Graham Stringer
MP for Blackley and Middleton South · Labour · United Kingdom
“I strongly agree with the Government’s policy on devolution and better technical and scientific education, but all that will be for nought if we do not do something about the cost of energy. We cannot grow and compete as an economy when we have higher energy costs than our major industrial competitors.”
“I am fully supportive of Stephen Watson, the chief constable of Greater Manchester. It is the first time I can say that about a chief constable since the 1970s.”
“We cannot call ourselves a civilised society while Shabir Ahmed is walking the streets of this country. I agree with the thrust of the question by the hon.”
“Particle physics and astronomy have had a rough deal since the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council—PPARC—was abolished about 19 years ago.”
“In the ’80s and ’90s in this country, many police officers carried out their duties in a prejudicial and racist way. I am proud of having worked alongside many others to eliminate that racism as much as we could.”
“I remind hon. Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge and the Minister. I have received no information that such permission has been given. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.”
The complete record
Every one of 605 lines we hold for Graham Stringer, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“T4. The waiting time to see a cardiologist in the Manchester University NHS foundation trust is an unacceptable 66 weeks. What will the ministerial team do to reduce that waiting time?”
“We cannot call ourselves a civilised society while Shabir Ahmed is walking the streets of this country. I agree with the thrust of the question by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), but surely there is another approach to get him off the streets of our country: to put him back in prison and change the law that reduces the tariff for uncivilised wretches like him, so he can be put straight back in prison?”
“I hope that the report the Minister has referred to, which I have not read, will lead to that; the chief constable is the most important person by far.”
“I am fully supportive of Stephen Watson, the chief constable of Greater Manchester. It is the first time I can say that about a chief constable since the 1970s. We have had chief constables who were mad—James Anderton, who carried out his prejudice against the gay community because he had a line to God—and who were bad—Peter Fahy, who refused to take action on Pakistani and Kashmiri rape gangs because he was frightened of damaging relationships, and Ian Hopkins, who made it more dangerous for police officers to go to crime scenes and into houses, because the computer system did not work and they did not know whether they were going into a dangerous situation. Over those years I have come to believe that the most important decision is getting the right person in the position of chief constable.”
“Particle physics and astronomy have had a rough deal since the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council—PPARC—was abolished about 19 years ago. I understand that the justification being put out by the Science Minister and other Ministers is that there has been a change to mission-driven research as opposed to fundamental blue-skies research. This is a mistake: most practical applications of science have come from scientists asking fundamental questions that had no relevance at the time. Does the Minister agree that the policy is a mistake?”
“Order. I remind hon. Members that if they want to participate in the debate, they should bob at the end of every speech. I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.30 am. Doing the simple arithmetic, that means there will be a time limit of four minutes on speeches.”
“Order. Your time is up. Before calling the Front-Bench spokespeople, I remind hon. Members that although there are often good reasons for being late to a debate, it is a courtesy to both the Chair and other hon. Members participating in the debate to put in a note explaining those reasons. I call Sarah Dyke.”
“In the ’80s and ’90s in this country, many police officers carried out their duties in a prejudicial and racist way. I am proud of having worked alongside many others to eliminate that racism as much as we could. However, we are now left with what is perhaps a more difficult problem to deal with, because many police officers and other public servants are now frightened that they will be accused of racism in carrying out those duties. What actions can the Home Secretary and the Cabinet take to reassure people who are accused of racism that proper process will be followed and that they will not just be left out of a job forever?”
“I did not want to interrupt the hon. Lady in what has been an interesting debate, but I remind hon. Members that if you say “you”, that is me—”
“I did not want to interrupt the debate, but it is worth remembering for future debates. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House has considered the matter of the censorship of women’s health and wellbeing content online.”
“Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak, as it is very helpful in determining whether to put a time limit on. Given the number of Members standing, however, I will not be putting a time limit on now.”
“Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short and to the point. We have had two quite lengthy interventions. The business is not oversubscribed, so if hon. Members wish to bob, they may well catch my eye.”
“I remind hon. Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge and the Minister. I have received no information that such permission has been given. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.”
“Order. Two hon. Members have intervened after coming late to the debate. As a courtesy to the Chair and Members, they really should send a note. I have had a note from another hon. Member who wishes to intervene, who has done things properly and has not yet intervened. I say that to hon. Members for this debate and for future reference.”
“The hon. Member is making great efforts to be balanced in his presentation on behalf of the Petitions Committee. He says this is a complex area, but surely it is actually quite simple: we should not be experimenting on children, particularly as we cannot do double-blind experiments. Those are two fundamental reasons why these so-called experiments should not go ahead.”
“The Home Secretary has been commendably robust in her response to antisemitism and attacks on Jewish institutions, particularly since the two members of the congregation at Heaton Park synagogue were killed. After that attack, the Macdonald inquiry was set up to look into hate crime and public order. I think this afternoon is the first time that we have heard that that inquiry is not going to report until May, when it was promised for February this year. Can the Home Secretary speed it up, please?”
“It is a long time since I went to university, but there was a belief then that the least important things we got out of it were degrees and job prospects. There was a value in education itself. The right hon. Lady seems to think that the only reason to go to university is mercenary.”
“Order. Members who wish to speak should bob. I have taken a rough count of those who have, and we will start with a four-minute limit, which I might have to reduce later.”
“Order. The flurry of interventions that we have had over the last three speeches has meant that we have gone two or three minutes over time. I will reduce the time available to the spokespeople for the three parties by a minute each, and ask each of them to take nine minutes.”
“I will call Vikki Slade, but I want to hear from the Minister because this is an important debate. I am going to restrict the hon. Lady to two minutes.”
“Order. The hon. Gentleman has secured a debate that has attracted a lot of attention—I have 16 Members who have put in to speak. The rules say that I must call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 5.10 pm. At the moment, that means that those who have put in to speak will have a minute, or fractionally over. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to carry on with his speech, but I ask him to bear that in mind.”
“Order. I noticed that the hon. Lady arrived very late to the debate. It is not allowed, particularly in a massively oversubscribed debate like this, to come in and intervene.”
“I was following the hon. Gentleman’s arguments closely and agreeing with them until he got to the point about Prime Ministers, because is it not a consistent position that if a hon. Member changes their political party there should be a by-election, therefore if there is a change in leader, as the Conservatives have got into the habit of doing, there should be a general election?”
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving away again and I do not wish to push this point too far, because I personally do not think that there should be a general election if the ruling party changes its leader. However, the thrust of his argument was that what is in people’s minds when they vote is the political party and the name of the leader; he said it was about the difference between Boris Johnson and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). If that is important, and the leader changes, and so does the party’s political programme—that relates to the wording on the ballot paper of the political party and has been there since the Representation of the People Act 1969—I think there is a solid argument for holding a general election.”
“I am sure that everybody in this room is familiar with the arguments for and against PR. In moving the motion, the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) gave a very balanced speech. There was only one thing that I thought was unbalanced: the argument that somehow there would be less tactical voting in a PR system. A PR system is actually set up and designed for tactical voting. I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) gave an opinion on that.”
“I am rather surprised that nobody has mentioned that there is a constitutional precedent for by-elections when situations change. It used to be the case that when Members were appointed to the Cabinet, they had to face a by-election. In my city, Manchester, there was a famous by-election when Winston Churchill had to stand again, and he lost. I think that was just before the first world war. Then, a change of circumstances meant a by-election. It is a very serious change of circumstances if somebody changes political parties. I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s view on that constitutional precedent.”
“Q12. The National Audit Office report on Northern Powerhouse Rail, which came out on Monday, surprised none of us in its conclusion that the Department for Transport’s lack of engagement with mayoral authorities, local authorities and other involved parties in the north of England was leading to poor programming and a lack of investment in the rail system. We in the north of England deserve a rail system fit for the 21st century, not the 19th century. Investing in the rail system will enable growth in the north of England, which will benefit the whole country. Will the Prime Minister take a personal interest in the slowness of investment in the rail system so that we can get that growth?”
“Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination.” We have not even consulted the Chagossians. Will my hon. Friend not reconsider?”
“Risking the accusation of creeping, Mr Speaker, may I say that it is a great pity that you are not in charge of these negotiations? The deal we have come to, or are coming to, is inexplicable both in principle and in relation to the costs to my constituents. I very much doubt that at the time of the next general election, most Labour candidates, or indeed our manifesto, will point to the yearly cost of £100 million and us giving up ownership of these islands. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows it off by heart, but I will just remind him of page 120 of the Labour manifesto, which states: “Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, including the Falklands and Gibraltar.”
“I remind Members that they need to bob at the end of every contribution if they wish to be called to speak. There are 12 people standing; I intend to call the closing speeches at 3.30 pm, so I will impose a time limit of three minutes, which does not leave very much time for interventions.”
“I remind Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and of the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.”
“Order. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 5.10 pm. That gives us just under 30 minutes, and seven Members are standing; I think three and a half minutes each would be appropriate, but please try to keep interventions brief. I remind Members to keep bobbing before I call somebody to speak.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have heard him in this Chamber a number of times say that the United States supported this deal. The President of the United States clearly does not support it any more. I would have thought that that was the case for a pause, but I would also have thought that something else that has changed was the case for a pause: the resolution of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has also asked for the Bill not to go forward. Does the Minister not think that those two things together mean that we should pause?”
“It has been said that some hon. and right hon. Members have come to the debate on Chagos late in the day. That is right. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has been banging on about Chagos for decades, and I admire him for doing so. I first became concerned when I saw how much it would cost the United Kingdom to pay for something that we own. As a litmus test, I asked myself whether I could explain to my constituents why we are going to pay an island nation that has no direct connection with Diego Garcia.”
“Lords amendment 1 is also important if for some reason Mauritius changes its view or the islands disappear under water. I do not have the opportunity this evening to vote for what I would like to vote for, but I will vote for the amendments that the Lords have put before us.”
“Those are two reasons for pausing and thinking again: becoming compliant with the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and talking to the United States, because it has changed its position. The amendments before us would not affect the core of the Bill, because that was dealt with in a very short period of time on Second Reading, on Report and in Committee, but they are important in as much as they ask for information. We are going to pay for something that we did not used to have to pay for. It will have consequences for our ability to look after our defence interests in the Indian ocean, and we do not know how much it will cost. Amending the Bill to give us an exact figure for those costs is important.”
“I do not think the Minister explained why we should not take notice of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. That is fundamental, because the Committee goes back to the 1960s decision, and it sees what happened then, and what is being perpetuated now, as racial discrimination, and we and the Mauritians are perpetuating that. My hon. Friend the Minister did not really respond to that point, just as he did not really address what has changed. I have listened to many of his statements in this House, when he has said in good faith that the United States supports us. Regardless of whether it did so in the past—it probably did—it certainly does not support us now.”
“That is at the heart of what has gone wrong, and the right hon. Gentleman has been talking about it for a long time. The Chagossians were treated as itinerant workers in the 1960s, so they did not get the basic rights that people got in other British protectorates. They were discriminated against, and we are discriminating against them again by giving Mauritius the power to determine what goes on. The only solution to the central issue is not a survey, which the House of Lords is doing in good faith; it is to have a referendum, which has been ruled out of order today, for good reasons in procedural terms. We should give the Chagossians a say in a referendum on whether they want to return or not. Otherwise, it is all speculation.”
“As a former leader of a major council and a Labour MP, I find this completely embarrassing. A Labour Government should not be taking the vote away from 3.7 million people. It is completely unprecedented for a Labour Government to do that. There is clearly a vested interest for some councillors who may feel, looking at the opinion polls, that they will lose their seat. Some of those councillors will vote for delay. How will the Minister distinguish between that motivation and whether or not there really is a lack of capacity to carry out the elections? I do not believe that any of those councils are unable to hold those elections.”
“I think I heard my hon. Friend say clearly that the Government would not stand for coercion by the Chinese diplomatic service. Has the Foreign Office not been looking at what has been going on over the last 10 years? At the consulate in Manchester, people who were demonstrating against the Chinese Government were dragged into the grounds and beaten up, and the diplomatic staff were left alone, with nothing happening to them. There are pop-up police stations all over the country that intimidate members of the Chinese community, whether they are British citizens or from Hong Kong or other parts of China. There should be a simple answer to this application. There is no need for an embassy of this size for the Chinese diplomatic community in this country.”
“I appreciate the Secretary of State’s recognition of the lack of investment that there has been in the north of England, but it is not as though there has not been jam to go around. While there has been almost zero new investment in the north, in the south we have seen Javelin trains, the Jubilee line extension, Thameslink, the Elizabeth line and all the expenditure on HS2. Given that all that money has weighed down the south, and given that a crucial part of this scheme—I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for recognising this—is the underground station at Manchester Piccadilly, does she think it fair for local contributions to be expected for that, when most of the other schemes have been paid for through direct taxation? Why should the north not be treated in the same way as the south?”
“It is absolutely clear that, by lies and conspiracy, the chief constable of the West Midlands created a no-go area for Jews in one of our major cities. He cannot, by whatever mechanism, continue in office, but will the Home Secretary consider prosecuting him for malfeasance in public office, or in some other way, because we cannot let such an appalling activity by a public servant continue in this way by just sacking him?”
“Q5. This country can be proud of its history of religious tolerance and religious freedom. The quid pro quo for that is the right to criticise religion. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that there will be no introduction or reintroduction of a blasphemy law, either by statute, judicial overreach or a non-statutory definition of Islamophobia?”
“Last Thursday, Baroness Hallett issued the second part of her important report on covid, which deals with the effectiveness, or ineffectiveness, of the Government’s response to covid and the £400 billion spent on it. After the first Hallett report, there was a statement; by now, I would have expected a statement in the House on the second report, and arrangements to have been made for a debate. Can the Leader of the House tell me when the statement will be, and will he arrange for a debate on the subject in Government time?”
“Order. I remind Members that even if they are on the list, those who are able to should bob at the end of speeches if they want to catch my eye.”
“There are seven people bobbing and 38 minutes left, so the arithmetic is relatively simple: just over five minutes each. I will not impose a time limit, unless somebody abuses the situation.”
“Order. I draw the hon. Member’s attention to the time. He is beginning to run into that allotted to other hon. Members. I assume he will draw his remarks to a conclusion.”
“I will call Dr Jeevun Sandher to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.”
“Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak. I intend to call the Lib Dem spokesman at 5.10 pm and three hon. Members wish to speak. They will have roughly six minutes each.”
“Our police forces in this country have dealt with violent fans from other countries for a long time. I do not expect my hon. Friend to be familiar with the Bad Blue Boys of Dinamo Zagreb—probably the worst fans in Europe, responsible for deaths and imprisonments—or the ultras of Roma, Inter Milan or Lazio, but they have been dealt with. The only conclusion I can draw from the information before us is that the West Midlands police and the local authorities in Birmingham, following fictions about the fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv, created a no-go zone for Jews in one of our major cities. Is she, like me, ashamed of that?”