YouSaid · the spoken record
Diane Abbott
Lines from Political Thinking with Nick Robinson have been withdrawn from this page while we check who is speaking. See the correction.
On the record 2001–2026
hansard
This is everything the corpus holds for Diane Abbott. It is not everything they have said on the record.
Every line below is reproduced as it was said and credited to the record it came from, and links to that record wherever it can be linked. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections
“I would, however, like to ask the Home Secretary whether the Home Office will be looking at security at some of the small east coast ports. I do not want to pre-empt the police investigation, but it seems that these small ports are being used because there is less security than at ports such as Dover. I also want to ask the Home Secretary about the current co-operation with the European police, security and justice agencies in investigating this case. Specifically, how closely are our agencies, police forces and National Crime Agency working with Europol in this investigation? Will she also indicate the level of co-operation with the European Migrant Smuggling Centre, which is an agency of Europol? How are our agents benefiting from co-operation with what is the most sophisticated agency of its kind in the world?”
House of Commons28 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, as the investigation is ongoing and criminal charges are involved, I will not say more about this specific case. As the Home Secretary said, people traffickers are particularly ruthless and simply do not care about human life. I was in Lesbos last year looking at the people trafficking from Turkey across the Mediterranean to Greece. The people traffickers not only deliberately took large sums of money off desperate people, but put those people in completely unseaworthy rubber dinghies. They gave people fake lifejackets and did not care that—as inevitably happened—many of them died in the Mediterranean. The people traffickers are greedy, ruthless and unscrupulous, and they have a callous disregard for human life.”
House of Commons28 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. The events in Essex are a tragic loss of life. All death is regrettable, but this was a particularly gruesome and grotesque way to die, and an horrific experience for the first responders. Many of us in the House will have seen the images in our media over the weekend of desperate communities who are frightened that their young people may have been in that lorry. Many of us will have seen the messages from people to their families on the verge of their own suffocation. One woman said: “I am really, really sorry, Mum and Dad, my trip to a foreign land has failed”. I would like to thank the Home Secretary for the information about the arrests and about how some progress has been made in identifying the victims.”
House of Commons28 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is an obligation on us to ensure that where people are moving legally, we provide safe and legal routes.”
House of Commons23 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would like an assurance from the Home Secretary that the co-operation with the EU27 on people trafficking, which is vital to ensure that such events do not happen in the future, will not become harder or be imperilled by our leaving the EU. It is important to raise the general conditions of refugees and asylum seekers. The Opposition have long argued that the Government should establish safe and legal routes for genuine refugees to make their way here. If they do not, I fear there may be further tragedies like this. When one thinks about the events of this incident, when one thinks about how these people died and how terrifying their deaths must have been, it should remind us that whenever we talk about migration, refugees and asylum, these people are people.”
House of Commons23 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is important to remember that these 39 poor, unfortunate people are the victims in this; they have been preyed on by the greedy, the unscrupulous and people with a wilful disregard for the lives of others. However, we should take account of the wider context. Nobody leaves their home on such a journey, with so much risk and fear, on a whim. They often do it because they are desperate; they can be the victims of economic privation, war, famine, catastrophic climate change. There are many adverse conditions that people flee from, but we should not lose sight of the fact that these people are victims.”
House of Commons23 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Home Secretary for early sight of her statement. Any death under these circumstances is truly appalling. The fact that there are 39 reported deaths in this incident makes it a terrible tragedy—one of the worst of its kind. Each of the 39 will have partners, family and friends who perhaps even now do not know how their loved one died and in what horrible circumstances. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts, prayers and wishes go out to the bereaved and all the loved ones of the victims. I commend the emergency services for their work and share with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) the horror that these emergency service workers will have seen sights that will live with them forever.”
House of Commons23 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Its authors do not even intend them to be delivered. It is not even clear that the Queen’s Speech will win the support of the House. Furthermore, Conservative Members refuse to take responsibility for the actions of a Government that most of them have been members of since 2010. Conservative Members wringing their hands about the need for more police officers when they have been part of a Government who cut the numbers of police officers, and voted for that policy, is the grossest hypocrisy.”
House of Commons16 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker) talked about education and her baleful gaze swept the Chamber, showing the headmistress she once was. At the heart of the debate is what a Government are for. The Opposition believe that the answer is not playing tricks on the public or embarrassing the monarch by getting her to deliver a party political broadcast on behalf of the Tory party. The programme of governance should not be a Santa’s wish list of soundbites to please some of our less thoughtful tabloids. The purpose of a Government should be to offer a vision and a detailed set of proposals, but this Government have done none of that. They have presented a Queen’s Speech that is all about electioneering. They want power without responsibility. Almost none of the announcements in the Queen’s Speech will be delivered.”
House of Commons16 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Peterborough (Lisa Forbes) spoke about school uniforms— [Interruption.] Members on the Treasury Bench are talking among themselves, but if people live on benefits, or do not have a big income and are unable to pay for proper school uniforms for their children, that is quite humiliating for the children, so my hon. Friend raised a serious matter. My hon. Friends the Members for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), for High Peak (Ruth George), for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) made valuable contributions. My hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) talked about crime. Last but not least, my hon.”
House of Commons16 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams); my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who had very important things to say about support for victims; my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders); my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin); my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), with whom I entirely agree about trophy hunting; my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous); and my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee), who talked about cuts to the fire and rescue service. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) talked about issues to do with the Welsh people. My hon.”
House of Commons16 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would like to thank all the Members who have spoken in this excellent debate, and a few in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman) drew on her distinguished service in local government and reminded us that Liverpool has had a 63% cut in its funding since 2010. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) reminded the House that the Queen’s Speech is phoney and a fraud; I will return to that. I would also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds); my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi); my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch); my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), who spoke from her personal experience in the NHS; my hon.”
House of Commons16 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would like to begin by saying how pleased I am to speak from the shadow Front Bench in this important debate on our public services. Outside of time of war, there is no more important subject for our constituents. In fact, there is not much difference between the constituents of Members of all parties in what they want from their public services and the desired outcomes. The difference is in the how. We should always remember, when discussing public services, that it will not be enough to try to score party political points. For our constituents, families and friends, it is at the most vulnerable time of their lives that they look to public services—illness, death, pregnancy, fire and flooding. However they vote, people look to the public services, so this is an important debate and I am glad to take part in it.”
House of Commons16 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The truth is that if police numbers, community policing and youth services are slashed, if school exclusions are increased, and mental health services are cut, the consequences are predictable and were predicted—you cannot keep people safe on the cheap.”
House of Commons16 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Tell that to people who wait an hour, perhaps longer, just to get a police officer to come to the site of a crime. Tell it to the police officers who have lost their jobs or all those who are feeling stressed and overworked. Tell it to the court officials and judges who sit at home on full pay because the Government close the courts to save money. Tell us again how you are the Government of law and order. The Opposition have always argued that austerity was unnecessary, that growth through investment was the answer and that cuts have terrible consequences—We have heard about some of them this afternoon, for example, the crisis in magistrate recruitment.”
House of Commons16 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government slashed more than 20,000 police officers, and it is no good Conservative Members pretending that it is nothing to do with them—they voted for it. Furthermore, the Government made cuts to the courts, so cases come to trial sometimes years after the offences. Is that the action of a law and order Government? That is not justice. It is not as if the number of arrests and charges are increasing, even for the most serious offences. There were almost 60,000 police-recorded rapes in England and Wales in 2018, but fewer than 2,000 convictions. Is that the record of a Government of law and order? I would argue that the Conservative party is not the party of law and order. Tell the victims of crime throughout the country that it is the party of law and order.”
House of Commons16 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Trophy hunting—I have already said that. It is clear from the Queen’s Speech and, possibly more important, the media briefing about it, that the Conservative party intends to run in the forthcoming election as a law and order party. Who said satire was dead? The Government have tried to ignore Parliament. The Prime Minister’s principal political adviser has been found to be in contempt of Parliament. The International Trade Secretary has been obliged to apologise three times for illegal arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Let us not forget that the Government as a whole—all Ministers, including the Prime Minister—were found to have acted unlawfully by no less an authority than the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision. However, the Conservatives tell us that they are the party of law and order.”
House of Commons16 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The money simply is not there. Without the funding, however good the text or the wording of the Bill are, they are just another wish list.”
House of Commons16 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Prime Minister has no intention of making good all the public services that Tory or Tory-led Governments have slashed—and of course we have not forgotten the role of the DUP and the Lib Dems, who facilitated Tory austerity, but the organisers of this entire failed project were the Tories. The Government talk tough on crime, but that is all talk. They made all the causes of crime worse and cut all the public services trying to tackle it. Let us take the Domestic Abuse Bill. There are good things in the Bill, and Members on both sides of the House worked hard on it. But where is the money? Where is the funding for the police, NHS workers and social workers, and the funding to improve their training? Where is the funding for women’s support groups, information campaigns and women’s refuges? The Government have cut all of them.”
House of Commons16 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Lady, and I would have hoped that she would do better than that. It was not enough money. That is why we did not vote for that measure, and we have said that over and over again. I must say that I am a little surprised to hear Government Members talk about a new broom at the Home Office, someone who is going to really stand up for the police; I think that in a way that dismisses the right hon. Lady’s record. The Prime Minister told this House on Monday, channelling a former Prime Minister whom I knew, that he was going to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. I have to ask how, coming from him, that can be taken seriously.”
House of Commons16 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In conclusion, it is not enough to make wish lists of what you want to do with the public sector, because the public will find you out. The public know how long it takes to get a hospital appointment. The public know how long it takes to get a policeman to come to the site of a crime. The public know about the public sector and what the result of the statements from the Government are, because it is part of their lived experience. You will be found out. You will be—”
House of Commons16 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would not talk so much about protecting our borders when we are losing some of the elements and instruments that would help the Government keep the people safe. Before I conclude my remarks, I want to say a word about the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, because I am a WASPI woman—I was born in the 1950s, and I was very disappointed that there was nothing about the WASPI women in the Queen’s Speech. We spent most of our adult lives assuming that we got a pension at the age of 60, and when these women understood that they would not, for most of them it was too late to change their working arrangements and arrange their pensions and their insurance. You have left a cohort of women who helped to build this country helpless and frightened, and I think that is a shame.”
House of Commons16 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I need to make progress, because I must leave time for those on the Treasury Bench. The Government need to understand just how disappointed and frightened the Windrush victims are. It is almost as if, because they are an elderly cohort, the Government feel that if they string this out— [ Interruption. ] That is what they feel; go and meet some of them— [ Interruption. ] The Home Secretary is not dealing with it quickly enough, and I think that only a Labour Government will give justice to the Windrush generation. I was interested to hear the Home Secretary talk about protecting our borders, because if we leave the EU we will lose the European arrest warrant and access to some very important databases of criminals and missing persons, as well as the level of co-operation we get as members of the EU.”
House of Commons16 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government will be found out. It is because I am confident that the public will understand how they have been failed on public services that I am confident Labour will win the forthcoming general election.”
House of Commons16 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yesterday marked the start of Black History Month, so I will begin by paying tribute to a young woman already making history this month. Dina Asher-Smith became the first British woman in 36 years to win a sprint medal when she won silver at the 100 metres in Doha. Tonight she aims to go one better in the 200 metres —and I am sure the whole House will wish her well.”
House of Commons2 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If I may continue, uninterrupted! Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) raised the very specific issue of how many of the hundreds of abusive and violent messages that she receives use the Prime Minister’s own words. The Prime Minister dismissed those concerns as simply “humbug”. Since that exchange, my hon. Friend has received four further death threats, some again quoting the Prime Minister’s words. Women across this House experience death threats and abuse. Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister for his initial dismissive response?”
House of Commons2 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What will the Foreign Secretary do to ensure that, from later on this month, women in Northern Ireland will have the same human rights to legal and safe abortion as women in England, Wales and Scotland?”
House of Commons2 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“So, we can take it that there is no apology from the Foreign Secretary. I raised the very specific point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury made about the abuse she gets that uses the Prime Minister’s language. Deliberately disturbing billboards showing unborn foetuses have been put up in the London borough of Walthamstow. They are upsetting for women walking past, but particularly upsetting for my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), because these billboards are targeted at her in response to her work to decriminalise abortion in Northern Ireland. Abortion in Northern Ireland should be decriminalised on 21 October.”
House of Commons2 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I notice that the Foreign Secretary has not said anything about those horrific posters—they are not posters that anyone would want to see, particularly someone who is pregnant, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. Last week, Labour reiterated its call to end the rape clause, which forces women to fill out a four-page form to prove their child was born of rape in order to get financial help. Will the Foreign Secretary today back Labour’s pledge to remove the abhorrent rape clause from universal credit?”
House of Commons2 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“How much more dismissive can the Foreign Secretary be of people and families dependent on benefits? We are not talking about a spending spree; we are talking about a system that is fair and just, and which does not subject people to undue humiliation. Last week, the 100-year-old travel company Thomas Cook went out of business. We know that 72% of its workers are women. We also know that, although Governments around the world stepped in to save Thomas Cook subsidiary companies in their own countries, the UK Business Secretary thought that this was not her job. Can the Foreign Secretary explain to those workers, some of whom are with us today, why their Government sat idly by?”
House of Commons2 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Nobody is asking the Government routinely to bail out companies. We are asking the Government why they will not even meet the workers. Whether it is women Members in this House, women claiming benefits, women’s reproductive rights in Northern Ireland or the failure to support women workers at Thomas Cook, is not this a Government letting women down?”
House of Commons2 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Foreign Secretary has not mentioned the fact that there are over 600,000 more women and girls in poverty now than in 2010. I gently say to him that I was a Member of this House when Tory MPs defenestrated the first female Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher, and I was a Member of this House when the Tory MPs worked their will against the second female Prime Minister. It seems to me that Tory Members of Parliament may on occasion make women their leaders, but they need to learn— [ Interruption. ] They need to learn how to treat them less cruelly.”
House of Commons2 October 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does the Minister accept that when she responded to the written question saying that no data was available, she was in fact misleading the House?”
House of Commons17 July 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In response to an earlier written question on 20 December last year, the Immigration Minister said: “in cases in which it has been found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an individual may be a victim of trafficking or modern slavery, the appropriateness of their being detained, or of their detention continuing, is governed by the Home Office’s modern slavery policy. This means that such individuals will not be detained”. How many people who are victims of trafficking or modern slavery have been held in previous years? How many such people are currently held? Are the Government not in breach of their own stated policy on detention? How many of the 400 detainees were assessed as being a threat to public order and on what grounds?”
House of Commons17 July 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. On 19 June this year, the Immigration Minister provided a written answer on the possible immigration detention of persons who are in fact victims of slavery. The written answer read as follows: “there is no central record” of such persons, and “The Home Office therefore does not collate or publish the data requested”. However, we now learn from a freedom of information request by The Independent that that is not the case: 500 victims of enslavement or trafficking were held in immigration detention. I have myself visited Yarl’s Wood detention centre and met such persons.”
House of Commons17 July 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We on the Labour Benches appreciate the progress that has been made on modern slavery thus far, but the House will be aware that there was recently a shocking case of agricultural slavery. A fresh produce supplier to major US supermarkets was using slave labour in its supply chain. Does the Minister accept that consumers who are conscious of issues such as organic production and sustainable food production will not appreciate unwittingly purchasing fresh food with slave labour in its production? Will the Government act more swiftly? We need faster action than she is suggesting to get proper business compliance with their modern slavery legislation.”
House of Commons15 July 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Home Secretary referred to the new public health duty. The Opposition agree that it is a good idea in principle, but does the Home Secretary agree with the Children’s Commissioner for England, Anne Longfield, who has said that the change is not enough on its own and who is calling for the next Prime Minister, and perhaps his Chancellor, to ensure that preventive services such as youth services have the right resources? Will the Home Secretary tell us how often the Prime Minister’s knife crime taskforce has actually met?”
House of Commons15 July 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Does he accept that the issue that we should be debating is whether the changes are right in principle? They might not affect every single religious grouping to the same degree, but the question that we parliamentarians should talk about is whether the changes are right in principle.”
House of Commons4 July 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This discriminatory policy is causing distress in faith communities of all types across the country. It should be a matter of concern for those of all faiths and none. In 30 years in the House, this is not the first time that I have seen immigration measures brought in willy-nilly to target a specific community—for example, the Muslim faith—but catching all sorts of faiths. If the Home Office has a particular ill in mind, it needs better drafted legislation and better conducted administration. We should not dictate to anyone who their faith leaders should be. We should recognise and honour the contribution that faith communities make to our society. The Government should take note of the debate, meet hon. Members from across the House and—I sincerely hope—change policy as a result.”
House of Commons4 July 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“So, there you have it: this whole discriminatory rigmarole is an effort to prevent people, of whatever religious faith, from using what Ministers seem to think is a loophole to come into this country on a permanent basis. I hope that, having listened to Members from across the House, the Minister recognises that no one is talking about a loophole but about the very real needs of faith communities. Maybe he will tell us how many people he thinks sneak their way into the country under a religious cloth. A handful? Dozens? What evidence can Ministers provide for that outlandish proposition? We pride ourselves—or used to—on being a religiously tolerant society, but these measures do not seem religiously tolerant to those of us here today or to the wider community.”
House of Commons4 July 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As a whole, tier 2 visas are also subject to a numerical cap, which is surely folly. It means that people who we need for our economy and public services may be refused a visa solely on the grounds that the number has already been met, and religious ministers have to compete in that total. In explaining the change of policy, Ministers have stated that: “This change will prevent migrants from using the tier 5 Religious Worker route to fill positions as Ministers of Religion, and instead direct them towards the appropriate”— the Opposition would query that appropriateness— “category of tier 2…The ‘cooling off’ period will ensure tier 5 Religious workers and Charity Workers spend a minimum of 12 months outside the UK before returning…This will prevent migrants from applying for consecutive visas”.”
House of Commons4 July 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Can the Minister tell us what consultation was conducted prior to that change? What were the results of that consultation, and what risk assessments were done for Ministers by Home Office officials before the decision was taken and the policy announced? Do Ministers understand that Catholic priests, rabbis, imams and many others need holidays and cannot be on call 365 days a year, or that they have to visit loved ones or go abroad for further study? They might even get ill, and they need people to stand in for them as occasion arises. As we have heard, the shift to tier 2 is costly, time-consuming, bureaucratic and unnecessary. We have heard about the issues with English language at tier 2, and about the fact that tier 2 visas are much more expensive than tier 5 visas and put a considerable financial burden on faith communities.”
House of Commons4 July 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Religious ministers have been removed from tier 5 visas and are now obliged to apply for tier 2 visas, for which an English language proficiency test can be included in a successful application. Ministers must know, however—and have received representations to this effect—that the change is unwieldy, costly, bureaucratic and discriminatory. Ministers must have been made aware by representatives of a range of faith communities that the measures are a blockage to faith communities, to the religious ministers they need to lead them, whether temporarily or for a little longer, and to good community relations. Yet here we are with a Minister defending a policy that many in the community question. In fact, Ministers announced this change to long-standing policy towards the end of the parliamentary Session last year.”
House of Commons4 July 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing this important debate about religious workers’ visas. For some time, the House has heard about the hostile environment, which would appear to be a hostile environment for religious ministers. The Government have cast the change as a matter of regulatory tidiness and of ensuring that religious ministers can speak English, but as the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) points out, why would a congregation that routinely conducts its services in English try to bring across a priest who did not speak English?”
House of Commons4 July 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In relation to the President of the United States implying that the Mayor of London is responsible for the rise in violent crime, the Mayor must be held to account like any other politician, but in 30 years in Parliament I have never heard a President of the United States reference a London Mayor at all. It is hard to escape the conclusion that President Trump may be singling out Sadiq Khan because he is of the Muslim faith. Does the Minister accept that if that were true, many people would find it distasteful?”
House of Commons17 June 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Another blood-stained weekend in the capital, and this morning four families will have woken up having lost a son, a brother or a father. The Minister is correct to say that there is no single answer, and we congratulate the Met police on its work over this horrible weekend that we have endured, but does she accept that any strategy to combat rising crime must include hiring more police officers? I note that the level of complaints about stop and search has dropped, which is very important. As the Minister intimates, that is to do with the use of body-worn cameras, because there is no question but that in the past, indiscriminate stop and search undermined communities’ confidence in the police and therefore undermined the fight against crime.”
House of Commons17 June 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It will currently not compensate those who may have been wrongly deported. I quote from the document: “It is difficult to determine whether inability to return to the UK is a loss”. Of course someone being deprived of their home, job, family and community is a loss. How can Ministers say that it is “difficult to determine” whether there is a loss?”
House of Commons10 June 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister has to begin to acknowledge communities’ grave concerns about the Windrush compensation scheme as it stands. They think that it is not working. She also needs to bear in mind that this is an ageing cohort, who will probably need more support on average than a cohort that is more mixed in age. The Home Secretary told the House in April last year that we “will do whatever it takes to put it right”. He continued: “We have made it clear that a Commonwealth citizen who has remained in the UK since 1973 will be eligible to get the legal status that they deserve: British citizenship.” —[ Official Report , 30 April 2018; Vol. 640, c. 35.] What progress has been made on those promises? Will the Minister reconsider some of the worst aspects of the current scheme?”
House of Commons10 June 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are approaching the third anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, which, as Members will know, happened overnight. The Grenfell residents had complained about their treatment by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and had specifically highlighted the fire risks, but they were ignored. What steps have the Government taken to ensure that similar warnings from those who know most—the residents themselves—are heeded and acted on?”
House of Commons10 June 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, we do not want to hear more reactionary grandstanding.”
House of Commons4 June 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗