John McDonnell
MP for Hayes and Harlington · Labour · United Kingdom
“It is not a laughing matter—I am sorry for interrupting the flow of the discussion. It would be useful if the review looked at NATS’s long-term investment plans, particularly since its partial privatisation in 2001, which I opposed. I thank the Minister for meeting Unite this morning and thanking the workers, who have worked so hard.”
“On a number of occasions, I have raised the case of Lee Cheuk-yan, who many Labour Members will remember was the general secretary of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions and founder of the Labour party in Hong Kong. He was detained during the democracy movement five years ago.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. NATS used to be in my constituency and then moved down to Swanwick. Of course, with Heathrow in my constituency, I receive—as I mentioned yesterday—a large amount of correspondence from a whole range of other MPs’ constituents, who think I am responsible for Heathrow airport.”
“I fully agree, and let me also say that wheelchair compensation is significant in this legislation. Most of us have dealt with cases like that. Going back to accountability in the process, a number of different organisations have provided us with notes on the legislation.”
“I apologise to my right hon. Friend; I should have checked this before the debate. The proposed new section 61G refers to priorities and objectives of the Secretary of State, which include a requirement for the Secretary of State to issue a document setting out those priorities and objectives for the CAA.”
“At the moment, when people in my constituency are faced with these problems, they do not know where to go; it is as simple as that. Finally, the debate that we will have on Heathrow expansion and the new policy statement will be interesting, given that we do not know what the flight paths will be. If I was a constituent of my hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 7,997 lines we hold for John McDonnell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 160.
“Since 1979—I started work a few years before then—successive Conservative Governments have understood the distribution of power, and as a result they have used legislation to undermine trade union rights, so as to reduce the power of workers to defend themselves at work and improve their working conditions. All that the Bill does—I welcome it wholeheartedly—is take a small step to rebalance that power. It will not just improve wages and working conditions, but lead to a better economic situation for all concerned—employers and employees—full stop. That is what it is about.”
“I remind the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) that across those European countries with the highest union density, people have the best wages and working conditions and the greatest productivity, which somewhat undermines his last argument. I refer you to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are calling this the Employment Rights Bill, but it is not about rights as such; it is about power. When trade unions first discovered the concept of solidarity in the early industrial revolution, they discovered that, through unity, they could exert power to influence, to improve working conditions and wages, and to secure a better overall quality of life.”
“Outsourcing has produced an insecure, low-paid form of employment that is already resulting in industrial strife. Over the next couple of weeks, we could see strikes in virtually every Government Department because of what is happening on outsourcing. On fire and rehire, the question is what a company has to do to prove that there is financial stress because of the economy. I also have two final points. One is on the seafarers’ charter; it has been mentioned that the second stage of discussions are taking place. That charter is critical if we are to provide basic protections for seafarers. Finally, prison officers have been denied the right to strike since 1994, and even Tony Blair said that he would restore that. I want to see that in this Bill, and I shall table an amendment accordingly.”
“However, I would like to see an enabling clause in the Bill, so that we can move on swiftly to other sectors in which we can get agreement across the trade union movement and engage with employers. The second point is on single worker status, to which my hon. Friend alluded. Consultation is taking place on that, and it is absolutely critical, because we have seen some of the most exploitative practices in parts of the economy where workers have been forced into bogus self-employed status. The third point is on insourcing. The Government have promised the biggest reform of insourcing in a generation. There is no mention in the Bill of insourcing, but there is mention of reform to procurement, and it is important that through our reforms to procurement, we bring forward insourcing as rapidly as possible.”
“Yes, and as a result, people will work better, increase their productivity and improve the profitability of companies, which is beneficial to us all. It is as simple as that. However—there is a “but”—there are a few points on which I would press the Government to go a bit further. The first is sectoral collective bargaining and fair pay agreements. In the early 1970s, 86% of our workforce was covered by collective agreements, but that is now down to 20%. Where collective agreements have operated, they improve productivity, wages and conditions, and increase industrial harmony in the economy. We as a Government are starting off by introducing them for adult social care, which I thoroughly welcome, because there is such low pay and exploitation in the sector.”
“Why do the Government allow to remain in our country Israeli diplomats who advocate a “Greater Israel”, and who oppose a Palestinian state and therefore the potential for a two-state solution, contrary to United Nations resolutions?”
“We could do exactly as we have done with Ukraine, by simply establishing a system to ensure that those seriously injured children are evacuated. Clinicians are willing to assist here; in fact, I have had clinicians contact me to say, “What can we do?” and “How can we assist?” I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer), to take this and come back as a matter of urgency. Children are dying as a result and we cannot stand to one side.”
“However, it was not about the evacuation but the assistance being provided to organisations hopefully working as best they could within Gaza. So I wrote again, and I have not received a second response. I am not sure what is happening in Government on this. I understand that a new Government have come in and it is difficult settling down and sorting out arrangements, but this is a matter of urgency. We have had further reports this morning of another hospital being attacked, and we have also heard reports of the doctors being threatened that if they did not evacuate they would be arrested. We have even had ambulance workers arrested this morning as well. They are being forced to choose between evacuating children from intensive care, which is risky, or leaving them behind, and as a result some doctors are risking their lives.”
“I had met with the voluntary organisation Save Gaza’s Children, which is based in France, and there is also Save A Child, which was doing work at that point to evacuate children to Italy and to other countries surrounding Palestine. I raised the issue again in May because we had no response. Then the general election happened so I wrote to the Prime Minister, because I felt this needed a prime ministerial push to get it through. I raised it with the Foreign Secretary because we needed to ensure that our diplomatic efforts were involved, and I wrote to the Home Secretary as well because we needed the visa arrangements put in place. I never received a response. I wrote again in August to the Minister for Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), and I did receive a response.”
“I want to raise again the issue of the evacuation of seriously injured children from Gaza. When the Ukraine war started, we very rapidly put in place a mechanism for the evacuation of injured children from Ukraine to hospitals here, to ensure that they had the appropriate treatment. It was a system that seemed to have worked effectively. Soon after the attack on Gaza, my friend Kate Hollern, who was the hon. Member for Blackburn, raised in this House the issue of trying to instigate a similar scheme for Palestinian children. I think she did that around November or December, but we heard nothing back. I raised the issue again on the Floor of the House with the then deputy Foreign Secretary—the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)—and we were given an assurance.”
“I am sorry to interrupt the Minister’s flow, but before he sits down, can he give me some assurance that he will take back to his colleagues the issue about the evacuation of children? I raised it again on Monday with the Prime Minister and still got no response.”
“Could the Prime Minister look at how we can achieve progress?”
“Today is a day for sombre remembrance of the suffering on all sides, but if the threatened war against Iran takes place, we will need to revisit that discussion in this Chamber. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has rightly demonstrated our concern about the suffering on all sides, and particularly mentioned the suffering of children. When the Ukraine war started, we set up the scheme to evacuate children who were seriously injured to come here for treatment. In January I raised the prospect of that scheme being introduced for Palestinian children and others. I raised it again in May. In July I wrote to my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary. I wrote again in August, and again in September. There does not seem to be any progress on developing such a scheme, despite the willingness of clinicians here.”
“We do not have to be here. I hope that people learn the lesson as we move towards this Budget not to put us on this position again, where we take a decision based on, I believe, misjudgment. It certainly flies against everything I believe in as a Labour MP about tackling inequality and poverty in our society. I was not elected to impoverish my constituents and put them in this hardship. I regret voting for a motion put forward by these characters in the Opposition, but I will have to because there is no other mechanism. I want to look at my people back in Hayes in the face and say that I did the right thing.”
“I have large numbers of people who, for example, worked at the airport and got a little pension at the end, and they will be tipped into not qualifying. They are living in accommodation that those on the Opposition Benches provided, which is squalor, to be frank—they are living in not insulated, freezing accommodation. They are the ones at risk, as the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) said, of going to hospital and not even surviving. We are in an unnecessary position, because there is so much else we could do. We do not need to put the burden on the poorest. We need to make sure that those who can afford it pay. That means redistributive tax measures, equalising capital gains tax, tackling the corporate tax relief issues that we must confront, and making sure that the City pays its way in financial transactions.”
“I agree with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we must ensure financial stability and that our income matches our expenditure. I agree with the Prime Minister on the principle, and always have, that any burden should be placed on those with the broadest shoulders. This is where I disagree: the heaviest burden is not being placed on those with the broadest shoulders but on some of the poorest. Large numbers of my constituents do not claim pension credit, and I will be out there like everyone else trying to persuade them to apply, but a lot of my voluntary organisations have been savaged by a Tory council. We do not even have the advice mechanisms left. I think that, at best, we can get to 70% or maybe 75%, but one in four will not be able to claim that benefit.”
“When an issue such as this has been so heavily whipped, it is very difficult. I have not the eloquence to persuade people to vote another way, to be honest. I just want to make this as a personal statement, so that my constituents know why I am voting the way that I will today. I agree with the Government on so many points on this issue. First, this is the most toxic inheritance that any Government have ever had. I did a report last September that said that between 2010 and now we have lost £80 billion, not £20 billion. On the £20 billion black hole, we sat here and listened to a Government making commitments that they knew they would never have to fulfil, because they knew they were going out of power.”
“In the building regulations, we defined higher buildings as above seven storeys or 18 metres. That takes no account of those other properties in which there are vulnerable residents in particular who are now at risk. The recommendation is to urgently review those regulations. May we have a timetable for that review, as it has consequences for many of our constituents?”
“Having read the summary of the report, may I say how difficult it has been to contain one’s anger? Like many west London MPs here, I visited the site soon after the fire. In the following months, we met the victims, the families of the victims, the firefighters, the local representatives, and the traumatised call centre operators, some of whom have never recovered. I was castigated then for using the expression “social murder”. This report defines; it was social murder. Exactly as the Prime Minister said, we need urgent action. We have been promised a debate. For that debate, may we have the definitive report for each of our constituencies on what action has been taken, what action will be taken, and what the deadline will be? May I return to recommendation 113.7 in the report?”
“I declare a non-pecuniary interest: I am an honorary life member of the Prison Officers’ Association. In seeking to be fair, as she always is, my right hon. Friend is being too kind on the last Government. They brought about a staffing crisis in our prisons that has brought rehabilitation to an end and levels of violence that we have never seen before. Will she bring forward as soon as possible a workforce strategy for our prisons and probation? As a matter of urgency, will she look in particular at Feltham young offenders institution, which has become a violent emergency for staff and for prisoners themselves?”
“I have written to the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary, and I hope that our Government can welcome those children here so that they can receive the treatment they need, before hopefully they can be returned to a Palestinian state that we recognise and that lives in peace.”
“Finally, I do not know what it was like in other constituencies, but overhanging our whole debate was the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, coming in night after night and seeing more children being slaughtered and war crimes being committed. I do not think we will solve this problem unless we seek an immediate ceasefire that will enable us to have the hostages released. However, I think we can take some immediate steps: stopping the arms sales to Israel, respecting the International Criminal Court and ensuring that we recognise that war crimes should be punished. Since January, I tried to mobilise the previous Government to accept, as other Governments across the world have been doing, seriously injured children from Gaza so that they could come here for treatment, but not one visa has been issued to a Palestinian child for that purpose.”
“The disability movement has developed the theme of “Nothing about us without us”, and that should apply to every sector of public service, so that we work not just with those who deliver the service, but with those who receive it. I also agree with what has been said about unpaid carers and the way in which we treat disabled people who, I am afraid, now live in poverty and were stigmatised under the previous Government. We can come to those debates as we run to the next Budget. My conclusion is carpe diem—seize the moment. We have a large majority. We must beware the danger of the far right mobilising if we fail, but we must also recognise the potential that we now have.”
“It means, for example, that we need to grasp the nettle of levelling capital gains tax with income tax, making sure that our tax reliefs and the corporate welfare that is going on is effective and not simply subsidising profits. In addition, I believe we must have a discussion at some stage about what we do about wealth distribution overall. There has been a lot of discussion about reform of public services. I agree with that, but I want reform to be placed in the hands of the frontline staff themselves—the experts in delivering the service—and for them to then work with the recipients of those services, the patients and others, so that there is co-production.”
“It is calculated that, between 2010 and now, the Conservatives cut £80 billion. No one expects that £80 billion to be discovered overnight, but we need a plan for reinvestment over the length of this Parliament. That means being honest about the debate that we must have about not just this Budget but future Budgets. People recognise that we will need to find the money. Yes, we will get some from growth, but 1% of growth brings in about £12.5 billion. To achieve 1% of growth is hard work; it requires investment and it takes time. If we can get back up to 2%, fine, but that will take time. In the meantime, we need the resources for our public services, and that means that we have to have an honest debate about taxation and the distribution of wealth in our country.”
“So far, we have committed to doing that in the social care sector, and I welcome it, because that is where poverty wages really are being paid. However, we now need to start, as we promised before, to extend that across the economy. We can build into the Bill the mechanisms for doing that stage by stage—yes, with discussions and so on, but it can be done effectively. In some areas, sectoral collective bargaining was scrapped only a few years ago, for example in agriculture. One area in which I would like to ensure that we have that is transport, and then we would have no more P&Os. We need to be honest about the state of our public services, in terms not only of their delivery but of their finances. I did a report last September with Andrew Fischer on the incoming Labour Government’s in-tray.”
“It is no longer an offence against the fiscal rule: the resources are there and we can lift those poor children out of poverty with this simple act. So I appeal to my own party—to the Labour Front Bench—to by all means get the taskforce working, but to now commit ourselves to scrapping the two-child limit and doing it rapidly. On employment, the new deal for workers, which we developed when we were in opposition, is now going to be legislated on. I want no more watering down, and at the same time I do not want it delayed by endless consultations. We have consulted at length for five years nearly: it is there and it is ready. We want to scrap fire and rehire and we want to scrap zero-hours contracts, but one of the most important ingredients of that legislation should be the extension of sectoral collective pay bargaining.”
“We need to lift that stigma —that impact—but we need to do it quickly. Yes, let us set up a taskforce by all means, but we must produce a timetable that within weeks we will scrap the two-child limit. The argument is whether we can afford it and whether it will be within our fiscal rules. Many Members will know that, over the last few weeks, the OBR has lifted or revised its growth figures upwards. The International Monetary Fund has dramatically increased the growth figures upwards. That has nothing to do with the Tories building a new economy or anything like that; it is the natural business cycle, and it is also part and parcel of some companies recognising that a Labour Government were coming. Let us take the benefit of that.”
“I never thought that, in my lifetime, we would ever debate destitution again in this House, but destitution there is. I welcome the announcement today of the taskforce that will look at poverty overall, but I have to say that setting up a taskforce is one thing, and acting is another. There is one simple act, and we all know it, that could lift 300,000 children out of poverty this month: scrapping the two-child limit. I was in this House when the Tories introduced it, and it was introduced as part of stigmatising all those on benefits. In my speech I said that “I would swim through vomit to vote against the Bill”. —[ Official Report , 20 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 1314.] Given some of the speeches from the Tories at the time, I almost had to. It was an appalling form of attack on the poorest in our community.”
“I must say that there are elements I have to smile over in that much has been drawn from the 2017 and 2019 manifestos—but maybe we should not mention that—such as on employment rights, the new deal, rail nationalisation, buses, Great British Energy and the national investment fund, which reflects the national investment bank that we put forward then. In fact, there are sections of the King’s Speech that could almost be the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald). People want and expect delivery sooner rather than later. I want to focus on four areas of policy on which I am desperate to see change. The first is poverty. Child poverty has to be our priority. There are 14 million people living in poverty, including 4.3 million children, with 1 million in destitution.”
“We need to be wary of that, and to understand the reasons for it. The More in Common poll that was published this week confirms the scale of disillusionment that there is with politics overall, which has been reflected in some of today’s debate. My fear is that we now have others on the political scene, in this country and elsewhere, who will feed on that disillusionment. We should guard against the far right mobilising again, as has happened in Germany, France and Italy. We as a Labour Government have to deliver. As for all Governments, the honeymoon will inevitably be short-lived, but I welcome the King’s Speech because it does set out the elements of a programme for rebuilding our country.”
“In the teaching profession, the stress is such that we cannot retain teachers: no matter how committed they are, they do not survive under that sort of pressure. For many of our areas, social care is almost non-existent, and I meet family members who are caring for other family members and unpaid carers. It is now almost inevitable that if you are looking after someone in your family—someone who has a disability or whatever—you are living in poverty as a result of the lack of support. Yes, people voted for change, but we on the Labour Benches have to be realistic and have some humility in our assessment of the election. Only one in five of the population voted for us, and what worries me in my constituency is that our turnout has gone from 70% when I was elected in the 1990s to 51% in this election.”
“I have got rents spiralling out of all control, and I have got slum housing reappearing. The back-to-back has been reinvented in my constituency, where one family will rent the front of a normal house and another family will rent another floor or the back. Turning to employment for my constituents, wages have virtually been frozen for the past 14 years. I have Heathrow in my constituency; people would fight to get a job at Heathrow because the wages were so good, but not any more. We are running low pay campaigns, and insecure work is endemic in my constituency: it was Heathrow Ltd that started fire and rehire. The same could be said about public services—we will all say this. In my area, the NHS is on its knees. I just do not know how the staff have coped.”
“When the exit poll landed on election night, in my community, there was almost a collective sigh of relief that we were ending 14 years of Conservative Government. My constituency, like many others—my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) has said this—could not take any more, to be frank. In my constituency, like that of my hon. Friend, one in three children are living in poverty; according to the statistics, some of them are living in destitution. I have got a housing crisis, even though 4,000 properties are being built in the centre of my constituency. Most of my constituents cannot afford them; those who have scraped the money together and have got leaseholder access to those properties are now being hit by massive increases in service charges, and some of them want to hand the keys back.”
“I add my commendations for the speeches that introduced this debate. I have only one anecdote about my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), who was in my Treasury team: he is a fan of Shostakovich, and on one occasion, we went to the Royal Albert Hall to listen to a Shostakovich symphony. It was the symphony with which Dmitri Shostakovich upset Stalin, and it almost cost him his life. We thought the performance was superb, but there were two grumpy old men in front of us, and at the end of the symphony, one turned to the other and said, “Stalin may have had a point.” We enjoyed it. I thought the speeches today were superb. I want to get to the business of the next few days: examining the King’s Speech. We all come to this House with a mandate from our constituents, so it important that we bring to the House their experience.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way; I know that he has limited time. May I add to the four requests that were made by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous)? With other conditions for which the Government have appointed an individual MP as the champion, we have seen some remarkable results because of that focus. Will the Government look at appointing a particular champion? I think we have seen the person who is in line today.”
“Those of us who have constituents of Sudanese origin can relate to the Minister the distress and concern in that community. There is particular concern about the fact that—I think this is now the estimate—anything between 500,000 and 1 million refugees are going from Darfur into Chad. Could the Minister explain what support we are providing for those who are in Chad, because at the moment it looks as though the agencies that are there are unable to cope?”
“In addition, we looked at different options: should we pay it over a four or five-year period and reduce the cost to £12 billion a year. When I said during the debate that this was a large amount of money, somebody said that we had just paid out £500 billion to bail out the banks when they had crippled the economy. Then we went into 2020 and covid hit us.”
“We commissioned Lord Bryn Davies, who is one of the most respected pensions experts in the country, and worked for two years with WASPI and the different groups to design the scheme. My commentary on the proposals by the ombudsman reflects some of the work that was done. We looked at a straightforward scheme. Going into individual cases would take decades, to be frank, so we looked at a flat-rate scheme for everybody, based on an average loss of £100 a week. That resulted in an average payment of £15,000, which is a lot of money. We costed it at more than £50 billion, which seemed a lot of money at the time, but it is less than a third of what the Government saved by increasing the pension age for these women.”
“The reason I was trying to equalise pensions by reducing men’s working age was largely for working-class people. In many of our cities, the difference between the life expectancy of the rich and the poor is something like 20 years. We were told then that life expectancy would be continuously improving, but it has stagnated. Many people do not work in a sedentary role, so as we increase the retirement age—it is now going up to 68 and beyond—they will work until they drop. That is not acceptable, particularly in the economy that we have, where we could redistribute wealth, lower people’s retirement age and give them a decent pension. I was involved in designing the scheme proposed in 2019.”
“I have lived this campaign for about 10 years, as have a number of other hon. Members. Today, we have heard unanimity from speakers from all political parties across the House. Unless we can get some action quickly, I despair of what parliamentary procedure is left to us. I do not want to go back to swinging the Mace about again, but something needs to happen fairly quickly because anger is building up, in the Chamber, outside and among the WASPI women. I do not share the view of some hon. Members about the equalisation of pensions. I supported the equalisation of pensions, but not on the basis of the retirement age for women increasing. I thought we were entering a period when we would be reducing the age that men had to work until, so we would equalise pensions that way. The argument then was about whether the economy could afford it.”
“Voters will, however, blame the Government the most, because there is an opportunity now, as others have said, to make a statement by the recess with a timetable for implementation. We could almost certainly agree the funding. We looked at how to raise the funds. Some could be borrowing, but the Government normally have contingencies for legal liabilities. This is a legal liability. We have the opportunity to act now, and I urge the Government to wake up and listen to what the whole House is saying. If today’s response is not satisfactory, we will be back next week, and if necessary every day until the recess until we get some sense out of the Government.”
“If this Parliament is sovereign and the Government are accountable to this House, I believe that there is a majority, an overwhelming majority, of Members who will vote for a compensation scheme that is readily accessible, and also at a level that reflects the hardship that people have suffered and the scale that most Members would want to see. As we go into a general election, the issue will not go away. The WASPI women and their campaign will not go away. People have expressed admiration for that campaign, which is not just impressive; it is terrifying. Unless a proposal is brought forward, it will become an election issue. I think people’s votes will stand or fall in many constituencies on the basis of the decision coming out of all the political parties.”
“PACAC wrote to the Secretary of State and asked for a timetable, stressing the urgency of the matter, because, exactly as Members have said, people are dying. Some people cannot wait, because they either will literally not be here any more, or they are living in poverty and hardship. We received a reply this week. The Secretary of State said that he would be bringing forward a statement “in due course”. What that means is nothing; it is meaningless. As a Committee, we have agreed to write again to say that that is unacceptable and that we need a clear timetable in which this matter will be addressed and proposals brought forward that we can vote on and, if necessary, amend in this House.”
“The ombudsman reports and is accountable to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, on which I serve. We have considered each of the reports as they have come forward. We were critical about the delays that were taking place, so we impressed on the ombudsman the urgency of the situation. When we got the report back, we found that it had at least accepted that there had been an injustice and that there needed to be a compensation scheme. We waited with bated breath for the Secretary of State to announce at least the timescale and the timetable for that compensation scheme, but all we heard was that the Government would go away and consider it. That was weeks ago.”
“I also looked at what had been provided in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest in our country since 2010. It was £100 billion. I looked at how much had been given in corporate welfare benefits, and, again, it was £100 billion. Therefore, although it sounded like a lot of money at the time, in the context of fairness, it was the right amount. That is why the ombudsman’s offer of between £3,000 and £10,000 is derisory; it has to be more than that. The reason for having a flat-rate compensation scheme is for ease of administration, and I would recommend that wholeheartedly. We have heard today about the individual hardships that people have endured. We cannot allow that to go on any further, which is why this scheme must be expedited.”
“We do not know the timing of the general election—possibly November, but maybe later—but it is likely that we will have only about 10 sitting weeks between now and a general election. Can I impress on the Minister to take back to his fellow Ministers that we need the proposals rapidly in those 10 weeks, and certainly before recess, if we are to get a viable scheme through Parliament?”
“It is an issue that affects many of our constituents. I hope that the Government will respond positively and work through the detail. Perhaps we can have something in the Lords that overcomes some of the Government’s concerns about it. I agree that using the expression “spiking” is important, so that people know that we are dealing with it.”
“My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) said that it was uncertain whether this legislation would ever reach the statute book, because of the time available to us in the run-up to the general election. I hope that some of the measures to be dealt with on day 2 of consideration of the Bill do not get on to the statute book. However, across the House today, there has been an interesting setting of the agenda for the next stage of the debate on the Bill in the Lords and perhaps for the period after the general election. Perhaps an incoming Labour Government will have to deal with those issues as well. They reflect a number of concerns that we deal with as constituency MPs. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on tabling his amendments on spiking.”
“I believe that it will be almost impossible to maintain an appropriate inspection arrangement for both prisons and escort services when they are located abroad, and that if it is maintained, it will be extremely expensive.”