Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
Allison Gardner Excerpts(3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I will reiterate the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) made: I wish I had never heard the name Peter Mandelson. He should not have been appointed. It is right that he was sacked. I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s experience and expertise on the issue, which I admit I do not have.
Yesterday, in my question to the Prime Minister in his statement, I focused on Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, but I briefly mentioned the issue of other parties seeking to gain political capital. Much to the chagrin of the reasonable, quiet people of this country, those parties asked for the Prime Minister’s resignation, yet again causing chaos, to which the Opposition are so addicted, for the governance of this country. [Interruption.] The Opposition grumbled at that, as they are doing now, so I will take this opportunity to clarify.
If we ignore the social media trolls and bots and ignore the self-interest of the billionaire-owned right-wing press, we see that the quiet, reasonable majority of people do not want a change of Prime Minister. As one lifelong Tory said to me yesterday, “I see the Prime Minister is still here. That is a good thing.” They are grateful that this Prime Minister—[Interruption.] I was a teacher; I can out-talk anyone. Those people are grateful that this Prime Minister has not drawn our country into a mad, dangerous conflict that the Opposition would have immediately joined.
People value a stable Government who focus on the matters that they really care about. They want a stabilised economy. They want reform to special education needs and disabilities and support for schools. They want our NHS rebuilt and waiting lists to drop. They want our roads fixed. They want their wages to increase. They want affordable homes. They want their communities to be safe and welcoming, and they want violence against women and girls tackled. People are fed up of politics and of this navel-gazing over process. They are fed up of more politicians politicking and point scoring. They are tired of it, and why?
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Dr Gardner
I promise I will come to the hon. Member in a minute. I am in the flow. People are tired after 14 years of the previous Government chopping and changing Prime Ministers and Secretaries of State. We had the blonde bumbler and the loopy lettuce. This country was on its knees, its people exhausted. The people do not want more of the same. Despite the Opposition’s constant efforts, we will not let them manufacture more chaos.
Dr Chowns
In reference to the point that the hon. Member has just made, is she familiar with the YouGov poll that regularly asks the UK population how well they think Keir Starmer is doing as Prime Minister? Is she aware that the latest data shows that 70% of the UK population think that he is doing badly?
Dr Gardner
Polls can generate different answers depending on how the questions are formed. In other polls the Prime Minister is still a lot more popular than certain other Members present in this House.
In reference to the Opposition’s chaos, I will speak up for the civil service and express empathy for Sir Olly Robbins. In the whirl of Prime Ministers and Ministers under the previous Government, among the covid partying and profiteering—for which the Conservatives have never apologised, and for which I will never forgive them—the civil service clearly did its best to stop this country sinking into the mire. In such chaotic conditions, it is no wonder that a culture developed that decisions would be made without fully informing Ministers or Prime Ministers. That was partially because under the Conservatives, civil servants could not be sure who would be the Prime Minister or Minister that month.
Dr Johnson
I think the remaining people who want Starmer to remain the Prime Minister are those who are worried about who the Labour party might pick instead. The hon. Lady seems to be sharing all sorts of whataboutery information, but has she considered that the outrage is not manufactured? It is a huge national security concern that our ambassador, who had access to security information at the highest level, was a security risk to this country.
Dr Gardner
I apologise, because I struggle with my hearing. I did not pick up everything that the hon. Lady said, but I will come to the vetting and security policy in a second. I hope that might deliver an answer for her.
Conservative Members are quibbling about the process, but I remind them that the policy of the FCDO being able to grant vetting, contrary to the advice of UKSV, has been running for many years under successive Governments. This Prime Minister and this Government are now reviewing the process, and I will reiterate the key points. Mandelson should never have been appointed as our ambassador. The Prime Minister has repeatedly acknowledged that and repeatedly apologised.
Dr Gardner
I am conscious of the time. We have a seven-minute guideline, so I will carry on.
It is clear that Foreign Office officials granted developed vetting security clearance to Mandelson and never told Ministers that they had done so, against the recommendations of the vetting agency. That is shocking, and any reasonable person would have assumed that the information would have been proffered without asking. The policy is wrong. It should change, and as a result of the review, hopefully it will change. This Government—still less than two years old—will not let such a policy continue. I am pleased that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has immediately suspended the ability of the Foreign Office to grant security clearances. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen is not in his place, but I understand that he asked for that to be a short-term response for other security reasons, and I acknowledge his point.
Thanks to the previous Government, the cryptocurrency-fuelled damage of Reform and, of course, the economic suicide of Brexit, which both the Conservatives and Reform are responsible for, people are fed up and trust in politics is at an all-time low. Indeed, the Prime Minister recognises this and understands that recent revelations have further damaged that trust, and I acknowledge that. However, I stress that politics focused on people, not political process, and on the decent, hard-working people of our country, who are thankfully still at peace due to the strength of this Prime Minister, can be a force for good.
The Conservatives are still addicted to chaos and game playing, and seek scraps of political capital where they can get them. I suggest that they have flogged this issue as much as they can. They need to focus on rebuilding their dying party and apologise to the people. This Prime Minister and this Government are focused on rebuilding this country—the country the Conservatives broke, which they still will not apologise for.
Security Vetting
Allison Gardner Excerpts(4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
At various points questions were asked, and questions were put to the FCDO. The answer back was the same, because it took the view that it was not information it could share with anyone, including myself.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Earlier today, NBC released an interview with hospice worker Rachel Benavidez, who was 22 years old when she became one of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse. For 27 years she has been waiting for the crimes committed against her to be recognised, and as she told NBC:
“Until we are heard, until survivors are heard and believed, then I don’t think there’s ever going to be justice.”
Does the Prime Minister agree that we owe it to the hundreds of victims like Rachel to put them first in these debates, not political point scoring, and that he was absolutely right to sack someone like Peter Mandelson, who refused to believe those victims, and if he did, did not care?
The Prime Minister
I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank her for making sure that the victims are central to this, as they should be.
Oral Answers to Questions
Allison Gardner Excerpts(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Can I thank the hon. Member for raising Susan’s case? It is really important that she does so, and I am deeply sorry for the enduring harm that patients have suffered. Ministers have met campaigners and the Patient Safety Commissioner to discuss their recommendations, and I can assure the hon. Lady we will provide a full response to the Hughes report recommendations at the earliest opportunity. I am happy for Ministers to update her on the actions we have taken and to discuss the particular case that she has raised with me.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her work. She is right to highlight the growing threat posed by dangerous synthetic drugs. Alongside deploying new detection methods at the border to seize drugs, we are investing in better mental health support and drug addiction treatment, with almost £26 million for Stoke-on-Trent. I will ask a Health Minister to discuss her important work with her.
Digital ID
Allison Gardner Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital identity, and in the past I have audited algorithms and processes that developed identification systems. With that in mind, I worry about a couple of issues. Before the Government announced their digital ID policy, 30% of people were in favour of digital identification, but that dropped, which is interesting. There has been an issue with scaremongering and arguing to extremes, particularly from the party that brought in voter ID when it was in government, which I find very interesting. I do, however, agree that it should not be mandatory, but we need to de-couple that argument from right-to-work checks in particular, as I remind Members that they are already mandatory.
For a digital ID scheme to work, we need to have trust in it; we need to have control, and we need to have choice. I therefore ask that the scheme not be mandatory. People should have the choice of whether to use it or not. I believe that a well-designed system would offer benefits; people will see that for themselves, and they may then make their own choices. I agree with other Members on that.
Dr Gardner
I will, as the hon. Gentleman has been trying to intervene for the whole debate.
Martin Wrigley
The hon. Lady is very kind. Is she aware that the Government papers also describe using digital ID for the right to rent as well as for the right to work?
Dr Gardner
The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I recently applied for a mortgage, and I received a link via email to a provider that requested that I upload my bank statements, my utility bills, and copies of my passport and driving licence—I am lucky enough to have those two pieces of photo ID. I trusted that it was a registered provider, but I did have a slight worry about scamming. When I applied for a car loan, I did so on paper, and I had to provide three bank statements, several utility bills, and copies of my driving licence and passport. It got so ridiculous that I asked whether the company wanted to know my bra size as well.
I was very concerned about ID theft in those processes, hence I am a proponent of secure digital ID and digital wallets, which would give me control over how I share my data. Having all my credentials, including Government-minted credentials such as my driving licence, in my digital wallet would allow me to send a one-time-only link to providers, which would allow them to view my data but prevent them from downloading it. There are ways of designing such a system, and I ask the Minister to think about how to integrate that level of choice in the platform that is developed. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) outlined how citizens would be able to see who is asking for their data and would even be able to control who can access it. They would know what data has been asked for and why, and they can then give the thumbs up. How we implement the digital ID system is really important.
We already have the digital identity and attributes trust framework, which is delivered by 43 private providers, with 11,000 members of staff. We should not argue to these extremes, and we should not scaremonger. We should have a calm consultation and debate on how digital ID could improve people’s lives by making them safer and more secure. I look forward to hearing the Minister deal with all the issues that have been rightly raised.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his powerful introduction —he is certainly no tin of beans. He highlighted that this debate has united every party in this Chamber, including the Labour party against the Labour leadership. I commend hon. Members for the powerful contributions that they have made. I have to confess that I disagree with nothing that was said by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), which is a unique thing—people will fear a coalition again. I even have some admiration for the glorious fence-sitting of some of the Labour MPs who still harbour some ambitions under this Government.
We are here because so many of our fellow citizens are demanding that the Government abandon their dodgy plan for mandatory digital ID. This is one of the best-supported petitions ever—nearly 3 million people are asking, very simply, for their relationship with the state not to be fundamentally rewritten without their consent. At the instigation of no one—apart from, perhaps, Tony Blair—the Prime Minister sprung his sneaky ID scheme on us in September in what by now has become a familiar pattern. A gaping hole emerges in Labour’s handling of an issue—in this case on migration, but it could equally be justice or the economy—at the same time as they are running some kind of personnel meltdown, such as a Deputy Prime Minister ducking tax or a Chancellor leaking a Budget. And voilà: out shoots from Downing Street some cack-handed policy announcement to get us all talking about something else.
Before we know it, we are hurtling toward mandatory ID, fewer jury trials, a horrible menu of new taxes on working people, and, who knows, maybe soon our return to a customs union on whose rules we will have zero say. That is why today we find ourselves debating the imposition of a mandatory ID, despite it being a platform on which no Labour MP in this Chamber was honest enough to stand, and a hapless Minister is left to field questions about the dead cat that his leader just threw on to the table, which is now getting smellier.
Dr Gardner
I acknowledge the strength of feeling from the people who signed the petition, but I have a genuine concern that we are not giving the correct level of information for people to say no to. Conflating digital IDs with issues such as jury trials and taxation is doing people no favours; we need to have a calm, rational debate about this one issue so that we can have a reasoned outcome.
Julia Lopez
One challenge is that we have had so few of the facts, because this is such a thin plan. The other challenge is that although there are people who support digital identity as a concept, this is about choice and the fact that this Government have no mandate for what they are doing. I do not think that the hon. Member and I are coming from that different a place, in so far as it should be people’s choice whether they have digital identity verification or not. This Government are proposing to rob them of that choice, and that is why the people in this Chamber are united.
Oral Answers to Questions
Allison Gardner Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. If he wants to know what the targets are, I suggest that he reads the plan for change; they are set out very carefully in it. On the lists of processes, I said that we were focused on outcomes. That is why today we have announced reform of the judicial review process to stop repeated, and often lengthy and hugely expensive, actions that delay important investment projects that are in the national interest. I would have thought that he would have welcomed that.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
The battle to ensure protection against cyber-attacks is constant and ongoing. I made a speech to the NATO cyber-defence conference a couple of months ago, and said that the Government are taking action to strengthen our cyber-security and protect our digital economy to deliver economic growth. Last week, we announced important proposals to protect UK businesses from ransomware, the most harmful cyber-crime, which can often cost a lot of money and do a lot of damage. Those measures will complement the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, which is being introduced this Session, to help to make the UK safer from cyber-threats.
Dr Gardner
Given the critical importance of closing the skills gap across the Government and defence sectors to safeguard against emerging threats in this digital age, which worry my constituents of Stoke-on-Trent South, what plans do the Government have to collaborate with organisations such as Code First Girls to develop a skilled and inclusive cyber-workforce, as highlighted in the artificial intelligence opportunities action plan?
Covid-19 Inquiry
Allison Gardner Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that I believe the production and distribution of the vaccines was one of the things that went well and which this country contributed to, and that the availability of vaccines helped us to overcome the pandemic. In those cases where there were adverse reactions, there is a scheme in place, as he said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has met people affected. Of course, we want to help people affected through the kind of scheme that exists.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
First, I thank the Minister for commenting on the importance of multidisciplinary research. From my own previous research, I know that that is very important, particularly in the development of AI algorithmic risk prediction models. I also had the pleasure yesterday of speaking to Professor Tom Solomon, the director of the Liverpool Pandemic Institute, which the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee had the pleasure of visiting recently. He impressed on me the value of physician researchers in conducting groundbreaking research. Does the Minister agree that it is vital we provide the time and funds to researchers such as Professor Solomon to help build our national resilience to future pandemics?
Pat McFadden
Let me echo my hon. Friend’s praise for Professor Solomon and the work that he and the Pandemic Institute are doing. He is right to underline the value of research, as is my hon. Friend. As has been pointed out throughout these exchanges, the next crisis that the country faces may be very different from the last, so it is important that we use one of this country’s great assets, its tremendous research institutes and research capability, to scan the horizon as well as we can and to be as well prepared as we possibly can.
Oral Answers to Questions
Allison Gardner Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Ms Abena Oppong-Asare)
Our first duty as a Government is to keep people safe. It is clear that we need to act on recent public inquiries that have called for reform, such as those into the Grenfell Tower tragedy and the covid-19 pandemic. That is why the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is leading a review into national resilience against the range of risks the UK faces.
Ms Oppong-Asare
My hon. Friend is right to raise that question. As the Environment Secretary has said, it is a matter of some regret that the previous Administration left our country’s flood defences in the worst condition ever recorded, and it is communities such as my hon. Friend’s that have unfortunately had to pay the price. I can assure him that the resilience review will strengthen our approach to resilience across the whole range of risks that we face, including those in his constituency. We have already taken steps to improve resilience across government.
Dr Gardner
If we are to ensure that the UK is resilient to the potential threats that face our country, it is vital that people who work to bring communities together and keep us safe are given the training, knowledge and skills that they need to play their part. My constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South knows the importance of that more than most, with people working tirelessly to tackle and calm the racial tension at the centre of the violent disorder we saw over the summer. Organisations such as the Emergency Planning College do fantastic work to deliver crisis management and resilience training. Can the Minister tell the House what steps she is taking to support their work in that area?
Ms Oppong-Asare
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and in September I was delighted to visit the Emergency Planning College, which has served as the UK Government’s centre for resilience expertise since its founding 80 years ago. I am pleased to report to the House that the UK Resilience Academy is on track to be established next April. It will build on the training currently offered by the Cabinet Office’s Emergency Planning College, providing a wide range of training for organisations, businesses and individuals. Of course, as part of the resilience review we will further consider whether policy is working in respect of training and skills, and where it needs to be improved.
Black History Month
Allison Gardner Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I congratulate all Members who have made their maiden speeches today, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), who expressed his wish to advocate for people with disabilities. I am sure that he and all Members here today will want to add that we must consider the additional challenges faced by people in the black community who are living with disabilities.
I commend all hon. Members for their contributions during this debate on Black History Month. I say that not just because I have enjoyed hearing their views and local history, but because the very fact that this House is considering black British history today shows how far we have come as a nation. That is not to say that we shy away from the complex past and significant injustices, including that of the misdirected reparation mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler)—to my shame, I only learned about that today as she spoke. Nor should we shy away from the challenges still faced today, including the shocking maternal mortality rates in the black community, which were mentioned by the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen).
I want to use my contribution to highlight not just individuals, but the communities that have given so much to my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South, to Staffordshire and to our country. Please indulge me as I speak about people and places that extend beyond the boundaries of my own constituency, because the impact of the black British community spreads far beyond the lines drawn by the Boundary Commission. To begin with, I want to pay tribute to the many people of the Windrush generation who travelled across an ocean to make their home in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, who not only helped to rebuild our nation after the second world war, but continue to contribute in every field to the diverse tapestry that is Britain.
No account of the black British history of Stoke-on-Trent would be complete without mention of the great Doug Brown. Initially training as a physiotherapist to support wounded world war two soldiers, as well as being the physio for the great Potters—that is Stoke City football club to my hon. Friends—Doug went on to give his skills to our NHS before a 20-year career in Stoke city council. He served twice as Lord Mayor, meeting everyday people and monarch alike, and treating all with candour and humility. Doug Brown was a proper Stokie. I feel a statue coming on.
Adam Jogee
Doug Brown’s son, Martin, lives in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme. My hon. Friend will have my full support in her campaign for a statue of this genuine trailblazer and history maker in north Staffordshire.
Dr Gardner
I want to take a moment to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for inviting me to the Staffordshire Black Business Network’s great event the other week at Keele University. That event—it was more than just a great evening—highlighted not only the contributions of the Afro-Caribbean community to our local economy, but the importance and value of spaces that offer solidarity and recognition. I met Paul and Jonathan Smith, from PPE4 Community CIC in Meir, who empower young people from low-income backgrounds and upskill them, sourcing opportunities for those ambitious young people to be the next wave of great entrepreneurs in Stoke. That is the crux of what this month is about: education, recognition and celebration.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that a crucial part of reclaiming the narrative, which is the theme of Black History Month, is celebrating historic citizens of our own constituencies? Will she join me in celebrating Olaudah Equiano, who set out his powerful contribution in his autobiography of 1789? He spent many of his days in the City of London and in Westminster, finally passing in Paddington Street. Will she join me in celebrating his life and looking forward to the ongoing celebrations of the powerful contribution he made to our democracy right here?
Dr Gardner
I most certainly will, and I thank my hon. Friend for her fantastic intervention.
That work takes more than just one month. From Monienne Stone’s work with the Staffordshire Film Archive to produce a documentary preserving the memories and voices of the elder generations of Windrush and their experiences in Stoke and Staffordshire, to institutions such as the Ahmed Iqbal Ullah RACE Centre and the Black Cultural Archives which was mentioned earlier, the maintenance and education of black British history is a year-round job performed by people from every background. That act, the act of celebrating and acknowledging black British history, should be a shared endeavour, just as the part the black community has played in this nation has been just that—a shared endeavour. That is why I chose to speak today. To celebrate another community’s history, culture and contribution should never be the exclusive responsibility of that community. It lies with us all. Just as this country’s past was written by a multitude of peoples, so too will its future. I say let us celebrate each other, understand our differences and embrace them. That is Britain at its best.
I would like to end this speech by looking back to an individual who has become a running theme in my addresses to this House, Josiah Wedgwood. Josiah understood that the fight for liberty and the work of racial equity is the responsibility of all in this country. His famous anti-slavery medallion graced the clothes of thousands across these isles, not sold for profit, but given for free. The understanding Josiah had, with the onus on looking after your neighbour, fighting for them when necessary and celebrating them where possible, is the spirit of our great and diverse nation that I want to share with the House today.
Infected Blood Inquiry
Allison Gardner Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are looking to make and start those compensation payments by the end of the year. Again, I am sure the whole House offers its sympathies to Linda on the loss of her husband. My hon. Friend highlights another problem when she speaks about the fact that Linda’s late partner could not secure life insurance at that time. Another aspect of this scandal was that the people who were both infected and affected were, in decades past, unable to access the support that they should have been able to access.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I congratulate you on your elevation, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Paymaster General for his statement. Can he update the House as to what measures are being put in place to learn the lessons of this scandal, including on the indefensible time it has taken to put it right and on improving mechanisms for whistleblowing?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend raises a really important question. First and foremost, we need to consider very carefully the 12 recommendations that Sir Brian Langstaff has made. The Government will respond to them as requested in the timeline that Sir Brian mentioned in the report. In addition, we need to introduce the duty of candour and the public advocate, to support families at inquests and inquiries, and above all—in relation to my hon. Friend’s point about whistleblowers—to lead a change that moves away from the culture of defensiveness and towards one of putting the public interest first.