No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

Debate between John Bercow and Mike Wood

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think that that word was used. I think the word was “paleo”. It is rather unfair that the point of order came when it did, and the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) should certainly have 10 seconds to finish his speech.

[Mike Wood]

Economic security, greater opportunity, sustainable investment in our public services and many other reasons are why Dudley South and this House can have confidence in Her Majesty’s Government this evening.

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between John Bercow and Mike Wood

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady has made her point with force and in her own way, and I thank her for doing so; she is perfectly in order, and it is now on the record.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The guidance that you issued to Members earlier in the week drew attention to both the need for temperate language and the provisions around misogynistic language as part of the respect policy. If these rules do not apply to the Leader of the Opposition, what protection can Members’ staff and staff of the House expect where behaviour is not broadcast live on international television?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The simple answer is that the rules apply to every right hon. and hon. Member of the House. That is the factual answer. I can do nothing other than provide the factual answer, but I thank him for what he has said.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Mike Wood

Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That is even better.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to help tackle loneliness.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Mike Wood

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is very good to see the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood). I understand why he was delayed, but it is good to see him here in the Chamber.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We know that 82% of the beer that is drunk in our pubs is brewed in the UK. Jodie Kidd and other publicans will be presenting a 105,000-signature petition to Downing Street today to back the Long Live the Local campaign on beer duty. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Chancellor is fully aware of the contribution that our beer and pub sectors make to British farming, as well as to the wider economy and society?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Mike Wood

Monday 15th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

If the Minister could be good enough to face the House, it would be hugely appreciated.

[Mike Wood]

Does the Minister agree that for the pensions dashboard to be effective, it must be comprehensive, which means enjoying support right across the sector? If so, what is he doing to achieve this?

Business of the House

Debate between John Bercow and Mike Wood

Thursday 28th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) is sporting a kind of England tie, and we should hear from the fellow. His tie is very natty indeed.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Britain has a record number of outstanding breweries, including four in my constituency and the excellent Hook Norton Brewery in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), whom I am meeting this afternoon. Might we have time for a debate on the opportunities after Brexit to restructure beer duty in order to support not only our excellent brewers, but our vital community pubs?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Mike Wood

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, Sheerman-horning!

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

9. What progress the Government have made on improving the safety of prison officers.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between John Bercow and Mike Wood

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State said that one is about harmonisation and the other is not. Somebody suggested that he or she could not hear.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in the negotiations, the Government still aim to conclude an agreement on an implementation phase as early as possible in the new year and that that agreement would similarly benefit the European Union?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Mike Wood

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mike Wood. I do not think the hon. Gentleman knew how popular he was.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Q5. The black country flag has come under attack from Labour Members in recent days. Will the Prime Minister join me in again congratulating Gracie Sheppard, who designed the flag, reflecting our industrial heritage, when she was just 12 years old? Does the Prime Minister agree that the latest figures showing the west midlands as the fastest-growing part of this country show once again that the black country remains a great place to do business?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Mike Wood

Thursday 6th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That Minister does not require her name to be advertised in the Chamber; we all know who the hon. Lady is. The Minister is experienced enough to know that one should not name names in the Chamber. I am sure she will do better next time.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

The fact that some women are still discriminated against during pregnancy or maternity leave is both unacceptable and unlawful. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government not only take the problem extremely seriously but are looking at how laws can be better enforced to give the protection she promises?

[Claire Perry]

I am delighted to give those assurances.

My apologies, Mr Speaker—I shall continue to serve my apprenticeship.

Humanitarian Law (Yemen)

Debate between John Bercow and Mike Wood

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I would just make the point that it is not uncommon for the same point to be raised more than once in the course of an interrogation of a Minister, a fact with which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is intensely familiar.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Will the Minister reassure the House that the conflict in Yemen and accusations of breaches of international humanitarian law are taken into consideration when looking at extending arms exports?

Riot Compensation Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Mike Wood

Friday 5th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 3, line 16, at end insert—

‘( ) Regulations under subsection (3)(b) or (3)(d) must provide that—

(a) the time period within which a claim may be made ends no earlier than 42 days from the date of the riot;

(b) the time period within which details and evidence must be submitted ends no earlier than 90 days from the date the claimant first made the claim.”

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in clause 8, page 5, line 23, at end insert

“, except in the circumstances described in subsection (2A).

‘(2A) Where a claimant’s home is rendered uninhabitable, the amount of compensation may reflect costs that the claimant incurs as a result of needing alternative accommodation.”

Amendment 3, page 5, line 26, at end insert—

‘( ) considerations that decision-makers must take into account in deciding the amount of compensation payable as a result of a claimant needing alternative accommodation (and the regulations may include provision limiting the amount of time for which the costs of alternative accommodation may be claimed),”

Amendment 8, page 5, line 29, at end insert—

‘(3A) Money received by the claimant from emergency or recovery funds, whether funded publicly or privately, in the aftermath of a riot must not be taken into account by the decision maker when deciding the amount of compensation to be paid.

This amendment would ensure that money received by the claimant for the purposes of emergency relief or recovery in the immediate aftermath of a riot is not seen in the same category as compensation under the purposes of this Bill and therefore reduce the amount a claimant might receive.

[Mike Wood]

May I convey my sympathies and add to the tributes that you paid to Harry Harpham, Mr Speaker? I know that the sympathies of all right hon. and hon. Members will be with his family and friends at this difficult time. Even from the short time in which we saw Harry in this House, it is clear what a loss he will be.

Amendment 1 is a consequence of amendments that were tabled by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) but not voted on in Committee, and it seeks to clarify and extend the time limit allowed for someone to communicate their intention to make a claim, and the provision of details, evidence and support of such a claim following a riot. Following concerns raised in Committee, the amendment would allow a 42-day period as originally set out in the Bill, but it clarifies that that is from the date of the riot. As Ministers have made clear, that time limit should come with some flexibility, and I hope that in interpreting the date of the riot, authorities will have the good sense to show flexibility in making that date start at the end of the riot where appropriate, rather than necessarily the date on which the damage was suffered.

The main change in amendment 1 relates to the second period: the 90 days from the date the claimant first made the claim. That would mean, potentially, a minimum of 132 days from the date of loss in which we expect businesses or residents to submit details of their claim and to provide the evidence to support it. I hope that that will provide some reassurance to Members who raised concerns in earlier stages.

Amendments 2 and 3 were tabled following comments made on Second Reading and in Committee, and representations made directly to me outside the Chamber, in particular by the right hon. Member for Tottenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell). As I made clear on Second Reading, while there are very good reasons for excluding consequential losses from the claims that can be made against the police in the event of a riot, concerns were raised about what would happen if people’s homes were left uninhabitable following a riot. Social tenants would usually be rehoused, and for owner-occupiers with building and contents insurance, the insurance would normally pay for the additional costs of rehousing. However, that would still leave a significant number of people, particularly in the private rented sector, who could find themselves, through absolutely no fault of their own, having to find new housing. They could struggle to find new housing at the same cost as their current mortgage or rent, and that is what amendments 2 and 3 intend to tackle. They seek to cover the costs of alternative accommodation, whether in a bed and breakfast, a hotel or other short-term rent. Amendment 3 clarifies that and allows the regulation that could include in the provision time limits for such additional costs.

During the passage of the Bill, in particular on Second Reading, Members on all sides brought to the attention of the House heart-wrenching stories of hardship as a result of the 2011 riots. Those stories explain the thought process behind amendments 2 and 3. I still do not believe that consequential losses should be covered, but it would not be just if people were made to suffer unnecessarily in their hour of need. I am certainly not prepared to see people effectively rendered homeless while they wait for their homes to be inhabitable once again. I must stress, however, that covering a consequential loss in this way must be the exception, not the rule. It is intended only to assist individuals to recover costs incurred while staying in alternative accommodation following a riot. The details of the provisions will be clarified in regulations.

I turn to amendment 4 tabled by the right hon. Member for Tottenham. At every stage of the Bill, he has raised a number of valid concerns. He has been an extremely effective spokesman for his constituents and for businesses in his constituency. Ministers made it clear on Second Reading and in Committee that we would not expect payments made through charitable funds, or other appeals of that kind, to affect the payments made through the compensation scheme. It would certainly not be right for such payments to be deducted from compensation due under the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Does the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) wish to contribute further?

[Mike Wood]

No, Mr Speaker.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause 8

Amount and payment of compensation

[Mr Lammy]

I beg to move amendment 4, page 5, line 19, leave out from “compensation” to “that”.

This amendment would remove the £1 million compensation cap.

Children in Care

Debate between John Bercow and Mike Wood

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) for securing this important debate. My hon. Friend speaks from more direct and personal experience than any of us would like to have. Nobody could have a higher opinion of and greater respect for social workers and child protection officers than I do. At the time I was born, my mother was running a local authority children’s home in central Birmingham, so the first years of my life were spent living in that home. Even at that age, I was able to see daily the dedication, care, commitment and love shown by the workers in that children’s home, but I also know that even the most compassionate and dedicated social worker cannot possibly replace the care and love of a family. That is why we must do everything we can, where possible—where there is no threat of abuse or serious neglect—to help keep families together.

It seems that the pendulum has swung too far towards an assumption that where any kinds of concern are raised, one option on the table is to take a child into care. We desperately need to address that. Nobody would argue against removing a child from an environment where it is at risk of abuse or serious neglect, but in too many of the cases we see at our surgeries that is simply not the assessment that is being made.

Shortly before Christmas, I came across a constituency case which appeared to me, having read the magistrate’s report, to be based primarily on a chaotic lifestyle in an untidy house. Those issues clearly need addressing, but they were not serious threats to the welfare of the children or certainly to their safety. If more support could be put in place to help with those issues, it must be better for the families, particularly for the children, and much more economic for local authorities and for the Government.

One aspect of the care system that has not yet been referred to is how we approach the mental health of parents. A lot of extremely valuable work has been done by a number of Members, particularly the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is no longer in his place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), in establishing the principle of parity of esteem between physical and mental health. However, that approach is simply not being taken where the care system and assessments about taking children into care are concerned. Children are being taken into care when parents are suffering from mental illnesses, whether that relates to depression or other mental health issues.

Yesterday, a former Labour councillor in my constituency wrote to me to highlight a case that she had been involved with in the past. It concerned a mother of three young children who had nursed her husband through the advanced stages of cancer. Sadly her husband did pass away, the mother struggled to cope, as many of us would, and the three children were taken into care. Rather than making sure that the mother received the support she needed to look after the children or to find a temporary solution, the children were taken into care. The mother therefore lost not only her husband but her children, and not only did the three children lose their father, but in a short period of time they were taken away from their mother. They were put into care out of borough, so they were at a different school and they had, in effect, lost their friends, too. This really matters because, as has been said, on any metric we can measure, the outcomes for children in care are significantly worse than they are for the population as a whole. That applies in respect of employment, housing, the criminal justice system and educational achievement, and it has to be because of the thing we cannot measure: the enormous psychological and emotional impact of taking children away from their families. The safety and welfare of children must come first, but I do not think that always applies—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Fiona Mactaggart.

Child Poverty

Debate between John Bercow and Mike Wood

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Wood, were you here at the start?

[Mike Wood]

I certainly was.

[Mr Speaker]

Good. Let us hear from Mr Wood.

[Mike Wood]

Despite the progress that has been made during the past five years, too many children of disabled parents remain in poverty. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the Government will continue to work to help more disabled people into work—and well-paid work—so that such children can look forward to better outcomes?