Business of the House
Sarah Hall Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
It is very much at the forefront of the Government’s thinking that we want not only to clean up local communities, but to put in their hands the powers to do so. If the right hon. Lady seeks a Backbench Business debate or a Westminster Hall debate, I am sure that her concerns about nitrous oxide and other things will be echoed across the House, and she will find others who will want to join her for that debate.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
Year 6 McKellen pupils at St Philip Westbrook primary school in my constituency are campaigning against hostile architecture, such as spikes and divided benches, which makes life harder for people experiencing homelessness. Will the Leader of the House join me in praising their courageous advocacy and make time for a debate on ensuring that our public spaces are designed with dignity and compassion in mind?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. I commend the McKellen pupils at St Philip Westbrook primary school for their thoughtfulness on these matters. We have been working hard to try to find a long-term solution, including through a national plan to end homelessness and the repeal of the outdated Vagrancy Act, but if my hon. Friend wants to hear directly from a Minister, either a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate would be an appropriate way forward.
Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment
Sarah Hall Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to use my contribution today to talk about my constituent Lucy Harrison. I warn Members that what follows will be painful to hear—painful because Lucy was deeply loved, because Lucy’s life was taken in circumstances that should never have happened, and because Lucy’s family and loved ones have had to carry the truth of that day ever since. They have shown extraordinary courage in allowing her story to be told.
Lucy was just 23 when she died. She was from Great Sankey in Warrington. She had her whole life ahead of her. She was not simply a name in the news. She was Jane’s daughter, and she was Sam’s partner. She was deeply loved, and she should still be here.
Lucy had already achieved so much. She had earned a first-class degree in fashion buying and merchandising, and she had begun a career that she was passionate about. She was building a life with her partner Sam. Sam has described Lucy as the joy of his life. She meant everything to him.
Boxing Day 2024 would be the last time that Jane saw her daughter alive. On 27 December 2024, Lucy and Sam travelled to Texas to visit Lucy’s father and his family—her father, a British citizen, now lives in Texas. They were due to return home on 10 January 2025. However, on the day that they were due to return home, just before leaving for the airport, Lucy went into a bedroom with her father. Sam waited for Lucy in the living room. A short time later, Sam heard a loud bang. Lucy had been shot by her father. She was in her father’s home—somewhere she should have been safe.
It was the middle of the night when Jane, who was back home in Warrington, received the call that no parent should ever receive—that Lucy had been shot by her father and had not survived. Jane and Sam immediately found themselves trying to understand how Lucy’s death was being investigated, what evidence was being considered, and whether anyone would ever be held accountable. They were left trying to understand a legal system without adequate support from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The Prosper police department investigated Lucy’s death as a possible criminally negligent homicide, but the case was later considered by a grand jury in Texas, and no criminal charges were brought. The gun had “simply gone off”.
When the evidence was later examined at Lucy’s inquest in Cheshire, the conclusion was very different. The senior coroner found that Lucy had been unlawfully killed. The senior coroner for Cheshire told the court that Lucy’s father’s actions on the day of her death were
“truly, exceptionally bad and reprehensible”
so as to amount to her death. She rejected the account that the gun had simply gone off. The coroner found that for Lucy to have suffered the injury that she did, her father must have pointed the firearm in her direction, failed to check whether it was loaded, and then pulled the trigger. She described those actions as reckless and concluded that that amounted to gross negligence manslaughter.
An officer detected alcohol on his breath, and he initially denied having consumed any. Despite that, no breathalyser or blood alcohol tests were ever carried out. The senior coroner’s findings directly challenge the description of Lucy’s death as a tragic accident, and they raise serious questions about whether the original investigation followed the evidence with the rigour that the case demanded.
Lucy’s family recognise that the legal systems in England and Texas are different and are not asking for the Government to interfere in another country’s justice system. They are asking for the findings of a British coroner—reached after a full examination of the evidence —to be taken seriously. They are asking for Lucy’s case to be reconsidered by US authorities.
I implore the Government to use every channel that they have to press the relevant authorities in Texas to reopen or formally reconsider Lucy’s case and to stand alongside a British family and ensure that the findings of a British court are properly considered. As a matter of urgency, can the Government ensure that the FCDO does more in future to support the families of constituents who have been murdered abroad?
Jane has said that those who knew Lucy know what she would want them to do now: to make change, do better and be better. That is exactly what they are trying to do. They are carrying on the fight for Lucy.
Business of the House
Sarah Hall Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman rightly raises local concerns. The Government share his concern about the absolute chaos that inherited regarding asylum hotels. I do not have time to go into the details of what we will do about them, but I will ensure that Home Office Ministers are made aware of this case. He may wish to meet them and make those points himself.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
According to NHS data, while the number of people waiting for an autism assessment is levelling out, the time they are waiting is rocketing; the average wait time is 200 days more than it was a year ago. In order to reduce waiting times, integrated care boards should follow the NHS England national framework and operational guidance, and provide a standardised autism assessment process, but in many cases that clearly is not happening. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Health Minister to arrange a meeting with me to discuss which ICBs are struggling to implement the framework, and the action being taken to support them to ensure that they have the resources needed to follow the framework?
Business of the House
Sarah Hall Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
The issue of step-free access at stations is always raised with me at business questions. I assure the hon. Member that the Government are committed to the Access for All programme, and the Rail Minister is reviewing what we can do to support it better. I will ensure that the House is updated on that.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government have today announced best value updates for five local authorities, including Warrington borough council. The findings for Warrington have highlighted a number of serious conclusions that must be addressed. However, we should also recognise the pressures that local authorities faced under the last Government, with significant reductions to funding and increased demands on their services. Warrington council must now go further and faster to improve, restore trust and deliver best value for my constituents. Will the Leader of the House make time to debate the important topic of local government finance and the actions that the Government are taking to support local authorities?
Business of the House
Sarah Hall Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
I join the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating the Clerk of the House on his very special birthday. As someone recently on the other side of that same special birthday—obviously, I know I do not look it—I welcome him to the half-century club, and I hope his party is as good as mine was. We will leave that conversation for another day.
This week, we marked White Ribbon Day. I am proud that this Government have pledged to halve violence against women and girls. I am also proud to have announced the debate on Lord Etherton’s review of the treatment of LGBT veterans today. I am particularly pleased for my friend and Manchester resident Carl Austin-Behan, who, after years of decorated service in the RAF, was dismissed the day the RAF found out he was gay. He deserves recognition and much more, as do many others.
I know that the shadow Leader of the House is fairly new to opposition, like most of his colleagues, but I gently say to him that the idea of opposition is to oppose the Government, not his own record in government. Last week he attacked our plans to meet climate goals, yet when he was the Minister with responsibility for decarbonisation, he seemed to take a very different view, touring the studios to champion net zero. Here we are yet again: he is attacking our plans on national insurance contributions, but I checked the record and noticed that when his Government raised national insurance contributions—and not just on businesses but on workers —he was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at the time, and said in defence of the measure, from this very Dispatch Box:
“It is a profoundly Conservative thing to do”—[Official Report, 8 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 326.]
He seems to have been for it then but is against it now. I am not sure what his position is—I am quite confused about it.
May I say to the hospice that he mentioned, and to the many hospices like it, that we have made a record investment in the NHS? The hospice sector was left on its knees by the right hon. Gentleman’s Government. As he knows, the Health Secretary will soon come to the House to explain how the record allocation of resources that he has received will be distributed, including to the hospice sector.
The right hon. Gentleman raises the assisted dying issues that we will discuss tomorrow. I must say, I think it is regrettable that he has chosen this opportunity to raise those matters in such an unnecessarily political fashion. This issue generates very emotive responses on both sides, and I hope that tomorrow’s debate will be conducted in a respectful, considerate, non-partisan and non-political manner. He asks about time and scrutiny, which I have mentioned before. As Leader of the House, I am very confident that the Bill will undergo sufficient scrutiny and will have sufficient time for consideration.
As I have said before from the Dispatch Box, the Government will of course implement the will of the House, whatever it may be. And, as I have also said before, should the House choose to give the Bill its Second Reading, the Government will of course work with the Bill’s promoter to ensure that the Bill and the policy are workable, operable and implemented. That will mean working with the promoter on tidying up any measures where necessary. The Department of Health and Social Care is getting to work straightaway on what the Bill will mean in terms of implementation, assessment and the documentation that the right hon. Gentleman highlights. Should the House decline to give the Bill its Second Reading, then of course that work would not happen. As I have said before, after several weeks in Committee, the first opportunity for the Bill to return to the House will not be until the end of April—that is a considerable amount of time for the Government to do that work and consider the Bill further.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
This year marked the 51st anniversary of the Summerland disaster on the Isle of Man, in which 50 people, including 11 children, lost their lives after a fire engulfed the Summerland leisure complex. My constituent Valerie Daniels and her younger sister were both impacted by that horrifying tragedy. Two young men from Warrington died in the fire. A report into the disaster was released in the following year and catalogued a series of failures—from the design of the building to the fire safety regulations—but to date no individuals or groups have been singled out for blame for what happened. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the issue, so that survivors and the families of those who lost their lives can finally get justice?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear about that tragedy that affected my hon. Friend’s constituents. These are incredibly pertinent issues, ones that we should be debating in this House. She might want to raise them as part of the Grenfell inquiry debate that will take place next week; if not, I am sure there will be other opportunities for her to raise them.