Points of Order

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 25th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Quite. Take two: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and I understand why she makes it, but it is not one for the Chair. She knows that she and many others have debated these matters for many, many hours in recent weeks, and I have personally heard her speak for hours, cumulatively, on the subject. The Government have replied to her questions and those of other hon. Members in so far as they are able to do so to. I am sure that the Leader of the House will have heard the hon. Lady’s request for even more time for this business on the Floor of the House, but I should point out for the sake of clarity that many, many hours have been spent on that business in recent weeks.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the course of business questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) raised a point of order, understandably concerned about something the Leader of the House had said implying a lack of patriotism on the part of some Members of Parliament. As I said earlier, I have been a Member for 23 years, and as a regular attender of business questions, I do not remember it previously being possible to raise a point of order during the course of business questions. Can you clarify from the Chair for all of our benefits whether that is now something that is going to be permitted, in case we want to do the same thing in future?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which is actually not a point of order, but a direct challenge to me on a decision that I took about an hour ago here in the Chamber. That was a matter of my judgment: the hon. Lady indicated to me that she wished to raise a point of order about a matter that had immediately occurred in the Chamber, and I took the decision that it was reasonable for her to raise a point of order on that precise subject at that precise moment.

[Kevin Brennan]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

No, the hon. Gentleman cannot come back. I am not having a debate with him about procedure. The rule is that a point of order can be taken at any time if it is pertinent precisely to the matter that is currently before the House.

[Kevin Brennan]

May I make a further point of order?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I will allow the hon. Gentleman to make a further point, but I am not having a debate with him in the Chamber, either about my judgment or about procedure.

[Kevin Brennan]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not attempting to call your judgment into question, and I apologise if that was the impression I gave. I was simply trying to clarify what the position is for hon. Members who might wish to raise points of order. You have made that very clear, and I thank you for that clarification.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the question, and I am glad the matter is now closed.

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

This is a speech. Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. If the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) was out of order and had to sit down, I would tell him so. I do not need the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) to tell me how to conduct the affairs of the Chamber.

Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Kevin Brennan

2nd reading
Friday 23rd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

With the leave of the House, I will briefly sum up. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed and intervened. This debate has given an extremely useful airing to the issues related to Bill. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) raised some very valid points, some of which were subsequently addressed in interventions by me, the shadow Minister and the Minister. I am sure we will delve further into those points in Committee.

I thank all Members who contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) is obviously very knowledgeable about supporting football, even when it is painful. We also heard interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), who is now sitting in the Whip’s seat, having moved from the Back Benches during the debate.

The Bill has had a good airing, for which I thank everyone. I thank in particular the Minister and the shadow Minister. The Minister mentioned the Football Association, which covers England. The Football Association of Wales has also been very supportive of the Bill. All members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee have supported the Bill, which featured in the Committee’s report. I also thank the civil servants; the Clerks; you, Madam Deputy Speaker; Mr Speaker, who was here earlier; Mr Deputy Speaker; and everyone else in the room. The Whips on both sides of the House have been extremely helpful. And I thank Mary in the Members’ Tea Room for supporting the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

That is a fitting end to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. We are always thankful to Mary and everyone else who looks after us in the Members’ Tea Room, especially on a Friday.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Channel 4 Privatisation

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I endorse what the Father of the House just said. That is not to say that I do not have sympathy with Ministers. I was a Minister in the last Labour Government and I understand that Ministers face very difficult decisions. It is not always a decision between simply what is right and what is wrong. Sometimes, it is not a decision between good and evil. Sometimes, it is a decision between the unacceptable and the unpalatable. So I have sympathy with Ministers when they are considering policy.

However, I have been trying to imagine the meeting that the Secretary of State and her Ministers must have had to discuss this topic. Presumably, the permanent secretary came along and said, “Secretary of State, I’m afraid that I’ve got some bad news for you: we haven’t got a problem.” The Secretary of State said, “Really? That’s worrying. What haven’t we got a problem with?” The permanent secretary said, “I’m afraid we haven’t got a problem with Channel 4.” The Secretary of State said, “Why? What has it been doing?” The permanent secretary said, “I’m afraid to tell you that it hasn’t been costing the taxpayer a penny while it has been operating as a public service broadcaster. It gets worse. Last year, it brought in £1.2 billion in revenue and a record financial surplus of £100 million. If that is not enough, it does not even need to borrow any money to finance its operations. I’m afraid to tell you, Secretary of State, that there is much more of this. It has also been rapidly growing its digital advertising revenue, moving into the advertising market that is the future in a way that is far outstripping all of its commercial competitors. Worse still, its digital strategy is way ahead of all its commercial competitors. It has been, annoyingly, fulfilling its remit to appeal to young people. It is the most successful broadcaster of any commercial broadcaster in reaching 16 to 34-year-olds and hugely diverse audiences.

On top of that, I’m afraid to tell you, Secretary of State, it has been commissioning content from independent producers all over the country—”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is doing it, too. You cannot say, “I want to tell you, Secretary of State.” You have to say, “Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to tell the Secretary of State.”

[Kevin Brennan]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was quoting, in an imagined scenario, the permanent secretary. I was not referring to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a creative debate about the creative industries. I was creating an imagined conversation, so I do apologise if—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I had not quite picked up on the context. He is probably allowed to make an imaginary quotation, saying, “You, Secretary of State.” Fine—proceed!

[Kevin Brennan]

I know that satire and irony does not translate very well into Hansard, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it could be put into italics, so that everybody can realise.

[Kevin Brennan]

I have a feeling that that might not be in order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I would just point out to the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) that he might find he is disappointed at the end of the debate when he himself loses a minute.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his motives. I hope he achieves his objective, but I am not sure whether I will get that extra minute.

In the imaginary conversation, the permanent secretary might have gone on to say, “On top of that, Channel 4 works with 300 production companies a year. It spends more on external production in the nations and regions than any other commercially funded broadcaster, dedicating over half its total content spend to content produced there. I’m afraid to tell you, Secretary of State, that, in addition, Channel 4 has created hundreds of high value jobs in the nations and regions, including by moving a large part of its operations out to Leeds”—I am afraid it was not Cardiff; I wish it had been Cardiff, but it has moved an important HQ out to Leeds—“and announcing plans to significantly increase its investment in skills.”

The permanent secretary might have continued, “On top of that, I am afraid it has been taking decisions with the public interest at heart. I’m afraid to report, Secretary of State, that it has been taking those sorts of decisions, including broadcasting the Paralympics, which otherwise would not have been exposed, and giving a whole hour every night in prime time to news. The news, which counters the misinformation that is such a blight of our age because of the internet, is subcontracted to a production company”—as ever, to ITN—“and subject to Ofcom’s rules of impartiality. And it has been absolutely integral to the success of our film industry.”

“In other words, Secretary of State,” the permanent secretary must have said, “it is a shameful litany of success from Channel 4, and we really ought to do something about it.” Presumably, the Secretary of State would have said in response, “Well, quite clearly, we cannot allow things to go on as they are, because we are going to risk the Government’s reputation for incompetence if this carries on. We have to protect it, and, after all, we were absolutely silent in our manifesto on the issue of privatising Channel 4. Therefore, it is absolutely imperative that we should definitely do it. We did not seek a mandate from the electorate to privatise this successful, publicly owned, public service broadcaster, so we absolutely ought to do it.”

I say to the Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez)—a very thoughtful Minister, who I am sure will make the best fist of this whole thing both here and eventually in Committee, if this lamentable proposal ever gets that far—that that is where we are at the moment: caught up in an episode of “Parliamentary Pointless”, with a policy that nobody promised in search of a problem that nobody perceives.

Lord Parkinson, the Arts Minister, appeared before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee this morning, and told us he has six Bills coming down the track in the House of Lords. I would have thought he had enough on his plate, without a pointless proposal of this kind. If colleagues in this place do not prevent this daft proposal from going any further, and the idea ends up down in the House of Lords, I am telling you—you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House—that it has no chance of making swift progress in the House of Lords, because it was not in the manifesto. As a result, as Lord Parkinson accepted this morning, the Salisbury convention will apply, and their lordships will feel as free as ever to delay the proposal and if necessary, as they are constitutionally entitled to do, invoke the Parliament Act. The proposal is pointless and should be abandoned.

BBC: Dyson Report

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Kevin Brennan

Monday 24th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman coming to a question?

[Kevin Brennan]

I am, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Pretty quickly, please.

[Kevin Brennan]

With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise.

“It’s important for us to also reiterate that the BBC is not its management, past or present. The BBC and the values and principles of public service broadcasting it personifies is in fact our members, and all its staff, who do the work that makes the corporation an entity that is valued at home and throughout the world.”

Does the Minister agree with that statement?

Welsh Affairs

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) [V]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Welsh affairs.

Thank you very much for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Prynhawn da; diolch yn fawr. I thank the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) for supporting the application to the Backbench Business Committee, and I thank the Committee for granting this time this afternoon, although it is and always has been my view that time should be set aside every year, as a permanent fixture of the UK parliamentary calendar, to debate the affairs of Wales on or around St David’s Day, which occurs on 1 March, next week.

I want to open on a sad note, by paying tribute to the former Member for Aberavon, Hywel Francis, who died earlier this month. Hywel entered the House nearly 20 years ago, alongside me and other current Members from Wales, my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Caerphilly (Wayne David), my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), and the hon. Member for Arfon.

It will not surprise hon. Members and others listening who knew Hywel that, in his maiden speech back in 2001, he spoke about Labour history, the miners’ strike of 1984, Welsh devolution and the rights of disabled people, the latter a subject that was personally very close to Hywel and his wife Mair and their family. In calling, in that speech, for equal rights for disabled people, he said:

“Those are, after all, universal rights, whether they apply to a disabled child in Soweto, or to a disabled miner or steelworker in Skewen.”—[Official Report, 25 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 456.]

Typical of Hywel: a voice for the oppressed everywhere, an internationalist voice, a compassionate socialist voice, a distinctly Welsh voice. Rest in peace, good friend and comrade.

Circumstances mean that I am participating in today’s debate from Wales’s capital city. I recently heard a quote about Cardiff from the late, great Victoria Wood, who said it was

“classy and yet somehow seedy at the same time”—

surely the slogan to put on our road signs; but in truth Cardiff has developed in the last 20 years, in the era of devolution, into a classy capital city that truly feels like a modern capital, with a vibrant cultural sector and the seat of the elected Government of Wales. Wales is second only to London in percentage growth, for example, in music tourism in recent times, not least here in Cardiff itself; and this Saturday, in normal times, our streets would be thronged with people for the Six Nations rugby encounter between Wales and England. Sadly, there will be no crowds this Saturday, but millions will watch on free-to-air public service television. I say to the Welsh Rugby Union: do not lock this important part of our sporting culture in a dark cupboard behind a paywall. All Wales’s Six Nations matches must remain free to air in Wales in any new broadcasting deal.

But I do not want to talk just about union as in rugby union today, but I want to say a few words about the state of the Union of the United Kingdom, and Wales’s place in it. Any union, whether a sporting union, or a trade union, or a political union of nations, can only with the consent of its members, and that consent can only be obtained through a culture of respect. I am genuinely worried that the UK Government, Prime Minister and current Secretary of State for Wales do not understand that. We read that the Union unit, set up at the heart of Whitehall to save the Union, has been so disunited itself and beset by brutal rows that it has had to be disbanded. Well, if the Government cannot even keep their own unit in charge of unity united, what hope is there that they can keep the United Kingdom united?

But all may not be lost, because the Union unit is being replaced, we are told, by a Cabinet Committee consisting of—I quote from the press—

“Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Welsh Secretary Simon Hart, Scottish Secretary”

Alister Jack,

“Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis and other Cabinet members.”

They are to

“discuss how best to save”

the United Kingdom. Well, forgive me if I am sceptical that this news will have people running down to the bookies to put money on the improved chances of the survival of the Union, because the problem is, there is no evidence here of any understanding of that principle of consent and respect. In fact, we have clear evidence to the contrary from the Secretary of State for Wales himself. While aggressively undermining the democratically elected Welsh Senedd and Government by centralising spending powers from Wales, this week he said:

“I do wish Welsh Government would stop fretting about their own little status in Cardiff”.

Those words—

“their own little status in Cardiff”—

contain not an ounce of respect for Welsh voters and the two referendums that established elected devolved institutions in Wales.

I say to the Secretary of State: he is treading a dangerous path. He has revealed that he has had no respect for Wales’s democratic institutions, choosing instead to look down his nose from Gwydyr House, sneering those words—

“their own little status”—

with reference to the elected Government of Wales. I presume he will soon be getting fitted for his governor-general’s costume and plumed hat at this rate.

I sometimes hear colleagues say that these constitutional issues do not matter. They say, “I have never heard anyone on the Ely omnibus talk about devolved powers.” That may be right, but they do matter to the things people really care and talk about, and which affect their everyday lives, including those riding with a bus pass on the No. 17.

It does matter to Welsh people that they have the right to elect a Government who genuinely reflect their values and aspirations, and who are empowered to make real changes that affect their lives. Devolution has allowed those values of the Welsh people to be expressed in progressive policies that are an alternative to neoliberalism and to running the country in favour of the wealthiest through crony capitalism.

It does matter to people in Wales that their NHS has been true to its Welsh roots, with free prescriptions and freedom from market-driven motives and privatisation. The UK Government are now mimicking that, after the abject failure of the experiment in competition under the Lansley reforms.

It does matter that Wales can decide to have an integrated public transport system, which was denied by the centre to all but London until recently, with rail brought back into public control, bringing Wales in line with modern European countries. It does matter to people that their education system remains free from divisive selection, with local governance and free of outsourcing and fragmentation.

In this covid crisis, it has mattered to people that the Welsh Labour Government have not ducked or delayed difficult decisions, but have always put health and welfare first. They have struck better deals on personal protective equipment for the NHS and social care because of their public service values, rather than turning to expensive and dubious outsourcing, which has failed repeatedly. It has mattered to people that Wales has had a successful, publicly run contract tracing service, rather than a massively wasteful, outsourced chumocracy.

It also matters that in Mark Drakeford, Wales has a First Minister who is rightly praised for integrity, difficult decision making, grasp of detail and open communication, in contrast to a Prime Minister held hostage by headlines and headbangers. Now is not the time for empire Unionism from the Welsh Secretary or the Prime Minister; now is the time to recognise that this voluntary Union of four nations can function only through equality, respect for devolution and a commitment to enhance and develop our democratic institutions in Wales and the other nations and regions of the United Kingdom.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

There is an immediate time limit on Back-Bench speeches of three minutes.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Kevin Brennan

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

No, it is not correct. There was no need for the 7 o’clock motion to be moved, because of the terms of the business of the House motion relating to today.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I intervened on the Leader of the House to ask about the possibility of introducing proxy voting to enable people to vote remotely during the current way in which Parliament has been organised, and the Leader of the House said that that matter had been referred to the Procedure Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who is in her place. Today at Prime Minister’s Question Time, the Prime Minister said that the Government were proposing to introduce proxy voting. Have you had any notification from the Government that they intend to table a motion tomorrow introducing proxy voting for Members other than those who are on maternity leave, and to provide time for that matter to be debated and voted on?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Now, I thought that we were doing very well, because all the other points of order that I have just taken were real points of order, and it is such a pleasure to have real points of order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman will be able to ask those questions tomorrow.

Before we move on to the next item of business, which is the Committee stage of the Bill, in order to allow the safe exit of Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next item of business, I am now suspending the House for five minutes. I would be grateful if hon. Members would leave the Chamber.

Points-based Immigration System

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Kevin Brennan

Monday 24th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We do not conduct debates while sitting.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The clock.