No-deal Brexit: Schedule of Tariffs

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Monday 7th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I reiterate what I said at the start of this exchange, which is that people who arrived after it began should not stand and expect to be called—[Interruption.] No, no. No matter how illustrious they are, and irrespective of the exalted office that they occupy. Other Members of this—[Interruption.] Order. I am not debating the point with the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil). I am telling him what the situation is, and that is the end of the matter.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

One of the most successful exports from my constituency is Penderyn whisky, which comes from a small village in the Brecon Beacons. If the Minister went to Wales, he must have discussed the situation of an industry such as that with Baroness Morgan. Penderyn is obviously concerned about the impact on its export potential.

[Conor Burns]

I am incredibly grateful to the right hon. Lady, whom I hold in the highest regard, having worked with her on a couple of international issues. She almost invites me to trespass on the subject of the next urgent question on the potential imposition of tariffs by the United States on the whisky sector. I would be happy to respond to that question in detail during the course of my reply to that UQ, but the Government take this matter very seriously and will be working to try to persuade our friends and allies in the United States that the imposition of such tariffs is not the way to go, that they harm both of us, and that the best thing to do is to talk and come to a resolution.

Arms Export Licences (Saudi Arabia)

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

First I call the longest-serving member of the Committees on Arms Export Controls—Ann Clwyd.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Does the new Minister realise that it took almost a year, at the start of this Parliament, to set up the Committees on Arms Export Controls because the Government dragged their feet—and, I would say, dragged their feet deliberately? I am sick of hearing about “rigorous and robust”—this is neither rigorous nor robust. Representatives of the various parties in the Saudi-led coalition were recently at the arms fair. Can she give us an assurance that no new undertakings or contracts were agreed to service or export new goods to the countries involved in the coalition in Yemen?

Iran

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am keen to accommodate colleagues, but I am also keen to proceed to the next statement as close as possible to 6.30 pm. I am sure that colleagues will take their cue from that and will be admirably succinct.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

It was not always the case that we slammed Iran in this Chamber; 25 years ago when I stood at the Dispatch Box, I in fact congratulated Iran on helping to save the Kurdish population who were fleeing across the mountains. The Turks shut the borders and the Iranians opened the borders, so at that time we were congratulating Iran on its moves. But may I say, as somebody who has campaigned for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, that we are all concerned about the deterioration of relationships and that I would like to know exactly what we are doing? It is very vague; we are all having talks here and there. Did the Prime Minister come to some agreement with the Iranian President when he met him yesterday? What is physically being done to get Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other dual nationals out of jail?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I will allow the next question—on the grounds that extreme brevity is required.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

11. Which (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department plan to attend the Defence and Security Equipment International exhibition in London in September 2019.

Spring Statement

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We need to speed up, because I want to accommodate colleagues. Can we have a one-sentence question?

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I, too, want clarity from the Chancellor. When he talked about environmental spending in England, did he mean only England, or England and Wales? Will a certain amount of money be given to Wales? When I was first elected, 35 years ago, my constituency had one of the worst industrial polluters in the whole UK. It has left us with 27 acres of derelict land at the bottom of a valley, and a lot of wasted investment. Will he please help us to get that toxic waste cleared up and taken away so that the land can be made suitable for people to use?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Short questions and short answers, please.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

Jim Callaghan, a Labour Prime Minister, brought thousands of jobs to Ford in south Wales. Why is a Tory Prime Minister taking those jobs away?

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware of reports that the Government were offering Labour MPs in economically challenged areas financial support for constituency projects in return for support for the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal. I oppose the Prime Minister’s deal, and there are no circumstances in which I would support it. If reports are correct, my area would therefore not qualify. Can you confirm that targeting individual constituencies in that way raises issues of hybridity, if targeted offers are accompanied by legislation?

“Erskine May” states that the House resolved on 22 June 1958:

“That it is contrary to the usage and derogatory to the dignity of this House that any of its Members should bring forward, promote or advocate in this House any proceeding or measure in which he may have acted or been concerned for or in consideration of any pecuniary fee or reward.”

Will you consider whether a reward includes a benefit to a Member’s constituency? It is arguable that a Member may be under pressure from constituents to accept a reward in the form of targeted support and may thereby be under pressure to vote in a particular way to secure the Government’s offer of reward. Must the offer be made to all economically challenged areas, irrespective of the way a Member chooses to vote on the Prime Minister’s deal?

“Erskine May” states on page 265:

“Conduct not amounting to a direct attempt improperly to influence Members in the discharge of their duties but having a tendency to impair their independence in the future performance of their duty may be treated as a contempt.”

Surely the Government’s offer breaches that principle. Will you consider that matter?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of her intention to raise this subject, though not of the particular question that she had in mind. About that latter fact I make no complaint whatever; I simply say it for the benefit of people understanding the context. I knew that she wished to raise the subject, but I did not know precisely what she wished to put to me.

What I will say to the right hon. Lady off the top of my head is as follows. I am not altogether clear that the criterion of hybridity is satisfied by the circumstances she referred to, but I am happy further to reflect on the matter. On the matter of contempt, which is an extremely serious charge, if any right hon. or hon. Member seeks to level that charge against any Member, including a Minister, allegations of contempt have customarily to be raised with the Chair in writing. If the right hon. Lady is moved to allege contempt on the basis of her own conviction and from her study of “Erskine May”, she is perfectly welcome to write to me about the matter, and I will consider it.

It is obvious to me that the right hon. Lady regards the circumstances she has alluded to as, at the very least, very smelly, and that point of view will be shared by many people. That is not necessarily the same as a procedural or other impropriety, but it is very clear that she regards it as malodorous behaviour. It is for individual Members to decide how they vote on these important matters. As ever in this House, it is not unusual for others to seek to persuade Members to vote one way or another, or for Members to seek to negotiate political outcomes or ministerial undertakings.

I must say that the notion of a trade is a source of concern. I have not witnessed it in this way previously in my time, and it is a matter of concern. I weigh my words carefully because I do not want to make a hasty judgment. The right hon. Lady has raised an extremely serious matter, and she does so on the basis of very long experience in the House. I am not sure—I say this with caution—that she is alleging any specific financial impropriety, but if she were, that would again be a most serious matter. If she does have such concerns, beyond what I have already said to her, she may wish to seek the advice of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I will leave my response to the right hon. Lady there for now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am calling the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) in spite of time constraints. I know that she will ask a commendably brief question.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

12. If he will hold discussions with Ministers in the Welsh Government on investigations into the deaths and stillbirths of babies under Cwm Taf University health board.

No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I am going to read a letter from a constituent—a real person—that I received this morning by email:

“Dear Ann Clwyd MP

I am your constituent and I am deeply concerned at what Brexit uncertainty is already doing to our country. No form of Brexit commands a majority among politicians. There is only one sensible road left to pursue, and that is to take the decision back to the voters and let us decide.

Parliament is deadlocked. The government’s version of Brexit has failed and been rejected by Parliament. Two years of uncertainty, divisive argument and no clear solutions to the country’s biggest problems has got us nowhere.

Best for Britain’s new research, carried out in partnership with HOPE not hate, proves 60% of people now want the final say on Brexit. Every region now supports letting the people decide. I have included the regional results below.

I would appreciate it if you could reply to this message to tell me: Do you support giving the people the final say on the Brexit deal, with the option to stay in the EU?

Please understand the strength of my feeling on this issue. There is no majority in Parliament for any form of Brexit. While Parliament is in deadlock, the country is uniting around a referendum to resolve it. Please give us the final say.”

My constituent then lists the proportion in support of a public vote on Brexit by region and country:

“East of England, 56.00%

East Midlands, 56.80%

London, 67.60%

North East, 59.80%

North West, 61.20%

South East, 57.80%

South West, 55.10%

West Midlands, 57.90%

Yorkshire and Humber, 58.90%

Scotland, 67.70%

Wales, 60.30%”.

He finishes with:

“Yours sincerely,

David Matthews

Cilfynydd, Wales”.

My answer to him is: I support a referendum and I want to stay in the European Union.

[Mr Speaker]

A three-minute limit is now to apply.

NHS Complaints System: Wales

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about something that has been on my mind for a long time.

It is nearly six years since the death of my husband. Some Members will know that he spent his last two weeks on the respiratory ward at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff. He was admitted on Tuesday 9 October 2012 to what should have been a caring and safe place. Instead, what we found was the opposite. I left Owen in what I thought was a place of safety, thinking that the hospital could care for him better than we could at home. How wrong I was. Owen went into the hospital mobile, yet spent two weeks crammed in a bed, on a cold, uncaring ward.

Despite the poor care that Owen received, his condition initially settled. In fact, there were provisional plans for him to come home towards the middle of the second week. Sadly, his condition took a turn for the worse. In the early hours of Monday 22 October, I was advised that there was no reasonable chance of his surviving. He lost his final battle the next day. It was then that my battle began: the battle to find out what had happened to him and why.

Many Members will have heard of my concerns regarding the 27 hours he spent on a trolley in the A&E department. A later inquiry identified a number of nursing deficiencies. Sadly, my efforts to obtain information regarding his medical care have been met with considerable obstruction from the board of UHW.

Some time ago, I received help from an experienced NHS consultant, someone who has prepared numerous cases over a period of 30 years when there are allegations relating to clinical negligence. He said—we normally converse in Welsh:

“Ann, roedd gofal Owen yn esgeulus. Hyd yn oed pe fyddai wedi goroesi ei salwch y tro hwn, byddem yn dal I deimlo fod ei ofal yn esgeulus. Yn esgeulus nid yn unig yn ôl safon 2012 ond yn ôl safon 1948, amser dechrau’r Gwasanaeth lechyd.”

That is, in his opinion, Owen’s care during his hospital stay was negligent. In fact, he said that even if Owen had survived his in-patient stay, his level of care would be considered unacceptable, not only by the standards in place in 2012 but by the standards in place at the inception of the NHS in 1948.

My medical friend has pointed out his concerns. He was astonished to find that no doctor saw Owen on either weekend, no consultant saw him and no junior doctor saw him. I should point out that he was on a respiratory ward in Wales’s flagship teaching hospital. He was not in a convalescent ward; he was not recuperating from an acute illness. My late husband was an unwell man with MS, whose long-term disabilities had been made worse by what turned out to be pneumonia that he acquired at that hospital.

Most concerning, according to my medical friend, was the failure of the medical department to have any kind of effective handover arrangement, whereby the doctor going off duty would hand over all the clinical information to the doctor coming on duty. Formal handovers are far more important these days, as the shift systems of junior doctors means reduced hours. This means that over a weekend a patient may be seen by half a dozen different doctors, all working for the same firm.

Since continuing my inquiries about Owen’s care, I have learned a number of medical terms. I now know about a “low grade temperature” and that this may indicate that there is an infection somewhere, without the doctors being able to find out exactly where. I have also become familiar with the term “inflammatory markers”. Inflammatory markers are blood tests that indicate the presence of infection. When the clinical markers change, and in particular when they increase, it suggests that there is an infection somewhere that is not under control. I will refer to just two.

One is known as the CRP—the C-reactive protein. The normal CRP is less than 10; Owen’s CRP was 22 on admission. Now, 22 is not particularly high, but it suggests that there may be an infection somewhere. Eight days later Owen’s CRP had crept up to 41. The fact that it was increasing—“going the wrong way” as the medics would put it—indicated that he could have an infection that could be going out of control. Owen’s neutrophil count—the type of white blood cell that increases during an infection—was also “going the wrong way”. The normal is less than six. It was 8.7 on his admission—[Interruption.] Excuse me, Mr Speaker; I am sorry, but that is my phone.

[Mr Speaker]

That is an extraordinary musical intervention on the right hon. Lady, but I am not sure it is up to her high intellectual standards—but the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has come to the rescue, being a selfless public servant as he is.

[Ann Clwyd]

The normal is less than six; it was 8.7 on Owen’s admission, and eight days later it was 10.6.

Doctors will tell us that they do not just look at the results of blood tests; they also look at the patient. In Owen’s case, they failed to look at the blood tests and they failed to look at the patient. Members will no doubt be surprised to hear that although Owen’s inflammatory markers had increased during his second week in hospital, this was not recorded in his clinical notes. The tests that noted the increase in CRP and the neutrophil count were done on the Friday. That was four days before his death from hospital-acquired pneumonia. No one saw the results. No one saw Owen. No doctor saw him on Saturday. No doctor saw him on Sunday. By Monday, it was too late. I think it is reasonable to assume that if Owen had received effective antibiotics when his inflammatory markers were increasing, he would have stood a fighting chance and would have survived that infection.

I continue to be shocked by the way the hospital board has dealt with my concerns. Members might have heard of so-called independent reports. There was nothing independent about this particular report. All the members were employees of the Cardiff and Vale University Health Board. The chair was the deputy nursing director, Mandy Rayani. The board’s investigation failed to comment on the medical deficiencies that I have mentioned, but it very quickly acknowledged my “adverse perception” of what happened.

Most of my claims of poor care were denied. Of the 31 concerns that I raised, 21 were rejected. This was despite the fact that a few weeks after my husband’s death, Health Inspectorate Wales, the body that inspects Welsh hospitals, visited the ward where my husband had been a patient. While it was inspecting the ward, it noticed that senior nurses went off for their lunch leaving patients who needed assistance to eat without any help, that some patients were found without buzzers to call for assistance, and that individual care plans were not in place for the patients, yet my concerns were dismissed as my “adverse perception” by the deputy director of nursing, Mandy Rayani, in UHW’s so-called independent report.

I remain unhappy with the attitude of the health board. When Owen died, the chief executive was Adam Cairns. He has now left the country and is working in the middle east. When he left, I took my complaint up with other executives and I have found—as I did when I was writing my report for the Government on hospital complaints—that the culture of deny, delay and defend has continued.

I wrote to Maria Battle, the chair of the health board. I wanted to know why no one had spotted the abnormal blood results. I wanted to know why Owen’s low grade temperature did not appear to be of concern to anyone. The first meeting was postponed. We eventually met on 2 August last year. Despite my PA telephoning the board to ask for a copy of its response a week earlier, my medical colleague and I were not allowed to see the report until we arrived in the building for our meeting. I was astonished to hear Ruth Walker, the senior nurse, saying that she had taken it upon herself not to release the report prior to the meeting. I would have expected such a decision to be made by Maria Battle as chair of the board, by Dr Graham Shortland, the medical director, given that the matters mainly related to medical care, or by Dr Sharon Hopkins, who at that time was the acting chief executive.

I believe that the decision of the board to refuse to release this document beforehand reflects its dismissive, insulting and gratuitous attitude to members of the public and to the families of loved ones. It reflects the overall cover-up mentality that is all-pervasive in this health board.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has perambulated away from her normal position, but we are nevertheless delighted to see her.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I agree with the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) that thousands of journalists, as well as thousands of academics and other individuals, are being held without trial in jail in Turkey. Hundreds of thousands of people are being held without trial in prison there, including political leaders and members of Parliament. I ask the Foreign Office to be robust in its discussions with President Erdoğan on the safety of those people and their right to a fair trial.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I can assure the right hon. Lady that one of the advantages of our close association with Turkey is that we can speak to it very directly and firmly, in a way that many of our counterparts cannot. We have called on Turkey on many occasions to end the state of emergency that has led to many of those arrests, and we very much hope that, following the clear result of the election, the state of emergency can be lifted.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Tuesday 21st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) should not worry; I have preserved her contribution for the belated adoration of the House.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. What assessment has the Foreign Office made of the current political situation in Cambodia?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

With exemplary brevity, Ann Clwyd.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given the historical child abuse in north Wales, will Ministers now place in the Library the unredacted copy of Lady Macur’s report on the Waterhouse inquiry, which relates to many of the children involved?

[Mr Lidington]

The honest answer is that I am not familiar with the detail as to why an unredacted copy has not been published, but I will undertake to ask for urgent advice on that and will write to the right hon. Lady.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Thursday 7th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

As a Member has just left the Chamber while exchanges on the question to which he contributed were ongoing, may I gently point out to the House that Members should stay in the Chamber until all the exchanges on their question, or the question to which they contributed, have been completed? It is quite an elementary courtesy.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

8. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of recent badger culls.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Very prudent, especially as the question related to press freedom. It was rather naughty of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) to seek to divert the Minister from the path of virtue, but he was not so tempted.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that press freedom in Turkey has been in decline for many years? Despite the fact that he is not directly responsible for the issue, he must know that President Erdogan has been cracking down on his opponents when they make even the mildest of criticisms of him in the press, and now that the immunity of MPs is being lifted in Turkey, human rights will decline even further.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Thursday 5th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is always useful to have a bit of information. We are very greatly obliged to the Secretary of State, as we have learned more about her domestic arrangements.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

2. If she will reconsider her Department’s plans to extend the badger cull; and if she will make a statement.

Business of the House

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Thursday 5th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

May I say in defence of the shadow Leader of the House that, unlike other Members in this place, he is going to be safe in his constituency for as long as he wishes to stay there, because time after time the Rhondda gives one of the largest majorities in Britain to its MP?

I have been here for more than 30 years, and have never felt so devalued as I did during the vote earlier this week on the Housing and Planning Bill, when I trooped through the Lobby and my vote was not counted in the total. It is an outrageous situation. I hope that the House of Commons will look at this issue again. We have always believed that Members are of equal value, wherever we come from—England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales—but it appears that we no longer are.

If I may stretch your patience a moment longer, Mr Speaker, may I say to the Leader of the House that I do not think that the Prime Minister made the situation about child refugees clear? In fact, all the commentators were saying it was much too vague. Who will the child refugees be, when are they coming, in what numbers, where are they going to go and what preparation will be made on their behalf? I already feel totally distressed by the failure over the past months to deal with the child refugees—in fact, all the refugees—as we should have. This country has always had a proud tradition on this, but I am afraid the present Government have devalued that.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Lady wants a statement on the matter.

Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I just note in passing that four Members on the Opposition Benches are standing and none of them hails from the area covered by the trust. That does not preclude a question, but I should just make the point that the question must be about this trust and this set of circumstances, rather than, as is commonly deployed in this House, “and elsewhere”. It is just about this matter, in this situation, covered by this trust—a matter that will be approached with great dexterity, I am sure, by Ann Clwyd.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I will attempt that, Mr Speaker. I just want to ask the following: how long does it take to effect change? Some 45 years ago, the Ely hospital inquiry took place, under the chairmanship of Geoffrey Howe, and recommendations were made. I took part, writing a report on the condition of mental health facilities throughout Wales. We are talking about some 45 years here, and it seems to me that things are going at such a slow pace that we will be asking the same question again in 45 years’ time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I was being very generous to the Secretary of State, but he must not abuse my generosity. I was trying to be kindly to a new Member.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that it is important to have an objective assessment of the implications for the people of Wales of pulling out of the EU. Will he therefore commission an objective report on the issues and publish the results?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

Question 2, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us hear it. The right hon. Lady’s moment is now.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

T2. I will take my moment, Mr Speaker. Over 30 years ago, this country was very generous in response to the Ethiopian famine, but now, over the last three years, we have given £1 billion in aid—despite the fact that the security forces in Ethiopia are raping, torturing and killing. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with her counterpart in Ethiopia on these matters?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

What happened to the 700 women and children who were abducted some months ago? There was a big fuss about that in the Chamber. What has happened to them and what is your Department doing about it?

[Mr Speaker]

My department is doing nothing about the matter, but I think the Minister’s is.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I would like to get several more questions in, so extreme brevity is required.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

In view of the rapidly changing circumstances in Iraq, and in view of the fact that the President of the United States has changed his policy a little, may we have continuing reports on the developing situation instead of relying on Question Time or a statement from the Foreign Secretary? I have had several e-mails in the past few days from women MPs in Iraq who are very concerned about their circumstances. What assurances can we give them?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ann Clwyd]

No. 12, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Lady’s question has been grouped. Her moment is now and we should hear from her.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Ann Clwyd.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

A universal health care system free at the point of delivery is what the overwhelming majority of the British people want and is something to which I remain firmly committed. However, there are increasing complaints about nurses who fail to show care and compassion to their patients. What exactly will the Prime Minister do about that?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman’s answer on asbestos is much too complacent. It is incredible that we are being brought back here when every day I go into my office, I meet men in white coats—[Laughter]—wearing protective clothing and gas masks. We have staff wandering around in this building, yet we have reports on the dangers of asbestos here going back to 2005. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should take this matter far more seriously.

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot imagine that the right hon. Lady keeps eccentric company; that is quite beyond my imagination.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The demeanour of the Solicitor-General is eccentric. I cannot account for how he performs in Her Majesty’s courts, but in the Chamber it would be helpful if he looked in the direction of the generality of Members.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the Crown Prosecution Service’s handling of criminal allegations against police.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ann Clwyd]

Although I welcome the changes made in the 2012 Act, will the hon. Gentleman consider some loopholes that might be closed? A few months ago I brought up the case in the Chamber of a constituent, an ex-miner who had been fined 28 years ago for stealing a bag of coal in the middle of the miners’ strike. He subsequently tried for a job in a care home as a groundsman. He was offered the job, but it was then withdrawn. That seems ridiculous, because the job had nothing directly to do with the people in the care home, and he had not been accused of—

[Mr Speaker]

We are extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady, but is there a question mark coming?

[Ann Clwyd]

I started with a question mark, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

It is a good idea to finish with one!

[Ann Clwyd]

I am very pleased to finish with one, Mr Speaker. The CRB check should not apply in the case of my constituent, so will the hon. Gentleman look at the loopholes?

Employment Support

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the Minister replies, I seek confirmation from the right hon. Lady that she was not suggesting the Minister misled her here in the Chamber.

[Ann Clwyd]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

No. We are grateful for that confirmation. The Minister will have heard the question, and she can answer.

Wild Animals (Circuses)

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is usually a great pleasure to hear the right hon. Lady, but I fear that she was not in the Chamber at the start of these exchanges, so we will have to wait to hear her views on a subsequent occasion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We come now to a statement by the Prime Minister.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Points of order come after statements. I shall await the right hon. Lady’s point of order with interest and anticipation.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady both for her point of order and for advance notice of it. I have not been told of any intention on the part of any Minister, including the Minister to whom she referred, to make a statement. She has put her views on the record and can find other ways of pursuing this. I note in particular what she said about the code of conduct, and my response is that the question of purdah, and of statements not being made during a period of purdah, does not apply to or flow from any rule of the House. That is to say that there may be a ministerial procedure on this matter—the hon. Lady is welcome to pursue her line of questioning in relation to that—but there has, in short, been no breach of order. Her point will, however, have been heard, including by the Leader of the House.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that half the Cabinet are not supposed to be talking to the other half, but I hope that Foreign Office Ministers are talking to one another. I say that because the answer given to me by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on the case of Bradley Manning is misleading.

I have raised this issue on several occasions. I raised it with the Foreign Secretary on 16 March and again during business questions on 17 March. I raised it once more during an Adjournment debate on 4 April, when I was told that

“a senior official in our embassy in Washington called on the US State Department on 29 March”

to discuss Private Manning’s terrible situation in prison. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) went on to say:

“the right hon. Lady's understanding of the British Nationality Act 1981 is accurate. Any person born outside the UK after 1 January 1983 whose mother is a UK citizen by birth is British by descent.”

He continued by saying that Mr Manning’s family had not made a “direct request” for help,

“but obviously, if it comes to consular assistance of any kind, we will look at that request as and when one is made.”—[Official Report, 4 April 2011; Vol. 526, c. 873-74.]

Such a request was made to the Foreign Secretary on 11 April by Bradley Manning’s mother, who said that she now understands that

“according to British law, Bradley qualifies as a British national.”

She continued:

“I visited Bradley at the end of February…I was very distressed by seeing Bradley”

in the condition he is in—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady, who is a very experienced Member of the House. I know that she would not accuse any Minister of wilfully misleading the House; I am sure that she meant to say that she thought that the Minister was inadvertently misleading the House. She will understand, and the House will appreciate, that we cannot continue Foreign Office questions now. However, as the Minister, who is among the most courteous of Ministers in the House, is on the Bench ready and waiting with bated breath to respond, he should do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are far too many noisy private conversations in the Chamber. I remind colleagues that we are about to discuss humanitarian aid to the people of Libya.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

10. What humanitarian aid his Department is providing to the people of Libya.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 2, page 100, line 10, leave out clause 152.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 154, page 100, line 17, at end insert—

‘(a) A specialist unit shall be established within the Crown Prosecution Service, reporting to the Director of Public Prosecutions, so as to ensure minimal delay in decisions relating to arrest warrants issued under this section.

(b) A specialist unit shall be established within the Metropolitan Police so as to ensure minimal delay in the issuing of arrest warrants under this section.’.

[Ann Clwyd]

The amendment would remove clause 152. At the outset, I should like to say that whatever one’s views on the changes proposed by the clause, it should not be part of the Bill. It is a justice measure in a Home Office Bill, which is already packed. It would be better if the Government had not crow-barred it into the Bill. However, I am glad that we have an opportunity to debate the measure, although we cannot debate it to the extent that other Members and I would have liked.

The Government propose to change the law on the procedure for obtaining an arrest warrant in a private prosecution in a universal jurisdiction case. Such cases are concerned with the gravest crimes against humanity: war crimes, torture, genocide and so on. The Government propose that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be required before any such arrest warrant can be issued.

My area of interest is human rights, so it is on the human rights implications of the clause that I shall focus. I object to the clause and the Government’s proposals because they will undermine the UK’s standing on international human rights issues. The current situation in Libya and recent events there and elsewhere in north Africa and the middle east provide a helpful context for the debate. For example, if anyone from Gaddafi’s regime—his sons or other senior political and military cohorts—tries to visit the UK at some point in future, they will be affected by this change in the law.

The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers have been strong in their condemnation of Gaddafi, in their calls for him to face justice, and in their support for the International Criminal Court investigation. I agree with them. The best place for Gaddafi to end up is in front of a court on an ICC indictment for crimes against humanity. However, the existence of the ICC does not absolve us of responsibility to ensure that those most serious of crimes can be prosecuted within our jurisdiction.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The exchange has taken place and we will have to leave it there for the time being.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise a subject at the heart of public debate to do with the credibility of Parliament and the honesty of Members of Parliament. You will know that the Deputy Prime Minister has made numerous statements on the need for openness, transparency, probity and honesty with the electorate. Yesterday, I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister asking for a copy of the paper on tuition fees written for him by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 16 March along with the paper by the Education Secretary on the same subject. Those papers are not Government publications but are public interest papers. Would you, Mr Speaker, be prepared to give the Library permission to hold those papers after I receive them?

[Mr Speaker]

I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Lady has said and I shall happily look into this matter for her and for the House. Ultimately, of course, the decision on which documents that are in the hands of members of the Government are published by the Government, including perhaps being put into the Library, is a matter for the Government. However, as I have said, I have heard what she has said, I shall look into it and I shall revert to her when I have done so.

We come now to the ten-minute rule Bill, for which the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) has been waiting very patiently.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Ann Clwyd

Tuesday 13th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I always thought I was the employer of my members of staff, and I would be glad if you could confirm that. On Friday, one of my valued members of staff came to me in a state of agitation and said that he had just received a P45 through the post. I thought that if a P45 was to be issued, it was I who would issue it. It was not clear who did issue it, but some light has been thrown on the matter by the latest communication from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority —issue 7 of its communications. Under the heading “P45s from the House of Commons”, it states:

“We are aware that the House of Commons has sent P45s to those staff members who were in receipt of ‘payments after leaving’ in the House of Commons June payroll. Please note that this has no effect on the contracts we hold for these employees, and neither yourselves nor the staff member concerned needs to take any further action, either with ourselves or with HMRC. If you do have any concerns, please contact the House of Commons directly.”

Who in the House of Commons should I contact, and am I the employer of my staff any more, or has that power somehow disappeared from me as well?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for saying what she has said, and in addition for giving me advance notice of a very real concern that she has. Strictly speaking, I am advised that it does not constitute a point of order, because it does not relate specifically to the procedure of the House, but that is not to say that it is not important, because it is. What I would say to the right hon. Lady, and indeed to the House, is that if she wishes to write to me with further details of this matter, it can be considered by the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, and I would of course be minded to ensure that it was so considered.