Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government

Paul Waugh Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

The hon. Member calls this a relaunch. I hate to break it to him, but the Government he supports in Scotland produce a programme for government every single year. Does that mean that they relaunch every year, or does he put that accusation only to us? He asks about devolution. We were the party that created devolution because we believed in a powerful Scottish Parliament. We still do, and it has just received its biggest real-terms increase in funding since devolution came into being. He missed out his thanks to the Labour Chancellor who made that happen.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome today’s statement, which is a real plan for change and hope. It is clear that the Conservatives do not like us talking about their record, but it had a real-world impact in constituencies such as mine, particularly when it came to bobbies on the beat. For 14 years, the Conservatives stripped us of bobbies on the beat, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) said, neighbourhood policing was stripped out of many local communities. I particularly welcome the requirement in today’s plan for more neighbourhood policing, which will have a real-world impact on my constituents.

[Pat McFadden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we saw huge cuts in the number of police officers after the Conservative party came to power, which really affected the neighbourhood community policing teams that we had set up during our period in Government. We want to ensure that there are proper neighbourhood policing teams in every community, with a named officer, so that people can feel safe on their streets and in their communities. That absolutely underpins our quality of life. There is no freedom if people do not feel safe, which is why it is such a core part of the plan that we have produced today.

Speaker’s Statement

Paul Waugh Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. My condolences to Pauline and all of John’s family at what must be a truly devastating time for them. David used to work in my office, and he sent me a message just after John died. He was very close to his father and saw him as his hero and his friend. We send our condolences to all of them.

I obviously knew John in the House for many years. When he was first elected along with Dennis Skinner, they shared a flat in Clapham. I do not know what went on in that flat, but while they were good friends, they were very different characters. I later learned that after the last vote took place in the House, Dennis and John would both leave to go back to the flat, but they never travelled together. Dennis always made sure that he got there first, so that he could get hold of the one television in the flat, turn it on and watch the darts, the snooker or whatever else. John would turn up and want to watch “Newsnight”, and Dennis refused to change the channel—he would say, “No way. You’ll watch the darts with me.” You can imagine the repartee and the arguments that would have gone on between them, which would have been incredibly funny.

In the 2017 election, John offered to help in any way he could, and he was fantastic. We did several events together. One day, we started in Hull in the morning with the launch of our arts manifesto, and then went on a tour all around Yorkshire and Humberside in the famous bus. John seemed to know the owner of every fish and chip shop in the whole of Yorkshire, and insisted on stopping at every one, so we had a big supply of fish and chips all day long. Then we got to Scarborough, where we were doing a rally in the pavilion by the seafront. John and I got up to speak on the stage, and I do not think a lot of the people there realised that a political rally was going on. They thought they were just there enjoying the sunshine, and then these two guys got up on the stage and started talking.

The people loved John, because he brought out Freddie the fox. We had a long discussion about the evils of foxhunting—the evils of Tory foxhunting. “The Tories are always going to bring back foxhunting. The Tories would kill the fox.” Then he pulled Freddie out of his coat and said, “Look at poor Freddie here. They’re going to tear him apart. That’s what the Tories do to you.” He was loved for all of that.

I want to say thank you to John for what he did, but also to remember that one of the crucial points in his political career was the issue of climate change and Kyoto. It was not easy, popular or normal; a lot of people refused to even consider what we are doing to the natural world and the environment, and how there are limits to what we can do, hence the protocol that John negotiated and signed up to. He was one of the people who was very important in starting to change the global debate about climate change and respect for the natural world and the environment. We should all say thank you to John Prescott for that.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The first time I met John Prescott in his role as Deputy Prime Minister was in 1997, when he opened up Admiralty Arch to 60 young homeless people as part of the winter shelter programme. It was a bitterly cold winter, and at the time, the Conservative Back Bencher Crispin Blunt said that this project would be treating a historic building as if it were a “flagship for undesirables”. Given that John was frequently described as an undesirable by many of his opponents throughout his life, he took that as a badge of honour, and he was really proud of that homelessness project. I will never forget the way he shared breakfast with those rough sleepers and took a real interest in every one of their lives. It was a testimony to his compassion, his practical politics, and his unwavering commitment to housing policy. Many millions of council tenants saw home improvements—new windows, new doors and home insulation—and none of them will ever forget that. Those are the basics that many of us take for granted, but which far too many people lacked at the time.

In a superb biography by my late former colleague on The Independent, Colin Brown, naturally entitled “Fighting Talk”, there was a lovely and telling quote from John:

“There are those priests of the Left who want to keep their consciences and there are those who will get their hands dirty. I belong to the dirty hands brigade.”

John was regularly patronised and frequently under-estimated, but he had the last laugh by delivering for real working people. For that, we are all grateful.

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In the last six months of 2005, the United Kingdom took over the rotating presidency of the European Union, and Prime Minister Blair wanted to make a big success of it. One of his concerns was that there was a young British MEP who was prone to behaving very badly in the Chamber and being particularly rude to visiting Heads of State, so John Prescott was sent to see me. He himself, of course, had served as an MEP and was a big project supporter—he loved everything about the European Union—so he came to explain to me that it would be very bad for Britain if I were to stand up and cause a scene when Prime Minister Blair was speaking. I will not say that he threatened me, but I certainly felt deeply intimidated and behaved myself impeccably over the course of the next six months. That was the bruiser John Prescott perhaps.

A couple of years later, on Remembrance Sunday, when the ceremony was over and the parades had finished, I was walking up Whitehall and there, to my astonishment, walking on his own and without any security, was the Deputy Prime Minister. I said hello and wondered what he was doing. John had seen a group of Arctic convoy veterans on the other side of Whitehall. A seafarer himself, he had gone over to speak to the men who had endured such appalling hardship during the last couple of years of the war, and said to them, “I’m going to fight to make sure that you guys get a campaign medal after all these years, recognising what you’ve done.” They did get the medal, and I got the message. I understood why he had been so phenomenally successful from humble roots: he connected, he got on with people and he was very human. We mourn his passing, but perhaps we also mourn the passing of big working-class characters in politics. We need far more of them.

G20 and COP29 Summits

Paul Waugh Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the joint position in relation to the importance of Ukraine. I will resist the temptation that he offers for me to start discussing the position that he referenced.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

I echo your remarks, Mr Speaker, and those of the Prime Minister about Lord Prescott. He was a true embodiment of working-class values and aspiration. As he always used to say, nothing is too good for the workers.

This weekend, I will join Rochdale’s Ukrainian community to commemorate the 91st anniversary of the Holodomor, Stalin’s man-made famine against the Ukrainian people, which resulted in the loss of up to 4 million lives. Does the Prime Minister agree that the Russians will never crush the spirit of the Ukrainian people, and that we will do everything possible to aid them in their defence against Russian aggression?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I agree. I was struck during the general election campaign, as I think members of all parties will have been wherever they campaigned across the country, that support for Ukraine was there in every quarter of the United Kingdom. I am very proud of the fact that that is the position across our country.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Paul Waugh Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance on acceptable conduct in this place. I think it is very important, and I am grateful to be able to make what I hope will be a relatively brief contribution to the debate on this Bill.

It will come as no surprise to Conservative Members that I fully support the Bill in front of us, which I think is a sensible, rational and timely first step towards reform of the other place in a way that gives us time—as the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) has so eloquently argued for—to consider other things as we go along. There is a time for evolution and a time for revolution, and at the moment, it is time for evolution in how we amend the House of Lords. It is a question of how we take the first steps towards removing the most indefensible part of that House and of our constitution, while allowing ourselves the time and space to consider the other issues that have been raised and the commitments we made in our manifesto. I gently remind Conservative Members that that manifesto delivered a majority Government—you could say that consultation was had, and therefore we enact our policies.

I enjoyed the contribution of the right hon. Member for Hertsmere. I do not ask him to speak for his party because it is in flux. However, I ask Conservative Members not just to complain about the scope of the Bill, especially the lack of reform—I welcome their support for reform of the upper House; it has been a long time coming, but better late than never—but to consider whether they can defend the right of 92 people to sit in the upper House by virtue of their birth.

Those 92 peers have been almost exclusively white men. When the House of Lords Act 1999 was passed, five women were allowed to continue as hereditary peers in the House of Lords, the last being the Countess of Mar, who retired in 2020. As my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) said, whenever the opportunity for a by-election arose for one of the seats held by women, the woman was replaced by a man. More than 200 candidates are on the roll of eligible peers who could stand in by-elections for those seats, had the House of Lords not amended its Standing Orders. I will take an intervention from any Conservative Member who can tell me how many of those on that roll are women. Anyone? No. The answer is two. Fewer than 1% of those eligible to fill those hereditary seats are women.

I have no doubt that Conservative Members share my concern about the inequality that arises if we say that a white man has a potential privilege when he is one of the 92 or when he is a member of the 200 families who, by 100-year-old letters patent, have been in a position to secure one of those seats. To me, that is the most indefensible aspect. It is not necessarily about who those people are. I do not doubt that every single member of the hereditary peers group, whether in my party or not, has expertise and a skillset that they can bring to bear. However, if, upon their expulsion, they wish to continue to contribute to public life, all parties will have nomination lists during this Parliament. They can use them, if they wish, to bring back their best and their brightest. Of course, when those hereditary peers are no longer Members of the House of Lords, they are entitled to do what we have all done and present themselves to the public for election to this place, with a mandate.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Conservative Members are clearly unembarrassed by the total lack of women among the hereditary peers. Does my hon. Friend agree that they should be embarrassed by the total lack of women on their Benches right now?

[Gareth Snell]

I am not sure that any Labour Member needs to quantify Conservative Members’ embarrassment; they do it for themselves.

The hon. Gentlemen seem to be confused about whether they want more or less reform. I think we know that the answer is that they do not want any reform, but they create a smokescreen of wanting to act faster and with more zeal than Labour Members simply because they wish to ruin the Bill. They want to press amendments that are not relevant and not in the Bill’s scope. They want to make arguments about retirement ages. When the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) argued that there should be a retirement age of 80, I am sure that he had not spoken to his right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), who is 81, although, to look at him, one would not think he was a day over 60.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

Of course my right hon. Friend is right that change is inevitable and change is constant, in the words of Disraeli, but that change needs to be built on an understanding of what has gone before, exactly as my right hon. Friend says. Evolution in our thinking builds on what we know and adds to it incrementally. For the most part, constitutional change is better when it is incremental and when it is founded on consistent and measured dialogue between people across the House—the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden).

[Paul Waugh]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was an admirer of mine in his previous life. I wonder whether that admiration is constant, too.

[Paul Waugh]

I was indeed. I was going to share with the House the secret that I used one of my references in a report to endorse the right hon. Gentleman as a candidate. He makes the point, in agreement with the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), that incrementalism is a good thing; surely this is an incremental Bill that takes the first step towards a bigger reform.

[Sir John Hayes]

This is why I do not agree with the radicals on the Opposition Benches. This will come as a surprise, but I am not, by temperament or politics, a radical. One of my great political heroes, Joe Chamberlain, began life as a radical, but like most sensible people, he moved to the right over his life, and in the end became a Tory, or at least a supporter and member of a Tory Government. I do not share the view that we can conjure some kind of ideal system by throwing all the balls up in the air and seeing where they land. As the hon. Gentleman implies, incremental change is born of an understanding that gradual alterations to our constitutional settlement are, by and large, better. That is what most Governments have done over time; indeed, the Blair Government, to which the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) referred, took exactly that view when they reformed the House of Lords, retaining the hereditaries on the basis of the very sort of incrementalism for which I argue.

NATO and European Political Community Meetings

Paul Waugh Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for his comments. There is an appetite now for a different discussion about our future relations with the EU—whether that is trade, education and research, or security co-operation. Particularly in the light of what has happened in Ukraine, there is a shared sense that there is room for closer work and closer ties there. They are the three main areas. It is at the very early stages, but the reset was well received by many European allies, and I was pleased to have that early opportunity to set out our case.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister’s statement will be warmly welcomed by the people of Rochdale, particularly the Ukrainian community, which has flourished in our town for nearly 80 years. So can I pass on to him a direct message from Olga Kurtianyk, who is the chair of the Rochdale branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain, who told me yesterday that she is very grateful for the Prime Minister’s continued support for President Zelensky in the fight against the illegal war that Putin has waged?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very pleased to hear that, and to be able to make that clear commitment. But I want to emphasise that this is the continuation of the work of the previous Government, which we fully supported before and fully support now. What is also important for our communities, and certainly important for the international community, is to see the unity that we have been able to maintain here in this Chamber. The world watches in relation to our unity and it is important therefore that we maintain it as we go forward.