Devolution and Growth across Britain

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I welcome my hon. Friend back to the House, and he again makes a very good point. I will help him to promote that. It is part of some of the city deals, but I think we can benefit from it a lot more.

I was talking about our commitment to 2 million jobs and 3 million more apprenticeships during the lifetime of this Parliament. These are not mere targets; the dignity of a job and the security of a pay packet are the foundations of our individual freedoms—freedoms powered by economic growth, through British business. Equally, British voters have shown their unwillingness to forgive the party responsible for plunging us into a generation-defining crisis—a party that has defined itself by seeking to punish, demonise and destroy business—but this anti-business approach from the Opposition was not a shock. Ultimately, Labour does not understand business; it does not understand enterprise. It never has and it never will.

The task ahead now is to cement Britain’s position as the best place in Europe to start and grow a business. The enterprise Bill is resolutely, unashamedly pro-business. It builds on the clear achievements of the past five years, when we cut red tape and slashed the cost of doing business by £10 billion. We made audits simpler for small businesses, removed pointless hurdles for house builders and exempted thousands of businesses from needless health and safety inspections. As a result, we now have the lowest burden of regulation among G7 nations.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I have been listening carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying and I have not heard him talk about productivity. Under his Government, British productivity now languishes well behind that of Germany and even France, which he likes to criticise. Is he proud of his record on productivity and does he think it is right that British workers should have to work longer hours and have more jobs to earn less?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady will know that productivity has been a challenge in our country for many, many years, and it is this Government who have been doing something about it. Her hon. Friend the Member for Streatham referred to the automotive industry. Productivity in the British automotive industry has grown significantly over the last five years, which has led to record sales both at home and abroad. Productivity is something we will continue to work on, but one thing I am sure of is that had we adopted the policies advocated by her party, productivity would be a lot worse in this country.

Our job is far from done. The enterprise Bill will enable us to save businesses at least £10 billion over this Parliament. Regulators will have to report their own compliance with better regulation requirements—a clear incentive to think carefully about the needs of business. More small businesses will be able to benefit from “primary authority”, stopping the cost and hassle of obeying multiple masters and allowing companies to focus on what matters: serving their customers and growing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), and, indeed, so many excellent maiden speeches from Members on both sides of the House. From listening to them, I am confident that the 2015 intake of MPs will add much to the experience, wit and verve of this Chamber.

I am proud to say that the north-east overwhelmingly returned Labour MPs in the general election. Unfortunately, the rest of the country did not see fit to follow suit. [Hon. Members: “London!”] Apart from London, yes. As a consequence, rather than the English devolution Bill that Labour had promised, we are now debating measures to crack down on trade unions and human rights, and the abolition of the Human Rights Act, which will hardly build up the north-east’s economic competitiveness. It is not enough simply to repeat the talk about the northern powerhouse when the Tory party actively dismantled the northern powerhouse we had in the 1980s. The Prime Minister may try to rebrand the Tory party as that of the working people, but we remember it as the party of putting people out of work.

I congratulate the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who is not in his place, on his elevation. I hope that he will prove to be a Secretary of State who works with councils, rather than against them. As I am an optimist, I urge Ministers to consider a fair and long-term funding settlement in the north. During the last Parliament, we lost disproportionately: £650 million was effectively transferred from the north of England to the south, and the cut in spending in Newcastle was £266 per person, compared with £130 per person on average nationally. Ministers must not hamper devolution by crippling councils with further unsustainable reductions in spending power. It is not only that money was moved south; despite the rhetoric, power and budgets were brought back to Whitehall in the past five years. Now that the Government clearly have no mandate in the north-east, we demand the powers we need to build the kind of economy that matches our aspiration and our values.

[The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way to me, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. In the spirit that she normally adopts in our affairs, I know that she will want to welcome the Government’s work on city deals, including in the north of England—the now Secretary of State championed them—and, indeed, the innovative work in Manchester. Surely that is something to welcome.

[Chi Onwurah]

I normally enjoy the right hon. Gentleman’s interventions, but I must say, in a spirit of as much graciousness as I can summon, that he is entirely on the wrong track. Such matters as have been devolved have not really made a difference. Particularly when it comes to Newcastle and north-east, which I shall talk about, there have been words, but not substance. We want substance, and we want real powers.

For example, why are decisions about the regional growth fund taken in SW1, not in the north-east? Why should we depend on civil servants in London to put the north-east’s £500 million of European funding to work properly? Why can we not take control of that ourselves? Why is the Work programme run out of the Department for Work and Pensions, when local programmes like Newcastle Futures are much more successful in getting youngsters and the long-term unemployed into work? Why can we not have our own housing investment fund to deliver on the plans that have been set out by our combined authority? Why can the north-east not run its own buses, as London does? Why can we not have an integrated transport system? Why does the Minister for Security, who used to have a skills brief, think that London knows better than the north-east what kind of skills we need to build an economy that matches our values and aspirations?

Scotland is to be given more powers as part of the referendum settlement. It will compete with the north-east for every investment, every tourism trip, every pound of foreign investment and every new job. However, while Scotland will blow its own trumpet, we have to rely on Whitehall to blow ours. Less than 10% of inward investment inquiries from firms that are interested in locating in Newcastle come from UK Trade & Investment. That is just not good enough.

The Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, which will receive its Second Reading in the House of Lords on Monday, is supposed to devolve powers to large cities that choose to have mayors, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said. Newcastle was one of the nine out of 10 cities that chose to reject an elected mayor. Is it the Government’s intention to free the north-east at the cost of a top-down reorganisation of local government? I believe that we need to improve the accountability and transparency of combined authorities like the North East Combined Authority, but I hope that Ministers will work with our local authorities to come up with something that we can agree on, rather than impose something.

In conclusion, the north-east has so much to contribute to the economy. It has consistently had a balance of payments surplus and, I should add, is the only region in the country to have one. We are home to many emerging innovative, green and digital industries; we have world-class universities; and we have a passion for making and building things. We have a passion to build the economy of the future. Yet our region was neglected by the previous Government and is being neglected by this Government. Now is the time for the north to take control of our destiny with the powers that we need to build our economy in a way that reflects our values. That must not come with strings attached or with more centrally imposed vicious cuts to local services. That is what we need and that is what I will fight for in this Parliament.

Violence against Women and Girls

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Pauline Latham]

I completely agree. This is quite simply child abuse, and there is no more to be said about it. Everybody has a responsibility to ensure that we do not accept cutting in any form, because it is wrong and it is child abuse.

Forced marriage is another issue affecting women and girls in this country, and the steps the Government took in passing the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to identify it as an act of violence and as a crime are admirable. The forced marriage unit, established in 2005, has been instrumental in offering young men and women the help they need if they are at risk of forced marriage. Happily, there have been reports of an increase in the number of people coming forward to the unit, and I hope that trend continues. In the coming years, I believe the UK will see a significant drop in the number of women affected by forced marriage, with the new law serving as a strong deterrent, and education helping girls and men to understand that forced marriage is wrong.

I am particularly proud of the incredible work the charity Karma Nirvana does to combat honour-based violence, including forced marriages, although I do not agree that this violence is honour based—it is violence. The charity runs the UK’s only helpline offering support and advice to those affected by those issues. Its founder, Jasvinder Sanghera, is originally from Derby, and she would have undergone a forced marriage herself had she not run away.

Earlier this year, the charity ran a petition on introducing a day of remembrance for those who have lost their lives in so-called honour-based killings—they are actually murder—as a result of refusing to enter into an arranged marriage. The petition proved incredibly popular, and it contained the signatures of more than 110,000 supporters when it was presented in November. I am pleased to say that the day of remembrance received cross-party support and was given the go-ahead for 14 July, which coincides with the birthday of Shafilea Ahmed, a young girl who was murdered by her parents in 2003 because she refused to have an arranged marriage. Sadly, Jasvinder’s own sister committed suicide by pouring petrol over herself and setting herself alight because she was the unhappy victim of a forced marriage.

I hope that, on 14 July, we will remember not just those who have been murdered as a result of forced marriage, but those who have committed suicide.

In the global arena, positive steps have been taken to prevent FGM, and Ethiopia, for example, outlawed it in 2004. However, the number of women affected by FGM has remained relatively high. The procedures take place in unsterilised and poorly lit conditions, which increases the risk of post-operative infection and further mutilation, and girls can lose their lives as a result.

I am encouraged, however, by the Department for International Development’s response to the situation, because supporting those in the community, such as church leaders, village elders, fathers, sons, mothers and daughters, to speak out against FGM helps to challenge ideas about the practice. I have seen the Department’s programme, and it is having positive results, which I am really pleased about.

On violence against women in Nepal, the police have a very robust system. A feisty female police officer is helping women and girls and challenging attitudes. She helps women to come forward to explain what has been going on. That, again, is an important step forward.

I pay tribute to the Government for all the hard work they have done to improve the lives of women here and overseas, but there is much more to be done, and it is important in the final days of this Parliament that we do all we can to ensure that the good work continues. I hope that the Government, in their aid programmes, continue to recognise women as making a significant economic contribution to their communities and to educate men and boys to change traditional views on women and women’s place in society.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her excellent, wide-ranging speech, which addresses many issues that are so important to women and men across the world.

As the hon. Lady says, FGM should not be seen as a cultural practice, but does she agree that it is also important to say that FGM, the exploitation of women and violence against women are not associated with one religion or culture? Those who try to incite division in our community by implying that should be told very clearly that this is, unfortunately, a very broad-based challenge.

[Pauline Latham]

I agree with the hon. Lady—it is broad based. As she says, it has nothing to do with religion and culture; it goes across a number of societies, and it is completely wrong—it is mutilation and violence, and it has no place in modern society.

I am hopeful that the statutory framework put in place to protect girls in this country will yield positive results in eradicating the scourge of FGM and forced marriage.

Child Abuse Inquiry

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

We have brought that list down, and it is now quite a short list. I will not give the House any more details at this stage because I have undertaken that we will discuss this matter with the survivors and their representatives. I believe that that is an important first step.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

One consequence of the ongoing delays and confusion surrounding this important inquiry is the continuing lack of a clear understanding of, and provision for, the needs of survivors in terms of support, counselling and mental health treatment, where appropriate. Practices and capabilities are very different around the country. Will the Home Secretary tell us what she is doing financially to support the delivery of better practice in this important area?

[Mrs May]

Yes, that is an important aspect. It is something that has emerged not only in relation to this inquiry, but post the Rotherham work and the report from Professor Alexis Jay. The whole question of what support is available to victims has been an important issue. A number of things have been happening. As I mentioned earlier, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), a sum of money is being made available to groups that are dealing with the victims and survivors who have come forward. Often it is those groups that are the first port of call for individuals, and it is important that they are giving that support. But we are doing other things as well. We have been working with the Department of Health in looking at the specific support that it can offer. We are also looking at the interaction of the various agencies in a particular area, including local authorities—we have been actively doing that post-Rotherham—and the availability of support for survivors and victims. Not everybody will have the same needs or the same wishes with regard to support. What is important is that a range of support is available, and that people can see where they can access the support that suits them best.

Child Abuse

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have made it clear to the House that the NCA investigation is ongoing, both at the level of the NCA and of individual police forces. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman allow the police to make the operational decisions that they need to make. They will of course investigate individuals, but arrests, charges and prosecutions can be brought against people only when the evidence is available.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Many Members have referred to the importance of victims of historical child abuse feeling able to come forward. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Health, in his statement to the House on the Savile investigations, made an appeal for victims to come forward. However, when a constituent of mine made contact, the Department of Health apparently had no process in place to respond and could not give any support, as it had had no guidance as to the response it should make. That constituent now seems to have decided not to take their allegations forward. May I urge the Home Secretary to work with her colleagues to ensure that the Departments—and, indeed, individual Members of Parliament—are aware of these matters and have the necessary guidance and support to enable them to offer support to others, as needed?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point again. We are talking across Government about what support needs to be available for those people who wish to come forward with allegations of child abuse, and the Department of Health is one of the key Departments we are talking to. Representatives of that Department sit on the national group that is chaired by the Minister for Crime Prevention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The hon. Lady made a further point, which was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), about making information available to Members of the House. It has been suggested that some kind of hotline could be made available, or some other means by which people could put allegations into the system, so that they could be dealt with. We will obviously ensure that Members are made aware of any such arrangements, so that they can let their constituents know what is happening and help them to deal with the situation.

Deregulation Bill

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

As I mentioned a moment ago, if a bed-and-breakfast establishment offers alcohol to guests when they arrive, that is deemed to be a sale, even if an indirect one, because essentially it is included in the overall price of the overnight accommodation. That is how it is regarded in this legislation.

The provisions allow for other safeguards. Users of the new notice will be responsible persons for the purposes of criminal offences in the Licensing Act 2003, such as the selling of alcohol to children. That relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). As with other authorisations under the 2003 Act, the provisions in the Bill will be underpinned by more detailed regulation, on which the Government will consult.

We also intend such regulations to cover the amount of alcohol that can be sold. That relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge). We intend that a limit on the amount of alcohol that can be given to an adult within 24 hours will generally apply, or an average of that amount for adults attending a community event. Precise limits will be subject to consultation. We want the system to operate in a light-touch, practical way. Details, such as the level of the fee, the qualifying criteria—the types of community groups and the size of businesses, for example—and what discretion licensing authorities will have, will all be matters for regulation, most of which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, thereby giving Members full opportunity to take part in discussions and decisions. We are looking forward to working with key partners on the detail of the measure and are consulting publicly on this.

This is a radical new licensing authorisation that will help to achieve the Government’s aims of helping community groups and particular small businesses while at the same time maintaining important public health and public safety safeguards. I commend it to the House.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The Minister was not with us in Committee and so might not be aware that we had many discussions on how best to characterise the Bill. Was it a rag-bag, a hodge-podge or the Christmas tree Bill to end all Christmas tree Bills? An hon. Friend of mine asserts that although it began as a Christmas tree Bill, it has grown and grown to the point that it now bears a closer resemblance to the Blackpool illuminations. New clause 5 is one such example.

However, given the nature of new clause 5, perhaps a cocktail Bill is a better metaphor. Perhaps it is a particularly strong Cosmopolitan—one that leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. Or perhaps it is an Old Etonian, which I understand is a mix of gin, bitters and crème de noyaux—guaranteed to leave one with a crashing headache the morning after. That is because the Bill still contains nothing to tackle the cost of living crisis gripping this country, it is still focused more on removing burdens from Ministers and officials than on helping the people and businesses of this country, and it still contains grave attacks on workers’ rights and health.

[James Duddridge]

I was with the hon. Lady not only in Committee but at the pre-legislative scrutiny stage, when I think a broader view was taken. If she does not think that the Bill contains the right deregulatory measures, what would the Opposition bring forward to help solve some of the real problems she is discussing?

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I am sure he is aware, when we heard evidence in Committee we discussed some other options for deregulation. I do not intend to set out our deregulatory programme now—I am sure that you would not consider that to be in order, Mr Deputy Speaker—but I feel that the Opposition have the right, and indeed the duty, to comment on the fact that the entire contribution the Bill will make in savings is estimated to be £10 million over 10 years. I do not think that anyone on either side of the House would consider that to be a radical benefit.

New clause 5 and new schedule 1 insert a new part in the Licensing Act 2003 to introduce a new procedure for authorising the sale of alcohol where that sale is part of a community event, as we have heard. The Opposition absolutely believe that it is right to remove unnecessary regulatory and legislative burdens from individuals, civil society, business and public sector organisations, including the Women’s Institute and other organisations to which the Minister referred.

Although we do not oppose the proposal, we have some concerns about which we are seeking assurances from the Minister. In Committee we discussed temporary event notices, the sale of chocolate liqueurs and other minor changes to licensing. Indeed, when we had a short debate on what constitutes a low level of alcohol consumption, I had a flashback to our debate on how many Mars bars’ worth of liqueurs it would take to intoxicate a child. At no stage did the Minister present at the time indicate that the Government were considering introducing what I think—I am sure the Minister will agree—is a large change to a complex licensing regime at this stage.

Introducing changes in that manner has become something of a hallmark of this Government. However, I understand that the Bill was written in draft about a year ago and that long before that Ministers were looking for proposals to put in it, so will the Minister explain why this proposal has been tabled at the last minute? The result is that interested parties have not had the opportunity to scrutinise it. Why the rush? The regime has been in place for 11 years, and although we support the aims of the amendment, we do not feel that the manner of its introduction is warranted. It is not the way to make changes to a complex licensing regime.

Will the Minister assure the House that any secondary regulations that are brought forward as a consequence of these changes will not be introduced in that way? Will he tell the House what consultation was undertaken with licensing authorities, in particular, and whether they support the change? How much time, if any, were they given to respond to it? I note that the Minister spoke of consultation following the consultation on the alcohol strategy, but the Local Government Association was certainly surprised by the inclusion of these proposals in this manner.

In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) criticised the Government’s overall approach to alcohol. The Minister thought he was criticising the Government’s alcohol strategy, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it is very difficult to discern an alcohol strategy to criticise. It is hard to criticise what does not exist, though it is right to criticise the fact that it does not exist. What kind of strategy introduces changes in this piecemeal manner? There is a document on the Government’s website entitled “Alcohol Strategy”, yet it is anything but a strategy. These seemingly random changes, introduced with very little notice, do not give Labour Members or stakeholders outside the House any confidence that Ministers are working hard towards any kind of specific objective or plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I am in a long tradition of providing pragmatic answers to the problems that present themselves and of responding to them in a measured, rather than over-zealous, way. We have to remember that we have to take people with us—we need to win hearts and minds. I also think that Britain is less authoritarian than many other countries. Some countries appear to be happy for their Governments to direct their way of life more than we do, but people in this country do not like being directed by the Government of the day and it is right that we respect that healthy response.

Let me turn to the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who, unless I am mistaken, does not appear to know that we actually did consult on the alcohol strategy, including a question on the ancillary sellers’ notice, which matured into the provision under discussion. It is not true to say that there has been no consultation on the strategy or the measure, because there has been a consultation.

[Chi Onwurah]

I did not say that there had been no consultation on the alcohol strategy; I said that no discernible alcohol strategy had come out of it and that the measures were not tabled in Committee or when the Bill was initially submitted.

[Norman Baker]

With respect, the hon. Lady said both things and the record will show that. There was a consultation, as part of the alcohol strategy, on a new, light-touch authorisation to reduce burdens on ancillary sellers of alcohol. That is what we are discussing this afternoon. It was consulted on, comments were fed back and they have informed the way in which we have taken matters forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I am almost tempted to say that that is a compliment, but that goes without saying and the hon. Gentleman has put it on the record for the benefit of the House.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central does not think that much is happening in terms of an alcohol strategy. Perhaps she has not noticed that her own local authority in Newcastle has introduced a late-night levy, which appears to be working rather well. I was very pleased to go there and join local councillors in launching it.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for giving way a second time, but once again his ascription to me of a lack of knowledge is not accurate. I am very familiar with Newcastle’s late-night levy. Indeed, I discussed it with the leader of Newcastle city council, Nick Forbes, only yesterday evening. In some ways, it is the burden of cuts on local authorities across the country and on the police that makes such levies necessary. In this case, it was businesses in Newcastle that wished to introduce it.

[Norman Baker]

Indeed they did, and I think they made a very wise decision and that businesses and the public in Newcastle will benefit from the Government’s sensible option of a late-night levy. I hope that other councils up and down the country will follow the example of the hon. Lady’s council and introduce such a levy, which not only helps deal with public disorder, but provides a necessary income stream to recognise the cost of disorder to a particular city.

I appreciate that the hon. Lady’s focus has been on the Deregulation Bill rather than on the subject of alcohol so she will not have had sight of all the issues, but she said that we have blocked the public health licensing objective. That is not true. The matter remains under consideration. The fact is that if she looks at the local alcohol action areas, she will see that they are being used as a pilot for what might be done for public health licensing objectives. I agree that there is a public health issue about alcohol that should be taken into account, but it is not as simple as it is sometimes made out. That matter is being taken forward under the guise of the local alcohol action areas introduced by the Government.

The hon. Lady mentioned fees, and I reiterate that they will be subject to consultation. She wondered whether local councils are out of pocket, and asserted that they are out of pocket as a consequence of handling the present licensing regime. Taking that at face value and assuming she is right for the purpose of this discussion, if that is the case, the introduction of a light-touch regime will divert people from what is—according to her—presumably a loss-making activity for local councils to one that is rather simpler and will therefore reduce the loss for local councils. That is the logic of her position, so I hope that she will welcome the measure on that basis. I confirm that it is subject to the affirmative procedure, so there will be a full opportunity for Members on both sides of the House to contribute to the discussion as the measure is taken forward in a sensible way.

Lastly, I can tell the hon. Member for Luton North that minimum unit pricing remains an option. It is on the radar—it has not been ruled out—and it will be particularly on the radar if the alcohol industry does not respond sensibly to the challenges made by the Government. I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 1

‘Part to be inserted as Part 5A of the Licensing Act 2003

“Part 5A

sale of alcohol at community events etc and ancillary business sale of alcohol

Conditions for permitted sales

110A  General conditions

(1) A sale by retail of alcohol is a permitted sale by virtue of this Part if—

(a) the community event conditions (set out in section 110B or in regulations made under that section) or the ancillary business sales conditions (set out in section 110C or in regulations made under that section) are satisfied in relation to it, and

(b) the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (5) below are satisfied in relation to it.

(2) The sale must take place on premises specified in a notice that complies with section 110D (a “Part 5A notice”).

(3) No counter notice under section 110J must have been given in relation to the Part 5A notice.

(4) The sale must take place during the period of 36 months beginning with the date when the Part 5A notice takes effect.

(5) The sale must take place between 07.00 a.m. and 11.00 p.m.

110B  Community event conditions

(1) The community event conditions, in relation to a sale by retail of alcohol, are the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (6) and any additional conditions set out in regulations under subsection (7).

(2) The sale must be made by or on behalf of a body that is—

(a) of a prescribed description,

(b) does not trade for profit, and

(c) meets any prescribed criteria.

(3) The sale must be ancillary to an event that—

(a) is taking place on the premises,

(b) is organised by the body by or on whose behalf the sale is made,

(c) has been advertised in advance, and

(d) meets any prescribed criteria.

(4) The sale must take place on the premises during the course of the event.

(5) The alcohol must be sold for consumption on the premises during the course of the event.

(6) The number of persons present on the premises at the time of the sale must not exceed 300.

(7) Regulations may provide for additional conditions prescribed in the regulations to be community event conditions.

110C  Ancillary business sales conditions

(1) The ancillary business sales conditions, in relation to a sale by retail of alcohol, are the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (5) and any additional conditions set out in regulations under subsection (6).

(2) The sale must be made by or on behalf of a body that—

(a) is of a prescribed description, and

(b) meets any prescribed criteria.

(3) The sale must take place on premises that—

(a) are managed by the body by or on whose behalf the sale is made,

(b) are of a prescribed description, and

(c) meet any prescribed criteria.

(4) The sale must be ancillary to the provision of goods or services to a person on the premises where the sale takes place.

(5) Except in prescribed circumstances, the alcohol must be sold for consumption on those premises.

(6) Regulations may provide for additional conditions prescribed in the regulations to be ancillary business sales conditions.

Part 5A notices

110D  Conditions for validity of notices

(1) A notice complies with this section if the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (10) are satisfied in relation to the notice.

(2) The notice must specify whether—

(a) the community event conditions (set out in section 110B or in regulations under that section), or

(b) the ancillary business sales conditions (set out in section 110C or in regulations under that section),

will be satisfied in relation to sales of alcohol on the premises in question.

(3) The notice must specify (for the purposes of section 110A(2))—

(a) in the case of a notice that specifies the ancillary business sales conditions, the set of premises to which it relates;

(b) in the case of a notice that specifies the community event conditions, no more than three sets of community premises, each of which must be wholly or partly in the area of the same licensing authority.

(4) The notice must be given, on behalf of the body by or on whose behalf the sale of alcohol on the premises would take place, by a person who is aged 18 or over and is concerned in the management of the body.

(5) The notice must be given to the relevant licensing authority, accompanied by the prescribed fee.

(6) Unless the notice is given to the relevant licensing authority by means of a relevant electronic facility, a copy of the notice must be given to each relevant person.

(7) The notice must be in the prescribed form.

(8) The notice must specify the date when it takes effect.

(9) The specified date must be at least 10 working days, but no more than 3 months, after the day on which the notice is given.

Where subsection (6) applies, the notice is treated as given only when that subsection is complied with.

(10) The notice must contain any other information that regulations require it to contain.

(11) In this Part, “relevant person”, in relation to any premises, means—

(a) the chief officer of police for any police area in which the premises are situated;

(b) the local authority by which statutory functions are exercisable in any area in which the premises are situated in relation to minimising or preventing the risk of pollution of the environment or of harm to human health.

110E  Special restriction on giving of notices

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a Part 5A notice is given on behalf of a body, and

(b) a counter notice under section 110J is given in relation to the Part 5A notice.

(2) No further Part 5A notice may be given in respect of any premises specified in the notice, whether on behalf of that body or on behalf of another body that is an associate of it, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the counter notice is given.

(3) However, the restriction in subsection (2) ceases to apply if the counter notice is revoked under section 110K or quashed by a court.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a body is an associate of another body if it would be an associate of the other body for the purposes of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (see section 32(4) to (6) of that Act).

110F  Date when Part 5A notice takes effect

(1) A Part 5A notice takes effect on the date specified under section 110D(8).

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if a counter notice is given under section 110J in relation to the notice.

(For the case where a counter notice is revoked or quashed by a court, see section 110K(2).)

110G  Acknowledgement of notice etc

(1) This section applies where a relevant licensing authority receives a notice that is, or purports to be, a Part 5A notice.

(2) The authority must give written acknowledgement of the receipt of the notice to the person who gave it.

(3) The acknowledgment must be given—

(a) before the end of the first working day following the day on which it was received, or

(b) if the day on which it was received was not a working day, before the end of the second working day following that day.

(4) If the licensing authority is of the opinion that the notice does not comply with section 110D, the authority must as soon as possible give to the person who gave the notice written notification of the reasons for its opinion.

(5) Subsection (2) does not apply where, before the time by which acknowledgement of the receipt of the notice must be given in accordance with subsection (3), the person who gave the notice has been given a counter notice under section 110J.

110H  Theft, loss etc of Part 5A notice

(1) Where a Part 5A notice is lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed, the person who gave the notice may apply to the relevant licensing authority for a copy of the notice.

(2) The application must be accompanied by the prescribed fee.

(3) Where an application is made in accordance with this section, the licensing authority must issue the applicant with a copy of the notice (certified by the authority to be a true copy) if it is satisfied that the notice has been lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed.

(4) This Act applies in relation to a copy issued under this section as it applies in relation to an original notice.

Objections and counter notices

110I  Objection to Part 5A notice by a relevant person

(1) Where a relevant person who is given a Part 5A notice is satisfied that allowing alcohol to be sold on the premises (or any of the premises) to which the notice relates would undermine a licensing objective, the relevant person must give a notice stating the reasons for being so satisfied (an “objection notice”)—

(a) to the relevant licensing authority,

(b) to the person who gave the Part 5A notice, and

(c) to every other relevant person.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply at any time after the relevant person has received a copy of a counter notice under section 110J in relation to the Part 5A notice.

(3) An objection notice may be given only during the period beginning with the day on which the relevant person is given the Part 5A notice and ending with the third working day following that day (“the three-day period”).

(4) The restriction in subsection (3) does not apply to an objection notice based on—

(a) things occurring after the end of the three-day period, or

(b) information that the relevant person was unaware of, and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered, until after the end of that period.

110J  Counter notices

(1) Where a relevant licensing authority receives a Part 5A notice, the relevant licensing authority may—

(a) give the person who gave the Part 5A notice a counter notice under this section;

(b) give a copy of the counter notice to each relevant person.

(2) Where the relevant licensing authority receives an objection notice given in compliance with the requirement imposed by section 110I(3), the relevant licensing authority must decide whether to give a counter notice (and, if it does so decide, give that notice) no later than whichever of the following is the earlier—

(a) the day before the date when the Part 5A would take effect (see section 110D(8));

(b) the expiry of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the objection notice is received by the relevant licensing authority.

(3) The power conferred by subsection (1) may not be exercised at any time after the Part 5A notice takes effect unless an objection notice under section 110I has been given, by virtue of subsection (4) of that section, in relation to the notice.

(4) The counter notice must—

(a) be in the prescribed form, and

(b) be given in the prescribed manner.

110K  Counter notices: revocation etc

(1) A relevant licensing authority must revoke a counter notice given under section 110J if—

(a) the counter notice was given in consequence of one or more objection notices under section 110I, and

(b) the objection notice or (as the case may be) each of them is withdrawn by the person who gave it or is quashed by a court.

(2) Where a counter notice is revoked or is quashed by a court—

(a) the counter notice is disregarded for the purposes of section 110A(3), except in relation to any time before the day on which it is revoked or quashed,

(b) the Part 5A notice takes effect on that day, and

(c) the relevant licensing authority must as soon as possible notify the person who gave the Part 5A notice of the date on which it takes effect.

Rights of entry, production of notice, etc

110L  Right of entry where Part 5A notice given

(1) A constable or an authorised officer may, at any reasonable time, enter premises to which a Part 5A notice relates to assess the likely effect of the notice on the promotion of the crime prevention objective.

(2) An authorised officer exercising the power conferred by this section must, if so requested, produce evidence of the officer’s authority to exercise the power.

(3) It is an offence intentionally to obstruct an authorised officer exercising a power conferred by this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(5) In this section “authorised officer” means—

(a) an officer of the licensing authority in whose area the premises are situated, or

(b) if the premises are situated in the area of more than one licensing authority, an officer of any of those authorities,

authorised for the purposes of this Act.

110M  Duty to keep and produce Part 5A notice

(1) This section applies whenever premises are being used for sales of alcohol which are, or are purported to be, permitted sales by virtue of this Part.

(2) The person who gave the Part 5A notice must secure that a copy of the notice is either—

(a) prominently displayed at the premises, or

(b) kept at the premises in the custody of that person or of someone who is present and working at the premises and whom that person has nominated for the purposes of this section (a “nominated person”).

(3) Where a copy of the Part 5A notice is kept in the custody of a nominated person (and not prominently displayed at the premises) the person who gave the Part 5A notice must secure that a notice—

(a) stating that the Part 5A notice is in the nominated person’s custody, and

(b) specifying the position held at the premises by the nominated person,

is prominently displayed at the premises.

(4) It is an offence for the person who gave the Part 5A notice to fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with subsection (2) or (where it applies) subsection (3).

(5) Where—

(a) a copy of the Part 5A notice is not prominently displayed at the premises, and

(b) no notice is displayed as mentioned in subsection (3),

a constable or authorised officer may require the person who gave the Part 5A notice to produce a copy of it for examination.

(6) Where a notice is displayed as mentioned in subsection (3), a constable or authorised officer may require the nominated person to produce a copy of the Part 5A notice for examination.

(7) An authorised officer exercising the power conferred by subsection (5) or (6) must, if so requested, produce evidence of the officer’s authority to exercise the power.

(8) It is an offence for a person to fail, without reasonable excuse, to produce a copy of a Part 5A notice in accordance with a requirement under subsection (5) or (6).

(9) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(10) In this section “authorised officer” has the meaning given in section 110L(5).

Supplementary

110N The relevant licensing authority

(1) For the purposes of this Part, the “relevant licensing authority”, in relation to any premises, is determined in accordance with this section.

(2) In the case of a Part 5A notice that specifies the ancillary business sales conditions or in the case of Part 5A notice that specifies the community event conditions in relation to only one set of premises, the relevant licensing authority is, subject to subsection (3), the authority in whose area the premises are situated.

(3) Where the premises are situated in the areas of two or more licensing authorities, the relevant licensing authority is—

(a) the licensing authority in whose area the greater or greatest part of the premises is situated, or

(b) if there is no authority to which paragraph (a) applies, such one of the authorities as the person giving the Part 5A notice may choose.

(4) In the case of a Part 5A notice that specifies the community event conditions in relation to more than one set of premises, the relevant licensing authority is—

(a) if there is only one licensing authority in whose area each set of premises is wholly or partly situated, that licensing authority;

(b) if each set of premises falls partly in the area of one authority and also partly in the area of another, such one of them as the person giving the Part 5A notice may choose.”’.—(Norman Baker.)

This amendment inserts the new Part 5A of the Licensing Act 2003 (see the explanatory statement to amendment NC5).

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.



Schedule 18

Legislation no longer of practical use

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor-General]

I agree to a considerable extent with the point that my hon. Friend makes. There is no question that the legislation was introduced to help cable roll-out. However, it is the definition of a cable service that is at issue in the Court of Appeal case. It is correct that it has taken a considerable amount of time to get to this point, where the Court of Appeal will soon be able to list the case and, hopefully, determine it. Having waited for that period for a definite conclusion, it would be wrong to act in haste and perhaps repent at leisure. I will be interested to hear his remarks and I think that there will be time for him to make them—I hope so, anyway.

I am pleased to announce that the Government will support the defamation amendment—amendment 4. It is a sensible amendment. As the House will be aware, the Government have made a commitment to repeal section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996. Their response to the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 2013 stated that

“repealing Section 13 would be the wisest course of action”

and that the Government

“intends to do so when Parliamentary time and a suitable legislative opportunity allows.”

There has long been discussion about the provision. The 1999 and 2013 Joint Committees on Parliamentary Privilege recommended that section 13 be repealed. The Government agree with the conclusion of those Committees that section 13 is at odds with the principle of freedom of speech, which it is the privilege of this House as a whole to enjoy, not just individual Members. Section 13 also creates an imbalance, because one party to a proceeding may choose to use the parliamentary record when the other party does not wish that to happen. The provision has never been used and it creates an anomaly. For those reasons, I urge the House to accept amendment 4.

[Chi Onwurah]

I echo the pleasure that was expressed by the Solicitor-General at the reunion of the team that had so many lively and, at times, constructive debates in Committee.

The Opposition do not oppose Government amendments 58, 75, 59 and 60. However, I would like to make a small point about process. Will the Solicitor-General clarify for the House why time is being spent on removing obsolete legislation in parallel with the Law Commission’s statute law repeal programme? Given the resources available, the Law Commission’s work has been of a very high quality. We finished the Committee stage of the Bill with but seven minutes to spare, as the Solicitor-General will well remember, and we will not have time to discuss all the amendments we would like to discuss on Report.

[The Solicitor-General]

I very much agree with the hon. Lady that the Law Commission does a fantastic job. It is preparing the measures that she mentions. That does not mean that if a Department knows that it has a piece of redundant or useless legislation, it cannot ask the House to get rid of it. There is not an either/or choice; we can do both.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Solicitor-General for that clarification. However, I think that the House should focus on that which will make the most difference to our constituents and the cost of living crisis. We should not seek to work in parallel with the Law Commission. However, I take his point. Although I am sad to see the repeal of the Mining Industry Act 1920 and the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, I agree with him that they do not serve a useful purpose at this time. It seems that this Tory Government are tidying up the last bits of mess that were left by the last one in undermining those great industries. I agree that, at this stage, those Acts perform no purpose.

We have some sympathy with amendment 73 on copyright, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). We only wish that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport showed as much focus on the long-term future of the communications industry as the hon. Gentleman. As the Solicitor-General said, it is an anomaly that the BBC and other public service broadcasters have to pay cable companies for the transmission of their programmes, which so many of us enjoy. I should declare an interest because I served for six years at Ofcom, which regulates all the companies concerned.

It is impossible to explain to anyone outside the industry why it is not the Pay-TV companies that pay the BBC and ITV to carry their great content, but the BBC and ITV who pay the Pay-TV companies to do so. That cannot be right. We are glad that the discussions that the Solicitor-General mentioned have resulted in reductions in transmission fees to net zero. However, we do not feel that net zero is good enough. Public service broadcasters create fantastic, valuable and creative content that is the envy of the world, and they should be paid for it.

The Solicitor-General said that the legislation is complex and we recognise that. However, we question what work the Government are doing in this area. They dropped their communications Green Paper two years ago. Since then, we have had no meaningful communications strategy, even though the industry is critical to our economic and cultural future. There does not appear to be any work going on in the area now. The policy paper that the Solicitor-General mentioned so enthusiastically, “Connectivity, Content and Consumers”, does not look into the future in any meaningful way. I remind the House that Labour’s Communications Act 2003 looked 10 years into the future.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Yes, forward thinking.

[Chi Onwurah]

As my hon. Friend says, it was forward thinking. However, those 10 years have elapsed and we are left bereft of a long-term strategy. With no communications Green Paper and no communications strategy, is it any wonder that it is left to Members such as the hon. Member for Shipley to raise such key issues? Having said that, we are not confident, given the lack of strategy and long-term vision, that the Government would have a handle on the impact of repealing this measure. We therefore find it difficult to support amendment 73.

I will turn briefly to amendment 4 on defamation. As the Solicitor-General said, it has cross-party support and it appears to be sensible, so we will support it.

[Philip Davies]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), and I am grateful for her kind words. From what she said I understood that there is overall, general support—if perhaps not specific support—for my point. This is the second day running on which my amendments seem to have had more support from the Labour Front Bench than from the Government Front Bench—a rather uncomfortable position in which to find myself, but I am grateful nevertheless.

I will speak briefly because time is limited and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) wishes to contribute. Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was created in the 1980s, when the Government—understandably—wanted to encourage the roll-out of the cable network to stimulate competition with terrestrial TV. That was a noble aim, but it has been achieved. The cable network now reaches half the population, and there is fierce inter-platform competition between pay-TV platforms and free-to-air TV platforms. It is therefore clear that section 73 is completely outdated and not achieving the purpose for which it was intended. That purpose has already been achieved, so the measure needs to be repealed.

Since cable TV derives even greater value from public service content, and delivers less and less in return as more adverts are skipped on pay TV, section 73 is preventing the normal commercial response, which would be to commercially negotiate the supply of content, putting at risk investment in the programmes that people want to see. Why should public service broadcasters, which are investing heavily in the UK’s creative economy, subsidise the business models of large global companies such as Liberty Global? That is clearly not fair. The litigation that the Solicitor-General mentioned has already taken four years and could still take a while longer, and I am not sure that we can afford to sit back and wait more years, while the issue is kicked into the long grass in such a way. Under the Communications Act 2003, public service broadcasters must, under their current licences, offer their public service broadcast channels to cable and satellite platforms so that consumers will not lose out if that is repealed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

1. What assessment she has made of the effect of police reductions on Northumbria police.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The independent inspectorate of constabulary has found that, like other forces, Northumbria police are rising to the challenge of making savings while maintaining and improving service to the public. The Northumbria police and crime commissioner has recently restated her and the chief constable’s shared commitment to maintaining the number of police officers and staff working in their neighbourhoods. She is clear that her force needs to do things differently, use technology more effectively and work from different buildings that are cheaper to run.

[Chi Onwurah]

This morning, Northumbria police arrested eight people as part of Operation Sanctuary, an investigation into horrific allegations of sexual abuse of looked-after young girls and other vulnerable victims in the west end of Newcastle. Police have assured me that they are working with safeguarding agencies and local communities to protect the victims and pursue the perpetrators, but that very police station in the west end of Newcastle is to close as part of the £67 million cuts and we have seen a 7% rise in total crime in the region over the past 12 months. Will the Home Secretary give me a commitment that Northumbria will have the resources it needs to pursue this critical investigation?

[Mrs May]

I recognise the sort of case that the hon. Lady raises. Sadly, we are seeing too many such cases, particularly involving the horrific abuse of young girls. There have been a number of cases and I was with Thames Valley police a matter of weeks ago to talk to them about Operation Bullfinch and the lessons they had learned from that for the future investigation of such cases and how victims are treated. There has been a lot to learn. I do not think that the physical presence of a police station is what makes the difference to how such a case is treated and I am sure that the chief constable of Northumbria will ensure that there are the resources properly to investigate and to bring to justice those who are guilty of such crimes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

Well, the balance in lottery funding between the regions and London was 60:40 under the previous Government, and it has now gone up to 70:30. The Arts Council chairman is well aware of the issue and wants to go further. The Arts Council has set up the strategic touring programme and the creative people and places fund to help to rebalance arts funding in the regions, and our brilliant Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced proposals to support touring theatre with tax relief.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

When this matter was last raised here, the Secretary of State seemed to imply that the answer was for London-based companies to do more touring, and the Minister has said that again. Do they not recognise that Londoners deserve to have the benefit of our great arts companies, such as Northern Stage, the Live Theatre and the Northern Sinfonia? If more touring by London companies is not the answer, what is?

[Mr Vaizey]

As always, the hon. Lady makes a fantastically brilliant point. It is important to strike a balance. This is not just a matter of London organisations going out to “the regions”. I am very excited about more co-productions between, for example, the National Theatre and the regional theatres, to enable productions created in regional theatres to come to London so that we can get some of the fantastic benefits of the brilliant arts going on outside London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Grant]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Major sporting events bring huge benefits economically, in tourism, and most of all in inspiring people to get involved in sport. As the birthplace of rugby, my hon. Friend’s wonderful constituency has an opportunity to increase its profile both nationally and internationally.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

T10. Under Labour’s universal broadband pledge, everyone would now have enjoyed a year of full access to decent broadband instead of the ongoing delay and controversy. Will the Minister be sending out e-Christmas cards this year and, if so, does he take responsibility for all the problems that so many people will still have receiving them?

[Mr Vaizey]

Call me old-fashioned, Mr Speaker, but I send out physical Christmas cards. You will receive one and so will the hon. Lady.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The Government have already strengthened powers for local authorities in Blackpool and elsewhere; for example, to introduce early-morning restriction orders to control the hours when licensed outlets are able to trade. Indeed, we have given councils extra flexibility to act. As I have already indicated, the Government are reflecting on the representations made on the pricing of alcohol and we will come back to the House with our confirmed position in due course.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Earlier, the Minister spoke of the Government’s commitment to tackling cybercrime, yet that commitment does not seem to include either defining or measuring what cybercrime is, so could the Minister say whether individuals and small businesses are encouraged to report all cybercrime to the police?

[James Brokenshire]

I know that the hon. Lady has examined the issue over a number of years and I recognise her direct interest. I underline that the Government have acted on national cyber-security by virtue of additional funding, the creation of the national cybercrime unit and the establishment of Action Fraud as the direct means for reporting online cybercrime. I absolutely encourage the public and small businesses to ensure that those crimes are properly reported so that we can provide the most effective advice to prevent crime and bring those responsible to justice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

1. What steps she is taking to support working mothers. [R]

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Maria Miller)]

We now have more women in work than ever before, using their skills to gain economic independence. To see sustainable economic growth, we need to ensure that working mothers can take advantage of the full range of opportunities available in the workplace. We continue to tackle the barriers that might prevent them from reaching their potential.

[Chi Onwurah]

The Secretary of State speaks warm words, but in Newcastle alone 1,768 women will be affected by the Government’s mummy tax. Low-paid new mums stand to lose £180 in maternity pay and more than £1,300 in total from the Government’s cuts to benefits and tax credits. We know that life is hard enough for working mums. In too many sectors, too many women do not return to work, and we lose their skills and contribution, so why are the Government making life even harder for them?

[Maria Miller]

I have to challenge the hon. Lady’s assertions. It is clear that the Government are giving women the tools and support to become economically independent. The facts speak loudly. This year, we will have taken more than 1 million out of tax altogether. That is the sort of action we want to see—women coming out of tax, being lifted out of poverty and being given the tools to be economically independent.

Points of Order

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. I can say with confidence that the Deputy Prime Minister would not deliberately mislead the House, for that would be a serious transgression and I know that he would not commit it. Whether he has done so is not altogether obvious to me, but the Deputy Prime Minister will have heard, or if he has not done so, will very soon come to hear of the content of the hon. Lady’s point of order, and if in the light of it he judges that the record needs to be corrected, it is open to him to do so. On top of that, she has put her concerns on the record and it is open to her, if she judges it necessary, to pursue the matter with the right hon. Gentleman in correspondence and in other ways. That is the best guidance I can give her for now.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it not the case that by asserting that Newcastle is closing all its arts venues, the Deputy Prime Minister is insulting the people of Newcastle and our long tradition of supporting the arts even in the worst of times and under the worst of Governments? Would it not therefore be in order for the Deputy Prime Minister to offer an apology to the people of Newcastle?

[Mr Speaker]

The question whether the people of Newcastle, whom we are not in a position now to consult, feel that they have been insulted or affronted is a matter for the people of Newcastle. In answer to the hon. Lady’s inquiry whether it would be in order for the Deputy Prime Minister to apologise, the answer is that it would be if he judged it appropriate to do so, but it is not for me to decree that he should. I hope that is helpful. All points of order on the matter have now been exhausted.