Public Bodies
Angela Smith Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The motion lays down the process for the Select Committee scrutiny that will be required when the powers enabled by the Public Bodies Act 2011 are exercised—legislation that we opposed, as the House knows, on its Third Reading in October.
At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) made it clear that we agree that the “quango state”, as he put it, should be kept under review, and that the Opposition do not oppose the removal of quangos that have served their purpose. He went on, however, to say that
“Ministers have been fair-minded”—
and it is important to put that on the record once again—
“but the truth is that this whole process has been ramshackle. Giving Ministers the power to strike down organisations without there being proper parliamentary scrutiny is the worst kind of government; that simply does not meet the high standards this House should expect.”—[Official Report, 25 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 277.]
First, and most fundamentally, therefore, the motion before us is based on deeply flawed legislation, as this Government demonstrated with the forced reversal of their decision on the chief coroner.
Secondly, the motion touches on only one aspect of the scrutiny required of draft orders, but the issues involved are wide-ranging—a point that the Chair of the Liaison Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), made in his letter to the Deputy Leader of the House in December. He went on in that letter to seek assurances on a wide range of issues. The Deputy Leader of the House initially responded to the concerns raised in December, only a day before this motion was originally scheduled for debate on the Floor of the House. One can only wonder why that business was cancelled at such short notice. Needless to say, a further letter in response to the representations of the Chair of the Liaison Committee was provided on 13 January.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed had raised in correspondence the need for an assurance that the Government would not seek to overturn a Select Committee’s recommendation for an extension of the time required to report back on a draft order. The Deputy Leader of the House stated in his initial response that it was “very unlikely” that such a request would be turned down, but made it clear that if the Government disagreed with a request for more time, they would expect the House to acquiesce. I suggest that that was a rather dismissive approach to the right of this House to ensure that adequate time is available for Select Committee scrutiny of such important proposals. In his further letter, the Deputy Leader of the House gave a “personal assurance” that he would make representations to ministerial colleagues, as appropriate, to seek their co-operation. That is not exactly a robust mechanism for guaranteeing that the time judged necessary by a Select Committee for the scrutiny of draft orders is available.
The Deputy Leader of the House also refused in his first response to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to guarantee that the Government would accede to a Select Committee’s request for the debate on a draft order to take place on the Floor of the House, rather than in a Delegated Legislation Committee. In his further response, however, he stated that
“the recommendation of a select committee as to the appropriate forum for debate should be viewed as a representation of especial importance for the reasons you set out.”
It will be noted that, even now, there is no firm assurance on that point, only warm words that allow the Government to defy the views of any Select Committee on this point if they so wish.
The responses of the Deputy Leader of the House have deepened the conviction of Opposition Members that the Government are intent on using their powers to force through proposals to abolish quangos without adequate scrutiny by this House. In particular, the refusal to give firm assurances that debates on orders will take place on the Floor of the House when the relevant Select Committee recommends it is shocking and only goes to show that we have a Government intent on getting their own way, regardless of the democratic rights of Members of this House.
The route of this legislation through Parliament was unsatisfactory and the proposals before us only provide further evidence of how inadequate the safeguards are as against the extent of the powers that are being given to the Executive. As I said earlier, this procedure allows for the reversal of primary legislation. It effectively means that bodies such as the Agricultural Wages Board could be abolished on the back of a debate in a Delegated Legislation Committee. That would potentially mean the loss of £90 million to the rural high street. Given that the impact of these powers could be felt by thousands of people who may lose their jobs as a consequence, it is utterly unacceptable to Opposition Members that such decisions be made in this way.
We fear that the powers made available to the House to scrutinise the decisions made by the Government under the Public Bodies Act 2011 are inadequate. With the will of the House, we will seek to press the motion to a Division.
Mr Heath
With the leave of the House, I should like to thank Members for that short debate.
I shall deal with the points made in reverse order, and turn first to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). He will be aware that the Committee discussed the Welsh aspects of these bodies an awful lot—I remember detailed discussions of the merits, or otherwise, of Pobol y Cwm and so on. I absolutely understand the locus that regionality has in some of the bodies. The suggestion is that the departmental Select Committees have that trigger—I think that he understands that—but he made a perfectly valid point: where there is a strong territorial element in the body in question, the trigger should be exercised in the knowledge of the effect it would have in an area.
I would expect the Welsh Affairs Committee to play a part in matters relating directly to Wales and to make early representations to the relevant Select Committee, encouraging it to pull the trigger for the 60-day process. Once that process was in place and the scrutiny period under way, however, I would expect the Committee to produce a short report, particularly on matters relating to Sianel Pedwar Cymru but also on other things in which it has an interest. The report would be treated as a representation under section 11(6)(a) of the Public Bodies Act, and the Minister would have to have regard to it.
I think I can assure the hon. Gentleman, therefore, that the Welsh Affairs Committee would have a direct locus in intervening to make the House aware of its concerns. Although the Public Bodies Act stipulates that there may be a delegated powers Committee, we have made it abundantly clear that if a request was made for the matter to be dealt with on the Floor of the House it would normally be acceded to. In that case, all Members with an interest would have an opportunity to participate and make their views known before the House finally reached a decision. I hope that that goes some way to assuaging his concerns and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who is an utterly reasonable chap. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman agrees with him so often.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) expressed a number of concerns on behalf of her Committee, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which, again, I well understand. It so happens that her Committee has an early rush, as it were, on the provisions in the legislation, because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs plans to make early proposals, as she said, on British Waterways, the Inland Waterways Advisory Council and the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances.
Let me say first that, yes, if the House accepts this Standing Order today, the hon. Lady’s Committee will be the relevant Committee. Therefore, she has that trigger in her hands—or the hands of her Committee—for extended scrutiny. I understand that that will involve a reasonable work load for her Committee. I sympathise with her about that, but I believe it is better for her Committee to do that work rather than somebody else, elsewhere in the House, who knows nothing about the subject. There is no limitation on what Committees can scrutinise in their role as departmental Select Committees. That extends not just to bodies that are listed in schedules, but to those where there are no changes. If there are no changes, she will not be acting under this procedure, but her Committee will still have the capacity to consider the matter.
I understand the hon. Lady’s point about the House of Lords having its arrangements in place earlier than the House of Commons. I would have liked to introduce things earlier, but it was important to have the conversation and dialogue with the Select Committees of this House, through the Liaison Committee and the Procedure Committee, to ensure that we got it right. This House has a much more complex Committee structure than the Lords—we have departmental Committees—so a slight asymmetry in the way we did that was inevitable. However, I hope that I can persuade her that what we are doing in this case is probably the best way forward.
As far as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stockbridge (Angela Smith) is concerned—
Mr Heath
Is that not what I said? I do apologise: Stocksbridge. Speaking as someone whose constituency name is almost always mispronounced, I have the greatest sympathy if the hon. Lady has the same problem.
I was disappointed by what the hon. Lady said. She seems to be taking up the concerns of the Liaison Committee, even though I have satisfied the Liaison Committee. The fact that it is content with my proposals is not good enough for her. She still thinks that the Liaison Committee ought to be more upset than it is. Well it is not: the Liaison Committee is satisfied with our proposals. She adduced the “mystery” of why the matter was not put before the House in December, but I made it perfectly plain that the reason was a problem with the motion, which was down to an administrative error. However, given that we could not propose the motion on that day, I aimed to derive what I hoped would be some benefit from the delay by saying that it gave us more time to explore and satisfy the concerns of the Liaison Committee and the Procedure Committee, and that is exactly what we did.
I have given clear indications about the procedures that we will adopt to ensure that Committees are not disadvantaged, but have the opportunity to make their cases properly. However, at the end of the day, I cannot go against the legislation. I cannot rip up legislation that this House and the other House passed so recently and say, “Right, we’ll now have a completely different procedure.” However, I can work within the legislation to maximise scrutiny by the Committees of this House and the wider House and ensure that every Member has the opportunity to have their say. I believe that that is what we have put before the House today, after consultation with the Committees, and I urge the House to support the motion.
Question put.
Business of the House
Angela Smith Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the future business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
The business for the week commencing 5 December is as follows:
Monday 5 December—Motion relating to ministerial statements, followed by motion relating to UK extradition arrangements.
The subjects for these debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 6 December—General debate on the economy.
Wednesday 7 December—Motion relating to the appointment of the chairman of the National Audit Office, followed by motion relating to the membership of the Speaker’s Committee on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to European sales law. In addition, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named the London Local Authorities Bill as opposed private business for consideration.
Thursday 8 December—Opposition day [un-allotted day] [half-day]. There will be a debate on a Scottish National party-Plaid Cymru motion, subject to be announced, followed by a money resolution relating to the Local Government Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill.
The provisional business for the week commencing 12 December will include:
Monday 12 December—General debate on immigration.
Tuesday 13 December—Motion to approve the appointment of the chairman of the Statistics Board, followed by motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to financial restrictions (Iran), followed by Opposition day [un-allotted day] [half-day]. There will be a debate on a Democratic Unionist party motion, subject to be announced.
Wednesday 14 December—Opposition day [un-allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
Thursday 15 December—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 8 December will be a debate on the EU Council.
Angela Smith
May I start by placing on the record an apology from my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, who is attending an engagement in her constituency today and is therefore unable to be with us? In fact, she is welcoming the Queen officially to open a new development. I suggested that she might also want to use the opportunity to ask Her Majesty to look in her diary to check when her Gracious Speech is likely to take place, so we can finally clear the matter up—unless, of course, the Leader of the House would like to tell us first this morning?
Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Government will bring to the House business of any substance? For some time now, we have seen a distinct absence of Government-sponsored business and the schedule just announced, which takes us to almost the very end of the session, is no different. Perhaps the Government are responding to the dark days of winter and the even darker days of the economic crisis they have helped to create by going into hibernation. After just 18 months in government, they have run out of ideas while their economic policy has run into the sand. At a time when millions of families are desperately worried about what the future holds, the Government are showing how desperately out of touch they are by offering no new legislation and not a single debate of any substance.
Mr Speaker, on Monday you heard a point of order from the shadow Leader of the House that raised concerns about the Government’s deliberate and selective leaking of the autumn statement to the media and you responded by expressing your grave concern about those matters. Since then, of course, we have enjoyed the rather dubious pleasure of listening to the Chancellor deliver his statement on the Floor of the House and, indeed, it was an illuminating experience, if only in the sense that it revealed the very few details of the statement that had not already been leaked to the media. How important those small details are, however. We learned, for instance, that the Government are unable to meet the deficit reduction target that they set themselves only 18 months ago and that growth forecasts have been slashed to 0.9% this year, down from the 1.7% forecast in March, and 0.7% next year, down from 2.5%, the fourth downgrade since this Government came to power. We also learned that the Government’s squeeze on living standards will be not only severe but prolonged. It will be extended to six years or longer—a situation not seen in the UK since the last war.
Despite all the spin in advance of Tuesday, the very measures that the Chancellor chose to highlight in his leaks have unravelled under close scrutiny. Borrowing is set to spiral by £158 billion, despite promises to balance the deficit by 2015. Unemployment is expected to continue to rise for the next two years and £1.3 billion a year will be snatched from children and families after cuts to the child tax credit and the freezing of the working tax credit. Meanwhile, the bankers will contribute just £300 million. After 18 months, the verdict is in—plan A has failed colossally. So may we have a debate on the Chancellor’s autumn statement? It is time for the Government to adopt Labour’s five-point plan and put jobs and growth first.
When listening to the Chancellor’s statement, the House could have been forgiven for thinking that we were back in the 1980s—back to the future. Now we have the “back to the future jobs fund”. With more than 1 million young people unemployed, the Government’s U-turn on tackling youth unemployment is welcome, but the devil is always in the detail. May we have a debate on the measures that have been announced for tackling youth unemployment and how far they will go toward repairing the damage inflicted by the Government’s decision to abolish the future jobs fund in the first place? Such a debate would provide the Government with a good opportunity to apologise for their hastiness in cancelling a successful initiative.
The Government should also apologise for their reckless approach to economic management and, more crucially, they should stop blaming everyone and everything else when things do not go according to plan A. Last week, we heard that they were not to blame for their planned reduction in the feed-in tariff for solar-generated power and the damage that threatens to inflict on the solar industry. We were also told that the reduction was not a betrayal of their promise to be the greenest Government ever. This week, we have also heard that it is not their fault that there is no guarantee that the £1 billion for carbon capture projects will be forthcoming in the near future. However, we then learned in The Independent that the autumn statement would announce a review of legislation relating to the protection of precious wildlife habitats in the planning process because they are deemed to be a potential barrier to economic growth. May we have a debate about the role of green policy in promoting economic growth, given that the Conservative party said, “Vote blue, get green”, whereas the reality is that we are not getting very much at all? It will take more than a few huskies and a vanity photographer to restore the Prime Minister’s green credentials.
Not only do the Government refuse to respect the usual courtesies of the House but they refuse to respect the promises they made to the electorate or to take responsibility for their actions when things go wrong. They are out of touch and they are hiding from the electorate and from Members of the House.
Sir George Young
May I welcome the hon. Lady to her debut at business questions? Of course we understand the absence of the shadow Leader of the House, who is in her constituency.
On the date of Prorogation and the Queen’s Speech, I repeat what I have said in previous questions—we will announce those in due course. We have a legislative programme going through both Houses, and when that programme has made good progress we will be able to announce the dates of Prorogation and the Queen’s Speech.
The hon. Lady somewhat devalued the debates between now and Christmas that I have just announced, including an Opposition day, which she thinks is of no consequence at all. There is an important debate on the economy on Tuesday and some important debates will be chosen by the Backbench Business Committee. I am sure that she did not mean to insult the subjects chosen by that Committee by implying that they are not of any importance to the House.
On the ministerial code, I look forward to the debate on Monday; the Backbench Business Committee has brought forward a motion on the subject. I repeat that we are committed to what is in the ministerial code: important announcements should be made to Parliament in the first instance.
When we set the target that the hon. Lady mentioned, we gave ourselves an extra year’s headroom, and we have now used that up, so we are still on track to meet the original target. The strategy on which we have embarked, which she criticised, has been endorsed by the International Monetary Fund, the OECD, the Bank of England and all credible commentators. It is the Labour party alone that wants to embark on a reckless series of policies that would put at risk the low interest rates that the country now enjoys.
I hope that the hon. Lady welcomes the announcement made a few days ago on the youth contract. The future jobs fund was an expensive use of resources, and many of the jobs were short-term posts in the public sector; those in them ended up back on the dole. Our Work programme is a much more targeted and efficient alternative.
On the issues that the hon. Lady raised about climate change, we have just had Department of Energy and Climate Change questions, in which there was an opportunity to press the Secretary of State on our commitment to our environmental targets, which I am sure that he reasserted.
I think that I have answered all the questions that the hon. Lady put to me. Her last point was to ask whether we would stop blaming other people for the problems that confront us. The Office for Budget Responsibility could not have been clearer about the reasons for the difficulties that confront the country. The first is issues in the eurozone, the second is the increase in commodity prices, and the third is the deep recession that we inherited from the Labour party.
Oral Answers to Questions
Angela Smith Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
For my hon. Friend, every vote is a free vote. The speech that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made referred to Public Bill Committees and suggested not total free votes but more free votes; and we have had more free votes in the House on certain issues which, in the previous Parliament, were whipped. Having said that, I hope my hon. Friend will understand that most of us got here wearing a party label, and that it is wholly legitimate for the party to expect some loyalty to the manifesto on which the Member stood.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Since gaining the keys to No. 10, the Prime Minister has alienated at least 81 of his colleagues over the vote for the EU referendum and is yet to deliver free votes on other issues. Is it not the case that here we have a Government led by a cavalier Prime Minister, who is abandoning his cheap promises more quickly than he is distancing himself from his unhappy Tory Back Benchers?
Sir George Young
The hon. Lady would be speaking from a position of strength had her party not divided on precisely the same issue as the Government. It is an issue on which all parties were divided last week, and my right hon. Friend has not alienated 81 Back Benchers.
Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund
Angela Smith Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I will be brief because, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) pointed out, we are due to start a debate that is 22 years overdue, and many family members of those who died are here to listen to it.
Three basic principles underlie the topic under discussion. The first and most important is that Members should never again vote on pay and pensions issues. Independent determination of our remuneration and expenses is critical to the integrity of the House. I have always believed that it is invidious that Members are asked to determine their pay and pensions. The same rules should apply to local government and the devolved Assemblies. I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree with the motion, in the sense that it should stop, once and for all, any votes on such issues, although I understand that on at least three occasions we determined never again to vote on them yet have always ended up coming back to them. Let us hope that this is the last time.
The second principle is related and is very much about public confidence in Parliament and its Members. Labour Front Benchers believe that taking the matters we are discussing out of the hands of Members will do a great deal to help restore that confidence, as outlined in the 2009 report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. We voted on that principle in the previous Parliament, and it would be absolutely consistent with that vote to support the motion on passing responsibility for our pension scheme to IPSA.
The third principle is that of parity. It is absolutely critical that Members understand that we are no different from other public sector workers and that we should be no better or worse off than public sector workers when it comes to our pension scheme. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) referred to that point.
We will support the motion and oppose the amendment, because we believe that the principle of parity with public sector workers is of the utmost importance, but it must be understood that we may not entirely support the Government’s approach to implementation of the Hutton report. We believe that some of the statements made in the Hutton report are absolutely right, but we do not necessarily support everything the Government are doing to implement it. That is an important distinction to make.
It is also important to re-emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House: there has already been a 1.9% increase in Members’ contributions, which was agreed in 2009 as a cost-saving measure. IPSA should also take account of the fact that a Member serves for an average of just 15 years.
I reiterate the importance of consultation. The motion correctly secures the ongoing involvement of the trustees in consultations on changes to the operation of the scheme.
The shadow Leader of the House successfully deconstructed the myth of public sector gold-plated pensions. She restated the often overlooked fact that the average public sector pension is less than £5,600 a year and reminded us of the importance of the Government committing to meaningful negotiations with public sector unions, not going to the negotiating table with predetermined outcomes. I re-emphasise my hon. Friend’s point about the Government’s use of language, which sometimes seems designed to inflame the situation rather than to resolve the outstanding issues.
Our support for the motion does not in any way stand as an endorsement of the Government’s approach to public sector pensions, but because of the principles it outlines we believe that it deserves the support of the House.
Procedure Committee Reports
Angela Smith Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
With the leave of the House, I should like to put on record my tribute to the work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who discharged her duties in the House assiduously and will be a very hard act to follow.
We on the Opposition Front Bench support the motion on explanatory statements put forward by the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight). The Committee’s recommendation marks progress from a position already established, and as I understand it, Government Front Benchers have also adopted the recommendation, so I hope that it receives support from all parts of the House today.
We also support the sensible recommendation on written parliamentary questions, because there are alternatives to electronically tabled written questions, and if implemented the recommendation will not curtail the opportunities for Members to table written questions, as is their right.
We do, however, believe that the motion on a Select Committee’s right to table amendments to legislation should be sent back to the Procedure Committee for further consideration, as it has not been thoroughly thought out.
Sir Alan Beith
That recommendation was introduced by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in the previous Session; it was carefully considered by the Liaison Committee; and it has now been carefully considered and substantially modified by the Procedure Committee in order to meet those concerns. Do we have another case of the two Front-Bench teams conniving to stop Select Committees and Back Benchers having rights in this House?
Angela Smith
Perish the thought.
My point is that, if we give Select Committees the right to table amendments to legislation, business relating to the Floor of the House and Public Bill Committees, will it not create the danger of Select Committees taking a much less consensual approach to their work? That is the real risk with the recommendation, and for that reason it should go back for further consideration.
I turn to the recommendation on hand-held devices. I do not need to repeat the background to the debate which goes back to the decision in 2007, because the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire outlined it very clearly. Suffice it to say that technology has moved things forward at a rapid pace—to the extent that we now have smartphones, iPads and other tablets, which have completely transformed the way in which Members conduct their business.
On top of that, we have new forms of communication. According to the Procedure Committee’s report, 225 Members tweet or have Twitter accounts, but in today’s debate we have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) state that the figure now stands at 300. That demonstrates how over a six-month period 75 Members have signed up for Twitter accounts. It also shows the popularity of the device as a means of communication, and for that reason alone Members increasingly see new forms of communication such as Twitter as making it easier for us to open up a dialogue with the world outside—with the people we serve. Those new forms of communication and technology have called into question once again how we conduct our business in the Chamber.
I was elected in 2005. At that point, I never thought that I would be standing here on the Front Bench making arguments about smartphones, iPads and Twitter accounts, but that in itself demonstrates how quickly the world is moving forward and how difficult it is for the House to keep up. It would be all too easy to step backwards and pretend that the world has not changed. We could pretend that Steve Jobs never existed and say to ourselves that the business of the House should stay true to the days of paper, pen and ink. However, to do that would be to deny reality and to deny the dynamic relationship that now exists between Parliament and the world outside. Even if we deny it, the media, quite rightly, will not. We cannot, therefore, fulfil our obligations as legislators effectively if we pretend that the world outside has not got smaller and smaller in terms of how quickly news travels.
There are advantages and disadvantages in allowing a more relaxed approach to the use of hand-held devices by Members on the Floor of the House and in Committee, for it is undoubtedly the case that members of the public sometimes object to seeing Members of this House using their phones or their iPads while here in the Chamber. If the Chair of the Administration Committee were in his place, I am sure that he would testify to that fact.
Robert Halfon
I very much welcome the hon. Lady’s remarks. While it is true that some members of the public object, it is also true that many of them like the fact that their MPs are on Twitter and on Facebook communicating what they are doing. Does she agree that that has come about partly because of the huge shift from paper to electronic mail and in how our constituents communicate with us?
Angela Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is absolutely the argument that I am trying to make.
Although such behaviour is seen by some members of the public as discourteous and indicative of a lack of attention to the business of the House, and although on occasion that has proved to be true, and excessive and obtrusive use of such devices should be deplored, I would contest that excessive chatter and private conversations on the part of Members is equally to be deplored, and that it is those who persist in that kind of behaviour who bring the business of this House into disrepute. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, who pointed out that Members who fall asleep in the Chamber while business is being discussed are most to be censured for discourteous behaviour. Indeed, it has been known on occasion even for Front Benchers to fall asleep or to snooze while the business of the House is ongoing.
We need to be pragmatic in our approach. Those who would continue a stricter approach to the use of hand-held devices in the Chamber on the grounds that it constitutes interference in parliamentary proceedings ought to bear in mind that we already allow the passing of messages and envelopes containing paper-based documents in and out of the Chamber for use in debate. On that basis, why cannot we allow the electronic transfer of such information for use in the Chamber? If a Member is given statistics relating to a debate via documents passed to her or him in an envelope brought to the Chamber by a member of his or her staff, then why should not that be done independently by the MP in the Chamber using an electronic device? Moreover, as the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said, given that civil servants pass a fairly constant stream of notes to the Government Front Bench during debate, why should not other Members of the House be able to access information speedily and without delay?
We support the motion laid before the House by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and other Members, and we commend the Procedure Committee for its work. We believe that it represents a pragmatic response to the challenges raised by the development of new technology and means of communication in that it requires Members to be sensible and discreet about their use of electronic devices in this Chamber and elsewhere. We also support the recommendations in the Select Committee report relating to Twitter and to tweeting, which are, again, sensible and pragmatic. As someone who has a Twitter account—and who is about to get her 1,000th follower—but who does not generally tweet in this Chamber, I nevertheless uphold the right to do so and the inevitable pragmatic need to give way on that point.
Our view is that we should give the approach recommended by the Procedure Committee an opportunity to work. We should bear it in mind that it is always possible to review the decision if it is felt that the recommended way forward is not working.
Business of the House (17 October)
Angela Smith Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I support the Deputy Leader of the House’s comments, and I want to remind the House that it should bear in mind when making its decision on the motion how it will look to the country. Do parliamentarians want to give the impression that they are more interested in their personal financial interests—their pensions, no less—than in the issues that concern the people they represent? Do Members of the House want to be seen to be gazing at their own navel at the expense of doing their proper job, which is to respond to the issues that matter to the people we represent? The Hillsborough disaster is pertinent not only to the people of Liverpool, Sheffield and Nottingham. Those who have signed the petition want justice for the 96 who died and for their families, and in that sense it is relevant to every Member of the House. I urge colleagues to support the motion tabled in the name of the Leader of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Business of the House
Angela Smith Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I welcome my hon. Friend’s interest in this important subject. She will know that we have extended the consultation period. The Minister responsible has said that the Government will not give their response to the consultation until the Transport Committee, which is looking at the matter, has reported on it. She will know that this is a genuine consultation. We have already received 1,200 responses and look forward to getting more. The proposals will hopefully deliver a better joined-up and more resilient search and rescue co-ordination service.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The regeneration of Barnsley town centre depends on Barnsley council being able to access the assets currently owned by Yorkshire Forward, the now defunct regional development agency, and yet the Government are determined to flog them off. May we have a debate on this crucial issue, which is important to communities up and down the country?
Sir George Young
I understand the hon. Lady’s concern. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is aware of the issue and is looking at the individual assets concerned to see whether he can come to a speedy decision. I will pass on her renewed concern to him and ask him to write to her.
Business of the House
Angela Smith Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I am not sure whether this would be in order, but the remaining stages of the Scotland Bill are before the House next Tuesday; with some ingenuity, the hon. Gentleman may be able to work the issue to which he refers into that debate.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
BBC Radio Sheffield provides a much-valued service for the people of South Yorkshire, especially in times of crises, such as when the area flooded in 2007. May we have a debate on the future of BBC local radio in the context of the threat to the future of the service from the BBC Trust?
Sir George Young
There will be an opportunity on 28 March to raise that matter with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is in the Chamber and will have heard the hon. Lady’s question. A bid for a debate on local radio might be well supported by all Members, and the Committee might provide an opportunity for such a debate in future either here or in Westminster Hall.
Business of the House (Thursday)
Angela Smith Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hilary Benn
To be honest, I have no idea what the Leader of the House was talking about. It is for him to explain his words. The truth is that the procedure that the Government are proposing to use to give the House time to discuss their proposals is completely inadequate.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Tomorrow, 45,000 students will visit London to make their views known. Does my right hon. Friend agree that giving the House only five hours of debate is an insult to them?
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend. It shows what the Government think of all those students that they propose to give so little time to debate this matter.
Hilary Benn
That is a powerful point. Last week, I observed that, throughout the ages, Liberal Democrats who have been faced with a tough decision have sat on the fence. I suspect that we will see that tomorrow.
Angela Smith
Is it not the case that the proposals before the House tomorrow radically redraw the relationship between the state and the individual? Are they not predicated on an 80% reduction in funding for teaching? Is it not appalling that an SI should be used for such a radical shift in Government policy?
Hilary Benn
It certainly is. The 80% reduction is implicit in the statutory instruments that we will consider tomorrow, and it is the cause of those statutory instruments, but we will not have a proper opportunity to debate that.
Angela Smith
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As most of us do not have the benefit of having the time to look at “Erskine May” during the debate, may I ask for your guidance on whether a manuscript amendment would have any impact on any attempt by the Government to move the closure of the debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I have already explained to Members that if they want specific advice on the tabling or effects of a manuscript amendment, they should speak to the Clerks. Then they will get the answers to their questions about how such an amendment may or may not affect the debate.
Hilary Benn
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe that my hon. Friend should have the opportunity tomorrow precisely to put that question to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Angela Smith
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. Sheffield Hallam university could lose about £70 million because of this decision. Is it not imperative that Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and myself make a contribution tomorrow, especially given that the Deputy Prime Minister has refused to meet the local student union to discuss the matter?
Hilary Benn
I am surprised and concerned to hear that news. It seems from what my hon. Friend says that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to spend more time in the television studios describing the changing positions of his party than he is prepared to spend talking to students who are going to feel the consequences of what he is proposing
I turn to a difficulty that might arise for all Members tomorrow, because all we are discussing—I say “all” in a contextual sense—is two statutory instruments. Here I seek guidance from the Leader of the House and possibly from you, Mr Speaker. The House will be aware of the rules governing the scope of debate on statutory instruments. A little while ago, I promised that I would quote from “Erskine May”, and page 681 states:
“Debate on any statutory instrument, whether subject to the affirmative or the negative procedure, is confined to the contents of the instrument, and discussion of alternative methods of achieving its object is not in order. Where the effects of an instrument are confined to a particular geographical area or areas, discussion of other areas is out of order. Nor is criticism of the provisions of the parent Act permitted.”
Mr Speaker, does that mean that Members will be restricted tomorrow in what they can discuss and what they can say? Does it mean, for example, that Opposition Members who would wish to argue the case for a graduate tax cannot raise it in the debate? Could they be ruled out of order? If right hon. and hon. Members want to refer to the implications of the proposals for other parts of the United Kingdom, will they be ruled out of order? Were that to be the case, it would show how improper is the Government’s decision to bring the statutory instrument before the House tomorrow. If that interpretation of “Erskine May” is applied—
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I rise to oppose this evening’s motion tabled in the name of the Leader of the House and the Minister for Universities and Science. It is interesting that it is two Conservative members of the coalition who have put their name to the motion, and that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who was here earlier, has not put his name to it. Earlier on, he was sitting in his place with a face with which the funeral industry beckons because of what he had to sit through tonight.
We are here to discuss a business motion that is another example of something we have already seen this week: how the Government have attempted to restrict debate on this vital matter for many thousands of not only our constituents now but future generations. Tomorrow’s debate will, in five hours, change the relationship between people and the state and how we provide higher education in this country. To do that in five hours is totally unacceptable.
Angela Smith
Does my hon. Friend agree that the House should put on record its grateful thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for having done such a grand job in defending the rights of the House and of the people of the country in how he led tonight’s debate?
Mr Jones
I would always agree with that. My right hon. Friend is a very good friend and he has done an excellent job in defending the rights of Back Benchers and the House.
Later, I will remind some Members on the Government Front Bench how eager they were in opposition to argue, on the subject of programme motions, that we needed to have more debate. That is especially true of the Deputy Leader of the House, although he is not in his place. I remember having to listen to hours of his droning on about why—
Angela Smith
I have looked around me and seen on this side of the House at least four Members who once worked in higher education. They have the expertise that could be brought to bear on the issue in a Public Bill Committee. Should this legislation not be in a Bill, and be considered on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend takes me on to my next point, which is about the decision to debate the issue in five hours tomorrow. That is to ensure that the measure will be dealt with before the framework document is in place, but it seems ludicrous to have the discussion tomorrow and fundamentally change the funding of higher education in this country before we have the full framework policy document. That should be in place, not only to reveal how what is decided tomorrow may be interpreted, but to allow some newer universities a debate about their financial future. It is clear to me that some of them will struggle when these measures are implemented.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Angela Smith Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman should not try to misrepresent my argument. I am not arguing in the slightest for tiny seats. I am not even arguing that the people of Rhondda alone have the right to elect in perpetuity, even though they have only 50,000 voters. There should be much greater parity, but we need to be able to balance the needs of parity with the needs of local communities and constituencies of interest that exist around the country. There was no constituency of interest in Old Sarum in 1831 and 1832—the only interest was that of Tory Back Benchers who wanted to ensure that they were still able to dole the seat out to one of their family members. So it is an argument not against Labour but against the Conservatives.
Sheffield will almost certainly be entitled to five constituencies, but with 20 wards it would end up with three constituencies of six wards, which would be too big, and two constituencies of five wards, which would be too small. We would therefore have to split wards in Sheffield or cross the boundaries with Barnsley and Rotherham, which would be tough, as wards in Rotherham are about the same size as those in Sheffield and there are a large number of hills in the way. In the words of Professor Ron Johnston,
“They are going to have to split wards, I have no doubt about this.”
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Under these proposals, it is perfectly possible that one of the wards in my constituency, East Ecclesfield, could end up being split into three parts, with one part going into the seat of Wentworth and Dearne, one part into Brightside, and one part into my seat.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The wards in some metropolitan areas comprise 15,000 or 20,000 voters. Consequently, if the Government push ahead with their proposed 5% leniency either way rather than the 10% that we are advocating, they will have to split wards. Contrary to what the Deputy Leader of the House said last week, and what the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) has said, there is not a single ward in England that is split between constituencies—not one. [Interruption.] The latter is chuntering very quietly, but now he is looking at his phone, so I presume he has given up on that point. He can pipe down.
The end result is that it will become impossible for wards to be used as building blocks, as they currently are without exception in England despite the fact that it is not a requirement of the rules. Voters will have to become psephological experts to know who represents them at each level of government—their councillor, their Member of Parliament and their representatives at other tiers in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Historical communities and towns will be split for negligible benefit, and because of the knock-on effects there will have to be a radical redrawing of virtually every seat in the land.
Paul Murphy
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I would not want to come between Sheffield and Rotherham Members, but I understand his point. The Bill is a two-pronged attack on our parliamentary traditions. On the one hand, it reduces the link between a Member of Parliament and his or her constituency and the community that that constituency represents; and on the other, the Government’s policies on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland threaten the very integrity of the Union.
Angela Smith
I should like to put on record the fact that Sheffield would love to absorb Rotherham constituencies. Sheffield’s much greater fear is that it will end up sharing constituencies with Derbyshire or West Yorkshire or, God forbid, even Leeds.
Andrew George
I shall give way in a moment, but let me make a little more progress.
It is vital for people to understand that we are talking about a Cornwall that has a long tradition of culture and a separate language, as others have mentioned. No English counties have a language of their own in the sense that Cornwall does—and it has been recognised by the European Commission and other authorities. The language is recognised and specified in the European charter.
Angela Smith
I remind the House that Cornwall, along with South Yorkshire, enjoyed—if that is the right word—objective 1 status because of its need for economic growth and because of the poverty from which it has suffered. Does that not suggest that Cornwall needs all the representation it can get at the moment to make sure that its economic voice can be heard in this House?
Andrew George
I agree. Of course we would like to have more than average representation, but we are not asking for special favours. I have said already that we are not asking for favouritism, only for the distinctiveness of Cornwall to be respected.