Brain Tumours

Debate between Siobhain McDonagh and Eleanor Laing

1st reading
Wednesday 18th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to set a target for the number of glioblastoma patients who take part in clinical trials each year; to require training for medical oncologists to include training relating to brain cancers; to provide that any drug that has been licensed for use on tumours must be trialled on people with brain tumours; to make provision in relation to neuro-oncology multidisciplinary teams in the NHS, including a requirement that each such team must include a medical oncologist; to require manufacturers of drugs licensed to treat tumours to make those drugs available in specified circumstances for clinical trials relating to brain tumours; and for connected purposes.

I hope the House will hear me today, because I have made this speech before and have absolutely no doubt that I will make it again. In fact, I will make this speech over and over again until we have turned a corner.

My speech today is about glioblastoma brain tumours. It is the deadly disease that my wonderful sister, Margaret, suffered from for 18 months, and it is a deadly disease with which over 3,200 people are diagnosed every year. For every one of those 3,200 people, there was a time when a doctor sat them down in a room and gave them the bad news—the worst news. I can talk about that because, sadly, I have been in that room with Margaret. What they tell people is that there is no hope. The life expectancy for someone diagnosed with a glioblastoma is, on average, nine months and, after a basic course of treatment, the NHS leaves them to die.

Those who have the money travel abroad for private treatment, safe in the knowledge that the NHS has nothing to offer them. Those who have a support network but who are not rich enough, are forced to crowdfund and to fly thousands of miles to access treatment. The rest, sadly, have to accept their fate. There is no hope. They just have to wait. If they are lucky, they get to nine months.

In March, when I made my first speech about glioblastoma, I felt the same way that I have always felt. I was filled with hopelessness, appalled that the disease has been ignored for so long and left at the bottom of the “too difficult” pile for 30 years. The Government have not touched the sides of the £40 million they allocated for research into glioblastoma. After five years, they have spent just £12 million, a quarter of the amount promised. Universities have ignored glioblastoma for years, too. Glioblastoma is not even on the research agenda. Many universities are focusing their resources on trials on mice, neglecting the 3,200 real people who are crying out for new research and clinical trials.

It is a pretty grim landscape, but it has not been like this for people diagnosed with many other cancers. People with breast, bowel and lung cancers have had the hope of research, clinical trials and funding promises being kept. The Government, universities and pharmaceutical companies have come together to make a concerted effort to change things, and they did.

Just look at what we have done for people with lung cancer. In 2010, only one in 10 people diagnosed with lung cancer survived for five years. By 2020, life expectancy had doubled. In 2010, 83% of people diagnosed with breast cancer survived for five years. By 2020, 86% got to live for five years. In 2010, 58% of people diagnosed with bowel cancer survived for five years. In 2020, we managed to bring that figure up to 60%. However, for people diagnosed with a glioblastoma, there has been no progress and no hope that things will get better. In 2010, the five-year survival rate for people diagnosed with a glioblastoma was 11.9%. Ten years later, in 2020, the survival rate was almost identical: just 12.9%.

Although the treatment and life expectancy of people diagnosed with a glioblastoma has not changed in 30 years, I feel more hopeful today because, since I made this speech in March, I have met the Minister for Health and Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), and the shadow Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). I have also met clinicians, charities, families and universities, and last week I met representatives of the top pharmaceutical companies in the UK to discuss why we are where we are. Having built up a clearer picture of where we are, I know that if we try something different, we can give people diagnosed with this deadly disease some hope.

So here is something different. First, we need a target of getting 200 glioblastoma patients each year into clinical trials on drugs that have the potential to change the course of the disease. That would be 1,000 patients over the lifetime of a Parliament. With those trials, we could begin to understand what works and what does not.

Secondly, the NHS should take every drug that has already been licensed to deal with other tumours and apply them to clinical trials on glioblastoma brain tumours. That has not yet happened because glioblastoma is a very small target market for the pharmaceutical industry, and such investment is not very profitable. The Government must either encourage or force the pharmaceutical companies to provide the drugs for these trials. Applying those existing drugs would be a cheap way to make a huge difference. It is sometimes the only way that makes a difference. Universities should act as partners in these trials. They should be snapping up the opportunity to carry out research in this area, instead of leaving the field untouched.

Thirdly, the NHS should ensure that every neuro-oncology multidisciplinary team has a medical oncologist who is a core member and is required to attend meetings to discuss patients, so that brain tumour patients are not left in a corner of the ward because there is no specialist arguing for them. Unless a neuro-oncologist is in the room, we will not benefit from their ideas or expertise.

Fourthly, the NHS should require that every doctor training to be a medical oncologist should go through a mandatory course on brain tumours. At the moment, the Royal College of Physicians requires no compulsory training. Doctors have to take two courses on bowel cancer as part of their training, but not a single course on brain tumours. The reason why there is nobody on those wards or in the research infrastructure is because nobody is required to do the training. Who can apply for the research funds if there is nobody in the field?

If we do those four things, we have a chance of some hope. I have not just whisked up this four-point plan; it is the result of meeting experts in the field, including none other than Dr Paul Mulholland, Europe’s leading brain tumour oncologist. If we carry out those four steps, experts think we can drastically improve treatment for everyone diagnosed with a glioblastoma. Some have even said that we could find a cure for glioblastoma within 10 years.

Einstein famously said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” That is what we have been doing for the past 30 years with the treatment of glioblastoma. We can do better, and Margaret’s legacy demands nothing less.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Lady will know that the whole House sends her our sincere sympathy for the loss of her sister, and that we all recognise the courage it takes for her to come to the House to speak about this very difficult subject. When I put the Question, I am not going to call for the “Noes,” because I know that nobody will say “No.”

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Siobhain McDonagh, Tracey Crouch, Greg Smith, Steve Brine, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Tony Lloyd, Dame Meg Hillier, Mr Clive Betts, Jon Cruddas, Paul Blomfield and Sarah Owen present the Bill.

Siobhain McDonagh accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 375).

Energy Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Energy Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 9 May 2023 (Energy Bill [Lords] (Programme)):

Consideration of Lords Message

(1) Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Andrew Bowie.)

Question agreed to.

Impact of the Gas Explosion in Galpin’s Road, Pollards Hill

Debate between Siobhain McDonagh and Eleanor Laing

Friday 21st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Shortly after 7 am on Monday 8 August, a gas explosion caused devastation in my constituency, changing the lives of the residents of Galpin’s Road forever. Beautiful four-year-old Sahara tragically lost her life. Her brave mum, Sana, and her grieving family are watching these proceedings online. I say to them: “This debate is in memory of Sahara, and I pledge to stand with your family every step of the way on your fight for justice to come.”

Madam Deputy Speaker, as we have just discussed, the Public Gallery is filled with Sahara’s neighbours from right along Galpin’s Road. They were asked to move out of their homes with no notice, no belongings and no idea of when they would return. Many remain evacuated to this day. Their strength and fortitude have been nothing short of remarkable in the extraordinarily difficult months since. I look up to them in the Gallery and say loud and clear that I have never been more proud to be their MP.

There are constraints to what I can say in the debate. There is a live investigation, and I am sure that everyone in the Chamber and the Gallery recognises just how important it is that I do not say anything that could be a barrier to justice for Sahara. However, I promise all Galpin’s Road residents watching that I will raise their concerns and questions to the furthest possible point today without jeopardising the justice that they so desperately want and need.

I will start by explaining to the Minister what happened. On the morning of Monday 8 August, a huge gas explosion shook the heart of Galpin’s Road. For over a week, residents including Sahara’s family had been reporting the smell of gas on their street. Those same residents need the investigation to confirm that their concerns had been heard, why the problem took so long to fix and whether the reporting mechanism for smelling gas is still fit for purpose. No matter how the investigation determines the tragedy to have happened, we must ensure that it never, ever happens again.

The blast occurred shortly after 7 am, when some residents were getting ready for work. Some were still asleep. All say that it was indescribable. There was the horrifying fear of what was happening, the volume of the noise and the terrifying shaking of their homes. They fled into the street to witness the damage and rubble that the explosion had caused and to hear the streets of Pollards Hill filled with the worrying sound of emergency sirens racing to their road. Four-year-old Sahara died later that day. In the words of her grieving mum:

“Sahara was the most incredible little girl. Our pride and our joy. Our community will always remember her.”

The blast also hospitalised two of Sahara’s neighbours, causing severe injuries. I know that everyone involved and watching the debate will join me in praying for their full and speedy recovery. We say to their loved ones watching the debate that we will stand with them through what must be such an unimaginably worrying time.

Over the following 24 hours, hundreds of residents from Galpin’s Road were evacuated from their homes. They were given a moment’s notice, at best grabbing scattered belongings and, at worst, leaving with just the clothes on their backs. Almost 11 weeks on, many are still unable to return.

An evacuation point was immediately set up at the New Horizon Centre in Pollards Hill thanks to the support of Commonside Trust, led by Naomi Martin and her team. They have always been the pride of our community, and they were there for Pollards Hill in our community’s gravest hour. As residents fled to the evacuation centre, an army of staff from Merton Council were tasked with booking hundreds of hotel rooms across London for an indefinite, unknown period of time. It took a monumental effort, with the council needing to provide immediate accommodation, food, financial support, clothes and supplies to hundreds of residents.

Support should have come from the Government. I wrote to the Secretary of State on Friday 12 August calling for financial assistance; it took seven weeks to receive a reply. This is one of an abundance of questions that I think should be considered at the very highest level. It seems to me that when a tragedy such as this happens, the local council is left on their own. Why is Government support not immediately offered? Who should pick up the support bill? Most importantly, in a disaster such as this, who should be responsible for supporting the grieving family? Given the number of stakeholders, and the volume of important information being shared with them, I believe that there should be a single point of contact to support them. The Government should have a role to play.

Sana has asked me to share the following quote with Members today:

“My four children and I are Victims of the gas explosion that sadly occurred on Galpin’s road. I made the phone call to SGN on 30th July 2022, to save every single resident that lives on Galpin’s Road. What did I get as a result of this phone call? I tried to help and warn of a possible gas explosion and my own daughter and in turn our family are victims of such an explosion just days later. A dead child. I am the one who lost my beloved daughter. How does that make any sense? I called that number and I've been sentenced to life. What I find absolutely outrageous is that 10 weeks after this horrific tragedy, my children and I are still sleeping on the floor. As if we have not been through enough, we are still homeless. Why have we not been offered housing? Because at this stage I am getting sick and tired of hearing, week after week that the police are doing their job. I need answers, not excuses.”

I am encouraging the council to help resolve Sana’s case as a matter of urgency.

Meanwhile, who should be responsible for providing the emergency accommodation for owner-occupiers when no one has accepted liability? The reality is that insurers were warning residents that they would be unable to pay out without being able to attend the location to assess the damage. They could not access the road because it was a crime scene. What more evidence could they possibly need when they could see the damage as the top story on the national news? The council stepped in when in many cases it clearly should have been the insurers. There needs to be clarity. I put on record my thanks to Chris Rumsey from the Association of British Insurers for taking up so many individual cases. There is clearly a systemic issue that needs fixing so that this does not happen to any other community in their time of crisis.

I turn now to the ongoing gas pipe replacement programme around the country. The pipes under Galpin’s road are described as the M25 of gas pipes, running down a densely populated area. How can this possibly be allowed in 2022 when we have known for almost 50 years that pipes such as these represent a risk? Have people's previous tragedies not been enough? Some context here is important. It was a 36-inch cast-iron pipe on Galpin's road. I understand that a tragic gas explosion in Scotland led to a gas mains replacement programme across the UK. I further understand that those works are approximately two thirds of the way through and that the programme continues to upgrade and make safer the gas pipes that are deemed to be of high risk.

There is a “but”. Under the coalition Government, the funding for that programme was cut. Many pipes that were originally set for replacement were suddenly to remain operational. While it is vital that the investigation determines whether the size and material of the pipe had any part to play in this tragedy, it must quickly be established whether this pipe was originally designated for replacement before the funding was cut by the Government. Why? Because there are other 36-inch cast-iron pipes around the country that are not set to be replaced. Will the Minister confirm that he will urgently review this matter and the funding of the programme? This should not need to wait until the investigation is complete.

That is not the only question that residents desperately want answered. What ongoing support will be available to them? What ongoing support will be available for Sana and her family? How long will it take for the investigation to be completed? How long is it likely to be before a coroner’s inquiry? Why were Southern Gas Networks possibly tasked with removing the gas pipe in Galpin’s Road when it is part of the investigation?

I acknowledge that this issue has been under the close watch of the Health and Safety Executive, but I share residents’ bewilderment at how evidence in an investigation could possibly be allowed to be removed by an organisation forming part of the investigation. Of course I recognise that the task of removing a gas pipe requires significant expertise, but is it really the case that no other company was able to complete the task? Surely the Minister shares my concern.

At times of desperate sadness we see the most extraordinary generosity. I can think of few more notable examples than in my caring community in the days and weeks following the explosion. When the residents of Galpin’s Road gathered at the evacuation centre, many of them had absolutely no belongings other than the clothes on their back. Community groups and local businesses responded to the call for help by delivering food, clothes and supplies within hours.

I am worried that I will miss somebody out, and I sincerely apologise if I do so, but I would like to put on record my gratitude to the following organisations: the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community for bringing food every lunch and dinner time; the Dons Local Action Group for van loads of supplies; the Loving Hands International nursery school for children’s toys and hot meals; the Casuarina Tree restaurant, the Golden Anchor, Aya restaurant, Domino’s, Franco Manca, Papa John’s, Pizza Hut, McDonald’s, Greggs and Krispy Kreme for sending so much hot and cold food; Uber for hundreds of free taxi journeys; the charity Kids Count for offering hundreds of bowling and cinema vouchers; and Morrisons and Sainsbury’s for offering food vouchers as residents return home.

I am also grateful to all the selfless local residents and groups who came by with such a remarkable abundance of generosity The evacuation centre was staffed by dozens of volunteers, including from the Red Cross, who worked around the clock to ensure that the centre was open 24/7 as somewhere safe for residents to go. I know that everyone watching will share my gratitude to each and every one of them.

It is difficult to imagine how upsetting, distressing and challenging the past few months must have been for the residents of Galpin’s Road. Behind every door is a real, personal story. There was Mr B, whose son was getting married later in August but was unable to access their wedding outfits and items for their celebrations. Mr and Mrs D could not get passports for their family holiday. Ms C desperately wanted the school uniform for her young son who was about to start secondary school. A resident who is a self-employed taxi driver could not access his car trapped in the investigation cordon, so he could not make a living. A special needs primary school pupil’s teacher contacted me, concerned that the child was falling behind on his schoolwork and putting on weight because of the takeaway food he was living on at his temporary accommodation.

There is sadness and difficulty behind every door along the road, and there is no question but that every family has faced the most challenging few months. I do not for a second dismiss how unbelievably difficult this must have been for each and every one of them. Eventually, they will return to Galpin’s. Sahara will never come home. Many of the residents believe that the explosion could have happened anywhere on that street. They count themselves lucky to be alive. They want to know how this tragedy happened and whether it could have been prevented. Above all, they stand ready to fight for justice for the beautiful little girl that they lost as their neighbour. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be standing with them every step of the way.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Lady has spoken very movingly. May I, on behalf of the whole House, express our sincere sympathy to the family, friends and neighbours of little Sahara and to everyone who has suffered in this dreadful way.

Department for Education

Debate between Siobhain McDonagh and Eleanor Laing

Wednesday 6th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I welcome the new Secretary of State to her place. I hope she has an ambitious plan for however many hours she will be in office before the downfall of her Government—but this is no laughing matter. The fact that we have had three Education Secretaries in three years tells us all we need to know about the Conservatives’ priorities. Theirs is a party with no plan, no ambition and no vision for our children. In contrast, education is so important to us on this side of the House that we say it three times.

Let us start with childcare and the early years, a time of indisputable importance with an impact that lasts a lifetime. The Government’s unforgivable failure to support early years providers shamefully saw 4,000 of them close over the last year. When parents are paying more on childcare than on their rent or their mortgage, the system is truly broken. The prohibitive cost of childcare means that many young couples face a choice between being priced out of parenting and being priced out of work. If they cannot afford the childcare costs to return to work, or if those costs outweigh the salaries that they bring home, work simply does not pay, no matter how many times the rhetoric is repeated at the Dispatch Box.

Ours is statistically one of the most expensive countries in the world in which to raise children, with net childcare costs representing 29% of income. We should compare that with 11% in France, 9% in Belgium and just 1% in Germany. If families cannot afford the childcare—for instance, the before and after-school clubs that boost children’s learning and development—the attainment gap grows. Those children will arrive at school to find that funding per pupil has fallen by 9% in real terms since the Tories came to power. That means that, by 2024, school budgets will have seen no overall growth in 15—yes, 15—years.

Meanwhile, many young people are still catching up from the lockdown school closures. Lockdown was temporary, but it could have a lifelong impact: the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that students who lost six months of schooling could see a reduction in lifetime income of 4%. However, the catch-up programme does not even come close to meeting

“the scale of the challenge”.

Those are not my words, but the words of the Government’s own education recovery tsar, whose resignation a year ago is all the evidence that anyone needs when considering whether the scale of the challenge is really understood.

Why is it that our children, teachers and schools are treated as an afterthought at every stage by this Government? The crumbs of catch-up support that are available will let down an entire generation of young people and, on the Government’s watch, the pandemic’s impact on their education will be lifelong. In contrast, Labour’s children’s recovery plan will provide breakfast clubs and new activities for every child, small-group tutoring for all who need it, quality mental health support in every school, continued development for teachers—that is essential, given that a staggering 40% of teachers leave the profession within five years—and an education recovery premium, targeting investment at children who risk falling behind. Those are not just warm words. Under the last Labour Government, our rhetoric matched the reality: 3,500 Sure Start centres were delivered on time, offering a place in every community for integrated care and services for children and their families.

Now is the time to be ambitious about education in a post-covid modern society. I believe that we should be putting tech at the heart of learning, tailoring classrooms to the modern day by ensuring that every child has the kit and the connectivity to get online. We should be challenging the norm by considering qualifications in tech and coding, providing real-world work experience, and using our ability to connect and learn with and from others around the world. The 21st-century opportunities for children, for teachers and for education should be endless. If there were a competent and functioning Government to take on that challenge, we would be there; but we are not.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We will now proceed to the winding-up speeches. I call Carol Monaghan.

Easter Adjournment

Debate between Siobhain McDonagh and Eleanor Laing

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

It certainly will, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I have one single very important issue to bring to the attention of the House and the Leader of the House—a tragic case of dangerous driving. I also want to raise a clear gap in the law that I hope he will agree it is both easy and essential for the Government to change.

In the early hours of Christmas morning, two policemen knocked on my constituent Debbie’s door. A 3 am visit from the emergency services was their worrying signal that something bad had happened, but for Debbie, Michael, Donna and all the Clack family, the news was their very worst nightmare.

Debbie’s daughter, Lillie, had been in a car whose intoxicated driver had refused to slow or stop for the police. The car had careered into a tree, leading to the hospitalisation of Lillie Clack and the injury of several others in the car. Devastatingly, Lillie died just a few days later, in the afternoon of 28 December. For Lillie’s family, their lives have changed forever. Nothing will bring her home.

But if the grief of a lost daughter, sister and niece was not enough, the time since has brought further pain to the Clack family, and it is because of a gap in the law. As it stands, there is nothing to prevent someone charged with dangerous driving, even in this situation, where a young woman has lost her life, from continuing to drive until their case gets to court and they are found guilty. For families waiting years for a trial, their unimaginable grief is worsened by the knowledge that the driver responsible for the death of their loved one can legally jump back in their car and get back on to the roads.

The Clack family are campaigning for anyone who causes death while driving to have their licence suspended immediately. Their Change.org petition already has tens of thousands of supportive signatures, and I would like to quote from the family’s petition directly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before the hon. Lady continues with what is a heartbreaking story—all our hearts go out to the family in this awful tragedy—I am sure she will give consideration to sub judice rules, and that if this is a matter that has yet to come before the courts, she will be very careful to anonymise the case to which she is referring.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there will be no reference to those involved in the particular case or to anyone who will potentially be charged.

The petition states:

“The law needs to change! If it doesn’t, people will continue to die and families will continue to endure the torment and torture after losing a loved one.

We will never get Lillie back and the experience so far can’t be changed but we will fight to endeavour that no other family has to go through the hell that comes after a loved one has been killed by a driver that made a choice to drive recklessly and dangerously!”

Will the Leader of the House indicate in his closing remarks whether he agrees with me and the Clack family that there is a clear and rectifiable gap in the law? If that is the case, will he take this issue up with the relevant Minister to report back?

Sadly, this is not the only painful experience that the family has had to face since Lillie’s death. Around a dozen videos have been uploaded anonymously to YouTube, featuring Lillie’s name, photograph and details of her death. The purpose of the videos is unclear, other than to cause further pain to the family. My office has repeatedly been in contact with YouTube to call for the videos to be taken down. Although progress is finally being made, it has taken weeks of discussion and delay. It seems the threshold for removing harmful content is, appallingly, higher than the trolling of a mourning family.

My heart goes out to the Clack family for the pain that they have suffered these past three months. I hope the Leader of the House will agree that changing the dangerous driving law is unquestionably the right thing to do. I know his assurance that he will take this forward will be of considerable comfort to a grieving family.

NHS Funding Bill

Debate between Siobhain McDonagh and Eleanor Laing

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 27th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is also a tendency for capital funding in new schemes to go to those areas that are far more wealthy than those with the greatest health inequalities? Let me give my own experience of Epsom and Saint Helier Trust, where the local NHS is consulting on moving all acute services to Belmont.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady will have her chance to speak for quite some time later in the debate, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is just concluding his speech.

British House Building Industry

Debate between Siobhain McDonagh and Eleanor Laing

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I think the hon. Gentleman has stolen the words of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), who also does loads of work on self-build. It is an issue that small and medium-sized builders have been squeezed out, but unfortunately I do not have time to address that matter today.

Let me return to the matter of pay ratios. At Barratt, the pay ratio between median executive pay and median construction worker pay is a disappointing 113:1. At Taylor Wimpey, it is an awful 126:1. At Berkeley, it is a shocking 331:1. But at Persimmon, it is an absolutely deplorable 1,561:1. Jeff Fairburn, in his final year of employment as chief executive of Persimmon, received more than £38.9 million, yet his average member of staff earnt £37,118. That was for technical staff. We do not know what the company’s subcontracted electricians, roofers or other wet trades people might have received. How can that be fair?

The vast scale of inequality looks even worse in the light of UK housing prices. Assuming that the average UK house price is £230,630—I assure the House that it is not possible to buy anything in my constituency or in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) for that price—and that the average UK construction worker saves 10% of their earnings to buy a house, it would take them 92 years to save up and 19 years just to save for the deposit alone. But the average FTSE 350 CEO could buy 28 houses outright in one year, 532 houses over 19 years—the years that the construction worker would be using to build a deposit—and 2,567 houses over the 92 years in which the construction worker would be saving up to afford their home. On no level can this be right or fair. It cannot be right for our society. It cannot be right for us as taxpayers. It is simply wrong. The system is broken. In the main, the market does not reward hard work, endeavour and meeting the housing need. In my view, it certainly should do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It will be obvious to Members that we have very little time left—not surprising in the current circumstances—and that lots of people want to speak. We will try to manage without a time limit. Let us see whether we can be courteous and consensual. If everyone takes around five minutes, we will get there.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Siobhain McDonagh and Eleanor Laing

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Laing]

I agree entirely with the Minister. Of course, it is relatively easy for electoral registration officers to find young people, because up until 16 they are at school or college, and at that point can be approached, educated, given a form and encouraged to register to vote when they reach their 18th birthday.

The Opposition’s argument simply does not hold water. The Bill will give more individual power to every person in this country, particularly the 3 million—I am glad the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras agreed the figure was not 9 million—who should be on the register but are not. It will be far, far easier for them to register on their own behalf, rather than having to do so through a head of household.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Laing]

Sadly, I do not have time. I am sorry.

Government Members are pleased that the Minister has listened to the consultation. Speaking on behalf of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, I am particularly pleased that he has taken account of some of the points raised during the pre-legislative scrutiny. Once again, the Bill is a good example of how pre-legislative scrutiny works to the advantage of Parliament and the democratic system. In particular, I think of the data matching with the Department for Work and Pensions, keeping people on the register during the transition, and recognising that registering is a civic duty and maintaining a penalty for not doing so. In those areas, the Government deserve to be congratulated on having amended the draft Bill. I also welcome the funding formula for local authorities under section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003, and I am glad that the Minister will be consulting on accountability.

That brings me to the second half of the Bill, which we have not really debated yet, concerning the powers of electoral registration officers and returning officers. At present, returning officers are accountable to no one. We need a structure whereby they can be ordered to carry out instructions, possibly by the Electoral Commission. We saw during the 2010 general election that the Electoral Commission had no power to direct. On the matter of counting votes at the close of poll, I tabled an amendment, which was supported by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and subsequently became law. Returning officers had to be directed by an amendment to primary legislation to count the votes at the close of poll. That is not the right way to do it; there should be a much better structure, and I therefore welcome clause 17.

I suggest, however, that the Minister might wish to go further. Something else happened in 2010 that has not been addressed in the Bill. It involved people who were waiting to vote at the close of poll. Eligible electors who are present at a polling station at that time should be allowed to vote if they are within the precincts of the polling station. I appreciate that this matter needs to be carefully defined, but I suggest that the Bill gives the Government an opportunity to introduce rules that would give the presiding officer at a polling station the authority to designate the end of a queue, for example, or the area—not necessarily in the polling station itself—in which people must be present before 10 o’clock in order to vote at 10 o’clock. On the night of the 2010 general election, there was unfair criticism of the Electoral Commission, which did not have the power that the media thought it had to tell electoral registration officers what to do. I hope that the Minister will consider amending the Bill in this respect.