(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberIn recent weeks, the Argentine Government have increased their economic aggression towards the Falkland Islands. Given that, will the Prime Minister update the House on the actions that the Government are taking in response to that belligerence?
The Prime Minister
Our position is unwavering: the Falkland Islands are British and will remain so, because that is the overwhelming will of the Falkland Islanders. We have made that clear to Argentina directly. We will not allow the islanders to be used as a prop in Argentinian domestic politics. I raised this issue directly with President Trump just a few weeks ago. We will not allow Britain or the Falkland Islands to be bullied in this way. We will seek to resolve the situation, but we will not hesitate to use more robust measures if necessary.
Bills Presented
Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Angela Rayner, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Alex Norris, Secretary Stephen Kinnock, Emma Reynolds, Uma Kumaran, Vicky Foxcroft, Matthew Pennycook, Florence Eshalomi and Jim McMahon, presented a Bill to make provision about fire safety in buildings containing multiple dwellings, including provision for the assessment and remediation of external walls that give rise to risks from fire, and the mitigation of such risks, in taller buildings; to make provision for the obtaining and recording of information about buildings containing residential accommodation; to make provision about liabilities in connection with unsafe construction products; and to make other provision in connection with the safety and management of residential buildings.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 155) with explanatory notes (Bill 155-EN).
Flooding
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
George Freeman, supported by Helen Morgan, Dr Ben Spencer, Steff Aquarone, Terry Jermy, James Wild, Jerome Mayhew, Adrian Ramsey, Blake Stephenson and Dr Roz Savage, presented a Bill to make provision about the responsibilities and duties of certain authorities and agencies in respect of inland flood prevention; to make provision about the powers of local flood authorities and Internal Drainage Boards; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the funding of local flood authorities and Internal Drainage Boards; to provide for the designation of Internal Drainage Board pumps as critical national infrastructure; to require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on the potential merits of establishing a Flood Compensation Fund to support homeowners whose primary residence has become unsaleable as a direct result of flooding; to make provision about flood reinsurance schemes; to make provision about the responsibilities of developers and water companies in respect of the provision of drainage for new housing developments; to make water companies statutory consultees for certain planning applications; to place a duty on fire and rescue services to respond to flood events; to make provision about national and local digital mapping of flood incidence and risk; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 157).
Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and War Pension Scheme (Report) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Josh Babarinde presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the potential merits of disregarding compensation received under the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme for the purpose of calculating entitlement to Pension Credit and to other means-tested benefits for which such payments are not disregarded in full; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 158).
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons Chamber
Andy Burnham
If the hon. Gentleman is going to intervene in the debate, he should at least listen to it. A moment ago, I said that we put forward plans for efficiencies before the election, so it would not be a sustainable position for me to say, “No cuts at all”, and I am not saying that today. What our motion says is that cutting the police by more than 10% would put public safety at risk. If he thinks that it is fiscally prudent to do that and damage public safety, then I beg to differ with him. I would love to see how he can justify cuts of more than 10% in his community.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a 23% reduction in the force establishment in Merseyside since 2010? By 2019, that will have gone up to 41% of the workforce. Does he think that those on the Government Benches have any idea about the impact that that will have on the community, safe policing and the safety of police officers?
Andy Burnham
I do not think that they do. Cuts on the scale proposed would mean the effective end of neighbourhood policing as we have seen it in recent years, particularly in rural areas and areas of lower risk. We would see thousands of bobbies taken off the beat. It would take us back to the bad old days of reactive and remote policing, with officers retreating to cars and to the station. They will not be out on the streets or visible in their communities.