|

A very small sample of Bob's energetic work for local people

July 3 2009

These are extracts from the debates:

Prime Minister
The Prime Minister was asked—
Q1. Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 1 July.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Gordon Brown): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, the whole House will wish to join me in welcoming today Her Majesty the Queen's approval for a new form of recognition for the families of those members of the armed forces killed on operations and as a result of terrorism. Her Majesty will be making an announcement today, directly to the families of armed forces personnel, in which she will make clear her personal attachment to the new recognition. I am confident that that will be a very special and fitting tribute indeed to the great debt that we owe to all those who die on operations, and to the enduring loss shouldered by their families.

------
Bob Spink: Our armed forces are the bravest and the best in the world, and in the Armed Forces Day celebrations on Saturday with up to 10,000 attending on Canvey Island the people showed how much they love and respect our forces.

The Prime Minister: I share with the hon. Gentleman the respect that he has stated for our armed forces, and for the armed forces day on Saturday, when thousands of people in all parts of the country wanted to give recognition—deserved recognition—to the work that our armed forces do every day.

-------
Bob Spink: May I ask the Prime Minister about swine flu? A number of people in Castle Point—adults and children—have tested positive, and the local campaigning newspaper, the Echo, is keen to reassure people that progress is being made. What will he do next to tackle the problem?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman raises the question of swine flu. He may know that we have had an emergency meeting of the Cobra group—the civil contingencies secretariat—today to look at the incidence of the disease. I have to report to the House that the total number of confirmed cases for the UK now stands at 6,538. That compares with just 2,236 last week. That large rise in numbers of confirmed cases means that a more flexible and local approach will be used in areas where there are higher numbers of cases reported. The Health Protection Agency, in conjunction with the NHS, is doing excellent work to limit the spread of the virus. We continue to monitor the situation closely, making sure that arrangements are in place so that the UK remains well placed to deal with the pandemic. We will adapt those arrangements as the situation changes, and my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will make a statement to this House tomorrow on the outcome of our deliberations.

--------
Debating on Monday with the Prime Minister:
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): After precisely 60 minutes of debate on the subject, I do not believe I have heard the word “pensioners” even once. We know that the Prime Minister has done much for pensioners in the past, so let us not forget them now. What will he do to increase the take-up of pension credit and to bring forward the indexation of pensions with average earnings, which is a much welcomed Government initiative?

The Prime Minister: I am glad the hon. Gentleman recognises that we brought in the winter allowance, free television licences for the over-75s, and the pension credit. In our document today we talk about the additional needs that pensioners, particularly very elderly people, will have in the future, and I mentioned it in my statement—that is, the need for social care. We will address the matter with a statement to the House in due course.

-----
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that if we are seen to be resisting legal sanctions, as the Conservatives now are, in cases where MPs have effectively acted corruptly, as defined in subsections (1), (2) and (3) of clause 9, the public will be right to think that we still just do not get it?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We are not resisting criminal law. The point has already been made in this debate that the new offences are unnecessary. We are already subject to rules against fraud, false accounting and theft. The new criminal sanctions in the Bill are redundant.

-----
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): I am looking at subsection (9). Would the hon. and learned Gentleman expect that, if there were criminal proceedings against an MP, in order to avoid double jeopardy the commissioner and IPSA should not be investigating the MP at the same time as the police, for the same complaint?

Mr. Grieve: There are clearly potential issues of double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is a rather complicated subject, and once we start putting it on a statutory basis we run much more risk of landing ourselves in the sands than under the current procedures. The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point, but given the limited time that I have had to scrutinise the detail of the Bill, I do not have the answer.

Sir George Young: Amendment 12 would remove the provision that allows the new commissioner to conduct an investigation into a case that is simultaneously the subject of criminal proceedings—the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) made the point about that—while leaving in place the provision that allows him to carry out an investigation into a case that has already been the subject of such proceedings. That is crucial. We cannot have a position whereby a Member is subject to competing jurisdictions for the same offence.

-----
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): People who are disabled or who have special educational needs—very good people who want work—can suffer more than others in trying to find work during the recession, so what more can the Minister do to promote sheltered employment units in privately owned companies?

Jonathan Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. He will be aware that we are doubling the access to work fund, which has seen some 44,000 disabled people into work. Using access to work as an indicator, we are not seeing any of those who benefit from the fund losing their employment. I am sure that he would also welcome the learning disability employment strategy, which I and the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), launched last week. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that despite the world economic downturn, we will continue to concentrate on helping disabled people get into work and stay in it.

-----
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, his September guarantee and his commitment to education, which is clear for everyone. Will he step in to stop Essex county council closing one of Castle Point's six secondary schools, given that we have waiting lists for our secondary schools, thousands more houses promised to be built—against the borough's wishes—and the leaving age for compulsory education increased from 16 to 18?

Ed Balls: As the hon. Gentleman—or am I allowed to call him my hon. Friend? [ Interruption. ]. As the hon. Gentleman declares, there are some causes for concern in Essex. My hon. Friend the Schools Minister has rashly decided to offer a meeting to Essex Members of Parliament to discuss these matters. Perhaps they should have the meeting first, and then we can follow up afterwards.

Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): I am sure that the Secretary of State is sincere when he says that he will now act so that our best head teachers can run more than one school. Will he or the Schools Minister visit my constituency to see the work of the inspirational Mr. Jonathan Tippett, who has transformed three schools and who runs all three of them. Unfortunately, Tory-controlled Essex county council plans to shut two of them. Will the Secretary of State visit Colchester?

Ed Balls: The last time the hon. Gentleman raised that point was in Prime Minister's questions, when he managed to secure a meeting with me, through the Prime Minister. I think we should have the meeting first, and we will consider visits subsequently.

-------
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): The hon. Gentleman has raised a crucial matter and he is absolutely right: it is timely that we consider it now because of the importance of a stitch in time. It is right to try to prevent avoidable repossessions—in the interest not just of individuals and their families, but society as a whole. The Government have introduced some schemes, but pre-repossession protocol is only a discretionary requirement on judges. Does he agree with me and the content of early-day motion 34 in saying that we should encourage the Government to put that protocol on a statutory footing, so that we know it exists and judges will have to obey it? That will mean that we can avoid repossessions where possible.

Dr. Cable: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that I have signed his early-day motion. If I have not, I will do so. He makes a good point, to which I will come shortly. It is true that the majority of judges seem to be taking the matter seriously, but not all are. There are many gaps in the protocol, and I will elaborate on that in a few moments.

---
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): On the need for further work, does the hon. Lady not agree that good as Lord Archer's report was, it was fettered by its focus on the haemophiliac community? For example, one of my constituents, who was treated for the blood disorder idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, (ITP), is being disadvantaged by that focus.

Jenny Willott: It is true that a number of different groups of patients have been affected. There are also people who have been infected with blood products as a result of blood transfusions. As they are a much smaller group, they often feel that they cannot make their voice heard. A wide range of people has been affected for a number of different reasons.