5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Q15. People across the country are fed up with extensive and needless delays caused by road, rail and utility works happening at the same time because of a failure to co-ordinate. My Transport (Duty to Cooperate) Bill would fix that and cut disruption, supporting communities and the economy. I understand that the Government are looking for ways to support the economy—apparently—so will the Deputy Prime Minister pass on my proposal to the Chancellor and back my Bill?
Q8. Burning waste is as polluting as burning coal, and our incinerators are already over-capacity. When will this Government renew the previous Government’s pause on new incinerators, end perverse deliver-or-pay contracts with incinerator companies, and deliver an incineration tax, such as the landfill tax, to encourage waste reduction, reuse and recycling?
Sudan is a crushingly poor country, but it is not without resources, so it is hardly surprising that malign state actors and their proxies are closely involved there, and not in a good way. What can be done in particular to disrupt the smuggling of gold from Sudan to Syria by the Wagner Group to fund Russia’s war in Ukraine?
Scrapping the EBacc means potentially reducing the exposure of disadvantaged children to modern foreign languages, and the problem with that—a bit like their access to classics in the past—is that they will become relatively disadvantaged when it comes to places at elite universities. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must make sure that that does not happen, since we all want to see improved social mobility in this country—and scrapping the EBacc looks like a very funny way of doing it?
It very much is, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have this week had the publication of a very important Bill—so important that the Prime Minister himself came to this House to present it on Second Reading. The sponsor of that Bill is the Justice Secretary. While I have no doubt that the Justice Secretary was being truthful today, there is a question over whether he was being candid, which is a higher test. Can you advise me on how the Justice Secretary might be requested to come to this House to clarify his position?
I am going to impose an informal five-minute limit, and we will see how we get on.
I call Peter Fortune, who I am sure will stick to the five-minute limit.
I ask our last three speakers to stick to their five minutes.
Order. I have to draw you to a close there, Mr Bailey.
I call Luke Taylor on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. You have eight minutes.
Order. Mr Taylor, you have taken two lengthy interventions. I am afraid that they will not be in addition to your time.
Order. I think this might be the point at which you need to conclude.
I call the Minister to respond to the debate, and perhaps he can give Mr French a minute at the end to wind up.
I will call Gordon McKee to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. Two other Members have indicated that they may wish to speak, but they can make a speech only with the approval of both the Member in charge and the Minister. I proceed on the basis that those two Members have that permission. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention in 30-minute debates.
I sense that a large number of people want to make an intervention, but they must keep them short; otherwise, Mr McKee will not get to deliver his speech.
I am going to take it that that was your speech, Mr Moon. I will not call you subsequently.
Can the hon. Member respond and also conclude, so that the Minister may respond to the numerous points that have been made in the debate?
Before we start proceedings, I want to say two things. First, this debate is oversubscribed, so not everyone will get to speak. I hope to call 10 Back- Bench Members to contribute for three minutes each. If Members take interventions, they will not get extra time because this is an hour-long debate. Secondly, we expect Divisions in the House shortly. The procedure will be to suspend the debate for 15 minutes for the first Division and approximately 10 minutes for each subsequent Division.
Can the hon. and learned Gentleman conclude in 30 seconds, because there is no additional time for interventions?
The hon. Gentleman is not taking that intervention, so let us continue.
The hon. Gentleman is not giving way. Members may disagree with what he is saying, but we will conduct this debate in an orderly way.
I already know that is not a point of order in relation to the content of the hon. Gentleman’s speech.
Sincere apologies to everyone I was not able to call. We now come to the Lib Dem spokesman, who has five minutes.
Minister, the proceedings are due to conclude at 6.30 pm. You may wish to give Ms Eccles a few moments to wind up the debate.
This is a thorough piece of work from Professor Francis. There are things in it to welcome, including the retention of key stage 2 assessments and the triple science entitlement, although the Government will have to say where the resourcing will come from to make that a reality. In truth, there are other things that we just do know yet. It remains to be seen what the changes in English literature mean and what will get squeezed out; it also remains to be seen what the new computing GCSE is relative to computer science—I hope it is not a return to the pre-computer science days of the information and communication technology GCSE. One thing I regret is the demise of the EBacc. Let us remember what that is: a set of subjects that is presented clearly to children and their families, including and especially disadvantaged children, who, by studying this core set of subjects, will keep their options most open and have the most opportunity to progress in life. The EBacc did increase uptake for history and geography. It could have been mitigated if the Secretary of State had kept Professor Francis’s recommendation to retain the structure of the current Progress 8. Why did she ignore that recommendation? Is she giving up totally on modern foreign languages?
Labour’s previous definition of “Islamophobia” was adopted by councils that had grooming gang scandals, and it said that even talking about grooming gangs was an example of “anti-Muslim racism”. We know from Louise Casey that public servants did not speak up because they were scared of being called racist. The Government are now bringing in a new definition, but they are refusing to tell the public what is in it. Will the Minister commit to publishing the draft definition, before it is adopted, for full public scrutiny?
In January, the Supreme Court ruled that sex means biological sex. This was a huge victory for women’s rights, but now we hear that the Minister is kicking the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s much-needed guidance into the long grass. The law is not changing—the law is as it has always been—so will she release the guidance and make sure that women’s rights are protected?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, at Prime Minister’s questions earlier today, the Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) no fewer than five times whether he was aware of any prisoner being released early, having claimed asylum. We now know that he had in his possession at that time a folder containing details of the accidental release of Brahim Kaddour-Cherif from Wandsworth prison last week—a man previously convicted of sex offences and who is, as we speak, at large and posing a risk to the public. It has emerged since then that another man, William Smith, was accidentally released on Monday. The Deputy Prime Minister failed to disclose that relevant information to this House. The House and the public are entitled to be told about such things, but the Deputy Prime Minister withheld that information. The police have subsequently confirmed that they have no objection to that information being released, contrary to briefings from the Government. Will the Justice Secretary come to this House before the close of business and make a statement so that Members can question him? We cannot wait until the House returns on Tuesday for a proper account.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The recent Cabinet Office annual accounts show that the departed Cabinet Secretary and the permanent secretary collectively received a quarter of a million pounds in golden goodbyes. I asked the Minister for the Cabinet Office the rationale for such a use of taxpayers’ money, and the Minister without Portfolio replied that it was the Government’s policy not to comment on individuals. That is clearly nonsensical. There is a clear expectation of accountability and transparency on payments to the most public senior officials, so do you agree that this approach is in keeping with the House’s resolution on ministerial accountability to Parliament?
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I salute my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for initiating the debate. The debate is timely given the decision last week, by the Government and City Hall, to lower targets for affordable housing in developments, in exchange for the granting of supposedly faster planning permission. That is a real concern. The briefing that we have received from Crisis demonstrates that more than 13,231 people were rough sleeping in London during the last year—a record high and a 10% increase on the previous year. Some 70,000 households, including 90,000 children, are in temporary accommodation. Not only is that bad for the families, but it is costing Londoners and the taxpayer something like £5 million a day in London. In particular, money is being spent on bed and breakfast accommodation, which is not only unsuitable for families but expensive for London authorities to bear. There are 336,366 households on social housing waiting lists in London. The crunch is whether this decision is actually going to deliver any improvement in social housing. Before anyone starts talking about the previous Government or the former Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, I remind hon. Members, particularly newly elected Labour Members, that I tried to carry through a Bill on behalf of Boris Johnson to increase house building in London. We were blocked by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), who is no longer in his place, and the hon. Member for Islington—I am not sure which.
No, the other one: the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). That meant that whole sites in London were not developed to provide housing when they should have been. Clearly we have a serious problem here. In my constituency, there is a planning application that has been outstanding, after having been reviewed at various times, for nearly 10 years. It would provide housing units that we desperately need, but the housing association refuses to develop it. It is now trying to sell the site again to further developers. Our other problem in London is where developments have taken place. There have been developments such as Battersea power station, around Wembley stadium and other areas where housing has gone up, but that housing has not been sold to local people; it is been sold to developers or owners abroad, then rented out at exorbitant cost to local London people, who then have to apply for housing benefit and depend on welfare payments rather than having a home of their own. We have to conquer this.
I do not speak on behalf of my party; I speak on my own behalf. As the hon. Lady well knows, I have been promoting building 90,000 socially rented homes a year across the country, and for the past 30 years Governments of all persuasions have failed to build the homes that we need at the prices that people can afford. The sad reality is that we have to look at how we are going to deal with this. We could deal with the Transport for London land. TfL owns huge amounts of unused land that could be developed for housing, and that could be done in co-operation with City Hall, but the sad fact is—[Interruption.] Government Members need to focus on this: not only was Sadiq Khan as mayor given the money that my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup mentioned, but he returned it to the Treasury; he could not spend it because he could not get development under way. We have to look at what we are going to do across the House to make sure that houses are being built in London. I hope that we are not going to reduce the safety requirements for these buildings. That would be a disaster—we know of the terrible tragedy that happened in Grenfell. We should not even contemplate moving away from what has been done to protect people. Lessening those protections would be a mistake in many ways. I have a couple of questions for the Minister. How are the Government going to ensure that the affordable homes that we need in London are provided when the restrictions have been removed and developers are therefore less likely to build affordable housing that we need? Before agreeing to this decision, what assessment has the Minister made of the impact it will have on those on the affordable housing waiting lists in London? That is a real crisis, and London councils right now are in desperate need of more finance to build more housing. There are possibilities to develop the brownfield sites that TfL and the Government own, but that is being restricted. There is a solution that we could advance. We hope the Government and the Minister, who I have a lot of respect for, can influence the Mayor of London to make that happen.
Do the new standards apply to new planning applications that are being considered or to ones, already in the pipeline, in which developers have proposed developments with less affordable housing?
Q2. On Sunday and on Tuesday we will honour those that made the ultimate sacrifice, not only from this country but from across the Commonwealth. I wear not only the poppy but the marigold to honour the Commonwealth troops that gave their lives. A week on Sunday, there will be a parade at the Cenotaph by the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women, where Jewish people will come together—veterans, men, women and children—to parade with the medals that their forefathers won during world war two, the great war and other conflicts. It will be particularly apposite this year, with antisemitism on the rise, that a senior Cabinet Minister comes to that parade and lays a wreath on behalf of this House and the whole country, to remember the Jewish people that gave their lives for this country so that we could all be free.
12. Whether she has had recent discussions with Cabinet colleagues on reviewing the strategy entitled “Tackling violence against women and girls.”
In June I asked the Government to consider my private Member’s Bill calling for them to publish a strategy to tackle interpersonal abuse and violence against men and boys. The strategy would ensure that male survivors of crimes that are considered to be violence against women and girls—such as rape, sexual assault, domestic abuse, forced marriage and honour-based violence—were given dedicated support, and would also prevent male survivors from having to be in spaces that should be for women. On 1 September, the Minister told me that the strategy “will be published early in the autumn.” We are now well past that. What is causing the delay in the publication of the revised VAWG strategy, and can the Minister assure me that it will specifically address male survivors of crimes that are considered to be violence against women and girls?
Strangulation is an extremely common form of gendered violence: up to two thirds of women suffering domestic abuse report having been strangled. I have corresponded with the Minister about the need for the Institute for Addressing Strangulation to have funding certainty beyond March next year in order to continue its vital work, but have had no assurances. I know how seriously she takes this issue, but can she tell us what she is doing to make it clear to the Chancellor that sustaining this lifesaving work must be a priority if we are to meet the Government’s target of halving violence against women and girls?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) for securing this important debate, which is extremely topical, because this matter is being debated across the United Kingdom at the moment. There is no doubt that the intentions behind the creation of the Council of Europe and the European convention on human rights were noble. In the aftermath of the second world war, Europe lay traumatised by tyranny. It was with the backing of the then Opposition leader—indeed, one of the greatest figures in British and world history—Sir Winston Churchill that the United Kingdom took a leading role in constructing a system intended to ensure that totalitarianism could never happen again.
I will not, because time is very limited. Yet Churchill had the foresight to say, on Europe: “We help, we dedicate, we play a part, but we are not merged with and do not forfeit our insular or Commonwealth character…we are a separate—and specially-related ally and friend.” I agree with Churchill. I believe in a Britain that co-operates, not a Britain that is subordinate to foreign judges and international bodies with no democratic accountability. Those who claim that by leaving the ECHR we are somehow rolling back on human rights do a disservice to their ancestors, for Britain’s commitment to human liberty did not begin in 1950. It began centuries earlier—800 years before the convention was drafted, there was the principle of habeas corpus. Two decades before common-law courts were housed in the very hall in which we are having this debate today, Magna Carta of 1215 reaffirmed: “No free man shall be…imprisoned…except by the lawful judgement of his peers and the law of the land.” We produced, in succession, the Petition of Right in 1628, the Habeas Corpus Act in 1679 and the Bill of Rights in 1689, among a long list of other achievements. We were the first nation in history that not only abolished slavery at home but dedicated the full force of our political, military and economic might to its global abolition. The crowning achievement was the island nation’s establishment of the premise of parliamentary sovereignty under a constitutional monarchy, which has been the envy of nations around the world. Those achievements were not bestowed upon us by foreign courts or organisations. On the contrary, it was because of these British achievements that the ECHR came into existence, to instil in the nations of Europe that lacked such traditions the same freedoms that Britons had been enjoying for centuries. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) introduced a Bill proposing our withdrawal from the European convention on human rights, which I was proud to sponsor. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked Lord Wolfson to conduct a thorough legal analysis of whether the United Kingdom can properly govern itself while remaining in the ECHR, with five core tests. It clearly indicated that the ability of the Government to control borders, to protect veterans from vexatious pursuit, to ensure that British citizens have priority in public services and to uphold Parliament’s decisions on sentencing and other matters without endless legal obstruction is significantly constrained by our ECHR membership. So a future Conservative Government will withdraw from the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act, so that the elected Government of the day can implement policies supported by the British people in a democratic election and uphold and strengthen human rights protections through our common law tradition, just as sovereign democracies such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand do, based on institutions and principles that originate from this very nation. This is about democracy. It is this Parliament that should decide, not international bureaucrats or international judges—it is the British people, via a sovereign Parliament. That is the entire history of this country, and to jettison and give away that power is a shameful negation of the democratic birthright of the United Kingdom.
Act in haste, repent at leisure: never has that been wiser advice than in respect of this Bill. It is a rushed Bill that was half-baked when it was introduced, and has got worse since. It has failed every test of scrutiny, from the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to the Constitution Committee, to its low-balled impact assessment. On the day that the Mayfield report outlines the scale of the challenge that we face on worklessness, it will create generation jobless. Every family in the country will know a son, daughter, niece or nephew who cannot get work as a result. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) reminds us, every Labour Government leaves unemployment higher than when they started, but only this Government have actually legislated for that. The Minister asks us to disagree with all the main compromise amendments from the other place. If she wished to listen to stakeholders, now would be a fantastic moment to start. Her motions to disagree reject sensible compromises on qualifying periods, seasonal working, guaranteed hours, strike thresholds and opting in to political funds. Who will be the victims if the motions are carried today? Young people, the neurodiverse, those with a disability, female returners to work, the over 50s and former prisoners—some of the most vulnerable groups in society who deserve their chance in life, their shot at employment and a job.