Summer Adjournment

Debate between Wes Streeting and Eleanor Laing

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Our new Prime Minister urges us to embrace a spirit of optimism, so I am going to meet him in that challenge as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on taxis. I have good news for the Government, who lack a majority and find it difficult to legislate: this is one area where they would find cross-party support if only they would bring forward the Bill we have been waiting for. When I was first elected as the Member for Ilford North in 2015, we set up the all-party parliamentary group on taxis because it was clear to those of us who represent significant numbers of London taxi drivers and licensed private hire drivers that there is a wild west in the regulation of the taxi and private hire industry. It allows unfair and anti-competitive practices, and also puts passenger safety at risk.

We embarked on a programme of consultation and engagement with stakeholders right across the industry in order to come up with our report on the future of the taxi and private hire industry, which made a compelling case for reform. It was so compelling that, although the Department for Transport itself did not quite embrace the report, it was at least persuaded to commission its own report. An independent committee led by Mohammed Abdel-Haq, a great guy, produced a thorough and comprehensive report that said pretty much exactly what our report had said. So a cross-party report has made the case for reform and the Department for Transport is also making the case for reform—a case that was accepted by the now former Secretary of State for Transport and two successive Ministers, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani)—yet we still have no legislation.

So, in the spirit of this debate and in the spirit of optimism our Prime Minister tells us to embrace, I am optimistic that my speech will be heard by those on the Treasury Bench and that we will see legislation in the autumn. More than 1,000 of my constituents and their families are looking to the Government to act and I will be relentlessly on their case after the summer. I am afraid, though, that that is where my optimism about our new Prime Minister ends.

Let no one imagine that the heat has gone to my head and I am now persuaded that our new Prime Minister is ready to take our country forward in the way that he suggests. He urges us to judge him on his record. Well, that is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) might describe as a target-rich environment.

I am afraid that the record of the Prime Minister as Mayor of London is not one to be proud of: millions of pounds wasted on a garden bridge that was never built; millions of pounds wasted on a cable car with no passengers; huge amounts of taxpayer money wasted on a vanity project, Boris island airport, which never even made it past the artistic licensing phase; the water cannon that he purchased but was never able to use; the fact that crime, including violent crime, rose before he left office; the ticket office closures; the bluff, bluster and bombast, which we saw so heartily represented at the Dispatch Box today; and a carelessness and lack of attention to detail, which have left a British citizen languishing in an Iranian prison, not because—let us not make excuses for the Iranians—the actions of the previous Prime Minister’s Foreign Secretary led to her detention, but because this Prime Minister, through his careless disregard for briefing and his careless use of language, aided and abetted the Iranian Government in making her suffering and the injustice she is experiencing last that much longer. It is totally appalling.

I am afraid that optimism is no substitute for a plan. In the unlikely event that the Prime Minister were minded to keep his pledge to lay in front of the bulldozer at Heathrow airport, I would be the first to volunteer to drive it. I am afraid that in the Prime Minister and in what we heard from the Dispatch Box today there is no plan for our country. In fact, the spending commitments he made on schools, health and so many other areas of public policy were not about a vision for the future; they were an admission of nine years of failure—school cuts, NHS cuts, police cuts, and every single one imposed by the party he leads and most of which he voted for once he was elected to this place.

We will judge this Prime Minister on his record. It is not a record to be proud of. It does not inspire confidence in his ability to lead our country. It is not a change of Prime Minister that we need; it is a change of Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman speak so well for the all-party parliamentary group on taxis.

Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement and Education) Bill

Debate between Wes Streeting and Eleanor Laing

Friday 3rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want your advice on whether it is in order for the hon. Gentleman to misrepresent what I said in my speech. He said that I was comparing granting the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds with gambling, which I absolutely was not. I was merely saying what I was saying, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was obviously not listening to what I was saying. He is my colleague on the Treasury Committee and normally does listen to what I have to say, albeit with a grin, but—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I have the gist of the hon. Gentleman’s point, which is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) is interpreting what the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said, and there is disagreement with the hon. Gentlemen. That is what I would expect in a debate of this kind. The hon. Member for North West Hampshire might have an opportunity to put the record straight about what he said, but it will be in Hansard for everyone to read.

[Wes Streeting]

I was saying that, in general terms, people have compared the risks of voting at 16 and 17 to gambling, drugs and alcohol. The point I was making was that Ministers may well gamble with the country’s future when passing votes. When people look at the quality of the judgments, they may wonder whether we were smoking something, and I know for certain that hon. and right hon. Members have occasionally been downstairs in the bar before casting their votes. But however dangerous voting Conservative may be from time to time, I hope that we would all agree that voting, in and of itself, is not a risk to public health in the way that any of those things that have been described are.

I want to quote a notable member of the Press Gallery, who this morning tweeted:

“Hope Parliament passes #votesat16 today. I was against it at 16, on grounds half the people I knew were idiots. But age doesn’t change that.”

I think that that is a perfectly reasonable point. Finally, on the turnout fallacy, no one is reasonably suggesting that voting at 16 and 17 in and of itself increases turnout and participation in democracy, but it does improve turnout in one important way. It is not about whether 16 and 17-year-olds turn out and vote for us but whether we as Members of Parliament finally begin to turn out and vote for them, for their interests, for their education, for their rights to access housing, and to close the disgraceful gap in power, wealth and opportunity between the oldest in our society and the very youngest. That is what we are debating. This is a measure that is long overdue and I hope that today is the moment at which introducing votes at 16 finally has the opportunity to pass into law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I call Mr Streeting on a point of order.

[Wes Streeting]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought I saw something disorderly, but I was wrong.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am very glad because if there was something disorderly, I ought to have seen it. Is Ms Cherry intervening?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that the question now be put.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point of order and that he begs to put the motion before the House, but at this stage in the debate I will not allow a closure motion. We have been debating this really important constitutional matter for only one hour and 23 minutes and I would normally expect a longer debate for matters of this importance. The House is full of people who still wish to contribute to the debate and we have not as yet had a chance to hear from the Minister or Front-Bench spokesmen from the Opposition parties. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed that I will not allow him to put the motion to the House at this stage, but I am sure he will understand that it is for the Chair to protect the position of every Back Bencher in the Chamber. [Interruption.] There really should not be this much noise when I am speaking from the Chair.

Ways and Means

Debate between Wes Streeting and Eleanor Laing

Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 6th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman gives way again, I must tell him that I have been paying careful attention to what he is saying, and while I accept his explanation that he is about to discuss the motions, there are 48 of them on the Order Paper, so a fairly wide field of matters is under discussion. The hon. Gentleman has been dealing with subjects that are not relevant to the motions. He has been on his feet for 31 minutes, and I have given him quite a lot of leeway, but I am sure he will appreciate that, while it is interesting to consider the economic history of the last decade or so—and we are all fascinated —he really ought to speak to some of the motions, of which there are many before us this afternoon.

[Wes Streeting]

Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, my entire speech relates directly to the Ways and Means motions, but what I will do with the time that I have left is be careful to ensure that my critique is centrally about the extent to which the motions fail to address the structural challenges facing our economy. I will now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George).

--- Later in debate ---

[Hon. Members]

More!

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We cannot have such expressions from around the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman has only spoken for one hour and five minutes. There are 48 motions, and I dare say that he still has more to say. As long as he sticks rigorously to speaking about the 48 motions, it is perfectly in order for him to go on speaking. However, now that he has surpassed the time taken by the previous speaker, I am sure that the incentive for him to speak for much longer is not great.

[Wes Streeting]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I can assure you and hon. Members on both sides of the House that my intention is certainly not to surpass the speaking time of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. My intention is merely to make sure that Government economic policy and the Ways and Means motions are given a thorough and forensic examination.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, revolutionary times call for a revolutionary response. What we see in today’s provisions is tinkering around the edges. Although the Whips’ briefings often give Conservative Members the ammunition—