Channel 4

Debate between Andrew Gwynne and Michelle Donelan

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

This is good news for Yorkshire, but it is also good news for the taxpayer. Let us not forget that it is the taxpayer who owns Channel 4 and it is this Government who are putting it on a sustainable footing.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I am not a churlish chap, so I want to thank the Secretary of State for her U-turn. I think she has come to the right decision on Channel 4; it is only a shame we had to spend £2 million to work that one out. May I ask her for a bit more detail on the package? She says there will be a statement at a later date, but can she explain to the House now whom the Department plans to consult and how in order to determine how it will relax the publisher-broadcaster restrictions on Channel 4?

[Michelle Donelan]

As I said, we will be working very closely with Channel 4, the independent production sector and public service broadcasters at large, and we will bring forward the details in the media Bill in due course.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill

Debate between Andrew Gwynne and Michelle Donelan

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 1st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will come on to those points, because the hon. Gentleman will find that the cost of politics is already being cut in a number of ways. The duty of this House is to ensure that the Government are held to account, and my concern is that the proposal to reduce the number lessens scrutiny on the Government of the day. That might not be a Conservative Government, and I would hope that the hon. Gentleman would want to preserve his rights, when he sits on the Opposition Benches, to hold a future Labour Government to account.

The lack of clarity from the Government has concerned many across the Chamber. The Government have stated that the boundary review is proceeding in accordance with legislation, but, according to three senior sources quoted in The Times, the plan is likely to be scrapped due to a lack of support from the Conservative Benches—[Interruption.] I hear “Hear, hears”. Perhaps this will be the latest casualty following the Prime Minister’s failure to win a majority in June.

If the review is going to be ditched, I say to the Government: stop wasting public money. This is a charade. Let’s ditch the review now and start a fresh one based on principles we can all agree on. Suggestions that this is being done to cut the cost of politics are red herrings. The claimed savings of £13 million a year are dwarfed by the £34 million annual cost of the 260 extra peers appointed by the former Prime Minister. Can the Government seriously talk about cutting the cost of politics after offering £1 billion to the Democratic Unionist party? The contradictions in the Government’s arguments are so blatant it is insulting. This Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton would also see potential savings by requiring the boundary commissions to report every 10 years rather than every five.

The Government claim that a reduction will bring the number of MPs in line with that in similar sized legislatures. International comparisons should indeed play an important role in policy making. However, by cutting the number of MPs and making their constituencies bigger and more remote, the Government endanger the MP-constituency link, which is envied by democracies across the world.

[Michelle Donelan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will not give way again, because many Members want to speak.

Cutting 50 MPs also presents a crisis of scrutiny, a concern raised by the Electoral Reform Society. Under the current proposals, the reduction would be made entirely from the Back Benches—the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), can shake her head, but there are no proposals to reduce the number of Ministers. That would only increase the Executive dominance of Parliament and undermine the influence of scrutiny from the Back Benches.