Graham Stringer MP: speeches

Speeches

• 5 Dec 2024 · Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh · Hansard source

  More

  I remind the Minister to leave two minutes at the end for the Member who secured the debate to reply.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh · Hansard source

  More

  It looks as though hon. Members do not need reminding that if they wish to catch my eye they should bob, even if they have put in to speak. I call Sir Alec Shelbrooke.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh · Hansard source

  More

  I intend to call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats at 2.30 pm.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

• 5 Dec 2024 · Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for correcting herself and acknowledging that “you” refers to the Chair. I also remind all hon. Members that interventions should be brief and to the point.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh · Hansard source

  More

  Order. The 10-minute time allocation is up. I now move to the official Opposition.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q10. My right hon. Friend has come under intense scrutiny from the press at different times, and she must have found it difficult. A press that is free to scrutinise politicians is vital in a free society and a democracy. Is she as concerned as I am by the Stasi-like interview that was given to Allison Pearson of The Daily Telegraph a week last Sunday? Does she agree that the Essex police force and other police forces would be better trying to deal with shoplifting, burglaries and other crimes, rather than intimidating journalists?

• 18 Nov 2024 · Strategic Defence Review · Hansard source

  More

  Deciding to defer or to review is just as much of a decision as one to go ahead or not to go ahead, because it means that nothing is happening. The Typhoon factory at Warton is currently idle—no Typhoons are being produced—which is bad for exports and bad for our defence. Can the Secretary of State tell the House when we will take a decision to procure more Typhoons? There are 25,000 jobs at risk, as well as the country’s defence.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend says that she does not want to undermine our commercial relationship with China. I do. China is carrying out genocide of the Uyghurs. It is an appalling country—or, rather, it has an appalling leadership, to be precise. It is trying to monopolise crucial supply chains around the world in order to oppress people. Surely we should be reducing our relationship and making ourselves independent.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this debate would be much easier if the Committee on Climate Change had produced a year-by-year estimate of the costs of getting to net zero by 2050? The previous Government always promised to do a proper impact assessment on costs, but they never did. I believe that this Government should do that, so we can have an objective and evidence-based debate. Does he agree?

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member is making a case on shifting sand, which seems to boil down to one of people not having had time to consider the issue. First, this reform has been in two Labour manifestos, one in 1997 and one this year, and it had overwhelming support from the electorate. Secondly, the compromise reached between the Labour party and the Conservative party in 1999 was nothing to do with the good work done by many hereditaries; it was to stop logjam, because the House of Lords was threatening to hold up Labour’s programme and throw the Salisbury convention aside.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Universities: Freedom of Speech · Hansard source

  More

  Universities and academic freedom are vital to the intellectual and economic health of this country. Free speech was mentioned in our manifesto earlier this year, but there was no mention of this particular decision, which was made 21 days after the Secretary of State took office. Sadly, I therefore find it difficult to support this decision, on that basis alone. Can the Minister tell me whether, when she talks about burdensome issues, she means the Chinese Government threatening to withdraw resources from our major universities, because I think that is at the bottom of the pressure that was unduly put on the Secretary of State?

• 12 Sept 2024 · New Housing: Environmental Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I move to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Zöe Franklin.

• 12 Sept 2024 · New Housing: Environmental Standards · Hansard source

  More

  Before I call the hon. Lady to resume her speech, this is probably a good opportunity to remind hon. Members that we are all on a learning curve, and interventions should be short and to the point. We do not have a lot of Members here, so it will not be difficult for you to catch my eye if you want to make a speech yourself.

• 12 Sept 2024 · New Housing: Environmental Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I remind hon. Members to bob if they wish to speak so that I can see who wants to speak. Some people have written in—I have a list here. Please be patient if I get names wrong, because everybody’s face is new. I will try very hard to get it right.

• 9 Sept 2024 · Bus Franchising · Hansard source

  More

  Last week and this week have been the best two weeks for public transport for many decades, righting the wrongs of the privatisation of the rail service and the deregulation of buses. I did not hear an apology from the Conservative spokesperson for laying waste to local government finance over the last 14 years and destroying public bus services by handing them over to be run by profiteers, pirates and other completely unsuitable people—not in all, but in many cases. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be a massive apology from the Conservatives for the damage they have done to public transport?

• 4 Sept 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Unsurprisingly, I have listened to the hon. Gentleman’s speeches on a number of occasions, and I agree with quite a lot of what he is saying about transparency. Does he agree that the burden of his argument is that we cannot make a Government behave better or govern more effectively by quango? This quango was set up by George Osborne to trap an incoming Labour Government and restrict and slow them down, and it is an odd thing that we see this quango being gilded.

• 4 Sept 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  You are not as old guard as some.

• 4 Sept 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am certainly the old guard from the start of the previous Labour Government. That is relevant because I had a discussion at the time with the then Paymaster General, Geoffrey Robinson, about the cost of PFIs for hospitals. His answer was succinct: “If you want the hospitals, you have to go down the PFI route.” He said that because the Treasury rules were so rigid about finding money for socially needed projects—hospitals in that case—the Government had to work around them, at what would eventually be a huge cost to the taxpayer. There is a warning there about rigid rules and not dealing with reality.

• 4 Sept 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree completely with my hon. Friend. As a member of the even older guard than hers—

• 3 Sept 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That was earlier than I expected, Ms Nokes! Before I come to the amendment I have tabled, I should say that I am probably the only Member in the Chamber who remembers the debate on the National Audit Office report after the original privatisation of rail, and if the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) applied her proposal to the original decision to privatise rail, against the criteria the then Government were using, she would find that it has been a complete failure. I remember that when in this Chamber I asked Teddy Taylor, a Conservative I respected greatly, how he justified selling off the railways for less than they were worth, which is what the National Audit Office report said, his justification—the policy of the then Conservative Government—was that it did not matter because they would take all the subsidy out of the railways. Had the hon. Lady been present then and had those tests been applied to the original policy, the Conservatives’ policy of privatisation would be seen to be a complete failure. The other point I would like to make about what the hon. Lady said, which a number of interventions from the Government side brought out, is that a huge amount of money has been transferred to other rail systems and to pension funds in north America and elsewhere that could have been used to benefit the transport system in this country. Incidentally, one of the reasons why passenger numbers have increased on the railways is that the previous Government did not invest in roads over many years. That has led to congestion which has forced people on to the railways; it is not the privatisation of the railways that has attracted those passengers. Those profits have gone out precisely because the Treasury did not want the debt on the balance sheet, but one cannot have it both ways. If we are to repatriate those profits, which I believe taking the railways back into public ownership will do, we of course have to take the debt. An accountancy sleight of hand, because the Treasury does not like seeing the debt on the balance sheets, is the direct cause of the profits being taken out of this country. On the Government side of the House, there is real enthusiasm for this Bill, and the sooner the train operating companies are back in public hands and that money is repatriated to this country, the better. However, I share with the shadow Transport Secretary a worry that officials in the Department for Transport may not be up to it. Excuses may be used to slow things down, because the operator of last resort is not ready and they are worried about taking on the extra capacity. It is a genuine worry, but it is a problem that should and has to be overcome if we want a publicly owned railway working for the benefit of passengers and the taxpayers of this country, not a privatised system. I have therefore tabled an amendment to remove clause 2(3), which could be used as a loophole as it would allow the Secretary of State to carry on with a franchise under certain circumstances. I ask my colleagues on the Front Bench to be explicit about what those circumstances might be, because my worry is that they will be getting advice from officials in the Department for Transport who have not covered themselves in glory and have failed with the railways over many, many years. As the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent likes evidence, I refer her to a Public Accounts Committee report in May that is excoriating in describing the officials in the Department for Transport and how they have dealt with the railway system. I will read some of the conclusions from that report, because it should worry us all if we want this Bill to work—not just to be passed into legislation but actually to work. The first point made by this all-party Committee with a Conservative majority in May this year was this: “It has been six years since the Department identified the need for a root and branch review of the railway, but it has achieved very little in this time.” It then says: “There has been too little focus on passengers and taxpayers and how to get them a better deal.” Those are the first very worrying points from Labour’s perspective. The report also says: “Six years since the Department started work on rail reform, it has failed to resolve fundamental disagreements and clarify key aspects of reform.” There are other points too, but I do not want to bore the Committee too much. The last point is: “The Department has failed to engage with the workforce to successfully deliver its reform ambitions.” That is also very worrying. I note as well the comments of an official from the Department when discussing the appalling performance of Avanti, which I think is permanently in breach of its contract and which has laughed at the Government and the travelling public as it has received massive subsidies. It is not working for profit; it is not at risk. It has just been ripping off the taxpayer for many years—since it took over from Virgin in fact. A DfT spokesperson said: “Stripping Avanti's contract would just cause more upheaval for passengers rather than solving the challenges the operator is facing. These include restrictive working practices that can’t be reformed without ASLEF’s agreement.” I think those officials could be and have been a barrier to reform. I would not expect my colleagues on the Front Bench to do anything but be loyal to the officials who work in the Department, but I would like them to respond on how they are going to overcome some of the potential problems they will find in a Department they control. There are not only the problems where there will be resistance. Owing to the way the franchises are dealt with, some of the better train-operating companies—such as Greater Anglia, which has a reasonable record—will come up first, whereas Avanti has eight years left on its contract. It seems to me that it would be easy for officials to recommend dealing with the best first rather than the worst, which is not in the interests of passengers or the taxpayer. We really need as a Government to get control of that and deal with the worst first, because that is where we are losing money, that is where passengers are suffering, and that is where money is being taken out of the system. As I say, I do not expect the Front-Bench team to criticise the officials they have to work with, but I hope they will take on board the fact that there are real problems and that we need to deliver right across the rail system to create a wholly publicly owned industry as soon as possible.