Author: admin

  • CONSTITUENCY RESULT : Hove

    2019 GENERAL ELECTION

    LABOUR HOLD

    Peter Kyle (Labour Party) 32,876 58.3% −5.8%
    Robert Nemeth (Conservative Party) 15,832 28.1% −3.5%
    Beatrice Bass (Liberal Democrats) 3,731 6.6% +4.3%
    Oliver Sykes (Green Party) 2,496 4.4% +2.7%
    Angela Hancock (Brexit Party) 1,111 2.0% N/A
    Dame Dixon (Monster Raving Loony Party) 195 0.3% N/A
    Charlotte Sabel (Independent) 150 0.3% −0.0%

    MAJORITY: 17,044 30.2% -2.4%

     

    2017 GENERAL ELECTION

    LABOUR HOLD

    Peter Kyle (Labour Party) 36,942 64.1% +21.8%
    Kristy Adams (Conservative Party) 18,185 31.6% −8.3%
    Carrie Hynds (Liberal Democrats) 1,311 2.3% −1.3%
    Phelim MacCafferty (Green Party) 971 1.7% −5.1%
    Charley Sabel (Independent) 187 0.3% N/A

    MAJORITY: 18,757 32.6% +30.2%

  • CONSTITUENCY RESULT : Henley

    2019 GENERAL ELECTION

    CONSERVATIVE HOLD

    John Howell (Conservative Party) 32,189 54.8% –4.3%
    Laura Coyle (Liberal Democrats) 18,136 30.9% +16.0%
    Zaid Marham (Labour Party) 5,698 9.7% –10.4%
    Jo Robb (Green Party) 2,736 4.7% +1.4%

    MAJORITY: 14,053 23.9% -15.9%

     

    2017 GENERAL ELECTION

    CONSERVATIVE HOLD

    John Howell (Conservative Party) 33,749 59.1% +0.6%
    Oliver Kavanagh (Labour Party) 11,455 20.1% +7.6%
    Laura Coyle (Laura Coyle) 8,485 14.9% +3.7%
    Robin Bennett (Green Party) 1,864 3.3% –3.6%
    Tim Scott (UKIP) 1,154 2.0% –8.9%
    Patrick Gray (The Radical Party) 392 0.7% N/A

    MAJORITY: 22,294 39.0% -7.0%

  • CONSTITUENCY RESULT : Hexham

    2019 GENERAL ELECTION

    CONSERVATIVE HOLD

    Guy Opperman (Conservative Party) 25,152 54.5% +0.4%
    Penny Greenan (Labour Party) 14,603 31.6% -2.5%
    Stephen Howse (Liberal Democrats) 4,672 10.1% +3.0%
    Nick Morphet (Green Party) 1,723 3.7% +1.0%

    MAJORITY: 10,549 22.9% +2.9%

     

    2017 GENERAL ELECTION

    CONSERVATIVE HOLD

    Guy Opperman (Conservative Party) 24,996 54.1% +1.4%
    Stephen Powers (Labour Party) 15,760 34.1% +9.2%
    Fiona Hall (Liberal Democrats) 3,285 7.1% +0.3%
    Wesley Foot (Green Party) 1,253 2.7% -2.9%
    Francis Miles (UKIP) 930 2.0% -7.9%

    MAJORITY: 9,236 20.0% -7.8%

  • CONSTITUENCY RESULT : Hammersmith

    2019 GENERAL ELECTION

    LABOUR HOLD

    Andy Slaughter (Labour Party) 30,074 57.9% -6.0%
    Xingang Wang (Conservative Party) 12,227 23.5% -4.7%
    Jessie Venegas (Liberal Democrats) 6,947 13.4% +8.0%
    Alex Horn (Green Party) 1,744 3.4% +1.9%
    James Keyse (Brexit Party) 974 1.9% N/A

    MAJORITY: 17,847 34.4% -1.3%

     

    2017 GENERAL ELECTION

    LABOUR HOLD

    Andy Slaughter (Labour Party) 33,375 63.9% +13.9%
    Charlie Dewhirst (Conservative Party) 14,724 28.2% -8.2%
    Joyce Onstad (Liberal Democrats) 2,802 5.4% +0.7%
    Alex Horn (Green Party) 800 1.5% -2.9%
    Jack Bovill (UKIP) 507 1.0% -3.4%
    Jagdeosingh Hauzaree (Independent) 44 0.1% N/A

    MAJORITY: 18,651 35.7% +22.1%

  • Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on the Death of the Sultan of Oman

    Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on the Death of the Sultan of Oman

    Below is the text of the statement made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 11 January 2020.

    I am deeply saddened to hear of the death of His Majesty Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said, Sultan of Oman.

    He was an exceptionally wise and respected leader who will be missed enormously. He will be remembered for his devotion to the development of Oman into a stable and prosperous nation, and as the father of the nation who sought to improve the lives of the Omani people.

    I had the pleasure of meeting His Majesty Sultan Qaboos and was struck by his commitment to peace and understanding between nations and between faiths. He leaves a profound legacy, not only in Oman but across the region too.

    The UK is a proud friend and enduring partner of Oman, and our thoughts and prayers are with the Omani people.

  • Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on Iran Plane Crash

    Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on Iran Plane Crash

    Below is the text of the statement made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 11 January 2020.

    Iran’s admission that Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 was shot down by mistake by its own armed forces is an important first step.

    This will be an incredibly difficult time for all those families who lost loved ones in such tragic circumstances. We will do everything we can to support the families of the four British victims and ensure they get the answers and closure they deserve.

    We now need a comprehensive, transparent and independent international investigation and the repatriation of those who died. The UK will work closely with Canada, Ukraine and our other international partners affected by this accident to ensure this happens.

    This tragic accident only reinforces the importance of de-escalating tensions in the region. We can all see very clearly that further conflict will only lead to more loss and tragedy. It is vital that all leaders now pursue a diplomatic way forward.

  • Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on Northern Ireland

    Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on Northern Ireland

    Below is the text of the statement made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 11 January 2020.

    This is a momentous day. As we begin a new decade, we can now look forward to a brighter future for all in Northern Ireland with an Executive that can transform public services and improve people’s lives.

    The parties of Northern Ireland have shown great leadership in coming together to accept this fair and balanced deal in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland.

    After three years without devolved Government, an Executive can now get on with the job of delivering much needed reforms to the health service, education and justice.

    We could not have got this far without the Northern Ireland Secretary Julian Smith who has dedicated himself to this process and has worked closely with the Northern Ireland parties and Irish Government to make this happen.

  • Deborah Bull (Baroness Bull) – 2020 Speech on the Queen’s Speech

    Below is the text of the speech made by Baroness Bull in the House of Lords on 9 January 2020.

    My Lords, in the days following Her Majesty’s gracious Speech, noble Lords may have missed the announcement of 0.3% as UK statistic of the decade. It represents UK productivity’s average annual growth, down over 10 years from 2%. According to the Royal Statistical Society’s Hetan Shah, it is

    “the most important boring statistic that you have never heard of.”

    Productivity did not feature much in election campaigns, but it should have. High productivity growth leads to higher wage growth and more money for public services. Shah is not alone in linking low productivity with social discord. The University of Sheffield’s Richard Jones suggests that it is not

    “far-fetched to ascribe our current dysfunctional and bitter political environment … to a decade of stagnation in productivity growth.”

    I therefore welcome the commitment to boost productivity through new investment and R&D tax incentives. As the notes on the Speech explain:

    “R&D is vital to a productive economy—firms that invest in R&D have around 13 per cent higher productivity than those firms that do not”.

    The Government intend to

    “prioritise investment in industries of the future where the UK can take a commanding lead”—

    life sciences, clean energy, space, design, computing, robotics and AI. But in focusing on the cutting edge, they need to take care not to ignore everyday and foundational areas where poor productivity is a drain on the economy: low-wage, low-skill industries such as catering and retail; the public sector, which makes up one-fifth of the economy; or health and social care, where advances in biomedical science need to be balanced with research that improves productivity in the system.

    Too narrow a focus on becoming a “global science superpower” also risks excluding areas of existing dominance. This includes the creative industries, which generate 5.5% of the economy and contribute across every region of the UK. Yet they are absent from the Queen’s Speech—as they were from the last—and are seemingly excluded from any additional support for research and development. Creative businesses undertake almost as much R&D as manufacturing, but as much of it relies on arts, humanities and social science research, ​it does not qualify for targeted R&D tax relief. This is because in applying R&D definitions that draw on the Frascati Manual, HMRC requires that R&D relates to scientific or technological delivery, despite the manual’s wider scope. Arts, humanities and social sciences are specifically excluded, and are deemed

    “not science for the purpose of these Guidelines.”

    This narrow definition excludes advances in knowledge that lead to production of experiences or to enhanced understanding of human behaviour.

    The benefits of a unified R&D definition across all knowledge domains go beyond the support of legitimate innovation in the creative sectors, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, for agreeing to meet on this. A unified definition would ensure that technological solutions are informed by insights into human behaviour, making adoption more likely; it would also encourage knowledge exchange across disciplines where innovation often occurs.

    The correlation between creativity and scientific discovery is well understood, including, I know, by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood. Galileo was a poet; Newton was a painter; and Leonardo was both, and more. A 2008 study of 40 Nobel laureates in science found them three times more likely to have arts and crafts avocations than other scientists. Several observed that

    “purely academic skills are not sufficient to train a person for creative scientific work.”

    This makes obvious sense: it takes creative thinking to come up with new hypotheses and to imagine the experiments that will prove them.

    Given this, the Government’s decision to opt out of the PISA 2021 test for creative thinking is surely a mistake. This is a unique opportunity to collect internationally comparable data and increase understanding of how education best develops creative thinking—vital for the workforce of the future and vital in solving global challenges. It is an opportunity that the Government should not turn down.

    The Conservative manifesto promised to promote creativity in schools, but measures to do so are noticeably absent from the Queen’s Speech. Reversing the decision to opt out of the PISA 2021 test for creative thinking would be a first step in addressing this. I am sure noble Lords will agree that it would be unfortunate if, in our efforts for the UK to become the global science superpower, we were to lose our position as a global superstar in creativity.

  • Sarah Mullally (Lord Bishop of London) – 2020 Speech on the Queen’s Speech

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sarah Mullally, the Bishop of London, in the House of Lords on 9 January 2020.

    My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak during this debate on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech. I note my interests, which I have declared, and I will limit my comments purely to health and social care.

    I welcome Her Majesty’s Government’s focus on the NHS: health, social care and the workforce. I also welcome the additional funding. However, we must not be misled into thinking that this is a funding bonanza; it will serve only to stabilise NHS services. Between April and September, for all nine NHS cancer targets the lowest percentage of patients was treated on time since the standards were introduced. All 118 A&E units fell below the 95% threshold in November as the NHS posted its worst performance since targets were introduced more than a decade ago. We have a long way to go simply to stabilise the status quo. Are Her Majesty’s Government confident that the action outlined will make up the ground that is required?

    The NHS is only as good as its workforce, and I am glad to see the focus on recruitment, training and immigration. However, issues related to immigration must be acted on as soon as possible. The new NHS visa is welcome, but it is a limited response to the need to recruit international staff to meet pressing workforce shortages. Health workers coming to the UK still need to pay the immigration surcharge, which is set to increase to £625 per person every year, on top of £464 for a visa. I wonder whether more needs to be done.

    The Her Majesty’s Government’s commitment to bring forward draft legislation to support the implementation of the NHS long-term plan is to be commended. As already mentioned, this should be based on the targeted proposals NHS England has developed. This will make it easier for NHS organisations to collaborate with not only each other but their partners in local communities to improve services for the people they serve. However, as any nurse working in a hospital today knows, too often patients, many of them vulnerable, cannot be discharged, despite being medically fit, because they have nowhere safe to go. A strategy for social care and its workforce is also needed.

    The additional £1 billion is welcome, but in a sense it may give only a short-term boost to social care services for adults and children. I wonder whether it is enough to meet the rising demand for care while maintaining quality and accessibility of services. I am reassured to see that there is a cross-party approach to seeking consensus on social care reform, but it will take tremendous commitment, tenacity and creativity if the Prime Minister is going to honour his promise to fix the social care system once and for all and to bring forward meaningful proposals for reform. I look forward to lending my support to this work.

    Would Her Majesty’s Government consider bringing forward proposals for health and social care integration? As the British Medical Association states:

    “Challenges for Britain’s health do not end in GP surgeries or hospitals and the Government needs a credible long-term plan on how to care for people at home and in communities.”

    Given the scale of the task of merely maintaining the current situation and the combined demands on healthcare ​needs, such a plan is increasingly important. Plans should be there to see health in its wider community context.

    The diocese of London is collaborating on a pioneering project with Health Education England to place mental health students in faith communities in the Grenfell area to enable mutual learning. We need more such initiatives. They free up capacity, relieve pressure on various parts of the NHS and also contribute to the health of the community. I wonder whether more progress could be made to commission, partner and champion with local charities and churches to provide services to support the vulnerable and at-risk groups and to look at health and well-being in broader terms.

    Finally, I hope that the implications of the European Union withdrawal Bill on policy and legislative business do not distract from improving the NHS, health and social care. Improving health and social care is good not just for the individual but for the nation.

  • Christopher Fox (Baron Fox) – 2020 Speech on the Queen’s Speech

    Below is the text of the speech made by Baron Fox in the House of Lords on 9 January 2020.

    My Lords, after what might be described as a sluggish arrival of Bills and legislation to your Lordships’ House over the past few years, the Queen’s Speech sets out a dazzling array of Bills and legislation, which the Chief Whip said he expects to keep us very busy. We should welcome the fact that we are moving to address legislation because it quite rightly deals with some very important issues for this country.

    After the dazzling speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and with regard to the 70 other people who will follow me, I will have a self-limiting ordinance and will try to speak quickly and limit what I say around the business, energy and industrial strategy portfolio that I represent. Others on these Benches will of course cover other areas. I am trying with this speech, in the spirit of positivity, to get more information and some sense of how this legislation will flow and about some of the unanswered questions that have come up.

    The noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, spoke with great brio on the employment rights Bill. Indeed, if it is as good as she tells us it will be then I am sure we will all welcome it. However, I share some of the reservations that the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, just set out, in that once these measures start to come before your Lordships, there will be a reining back. This is, as the noble Baroness knows, an area in which the EU has had a strong influence over the United Kingdom’s rules. We will be judging this Bill not just by what it contains but by when it comes. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, can give us some idea ​of the conveyor belt of these Bills and of what will be coming when. That will give us some sense of the priorities within the lump of Bills in this Queen’s Speech. The background notes for the Bill state that the purpose of the employment Bill is to

    “protect and enhance workers’ rights as the UK leaves the EU”.

    As far as I can see, the list of main elements of the Bill does not include the protection of retained EU workers’ rights. Perhaps the Government can clarify where they stand on that.

    The financial services Bill aims to maintain the UK’s regulatory standards and ensure that we remain open to markets when we leave the EU. This is “remain” and “maintain”—in other words, we are pushing toothpaste back into the tube. I will avoid the obvious Brexit jibe here, but does the Minister think that we will in fact maintain the access we currently enjoy to the European financial services market? What grounds does the Minister have for that opinion?

    The national security and investment Bill seeks to establish a notification system whereby businesses would flag transactions with potential security concerns. This is something we should all be concerned about, and indeed have been in the past. Given Her Majesty’s Government’s recent conduct—as Ministers will remember —around waving through the Cobham deal and its takeover by a US investor, I think I join other noble Lords in being sceptical about the Government’s intention. It is all very well increasing the Government’s powers and giving them the ability to apply conditions, or indeed to block deals, but if the Secretary of State chooses not to do that and to bend the knee to the market, then those powers are essentially useless. Perhaps the Minister can help me with a thought experiment: can the Minister name one British business that would be protected by this rule that would not, or could not, in fact be protected by existing legislation?

    The science, space and research Bill is really important, and elements of this Bill have been perhaps the most trailed in the newspapers. I speak of the Government’s so-called ARPA approach to a big investment. We are told that there will be £800 million invested in something, and that that something will be in the north. The details will follow, no doubt, in this Bill. However, what has not been mentioned is the role of UK Research and Innovation. As noble Lords will remember, we went through a very long legislative process to establish UKRI. It was given a co-ordinating role in order to simplify and focus the research activities of this country. If noble Lords want to see how complex the current research and development funding structure in this country is, there is a report from the Science and Technology Select Committee that has one of the most mindbendingly complex box-and-wire diagrams imaginable. This seems to add more complexity and to call into question the role of UKRI. Can we have some clarification around that? In any case, £800 million does not reproduce the level of investment we are getting through the European Union, particularly through Horizon 2020 looking forward. Will Ministers also guarantee that, beyond the current assurances, which have been very well accepted by the research community, research organisations will have access to at least as much as the total funds that are coming from Europe?​

    While we are on the subject of UKRI, two words that have been all over other Queen’s Speeches we have heard but have not appeared in this one are “industrial strategy”. I do not see those two words in conjunction anywhere in the Queen’s Speech. Is this a slip of the drafting pen? When the current Chancellor of the Exchequer was briefly Secretary of State for BEIS, he proscribed the term. Are the Government proscribing the words “industrial strategy”, or are they merely hiding their light under a bushel? The Queen’s Speech does mention a couple of new sector deals. If there is not an industrial strategy, in what context are those sector deals to be delivered? I seek some clarity. Industrial strategy was, or is, the purview of UKRI, so what is its role going forward, particularly in the context of this ARPA-style research organisation that is coming? Where does industrial strategy lie? While we are in this area, what is the status of existing sector deals? Will they be honoured? Many of them stretch far into this Parliament and, indeed, probably beyond, so where are they and will they be honoured?

    The Made Smarter review was very important in the area of revitalising regional economies, but it too was not mentioned in the Queen’s Speech, so what is its status? I shall not go into the details of the national infrastructure strategy Bill, but the area I would like the Government to focus on is energy strategy. It is absolutely clear, even before the targets we have set ourselves on zero carbon, that this country is bereft of an energy strategy. We absolutely need a stand-alone energy strategy, so can the Minister fill us in on when we might expect that process to start, when we might actually have that debate and when the industries that will have to deliver this strategy can actually start work? It is already too late in many cases, and we need to move. Leaving aside conversations about all the other elements of infrastructure, that should be top of this Government’s pile.

    By any measure, this package is formidable in terms of objectives. I am sure that if this were “Yes Minister”, the civil servant would say, “Very ambitious, Prime Minister”, yet the election campaign stoked expectation even higher, and this will be the challenge. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, talked about challenges. The challenge is going to be public expectation of delivery—that is the phrase du jour that we must use. Those expectations will have to be delivered in a difficult climate. Not only are all these Bills coming, but there is the small matter of free trade agreement negotiations going on, at least with the European Union, if not with other parallels. They are designed simply to reproduce what we have already or to deliver the equivalent economic basis. Meanwhile, economic growth, with all due respect to the other numbers trotted out just now, slowed to about 0.4% between the second and third quarters of 2019, with construction and manufacturing struggling in particular, and the service sector essentially holding its breath at the moment to see what happens.

    National expectations have been pushed up, and we on these Benches will work hard with the legislation that comes our way and do our best to make sure that these Bills get the scrutiny that the country deserves.​