Afghan Resettlement Update

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

The bridging hotel in my constituency is still full, and about half of the 375 or so people there have been there since the evacuation. One reason why they have not been able to find alternative accommodation or it has not been found for them is that there are some big families, and there is not suitable accommodation for them. What particular provision will the Minister make for those families? I have heard a rumour that that hotel is to close to the Afghans in August, but I have had no letter and no communication from the Government or any Department. Can he confirm, perhaps outside the Chamber, when the hotel in my constituency is due to be closed?

[Johnny Mercer]

I am more than happy to meet the right hon. Lady and go over the situation with that hotel. No hotel has been given closing orders. I am more than happy to challenge these rumours, and that is certainly the case in that area.

We are increasing flexibility in how this money can be used. The £250 million going into the local authority housing fund can be used, for example, to knock through into the house next door to create bigger accommodation. I was talking to the Mayor of London about this this morning. We have the specific challenge of massive families in this cohort, and finding a house for a family of 10 is extremely difficult in the UK, so we have introduced flexibility to make sure this money can be used for improvements, so that we can see through our commitments to these people.

Independent Public Advocate

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 1st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my right hon. Friend and pay tribute again to her for her campaigning and advocacy on this issue. On the right of initiative, the Government will ultimately have to decide the shape of any IPA that is set up. The right of consultation is clearly set out, but of course, one of the challenges will be where different views are expressed as to how the IPA should be configured for a particular inquiry. Ultimately, where there are differences, the Government will have to try to reconcile those, so in committing to an IPA, I think it is right to allow the Government to engage and to allow the victims, the bereaved and the families the power of initiative to call for an IPA and make their representations, but to allow the Government to decide the precise configuration of that IPA.

I listened very carefully to what my right hon. Friend said about the compulsion of evidence. As I said before, I am very happy to engage with her and with other hon. Members as this policy comes forward. I take her point that an inquiry may not be set up, but where one is set up, the piece that we need to reconcile is making sure that we do not have conflicting powers. But again, I am very happy to work with my right hon. Friend on the detail of this policy and, in due course, on the clauses.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that the Government want to legislate for a public advocate, five years after the consultation that they undertook closed, but I am very disappointed with the provisions as the Secretary of State has set them out. His proposed public advocate would not be independent, would not be a data controller, and would not be able to act only at the behest of families. It would be directed by the Secretary of State. It would not have the power to appoint independent panels such as the Hillsborough independent panel—but at a much earlier stage following a disaster than the 23 years it took us to get that report out—and it would not have the power to use transparency to get at the truth at an early stage and torpedo the cover-ups that public authorities set about undertaking in the aftermath of disasters. This must be something that the families themselves can initiate and use to get at the truth at an early stage.

The public advocate having the power to compel—to produce documentation and shine the light of transparency on what public authorities have done in the immediate aftermath of a disaster—would stop cover-ups. It would mean people not still having to fight to get at the truth 34 years later. That prize is within our grasp if we set this up right, so does the Secretary of State accept that if he does not beef up his proposals significantly, he will be missing an important opportunity to stop things going wrong for families? For what it is worth, I am perfectly willing to indicate to him in detail quite how those proposals ought to be improved.

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. She has worked tirelessly on this issue, and we have very good engagement on it; I am happy for that to continue. I take her point about the power of initiative. The families of the bereaved will have a power of initiative through consultation, but if there are conflicting views—something that I have seen before at first hand—the Government will have to reconcile those views in the last analysis.

Secondly, on the point about data, I am happy to keep listening and working on this issue, but if we have an inquiry that has powers to compel evidence of its own, the problem will be how we reconcile those powers where they are competing in a process. But as I have said, it is important that we bring this policy forward. There will be full scrutiny of it, and as we develop the clauses, I am very happy to keep working with the right hon. Lady.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, who raises a very good point. The principle is that the advocate is there for major tragedies. This is a specific institution set up with a range of expertise designed to deal with that. It is not dealing with one loss of life or a smaller event like that. We will need to work closely with Members on the definition to get that right.

[Maria Eagle]

Take up my Bill.

[Dominic Raab]

There are many good things in the right hon. Lady’s private Member’s Bill, but there is more we can do than just that, and there are some areas where, as she knows from her engagement with me—we talked about this at some length, and I am always happy to continue engaging—we take a different view. The most important thing, and I think my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) made this point well, is to make the advocate as effective as possible. I am committed to that, and I am committed to working with Members in all parts of the House.

Standards in Public Life

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I have already dealt with that matter but I will say this. I do not think that any Member of this House from any of the Opposition political parties should take the moral high ground in this matter. I do not choose to reiterate why, but none of us should come to this House expecting all the criticism for any misconduct by any Member to be levelled against any one individual. What happens is that, when wrongdoing has been found to be done, it is properly dealt with in the interests of justice, whatever the political party. But Opposition Members wish to make party political points out of a serious matter.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Over the past few days, Downing Street and the Prime Minister’s official spokesman have said different things at different times: first, that the Prime Minister was not aware of any allegations against the former Government Deputy Chief Whip; then that they were not aware of any specific allegations; then that they were not aware of any serious specific allegations; and then that they were not aware of any allegations that were substantiated. Yet the letter from Lord McDonald to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, published today, shows that all those briefings appear to be untrue. So can the Minister tell the House whether the Cabinet Secretary is investigating these serial breaches of the special advisers’ code of conduct?

[Michael Ellis]

I do not accept the hon. Lady’s characterisation. What she obviously does not wish to recognise is that, as days pass during a heated episode, investigation and media inquiries, pictures become more crystallised. As I said in my opening remarks, when fresh allegations arose, the Prime Minister did not immediately recall the matter that had been raised with him in late 2019. As soon as he was reminded, the No.10 press office corrected the public line. So it is not a matter of anything other than recollection and due process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I totally agree with the hon. Lady’s sentiment and frustration. We need to do more. We have got the local criminal justice scorecards, which will deal with not just wider crime, but rape. Those are coming up in the first quarter of this year. The victims strategy and the victims consultation will put victims at the centre of the justice system. That is important: I think it is a moral duty, but it will also make us more effective in delivering prosecutions. We also have a wider domestic abuse strategy, which will be outlined later in the year. As the hon. Lady knows, we have introduced in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill an extension of the time limit for reporting domestic abuse and common assault and battery to give victims of domestic abuse longer to come forward with their claims and to prevent the perpetrators from finding themselves timed out.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

9. What recent assessment he has made of the timeliness of cases involving allegations of sexual offences.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Victoria Atkins)]

In June, we published the end-to-end rape review report and action plan, which examined forensically each stage of the criminal justice system response to rape. As part of that, we are publishing timeliness data for each part of the criminal justice system in our new national and soon-to-be-released local scorecards, allowing us to increase transparency and hold agencies to account for delivering across the system.

[Maria Eagle]

According to the latest figures from last September, 23% of the cases waiting in the Crown court backlog have been outstanding for more than a year. That is up from 15% in the previous September. The National Audit Office says that rape and serious sexual offence cases have been disproportionately affected by those delays. Does the Minister therefore agree that victims of such crimes should not be expected to wait for years and years and years to get justice and that the increasing delays are a shameful indication that the Government have lost their grip on tackling serious crime?

[Victoria Atkins]

If I may correct the hon. Lady, the Crown court backlog is beginning to come down. We all welcome that, following an investment of £250 million by the Government to ensure that that happens. On the data, I hope that she has had the opportunity to look at the national scorecards. She will see how detailed they are. Recent timeliness data shows that timeliness for adult rape cases has improved slightly from the second quarter of last year. I do not take that as job done by any means. This will be a very long journey, involving every aspect of the criminal justice system, to give victims the confidence to report and then remain with a case. I hope that she will see that our work through the rape review looks at not just timeliness, but all the other levers we have at our disposal to try to improve the situation.

Sue Gray Report

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I do. As I have said to the House earlier, I accept the findings of the report in full—the general findings—and we are immediately taking steps to implement the changes.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has just said that he accepts the findings of the report. One of them says:

“There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times.”

He provides the political leadership and the political judgment at No. 10. Does he accept his own personal wrongdoing and failings in this regard?

[The Prime Minister]

Not only have I accepted full responsibility throughout, but I have apologised repeatedly to the House for any misjudgments that I may have made myself, but, again, I must urge the hon. Lady to wait for the conclusion of the inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My brief says I should be very careful of what I say. I have no doubt that Crewe is a strong contender, but further details of the competition will be announced in the coming weeks. Expressions of interest from places such as Crewe will be very welcome.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Q4. After inquest verdicts that the 97 people who died in the Hillsborough disaster were unlawfully killed, the right hon. Gentleman stood for election to this House on a manifesto that included legislating to introduce a public advocate. Why, then, have his Government repeatedly blocked my Public Advocate Bill, which has cross-party support and would prevent families bereaved by public disasters from ever again having to endure what the Hillsborough families have had to cope with over the past 32 years? Is it an oversight or yet another broken promise?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady and, no, we do recognise the importance of putting the bereaved, such as the bereaved of Hillsborough, at the heart of investigations. In certain circumstances funding may be available for representation of the bereaved at a public inquiry or interest. We are considering what steps should be taken, and I will ensure she has a meeting with the relevant Home Office Minister as soon as possible.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]]

Thank you for calling me to speak on this very sad occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like you, I met the Duke of Edinburgh a number of times in my role as MP for Garston and Halewood and as a Minister in Her Majesty’s Government, and I would like to say a bit about my impressions of him.

The Duke quite clearly enjoyed talking to young people. I remember when he accompanied Her Majesty the Queen when she opened the Garston Urban Village Hall in my constituency. As is always the case at such engagements, there was a detailed timetable that choreographed the time available to the minute, but I could not help but notice that the Duke was perfectly willing to subvert it a little. I was struck by the fact that he was very keen to speak to everyone but was particularly interested in spending time with the young people in attendance. Some of them were rather overwhelmed, but he talked to them and was responsible for holding up the visit while he did it. After the royal party had left—slightly late, it must be said—it was clear that he had made a good impression on the young people he had spoken to. He put them at their ease, showed an interest in them and encouraged them in their endeavours. I am sure that many of those who met him on that occasion still remember it to this day.

The Duke of Edinburgh also had a reputation for being provocative and speaking his mind. I recall once having lunch with him when he accompanied Her Majesty the Queen to open the Manchester Civil Justice Centre when I was the Courts Minister with some responsibility for prisons in the Ministry of Justice. The occasion got off to a somewhat inauspicious start when I was introduced by the lord lieutenant to Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh as my sister. I was a bit fed up, as I am frequently mistaken for my sister. I was left wondering just how hard it would have been to get the name right, given that there was only one Courts Minister in the Government and the name on all the lists was not that of my sister—very hard, apparently. I thought that perhaps it was going to be one of those days, and wondered what else was about the go wrong.

The visit included lunch. At the top table were seated Her Majesty the Queen and the Lord Chancellor, then Jack Straw. The second table had the Duke of Edinburgh and me. If I had wondered beforehand what we might talk about, I need not have worried. Having very graciously insisting that I be seated first, he pitched straight in by opining that there would be fewer people before the courts and in prison if all young people had to spend some time in the armed forces, as indeed young men had to do until the 1950s. He had a twinkle in his eye, and I realised that he did not want to endure a dull lunch with boring small talk any more than I did, so he was seeking to make it interesting. It was a challenge that I was pleased to engage with.

We had the most lively debate, for which I was fortunately well briefed, as in those days my head was chock-full of statistics and policy initiatives, with which I sought to prove to him that he might possibly be wrong, giving evidence and precise figures. The time just flew by and what might have been a dull occasion full of small talk was enlivened by his wish to have a proper conversation, and an interesting one. He did not worry about being provocative; he did it deliberately to see how I would react. I was glad that I was on top of the subject and well briefed with up-to-date statistics so that I could present my arguments with evidence—I would have been somewhat more worried about the occasion had I not been.

We parted having had a lively intellectual debate, which I had not really anticipated at the official opening of a court building. We agreed to disagree, but perhaps I had provided him with some food for thought. He had certainly made me formulate good arguments in support of my views, and that is never a waste of time for a Minister. One hears so many such stories of him being challenging, and it seems likely, given my experience, that they are all true.

The royal family have lost a much-loved family member —a husband, father, grandfather and great-grandfather—and we all sympathise with them in their grief, particularly Her Majesty the Queen. The nation has lost a long-standing public servant—one of the last of those who saw active service in world war two—and a well respected man.

It seems to me that he made the most of his role and influenced the many young people he met to the good. He was clearly capable of provoking lively discussion, and if my experience is anything to go by, he knew how to make Ministers, and no doubt other policy makers, think, by challenging them to explain their views, having set out his own very clearly and in quite decided fashion. All in all, he is going to be very much missed.

Covid-19: Road Map

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. Obviously, that is a matter for the devolved authority, but I am sure that he shares my hope that all pupils will be back in school as fast as possible and that we will hear from the Labour party in Wales that schools are safe.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]]

In Liverpool, only 23% of those who applied for a test, trace and isolate payment received it, and over two fifths of them received a discretionary payment from money that is now exhausted. Effectively facilitating isolation will be key in preventing the resurgence of the virus via new strains that might compromise the vaccine, so does the Prime Minister accept that eligibility for the test, trace and isolate payment is not drawn widely enough to provide support to those who need it and who cannot afford to stop work without extra help? Will he agree to extend it to include all those people who have no access to statutory sick pay?

[The Prime Minister]

We will continue to support all those who are isolating. Indeed, we will do what we can to increase our support for them, but we will also support everybody throughout this pandemic. The hon. Lady should wait for the Chancellor to announce his Budget next week.

Public Health

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

First, I pay tribute to the continued amazing performance of NHS staff and, indeed, to the Government and Kate Bingham’s team for the incredible developments in respect of the vaccines.

I do not underplay the difficult and complex decisions being made by people in the Government and, of course, the terrible toll on families affected, but it seems to me that with every difficulty and milestone reached the Government are acting on largely uncontested information. It feels like there has been a serious lack of diversity of opinion, analysis and evidence when it comes to many of these restrictions. The Covid Recovery Group does not want to “let it rip”; they just ask for proper economic impact assessments.

Let us take, for example, the hospitality industry. We are talking about using an enormous amount of taxpayers’ money to pay the industry not to open or to pay people not to go to work, but the payments will go nowhere near the losses that the businesses will make, and many of them will still go to the wall, despite that money. Why are we looking at not keeping them open, given the very limited evidence for closing them?

Prior to this latest lockdown, I joked with the proprietor of the Compass Alehouse in Gravesend that going into his place was like being put under his control: “Stand there, scan here, anti-bac your hands, walk along that path, sit down there” and so on—Members get the picture. The point is that the hospitality industry has spent an absolute fortune and thought long and hard about how to run establishments safely. We should be reopening well-run pubs and restaurants such as the Reliance fish bar and Bartellas in Meopham, and the authorities should be merciless in closing and fining pubs that risk NHS capacity.

I would much rather my constituents socialise in well-run venues than squeeze on to the sofa back at home with their friends. I would have thought that mixing in venues was much better than mixing at home in tiers 2 and 3. I would have thought that encouraging personal responsibility was rather better than the nuances of how much people have to eat with their beer. As others have said, we must make sure that restrictions make sense, or we will drive down compliance.

We have to have a bit more diversity in the advice—perhaps there should be a few people with private sector experience, and perhaps even some more diverse scientific voices. I do not understand why we are using infection rates and not intensive care unit occupancy to guide policy. Why can we not move people around the country? I do not understand why we are preventing millions of people from working when we have not even made a dent in the surge capacity of the Nightingale hospitals—

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

There are no staff!

[Adam Holloway]

Intervene if you like.

[Maria Eagle]

I will. The hon. Gentleman talks about Nightingale hospitals, but there are not enough staff to staff the Nightingale hospitals. We would have to take them out of the hospitals that they are trying to give some relief to. That is why they are not being used.

[Adam Holloway]

I thank the hon. Lady for intervening and giving me a bit more time, and that is where I would like to see money spent. I would like to see money spent on surge capacity in the NHS, rather than on paying people not to work.

You know what, like it or not, my constituents are going to be thrown into more weeks of extraordinary lockdown, and there is no possibility of this not now happening given the Opposition’s decision to abstain. Well, I am going to support the Government’s decision and message to comply and, indeed, our remarkable Prime Minister in particular, but I will be hard pushed to support the Government in future if there is a realistic possibility of the Government being forced to seek a different path. Churchill himself had a wide mix of generals and advisers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

It seems to me, listening to the debate and to my constituents, that the Government have a problem with being trusted in this field at the moment. Much of that—I am trying to be supportive—comes from the feeling that there is not total transparency. Trust of the kind needed to impose these sorts of measures must come from utter openness and transparency. If the Government were to learn anything from the nature of these debates over the months, that is the lesson they should learn. They must be more open and more transparent.

The Government are repeatedly changing the rules in a confusing way. They seem often to be more interested in managing difficulties from their own Back Benchers than in communicating properly with the public and promoting understanding about why the measures sometimes are necessary.

I will say a little bit about the experience in Liverpool, because we were the first area into tier 3—the old tier 3; we have already got a new one starting tomorrow—where the reality is that infection rates have fallen enormously since then. Local leaders were asking for a full lockdown ahead of the tier 3 arrangements, and they embraced tier 3 happily because of what was happening. We had over 700 infections per 100,000 and our hospitals were precious close to being totally overwhelmed, and the staff in those hospitals have had to work like absolute Trojans. They are still dealing with very high levels of illness.

The reality is that the work done there and the mass testing have helped. We have seen the numbers fall from more than 700 per 100,000 to under 100 per 100,000 in Liverpool, and that is an enormous fall for which we are very grateful. It has relied on solidarity: on people in Liverpool helping each other, doing things they would not necessarily want to do for each other. It is that solidarity around the country between people and communities that has to be promoted, not “We’re all right at the moment, so why should we have to have these issues?” That is what the Government need to focus on. Ensuring routine testing for all high-risk workplaces is important. More testing of the kind we have seen in Liverpool spread out across the country is tremendously important.

More also needs to be done to help to support self-isolation, because that is the real problem. One of the lessons in Liverpool is that people have not downloaded the app and they have not gone to get tested, because they feel that if they get a positive response they cannot comply. That is where we need to focus—on helping people to comply. If someone lives week by week on a wage that is only just enough to keep their head above water and food on their family’s table, they will not want to see whether they are positive unless they have symptoms and absolutely have to do so. People will not go for a test on a routine basis if they are worried sick about what they would be able to do if the answer is yes and they are positive.

We have to focus more effort on the £500 test and trace self-isolation payment. Far too few people are getting it. It is not an entitlement and it should be. People should not have to jump through hoops at a worrying time to get it. Only one in eight are qualifying for it. Many more people are being turned down and local authorities in my area are being told that when the money they have to pay for it runs out, which it nearly has, it will not necessarily be replenished. That is not a way forward if we expect people to comply. People have to be helped to comply when they are worried sick about whether they can put food on the table for their children.

Covid-19 Update

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, of course, because it is thanks to the efforts of her constituents in Stroud that the R is not very far above 1 right now. If we all follow the package of measures that I have outlined today and we all stay at home in the way that I have described, we will be able to open up again on 2 December.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister understand that extending the furlough scheme on the very day it was supposed to end, and doing so for just a month, means that in reality many of my constituents whose jobs were furloughed have already been made redundant by their employers in anticipation of its non-availability after 31 October? Can those people be re-employed and furloughed until the scheme’s new endpoint? Can he tell me whether people who have changed jobs since the original furlough scheme was closed to new applicants are eligible to be furloughed by their new employers, who might not have registered for the scheme by the time it closed to new applicants a few months ago?

[The Prime Minister]

I hope very much that people will not have been laid off in anticipation of the end of furlough, because there is the job retention scheme and the bonus as well at the end of the year. To discover exactly what entitlements people have under the extended furlough scheme, they should get on to the website. I think that most people appreciate that the Government have done a huge amount to support people throughout the crisis and are continuing to do so in the latest phase, as well as supporting the self-employed.