Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
Angela Eagle Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for the way in which he began our debate, and I echo the sentiment and reinforce the content of his comments. Like him, I want to pay tribute to the outgoing Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, John Lyon, who was the fourth commissioner in post since January 2008. He sought to bring greater transparency to the role to help improve public confidence in this House. He has served the House with distinction for the past five years, during what was—as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has disclosed—a difficult period.
The role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards was created following the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It has existed for more than 16 years, and is important in retaining public confidence in the House. As well as maintaining and monitoring the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, the commissioner advises Members on the registration of financial interests and investigates complaints from other Members and the public about failures to register or otherwise abide by the code of conduct—an important and challenging role.
As we were told by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, there was a rigorous process of selection for John Lyons’s successor. Labour Members are confident that that process has been thorough and exhaustive. A number of excellent candidates were interviewed by a board of selectors made up of distinguished Members, Officers of the House and external experts. The board brought two candidates back for a final interview, and then recommended Kathryn Hudson to the House of Commons Commission. Although the current Leader of the House was not involved in the process, I know that he will have full confidence in the judgment of his predecessor, who I see is present and who, of course, was involved. It seems likely that he will try to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that he will have something to say to the House.
I am sure the former Leader of the House would agree that the newly proposed commissioner has extensive experience across the public and charitable sectors, and is currently the deputy Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. I suspect that the current Leader of the House came across her when he was in his previous job, The Commission is confident that she will carry out her proposed new role with energy, integrity and understanding, and in doing so she will have the Opposition’s full support.
Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards
Angela Eagle Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Like the Leader of the House, I do not wish to repeat the debate that we had on 5 July. We are in slightly calmer waters, we hope. In that debate, all parties on this side of the House felt that we needed a judge-led inquiry into the LIBOR scandal and wider issues in the banking industry. We did not win the vote so, despite our reservations, we decided to co-operate with the inquiry led by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his admission that the success of the Commission relies on the Opposition’s support. That gets us off on a better foot than might have been the case.
There are some novel elements to the motion, as the Leader of the House pointed out, not least the sub-committees of one. We will look with interest to see how that works in a Commission of the size that is proposed, especially given that it is a joint Commission with the other place.
I am particularly pleased with the assurances that the resources that are needed will not be taken out of House of Commons resources for other Select Committees. I wonder whether the Leader of the House has a view on what amount of resources might be used and whether we will be kept informed as the process goes on. The Opposition are keen that the ongoing work of the Treasury Committee, the primary job of which is to hold the Government to account, must not be badly affected by its members, not least its Chairman, being engaged in other important work, which may have a tendency to take them away from their day job. We will obviously keep a keen eye on the situation, to ensure that the Treasury Committee’s work of holding the Government to account does not suffer as a result of the other duties that the hon. Member for Chichester and other members of the Committee who are to sit on the Commission will take on.
Having emphasised once again our belief that we needed a judge-led inquiry, the Opposition are happy, given that the vote on that was lost, to co-operate with the hon. Gentleman’s inquiry, and we will watch its progress with interest. If the House divides this evening, we will join the Leader of the House in the Lobby.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. May I echo his thanks to all the staff of the House for the way they have supported us this Session? May I also say to him that, following his written ministerial statement on the experiment with public reading stages, the Opposition will certainly be looking forward to the pilot?
As these are the last business questions before the Olympics, may I take this opportunity, as the Leader of the House has just done, to wish Team GB all the best? The whole country is behind them. However, given today’s urgent question on security, the problems with the M4 flyover and the continuing issues at Heathrow, could he assure us that the Government are confident that these troubles will be overcome before the opening ceremony?
The Government’s handling of the House of Lords Reform Bill has descended into farce. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister lost control of his party and the Government abandoned the programme motion. Despite an explicit promise to me on Tuesday, the Leader of the House has failed to make a further announcement about how the Government intend to proceed. I hope that he will do so in his reply to me.
In his usual helpful way, the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Oakeshott said on Wednesday that the Prime Minister must
“not cringe to the Tory dinosaurs now they have tasted blood.”
Last night at the 1922 committee the Prime Minister apparently gave a hint about how he wishes to proceed when, after hugging his beleaguered Chief Whip—we all agree with that and can add our sympathy to him—he said:
“We are not going to negotiate with Labour, they are the enemy and they can’t be trusted—we are going to negotiate with the Liberal Democrats”.
By all accounts, the Prime Minister’s unique perspective on the trustworthiness of Liberal Democrats did not go down terribly well in that room. It was then pointed out to him by a much more experienced member of the Conservative parliamentary party that:
“Labour is not the enemy; they are Her Majesty’s Opposition”.
May I gently suggest to the Leader of the House that, as the PM clearly does not have the votes on his own side to deliver House of Lords reform, we should proceed on the basis of genuine cross-party discussion and agreement?
At business questions last week, I asked the Leader of the House about Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers splitting Government time to enable them to differentiate themselves from one another. In reply, he said that, when it came to the House of Lords Reform Bill, there would be a
“seamless approach to the legislation from those who are opening and closing the debates”.—[Official Report, 5 July 2012; Vol. 547, c. 1071.]
It did not quite work out that way, did it? I see that the Government announced at the end of last month that they were launching a £14 million fund to help people through the process of divorce. It gives people who are splitting up advice on how to divorce amicably and avoid arguments. Could the Leader of the House say whether the Prime Minister and his deputy were the first in line to receive the advice?
Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister sent an e-mail to his dwindling band of party activists, and I have managed to obtain a copy. In it, he says of Tuesday’s Lords vote:
“This is a huge triumph for our party”.
I wonder what on earth a disaster would look like in the eyes of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Last night’s suggestion that replacing the remaining hereditary peers with directly elected Members is a substantive reform is absurd. We have been debating whether there should be a 100% elected or an 80% elected second Chamber; electing just 10% would not be a democratic reform. A 10% elected second Chamber would not be a compromise; it would be the Liberal Democrats running up the white flag.
What a shambles this has been: the Prime Minister has lost control of his party; the Liberal Democrats are in revolt; and Government Whips have taken to ordering rebel Tory Back Benchers off the premises. And it is not just Government Whips who have been bullying their own Back Benchers. We have got used to the Prime Minister losing his rag at the Dispatch Box, but on Tuesday night, in one of his Flashman moments, he had an angry altercation with one of his leading Back-Bench rebels. Would the Leader of the House make a suggestion to the Prime Minister: “Just calm down”?
Sir George Young
On the first question, we are determined that the Olympics will be a great success and that the issues that the hon. Lady referred to will be resolved in good time.
The hon. Lady conveniently glossed over the rebellion among the Labour Members, 26 of whom defied their Whip, so it is clear that the Conservative party is not the only party that has differences on this issue. In my business statement, I announced the business for the first week back, which did not include further progress on the Bill, but on the substantive issue that she raised, it was clear from the vote on Second Reading that a huge majority of the House want to get on with it, with majorities within each of the three major parties voting for reform. She said that we could trust the Labour party, but I have to say that the Labour party was willing the end but not willing the means. Saying before the programme motion was even tabled that Labour Members would vote against it shows a lack of commitment to getting the Bill on to the statute book.
It was equally clear on Tuesday that there was no consensus on the timetable for the Bill, which is why we did not make progress with the programme motion. What we want to do—I say this in response to what the hon. Lady has just said—is to reflect and to allow time for meaningful discussion, including with the Opposition and with other hon. Members, to build a consensus on the best way forward. As I said on Tuesday, we do intend to table a timetable motion for the Bill in the autumn, but, as the House would expect, we want those discussions to take place first before I can give the House any further information.
As for marital relations, I think that relationships within the coalition are much better than relationships within the previous Labour Government. I get on much better with my deputy than the previous Prime Minister got on with Tony Blair. I just say to the hon. Lady, in conclusion, that two parties are working together to put right the mess left behind by the Labour party, which still refused to admit that it got anything wrong.
House of Lords Reform Bill
Angela Eagle Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
We have listened carefully to the debate so far, confident that we will get a significant majority on Second Reading tonight. But for Lords reform to progress, it needs those who support reform to vote for reform and to vote for that reform to make progress through this House. It is clear that the Opposition are not prepared to do that, so we will not move the programme motion tonight. We remain committed to making progress on Lords reform, and with Second Reading behind us we will then consider how best to take this agenda forward and how best to secure progress through the House for reforms that have the backing of this House. The Government will move a timetable motion before we make progress in the autumn, in accordance with the rules of the House.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Government’s decision to withdraw the programme motion today is a victory for Parliament. The Leader of the House has talked about a timetable motion, but will he now confirm, so that there is no doubt, that if this Bill passes its Second Reading tonight, it is the Government’s intention to bring forward immediately a motion to commit the Bill to debate on the Floor of this House? Will he also confirm that it is not now the Government’s intention to bring forward a guillotine on this Bill, having effectively lost the argument for a timetable today? We must have the time to debate this Bill and scrutinise it adequately.
Sir George Young
I have nothing to add to what I have just said, apart from this: there will be business questions on Thursday, and at that point I hope to be able to tell the House more about the Government’s proposals.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Yesterday we heard a string of passionate and heartfelt speeches about this, the most persistent and difficult piece of unfinished business. On the way into the Chamber we had a flurry of Twitter traffic and nudges and winks which culminated in the statement made by the Leader of the House.
After yesterday’s Liberal Democrat day in this two-day debate, we have arrived at the Conservative day. The right hon. Gentleman promised me last week that there would not be any difference in tone and approach between the two days. I have detected a slight difference since he made his opening statement, but we have now arrived at the Conservative day, opened by the Leader of the House with his usual courtesy and good humour. At least, I thought his speech was a bit dodgy at the beginning, but he recovered his humour and courtesy. The debate will be wound up by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper).
The Minister with responsibility for political and constitutional reform embarked on a kamikaze tactic on the radio yesterday in support of the Bill when he asserted that Winston Churchill would vote for it if he were here tonight. Let me give the hon. Gentleman a little friendly advice. Never think that it is possible to know more about the political views of a great statesman, a parliamentarian and a war leader than his grandson does. If his grandson happens to be a Member of the House and might be listening to the radio while re-reading his op-ed which torpedoed Government policy in The Daily Telegraph, it is probably better to keep such dubious insights to oneself.
The Deputy Prime Minister did not make himself any more popular among those on the Government Benches when he appeared to denigrate the work of the Lords during his opening speech yesterday. It was noticeable that it took an age before any of his Liberal Democrat colleagues decided to try to help him cope with the friendly fire from behind. His cause was not helped by the Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Oakeshott, who referred to some thankfully unnamed peers as “deadbeats” and “has-beens”. I presume he excluded himself from that colourful description of his colleagues, although I am not sure the compliment would be returned.
Surely we should be able to discuss this important constitutional reform without resorting to such abuse. Surely the issue is not so much about the personal attributes of individual Members of the second Chamber as about how they came to be there.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
It is my position, as the husband of a Member of the upper House, to speak dispassionately and without disparaging that House, but surely the hon. Lady must recognise that, as in this House, a wide variety of personalities are to found there, although not a very wide variety of ages, but all its Members have one thing in common: none of them was elected to be there.
Ms Eagle
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I support replacing the current House of Lords with a wholly elected second Chamber. At the last election I stood on a manifesto that contained a commitment to legislate for a wholly elected second Chamber. On all the occasions when the Commons has considered Lords reform in the 20 years I have been a Member of this House, I have always voted for a democratically elected second Chamber, unlike everyone on both Front Benches. It is a matter of principle for me that those who legislate should always bring a democratic mandate to the task.
The Labour party is committed to an elected second Chamber, which is why we will vote for one tonight when we support the Bill on Second Reading. We will do so despite our reservations about the Government’s current proposals, which I will turn to in a moment. The Government’s decision to withdraw the programme motion today is a victory for Parliament. Although we will support the Bill’s Second Reading, we could not have supported the Government’s attempts to curtail debate with a programme motion. We welcome the fact that they have faced up to this reality and withdrawn the motion.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
Yesterday the shadow Justice Secretary was asked four times how long the Opposition would require to consider the Bill. Will the hon. Lady enlighten the House on how long the Opposition require now?
Ms Eagle
I am trying to give the hon. Gentleman an answer that befits the scale of the issues we face, rather than answer a silly question in the way he asked it.
As I was saying, we need to ensure that the Bill has proper scrutiny, because it would replace a wholly appointed second Chamber with an elected one. It would not have been right for the Government to limit the time that a democratically elected House can spend debating proposals to extend democracy. The Opposition believe that it is important that Parliament, not simply the Executive, is in control of the debates on the Bill. We believe that every part of the Bill needs proper scrutiny, because under the terms of the Parliament Acts it is possible that this Bill, as it leaves this House, will be the one that makes it on to the statute book. That makes it absolutely imperative, in our view, that all parts of the Bill are effectively scrutinised here.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful point, but it should not be up to the Executive or the shadow Executive to determine how much time the House takes to debate the matter; that should be for the House to decide. The Bill should not be programmed in any way whatsoever.
Ms Eagle
We look forward to seeing what proposals the Government actually bring forward. I tried earlier to get a few hints from the Leader of the House, but he seems not to know the answer yet. I hope that we will know soon what the Government intend to do, but the principle that the entire Bill must have adequate scrutiny and that when it leaves this place, it must be fit for purpose is the one that is in our minds.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Opposition Front Benchers asserted yesterday that the timetable motion on today’s Order Paper would not give adequate time for the Bill to be debated as it goes through the House, so they must have some idea of how much time is adequate if they were able to reach that conclusion. Just why was the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) on how many days are adequate a silly one in that context?
Mr Jenkin
Programme motions are, in fact, a modern convention. Constitutional measures used to go through the House without any timetable motions, or even guillotines, at all, and with any major constitutional measure on which the Government are determined to deny any referendum, a proper discussion of the relevant Bill is the only check and balance that this House has on change in our constitution.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
But one practice that has existed for hundreds of years is the one whereby, when a Bill receives its Second Reading, it is committed by virtue of a resolution of the House either to a Bill Committee—since 2006, a Public Bill Committee—or to a Committee of the whole House. It looks as though if the Bill gets its Second Reading tonight, it will be in complete limbo, which the Pope abolished several years ago. So is it not essential that we have some clarity on where the Bill is going to go, preferably before it gets its Second Reading?
Ms Eagle
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and that is why I attempted to obtain some clarity from the Leader of the House when he made his bombshell announcement at the beginning of this debate. We would appreciate some certainty from Government Front Benchers on how we can deal with the issue.
The Leader of the House and I have something important in common: we were both Members prior to the introduction of the routine programming of business, and we both know that it is possible to scrutinise effectively a Bill that does not have a programme motion attached, because we used to do so all the time. The Government, following their climbdown today, will have to come forward with new proposals, and the Opposition look forward to seeing what they are, but let me confirm for the record that, after adequate scrutiny, we want the Bill to go to the other place.
Labour has a proud record of reforming the Lords. We have been responsible for all the major changes to the other place over the past 100 years: the removal of hereditary peers, the introduction of an elected Speaker and the creation of the Supreme Court. We wanted to go further and tried in the previous Parliament to pass legislation in favour of an elected Chamber, spending extra time trying to forge a cross-party consensus.
This Government seem to spend so much time on inter-coalition diplomacy, however, that they keep forgetting to work with Her Majesty’s official Opposition, and on issues of constitutional change, that is an insult and a mistake. We will support the Bill’s Second Reading, but the Government’s proposals give us cause for concern in a number of areas that we will need to explore further, so I thought that it would be helpful to the House if I set some of them out.
I was elected on a manifesto promising a referendum on House of Lords reform. That is why the Prime Minister’s and Deputy Prime Minister’s argument—that a referendum is not needed because reform featured in all three party election manifestos—is so disingenuous. Our manifesto offered people a choice. It is the Government who are seeking to deny the electorate a say once the new arrangements have been forged and decided here.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
If all three manifestos proposed House of Lords reform and the electorate had no choice, does that not strengthen the case for a referendum, rather than diminish it?
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I support the point made by the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin). I was first elected to this House in 1997, when the question of replacing the pound with the single European currency was active. The Government and the Opposition said, “Wait and see—we’ll let you know after the election whether we’ll keep our own currency,” while the Liberal Democrats said that they were going to scrap it and replace it with the euro. The electorate had no choice on that matter. I think that everyone agrees today that there should have been a referendum if there had been such a proposal.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
The Liberal Democrats stood on a manifesto that said:
“Liberal Democrats will do things differently, because we believe that power should be in the hands of people, not politicians. We will give people a real say in who governs the country”.
I would say that people need no bigger say than on the constitutional changes that are being proposed. I do not see what is any different about the need to have a referendum and talk to people about who is going to be governing the country.
Ms Eagle
The hon. Lady makes a point of great insight and acuity. I merely say to her that the Liberal Democrats also campaigned on the slogan, “No more broken promises”.
Our Government held referendums on setting up the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the office of London Mayor. This Government have legislated so that every tiny adjustment to European treaties now requires a referendum. Only last year, there was a referendum on extending the powers of the Welsh Assembly. Although some might like to forget it, there was a referendum on adopting the alternative vote for UK general elections. Only this May, a number of English cities held referendums on directly elected mayors. I cannot for the life of me see why the people of Birmingham and Bristol got to vote in a referendum on an elected mayor but are to be deprived of a vote on an elected second Chamber. On major constitutional questions, by convention and by right, the British people have the final say in a referendum. It follows that we believe that there should be a referendum on an elected second Chamber.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
I think that my hon. Friend was in the Chamber earlier when the Deputy Prime Minister justified the lack of a referendum on the grounds of cost. She might reflect on the fact that the same Deputy Prime Minister deferred the elections for police commissioners from May, when the cost would have been minimal as they would have coincided with the local elections, to November, on the grounds of their importance. Those elections may be on important matters, but I suspect that they are not as important as total constitutional reform. Why can the Government spend money on one form of election but not on a referendum of this importance?
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
The hon. Lady asks why the Government do not want to go ahead with a referendum. I wonder whether the answer might be that if a question were put to the British people the affirmative answer to which was, “You will have 450 extra elected, salaried, full-time politicians,” the British people might say no.
Ms Eagle
I am not sure that the answer to the question is “823—and counting—appointed politicians who legislate” either, so I am sorry to have to disagree slightly with the hon. Lady. The important principle is that when changes of this importance are being decided, the British people should have a say.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Will the hon. Lady remind the House of whether her party had a referendum on the removal of 550 hereditary peers from the Lords?
David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)
Is not the significant difference that in our 1997 election manifesto there was a clear and discrete commitment to the removal of hereditary peers, and that in our 2010 manifesto, there was equally a clear commitment to hold a referendum? Does that not show the consistency of my hon. Friend’s position?
Ms Eagle
I have given way a lot and I want to get on to another worry that we have over the legislation, which we want the debate to focus on in the days and weeks ahead.
The Bill makes an interesting and controversial assumption on the powers of the second Chamber. We are asked to believe that, despite the shift to 80% election, there will be no change in powers. It is important to safeguard the supremacy of the Commons after any reform. Unless the powers and privileges of the two Houses in relation to each other and the conventions covering the way in which they interact are dealt with explicitly, there will be the strong possibility of more frequent conflict between the two Houses post-reform. A mere statement about the supremacy of the Commons in clause 2 is unlikely to be sufficient for the purpose.
Even as we speak, the Salisbury-Addison convention is crumbling away before our eyes. On previous experience, we can expect it to be disregarded much more when there is a Labour majority in the Commons than when there is a Conservative majority.
Mr Blunkett
This is a crucial point. Is it not the case that the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 presumed that if there was election to the upper House in the future—what would be described as a popular mandate—it would inevitably regain further powers? Clause 2 eliminates the preamble, but not the point that it was making back in 1911.
Ms Eagle
My right hon. Friend is right that the move from a wholly elected Chamber to one that is almost entirely elected inevitably raises questions about the relationship between and the powers of the two Chambers which we should debate in this place.
With issues that do not feature in the party manifestos, the situation will be even more fraught. The situation with secondary legislation will also be problematic. This is uncharted territory. That does not mean that we should run away from reform, but we must not simply cross our fingers and hope that these issues will miraculously be resolved or will not crop up.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
Among all the discussion about reform, does the hon. Lady agree that the great opportunity for reform that is being presented, which those from every part of the House should support, is to ensure that, in future, any major constitutional change of any sort in this country goes through a proper procedure, including a referendum? That would bring us into line with every other democracy of the 21st century, about which we have heard so much.
Ms Eagle
I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that I have been making the case as strongly as I can for a referendum on this issue.
The matter of powers has to be dealt with effectively in primary legislation. We cannot behave as if the Parliament Acts never existed. Merely asserting that they are still on the statute book is not nearly adequate as a mechanism for determining the relative powers of the two Houses.
There are also questions over the length of the terms and the term limit. The core principle of a democratically accountable Parliament must surely be that the legislators are accountable at the ballot box for their decisions. Members of the current House of Lords, as was pointed out more than once in yesterday’s debate, never have to account for their decisions at the ballot box. That is the essence of the democratic deficit that we are all trying to address. However, the Government are proposing a second Chamber where Members will never be accountable for their decisions, because they will be prevented from standing for a second term. That needs to be looked at again.
Along with our concerns over the restriction on re-election, we also have concerns about the proposed length of the terms. Members of this House are elected for five-year terms. It is not immediately apparent that electing Members to a second Chamber for terms as long as those that are proposed will provide much democratic legitimacy, especially when the terms are drawing to a close. There is merit in having longer terms of office in the second Chamber, but we hope to reach agreement on Report on more sensible and practical terms.
We also have concerns about the Government’s proposed electoral system, which we could probably spend many hours talking about. Their preference is a semi-open list, whereas we favour an open-list, proportional representation approach. We will explore the chances of a change in that system during the passage of the Bill.
Chris Huhne
Is not the logic of what the hon. Lady says about accountability that anybody who is not going to stand in a subsequent election should no longer have a vote? Would that apply to Members of this House who had declared that they intended to stand down?
Mrs Main
On the hon. Lady’s point about safe seats and unaccountability, the average time in office for a Member of Parliament is two terms, which was previously eight years. The Bill would enshrine safe seats for 15 years, which is double the expected length of time spent here by a Member of Parliament who has to face the public.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
The hon. Lady makes some important points, but does she not agree that it is important that we stop playing politics and start actually doing politics? If we do not put through a proper reform of the House of Lords, we will lose a once-in-a-generation golden opportunity. To achieve proper reform, will she now work with the Leader of the House, whom she clearly respects, so that we can get a proper timetable for seizing that golden opportunity?
Ms Eagle
I respect the hon. Lady, but it is important that she recognises that it is not playing politics to disagree with a programme motion on such an important matter on which the Government decided without consulting the Opposition. I hope she has realised from listening to my speech that the Opposition are serious about achieving reform of the second Chamber. I hope that we can work together to make progress on scrutinising the Bill appropriately.
The Government propose an 80% elected second Chamber, and 80% is better than zero, but a wholly elected second Chamber would be better still. A House in which one in five Members are not elected could still be one in which the unelected hold the balance of power. Indeed, they could decide every vote. Would that Chamber be truly accountable to the British people? That needs to be reconsidered.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
May I take my hon. Friend back to the issue of programme motions? She came here before we introduced them, and by the way, I regret that we ever did. [Interruption.] Yes, and I have been consistent on that. Does she accept that before programme motions were introduced, a number of major and constitutional Bills went before the House and were dealt with satisfactorily? New Members perhaps do not properly appreciate that a programme motion not only closes debate according to a timetable but restricts the rights of Back Benchers much more than an ordinary and open motion of committal to the Floor of the House.
Ms Eagle
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. As I said earlier, both the Leader of the House and I have experience of getting Bills on to the statute book perfectly sensibly before the era of programme motions. The House is capable of doing that, and it can do it again.
The Opposition have other concerns about the Government’s proposals which we hope to explore further in Committee and on Report, but we will support Second Reading, because we believe the House should ensure that the Bill is properly scrutinised.
Sir Alan Beith
It ought to be recognised that the hon. Lady has made very constructive points this afternoon, but she is not really arguing for a motion that ensures that issues that she and other hon. Members regard as important are debated with some protected time. At the end of the day, it should not be possible to block the Bill merely because some hon. Members will continue talking with that deliberate intent.
Ms Eagle
The difference between filibuster and debate is usually easy to see. The Opposition have said that we want the Bill to go to the Lords.
This is a historic opportunity to reform the House of Lords and I hope we achieve it, but Lords reform alone will not solve the big democratic challenge we face in the UK, which is the disengagement, apathy and cynicism that is such a notable feature of our society. Ours is not the only advanced democracy with that problem, but we must tackle the anti-politics mood. I believe passionately that politics can transform lives and help us to rebuild our society, but the corrosive cynicism of the anti-politics age in which we live is hard to overcome.
I fear that an elected second Chamber will not solve that. Lords reform is long overdue, but we face even greater challenges to our democratic system and values that we can meet only by believing more deeply in democracy and by having more and not less accountability. I do not underplay the profound impact that big constitutional change has on how we do government—it shows that we are putting our democratic values into action where it counts. We should seek to spread the light of accountability and democracy into all corners of our society and challenge the move to plutocracy that has been so evident in the developed democracies in the past 30 years. The Labour Government’s decision to devolve power to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland has had a beneficial impact on how we do government in the UK. Although Lords reform is unfinished business and business we must get right and get on with, it is only a small part of the answer to the more profound problems we face.
Every argument I have heard for the status quo runs up against the fact that the British people are shut out of the House of Lords. Each large new influx of coalition peers makes the ever more bloated House even more unsustainable—it now has 823 Members and rising. That is especially true as the size of the Commons is being reduced for narrow party political interest to its lowest number since the Great Reform Act of 1832.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The hon. Lady mentions the influx of life peers. Will she support a ballot of life peers, as was held for the hereditary peers, to bring their numbers down to something more manageable?
Ms Eagle
There are all sorts of issues with exits from and entry to the House of Lords, which we should debate in the time we now have available for the Bill.
It is plain that the Lords as constituted is absurd and unsustainable. We should propose to the British people replacing it with a wholly elected second Chamber. Except during the interregnum, the House of Lords has existed for hundreds of years, but never once have the British people had a say on whether it should continue to exist. Let us therefore reshape the Bill and reshape the Lords, and ask the British people for their endorsement.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 9 July—Second Reading of the House of Lords Reform Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 10 July—Conclusion of Second Reading of the House of Lords Reform Bill (day 2).
Wednesday 11 July—Debate on motions relating to the sitting hours of the House of Commons, followed by a debate on a motion relating to VAT on air ambulance fuel payments. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee. Followed by opposed private business for consideration, as named by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Thursday 12 July—Motion relating to the reform of the Court of Justice of the European Union, followed by a motion on a European document relating to the EU draft budget, followed by a motion on a European document relating to EU human rights strategy.
Friday 13 July—Private Member’s Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 16 July will include:
Monday 16 July—Opposition day (4th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Tuesday 17 July—Debate on a motion relating to the Public Administration Committee’s recommendation for the Prime Minister’s adviser on Ministers’ interests to be empowered to instigate his own investigations, followed by a motion on the summer recess Adjournment. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 12 July will be:
Thursday 12 July—Debate on banking competition.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business.
Last week I suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that, as Liberal Democrats and Conservative Ministers now spend their time rubbishing each other, it might be better if future parliamentary business were organised so that Government time was divided between the two parties to give both sufficient time to differentiate themselves from each other. I am delighted to see that the Leader of the House has quickly adopted my suggestion, because in announcing two days of debate on House of Lords reform next week, he omitted to draw the House’s attention to the fact that Government time had been so arranged to allow Liberal Democrat Ministers to speak on Monday and Conservative Ministers to speak on Tuesday. It will be interesting to monitor the differences of approach from one day to the next. Will the Leader of the House confirm that in future all Government business will be organised in this way?
We have learnt this week that Network Rail, a publicly funded body, is planning to pay millions in bonuses to senior managers. Government decisions mean that rail passengers are facing fare rises of 11% a year at a time when people are struggling to make ends meet. It is simply unacceptable for Network Rail to pay out millions in bonuses to its top managers. Six months ago the Transport Secretary promised to appoint a public interest director, yet she has failed to do so. The Transport Secretary has the power to stop Network Rail bosses paying themselves massive bonuses at their annual general meeting on 19 July. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government will block Network Rail’s plans, and arrange for the Transport Secretary to make an urgent statement to the House?
The Government have set up an independent inquiry into forests. That was done after 500,000 people signed a petition objecting to the Government’s proposal to flog off England’s forests to the highest bidders. The Government’s U-turn on the issue started a trend; they have been U-turning ever since. The inquiry report was published yesterday. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government have now dropped their plans to sell off 15% of English forests, and will he say when they will instead set out plans to protect and secure the future of our forests? Will he also arrange for the Environment Secretary to make an oral statement on the Government’s response to the independent inquiry?
The Government ask a bishop to hold an independent inquiry into the future of forests, but refuse to have an independent inquiry into the banking scandal. On Monday, the Government were against holding any inquiry; then they were in favour of a parliamentary inquiry, but against a parliamentary vote; then they were in favour of a parliamentary inquiry and a parliamentary vote, but still against an independent judicial inquiry. The Government have had three different positions in three days. May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to adopt a fourth? The British people want an independent judge-led inquiry, and all the Opposition parties want an independent judge-led inquiry. In fact, the only people opposing an independent judge-led inquiry are Government Members of Parliament and bankers themselves.
Something else the bankers wanted was for the Vickers report to be watered down, which is exactly what the Government have done. On Tuesday, Martin Wolf, the Financial Times economist and a member of the Vickers commission, described the Government’s decision not to implement the recommendation on high-risk derivative trading as “really quite serious”. Will the Leader of the House explain why the Government are watering down the Vickers commission recommendations, and arrange an urgent statement on this matter from the Chancellor?
May I congratulate the Leader of the House on his sterling performance in the recent ConservativeHome league table of Cabinet Ministers? The right hon. Gentleman has surged up the rankings. [Interruption.] Much to his surprise—perhaps he does not follow it—but he has. Conservative Members have put the Leader of the House in the premier league of Cabinet Ministers. However, the part-time partisan Chancellor, who has presided over a double-dip recession, has slumped into the third division. Does the Leader of the House have any tips on how the Chancellor can raise his game?
Sir George Young
On the first issue, these two parties are working together harmoniously to repair the damage done by the Labour party. In the debate on the House of Lords on Monday and Tuesday, there will be a seamless approach to the legislation from those who are opening and closing the debates on the first and second day. I remind Labour Members what their policy was when they were in government, and I hope, therefore, that they will support the Government on Monday and Tuesday, both on the motion on Second Reading and indeed on the programme motion. Through the latter, we propose to allocate 10 days in Committee, which contrasts with the four days they allocated on their Lords reform Bill.
The extraordinary corporate governance structure for Network Rail was actually set up by Labour; they are responsible for the decision-making process. We propose to reform it, and I will pass on the hon. Lady’s suggestion about the bonuses to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
So far as the forests are concerned, the hon. Lady will have seen the written ministerial statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The joke that we just heard from the hon. Lady was the same one we heard in DEFRA questions a few moments ago; I am sure she told it better. The initial response was set out in the written ministerial statement, and there will be a more substantive one next January. We have confirmed that the forests will remain in public ownership.
On the issue of a public inquiry, we are going to debate that. If the hon. Lady is asking for a debate on this issue, I have granted it, and very quickly. Our view, which will be set out later, is that any Committee should have the power to interview witnesses under oath; it should have the power to send for the necessary people; it should sit in public and have full access to the necessary documents and papers. We believe that a Joint Committee of the House will be able to discharge its responsibilities, and we will move on to that debate in a moment.
We have not watered down the Vickers report. We are introducing a banking reform Bill, and in due course the House will have an opportunity to consider our proposals to separate the retail and investment wings of the banks.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing to my attention something I had not noticed before—the league table. One thing that is almost certain after her endorsement is that, next time, my position will be a lot lower.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
Mr Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement. The business for this Thursday will now be proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill, followed by a debate on two motions relating to professional standards in the banking industry. I shall make my usual business statement on Thursday.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I welcome that statement from the Leader of the House. Can he tell us how long he expects the debates to last?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her welcome for the statement. The plan is to table a business motion today which will appear on the Order Paper tomorrow. The debate will be the main business on Thursday, and we plan to bring it to a conclusion at 5.15 pm to allow time for debate before 6 pm.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
The business for next week will be:
Monday 2 July—Motion to approve Ways and Means resolutions relating to the Finance Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Finance Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 3 July—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill (day 2).
Wednesday 4 July—Estimates day (1st allotted day). There will be a debate on the work of the UK Border Agency, followed by a debate on UK-Turkey relations and Turkey’s regional role.
Further details will be given in the Official Report.
[The details are as follows: There will be a debate on: UK-Turkey relations and Turkey’s regional role: 12th report from the Foreign Affairs Committee of Session 2010-12, HC 1567, and the Government response thereto, CM 8370.]
At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism.
Thursday 5 July—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill, followed by debate on a motion relating to VAT on air ambulance fuel payments, followed by debate on a motion relating to the public administration Select Committee’s recommendation for the Prime Minister’s adviser on Ministers’ interests to be empowered to instigate his own investigations.
Friday 6 July—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 9 July will include:
Monday 9 July—Second Reading of the House of Lords Reform Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 10 July—Conclusion of Second Reading of the House of Lords Reform Bill (day 2).
Wednesday 11 July—Debate on a motion relating to the sitting hours of the House of Commons. The subject for that debate has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee. Following that, the Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration.
Thursday 12 July—Motion relating to the reform of the Court of Justice of the European Union, followed by a motion on a European document relating to the EU draft budget, followed by a motion on a European document relating to EU human rights strategy.
Friday 13 July—Private Members’ Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 5 July will be a debate on PIP breast implants and regulation of cosmetic interventions, followed by a debate on adoption.
Ms Eagle
The right hon. Gentleman has announced for next week a debate on a Backbench Business Committee motion on giving the adviser on the ministerial code the power to initiate an investigation rather than waiting for the Prime Minister to ask for it, which this Prime Minister has been remarkably reluctant to do. Will the Government accept the decision of the House on this matter?
The revelations that Barclays bank engaged in “widespread” market manipulation to maximise its profits are truly shocking. There are suggestions that other banks were also involved in rigging the LIBOR and EURIBOR rates. I know the Chancellor will make a statement after business questions, but does the Leader of the House agree that such behaviour is “morally repugnant”?
Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister published the House of Lords Reform Bill. The Opposition welcome this legislation. I have always voted for an elected second Chamber and look forward to doing so again, this time with Conservative Back Benchers joining us in the Division Lobby. When the Labour Government took through legislation to remove hereditary peers—a simple six-clause Bill—there were nine days of debate. Why are the Government planning to offer little more debate on the House of Lords Reform Bill, which is a much bigger and more complex piece of legislation? The Leader of the House is fond of saying that the House is not a legislative factory. The Queen’s Speech was short of Bills; time is not a problem. Will he undertake to arrange future Government business to ensure that Members have sufficient time to scrutinise that important Bill?
I can understand Conservative MPs finding the Liberal Democrat differentiation strategy increasingly infuriating—perhaps that explains why the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary have jumped on the same bandwagon —but if the Liberal Democrats differentiate themselves from the coalition and the Conservatives do the same, where does that leave the Government? Perhaps the Education Secretary, who wants to micro-manage schools, could pose this as an exam question: if two parties come together and then differentiate themselves, what does that leave? Based on the last few weeks, the answer is a complete shambles. Will the Leader of the House arrange in future business for Liberal Democrat and Conservative Ministers to share the speaking time to give both parties ample opportunity to differentiate themselves?
We have known for months that the Chancellor is out of touch with the country, but we did not realise until recently the extent to which he is out of touch with his own ministerial colleagues. The Transport Secretary has spent weeks telling everyone that the increase in fuel duty announced in the Budget is going ahead, and on Tuesday morning on the airwaves she was absolutely clear that it would not be postponed. Later that day at 12.30 pm, Conservative Whips sent a briefing to all Tory MPs saying that freezing fuel duty would be
“hypocrisy of the worst kind”.
Two hours later, the Chancellor popped up at the Dispatch Box to announce that he will, after all, freeze fuel duty. Having humiliated the Transport Secretary, the Chancellor then forced the Economic Secretary to make her now celebrated “Newsnight” appearance to explain the latest Budget U-turn, on the grounds—to quote her words—that
“there isn’t much in the world that is certain”.
Given the disarray and panic in the Treasury bunker, the Leader of the House might struggle to give an exact figure, but how many Budget U-turns have we had to date? I wonder whether the Chancellor could write the next Budget in pencil so that we can rub it all out again when he changes his mind. The Leader of the House has announced two days of debate on the Finance Bill next week. Will he now put his reputation on the line, here and now, and tell us categorically that there will be no more U-turns on this bungling Budget? Perhaps he should just give up and vote for our amendments next week.
The Government have made the wrong choice on the economy—a double-dip recession made in Downing street, borrowing up, tax receipts down, living standards down, no plan for growth. The Government’s economic policy is running out of road. The U-turn that the Chancellor needs to make is on his failed economic strategy.
Sir George Young
On the point about the debate on the adviser to the Prime Minister, the hon. Lady is now asking us to do what her Government consistently refused to do, which was to allow the Prime Minister’s adviser to initiate inquiries. She will have to listen to the response given by my ministerial colleague in the debate that I have just announced, which was selected by the Backbench Business Committee.
On the Barclays debacle, as the hon. Lady knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will make a statement, but it strikes me as a failure of the light-touch regime introduced by a previous Minister.
So far as the House of Lords is concerned, the Opposition seem to be in a total muddle. They say that they support the Bill but that they will oppose the programme motion, before they even know what it contains. I ask the hon. Lady, who I know supports reform, to listen to what her leader said in his first conference speech in 2010:
“This generation has a chance—and a huge responsibility—to change our politics. We must seize it and meet the challenge… we need to finally elect the House of Lords after talking about it for…a hundred years.”
That is what he said in 2010, yet yesterday the shadow Leader of the House of Lords said that
“it is not a priority”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 June 2012; Vol. 738, c. 237.]
The only thing that is consistent is the sheer opportunism of the Labour party on this subject.
On the usual knockabout about the coalition from the hon. Lady, I would simply say that two parties are now working together in government more harmoniously than one party did in government for 13 years.
Finally, on fuel, I admire the cool performance of the Economic Secretary in the face of some very aggressive interviewing by Jeremy Paxman. The Opposition accuse the Government of a U-turn, but let us consider their position. First, they introduced a fuel duty escalator—[Interruption.] Secondly, they asked us not to go ahead with their tax rise. Thirdly, when we do not, they complain. The alphabet does not contain a letter describing that manoeuvre.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 25 June—Consideration in Committee of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill (day 2).
Tuesday 26 June—Opposition Day [3rd allotted day]. There will be a debate on the national health service followed by a debate on defence. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
Wednesday 27 June—Conclusion of consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill (day 3).
Thursday 28 June—Debate on a motion relating to fiscal measures to strengthen the green economy, followed by debate on a motion relating to the appointment of a Minister for older people. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
The provisional business for the week commencing 2 July will include:
Monday 2 July—Motion to approve ways and means resolutions relating to the Finance Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Finance Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 3 July—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill (day 2).
Wednesday 4 July—Estimates Day [1st allotted day]. There will be a debate on UK-Turkey relations and Turkey’s regional role, followed by a debate on the work of the UK Border Agency.
Further details will be given in the Official Report.
[The details are as follows: There will be a debate on: UK-Turkey relations and Turkey’s regional role; 12th report from the Foreign Affair Committee of Session 2010-12, HC 1567, and the Government response thereto, CM 8370. Followed by a debate on the work of the UK Border Agency; 15th report from the Home Affairs Committee of Session 2010-12, The Work of the UK Border Agency (April-July 2011), HC 1497, and the Government response thereto, CM 8253, and the Committee’s 21st report of Session 2010-12, Work of the UK Border Agency (August-December 2011), HC 1722.]
At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Thursday 5 July—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill, followed by debate on a motion relating to VAT on air ambulance fuel payments, followed by a further debate to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 6 July—Private Members’ Bills.
I should also like to inform the House of business in Westminster Hall:
Thursday 5 July—Debate on adoption.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week.
The visit to the UK by Aung San Suu Kyi is an opportunity for us to pay tribute to her enormous courage and determination in leading peaceful opposition to the Burmese dictatorship. The personal sacrifices that she has made in spending most of the last quarter of a century under house arrest have been enormous. Her bravery and fortitude have been an inspiration to many and deserve the deepest admiration. Members in all parts of the House will be looking forward to the speech she will deliver to both Houses later today. Because of the courage of Aung San Suu Kyi and others, Burma is finally taking the first tentative steps on the road to democracy. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is important for the UK to do all we can to help to ensure democratic reform in Burma?
If in Burma the signs are promising, in Egypt there are worrying signs that the military is reluctant to give up power, and in Syria the Government’s actions in massacring their own people are completely unacceptable. Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the Foreign Secretary will continue to keep the House aware of the efforts being made to ensure the transition to democracy in all these regions?
This week Members will have received a letter from the Culture Secretary announcing a U-turn on the planned draft Communications Data Bill Green Paper, which was to be published this summer. It was delayed until the autumn, and now we are told that it will not be published at all. Instead, we are promised a White Paper some time next year. In his letter, the Culture Secretary told Members that this would incorporate the Government’s response to the Leveson report. Is not the position of the Culture Secretary and the Government getting beyond parody? Does the Leader of the House really think that it is remotely credible for Lord Justice Leveson’s report to be sent to this Culture Secretary to consider, given that he has, to put it kindly, a strong personal interest in the conclusions?
The Prime Minister rushed to the TV studios to condemn the tax avoidance scheme used by Jimmy Carr. Oddly, he did not take the opportunity to condemn as “morally repugnant” the tax avoidance scheme used by Conservative supporter Gary Barlow, who has given a whole new meaning to the phrase “Take That”. If he is also “morally repugnant”, why has he just been given an OBE in the birthday honours? Why is the Prime Minister’s view of what is dodgy in the tax system so partial? Sir Philip Green has interesting tax arrangements, but far from being labelled “morally repugnant” in a Mexican TV studio, he got a Government review to head up.
While the Prime Minister talks the talk in the TV studios, the reality is that his Government are cutting Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ resources, making it much harder to tackle tax avoidance schemes, while in the botched Budget his Government have given every millionaire a legal way to reduce their tax bill by cutting tax for the richest 1%. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the part-time Chancellor to make a statement to explain why the Government are cutting taxes for millionaires when hard-pressed families are struggling to make ends meet?
Another U-turn this week was the admission by the gaffe-laden Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General that the Government had recruited additional special advisers, breaking the spirit, if not the letter, of the Tory election manifesto and the coalition agreement. May I tell the Leader of the House that the difficulties that the Government are experiencing are not because they have too few special advisers but because they stand up for the wrong people? They make the wrong choices: the wrong choices on the economy, the wrong choices on tax cuts for the richest 1%, and the wrong choices on HMRC funding.
The U-turn on special advisers is the latest in a long line. Will the Leader of the House update Members on how many U-turns the Government have performed over the last month? We have had U-turns on the pasty tax, the skip tax, the caravan tax, aircraft carriers, and the special advisers cap. Have I missed any? [Interruption.] Oh yes, the charity tax. Given this record, and for the convenience of Members, will the Leader of the House, alongside announcing the forthcoming business, in future also announce the forthcoming Government U-turns?
Sir George Young
I suppose that there was a tangential connection with next week’s business in some of that.
May I, too, start on a consensual note and endorse what the hon. Lady said about the visit of Aung San Suu Kyi? We are all looking forward to her address in Westminster Hall. It is a sign of the progress that has been made in Burma that she feels able to leave Burma confident that she will be able to return. It is quite right that this iconic person should be given the opportunity to address both Houses in Westminster Hall later on. It is indeed our objective to play a key role in supporting genuine democratic change in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi will be seeing the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development, and that dialogue will take forward the agenda for change. There is a heavy weight of expectation on her shoulders, and I feel some sympathy with her for carrying that burden.
The Foreign Secretary will certainly want to keep the House up to date on the worrying events in Egypt and Syria, so I can give the hon. Lady that undertaking.
On the proceedings on the Leveson report and the way in which that gets reported back to the House, I think that the machinery we have set up is absolutely correct. We debated the position of the Culture Secretary last week, and his position was endorsed in a vote at the end of that debate.
On tax avoidance, we are introducing a number of measures that the Labour party failed to introduce, such as a general anti-avoidance rule and measures to ensure that at least some tax is paid by those on high incomes. Of course, the Chancellor will be at the Dispatch Box on Tuesday to answer questions.
The hon. Lady ended on U-turns and wrong choices. Today I read an article in The Times by the shadow Home Secretary, in which she conceded that Labour did not get it right on immigration:
“In government we didn’t do enough to address people’s concerns on immigration. By the election, we had lost the argument”.
That was one wrong choice, and I welcome that admission. I hope we can expect it to be the first in a series of articles by Opposition Front Benchers outlining their mistakes over the 13 years. When can we expect an article in The Times from the shadow Chancellor, confessing that Labour did not get it right on the economy either?
Oral Answers to Questions
Angela Eagle Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Heath
It was indeed; there was no progress whatever under the previous Government on this matter. I am very proud of the fact that we moved quickly to establish the Backbench Business Committee. Speaking personally, I think it has been a great success. It is something that the House should have done some time ago. I look forward to building on it in the years to come, and I look forward to the review of the Backbench Business Committee’s work, which will give us an indication of how the House views its performance more widely.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Wright proposals are about increasing ministerial accountability to this House, but there have been too many examples recently of Ministers preferring to do anything other than appear at the Dispatch Box to make statements on their own responsibilities or face departmental questions. This is a huge discourtesy not only to you, Mr Speaker, but to Parliament. To tackle this, might the Leader of the House consider introducing a penalty points system—or, with a reshuffle on the way, a “three strikes and you’re out” rule?
Mr Heath
That was what might be considered a bold attempt to transfer the answer for Question 1 that the hon. Lady had prepared to Question 2. I do not think that the Wright Committee was in any way concerned with the subject to which she referred. As she has raised the issue, however, let me remind her that the present Government have, on average, made more statements than their predecessors. We made 191 in the last Session, an average of 0.7 per sitting day, which compares favourably with the last Administration’s average of 0.4 per sitting day during the 2009-10 Session. We did almost twice as well as they did.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
The business for next week will include:
Monday 18 June—Consideration in Committee of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 19 June—Debate on a motion relating to the application of article 8 of the European convention on human rights, followed by debate on a motion relating to financial services market abuse.
Wednesday 20 June—Opposition day [2nd allotted day]. There will be a debate on disability benefits and social care, followed by a further debate on a subject to be announced. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
Thursday 21 June—Motion relating to the work of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, followed by a motion relating to the mis-selling of interest rate swap products to small businesses. The subjects of these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Colleagues will wish to be reminded that the House will meet at 9.30 am on this day.
The provisional business for the week commencing 25 June will include:
Monday 25 June—Consideration in Committee of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill (day 2).
Tuesday 26 June—Opposition day [3rd allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
Wednesday 27 June—Conclusion of consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill (day 3).
Thursday 28 June—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 28 June will be a debate on social mobility.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. We are all particularly looking forward to the visit next Thursday of Aung San Suu Kyi, which is the cause of the change in the start time.
This week the part-time Chancellor has been whingeing to a group of business leaders because they have not been publicly defending his decision to cut taxes for the richest 1%. This, in a week when we learn that FTSE 100 bosses have awarded themselves an extremely generous pay rise of 12% on average, with one in four pocketing staggering pay rises of 40% or more.
How do the Government respond? On Second Reading of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill on Monday, the Business Secretary announced that he is to water down proposals, which were already inadequate, to give shareholders binding votes on executive pay. Instead of encouraging business leaders to lobby for an even bigger deal for the richest 1%, does the Leader of the House not think that the Chancellor should clamp down on unwarranted and exorbitant rewards for those at the very top?
With the Chancellor disgracefully ducking his own statement on banking reform later today, how are we ever going to get him into this Chamber to explain what has happened to his abandoned slogan: “We’re all in this together”? We have also had an independent report this week on child poverty, which states that the previous, Labour Government cut child poverty at a pace and scale unmatched in any other industrial country. It reveals that measures that Labour introduced in government stopped almost 1 million children growing up in poverty, and it states also that measures introduced by this Government were both “unfair” and “short-sighted”.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies expects the number of children growing up in poverty to increase by 600,000 over the next two years, but the Government’s response is to try to redefine poverty, not to deal with the problem. There we have it: a Government who cut taxes for the richest and make the poor poorer while trying to cover it up. Will the Leader of the House finally find time for a debate on fairness? The Chancellor in his Budget made the wrong decision, and he also chose the wrong economic strategy. Britain is in a double-dip recession made in Downing street. Next week the G20 is meeting in Mexico, and this is an opportunity for the Government finally to come up with a plan B, but I fear that Ministers will have trouble even making it to the G20 given that they are constantly U-turning. A holding pattern over Heathrow seems like a more realistic ministerial destination than Mexico.
The Chancellor made good use of the recess to perform mass U-turns on his omnishambles of a Budget, and I now understand why there are so many recesses at the moment: the Government have built time into the parliamentary calendar to allow Ministers to slip out all their U-turns when the House is not sitting. Does the Leader of the House agree that Ministers should have the guts to come to the House to announce their U-turns?
House building is down, homelessness is up, rough sleeping is up and young people find it impossible to get on the housing ladder. What is the response of the Minister for Housing and Local Government? He spends his time spinning figures that are palpable nonsense. In what parallel universe can the Minister for Housing and Local Government describe a year-on-year drop of 68% in the number of affordable housing starts as an “impressive” and “dramatic” increase? He claimed that there was a “net loss” of 45,000 homes between 1997 and 2010, before deciding that that figure was not sufficiently dramatic and press-releasing that we ended up with 200,000 fewer homes.
In fact, the Government’s own statistics show that by May 2010, when compared with May 1997, there were an additional 2 million homes in England. Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make a statement explaining the antics of the Housing Minister as well as his flawed understanding of simple mathematics?
The pay of FTSE 100 bosses is spiralling out of control, the number of children growing up in poverty is increasing, house building is down and homelessness is up. What we need from the Prime Minister and this Government are less PR and more delivery. To date, it is a pretty sorry record from an out-of-touch and incompetent Government.
Sir George Young
I begin on a consensual note and agree with what the hon. Lady said about next Thursday, when we welcome Aung San Suu Kyi in Westminster Hall.
“Part-time Chancellor”, the hon. Lady says, which is all very well coming from a shadow Leader of the House who a few weeks ago assumed new responsibilities for heading up her party’s policy unit. I hope that she is not going to be a part-time shadow Leader of the House.
On executive pay, the previous Government had 13 years but did absolutely nothing about it. Since January we have been consulting on the most comprehensive reform of governance on directors’ pay, and greater transparency on what executives are paid; strengthening shareholder rights by legislating so that they can hold companies to account; and calling on responsible business and investors to promote good practice. We will announce the final package shortly and do in two-and-a-half years something that Labour wholly failed to do in 13.
On child poverty, the previous Government’s target was to halve it by 2010. They failed. Although relative child poverty numbers fell over the past year, children were no better off in real terms, as it was largely due to a reduction in median incomes. Absolute poverty also did not change, so there are some perverse incentives in the current system, given that, perversely, in a recession it seems that poverty statistics are getting better. That is why we are consulting on a better range for measuring child poverty, something that looks at the causes as well as the monetary measures. In a report it will be announced that the Government intend to consult in the autumn on new, better measurements of child poverty, and when we introduce universal credits that will lift hundreds of thousands of children and families out of poverty.
The hon. Lady asks for a debate about fairness. I have announced a number of Opposition days, so she is perfectly welcome to choose fairness as the subject of one of them. Indeed, she might have chosen fairness for the debate yesterday; it would have been far better than the one that we had.
As for the sittings of the House, we are now sitting in September, which we did not do at all during the previous Parliament, and sitting like-for-like for more days than the previous Parliament.
As for housing, under the previous Government house building starts fell to the lowest level in peacetime since the 1920s. The hon. Lady asked what we were planning to do. We have plans for 170,000 affordable homes during the current spending review. We have reformed the planning system and we are making more public land available to house builders. We are taking a range of steps to assist the housing market.
Apparently, we do not deal with our problems in the same way as the Opposition. This morning we discovered an interesting new technique for establishing party discipline from a prominent Labour blogger in the New Statesman, who wrote: “Challenge Labour and you’ll find a horse’s head on your pillow”. It is no wonder that one insider was quoted as saying:
“We’re all being terribly positive at the moment.”