them act is if they are also hit in the pocket when fraud takes place. Can the Leader of the House organise for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and explain why that commitment was dropped? Also, I raised this matter with the Leader of the House in October last year, and I still have not received a reply from the Minister.
The reality is that when the Conservative party was in government, it hollowed out our high streets. We are giving unprecedented new powers to local communities to seize boarded-up shops and revitalise neglected high streets, but I will share my hon. Friend’s concerns with Ministers. Should he seek a meeting, I will facilitate one, or if he wants to hear directly from Ministers in a debate, I encourage him to apply for one.
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, I can advise Members that on Thursday 26 March, there will be debates in the Chamber on transport accessibility for disabled people, and on support for Gurkha veterans. In Westminster Hall next week, there will be a number of debates, including one on productivity and economic growth in the east midlands and another—which I am sure will be particularly popular—on the accessibility of banking services. In the week commencing 23 March, there will be debates on sudden unexplained death in childhood, and on outcomes for patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and cranio-cervical instability. There may possibly be a debate on the merits of mandatory body armour for prison officers, but that one is provisional. As the Leader of the House knows, we have a great deal of outstanding debates needing time, and the weekly plea for more time is coming his way.
Turning to an issue of mine, I have many park home owners in my constituency. As I am sure the Leader of the House will be aware, the Government published research only this week about park home owners. The Backbench Business Committee has a pending debate on this subject; if the Leader of the House was particularly generous with Government time, we could bring that forward and satisfy the many park home owners throughout the country.
The Government are committed to publishing the plan and we will do so at the first opportunity. We are facing a similar situation to the one that the right hon. Gentleman describes at the end of the 1930s, when defences were run down and the decision had to be made to start to rebuild them. That is why the work at the end of the 1930s had to happen. Of course, we hope that what happened later will not happen now—that is evident—but we are trying to rebuild our defences. We are working on the plan, and we will publish it as soon as we can.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I associate myself with the words of the Leader of the House in support for the armed forces, particularly HMS Dragon, which left Portsmouth’s shores. Residents in Cosham, Paulsgrove, Hilsea and Drayton and Farlington have faced years of dangerous antisocial behaviour along Portsdown Hill. Following what seems to be delays from the Hampshire police and crime commissioner’s office and potentially the council, the average speed cameras promised to the community are still only at tendering stage, and they will not be installed under after the summer. Understandably, my constituents do not want to face another summer of disruptions and unsafe driving. What further steps can I take to expediate action and ensure that these communities finally see the enforcement measures that they were promised?
Several hon. Members rose—
Order. We are going to finish this at 12 o’clock. To help each other, we will have to really speed up.
I thank my hon. Friend for marking this important anniversary. At this time in particular, we must remember all those who serve and have served in our armed forces, and all those who are victims of the devastating impact of war. Anniversaries such as that of the Clydebank blitz remind us of those who have served, those who were wounded and those who were killed.
May I say to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) that I attended that memorial event a few years ago? It was very moving.