Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lord Watson of Wyre Forest and Lindsay Hoyle

Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tom Watson]

I will make some progress.

In his statement to the House last week, the Secretary of State said that Sir Brian

“agrees that the inquiry should not proceed under the current terms of reference but believes that it should continue in an amended form.”—[Official Report, 1 March 2018; Vol. 636, c. 966.]

I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Oh, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

With a name like Lindsay, who knows? [Laughter.]

[Tom Watson]

I am not rising to that. I do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I got the distinct impression from the Secretary of State’s presentation that Brian Leveson supported his proposals. That was something of an understatement. In fact, Sir Brian says that he disagrees “fundamentally” with the Government’s position, stating:

“I have no doubt that there is still a legitimate expectation on behalf of the public and, in particular, the alleged victims of phone hacking and other unlawful conduct, that there will be a full public examination of the circumstances that allowed that behaviour to develop and clear reassurances that nothing of the same scale could occur again: that is what they were promised”.

Sir Brian is clear that this breaks a promise to the victims, and it does so by using a very clever sleight of hand. The Secretary of State told the House that 12% of direct respondents to the consultation were in favour of continuing the inquiry, with 66% against. How did the Government get to that landslide verdict? Scandalously, they disregarded the 200,000 people who signed an online petition in favour of continuing the inquiry, but they included thousands of pro forma newspaper coupons that various papers encouraged their readers to send in. Sir Brian said to the Government:

“I would not personally count the responses in the way in which you have.”

Business without Debate

Debate between Lord Watson of Wyre Forest and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 11th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This morning the High Court ruled on the decision of the Secretary of State for Education to cut the Building Schools for the Future programme, claiming that it was unlawful, unfair and an abuse of power. Have you heard a squeak from the Secretary of State, Mr Deputy Speaker? Is he going to come to this House to explain himself?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The matter has been raised already, and I have heard nothing further on it.

Points of Order

Debate between Lord Watson of Wyre Forest and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 21st June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman rightly makes his point, which I am sure will be taken on board and considered in due course, but it is not for the Chair to make that decision today.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, the Chancellor announced on the BBC a major review of public sector pensions, but today the Prime Minister was unable to confirm the terms of reference for that investigation. Have you received representations from the Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to come to the House to tell us the terms of the review, or would the Secretary of State for Defence like to enlighten us in the next debate?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Many points of order are being made that are not a matter for the Chair. Once again, the matter has been put on the record.

Tackling Poverty in the UK

Debate between Lord Watson of Wyre Forest and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will note, according to today’s Order Paper there is supposed to be a written ministerial statement on special advisers. I have just been to the Library and it was not there, but two media companies have telephoned me to tell me that Mr Andy Coulson is paid more than the Deputy Prime Minister, and that there has been a significant increase in the number of spin doctors at No. 10. Is it possible for a Minister to come to the House to apologise for the discourtesy, and to explain the seeming anomaly whereby a hired hand is paid more than an elected Deputy Prime Minister?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order and not a matter for me, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that he has put it on the record, and has made the point that I presume he wanted to make.