Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Angela Eagle and Sarah Newton

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

My constituent of working age suffered two strokes and has now been diagnosed as suffering from vascular dementia. He has been found to be fit for work, even though he has major problems with his short-term memory. He will have to appeal the decision and faces a wait of up to 30 weeks before he gets any kind of hearing or has his benefit restored. How can this possibly be a system that is working or acceptable?

[Sarah Newton]

I would of course be more than happy to meet the hon. Lady to go through the specifics of that case.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Angela Eagle and Sarah Newton

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

I will give way in due course to the hon. Gentleman, but I am in full flow making a particular point. If he will let me finish it, I will come back to him.

The current Minister in the Cabinet Office stated earlier this year:

“Cabinet Office Ministers have had no meetings with interested parties on the Government's plans for a proposed statutory register of lobbyists since September 2012.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 1057W.]

The hon. Lady appears to be completely unperturbed by her lack of consultation and engagement on these important matters.

The Leader of the House has regularly praised the work of Select Committees since the Wright reforms were implemented, and claimed the credit for their increasing power and influence. Why, then, has he chosen to ignore the impressive piece of work on lobbying done by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which his Government have had in their in-tray for nearly a year? We had an apology from the right hon. Gentleman today, but does he really think that a two-paragraph response from the Government after this Bill was published is the way his Government should treat a serious piece of work by a well-respected Select Committee? He can hardly be surprised that the Committee believes that the Government have shown

“a lack of respect for Parliament and for the many people who contributed to our inquiry.”

The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee is so concerned about the Bill that it has been forced to hold emergency hearings during the recess. The right hon. Gentleman gave evidence to the Committee this morning. The Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), spoke for many in this House, I know, when he said last week that the proposals on lobbying in the Bill amount to a “dog’s breakfast”. The hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), who I see in his place, immediately objected to the use of the term “dog’s breakfast” because in his words,

“Far more thought has gone into pet nutrition than into this Bill.”

As a Member whose constituency once contained a Spillers dog biscuit factory, I can tell the hon. Gentleman from my personal experience of pet nutrition that he is absolutely right.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

rose—

[Ms Eagle]

Let me get on. I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.

The Standards and Privileges Committee is also worried, as the Chair of that august body told us today, about the implications for privilege and for the remit given to the Standards Commissioner, especially by the contents in schedule 1 and clauses 1 to 3, about which the Committee was not consulted. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised that with the Leader of the House. I look forward to the contributions of members of both of those distinguished Committees to our debate today, as I look forward to seeing any reports on these matters. I know that Members are working hard to produce them before we get to the Committee stage next week. We will all benefit from their expertise and opinions.

I give way to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). He has moved on. I give way to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton).

[Sarah Newton]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful criticism of the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. Will she share with us equal condemnation of the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny of the 2009 Bill for which she claimed responsibility? There was no pre-legislative scrutiny of the Political Parties and Election Act 2009.

[Ms Eagle]

I do not know which Bill the hon. Lady refers to. The principle of pre-legislative scrutiny has been developing and we should continue to develop it. It is a principle that we on the Opposition Benches support.

Sittings of the House (22 March)

Debate between Angela Eagle and Sarah Newton

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

Yes, we intend to press the amendment to a vote.

Surely the Prime Minister cannot have taken to heart the content of last December’s leaked Liberal Democrat memo, which urged senior Liberal Democrats to spread the message that

“The Conservatives can’t be trusted to build a fairer society”

and to remind voters that the Tories only want to look “after the super rich”. I am sure, given those comments, that the Deputy Prime Minister would be welcomed to the Dispatch Box the day after the Budget to support all its content. Perhaps he might also be asked by the Tories on the Government Benches why the Liberal Democrats keep sending out press briefings criticising the Government’s tax policies just after the Chancellor has finished announcing them.

Last December, for example, the Liberal Democrats were caught out saying:

“The only tax cuts the Conservatives support are ones for the very rich. At the General Election, their priority was to cut inheritance tax for millionaires. In the Coalition, Liberal Democrats have blocked these plans.”

After all, just this week the Business Secretary has expressed his

“deep disappointment at the lack of capital investment in the economy”

while declaring himself the shop steward of the newly formed “National Union of Ministers”, fighting cuts to his own departmental budget openly in any TV studio and newspaper that would have him. I can see why the Prime Minister might be reluctant to let his deputy fill in for him at the Dispatch Box given that level of loyalty, so perhaps he should just bite the bullet and do it himself.

If our amendment were carried, all it would do is restore a status quo that has been long experienced in this Parliament: the Prime Minister comes to this House regularly to be held accountable during Prime Minister’s questions for the policy and the behaviour of his Government. That is even more vital after major Government announcements, such as Budgets. It cannot be acceptable that we are expected to put up with a month-long gap between the Budget and the next appearance by the Prime Minister to answer questions at that Dispatch Box.

If the Government resist the amendment to the sittings motion, it will become emblematic of their wider disdain for parliamentary accountability and even for democracy. After all, they have had no democratic mandate for the economic policy that they have pursued since June 2010, because the Liberal Democrats fought the election espousing a completely different economic policy from the one that they now support. The Government have had no democratic mandate for their disastrous top-down reorganisation of the national health service. They explicitly ruled it out during the general election, but now they pursue it with the certainty of zealots and the competence of Mr Bean.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

Would the hon. Lady remind me what democratic mandate Tony Blair had to take this country to war in Iraq?

[Sarah Newton]

That was the very same Prime Minister who did not even allow a debate in the House on a votable motion. It is preposterous for the hon. Lady to deny that from the Dispatch Box and say that our Prime Minister does not put himself before the House on a regular basis for it to scrutinise what this Government are doing.

[Ms Eagle]

I know that the hon. Lady was not a Member when there was a vote on Iraq, but there was a vote in this Parliament, and a very large majority for the action that was subsequently taken in Iraq.

[Sarah Newton]

Action, not war.

[Ms Eagle]

There was far more of a mandate. Indeed, the Conservative party, which was then in opposition, supported that.

Professional Standards in the Banking Industry

Debate between Angela Eagle and Sarah Newton

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

The public demand action that will be effective, and that is calm and considered.

A year ago, this House had to decide the best way to get to the bottom of practices in the media. The House made the right choice then. It decided that a judicial inquiry was the best way to get to the truth, to get to the bottom of what had gone on, and to produce recommendations on how culture and practices could be improved. In that instance, the Prime Minister said that the best way of getting to the truth was

“a judge-led inquiry with Ministers answering questions under oath where all the documents have to be revealed and the whole thing is pursued properly by a team of barristers who are expert at finding out the facts”.—[Official Report, 30 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 1251.]

I am frankly baffled about why the Prime Minister thinks that the best way to get to the bottom of what went on at News International is a judicial inquiry, but the best way to get at what has happened in banking is anything but. It is the wrong choice. Why is the Prime Minister doing what the banking industry, rather than the country, wants him to do?

Let us consider the two options before us today: a parliamentary inquiry or a judge-led inquiry. The Inquiries Act 2005 requires the panel to be independent. This is especially important when there are allegations of the involvement of Whitehall and the Bank of England. The Act ensures transparency and guarantees due legal process. Its enforcement powers are clear and set out in statute, and it can draw upon expert skills and resources to complete its task.

In its 2004-05 report, the Public Administration Committee observed that Committees are not ideally suited to conducting specialised investigations into particular events because of perceptions of partisanship—we have had a little bit of that today—and the limits of ongoing co-operation which could reasonably be expected from Government, and because their evidence-taking procedures are not well suited to drawing out the truth from witnesses. I agree with that assessment. Because of the extraordinary tone adopted by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, this inquiry has already been poisoned by political partisanship—a point recognised, to his credit, by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie).

A parliamentary inquiry would be dependent on support from Treasury officials who are answerable to obviously partisan Ministers. The rules for parliamentary Committees are in a state of flux; they are obscure and potentially difficult to enforce. A judicial inquiry, as the Prime Minister has said, would have a team of barristers and experts in their field to get at the truth. It is for those reasons that the House rightly chose to set up the Leveson inquiry. Although the Culture, Media and Sport Committee did a good job in examining conduct at News International, it had some obvious limitations. First, the Committee’s powers were insufficient to get at the truth, a matter that is currently being considered by the Standards and Privileges Committee. Secondly, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee was unable to agree a unanimous report and split on party lines, diluting its effect. A judicial inquiry would command widespread public support because of the requirement on those involved to act in a non-partisan way. This House made the right choice in opting for a forensic, judge-led inquiry. It should do so again today.

The Prime Minister has made the wrong choice. The Government first opposed holding any inquiry at all.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Eagle]

No, because there is only a minute left.

With no consultation with Opposition parties, the Prime Minister announced a tightly drawn parliamentary inquiry. He first opposed a parliamentary vote, only then to give way. Over the last three days, on every day, at every stage, the Prime Minister has made the wrong choice.

This inquiry will have a Government majority, so far as we can see, because the Prime Minister’s guiding principle has been partisan interest, not the national interest. From day one, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and their parliamentary outriders—we have heard from some of them today—have smeared their way around this issue with innuendo and noise, in order to cover up and make it as partisan as possible.

The Government had a choice this week, but they made the wrong one. They have rejected an independent inquiry to get to the truth of what has gone on in the banking industry when we could have had all-party agreement. They have rejected the opportunity to work on a cross-party basis and instead have sought to maximise narrow partisan interests. The result was the start of our debate today. The Government have rejected the opportunity to begin the work to reshape our banking industry so that it plays a positive role in Britain’s economic future and trust is restored, but I hope that Government Members will see sense and join us in the Lobby today. These issues are too important to be dealt with as the Government suggest and the British public will not be satisfied with anything less than a full, forensic and judge-led inquiry.