European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lisa Nandy and John Bercow

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southport (Damien Moore) was as shocked as I was to read the content of many of the emails that were released both to him and to me under the Freedom of Information Act. Their content has had such serious implications for my constituents and his. Given that the Department has not released emails during the current Secretary of State for Transport’s tenure and has stopped at the point at which the current Secretary of State was appointed, I wonder whether I could seek your guidance as to whether it might be in order to direct the Secretary of State to release those emails and come clean about what he knew, and when.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think it is open to me to issue any direction of the kind that the hon. Lady suggests, but the hon. Member for Southport (Damien Moore) made his point in all sincerity and it is on the record. Now the hon. Lady, who is at least equally dextrous, has made her own point in her own way and it is on the record—I rather imagine that each of them will rely on those words, as doubtless they co-operate in future on this important matter.

Points of Order

Debate between Lisa Nandy and John Bercow

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I must advise him, with reference to the precise wording of his point of order, that the Chair has no responsibility for guaranteeing what he referred to, namely adequacy. The question of the adequacy or otherwise of a ministerial response cannot be a matter for the Chair, save in so far as the question involves timeliness. Ministerial replies to questions should be timely. Moreover, it is a convention, I think one now generally accepted, that Ministers should provide substantive replies. A continual stream of holding replies—“I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible”—really does not cut the mustard. I think the Leader of the House tends to chase ministerial replies to Members and it is right that that should be so.

More widely, my advice to the hon. Gentleman, seeing as he clearly invests in me great power, potential influence or even wisdom, is to say to him one word beginning with p and ending in t: persist, man! Persist! Persist! Persist in putting down questions and framing them in terms that are so clear that there can be no means, entirely inadvertently of course, of a Minister failing to see the purport and responding thereto.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Over many decades through the child migration programmes, the UK Government, churches and charities sent British children in their care overseas. Many of those children were physically, sexually and emotionally abused. They were separated from their families, and they were wrongly told that they were dead. Earlier this month, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse published a report that recommended surviving child migrants be paid compensation urgently; many have died and others are seriously ill. Originally the Department of Health and Social Care had lead responsibility for this matter, but when the report was published the Home Secretary published a written statement to this House. When I asked further questions of the Home Office, however, they were answered by the Department of Health and Social Care. I have spoken to the Table Office and we cannot get to the bottom of who is actually responsible. This has made it almost impossible to hold anyone to account. I am concerned that this reflects a lack of urgency and priority to this matter within Government. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, on how, given the confusion within Government about who is actually responsible, Members can progress this important matter?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and John Bercow

Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

A Member cannot ask two questions in substantives or two questions in topicals. A Member can try to do one in each, but attempting to do a bit more than that is possibly biting off more than one can chew—or wanting more bites of the cherry.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Last month in this House, the Home Secretary told me that some papers would be withheld from the Cyril Smith inquiry for reasons of national security. This week, the Prime Minister has written to me to say:

“We are clear that the work of the security services will not prevent information being shared with other such inquiries.”

Will the Home Secretary confirm, for the survivors of Cyril Smith who have waited for justice for decades, that she was wrong and that the Prime Minister is right?

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Debate between Lisa Nandy and John Bercow

Monday 17th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)]

I would like to make a statement on the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. I know that the whole House will agree with me when I say that the work of the inquiry is absolutely vital. Victims and survivors must have justice, and we must learn the lessons of the past. The inquiry’s remit is to examine whether institutions in England and Wales have failed to protect children from sexual abuse. It is an independent body, established under the Inquiries Act 2005. The Home Office is the sponsor Department, and I am responsible for the terms of reference, appointing the chair and panel members, and providing funding. Last year, the inquiry had a budget of £17.9 million and underspent by over £3 million. The appointment of staff and the day-to-day running are matters for the chair.

I appointed Professor Alexis Jay as chair of the inquiry on 11 August, following the unexpected resignation of Dame Lowell Goddard on 4 August, and I am aware of questions around the reasons for that resignation. Let me spell out the facts. On 29 July, the secretary to the inquiry met my permanent secretary and reported concerns about the professionalism and competence of the chair. My permanent secretary encouraged the inquiry to raise those matters with the chair. He reported this meeting to me the same day. My permanent secretary also met members of the inquiry panel on 4 August. Later that day, Dame Lowell tendered her resignation to me, which I accepted. Less than a week elapsed between concerns being raised with the Home Office and Dame Lowell’s resignation. My permanent secretary’s approach was entirely appropriate for an independent body.

The second issue relates to my evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. I was asked why Dame Lowell had gone. Dame Lowell had not spoken to me about her reasons, so I relied on the letter that she had sent to the Committee. In her letter, she said that she was lonely and felt that she could not deliver, and that that was why she had stepped down. Dame Lowell has strongly refuted the allegations about her. The only way we could understand properly why she resigned would be to hear from Dame Lowell herself. To echo any further allegations, which are now likely to be the subject of legal dispute, would have been entirely inappropriate. We now owe it to the victims and survivors to get behind the inquiry in its endeavour. My own commitment to the inquiry’s work is undiminished, and I invite the House to offer its support in the same way.

[Mr Speaker]

I have no wish to be disobliging to the Home Secretary, but for the record, and for the propriety of these proceedings, I should just mention that in no meaningful sense of the term was she making a statement to the House, which is a matter of conscious and deliberate choice by the Government. The right hon. Lady was responding—she has done so timeously—to an urgent question, which I have granted. In other words, the Home Secretary is here because she has been asked to be here, not because she asked to be here. That is quite an important distinction, which we ought to respect in the language that we use.

[Lisa Nandy]

The Home Secretary is right to say that the inquiry is of profound significance not only to survivors, but the whole country. She is right to remind us that it is independent, but these events and the problems that have beset it since it started also raise fundamental questions of accountability.

The Home Secretary referred to the evidence that she gave to the Home Affairs Committee on 7 September, in which she said that “all the information” she had was that Justice Goddard had quit because she was a “long way from home” and “too lonely”. The Home Secretary said that she was relying on a letter. Why did she not ask Justice Goddard why she had quit the inquiry? We have since learned that senior officials in the Department were aware on 29 July—before the resignation—of concerns about Justice Goddard’s conduct. It is also alleged that Liz Sanderson, an adviser to the Home Secretary’s predecessor, who is now Prime Minister, and Mark Sedwill, the permanent secretary, knew about the concerns long before then. Will the Home Secretary clarify whether that is the case?

On what date did the Home Office become aware of the problems? On which exact date during the 16 months that the chair was in post did the Home Secretary or her predecessor become aware of the problems? Who made them aware of those problems? Given that 38 Home Office staff are seconded to the inquiry, how could the Home Secretary have been unaware of the concerns as late as 7 September? Can she tell us why, given that the Home Office knew of serious questions about the behaviour and leadership of the inquiry, she went on to authorise a pay-off to Justice Goddard worth £80,000?

Will the Home Secretary confirm that she is the only person who can terminate the chair’s contract and that misconduct is grounds for dismissal under that contract? If so, why was that not acted upon? Has she or the Prime Minister intervened to request that Justice Goddard appears before the Home Affairs Committee? If not, will they do so urgently? Can she explain the circumstances surrounding the departure of the lead counsel, Ben Emmerson, QC? Has any compensation been paid to him or the four other senior lawyers who have quit the inquiry? Will the Home Secretary assure survivors about how the inquiry will proceed?

Finally, this inquiry was established to shine a spotlight on institutions characterised by a culture of secrecy, denial and cover-up in which child abusers were able to operate in plain sight without challenge or consequence. It is a tragedy that the inquiry has been dogged by allegations of a similar nature, with which child abuse victims will be far too familiar. If the inquiry is to proceed with confidence, the questions must be answered.

[Mr Speaker]

It is very cheeky for an hon. Member to use the word “finally” in what I might call the Hughes sense—a reference to the former Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, who was wont to follow that word with several further sentences.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and John Bercow

Thursday 24th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Points of order come later.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I welcome the action that the CMA recommended for prepayment customers, but I urge the Secretary of State to heed the words of my hon. Friends who urged her to go further. I am sure that she is as angry as I am about the treatment of these customers. I am sure she is also as angry as we are about the treatment of 70% of customers who have been overcharged to the tune of £1.7 billion a year. The Energy and Climate Change Committee said that the Secretary of State’s

“Sudden and numerous policy announcements…lack of transparency…insufficient consideration of investor impacts…Policy inconsistency and contradictory approaches”,

coupled with the

“lack of a long-term vision”,

have raised the cost of investing in UK energy by £3.14 billion a year. Given that she is costing bill payers almost twice as much as the big energy companies, will she refer herself to the CMA?

Policing

Debate between Lisa Nandy and John Bercow

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your advice. The House will be aware that last week a statutory instrument was passed upstairs in Committee that would allow surface-level drilling in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty for the purposes of what is commonly known as fracking. It is yet to be taken on the Floor of the House, but today the Government issued a consultation on this very subject on their departmental website, which at the very least causes considerable confusion, but at worst may supersede the statutory instrument itself. Have you received any indication from a member of the Treasury Bench or a Government Minister that they intend to make a statement on the subject to the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I am bound to say to the hon. Lady that I have received no such indication. To date, nothing disorderly has occurred and, as I understand it, the relevant regulation has not been passed. Whether the issue of the consultation paper is to the taste of the hon. Lady or others is a matter for her, but with regard to propriety and order, nothing improper or disorderly has occurred. I must answer factually that, as of now, I have received no such indication, although what might be thought to be a request for such a statement will have been heard on the Treasury Bench. I thank the shadow Secretary of State for what she has said.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and John Bercow

Thursday 17th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I, too, am sorry that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) is no longer on the Front Bench. She and I used to have regular, robust exchanges, and she had a realistic approach to energy security, describing nationalisation proposals as “turning the clock back”. How much I agree with her.

The hon. Member for Wigan mentioned investor confidence, but perhaps I may ask her to look within her own team as there are real concerns about the Opposition’s approach to nuclear power—who knows their position ahead? The Government are committed to a mix of energy supply and to ensuring that nuclear power, which she mentioned, is part of that mix. It is so disappointing that under the previous Labour Government there was no planning or looking ahead—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Secretary of State can leave me to adjudicate on these matters. Her answers must be about the policy of the Government. That is the premise from which we start and with which we proceed.

[Lisa Nandy]

I was going to thank the right hon. Lady for that answer, but I do not think I will.

Investors looking at the UK are scratching their heads. On the one hand the Government say that they are trying to reduce the cost of energy for working families, but on the other hand they say that they want to go for shale gas and CCS, which are unproven markets. We have

“new nuclear build and offshore wind which are substantially more expensive than renewables such as onshore wind and solar PV. Investors don’t know what the government is trying to achieve.”

Those are not my words; those are the words of Ernst and Young’s energy analyst in a report that was published this week. When will the Government return with a plan to keep our lights on, cut pollution, and get energy bills under control?

Points of Order

Debate between Lisa Nandy and John Bercow

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. As has just been pointed out to me by the acting Clerk, whom I know the hon. Gentleman rightly respects, that is not a point of order. I have nothing to add and we will leave it there.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your advice. As a result of delays and confusion among Government Departments, my question, which would have addressed Government proposals to deny the people of Greater Manchester a vote on their mayor until 2019, was denied entry to the correct Department—the Department for Communities and Local Government—whose Question Time took place earlier today. Given that the people of Greater Manchester have not been given any opportunity to challenge these proposals, is there anything within your powers that you can do, Mr Speaker, to ensure that the Government cannot show the same sort of contempt that they have shown to the people to those who sit in this Parliament?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the point of order. My understanding, from advice, is that an error was made by the Table Office, for which an apology has been made. I hope in the circumstances that that meets the needs of the case, but if the hon. Lady thinks otherwise, I dare say she will return to it.

[Lisa Nandy]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

If I have not got the point to which she wants a response, I will do my best to do so.

[Lisa Nandy]

My understanding from the Table Office is that there has been considerable confusion within Government about which Government Department is going to take responsibility for the proposals that are currently being rushed through the parliamentary process. Today’s Question Time was one of the very few opportunities before the general election for anybody to be able to shine a spotlight on what is happening. I understand that because of the delays and confusion, the question was incorrectly taken out of the shuffle by the Table Office.

[Mr Speaker]

My immediate response to the hon. Lady is that Ministers must take responsibility for the content of answers and, collectively, the Government have a judgment to make about which Minister will answer a particular question. I am happy further to reflect on the matter; and if, having done so, I have anything new that I can vouchsafe either to the hon. Lady or the House, I shall be happy to oblige.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and John Bercow

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Lisa Nandy.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

I thought that the hon. Lady was seeking to catch my eye. Never mind; there will be other opportunities I call Margot James.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and John Bercow

Monday 16th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure we would all in any case have remembered the precise phrasing of what the Minister of State wrote in 1998, and I cannot imagine why he would suppose otherwise.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Despite efforts to improve awareness, many trafficked children still wrongly believe that their trafficker is their friend. Given that the Minister has rejected the idea of guardianship for trafficked children, can he tell me who is able to instruct a child’s lawyer in cases where the child is too young, too confused, too traumatised or too afraid to do so themselves?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and John Bercow

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Steve McCabe. Not here.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Last year, the Deputy Prime Minister, speaking in a professional capacity, set out how he would end child detention by May. It is now November. Does he still believe this practice is immoral and does he still plan to keep his promise? If so, will he tell the House when?

Points of Order

Debate between Lisa Nandy and John Bercow

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the hon. Lady’s point of order is on an unrelated matter.

[Lisa Nandy]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

I am correct in my surmise. We shall therefore come on to the hon. Lady’s point of order shortly—we will save her up. First, I shall respond to the earlier point of order and the subsequent comments on it.

The short answer to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), speaking from the Labour Front Bench, is no: I have not received any such notification. My response to the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) is that I have, of course, noted what he has told me and the House this afternoon, but, as he will know, responsibility for deciding to make statements, and then for making them, lies with Ministers. It is a matter of calculation or good fortune that as the hon. Gentleman was raising his point of order with me he was in the presence of the Leader of the House, who is sitting on the Treasury Bench. The comments that have been made will therefore have been heard, and I feel sure that if as a result of the publication of documents, or because decisions have been reached, a Minister wishes to make a statement, he or she will do so. Finally, I note what the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has said, and others will also have done so.

[Lisa Nandy]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following last week’s Westminster Hall debate on disabled access to public transport, I seek your advice on the treatment of visitors in wheelchairs to this place. This weekend, I received a number of complaints from people who missed the start of the debate because, despite stating their destination very clearly on arrival, they were directed to another Committee Room where a lobby meeting held by employees of Remploy was taking place. They, and others, were unable to fit into Westminster Hall. The majority of the chairs had not been removed because if they had been left in the corridor it might have disrupted a later debate. Our office gave notice that some visitors in wheelchairs were expected, but it does not seem right that people with disabilities should be required to give notice to come to this place when others are not. I have the greatest respect for the staff in this House and I do not attribute responsibility to any individual, but it seems that we have, collectively on this occasion, fallen far short of the standards that the 12 million people in this country with disabilities should be able to expect from their elected representatives. I therefore ask that you urgently investigate this matter, Mr Speaker, and ensure that such situations never arise again.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for providing me with notice of her intended point of order, I am grateful to her for what she said and I am grateful for the manner in which she said it. I attach the greatest importance to all our proceedings being accessible to everyone, without discrimination. The hon. Lady relates to me a sequence of events with which until a short while ago I was entirely unfamiliar. The best I can say to her and the House is that I will inquire into the matters she raises, reporting back as necessary to her and the House. I hope that is helpful.