Health and Social Care Update
Wes Streeting Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State and her team to their new posts. I thank her for advance sight of her statement, but if any evidence were needed of a Government and party out of ideas, out of time and without a clue about the scale of the challenge that our country faces, the statement would be it.
The NHS is facing the worst crisis it has ever seen, with patients waiting longer than ever before in A&E, stroke and heart attack victims waiting an hour for an ambulance, and 378,000 patients waiting more than a year for an operation—and that was in the summer. We have gone from an NHS that treated patients well and on time when Labour was in office 12 years ago to an annual winter crisis, and now a year-round crisis under the Conservatives. But don’t worry: the Health Secretary has a grip on the key issues. She does not have an answer on the workforce, but she has sorted out the Oxford comma. I am sure that the whole country is breathing a sigh of relief about that.
The Health Secretary promised a digital revolution in the NHS. Well, Conservative Health Secretaries have promised a digital revolution 17 times since 2010. [Interruption.] Oh, apparently she did not say that—she is not promising a digital revolution. That is good news, because I do not think that the staff who are slogging their guts out in the most difficult conditions in history will be particularly impressed by the introduction of that cutting-edge modern technology, the telephone. The NHS can finally axe the carrier pigeon and step into the 20th century. I am sure that staff are absolutely delighted.
Madam Deputy Speaker,
“these measures will not come close to ensuring patients who need to be seen can be seen within the timescales set out…they will have minimal impact on fixing the current problems that general practice is facing over the winter”.
Those are not my words; they are the NHS Confederation’s verdict on the Secretary of State’s plans. Are they not the truth? The Secretary of State says that patients will be able to get a GP appointment within two weeks, but her party scrapped the guarantee of an appointment within two days that Labour introduced when we were in government. She made it clear this morning that it is not a guarantee at all, but merely an expectation—and what is the consequence if GPs do not meet her expectation? As we heard on the radio this morning, her message to patients is “Get on your bike and find a new GP.” Are patients supposed to be grateful for that?
Who will deliver the appointments that the Secretary of State is promising: the 6,000 GPs her party promised at the last election but will not deliver, or the 4,700 GPs her party has cut over the past decade? Where will these GP appointments take place? Certainly not in the 330 practices that have closed since the last general election alone. The Conservatives promising to fix the crisis in the NHS is like the arsonists promising to put out the fire that they started.
As if that were not bad enough, the super-massive black hole at the heart of the Secretary of State’s plan is the lack of a workforce strategy. She has no plan to provide the doctors that our NHS so desperately needs. Despite her “Sesame Street” approach to politics, in her A, B, C, D plan—by the way, last time I checked, S was for social care—she has missed the N for nurses. I say to the Secretary of State that without a plan to tackle the staffing crisis, she does not have a plan for the NHS. What is she going to do about the staff shortage of 132,000 in the NHS today?
The Secretary of State talks about £500 million to speed up delayed discharges. Is that a new investment or a re-announcement? She is right to say that if patients cannot get out the back door of hospital because care is not there in the community, we get more patients at the front door and more ambulances queuing out at the front. That is exactly where we are under the Conservatives today. But she misses the crucial point: unless the Government act on care workers’ pay and conditions, employers will not be able to recruit and retain the staff they need. What is her plan to address that?
Patients will have been concerned to read reports that after the Conservatives failed to hit the four-hour A&E waiting time target for seven years, the Health Secretary is planning to scrap it altogether. I notice that she was not brave enough to say that today; I hope that she will not do so. Can she reassure the House and patients across the country that her response to the crisis in the NHS will be not to lower standards for patients, but to raise performance instead?
The Secretary of State is the third Health Secretary in less than three months. The faces change but the story remains the same. There is still no plan that comes close to meeting the scale of the challenge—no plan for staffing and no real plan for the NHS. It is clear that the longer the Conservatives are in power, the longer patients will wait. As Dr. Dre might say: time for the next episode.
Dr Coffey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome to my ministerial team and me. It has been just two weeks—[Hon. Members: “Twelve years!”] Forgive me. Well, in those12 years there have been more doctors and nurses working in the NHS than ever before. We have record funding going into the NHS. The money that the Government spend through the Department of Health and Social Care is about 40% of our day-to-day spending. That is the reality of the Conservative party investing in the long-term health of our nation.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a variety of things. I can absolutely say that there will be no changes to the target of a four-hour wait in A&E. I believe that it matters. I will give the House a recent personal experience. In July, I went to A&E myself; I waited for nearly nine hours to see a doctor, and I still did not get any treatment. I was asked to go back the next day, so I went to a different hospital just three miles away and was seen and treated appropriately. That is the sort of variation we are seeing across the NHS, and it is the reason for my approach.
Only last week we started getting some data from NHS Digital about what is happening practice by practice, so we can start to understand it and start to use experts in the local NHS to prioritise helping those patients who are not getting the service that they should rightly expect, while giving freedom to those other GPs who are doing a fantastic job of supporting patients in their practice. That is why I do not intend to be prescriptive, but I am determined on behalf of patients to drive up the performance of those who need help to do things better.
On ambulances, I am very conscious of the issue. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have been in power for 12 years, and I am conscious that I have been working for a decade on improving things for my constituents as well. With a particular focus on ambulances, I think it would be helpful for the House to learn about our recent analysis showing that 45% of the handover delays are concentrated in a part of the country. Even so, I appreciate that that is not good enough.
I also understand that although similar numbers of ambulance calls are being made, there are many more category 1 and 2 calls and our fantastic paramedics are treating more people at home without needing to take them to hospital. Nevertheless, that brings me the challenge of how we can do more to help ambulances get back on the road so that they can treat patients. As with many other emergency services, we also need to consider the potential extension of volunteers through auxiliary services or community first responders. In London alone there are about 120 community first responders, but I think I have more than that in my constituency of Suffolk Coastal. It is about recognising that for the million people who volunteered to help, we can find a way for them to help us during these particularly challenging times, as well as working with the NHS to tackle the fundamental issues.
On access to GPs, I am conscious that Labour introduced the 48-hour target when it was in power. We were told by the NHS and by doctors that of course they met it—I expect that was part of their contracts—but that it did not necessarily mean better outcomes for patients at their practice; indeed, they got into a routine of not booking appointments more regularly. It is important that we address that.
I am very conscious that the plan for patients has only just been published. I deliberately tried to ensure that we held back important aspects of it, such as the £500 million adult discharge fund, for the House’s interest rather than speaking about them before coming here today.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am very happy to continue to work in partnership with the NHS. Keeping the focus on patients is critical, as is building on the existing NHS winter plan, developing the workforce, and all the plans and strategies that need to be carefully considered as we set about the long-term improvements that I think he will enjoy and will want me to champion on behalf of patients.
Tributes to Her Late Majesty the Queen
Wes Streeting Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow so many others in rising to pay tribute to her late Majesty the Queen on behalf of the people of Ilford North and the London Borough of Redbridge. The depth of our sorrow reflects—in part—the length of her reign, her lifetime of service and duty, and the devotion she gave to her family, our country and our Commonwealth, but it also reflects how special the woman beneath the Crown was: at once the head of our royal family and yet able to touch the hearts of every family in the land.
East London holds a special place in its heart for the royal family. During the second world war, King George VI and his family stayed in London during the blitz and visited families whose lives and livelihoods had been devastated by the Nazi onslaught. The then Princess Elizabeth visited Ilford to see those affected by the bombing the day after VE Day in 1945 and returned again in 1949 to see the one thousandth council home that had been built by Atlee’s Government. She is said to have remarked,
“of all the houses and estates I have visited, Ilford’s are the best”.
She also visited a care home where one elderly resident was so thrilled to meet the Princess that they immediately burst into tears of happiness.
I saw a similar outpouring of emotion when the Queen visited Ilford again for her diamond jubilee in 2012, where she unveiled a plaque to the dry garden created in her honour in Valentines Park. It spoke to the great challenge of climate change—a cause close to the heart of our dear King. One resident told the Ilford Recorder,
“we have always read about queens and princesses in the story books. To have the Queen in our neighbourhood, it’s like a dream come true.”
A dream come true—that is a sentiment I cannot imagine being elicited for a mere President, and one that was certainly elicited with no effort for Her Majesty the Queen. It hardly seems real that that dream has ended.
We are privileged to have lived in the second Elizabethan age. Her late Majesty the Queen oversaw our country’s transition from empire to Commonwealth, to a modern democracy, witnessing huge social changes throughout her lifetime. So many of my constituents are proud of those changes, and of course retain strong familial bonds across the Commonwealth. Her Majesty showed by example that tradition and modernity are not adversaries but well-suited companions, from her first televised address to her very last Zoom call. From the beginning of her reign, amid rationing and post-war reconstruction, to her address to the nation at the height of the covid pandemic, she reminded us that whatever the triumphs and disasters of our history, our country’s best days now lie ahead. History, like life, moves on.
His Majesty the King has told us that the grief of the nation, and indeed the grief of the world, has provided comfort to his family for their irreparable loss. I hope he knows that his presence in our lives in recent days has been comforting and reassuring too—and if I may say so, Mr Speaker, when the Queen welcomed the then Duchess of Cornwall into her family, the nation took her into our hearts. It is a privilege and a pleasure to see her take her place as Queen Consort.
We are blessed to have known the reign of Elizabeth II, our greatest Queen. May God rest her soul, and may God save the King.
Mr Speaker
Before I leave the Chair, let me remind Members and staff that a service will take place tomorrow at 6 pm in St Margaret’s Church for the parliamentary community to remember Her late Majesty the Queen. Will those wishing to attend please contact my office?
Ministerial Code
Wes Streeting Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. It was the case, entirely legitimately and appropriately, that Opposition Members were criticising us for the slow procurement of PPE, and that the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) wrote to me to encourage us to go faster and made a number of suggestions about companies that we should follow up, which we did. Now the allegation is that, when political figures pressed us to procure PPE more quickly for those at the frontline, that was a mistake. Either Labour’s position last spring was wrong, or its position now is wrong; they both cannot be right.
May I conclude by wishing my hon. Friend a happy birthday? It is, I understand, a very significant date, but the Official Secrets Act forbids me from revealing how significant.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
We all know that the delay in locking down the country in lockdown one, lockdown two and lockdown three led to a higher toll in both lives and livelihoods. What I do not think anyone expected was to read on the front page of the Daily Mail today that the Prime Minister had said:
“Let the bodies pile high in their thousands.”
The claim has been subsequently verified independently by other journalists. The Minister takes statements that he makes at the Dispatch Box more seriously than the Prime Minister does, so may I ask him again to be absolutely categorical that he has never heard the Prime Minister say those words, that the Prime Minister did not say those words, and that, prior to arriving in the House this afternoon, he received assurances from the Prime Minister that he did not use those words? Can he be absolutely clear, straightforward and honest about that?
Michael Gove
Totally. As I pointed out earlier in response to the question from, I think, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), I had been in a meeting in the Cabinet Room with the Prime Minister. I would not ordinarily go into discussions that take place in Cabinet Committees, for reasons that the hon. Gentleman will well understand, but I never heard the Prime Minister say any such a thing. We were all wrestling with an incredibly difficult decision—the decision to lock down necessarily imposes costs in other ways, as we are all aware. The Prime Minister concluded at the end of our discussion, which was a sober, serious and detailed discussion, that it was necessary not only to have that second lockdown but, sadly, to have a third lockdown as well.
His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
Wes Streeting Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
It is a privilege to be called to speak in this moving and at times light-hearted debate. I will pick up particularly on the light-hearted theme.
As I have listened to the speeches from across the House this afternoon, I have wondered what the late Duke of Edinburgh would have made of this afternoon’s event, given his view of MPs, which, rather giving the game away, was cited by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn):
“most of them are a complete bloody waste of time.”
Indeed, I found time during one or two of the perhaps more repetitive speeches to read the sketch of the earlier part of this afternoon’s proceedings by Tom Peck in The Independent, which I highly commend. If His Royal Highness the late Duke of Edinburgh did not think much of MPs, perhaps I can try to redeem us in his eyes, and also perhaps redeem the Duke, after the Prime Minister’s earlier reference to what the Duke himself described as his own “foot in mouth” syndrome.
I do not know how many other Members saw it over the weekend, but there was a wonderful video from a speech that the late Duke of Edinburgh gave in 1990 to the National Press Club in Washington. He described how one member of the line-up in 1952 congratulated Her Majesty the Queen on the re-election of her father to the office of Prime Minister, before being corrected and told that that was Mr Churchill. She then turned to the Duke of Edinburgh and said, “Oh, how wonderful to meet you, Mr Churchill!” He went on to describe being present in Tokyo for Japan’s surrender at the end of the second world war and the slight awkwardness of his state visit with Her Majesty to Japan many years later. As he went round many official functions, he was asked time and again, “Your first time in Japan?” to which the Duke of Edinburgh replied, “Yes, indeed.” As he said himself,
“I’m not always as tactless as people make out”.
Perhaps the late Duke of Edinburgh was not always as tactless as is sometimes said, and perhaps Members of this House are not always a complete bloody waste of time—although I think our constituents have particular views on that.
I want to focus my remarks this evening on the late Duke of Edinburgh’s contribution to young people, which is a shared interest. Indeed, during this debate I have learned that we had a second shared interest: making my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) the butt of our jokes. Other Members have spoken powerfully and eloquently about the Duke of Edinburgh’s military service. Indeed, I was reminded by my father at the weekend that my late grandfather was in the Duke of Edinburgh’s convoy during the second world war. We have heard about his enormous commitment to the environment and conservation, and his endless dedication to such a wide range of good causes, but in my eyes it is the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme that is one of his greatest legacies, benefiting 6.7 million people since it began, across 130 countries.
This weekend we heard one of those beneficiaries, a man named Jon, talking about how the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, in his words, saved his life. He had found himself in prison, was given the opportunity to participate in the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, developed a skill in cooking and set up his own catering business. He was really proud, just as the Duke of Edinburgh was proud of him, even if, with his characteristic wit, the Duke asked him, when he was doing his Duke of Edinburgh gold award and they were let out on release, “Were you all attached by a ball and chain?” None the less, the Duke of Edinburgh’s pride in both Jon and the entire scheme is clear for all to see.
Other Members have talked about how they would like the Government to take up that legacy. I implore the Government to commemorate the life and cement the legacy of His Royal Highness through a commitment on the part of the nation and the Government to support an expansion of youth work and the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme, to ensure that extracurricular activities are enjoyed by all young people, especially at the end of this terrible pandemic.
In conclusion, I want to say on behalf of all my constituents and all the people of the London Borough of Redbridge that the late Duke of Edinburgh was the epitome of duty and service. It was no surprise to me to see another great British institution—a convoy of licensed black taxis—lining the Mall to pay tribute to him, and we remember fondly his last visit to Ilford.
Just as we begin our proceedings every day by sending our prayers to Her Majesty the Queen, this evening of all evenings the prayers of myself and my constituents are with her and the royal family as they grieve not just their loss but a loss for our entire country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Wes Streeting Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on what she is doing to champion takeaways in Stourbridge. I am not sure it would be environmentally friendly for me to order a takeaway from Stourbridge to Westminster, but I thank her very much for her initiative. I look forward to visiting the hospitality sector in her constituency as soon as possible.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I passionately disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said about the spending that was going on. Even before the pandemic we were increasing funding for primary schools—up to £4,000 per pupil, and £5,000 for secondary school pupils—and putting up starting salaries for teachers across the board to £30,000. That was a massive investment in education across the board, including in further education.
The catch-up funds now amount to £2 billion—[Interruption.] No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. They amount to £2 billion. Yes, we will have to do more, because this is the biggest challenge our country faces. We will get it done. We are able to do it because we have been running a strong economy. We had the resources to do it, because we had not followed the bankrupt policies of the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Wes Streeting ExcerptsMonday 14th September 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 View all United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 11 September 2020 - (14 Sep 2020)
The Prime Minister
Actually, I think that this Bill is essential for guaranteeing the economic and political integrity of the United Kingdom and simply sets out to achieve what the people of this country voted for when they supported our election manifesto: not only unfettered access from NI to GB and from GB to NI, but also—I quote from the manifesto—to
“maintain and strengthen the integrity and smooth operation of our internal market.”
The Prime Minister
I will not.
The Bill is designed to honour that pledge and maintain those freedoms. When we renegotiated our withdrawal agreement from the EU, we struck a careful balance to reflect Northern Ireland’s integral place in our United Kingdom, while preserving an open border with Ireland, with the express and paramount aim of protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the peace process. In good faith, we accepted certain obligations in the Northern Ireland protocol in order to give our European friends the assurances they sought on the integrity of their single market, while avoiding any change to the border on the island of Ireland. We agreed to conduct some light-touch processes on goods passing between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in case they were transferred to the EU.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said that the Northern Ireland protocol was a very, very ingenuous scheme—sorry, a “very, very ingenious scheme”. I will say it one more time, because it is worthy of repetition. He said it is
“a very, very ingenious scheme”.—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 594.]
It is almost Trump-esque in its rhetoric, and as we find so often with populists around the world, it is very easy to make far-fetched promises, but it is much harder to deliver them in practice. Reality is biting the Prime Minister and it is biting him hard.
As we have seen this afternoon, things have not exactly gone to script. The Prime Minister has been turning up at Prime Minister’s questions in recent weeks wishing he was facing a former leader of the Labour party. This afternoon, he got one and my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) wiped the floor with the Prime Minister, so much so that he had to scurry away back to his office, so badly battered and bruised was he. He was not even able to defend the Bill. He probably had not read it, because it is certainly clear from what he has said in recent days that he had not read the withdrawal agreement or the Northern Ireland protocol. Even this afternoon, he still did not understand the content that he has signed up to.
Contrary to there being a remainer plot, the script simply does not work. We have left the European Union. We are no longer members of the European Union. We are not going back. The only question now is whether we have a trade deal with the European Union that puts to bed so many of the difficult, thorny, challenging, but not insurmountable issues that many of us warned and argued over recent years would arise. The Prime Minister can hardly be surprised.
What I am surprised by is the scale of their misjudgments and their incompetence, even by this Government’s standards. With one decision, they have shaken the foundations of the Good Friday agreement, threatened the prospects of a trade deal with the European Union, and risked the prospects of a trade deal with the United States of America. With that, they have jeopardised future prosperity, jobs and the economy when we are facing the worst recession in hundreds of years. They have given further cause for grievance to the nationalists and threatened the Union. The irony is that a Bill that is supposed to strengthen the Union actually threatens its future. Perhaps worst of all, it threatens the standing and reputation of our country around the world, not only in the eyes of our allies, but in the eyes of our enemies, too.
I ask Members on the Government Benches: what has happened to the Conservative and Unionist party of Disraeli, Churchill, Macmillan and Thatcher? I cannot think of a single former Conservative Prime Minister who would behave in this way. I just say to them that, from experience, it is hard standing up to your own side when they are doing something wrong, but you will be doing the right thing by opposing this Bill and will sleep more soundly for it.
EU Exit: End of Transition Period
Wes Streeting Excerpts(4 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who does a brilliant job standing up for his constituents. It is not the case that any specific site has been absolutely confirmed. We are in commercial negotiations with a number of sites, and as and when they are confirmed I will let him know. It is also the case, as he rightly points out, that some of the infrastructure will be temporary and some will be permanent. May I extend to him and to all Kent Members of Parliament an opportunity to come into the Cabinet Office to discuss with me and officials the approach that we are taking? I hope that I can provide him and other colleagues with reassurance in that process.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
There are five and a half months to go and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster still cannot even confirm the site. Will he at least reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who asked specifically whether there will be checks at the lorry park on goods moving to the European continent and coming into the UK? My right hon. Friend also asked—this goes to the heart of the concern raised by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green)—whether the lorry park will be operational along with the goods vehicle movement service IT system by the end of the year. Can the right hon. Gentleman at least give us that assurance?
Michael Gove
It is the case that the GVMS will be in place, as all the systems will, so that we can have a fully operational border, and of course the additional infrastructure—the £705 million that we have announced today will ensure that it is in place in time—will be there specifically to ensure that when vehicles arrive in Calais they have passed through all the necessary checks and can then proceed smoothly to market.
Budget Resolutions
Wes Streeting Excerpts(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sajid Javid
I was pleased to hear the Chancellor say that this Budget is within the fiscal rules, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, we do not yet know the impact of these emergency measures. We also do not know the impact of the term funding scheme announced today by the Bank of England. A lot of the fall in debt over the next few years is because of the term funding scheme coming to an end, but that might now change, so it is worth keeping that in mind.
The British economy is in a strong position to weather the current storm, but we must not forget that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is only able to deploy the firepower that he has today because of the choices that consecutive Conservative Chancellors have made—choices to control spending, to control borrowing and to control debt. That is why the fiscal rules that we set out in our manifesto are important. Sticking to those rules in normal times is what separates us from Opposition parties. They help us to keep our economy strong and to keep taxes low, and they preserve our flexibility for when we need it most. It is not always possible to forecast when the next threat will emerge, nor what form it will take, but it is possible to prepare, and I know that the Chancellor and I are grateful that our predecessors had the foresight to do so.
Sajid Javid
I will not give way.
The British people have responded to the coronavirus crisis with stoicism and selflessness, as well as a distinct sense of humour—especially when it comes to toilet rolls. The British people are following the lead that has been set by right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor who, in the most challenging of circumstances, have resolved to act prudently on the basis of evidence and to act in the national interest. I have every faith that in the coming months they will do the right thing and that, whatever happens, as a country we will emerge stronger on the other side.
Prime Minister's Update
Wes Streeting Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s political hero, Sir Winston Churchill, when threatened with deselection by Chamberlainites in his Epping constituency in the 1930s, said:
“What is the use of Parliament if it is not the place where true statements can be brought before the people?”
He understood the role of parliamentarians as not simply delegates to this place but representatives; as servants of the people but also guardians of the national interest. There are certain pillars on which our democracy rests: Parliament, the judiciary, the free press, and the pillars of civil society. Does the Prime Minister not understand that given the way he has conducted himself, whether it is the unlawful Prorogation of Parliament, the language he has used the Chamber, or withdrawing the Whip from Members sitting behind him who seemingly have more regard for Conservative values than he does, he may be the problem and not the solution? If he really believes in consent, there are two ways to go back to the people. The first is to honour the law passed by the House to seek an extension to article 50, and we will gladly troop through the Lobby behind him. The other is to put a deal, or no deal, to the people in a confirmatory vote. Both those ways will unlock the parliamentary deadlock. The only question is whether he has the courage to do it.
The Prime Minister
But to what end? I do not understand why on earth the hon. Gentleman, who I normally admire as he normally speaks sense, would want to stay in the EU beyond 31 October. What is his purpose? The people have spoken. It would cost another £1 billion a month. I simply fail to understand his logic.
Priorities for Government
Wes Streeting Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I certainly will. I thank my hon. Friend for his question.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s carelessness and lack of attention to detail aided and abetted the Iranian regime in locking up a British citizen. I ask the Prime Minister to put right what he did so wrong, and take personal responsibility for ensuring the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
The Prime Minister
Of course, we work very hard to secure the release of Nazanin and all dual nationals who are held, in my view unfairly and illegally, by the Iranian regime. It is time that an innocent woman was released.