Business of the House

Debate between Nigel Evans and Ian Mearns

Thursday 30th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the Backbench Business debates for Thursday 7 December. Let me give her early notice that if we are awarded time on Thursday 14 December, the Committee will intend to schedule debates on knife crime and the potential merger of Vodafone and Three. Is the Leader of the House considering giving the Backbench Business Committee any time in the week beginning Monday 18 December? If she is, we would love to know as soon as possible so that we can allocate debates and let Members know. I am glad to say that the Committee was re-established this week and is up and running, but we already have a backlog of debates, with 13 on our waiting list. It is good that we have plenty of business to come.

The Go North East bus industrial action continues, with very few buses running for weeks and, on many routes, not at all. That is having a huge detrimental impact on our local economy and jobs, and on the learning of students who cannot get to their local further education colleges such as Gateshead College in my constituency. Students who struggled to make up the learning lost during covid are being hit again, since they are unable to attend at all without incurring massive additional expense. Can we have a debate in Government time about introducing a compensation scheme from public transport providers that are singularly failing in their service delivery obligations?

Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment

Debate between Nigel Evans and Ian Mearns

Thursday 20th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns]

I think I am subject to another Government cut here, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.] This has been a wide-ranging and well-supported parliamentary event, with an oft-repeated theme of ticket office closures, and I am glad that the rail Minister has been here to reflect on some of that. It has been a fitting tribute to the memory of Sir David Amess, and I also need to mention the Member who was not here but who was—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

Mr Deputy Speaker, to you, right hon. and hon. Members across the House, and all the staff who work tirelessly to support the functions of the House and keep us safe, I wish a fantastic and well-deserved summer recess. I wish Members safe journeys back to their constituencies, homes and loved ones.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before everybody disappears, I just want to say that the spirit of Sir David Amess and his light absolutely shine bright on our proceedings. We all miss him greatly. We all have great memories of Sir David, and his spirit remains here.

I thank all my staff, because they at the frontline and take a lot of the flak before it gets anywhere near us, so we are grateful for them. All the staff who work here, from the Clerks to the cleaners, from the secretaries to the security, make sure that our democracy works as well as it does.

I want you all to have a superb recess. As president of the Royal Lancashire Agricultural Show, I look forward to welcoming thousands of visitors to the Ribble Valley tomorrow and over the weekend, demonstrating how important rural agriculture is to this country. Have a great recess everybody.

Points of Order

Debate between Nigel Evans and Ian Mearns

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to Sir Bill Wiggin—I forgot to give you due deference there, Sir Bill. There were a lot of nods from Front Benchers and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber when you mentioned Ronnie Radford.

[Ian Mearns]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I point out that I was not booing the late Ronnie Radford, for whom I have a high regard as a non-league player at the time when Hereford defeated Newcastle all those years ago. I was booing that fact that in the next week or so, we will probably see that goal on many occasions, which I think I have seen on only 4,953 previous occasions—every time the FA cup third round comes on each year. I have great respect and fondness for the late Ronnie Radford, but I hate being reminded about that goal.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

What can I say other than to ask that our deepest condolences be passed on to Ronnie’s family? He was remembered in the House today.

Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment

Debate between Nigel Evans and Ian Mearns

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to lead the first Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment debate ahead of the summer recess. It has been and, having been recently re-elected, continues to be a great privilege to chair the Backbench Business Committee since 2015.

Like many colleagues across the House, I will pay tribute to Sir David Amess, a distinguished and respected Member who served on the Backbench Business Committee between 2012 and 2015. Those of us who worked closely with Sir David will know how passionately he felt about Back-Bench issues, and it is entirely fitting that today’s debate and future debates of this kind will carry his name. While we must not forget the tragic circumstances that led to his death, it is right that we remember his positive impact on this House and how enthusiastically he represented his constituents in both Basildon and Southend West throughout his parliamentary career. Like Sir David, I seek to represent the constituents of my hometown of Gateshead in this House and, frankly, to anyone anywhere who will listen.

Last week, it was with some dismay, but not with any great surprise, that I read research published by End Child Poverty in conjunction with the North East Child Poverty Commission. It found that 38% of children across the north-east are growing up poor. In my constituency, that rises to 42%—over four in 10 children living in poverty. The north-east is no stranger to child poverty, but we now have another unenviable award in having the highest rate of child poverty in the UK. The reasons are many, not least the stripping back of the social security safety net, which has worsened poverty across my constituency, the effective £20 cut to universal credit, the two-child cap on universal credit, and the failure to increase payments in line with inflation for much of the past decade.

The apparent attitude across Departments seems to be to spend more effort looking for reasons not to give a positive response than actually tackling vital issues. In addition, we have seen over a decade of cuts to local authority budgets. Perhaps coincidentally, some areas with the greatest deprivation, such as Gateshead, have been subjected to proportionally much greater funding reductions. My own authority in Gateshead has seen its annual budget reduced by £170 million since 2010, even before increased population, greater levels of need and inflation are taken into account. That is £170 million a year extracted from my authority’s budget since 2010.

This Government’s funding model gives vague initiative funding which councils can bid for, only to find that much of the pot wends its way to favoured areas in, I am afraid to say, a pork barrel process. Even if some of that funding finds its way to us, it does relatively little to combat more than a decade of service cuts. Cuts to adult social care, children’s social care, youth services, early intervention proposals, special educational needs and family support all contribute to the situation we now face. Many families are in crisis.

The current cost of living crisis for many households in Gateshead is just acidic icing on an already bitter cake. Many families in Gateshead have spent a decade living from one week to the next, shaving ever more from their weekly shop, depriving themselves of food so they can feed their families, and going to bed early on winter evenings to save heating their homes. That is absolutely shameful and unsustainable. The fact that over 40% of children in my constituency live in poverty is unforgivable.

Gateshead is proud of taking an active role in Government resettlement schemes for families from Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine. These additional people are all being welcomed, but it is already a relatively poor community. While I welcome the wraparound support offered as part of those schemes, I draw the House’s attention to the hundreds of legitimate refugees from around the world outside these schemes who reside in Gateshead, many of whom are stuck in the Home Office processing backlog.

I want to raise the case of a lad called Victor—I call him a lad, but he is now over 60—who has been living in my constituency since 2006. Originally from Russia, Victor arrived in the UK after fleeing Russia and Putin due to his public criticism of the Russian regime—free speech is something we talk about so much in this House. Victor applied to the Home Office and has spent much of the last 16 years waiting for decisions. He still does not have leave to remain. Having spent much of his recent life in Gateshead, supported briefly by the Home Office and, after that, compassionately by Gateshead Council, sustaining him on just £30 a week, Victor is no further forward after 16 years.

The Home Office continues to refuse to grant him the right to stay in the UK, but at the same time recognises that Russia is not a safe place to deport him to, especially for those who are critical of the regime. It is not right that people like Victor, who come to the UK with a legitimate right to apply for asylum here, are left in limbo, not to say abject poverty, unable to work, unable to settle here and unable to build a home for fear of removal, yet left for nearly two decades in no man’s land. The recent illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine by Putin has thrown into stark relief the systematic suppression of human rights, civil liberties and freedom of speech in Russia. The circumstances in Russia were never good, but they have changed for the worse. Let Victor stay in Gateshead.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley.

Points of Order

Debate between Nigel Evans and Ian Mearns

Thursday 11th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I certainly called Tom Brake; he had no problem getting in, and I understand that he has had no problem getting out.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The answer given by the Secretary of State to a point that I made about access to work grants contradicted one that I had been given by his own Department in a response to a constituent’s inquiry. May I ask that the Secretary of State come back to clarify the position?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Both the Secretary of State and those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the point made, but I do not want an extension of the recent debate.

Bill presented

European Union Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary William Hague, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Danny Alexander, Mr Patrick McLoughlin, Mr Oliver Letwin, Mr David Lidington, Mr Jeremy Browne, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Mr Henry Bellingham and Alistair Burt, presented a Bill to make provision about treaties relating to the European Union and decisions made under them, including provision implementing the Protocol signed at Brussels on 23 June 2010 amending the Protocol (No. 36) on transitional provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community; and to make provision about the means by which directly applicable or directly effective European Union law has effect in the United Kingdom.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 106) with explanatory notes (Bill 106-EN).

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Ian Mearns

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns]

I’m getting there.

It is no wonder that—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am also a little concerned that the hon. Gentleman is going wide of the subject of the combination of polls. Perhaps he could stick to the confusion that he spoke about earlier. This sounds a bit like a speech for a Third Reading debate.

[Ian Mearns]

Mr Deputy Speaker, the unfairness to which I want to address my remarks mainly relates to town and city dwellers. I am not for one moment implying that the people whom I speak of do not exist in the countryside; they do, of course, but not in anywhere near the same kind of numbers as in our towns and cities. The calculations that the Government have made in drawing up their criteria totally disregard the 3.5 million people who are not registered to vote or to take part in the referendum—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Yet again, I think that the hon. Gentleman has not really paid due attention to the amendments before him. He is entering into a much wider debate. I ask him to look again at the subject of the combination of polls, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns]

Not only will those people be unable to vote in the elections; they will also be unable to vote in the referendum on our voting system. There are many reasons why people will be unable to enfranchise themselves, and it is important to have regard for such people. Some might be in debt and trying to escape from their creditors. Others might be trying to avoid violent loan sharks. They will not be enfranchised to take part in a referendum because they are trying to escape from the people who are pursuing them. Some might be victims of domestic violence hiding from violent former partners—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help me a little. Which amendment is he speaking to?

[Ian Mearns]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to return to this matter on Third Reading, but there are some important points about the Bill that need to be made.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Nigel Evans and Ian Mearns

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns]

I beg to move amendment 19, page 1, line 22, at end insert—

(za) the school has regard to the regulations relating to schools admissions made under section 84 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998;

(zb) the school has regard to the regulations relating to the exclusion of pupils made under section 52 of the Education Act 2002;’.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 23, page 2, line 8, at end insert—

(e) the school must comply with the provisions of the Code for School Admissions issued from time to time by the Secretary of State.’.

Amendment 24, page 2, line 8, at end insert—

(e) the school must comply with fair access protocols issued from time to time by the Secretary of State.’.

Amendment 27, page 2, line 8, at end insert—

(e) the school complies with provisions on pupil exclusions and behaviour partnerships as set out in EA 2002, EIA 2006 and ASCLA 2009.’.

Amendment 42, page 2, line 8, at end insert—

(e) the admissions arrangements of the school make no provision for selection on the basis of religion or belief.’.

Amendment 11, page 2, line 21, at end insert—

‘(9A) Academy arrangements must also include terms imposed for the purpose of securing that the school complies with any code for school admissions issued under section 84 of SSFA.’.

Amendment 43, page 2, line 23, at end insert—

‘(11) Subsection (12) applies if the school is a voluntary controlled school which is designated by order under section 69(3) of SSFA 1998 as a school having a particular religious character.

(12) The Academy agreement must include terms imposed for the purpose of securing that no greater percentage of pupils are selected on the basis of religion or belief after, as compared with before, the conversion date.’.

Amendment 14, in clause 6, page 4, line 21, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

Amendment 49, in clause 6, page 4, line 24, at end insert—

‘(3A) If the school is a selective school, sections 105 to 109 of SSFA 1998 shall continue to apply in respect of the retention of selective admission arrangements at the school.’.

Amendment 44, in clause 6, page 4, line 37, at end insert—

‘( ) Subsections (7) and (8) apply only if the governing body has made a request to maintain such religious character.

( ) Subsections (7) and (8) do not apply if the school is not designated by order under section 69(3) of SSFA 1998 as a school having a particular religious character and, on conversion to an Academy, such a school may not then be designated or treated as designated by order under section 69(3) of SSFA 1998 as a school having a particular religious character.’.

Amendment 12, in clause 6, page 5, line 4, at end add—

‘(10) After the conversion date the school must comply with any code for school admissions issued under section 84 of SSFA which applied to the school on the conversion date.’.

Amendment 13, in schedule 2, page 18, line 26, at end insert—

‘9A In section 84(1) of SSFA (code for school admissions) after paragraph (b) insert—

“(bza) Academies,”.’.

[Ian Mearns]

I do not intend to detain the Committee for long as we are only three amendments into a 30-odd amendment marathon.

I am not a fan of the legislation as it takes a set of proposals that were meant for one set of schools and transfers those, lock, stock and barrel, to schools in a wholly different category. It takes resources that were meant to improve the educational outcome for children in schools that are underperforming and transfers them in a targeted way to schools that are, in the first instance, already regarded as outstanding. It will also take resources that the local authority currently receives to be targeted at school improvement and gives those resources to schools that are already outstanding, in a “devil take the hindmost” fashion.