Points of Order
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Over the weekend, I saw on social media that a number of Labour Members had the good judgment to visit the beautiful Bishop Auckland constituency, and while I am grateful to the one Member who gave me notice of their visit, that was in stark contrast to the four Members—the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and the hon. Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for Blaydon (Liz Twist), and for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell)—who did not have the good judgment to follow your advice, Mr Speaker, and notify me as the sitting MP. I have let them know of my intention to raise this issue in the Chamber today. Could you advise the House once again on how we can ensure that Members give notice of a visit to another Member’s constituency?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of this point of order and informing the Members concerned. The courtesies apply to any visits made in an official capacity. I know that election fever has taken over, but I remind the House once again that, as I said on 29 November and 22 January, when a Member intends to visit another constituency other than in a private capacity, they should make every reasonable effort to inform the Member representing that constituency. Boundary changes do not take effect until the next election, and in the meanwhile we must observe the convention of not involving ourselves with other Members’ constituencies. I have had complaints from Members on both sides of the House. Please do the right thing and stick to the conventions that we expect each other to follow.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Thursday 14 March, during business questions, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) about council spending, the Leader of the House said that Labour had a “legacy” of “vote-rigging” in Tower Hamlets. That is a false claim. I wonder if the right hon. Lady got her parties confused, as there was a widely reported case in 2015 in which the Election Commission and Richard Mawrey voided the mayoral election of 2014 under the Representation of the People Act 1983 on the grounds of corrupt and illegal practices, but that related to the activities of a party named Tower Hamlets First, and had nothing to do with Tower Hamlets Labour party or the national Labour party. Can you offer advice, Mr Speaker, on whether and when the Leader of the House can come to the House to set the record straight?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I take such matters extremely seriously, and in the past when I have misspoken or got a fact wrong, I have corrected the record. However, if I am guilty of anything in our exchange last Thursday, it is of underplaying the situation. The incident that the hon. Lady refers to did indeed involve an independent politician, although backed by Ken Livingstone. However, in the year 2018 alone, there were 40 new cases of corruption under the then Labour Mayor John Biggs, and the incident I referred to was Labour’s legacy because just a few weeks ago, Government inspectors were called in again to investigate Tower Hamlets. I fully understand it if the hon. Lady does not want to take my word for it, so I direct her to a letter written to her party’s national executive committee in 2016 about a local selection. It was written on behalf of members of the local Labour party. It said:
“on behalf of a number of distressed members the Tower Hamlets Labour Party who have been victims of intimidation, bullying, harassment and blackmailing by members of John Biggs’ campaign team; some of whom are senior and leading figures of the local Labour Party”.
If she looks up the letter and sees who is signatory to it, she may be more persuaded.
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 12 December 2023 (Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill: Programme):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 8.00pm at today’s sitting.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) Proceedings on the first of any further Messages from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
(4) Proceedings on any subsequent Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Aaron Bell.)
Question agreed to.
Business of the House
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
May I start by wishing all who are marking it in the UK and around the world a blessed Ramadan? I join the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) to Tommy McAvoy. I am sure many Members will pay tribute to him in the coming days and weeks. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for her service and friendship over many years. This House may be losing her, but I know she has many more years of public service ahead of her.
The hon. Member for Manchester Central focuses first on the legislative programme. She will know that 26 Bills have already been introduced in this Session and that four have reached Royal Assent. She will know that last Session we did 43 Bills, and broke many records in terms of private Members’ Bills and the amount of legislation we were able to get through. She will know the passage of the Bills that are going through both Houses at the moment, and she will also know that we will shortly bring through a Bill on football governance. This is a programme of work that we initiated following a review that was conducted with the help of many clubs around the country. When we bring legislation to the House, it will need to have the confidence of the English Football League, and, having attended many events with the EFL myself, I know that that is clear and understood.
The hon. Lady claimed that the Conservatives had no energy left for legislation, suggesting that we were not bringing measures forward and that we were a zombie Parliament, but I am afraid that it is the Opposition who are the zombies in this Chamber. The House rises early when the Opposition are not opposing. The Committee stage of the Finance Bill was completed in 30 minutes, and in recent times the Opposition have found it hard even to find speakers for their own debates. It is they who are displaying zombie tendencies. It is often tempting to refer to the Leader of the Opposition as the Knight of the Living Dead, and in stark contrast I commend the always energetic and vibrant stance taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker); I think the point he was making in that interview was that the plan is working.
Let me now come to the very serious issue that the hon. Lady raised about Mr Hester’s remarks. They were racist and abhorrent, and—I fully appreciate—threatening to the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who I understand has referred the matter to the police.
My party is financed by fundraising and donations—notably money raised from raffles—including donations from private individuals. There might be some who would come to this Dispatch Box today and attempt to argue that such a refund was not practically possible or warranted, but I am not going to attempt to do that. The point that the hon. Lady has made is not concerned with the practicalities of a refund, the consequences to the payroll of Conservative Campaign Headquarters, or the ability of my party to fight a general election. No, no; it is a point of principle, and I respect that. She could not have been clearer in what she has said today. She has stated that it is wrong to take funds from people who say horrible things, no matter when they were said, and that when there is an issue, funds should be returned. She has been clear about that today, and she has said that that is the right thing to do.
If, for example, someone said of Hamas that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, as Dale Vince has said, or said that my colleagues and I should be “taken out and shot”, as the RMT union boss Steve Hedley has said, the hon. Lady would presumably think it wrong to hang on to funds donated to Labour by them—or by an organisation branded “institutionally sexist”. I believe that during Tim Roache’s time as GMB general secretary, when he ran what has been described as a “casting couch culture”—menacing young women in the union—the Labour party took 12 million quid from him.
Those three charmers alone have contributed £15 million to the Labour party, and presumably, immediately following this session, the hon. Lady will demand that it is repaid. To be precise, and to assist her in that matter, let me add that those donations were made directly to the central Labour party, Labour MPs, Members of the Scottish Parliament, councillors, the Mayor of Manchester—she might like to mention that this weekend—the deputy leader of the Labour party, and the Leader of the Opposition.
If Labour is sincere and this it is not a political stunt, it will commit itself to repaying those funds, and there would be some additional upsides to doing so. The scurrilous suggestions that Labour’s pro “Stop Oil” policies were anything to do with Mr Vince’s donations could no longer be deployed, and nor could the charge that Labour Members would not support our legislation to protect the public’s access to the services they pay for because their party was in the pockets of militant trade unions—but I am not holding my breath, because I know that Labour Members say one thing and do another. They have dropped their £28 billion decarbonisation spending pledge, yet they keep the policy. They say that they will not tolerate pro-genocide chants, yet they have restored the whip to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald). They say that they back our tax cuts but they will not vote for them, and as a consequence they now cannot say how they would fund NHS appointments, breakfast clubs, NHS equipment, dentistry appointments, home insulation, their own state-owned energy company, and their wealth fund. No amount of confected drama and virtue signalling can disguise the fact that it is the same old Labour party, the same old hypocrisy and the same old games.
This week, in the real world outside the Westminster bubble, which is where we are focused, cancer deaths among middle-aged people are down by a third, revised forecasts show that the economy is growing and, for the eighth month in a row, real wages are rising. The plan is working, unlike Labour’s line of attack, and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne is very excited about it.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
It is good to hear inclusive politics. May I ask the Leader of the House whether, following consultations, there might be a statement before or after Easter on inclusivity in Parliament? We rightly want to embrace and value difference and diversity, whether of a person’s race, gender, other characteristics, background or experience. The word that is missing is “sex”.
Over the last five years, those who are gender critical have raised all sorts of issues, including the constant use of puberty blockers for children and the attack on the LGB Alliance for not swallowing what Stonewall and Mermaids persuaded many Government Departments and agencies to do, which was to disregard sex completely.
While wanting to support trans people and make sure that they can have a life free from bigotry and fear, would it be possible for the House to examine its own policies on inclusiveness and try to ensure that the word “sex” is included along with the other characteristics for which people should not be discriminated against?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and I know that many members of the House of Commons Commission will have heard what he has said. This is a very important matter. When the Government have put forward measures—for example, to protect single-sex spaces, which are important and valued by many people in this country—we have also been reassuring about what that means for trans people and those living in a different gender. It is perfectly possible to do both, and I think that the House having a further focus on the issue is a very good suggestion.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
May I, too, wish everyone a happy Ramadan and pay my respects to the family of Tommy McAvoy?
Well, here we are again: trying to get the answers that the Leader of the House does not want to—and indeed never does—supply to our sticky, inconvenient questions. I will begin with the dream that dare not speak its name here: Brexit. The Resolution Foundation tells us that the UK’s goods exports and imports have contracted by far more than those of any other G7 country, largely due to Brexit. Things are now so dire in Brexitland that even news of a GDP uplift of just 0.2% is fallen upon by Brexiteers like starving pigeons on the crust of the stalest bread. The Conservative party aims to shrink suffering public services even further, as evidenced in last week’s Budget, so should there not be some discussion, or even a debate, about the huge uplift in civil service jobs that Brexit seems to have required since the EU referendum in 2016?
Despite all the glorious promises of strength and environmental protections in this freer, fairer and better-off Britian, we are seeing green policies abandoned right, left and centre by both the Tory and Labour parties. A hapless Minister even tried to tell us yesterday that building new gas-powered plants is good for the environment—a suggestion that seems to be supported by shadow Environment Ministers too. Once again, Labour presents one face down here and entirely another up in Scotland. Frustratingly, all the warning signs of Brexit impacts, across a huge range of sectors, come in bits and pieces. Surely what is needed is for the Government to collate all the impacts and present the results to the British people, so that they can properly judge whether Brexit has been a success. Can the Leader of the House help to facilitate that?
There was a little good news this week: hopefully, there will be some proper Government redress for victims of the shocking Post Office Horizon scandal, although there is still no comfort for the infected blood scandal victims. I met the International Consortium of British Pensioners recently, and I fear that another scandal is about to break in the form of frozen pensions. There are now so many scandals that it is hard to keep track. Something does not work in this place if so many can build up under successive Governments of different political hues.
Unfortunately, the Leader of the House’s party distinguished itself again this week by choosing money over morality in its grubby handling of the racist comments allegedly made about one of our colleagues in this House. At the very least, a debate to re-examine how parties are funded is called for.
The “Seven Up!” series was recently deemed to be the most influential television series of the last 50 years. Well, 14 years is well and truly up for this terrible Government, but apparently we cannot be put out of our Tory misery yet because their junior Members have debts and need the extra months to build up some reserves. Does the Leader of the House agree that that is not much of an excuse?
Penny Mordaunt
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) is in the Chamber to set the record straight and to request a debate on foot and mouth disease. Because of his energetic question, I will write to the Secretary of State to ask him to consider what my hon. Friend has said. As for the rest of what my hon. Friend said, we thank him for it.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I declare an interest, as I am a member of the Tyneside Irish centre, which is handily placed because of its proximity to St James’s Park in Newcastle upon Tyne city centre. With that in mind, I wish all members of the Irish diaspora a very happy St Patrick’s day on Sunday.
The Committee is still open for applications for Westminster Hall debates on Tuesday mornings and Thursday afternoons after the Easter recess, but we are a little disappointed that we have not been allocated a little more Chamber time before the recess.
The cost of childcare is a significant barrier to work for many parents, and the increase in funded places will be welcome but, with the first phase coming into effect in April, many parents are reporting difficulty in obtaining the promised funded places and very significant cost increases for the non-funded element. Can we have a debate in Government time on the impact of the first phase of the scheme; on the accessibility and affordability of the scheme; and on whether the scheme, as it currently stands, will effectively remove the childcare barrier to work and fulfil its promise to parents?
Business of the House
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on leading the charge on this matter. There is a legal obligation to comply with emissions in the shortest possible time, but we are reviewing that. He will know that Greater Manchester authorities have changed their tune and are now proposing an entirely different approach, thanks to the campaign that he has run and the support that he has galvanised among his communities. I congratulate him and encourage him to hold them to account.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Following the frankly appalling behaviour of the Labour party leadership to disrupt the SNP’s Opposition day debate on 21 February —[Interruption.] Obviously, they do not like the truth. The Leader of the House told the House that she was sympathetic to the idea not only of the SNP getting another Opposition day debate but of taking it from the allocation given to the Labour party. Could she update the House on how her thinking has developed on those points?
Further to that, on the issue of ministerial responsibility, yesterday it was revealed that neither the Conservatives’ branch manager in Holyrood nor their Energy Minister supports the Government’s energy policy. Will the Leader of the House confirm whether the principle of collective responsibility in government applies to junior Ministers? If so, what advice would she give to any Minister who is unable to support such a key plank of Government policy, either publicly or in any Budget votes ahead?
Finally, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has cost the taxpayer £15,000 after falsely accusing an academic of supporting Hamas. Could we have a debate on the limits of privilege, specifically whether it is now the Government’s policy that Ministers can say whatever they like outside Parliament and be financially indemnified from the consequences by the taxpayer? Does she consider it the taxpayer’s job to underwrite financially the Conservative party’s culture wars whenever its members overstep the mark?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that important point. It is unacceptable that residents in Newcastle-under-Lyme have, for far too long, had to put up with the appalling smells emanating from that quarry, and she is right to pay tribute to our hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. He has raised the issue many times in this House and has been fighting for his constituents. I think he secured two Westminster Hall debates on the issue, and it is in very great part down to his efforts that it is being resolved.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
May I thank the Chair of the Procedure Committee for a timely and affirmative response to our request to examine the Westminster Hall Standing Orders? To that end, I have written to the Leader of the House this morning, and I hope she will give a similarly timely and affirmative response. The Backbench Business Committee welcomes applications from Members across the House, particularly for Westminster Hall debates, where they can probably be facilitated after the Easter recess as we are pretty booked up until then.
Business of the House
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
First, let me add my voice to the many tributes that have been paid both to Lord Cormack and to Ronnie Campbell. They were public servants who were thoughtful and committed, both to Parliament and to many other organisations and institutions. I hope that those many tributes bring comfort to their loved ones. I also join in the tribute the hon. Lady paid to Dave Myers, one half of the Hairy Bikers. He brought so much joy to so many people across our country and elsewhere.
The hon. Lady asks me several questions, first about risk-based exclusion. I do not think she has quite processed the full extent of the consequences of what happened last week. The Government gave time to this debate and we want it debated. I am part of the Commission and I want it debated and resolved in this House. Given the current climate and the concerns that hon. Members have raised since the motion was tabled—there have been some serious questions, in particular from learned colleagues—there will be a better opportunity to debate this in the House, and I hope that will be soon.
I am not expecting the hon. Lady to give us any credit at all, as that is not her job. She did not welcome the figures on irregular migration that are out today, which show that our plan is working. She will know that the Budget, which I announced in the business, will be very soon, and I am sure we can all see the progress that has been made and that the Chancellor will set that out in due course.
As for what the hon. Lady says about intimidation, let me repeat what I said last week: this House will not, has not and must not bow to terrorism or intimidation. We are experiencing a new form of an old story. As well as those colleagues slain since 2016, there are others who were murdered and whose shields are on the walls of this Chamber, above the door. There are Members who sit on these Benches who can recall being issued with mirrors to look under their cars in the morning. We are facing a new form of that old threat. It failed then and it is going to fail now, but while we focus on ending that threat, we must not lose sight of the good in our country and what we can all do to help this situation.
The hon. Lady raises the issue of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson). I know she will want to hear one word from him, but yesterday he provided us with 1,000 words. I read his piece in the Express and it is some distance from the view he expressed in the original interview. I think what he wrote in the Express is his genuine view. We might have to accept that those 1,000 words are the closest we will get to the one-word apology that others seek. The hon. Lady has understandably chosen to scold him; I would rather ask him to consider all the good he could do, whatever political hue he ends up being, in these particular times with the trust and following he has built up. She asks what action the Government have taken to combat these issues; I point her to the work of the defending democracy taskforce, the work I have done in this place on combatting conspiracy theories and the new systems we have set up.
The shadow Leader of the House is right that we also need to reflect on our own behaviour. I would ask her to consider on whose Benches Members sit who have suggested that we lynch a Government Minister, who have called hon. Members “scum” or who have said
“I want to be in a situation where no Tory MP, no Tory MP, no coalition minister, can travel anywhere in the country, or show their face anywhere in public, without being challenged”.
Which party’s actions have made it more likely that an antisemite will be sworn into this House next week? Which party last week trashed the understanding and foundation of trust upon which this place needs to operate? [Interruption.] The hon. Lady rolls her eyes. I would ask her to consider what she could do to rectify that situation. There are many good people in the Labour party; there are many good people who have also been driven from it. Despite best attempts to knock it off the media agenda or pretend it is otherwise, the strong moral compass we want to see from our nation’s political leaders, especially at times like this, is missing from the Labour party. That is sad and it is shameful.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Following the comments made by the shadow Leader of the House about risk-based exclusion, I am glad that motion is not coming forward next week, as there should be more consideration. It is a matter of record that two major newspapers made sex-based accusations against me, but I was not investigated by the police or as a result referred. It is only arrest that makes a difference. It is absurd and naive to think that were someone to be suspended and get a proxy vote, their anonymity could in any sense be guaranteed in this country or not reported in other countries. This is a serious problem. I am not certain we have found exactly the right way of dealing with it.
Will the Government make a statement next week on revisionism and who is the lead designer of the national Holocaust memorial and proposed learning centre? One of the Government’s nominees as chair of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation was quoted in the Jewish News yesterday saying that Ron Arad is the person responsible. Every Government comment, from 2016 onwards, has acknowledged quite rightly that the main designer is Sir David Adjaye OM—a name that cannot normally be mentioned because of problems I do not want to go into on the Floor of the House. Could Ministers refer Lord Pickles to the press notices that went out in the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation’s name in 2016, 2018 and every year since, because we must get the facts right and not change them?
Penny Mordaunt
I reassure my hon. Friend that we are listening to the House. Risk-based exclusion and other such schemes are a matter for the House and all Members need to have confidence in those processes. He has successfully put on record his concerns about that aspect of the Holocaust memorial. I will ensure the Secretary of State has heard what he has said, and he can raise it directly with him on 4 March.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
A lot has happened since the Leader of the House and I last faced each other, and I commend her for her intervention in last week’s events. She acted, as she said, to defend the rights of minority parties. That was the right thing to do, but what a dismal reflection on Westminster that the rights of minority party MPs in this place now need protecting and defending. The whole House knows how we got here. At some point we will get to the bottom of what pressure there was, exactly what dealings were done behind Victorian screens, and what “simply urging the Speaker” actually meant. To be fair, some Labour figures were fessing up at the weekend, or perhaps gloating, about their tactics—all because the SNP wanted to debate an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
People might ask why I am not tackling the Leader of the House today on her Government’s economic policies, Brexit or child poverty. We will return to our normal business questions exchanges of course, but at the core of our work as MPs is that all Members and parties must be treated fairly, and seen to be treated fairly. For as long as Scotland sends MPs here, we will expect and demand that. No one party can be allowed to change the rules by bullying. There is not a great deal that the Leader of the House and I agree on, but I know that on this we do. What use can she make of her offices to ensure that we never find ourselves in that sorry procedural mess again, and can she tell us when the replacement SNP Opposition day will be?
Finally, after the giant lobby of Parliament by campaigners yesterday, I must again raise the Government’s repeated delays in delivering full and fair compensation to those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal. I know that the Leader of the House recognises the fully justified depth of anger about this. Can she tell us what progress has been made ahead of the Budget to set up the structures of the compensation scheme transparently and in consultation with victims and their families, so that it is ready to start allocating funds at the earliest opportunity?
Business of the House
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that very serious situation. Of course, the Government support the right to protest in safety. I shall ensure the Foreign Office has heard his concerns and ask the relevant Minister to get in touch with his office.
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend has made her point extremely well. Whether those debates were on storm overflows or free school meals, when Conservative Members faced very unfair slurs and intimidation, we did not ask that the procedures of the House be upended and put pressure on a decent man in the Speaker’s Chair to change those processes. That is because it is at the heart of our party that we put the interests of this country first. One of those interests is that democracy in this place is protected.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Last evening, we saw the best of this House in its ability to debate, and we also saw the worst of this House as it descended into farce. I think I speak for everyone in the Chamber now, and yesterday, when I express my deep sorrow that that was able to happen, given the content of what we were debating.
Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, it descended into farce because of a decision that you—and you alone—made to ignore the advice that was given to you by the Clerks. In doing so, on the Opposition day of the Scottish National party, my colleagues and I were denied the ability to vote on a matter which is of grave concern to us, and which, over recent months, we have sought to raise in this Chamber at every available opportunity. It ultimately turned into a Labour Opposition day. That, quite frankly, is not acceptable. As I have expressed to you privately, prior to today’s proceedings, we do not, on these Benches, believe that you can continue in your role as Speaker. We do not have confidence in your ability to do so. I would therefore welcome clarity, either from you or the Leader of the House, about how we can best facilitate the earliest possible vote in this Chamber to that effect.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I hope that he can see, in my actions yesterday, that I am a servant of this House, and that even though it may not be in the Government’s narrow interests to do so, I will protect the rights of all minority parties to be able to air their views in this place and ensure that the parties who are afforded Opposition day debates can have those debates in the fullest sense and have votes on their motions. We create the rules of this House and the Speaker serves at our behest. Given the range of views that have been expressed on the Floor of the House today—many interventions have been supportive of the Speaker, pointing out the pressures that were put on him yesterday—I think that we should take time to reflect. Mr Speaker has said that his door is open to all parties and individual Members, as is mine. But as I said, the Government will listen to this House. I am a servant of this House and I will do its bidding.
Mr Speaker
I will also come in at this point. I reiterate that I made a judgment call that did not end up in the position where I expected it to. I regret it and I apologise to the SNP—[Interruption.] Just bear with me. I apologise to the House. I made a mistake: we do make mistakes and I own up to mine. We can have an SO24 to get an immediate debate because the debate is so important to the House.
I will defend every Member in this House. Every Member matters to me in this House. As has been said, I never, ever want to go through a situation where I pick up a phone to find a friend, on whatever side, has been murdered by a terrorist. I also do not want another attack on this House—I was in the Chair on that day. I have seen, I have witnessed. I will not share the details, but the details of the things that have been brought to me are absolutely frightening for all Members of the House, on all sides. I have a duty of care and I say that. If my mistake is looking after Members, I am guilty. I am guilty because—[Interruption.]—I have a duty of care that I will carry out to protect people; it is the protection that led me to make a wrong decision. With the risk being put on all Members at the moment, I had serious meetings yesterday with the police on these issues and on threats to politicians as we head towards an election. I do not want anything to happen again.
Yes, I will apologise, as I always will when I make a mistake as I did. I offer an SO24—that is within my gift and power—but I will also do whatever it is to protect anybody in this Chamber or anybody who works in this House. That is my duty of care.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I was in Israel last week meeting with hostage families, survivors and friends. I actually felt safer in Israel than I do in this country at this moment in time. I have two reflections on that visit and on what happened yesterday. First, nobody in this House has any business or agency at all in telling the state of Israel where it is able to operate to seek to rescue hostages who are being raped by the Islamic terrorists who hold them. Secondly, if we have a rerun of yesterday’s debate, exactly the same thing will happen again and Members will not vote with their hearts because they are frightened and scared.
What do we expect? For months I have been standing here talking about the people on our streets who are a demanding deaths for Jews, jihad and intifada, as the police stand by and allow that to happen. Last night, a genocidal call, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, was projected on to this building. That message says no Jew is welcome in the state of Israel—in that land. This is going to continue to happen because we are not dealing with it.
Will the Leader of the House explain what will be different if we have a rerun of the debate? How will hon. Members be able to vote with their hearts and consciences? Too many will not do that at the moment because of the threats we are receiving—threats that in some cases are telling us to leave this country and that we or our families should be subjected to pain and death?
Speaker’s Statement
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I wish to respond to the point of order raised by the Leader of the House.
Today’s debate was exceptional in the intensity with which all parties wished to secure a vote on their own proposition. It took decisions that were intended to allow the House the widest range of propositions on which to express a view. I wanted to do the best, and it was my wish to do the best, by every Member of this House. I take very seriously—[Interruption.] No, the danger—that is why I wanted everybody to be able to express their views. I am very, very concerned about the security of all Members. [Interruption.] I was very concerned, I am still concerned, and that is why the meetings I have had today were about the security of Members, their families and the people involved.
I have to say that I regret how it has ended up. It was not my intention. I wanted to ensure that all could express their views and all sides of the House could vote. As it was, in particular, the SNP was ultimately unable to vote on its proposition. I regret with sadness that it has ended up in this position. It was never my intention for it to end up like this. I was absolutely convinced that the decision was made with the right intentions. I recognise the strength of feeling of Members on this issue. It is clear that today has not shown the House at its best. I will reflect on my part in that, and of course I recommit myself to ensuring that all Members of this House are treated fairly.
I did not want it to have ended like this. I want to say to the House that I will meet with all the key players of each party. I think it is right that I meet with each one. [Interruption.] To correct that, I have not met with Sue Gray—I did not bump into her today; I am offended by that comment, and I think the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) would like to withdraw it. That is the danger; the House has ended up with speculation over what is not factual. I am honest to this House, I am true to this House, and I believe in all Members of this House. I have tried to do what I thought was the right thing for all sides of this House. It is regrettable, and I apologise for a decision that did not end up in the place that I wished.
I say now that I will meet all the—[Interruption.] Just be quiet, please. I will meet with the leaders and the Chief Whips. Let us have a discussion on what is the best way forward. I say again that I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret, and I apologise for, how it has ended up. I do take responsibility for my actions, and that is why I want to meet the key players who have been involved.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I thank you for coming to the House, for saying you will reflect on what has happened today, and for offering your apologies and to meet with Members of this House. You are our Speaker and we wish you to defend the rights of all Members of this House. I thank you for recommitting yourself to those responsibilities today and for coming to the Floor of the House.
Mr Speaker
To respond, that is what I tried to do in the first place. It ended up in the wrong place, and I do apologise to all and in particular to the SNP. That it is not where I wanted to be, but it is where I am. I will leave it at that for the moment, but I want to meet as soon as possible.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I begin by echoing your sentiments in relation to the debate that was had in this Chamber on the most important of matters with regards to the safety of civilians in Gaza and, indeed, in Israel? There has been a difference of view in the House today, but I think that difference of view has been expressed in a way that we can all agree has been in a positive fashion and the best fitting way of any functioning democracy.
Mr Speaker, while I acknowledge your apology, the reality is that you were warned by the Clerks of the House that your decision could lead to the SNP not having a vote on our very own Opposition day. As a result, we have seen the SNP Opposition day turn into a Labour party Opposition day. I am afraid that that is treating me and my colleagues in the Scottish National party with complete and utter contempt, and I will take significant convincing that your position is not now intolerable.
Mr Speaker
To respond to that, quite rightly, I understand the feeling. As I said, I would like to have that conversation in private. I would like to meet with you as soon as possible.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition was this evening passed unanimously, and therefore—[Interruption.] Yes, it was. [Interruption.] And therefore—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not think that now is the time. What I want to do is move on and meet with the important players. I am now going to hand over to the Deputy and leave it at that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Business of the House
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
May I start by thanking my right hon. Friend and other colleagues for all the work they have done on the programme board? The new governance structure—I hope Mr Speaker would concur—has enabled us to make good progress on getting a proper grip of what needs to happen to this building and the activity and costs associated with that. We will bring forward further news to the House shortly on where we are with the plans and the programme, but that should not get in the way of concurrent activity. He will know there are some early projects that we think we can get on with that are perfectly within the boundaries of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, and we should get on and do them. I hope that the House will welcome a more pragmatic approach to taking care of this important UNESCO heritage site.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
May I associate myself with the shadow Leader of the House’s comments about Brianna Ghey and her remarkable parents?
Last week, I asked the Leader of the House about the cost of the Tories’ secret and highly sensitive report to Cabinet on the state of the Union. Hansard records that not one word of her answer reflected my question—not one syllable. Instead, she read out to the Chamber a video script about bingo and made a joke about monkeys. The week before, I asked the Leader of the House about the Electoral Commission’s concerns over Tory voter ID plans. Again, there was not one word in Hansard about Tory voter ID—not a peep. Instead, she read her prepared script attacking the SNP. In fact, Hansard reveals that week after week, not only do my questions go unanswered, but they are completely ignored. Week after week, we get a clickbait video for her personal YouTube channel. Surely that behaviour demeans her office and disrespects this House. She is here to answer questions from Members.
Returning to that state of the Union report to Cabinet in July 2020, it aimed to undermine the Scottish Government and the Scottish independence cause, which were apparently a Tory top priority at the height of the pandemic. It came to light last week, and no wonder the Leader of the House’s Government wanted to keep it under wraps. It contains more grim news for any remaining supporters of the Union. My questions again are: how much did it cost taxpayers, what was its purpose, and what strategy was it asking the Cabinet to endorse? Do the Union strategy and operations committees still exist? While she is at it, I would be pleased to know the details of the “highly professional attack dogs”, as described by one journalist, who were employed around that time in an attempt to counter independence support. Unlike the Prime Minister, I am not a betting woman, but I would wager £1,000 that I will not get answers to those today, either.
I will be writing to the Leader of the House with all the questions she has ignored just this year for starters. My question today, though, just needs a simple yes or no, and I challenge her then to sit back down and resist the video script. Will she at the very least attempt to find answers to my questions when she receives them in writing, as she refuses to do so here? Can we have a debate on the role and function of the Leader of the House?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that important question. While our legislation and the things that arm’s length bodies use need to be legally accurate, it is important that people can use language and words such as “mother” and “father”. Actually, that is not only the right thing to do but what the guidance they operate under says they should do. May I ask him to let my office have the details of that case? In addition to perhaps having a debate—he will know how to apply for one in the usual way—I could follow that up for him with relevant arm’s length body.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and for announcing two full weeks’ business. That is welcome.
Last week, we had to pull a debate due to shortage of time. That was understandable, given the importance of the Government business tabled for that day, but the sad point from our perspective is that unless we are allocated time other than on Thursdays for Back-Bench debates, we will probably have no further time to allocate in the Chamber before the Easter recess. Monday 26 February might fit the bill, since a general debate has been announced for that day. We are of course open for applications, particularly for business in Westminster Hall.
I know this has been mentioned, but could the Leader of the House give an indication of the progress made on bringing forward legislation for the appointment of the football regulator? I have a particular interest in that. Television’s impact on travelling football fans is worsening, with Newcastle United fans alone—I am one of them—having had inconvenient and almost unworkable away-game fixtures imposed on them no fewer than eight times this season. We have had away kick-off times of 8 pm on new year’s day, 5.30 pm in Brighton and Bournemouth—this is when travelling from the north-east of England—and Saturday night kick-offs in London at 8 pm on two occasions and 7 pm on one occasion. Those times makes it unworkable for people to get back from those fixtures on public transport, and it is happening on a much more regular basis. The football regulator is much needed, and I am sure that is something that it would like to focus on.
Points of Order
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman, and I understand his disappointment. I hope there will be a good amount of time for Backbench Business debates. The Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who is sitting next to the hon. Gentleman, will know that I am keen to accommodate and give time for these important debates and to support the innovation that is the Backbench Business Committee.
It will be for the House to decide the length of time it takes on these two statutory instruments. Yesterday, there was considerable representation for more time to be given, and for the House to have a mechanism to allow the SIs to be taken individually. The Government listened, and on this important matter we think it is important that the House has that time.
Mr Speaker
The only thing I can add is that the hon. Gentleman is sitting next the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who I am sure will offer a very sympathetic ear and, I hope, could schedule more time for that very important issue.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise the infected blood scandal and inaccuracies in what Ministers are saying to Parliament, which is causing me a great deal of concern. On 18 January, the Paymaster General said to the House during Cabinet Office questions, in relation to Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations in his report:
“The psychological support is now in place”.—[Official Report, 18 January 2024; Vol. 743, c. 1015.]
I then submitted a question to the Department of Health and Social Care asking it to publish details of that support. The answer came back:
“A bespoke psychological support service for infected blood victims, commissioned by NHS England, is currently being developed, and planned to go live in early summer 2024.”
It seems, therefore, that the Minister misspoke. During those questions, he also said to the House:
“I have recognised the need to ensure that we get the clinical, legal and care experts in place. They are in place, and they are working on some of the complex issues the hon. Lady alludes to.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2024; Vol. 743, c. 1015.]
Again, I tabled a question asking for further details. The answer came back on 29 January:
“The Government is in the process of appointing clinical, legal and social care experts to advise the Cabinet Office on detailed technical considerations of the Government’s response to the Infected Blood Inquiry and will update Parliament in due course.”
It is totally unacceptable for Ministers to give information on the Floor of the House that is then contradicted in written answers to Members. Will you comment, Mr Speaker, on what steps I can take to ensure that accurate information in this really difficult scandal, where people are dying, is relayed correctly to the House, Members and the wider general public?
Mr Speaker
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order, which is a very important one. As she well knows, I am not responsible for the accuracy of statements that Ministers make in this House or in written answers, nor have I been given the power to police their accuracy. However—and I think this is important— I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her remarks, and the Table Office will be able to advise her on how to pursue this matter. One thing I do know is that the right hon. Member will not stop here today, but will take all avenues open to her to ensure that she gets a response to the remarks she has made. Again, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have taken that on board.
Business of the House
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I thank all colleagues who will be marking Holocaust Memorial Day this week and, in particular, those taking part in the debate later. Clearly, it has additional significance this year.
I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to Lord John Tomlinson, and I thank her for her tribute. I also send my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Sir Graham Bright, the former Member for Luton East and for Luton South. He served this House and his constituents for 18 years, and this included being John Major’s Parliamentary Private Secretary. He is perhaps best known for his private Member’s Bill that became the Video Recordings Act 1984, which required all commercial video recordings offered for sale or hire within the UK to carry a classification. Legend has it that during the passage of the Bill he had to explain to the Prime Minister of the day what particular acts performed on camera warranted particular ratings. Given that that Prime Minister was Margaret Thatcher, that alone would have warranted his knighthood. Many colleagues have spoken very fondly of him over the past few days, and he will be much missed.
Let me also thank two delegations to Parliament this week: the families of Liri Elbag, Eliya Cohen, Idan Shtivi, and Ziv and Gali Berman, who are five of the many hostages still held in Gaza—we must not rest until they are all home—and the Ukrainian delegation, to whom I conveyed our deepest respect and solidarity for all they are doing to protect our freedom. I wish President Zelensky, “Z dnem narodzhennya” and all in the House a happy Burns night.
Let me turn to the hon. Lady’s points. She spoke about the work the House of Commons Commission, on which we both serve, has been doing on the exclusion of Members of Parliament who are considered to be a risk to others on the estate. She will know, because she is on the Commission, that we agree with the proposal that has been brought forward. We were waiting for a motion to be brought to us by the House. That happened late last week, and we will shortly table that motion for Members to see and then bring it forward.
The hon. Lady mentioned the work that the Procedure Committee has done on Lord Cameron, the Foreign Secretary. I thank its members for their work and the hon. Lady for the evidence she gave to that inquiry. We have received that report this week and will shortly be responding to it. I hear her plea to act before next Wednesday, but she should have said next Tuesday, because that is when the next FCDO questions are.
I join in what the hon. Lady says about the work that the Jo Cox Foundation has done through the Commission. It is very important that we protect democracy. We all know that democracy is under attack, and civility in politics is incredibly important, as was demonstrated, as she said, in the form of the late Sir Tony Lloyd.
In that spirit of the Commission’s recommendations, let me deal with the charges that the hon. Lady has made against our record and that Labour has levelled against our Prime Minister. Our Prime Minister is a man whose migrant parents made sacrifices to ensure that he could have a good start in life. He worked hard to make the best use of every opportunity he was afforded—he studied hard, he pushed himself. He had many career options, but he chose a life in public service representing God’s own country. He protected this nation and livelihoods from the greatest financial and health crisis since the second world war. He has risen through hard work, courage and determination to be this country’s first British-Asian Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has shown global leadership on many challenges facing this country. He is a wonderful dad. He gives quietly to charities. He runs for his local hospice. He is a cricket fanatic. He still attends home games at the football club he supports, despite being Prime Minister and despite it being Southampton. He is a shareholder in three community pubs and patron of the Leyburn brass band. He does not just get Britain; he represents the best of Great Britain—the greatest things we have to offer the world, including our values of hard work, enterprise, taking personal responsibility and helping others.
He is in no way confused about where his duty lies. People will not find him taxing education or denying others the opportunities he has had; voting against strengthening our borders; siding with militant trade unions against the public; compromising our energy security or nuclear deterrent; opposing the deportation of foreign criminals; scratching his head about the monarchy; ducking difficult issues; or supporting the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). If the Leader of the Opposition is a weathervane, our Prime Minister is a signpost. He knows what he stands for, he knows where the country needs to go, he has a plan to get us there and that plan is working.
Further business will be announced in the usual way.
Mr Speaker
That brings me to a slightly difficult problem. Bob Blackman is meant to be representing the Backbench Business Committee, to tell us about its business, but unfortunately he is not here, so I now call the spokesperson for the Scottish National party.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I associate myself with the remarks about Holocaust Memorial Day. I ask the House to note that tonight is Burns night, when we celebrate the work of Scotland’s great national bard.
A new year, a new Tory civil war—just what the UK needs—with talk of doom loops, massacres and extinctions. If only Members of the Leader of the House’s party had listened to her the last time she wooed them for leadership. She warned them that if they voted for the former Chancellor as leader it would “murder the party”. I know that the Leader of the House is furiously busy with all her “Minister for clickbait” responsibilities—those anti-Scottish articles and sneering videos do not write themselves—but as her Government grind, punch-drunk and exhausted, to an election, should we not debate some of the key legacies of the last 14 years of Tory rule?
Where should we start? There are still the scandalously unresolved scandals, such as infected blood, the WASPI women—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—and Post Office Horizon, to name a very few, but has the Leader of the House had time to reflect on recent comments from Sir Michael Marmot, professor of public health at University College London? He said that Britain in 2024 is starting to suffer from Victorian diseases again, and that
“Britain has become a poor country with a few rich people…it’s worse to be poor in Britain than in most other European countries…. Poor people in Britain have a lower income than Slovenia.”
Perhaps the Leader of the House will cast her eye over the latest Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, which says that more than one in five people were in poverty in 2021-22, with about 6 million in “very deep poverty” that same year. Has she not managed to look at that yet? That is unsurprising, as the Tories seem genuinely untroubled by poverty in the UK. My colleagues and I have asked them about it many times, but their eyes just glaze over—comfortable, I guess, with the choices they have made, as the PM has said.
Perhaps we should start our Tory legacy debates with an emerging threat. The Electoral Commission chair warned recently that the Government’s strict new rules on voter ID risk excluding certain voter groups and leave the Conservative party open to the charge of bias. I and many others have thought for some time that this was simply an attempt at voter suppression from the Government, so does the Leader of the House agree with an erstwhile Cabinet colleague that the new Tory rules are simply, as he put it, an attempt at “gerrymandering”? Will she bring a debate on this important issue to the House before the next general election?
Penny Mordaunt
What a bunch of rotters we are, with our anti-Scottish articles. It appears that the hon. Lady is planning to follow in the footsteps of many a great antipodean election guru by using a brilliant new strategy of equating criticism of the SNP’s performance with criticism of Scotland itself. The latter is a landmass of approximately 30,000 square miles, populated by brilliant, creative, stoic people; the former is a ramshackle separatist movement, full of people who have turned maladministration into an art form.
There is one tiny flaw in this new political tactic from the SNP: if we Conservatives dislike Scotland so much, for some reason the hon. Lady never gets round to explaining, why on earth would we strive so hard to keep it part of the Union of the United Kingdom? Why would this Conservative Government give Scotland the largest funding settlement it has ever had? Why would we have offered its citizens who were waiting for NHS treatment additional help and options, which the Scottish Government turned down?
If I wanted to do Scotland down, I would join, donate and campaign for the SNP, to whose members I would point out that the trailblazer for bringing back Victorian diseases to Britain is Glasgow. Watching the hon. Lady’s inaction, and that of her party, is like watching your much-loved neighbourhood being clobbered by a bunch of gangsters—let us call them the “hole in the budget” gang—hitting businesses, taking your cash, making your life a misery and keeping the local police force very busy. This new political strategy from the SNP, like everything else that it does, will fail.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to make a statement next week on the instructions to the advocate for his Department at the Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee? Yesterday, on a number of occasions, the lead advocate said that the design had not been awarded to Sir David Adjaye, or that he was not the architect.
I refer the Leader of the House to the press notice on 24 October 2017, in which the Department and the Cabinet Office said that Sir David and his team would design the memorial; the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid), and the Mayor of London congratulated Sir David; and Sir David was quoted as saying that it was “architecture as emotion”.
I believe that the advocate may have inadvertently told the Committee things that are clearly contradicted by the facts six years ago, and by every other quotation until Sir David Adjaye became a name that could not be mentioned.
Will the Leader of the House please ask the Secretary of State to consider making a statement to correct what was said to the Committee yesterday, and perhaps acknowledge the four holocaust survivors who gave evidence, and look at what they said?
Business of the House
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
The whole House will soon have an opportunity to pay tribute to our late colleague Tony Lloyd. People may not know, and the hon. Lady may not have had an opportunity to do that, so I thank her for her tribute today. Let me place on record my deepest sympathies for all who loved him. The tributes paid to him already illustrate his gentle and kind nature, and the breadth and depth of his public service. As the hon. Lady testified, he was still doing that right up until the end.
I also thank the families of those held hostage by Hamas for again coming to Parliament this week to talk about their loved ones. We will all keep them at the forefront of our minds and do all we can to bring them home. I remind the House that Kfir Bibas turns one today in captivity. I also wish both His Majesty the King and Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales a speedy recovery.
I thank the hon. Lady for again raising the important issue of infected blood. This session follows Cabinet Office questions, in which a number of things were placed on record both by the Paymaster General and by Members. I again remind the House that the compensation study was established acknowledging the moral case for compensation, that the study should be concurrent to the inquiry, and that the inquiry and the study could make reference to each other. The reason for that was to ensure that we could arrive as swiftly as possible at a compensation package for all those affected by this appalling scandal. I do not disagree with any hon. Member who believes that we should not have to wait.
As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), said in the Cabinet Office questions, the Government now have all the information to arrive at a compensation scheme in those inquiries, which is why the Paymaster General is making progress on exactly that. We are acutely aware of that moral imperative and what both the study and the inquiry have said on this matter so far. This House has also been clear in its desire to see that appalling scandal resolved quickly. I refer the hon. Lady to what the Paymaster General just said at the Dispatch Box with regard to legislation, but I am kept regularly informed of progress that he, the Treasury and other Departments are making on this matter. I expect more news on that important point in the coming weeks.
The hon. Lady referred to my article, and I thank her for the publicity. I argued that we should ensure that the consumer is king again. We have some challenging new monopolies—the natural monopolies of water companies —and the online giants, and we need to ensure that the customer is king. That is what the Government have been doing, through our legislation to improve competition and the work we are taking forward with regulators on a whole raft of things, from energy bills to other consumer issues. We can do because we have a plan. We have a plan on all the issues facing the public.
I expect praise from those on my own Benches, but I was much encouraged at the praise we heard yesterday from the Opposition Benches. One Labour Member, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), was urging a focus on reducing the backlog and ending hotel use. She said:
“The Conservatives started this work by employing some temporary new officers and it started to work”.
She went on:
“The Tories have also started smashing the gangs through the work they are doing in France.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2023; Vol. 743, c. 972.]
She was right. On that priority, she could have added that crossings are down by 36% this year, the Albanian returns scheme has seen a 93% fall in arrivals, and we have dismantled, alongside the French, 82 organised criminal gangs. We are making progress on that and other areas. The health statistics announced show that the waiting list figures the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) mentioned are coming down. These are not easy problems, particularly because of the recovery from the pandemic and the global situation on prices and supply chains, but we have a plan and we are methodically working through it with zero assistance from the Labour party.
On any issue and priority, we are sticking to that plan. The reason we can do that and are not being blown off course is that we have some principles backing it up. Unlike the Labour party, we understand our duty to the people of this country, whether that is setting up inquiries into infected blood and the Horizon scandal, or on the people’s priorities, which are also the Prime Minister’s five top priorities. We have never wavered in our duty to the people of this country. We have never wavered in our support to protect our country’s borders and protect the defence of the realm, unlike the hon. Lady’s party which has six current shadow Cabinet members who voted against our continuous at-sea deterrent. We are working to strengthen our borders and stop the boats. The Labour party has voted consistently against that legislation. We believe in supporting minimum service standards on vital public health services, including health and transport. Labour has opposed that. And we have taken tough decisions on helping the economy, including controlling borrowing, which is why inflation is down by 60% since October and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts inflation falling to 2.8% this year. Labour’s stated policy on fiscal rules and spending means that it will have to raise taxes if it wants to stick to those fiscal rules, but it has not said what and when.
On all those things, we have a plan and it is working. We are going to stick to it, despite what the Labour party is doing. Labour has no plan, just a big fat bill for taxpayers.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I agree with a great deal of what the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) said about Tony Lloyd, and I agree with much, if not all, that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said on party politics, having a plan and delivering for the British people.
Next week, the Select Committee on the Holocaust Memorial Bill continues its hearings. It had three sessions this week and transcripts can be made available in the Vote Office. One issue that comes up is the Government’s continued failure to publish the minutes of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation from 2015 to 2016. There was a consultation on a site for the proposed memorial and learning centre. The consultants analysed the responses and shortlisted three. Two days later the Government produced an alternative option, which was Victoria Tower Gardens.
No one outside the Department has seen the comparisons between the merits of Victoria Tower Gardens and other possible sites. No one has seen the minutes of discussion changing the specification behind the backs of the public. Will my right hon. Friend look to see the redactions made by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and why it is continuing to instruct lawyers to oppose the freedom of information request, which is vital to the work of the Select Committee? Through her, may I recommend to the Select Committee asking for that information and making it public?
Mr Speaker
I presume that the Father of the House is asking for a debate on the matter as well.
Penny Mordaunt
I know that this issue, which my hon. Friend raises almost weekly, is of great concern to him, and that he wants to ensure that the final outcome of the process is as good as it can be. I will again make sure that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has heard what he has said. The next session of questions to the Secretary of State will be on 22 January, and my hon. Friend may wish to raise the matter with him directly. This is the kind of information that should be in the public domain, so that people can make good decisions, although on some matters—relating to security concerns, for example—it may be sensible to redact.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for putting on record his beautiful tribute to Tony Lloyd. It would be wonderful if such tributes could also be heard in Strasbourg.
My hon. Friend is right that it is vital that commissioners are held to account. Our NHS will not function properly without accountability and choice. The former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), undertook work on patient outcomes data and the quality of commissioning in each board and across the UK, which will help to drive accountability. Now that we have that data, I am sure it will make for a very interesting debate. My hon. Friend knows how to apply for a debate, and he may also wish to raise this matter with the Secretary of State on 23 January.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I add my condolences to the family and friends of Tony Lloyd. Last night, in the local I frequent in Kennington, Tony was remembered with great fondness by the regulars. The manager, who is also a friend of mine, asked me to make it known that he really respected, loved and missed Tony Lloyd. He will be missed by all in the House. He was probably the nicest Manchester United supporter I have ever come across.
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week and the Backbench Business debates for Thursday. There will also be a Select Committee statement from the Procedure Committee on Commons scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords. If we are allocated time on Thursday 1 February, we have lined up two debates, one on miners and mining communities, and one on freedom and democracy in Iran.
We are approaching the tabling of supplementary estimates, and the Backbench Business Committee will soon publish information on the application process for a day of debates in the Chamber. The Committee is keen to receive applications for Westminster Hall debates, particularly for Thursdays.
I apologise to the Leader of the House, because last week I raised the subject of the Tyne bridge, which I raised again at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, but it is a matter of urgency and I will quickly explain why. The Tyne bridge and its surrounding buildings are the furthest inland nesting place for kittiwakes. If we do not get the work started before the kittiwakes return from their wintering, it will become increasingly difficult because it will mean disturbing kittiwake nests. We do not want to do that, so we want to get on with the work. There is urgency from an environmental perspective, but also from a financial perspective. The work really needs to be started as soon as possible. I thank the Leader of the House for writing to the Department for Transport on my behalf last week, but I would like her to understand the urgency of why we need to do that.
I apologise, Mr Speaker, that I miss next week’s business questions, as I will be on Select Committee business.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very helpful advert to all Members for forthcoming debates. I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has also heard the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the bridge and, again, I will ask the Department for Transport to lean in.