Murder of Lee Rigby

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right on both bases. We cannot always praise and point out what the security and intelligence services have done, but since I have been Prime Minister there has been at least one major plot every year and this year already at least four plots have been avoided by the work of the security services, so we should thank them for what they do.

On the issue of the internet, I would put it like this. Historically, Governments have always decided that, whether it is people sending each other letters, making fixed-line telephone calls, mobile telephone calls, or sending e-mails, in extremis, on the basis of a warrant signed by the Home Secretary, it is okay to intercept that call, letter or e-mail. The question we must ask is: are we prepared to have a means of communication—the internet and a number of modern methods—that we are not able to intercept? My answer is clear: we should not accept that. We should legislate to ensure that that is the case. I think that that is in the finest traditions of having law that is in favour of security but also in favour of liberty. However, the whole House at some stage will have to come to a view on that.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford). Greenwich borough has a long association with the garrison at Woolwich and the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby was felt particularly powerfully by our local community. May I press the Prime Minister a little more on internet companies? It seems extraordinary that we do not have the co-operation of the companies that are overseas. It seems to me that we need to negotiate and take action at Government level. What is taking place at that level to ensure that, where such companies do not co-operate, regulations are put in place to compel them to do so?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman asks the key question. We are both updating—we did that over the summer—and applying our legislation on the basis that we believe that what matters is whether companies provide services in this country, not where they are based. On that basis, companies should comply with warrants and requests. Therefore, we are progressing that, but at the same time we are trying to deal with one of the sources of the problem, which is the interaction between UK law and American law, specifically the US Wiretap Act. Sir Nigel Sheinwald is holding conversations with America-based companies and the American Government to try to find a way through so we get higher levels of co-operation. However, the levels of co-operation have increased, not least because of the important legislation that this House passed in the summer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. In North West Norfolk the claimant count is down by 50% since the election and the youth claimant count is coming down by 52% in the last year alone. The figures released today show that people who have been in work for a year or more have seen their wages go up by 4%—more than twice the rate of inflation. And of course that is their wages before the tax reductions this Government have made because we have been a careful steward of the nation’s finances. What we would get with Labour is no growth, no jobs and higher taxes.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister apparently admits that his top-down reorganisation of the national health service and the Act that imposed it were mistakes. My Bill on Friday is an opportunity for him to put right some of those mistakes and repeal the parts of that Act that imposed privatisation on our NHS. The Bill is backed by the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, Unison, Unite and the GMB—who represent the workers. Never have so many people been united against the Government about an Act that imposed so much on the national health service. Will he back my Bill on Friday and tell people that the national health service is not for sale—not now, not ever?

[The Prime Minister]

At least we now know who is paying for the hon. Gentleman’s Bill—that is one thing. Let me make a couple of points to him. Independent providers made up 5% of the NHS under Labour and they now make up just 6% of the NHS. The Government who had the sweetheart deals with the independent sector were the Labour Government, who handed it money in return for contracts. This is what we see in the NHS: 2,500 more nurses; 8,000 more doctors; and more patients being treated. We see an NHS that is succeeding because we made the reforms and we put in the money.

European Council

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. Whatever view people take about whether Britain should be in the European Union or out of the European Union, there is only one way to secure that referendum.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Given that the recalculation of GNI has been known about for two years, it is a bit rich for the Prime Minister to say that he wants to understand the detail of the methodology. Should he not have been engaging with that recalculation and investigating its exact implications on behalf of the British people?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have explained, these calculations take place every year, but not normally on the scale that has happened this year. It was only on the Friday before the European Council meeting that the figures were available.

Ukraine (Flight MH17) and Gaza

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think it is likely. It may not go as far as I would like, but I think that when we are dealing with an organisation of 28 members, some of whom are heavily reliant on Russia for gas or financial services or whatever, it is always difficult. However, I think what we have seen is outrageous, and in the end this depends on what Russia’s actions are. Russia can relieve the sanctions pressure by making sure there is access to that site and that it stops supporting the Ukrainian rebels. If it does those things, there will not be the sanctions pressure, but if it does not, there will be.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I unequivocally condemn the firing of rockets into Israel by Hamas, but the Prime Minister has to accept that the response from Israel is disproportionate. The disregard for the safety of innocent civilians, whether they are in Israel or Gaza or in an aeroplane over Ukraine, is unacceptable, and international law must be applied. On Ukraine, is the Prime Minister satisfied that western banks applied the proper criteria when money was being hollowed out of the finances within Ukraine and smuggled out of that country and into bank accounts in the west? It has led to the situation in Ukraine today. Will he ensure at tomorrow’s meeting of Foreign Ministers that an investigation is instigated into that?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly look at the point the hon. Gentleman makes with regard to Ukrainian banks and the money that has been taken out, and I will mention it to my colleague the Foreign Secretary who will be attending that meeting.

European Council

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am a believer in this: when we sign up to something, we should stick to it and deliver what we said we would do. With the European budget, we achieved a cut over the seven-year financial framework which will effectively mean lower European budgets. Our battle now is to make sure that the EU sticks to that, and does not find new and innovative ways of spending money.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The debate about our future role in Europe would be better informed if we knew what the red-line issues were that would force the Prime Minister to recommend a no vote in his referendum. Will he say when he will let the public know what those red line issues are, so that they can have a more informed debate about Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

Perhaps I could send the hon. Gentleman a copy of my article in The Sunday Telegraph and of the Bloomberg speech, which set out the key areas, including ever-closer union, that are so important.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my hon. Friend’s constituency has suffered repeatedly from flooding, and I have visited it twice in recent years to discuss it with him and with local people and businesses. Let me make two points. As he knows, any future developments have to comply with the national planning policy, which makes it clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided. Secondly, and more importantly, in 95% of cases where the Environment Agency objects to planning on flood-risk grounds, the final decision is in line with agency advice.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Q13. When bankers’ salaries have gone up by five times the rate of ordinary workers’ salaries and the top 100 chief executive officers are earning 133 times more than the average worker in their companies, is it not right that those on the highest incomes contribute the most through tax? With that in mind, will the Prime Minister rule out any consideration of a further cut in the highest rate of tax for the richest 1%?

[The Prime Minister]

We have said that that is not our priority, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the richest should be paying more in income tax and making a bigger contribution. Under this Government, that is exactly what is happening. In a way, that is what is interesting about the Opposition’s argument. They cannot talk about jobs because there are more of them. They cannot talk about inflation because it has come down, and they cannot talk about the deficit because we are cutting it. They have one argument left, which is about fairness. If they look at the figures, they will see that inequality is at its lowest level since 1986: 1 million fewer people are in relative poverty and half a million fewer children are in child poverty than when Opposition Members were in the Cabinet. The facts show that the Government are not only delivering recovery but delivering it fairly, too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady can play a role in that. She can hold her local enterprise partnership to account and scrutinise its proposals. Every LEP in England will be putting forward a bid for funds from the £2 billion that I have mentioned, and I have made it clear to them that they should consult and involve their Members of Parliament. I hope that she will take up that invitation.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

5. What steps the Government plan to take to improve the accuracy and completeness of the electoral register.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

Individual electoral registration will help to enhance the accuracy of the register and, from June, applications will be verified against Government records. We will also use data matching to ensure the completeness of the register during the transition to the new system, by confirming the vast majority of electors. Moreover, five national organisations and every local authority in Great Britain will be sharing £4.2 million of funding aimed at maximising registration. The introduction of online registration will improve accessibility for groups such as overseas voters and home movers.

[Clive Efford]

The Minister knows that there is widespread concern about the fall in the number of people on the electoral register as a result of individual electoral registration. Just how many people would have to disappear from the list before the Government pulled the plug on the project?

[Greg Clark]

Everyone who has scrutinised this matter knows that every effort is being made to ensure a smooth transition. For example, the existing register will follow into the period of the next general election campaign. Through the funding that we have made available for the year ahead to every local authority in the country, including £26,000 for Greenwich, to promote people staying on the register, there is every opportunity to increase the level of registration. That is one of the features of the new exercise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is pleased to represent the new white heat of the technological revolution.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

8. In what ways the Serious Fraud Office co-operates with prosecutors overseas; and if he will make a statement.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

The Serious Fraud Office co-operates with prosecutors overseas during joint investigations, SFO investigations with which overseas prosecutors can assist, building capacity internationally, and executing requests for legal assistance when asked to do so by the Home Office.

[Clive Efford]

Can the Attorney-General say what discussions he has had with America regarding the extradition of people who may be guilty of fixing the LIBOR? Progress is lacking in prosecuting people involved in LIBOR-fixing; does this increase the likelihood of their being extradited?

[The Attorney-General]

The Serious Fraud Office is in touch frequently with its United States counterparts in respect of investigations that have a transnational dimension. I will not talk about a specific case, but looking at the matter hypothetically, in such circumstances it will be decided in which jurisdiction a prosecution would best be brought. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a LIBOR investigation is progressing in this country. There are also investigations in the United States. From what I know of the matter, I am satisfied that there will be good co-operation between the two jurisdictions to ensure that any alleged criminality is brought to justice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on everything she has done in recent weeks to highlight the importance of Portsmouth and all matters maritime, in the broadest sense of the word?

I am aware of this interesting project, and I understand there will be a meeting with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills shortly. It is testament to the excellent reputation of Portsmouth that there is so much interest in this commercial sector, which my hon. Friend, I and the whole Government want to see expand. The appointment of a Minister for Portsmouth, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), will make a big difference. It is good news that the youth claimant count has fallen so quickly in Portsmouth, but we must stick to the economic plan and keep delivering for Portsmouth.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Q6. Increasingly in London, young people are finding it impossible to afford to rent or buy a home, so why, under this Government, are we seeing the lowest number of housing starts since the 1920s and a housing bubble driven by wealthy overseas buyers?

Tributes to Nelson Mandela

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I do not feel that I have anything unique to add to the debate, but as a Member of Parliament who has been offered the opportunity to pay tribute to Nelson Mandela, I do not want to miss out on the chance to put my views on the record. I want also to reflect the outpouring of grief and celebration of this man’s life that I have witnessed in my constituency. Whether at religious ceremonies, in schools or community groups or at sports events, people have taken time to reflect and the community has come together to recognise the passing of this extraordinary man.

When we look back through history, we see that it is littered with people who are considered to be outstanding individuals. All too often, their start in life has given them a leg up or an opportunity that others do not get. When we read about Nelson Mandela’s childhood, however, and listen to interviews about when he was growing up, we hear that he grew up in a country that did not put any value on educating its black population. He relied on charities and religious organisations with missionaries who set up, built and furnished schools to provide him with a start in his education. He then left his community and went to Johannesburg, where he witnessed some of the worst poverty he had ever seen in his life. I like to think that somebody who comes from such a humble background is armed with something that other people do not have when it comes to challenging authority and making a real change on behalf of the people they represent. When he was confronted with a Government who refused to budge, he knew that each concession he might give in those negotiations was another injustice for the people he grew up with and knew so well.

The thing about him that touched my community and all of us so much was that having been through all that, having joined the freedom struggle in his country, and having suffered the indignity and injustice of 27 years of incarceration just for having the temerity to ask for freedom, when he was freed he put his country first above any personal consideration of retribution. He realised that only through peace and reconciliation could he prevent his country from being destroyed for generations on the back of the hatred and recrimination that would follow if he were to allow things to descend into any kind of internal conflict. The integrity and intellect he applied to his politics gave the leaders of the white minority population of that country the confidence that this was a man to lead their country through that process of reconciliation.

When we talk about the apartheid regime, we often overlook the fact that Nelson Mandela became an icon for people who were challenging racism. He met the family of Stephen Lawrence in 1993, and he said that

“the threat of fascism and racism is threatening the whole world”.

We should not forget those words.

The day after Nelson Mandela died, we put a message from him in the window of our Eltham constituency office:

“No one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”

I can think of no greater tribute for us as Members of Parliament than to bear those words in mind when we make decisions, not just on international issues confronting us but in our communities and our society, and by having the courage of our experience that tells us what is the right thing to do on behalf of our community, taking forward Nelson Mandela’s legacy and the example that he gave to us all.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

When the Prime Minister performed his U-turn yesterday on taking action this weekend, I wondered what we would be debating today. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary on forcing the Prime Minister to do a handbrake turn over the action we were clearly called back to vote on today. The Prime Minister may have changed the text of the motion, but he certainly made the same hawkish speech today. I do not accept that wanting to exhaust all the avenues with the United Nations is somehow an argument for doing nothing.

I heard the Deputy Prime Minister being interviewed this morning on the “Today” programme, and it was not his finest hour. He said that this was an atrocity that could not be ignored, which I accept, and that he did not want ours to be remembered as the generation that sat idly by, but our motion does not suggest doing that. He then said that the Government were seeking a mandate for a limited response. There we have it. That is why we are here today; the Government are seeking a mandate for a limited response, which is why our amendment is necessary and needs to be supported. Their intention was not to wait for the UN process to be exhausted, but to take precipitate action.

What is a limited response? We have no mandate to punish—that is not our role—so what is the objective? Who or what is the target? It has been suggested that we aim to “deter” and “degrade” chemical weapons. These are technical terms quite often used to make it easier for us to vote in favour of military action. We have also heard about “precision strikes”, “selective strikes”, “technical strikes” and the intention to “degrade”. We even have civilian deaths described as “collateral damage”. These are all terms used to convince us that we should vote in favour of a strike, but how do we contain a missile attack on a chemical weapons dump or manufacturing centre? How do we ensure that no civilians die? Would those deaths be acceptable? Would they somehow be laudable for having been created by us, rather than by chemical weapons?

We do not have an end plan, a strategy for what we want to achieve with an incisive strike or an exit strategy. We have been here before. I voted against a similar motion when my Government attempted this in 2003, and exactly the same things are being said today.