Points of Order

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that one or two people, in response to the hon. Gentleman rising, yelled, “Yawn.” I wonder whether people observing our proceedings think that that is a proper way for one colleague to show respect for another. It is not a matter of “yawn”—it is a matter of serious issues being raised, and responsibility being incumbent on the Chair in this case to seek to respond. It is not “yawn”—it is serious politics.

The hon. Gentleman has raised a legitimate matter. The simple answer is that the Government must comply with the Humble Address passed by the House. That is the reality of the matter. A debate has happened, a decision has been made, and it is incumbent on the Government to comply manifestly with what has been decided, the spirit, purpose and content of which are entirely clear. [Interruption.] This is not about game playing and machination—it is about doing what Parliament wants, which is what most people would expect their elected Parliament to do. [Interruption.] I do not require any help from someone chuntering from a sedentary position in evident disregard for the procedures of the House and the purport of the hon. Gentleman’s inquiry.

Under Standing Order No. 158, on the presentation of Command Papers, if papers are commanded by Her Majesty to be presented to the House at any time during the existence of a Parliament, which includes periods of Prorogation, although not of Dissolution, delivery of such papers to the Votes and Proceedings Office shall be deemed for all purposes a presentation of them to the House. At least to me, at this point, that seems clear, and I hope that it is not beyond the considerable intellectual capacities of some members of the Government.

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was wondering whether you might be able to assist. Under the civil service code of conduct for Government special advisers who are Government employees paid for by the taxpayer, a special adviser may not undertake work for a political party during office hours. They should also not use official resources for party political activity. Based on widespread reports, it appears that the Prime Minister’s chief special adviser, Mr Dominic Cummings, almost certainly has undertaken work for the Conservative party while carrying out his duties. With that in mind, I submitted a freedom of information request—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is a perfectly reasonable inquiry. Whether it is something upon which I can adjudicate remains to be seen, but I will only know that if I hear it, and the hyena noises render it rather more difficult for it to be heard. The hon. Gentleman will persist, I hope, with his point of order.

[Chuka Umunna]

With that in mind, I submitted a freedom of information request to the Cabinet Secretary on 13 August asking for details of Government special advisers and, in particular, who they were employed by and whether they were paid out of the public purse. In the case of Mr Cummings, I asked whether, if he is not paid by public funds, he has security access to Downing Street and is treated in the same way as a special adviser paid out of public funds.

Mr Speaker, this is an incredibly important matter of public interest, particularly given that we are about to prorogue and potentially thereafter enter an election period. The Cabinet Office, when we had points of order earlier, replied saying that it would not provide a response to my freedom of information request, which is due tomorrow, until December. That is clearly unsatisfactory. I tried to raise it earlier with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but he refused to take any interventions. Given that we are about to prorogue for five weeks, what would you advise we do to ensure that public funds are not being misspent and used for Conservative party purposes in this way?

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry, but I have to resort to my usual advice to quizzical Members in these circumstances: persist, persist, persist. Write, seek a meeting, and press again and again and again in pursuit of a response to an entirely legitimate question. Do not take no for an answer.

It is a very long time since I was a special adviser. In those days the rules were extremely strict, and what the hon. Gentleman says resonates with me entirely. I have no reason to suppose the rules have changed. I cannot possibly say what is or is not done by way of conduct on the part of particular individuals now, but that it is a legitimate matter of public interest, rather than something simply to be treated as the subject of cheap badinage and ribaldry, is entirely obvious to me. The hon. Gentleman has a fair inquiry. He should pursue it and not put up with those who sneer and smirk, and think it is all a sort of jolly wheeze and a game, and that it does not matter a damn. It does matter a damn, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will pursue it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope he is suitably emboldened and fortified in pursuit of his efforts.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let me encourage colleagues, please, to make brief interventions. There is very, very, very little time.

[Chuka Umunna]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman.

All the things I was talking about can be implemented now to better manage migration while we are part of the EEA, and I support them, but what are the real underlying causes of concern here? Not enough decent affordable housing; a shortage of school places; an NHS in crisis; and not enough well-paid and decent jobs. Let us not pretend that all these problems will disappear or be mitigated if we cease participating in the EEA. As hon. Members have said, they will get worse, because there will be less revenue going to the Exchequer to pay for those things.

Those underlying problems are no more the fault of European immigrants now than they were the fault of the Commonwealth citizens who came here in the 1960s and 1970s. Let us make no mistake: people in traditional Labour voting areas were saying exactly the same things about the Windrush generation, about south Asian immigration, and about the likes of my father from west Africa being the cause of our problems way back then, as they do now in respect of EU citizens. Curbing Commonwealth immigration then and ending EU free movement now did not and will not solve these problems, and we know it. That is why Labour Governments have always addressed those problems by properly funding the NHS, by having a national minimum wage, by investing in our schools and so on. That is why I will vote for the amendment tabled by my party’s Front-Bench team, and also for Lords amendment 2.

A colleague came up to me in the Tea Room yesterday. She represents a seat in the north-west and, to my surprise, she told me that she would also be voting for the Lords EEA amendment. I asked her how come she was doing that. Despite the issues and the challenges that I know that she and many of my colleagues have to deal with in respect of that issue, which I do not have to deal with in my own constituency, she said, “Yes, there are big concerns about immigration, certainly compared with your area, Chuka, but the bottom line is that we have nothing like the amount of immigration from the EU or from outside the EU as you do in your constituency. I know that the cause of our problems is not that immigration, so I will not go around saying that I agree with any claim that that is the case, because I know what that will do. It won’t help us deal with any of these problems, but what it will do is deprive people of jobs.” That is why I say to my Labour colleagues that we should not ignore this issue of immigration, but let us deal with the problems and underlying causes in a Labour way. That is what our history dictates.

Points of Order

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am not privy to the details of this matter, but my response to the hon. Gentleman, off the top of my head, is twofold.

If a Minister feels that he or she has been inaccurate in a statement to the House, it is incumbent upon, and open to, that Minister subsequently to correct the record. It may be that the Minister holds a view, and would offer an interpretation of the sequence of events, that differs from that of the hon. Gentleman. I do not, in all candour, know.

I would just add, without offering any judgment on the merits of the case—which it would not be right for me to do—that a less than 100% correlation between what is said at one time and what happens at another time is not entirely without precedent in our parliamentary history.

I feel that on this occasion—and he will take it in the right spirit—the hon. Gentleman was perhaps more interested in what he had to say to me than in anything that I might have to say to him, and he has been successful in his mission: it is on the record.

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sir Winston Churchill said:

“The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate.”

With that in mind, Mr Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the disgraceful front page of today’s Daily Express, which gives one “simple” warning to “our elected representatives”:

“ignore the will of the people at your peril.”

This is a threat, pure and simple, and an attempt to intimidate and threaten Members ahead of the votes on the Lords amendments today.

That paper is not the only protagonist. This gives licence to people to abuse and threaten Members of this House who exercise their judgment to do what they think is best for our country, as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), has done in resigning this morning. Already on social media, a UKIP supporter has called for him to be hanged, and another individual has called for him to be hung, drawn and quartered; and you will know, Mr Speaker, that just last week a gentleman was given a nine-week suspended jail sentence for sending threatening emails to the right hon. Members for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith), the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) and other Members. What advice, Mr Speaker, would you give to Members in the face of such abuse and threats?

[Mr Speaker]

My advice, in so far as it is ever required, is: do as your conscience dictates. That is what Members of Parliament on any side of any argument are not merely entitled, but perhaps constitutionally obliged, to do. The freedom of speech that we enjoy in this place was hard-won and by all Members of whatever hue will I am sure be jealously, and rightly jealously, guarded.

I must say en passant to the hon. Gentleman that until he held up that copy of that paper I had not seen the headline or report to which he referred; I am not in the habit of reading this sort of material and it is a matter of no interest or concern to me whatsoever. All that is of interest and concern to me is that right hon. and hon. Members do what they believe to be right by their constituents, by their conscience and by their country.

Windrush Children (Immigration Status)

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

May I say to the Home Secretary that the way this trailblazing generation and their families have been treated in this year, the 70th anniversary of the arrival of the Empire Windrush on our shores, is a complete and utter disgrace? So many are my constituents. She has talked about individual cases. A well-publicised one involves someone who has not been able to get access to cancer treatment that he needs from the NHS because of his immigration status. She has said that these cases will be processed quickly. Okay, that is welcome. She says her Department will help individuals in this situation to identify the evidence, but what happens if the evidence does not exist? On healthcare, will she commit to ensuring that indefinite leave to remain is granted—

[Mr Speaker]

We are immensely grateful. We have a lot to get through and it is very self-indulgent if people spend ages. I understand the importance, but colleagues have to do this pithily—it is as simple as that.

Points of Order

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

A very difficult south London choice for me. I was notified by the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) first, so I will take a point of order from him.

[Chuka Umunna]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Over the last few years, there have been several major water leaks and burst water mains causing severe disruption to my constituents, meaning that they cannot wash, cook and do the basic things that we take for granted in everyday life. Yesterday, over 20,000 homes across London, and indeed many others across the rest of the country, were left without water.

My constituency is served by Thames Water. This is the worst incident of its type and it is totally unacceptable. Although the snows, the freeze and the thaw have posed huge challenges, Ofwat said this afternoon that these companies have fallen far short in forward planning and giving the right support and communication to people. I am absolutely astounded, given the practical implications of this, that no Minister has come to the Dispatch Box today to explain what the Government are doing, or will do, to support people who have been going through hell over the last couple of days. At the very least, one would have thought that there would be some kind of public inquiry. People will be interested to know whether they will get compensation for what has happened. Can you assist me, Mr Speaker, by advising me how we might get a Minister to the Dispatch Box to explain what they are doing to address this serious situation?

[Mr Speaker]

Would the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) like to come in at this point?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: Second Day: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to him. I call Chuka Umunna.

[Chuka Umunna]

I will be as brief as I can. I rise to speak in support of new clause 6 on the legal standing of article 50. I voted in the last Parliament to invoke article 50 because I believed it was the duty of the House to seek to deliver Brexit in the form in which it was sold to the British people, but it was conditional on it being in that form. I said that if it turned out to be materially different at the end of the process, the people would be entitled to keep an open mind on what should then happen. By that I meant they were entitled to halt the process and revoke the article 50 notification given by the Prime Minister to the President of the European Council, if that was what the people decided to do.

The core purpose of new clause 6 is to clear up this matter. On the issue of revocability—halting the process or extending article 50—Ministers have sought deliberately to pull the wool over the eyes not just of this House but of the people. They have given the misleading impression that legally we are not free to keep an open mind and that we cannot revoke article 50 if we so wish. For example, on 9 October 2017, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) asked the Prime Minister if it was possible to halt the article 50 process, she implied that it was not and said:

“The position was made clear in a case that went through the Supreme Court in relation to article 50.”—[Official Report, 9 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 51.]

But it was not. The case she was referring to was brought by Gina Miller to stop this Government seeking to take back control for Ministers instead of for Parliament, as was intended.

The Prime Minster was pressed again on the same day by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) and each time gave a similar response. This gave a completely false impression of the reality, because what she said was not factually correct. The Supreme Court did not and has not opined on this issue in the Miller or any other case before it, though the author of article 50, the noble Lord Kerr, has made it clear that it may be revoked.

Points of Order

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am coming to the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), but first I call Chuka Umunna.

[Chuka Umunna]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take note of the comments that you have just made. This is related to the documents that were promised to the House. There is an issue regarding the motion that we debated in the Chamber the other day, and there is an issue regarding what has been said to the Select Committee—I note what you said about it needing to come to a judgment itself—but there is a new issue in relation to statements that have been made in the House. On 20 October, in oral questions to the Department for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) asked the Secretary of State:

“Will the Secretary of State tell us what assessment his or any other Department has made of the impact of leaving the EU on the economy, and when will he make that available to the House?”

The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union replied in the Chamber:

“We currently have in place an assessment of 51 sectors of the economy. We are looking at those one by one”.—[Official Report, 20 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 938.]

In the hearing by the Exiting the European Union Committee this morning, he was asked by the Chairman, “has the Government undertaken any impact assessments on the implications of leaving the EU for different sectors of the economy?” His reply was, “Not in sectors…There’s no sort of systematic impact assessment, no.” There is a clear contradiction between the statement given to the Committee this morning and what the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box in the House on 20 October, which, to me, provides strong evidence that perhaps the House has been misled on the issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman, both for his skill and for his prodigious industry. He is, by background, if my memory serves me correctly, a lawyer, so I am not surprised to be reminded of his lawyerly quality: his attention to detail and his appetite for studying the Official Report. I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that I am not entirely unmindful myself of the content of the Official Report and of various exchanges that have taken place. That material naturally comes my way, and I study it. I do not think it would be right to engage in textual exegesis on the Floor of the House.

When the Committee’s completed consideration is presented to me, if it is, and I am invited to make a judgment, I will make it, and I will be mindful of all the matters that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted—and potentially others, which hon. and right hon. Members in any part of the House wish to bring to my attention. I do not honestly think that there is much to add, but the Liberal Democrat party would be sadly disappointed if we did not hear from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington—almost as disappointed as he would be.

Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There was a little hubbub a moment ago following the observations of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). Just to put the matter to rest, let me say this: conventionally, if the Chair of a Select Committee comes to the House under our procedures to make a statement—a relatively recent innovation in our procedures—they are doing so on behalf of the Committee. However, it is perfectly commonplace for Select Committee Chairs to come to the Chamber to ask questions, and it is understood that they are doing so on their own account and taking responsibility for their own words, a proposition to which—to name but two at random—the hon. Members for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) can readily and with enthusiasm sign up.

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary went around this country in a big red bus, saying that £350 million extra per week would go to the NHS if we voted to leave. That will not happen. The Environment Secretary said that the 3 million EU citizens in this country would be automatically granted the right to remain. That has not happened. This Secretary of State said that this House would get a vote on our withdrawal arrangements before we leave, and that does not look like it is guaranteed to happen either. Why should we believe anything that is said at this Dispatch Box? Clearly, we have to take what they say with a lorry load of salt.

Points of Order

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer you to the Committee of the whole House on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill on 7 February 2017.

[Mr Speaker]

It was a Tuesday.

[Chuka Umunna]

Yes, it was a Tuesday. Very well remembered.

The then Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union, the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), gave a commitment in this House that this House of Commons would have a vote on the arrangements for our withdrawal from the European Union before our exit. He said,

“we intend that the vote will cover not only the withdrawal arrangements but also the future relationship with the European Union. Furthermore, I can confirm that the Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement, to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 264.]

He went on to say:

“It will be a meaningful vote. As I have said, it will be the choice between leaving the European Union with a negotiated deal or not.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 273.]

This morning the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union told the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union that the vote, which the then Minister committed to happening before we leave, could actually happen after we leave the European Union. As such, that is in clear breach of the commitment given by his own Minister that

“it will be the choice between leaving the European Union with a negotiated deal or not.”

Obviously we will not have that choice if we have already left the European Union by the time of a vote. It seems to me that this House, on behalf of the people we represent, cannot take back control unless we have that vote.

Mr Speaker, can you advise on what we, as a House of Commons, can do about the, at best, contradiction or, at worst, false impression given to the House during the debate on 7 February?

Points of Order

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

An explanation has been offered to me on that point. I am sympathetic to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said and I hope that account will be taken of it, not least in relation to Monday. Although I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks in support of the rights of all his colleagues, I hope he is at least moderately mollified to know that there is no question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman today—or probably in a speech at any other time—being confined by the Chair to a mere three minutes.

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was wondering whether you could give your views and advice with regard to the matter of Big Ben. Many tears have been shed across both sides of the House at the silencing of the bongs of Big Ben, but the issue I raise is much more serious than that.

The construction company that has been awarded the pre-construction and scaffolding contract for Big Ben is Sir Robert McAlpine. We understand that it has been awarded the main contract to fix the bongs and do the refit of Big Ben. We had a debate about blacklisting earlier this week in Westminster Hall. Sir Robert McAlpine was one of the firms that founded the Consulting Association, which was responsible for the blacklisting of more than 3,000 construction workers, depriving them of a livelihood and facilitating their systematic discrimination and victimisation.

Mr Speaker, what message do you think it sends to the victims of this gross injustice for this House to award a contract to a firm that not only funded the Consulting Association, but provided its first chair and another chair? I would also be interested to know to what extent this decision is made by the House and to what extent it is made by the Government. I note that the Prime Minister is in her place. I think many people would want to hear from her on this matter.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The House will not want a dilation on the matter. Suffice it to say that an initial contract was awarded. As I understand it, the contract for the main works has yet to be awarded. Nevertheless, I take head-on what the hon. Gentleman perfectly legitimately and reasonably puts to me. The House of Commons Commission considered this issue yesterday, and we are seeking reassurance from the company, not least in the light of the facts that the hon. Gentleman has just articulated and in the light of his remarks in the Westminster Hall debate yesterday, which colleagues and I have studied.

As I believe the hon. Gentleman indicated, blacklisting is now illegal. This House will expect any contractor to observe the letter and spirit of the law. That is point one. Point two is that any contractor will be expected to conform to the highest standards in such matters. I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that I cannot be expected to say more than that today, but I am not knocking what he said. It is important. We are sensitive to it and we will be conscious in the days ahead of the reputational importance of what he has raised. Perhaps I can leave it there for now.

Bills Presented

House of Lords (Exclusion of Hereditary Peers) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

David Hanson, supported by Clive Efford, Matthew Pennycook, Barbara Keeley, Bill Esterson, Jack Dromey, Louise Haigh, Kate Green, Lyn Brown, Liam Byrne and Paul Blomfield, presented a Bill to amend the House of Lords Act 1999 to remove the by-election system for the election of hereditary peers; to provide for the exclusion of hereditary peers from the House of Lords over time; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be a read a Second time on Friday 27 April 2018, and to be printed (Bill 104).

Pensions (Review of Women’s Arrangements) (No. 2)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Carolyn Harris, supported by Tim Loughton, Caroline Lucas, Stephen Lloyd, Ian Blackford, Christine Jardine, Maria Caulfield, Peter Aldous, David Hanson and Chris Elmore, presented a Bill to establish a review of pension arrangements for women affected by changes made by the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2011; to require the review in particular to undertake costings for a compensation scheme and consider the operation of section 1(4) of the Pensions Act 2011; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be a read a Second time on Friday 27 April 2018, and to be printed (Bill 105).

Points of Order

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Thursday 8th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of his intended point of order. I have a twofold answer. First, every Member of this House is responsible for the veracity of what he or she says in it, and it is incumbent upon a Member, upon discovery of a mistake, to correct it; that applies to Ministers as it applies to anybody else. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman will understand why I do not wish to delve into the detail of the matter, and I certainly do not seek to adjudicate between the hon. Gentleman making an accusation and any Minister who might seek to defend himself or herself against it. All I would say, perhaps delphically, is that what the hon. Gentleman has said about a political motivation and what the Minister has said are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is not dissimilar to the previous one. Mine relates to the response given by the Department for Transport to the urgent question tabled on Monday by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) in respect of Southern rail. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who is present, and I asked the Minister in question whether the Government’s intention was still to devolve rail commuter services to Transport for London. We were not given any answer. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) has just said, clearly the Secretary of State for Transport has already made up his mind about that on the basis of party political reasons, and, secondly, having provided no answer, we then found it in the Evening Standard the day after.

I know you, Mr Speaker, place a premium on Ministers coming here and giving information to this House when questions are asked, not providing it in the newspapers afterwards. Frankly, I am utterly exasperated at this, because my constituents will take grave exception to Ministers playing party politics with the misery they are facing day in, day out on this line. I would be very grateful for your guidance, Mr Speaker, on how we can ensure Ministers give the right information to this House and do not fail to give us the information we require.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, and of course I remember well the exchanges to which he refers as they took place only three days ago. My off-the-cuff response is twofold. First, the absence of comprehensive answers to questions posed, under Governments of a variety of complexions, is not without precedent. Secondly, it is difficult to know—and it is not for the Speaker to judge—at what point a Government have decided on a policy and decided to communicate it. However, it does seem a tad strange if something is not communicated in the House in response to a specific question but is then communicated to the media a very short time afterwards. As I have said, it is not for me to judge in each case, but I really do think that if Ministers wish to avert the potentially embarrassing scenario of another urgent question being tabled on the same matter, with the possibility of a Minister having to come to answer it a second time, it would be wise for them to factor that consideration into their calculations of how to conduct themselves.

National Minimum Wage: Sports Direct

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the relevant Minister if he will make a statement on Sports Direct plc and its compliance with the national minimum wage legislation.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the relevant Minister, Mr Nicholas Edward Coleridge Boles.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern that working people are paid the full amount that the law requires for every hour that they work, and I welcome his urgent question. We take the enforcement of minimum wage laws very seriously. That is why we have increased the enforcement budget from £8.1 million in 2010 to £13.2 million in 2015-16. While I am not able to comment on enforcement action in relation to individual employers, I can assure the House that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs follows up every complaint it receives in relation to breaches of the national minimum wage. I encourage any employer or worker who is concerned that these laws are not being complied with in their workplace to contact HMRC or ACAS, through its confidential hotline. HMRC undertakes targeted enforcement activity in the most high-risk sectors of the economy.

As the Prime Minister announced in September, the Government are taking a number of further steps to crack down on employers who are not paying workers the minimum wage. We have already increased the penalty for breaches of minimum wage legislation to 100% of arrears, up to £20,000 per worker, and from April 2016 the Government will double the maximum penalty from 100% to 200% of arrears so that employers comply with the law and working people receive the money they are due. Furthermore, a new team of compliance officers will be established within HMRC to investigate the most serious cases of employers not paying the relevant minimum wage. The team will have the power to use all available sanctions, including penalties and criminal investigation. We will also continue to name and shame employers who do not pay their workers what they are entitled to.

As a Government, our message to employers is straightforward. We will work to reduce burdens on business by cutting regulation and corporation tax. In return, we expect employers to pay working people at least a decent legal minimum—the national minimum wage and, from next April, the national living wage for workers aged 25 and over. I can assure the House that we will not hesitate to crack down hard on employers, large and small, who break this social contract by failing to pay the wage that the law requires.

G20 and Paris Attacks

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

A question perhaps? I call Chuka Umunna.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I agree with all the comments about the Government’s No. 1 priority being to safeguard the national security of those we represent, but that actually extends to every Member of the House. With regard to the use of lethal force by intelligence and police forces abroad and at home, it is of course important that they have the powers necessary to act, but it is also important that they act within a clear legal framework. I welcome the Prime Minister’s agreement to publish the advice on which he intends to act in Syria. Will he also ensure that the basis on which the police act on our streets is published and made known to those we represent?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

One of the most important things for businesses, and for a vibrant economy, is making sure we continue to deal with the record budget deficit we inherited from the previous Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman knows that himself. He has been busy telling the press very recently:

“to be running a deficit in 2007, after 15 years of economic growth, was…a mistake.”

He understands the importance of this, and it means the Government have to make difficult decisions. He also said very recently to the Financial Times that

“We are starting from square one.”

I think he was talking about the economic credibility of the Labour party. I do not think that was an accurate statement; I think he was—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Front-Bench exchanges have to be brief. A lot of Back Benchers want to get in. It is very self-indulgent to have these long-winded exchanges from the Front Bench.

[Mr Umunna]

When consolidating, you have to make appropriate choices—you do not want to cut off your nose to spite your face. If we want to increase revenue, we need to increase productivity. Look at South Gloucestershire and Stroud College, which the Secretary of State attended: this month it confirmed that 70 staff posts are in danger due to the reduction in its adult learning funding. The principal of that college said:

“we need to reduce our costs in line with the reduction in funding to maintain our solvency.”

Should the alarm bells not be ringing when his own college is citing issues of solvency before we have seen the full scale of what he is going to do to the productive capacity of the economy?

Points of Order

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. There was nothing in it on which the Chair can rule, but I see that the shadow Business Secretary is present, and he did indicate to me a desire to respond to it. He now has the opportunity to do so.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to respond to this point of order. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for notifying me in advance that he wished to raise this matter. As the Secretary of State said, he believed that the broader issues I raised in relation to employment agencies were legitimate; he had also been notified of them. In regard to the company in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I am happy to concede, with hindsight, that it was not fair of me to raise its part in this matter without giving it the opportunity to reply. I regret that, and I apologise to the company for doing it. I am also happy to acknowledge—it is only fair to do so—that it has denied this. I am also pleased that Mr Pardoe has said that, in principle, he disagrees with such arrangements. Beyond that, it would not be proper for me to say anything further, given that the Secretary of State is looking into the broader issue of employment agencies.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think there is anything further to say. In fact, to judge by the nodding of heads that is taking place, I think there is a prospect of a refreshing outbreak of amity.

Zero-hours Contracts

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before the shadow Secretary of State responds to that intervention, may I gently say that it is helpful if everybody is clear to whom the Member who has the floor is giving way? The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) is sorely pained as he thinks the intervention was supposed to be his. I know not, but the shadow Secretary should make it clear.

[Mr Umunna]

I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. What we need is a question, with a question mark—just one sentence. We have a lot to get through.

[Mr Umunna]

Why has the formal investigation that the Secretary of State promised not taken place?

Riot (Damages) Act

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Monday 14th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am afraid that we cannot have interventions from the Front Bench in a half-hour Adjournment debate.

Points of Order

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

The Deputy Leader of the House says that this is outrageous, but the Government’s behaviour in relation to those statements is outrageous, and shows an utter contempt for this House. I should be grateful for your views on the matter, Mr Speaker

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I received no advance notification of the Government’s intentions beyond that which was on offer to, and could be seen by, Members of the House as a whole. The Government did give notice of their intentions on the Order Paper today.

I note, however, the hon. Gentleman’s further inquiry, namely whether I have had any indication of any Government intention to make an oral statement on either or both matters to which he refers, and my answer to that is no.

The wider response to the hon. Gentleman is that nothing disorderly has occurred. It is helpful to the House to have the maximum possible notice, and I can understand his disappointment that some of those matters appeared in the Vote Office, in the form of documentation, only at the time when Business, Innovation and Skills questions were taking place. He may think that that is unseemly or disappointing, and it may be something that he would not himself be inclined to do, I do not know, but nothing disorderly has taken place.

Executive Pay

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

I welcome this opportunity to set out Government proposals on executive pay. Last September I published papers that explored the issues around the rapid growth in executive pay in our largest listed companies, and embarked on a call for evidence.

The evidence is clear that business and investors recognise that there is a disconnect between top pay and company performance, and that something must be done. We cannot continue to see chief executives’ pay rising at 13% a year while the performance of companies on the stock exchange languishes well behind, and we cannot accept top pay rising at five times the rate of average workers’ pay, as it did last year. It is not Government’s role to micro-manage company pay, but there are things we can do to address what is a clear market failure.

Today I can announce a package of measures that the Government will take forward to tackle the issue on four fronts: greater transparency, so that what people are paid is clear and easily understood; more shareholder powers, such as the introduction of binding votes, so that shareholders can hold companies to account; more diverse boards and remuneration committees; and best practice led by the business and investor community. No proposal on its own is a magic bullet, but together they can enable a major transformation to get under way.

Let me start with transparency. Shareholders have told us that they need clearer and more relevant information about pay, particularly the link to performance. At present many company pay reports are simply impenetrable. Through secondary legislation later this year the Government will require companies to publish more informative remuneration reports on how executives are rewarded. This will start with reports being split into two sections: one detailing proposed future policy for executive pay, and the other setting out how pay policy has been implemented in the previous year.

On future policy, remuneration committees will be expected to explain why they have used specific benchmarks and how they have taken into account employee earnings, including pay differentials, when setting pay. Companies will also have to explain how they have consulted employees and taken their views into account. UK employees in large companies already have the right to request that their employers consult them on issues relating to the organisation, including pay, through the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004. This potentially powerful mechanism for employees has been underutilised to date, so I encourage employees to use it and put executive pay on the agenda.

Shareholders say that pay policy too often appears totally disconnected from their company’s overall strategy. I want companies to state clearly and succinctly how their proposed pay policy reflects and supports company strategy, how performance will be assessed and how it will translate into rewards under different scenarios. In the backwards-looking section of the report, companies will have to provide a single figure for total pay for each director and explain how pay awards relate to the company’s performance. To provide context, companies will be mandated to produce a distribution statement outlining how executive pay compares with other disbursals, such as dividends, business investment, taxation and general staffing costs.

Alongside more information, shareholders need new powers to hold the board to account. I will consult shortly on specific proposals to reform the current voting arrangements and give shareholders a binding vote, enabling them to exert more pressure on boards. This will include a binding vote on future pay policy, including details of how performance will be judged and real numbers on the potential payouts directors could receive. Companies will have to include a statement on how they have taken into account shareholder views and the results of previous votes.

There will also be a binding vote on any director’s notice period longer than one year and on exit payments of more than one year’s salary. Shareholders will still get a vote on how the agreed policy has been implemented. I will consider whether we need further sanctions that could be applied when a significant number of shareholders dissented in the advisory vote. In addition, we will review what level of shareholder support is needed to pass pay proposals—for example, whether the threshold for a successful vote should be raised to 75% of share votes cast. By way of context, last year four FTSE 100 companies failed that test.

Let me move on to diversity in remuneration committees. Having diverse remuneration committee membership is crucial to changing the status quo on executive pay. The right way to tackle this is by having more diverse boards. I want to see more people who come from different backgrounds appointed, including people from the professions, public servants, academics, lawyers, and people who have not been directors before. For example, I would like at least two board members to have never previously been members of a board of directors.

In October a new provision in the UK corporate governance code will come into force requiring companies to report on their policy on boardroom diversity, how they propose to deliver it and what progress has been made. That sits alongside a new code of conduct for executive head-hunters and good practice guidance from the Association of British Insurers on the importance of board diversity, board evaluation and succession planning. The Government will also address fundamental conflicts of interest in the pay-setting process and require greater transparency on the role of remuneration consultants, how they are appointed, their fees, and who they advise and report to.

We have also observed that in the FTSE 350 about 6% of remuneration committee members are executives of other companies. There is a perceived conflict, as those individuals have a personal interest in maintaining the status quo in pay-setting culture and in pay levels, and we are looking at mechanisms to limit that.

In the context of such changes, we must deal with the specific issue of payments for failure. Some of our consultees have argued that all quoted companies, not just those in financial services, should have a clawback mechanism in place, and we will ask the Financial Reporting Council to revise the corporate governance code in order to require all large public companies to adopt clawbacks.

In relation to best practice, this package of measures will create a more robust framework within which executive pay is set and agreed. Moreover, lasting reform depends on active shareholders and responsible businesses accepting the need for change and pushing the agenda forward.

Deborah Hargreaves, who chairs the High Pay Commission, will launch a new project next week to monitor the state of pay at the top. The high pay centre will perform an important role in delivering the high-quality research that this area of debate badly needs. Companies have to show leadership on this issue, and in the following weeks and months I will be working with business and investor groups to build on the current momentum for reform, to agree on what best practice looks like, and to promote that more widely.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extraordinarily grateful—[Interruption.] Order. I am extraordinary grateful to the Secretary of State, but I have been immensely—perhaps excessively—generous, because the right hon. Gentleman took precisely three times as long as he is supposed to take in answering an urgent question. I know he will understand—I listened to him with great interest and respect—that I must make allowance for that with regard to the Opposition Front Bencher’s response, but above all I make the point for the future that those on the Front Benches must stick to the limit, because my concern is to protect the rights of Back-Bench Members.

[Mr Umunna]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for forcing the Secretary of State to come to the House today to set out the Government’s proposals in this area—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) chunters from a sedentary position, but it is quite extraordinary for Ministers to demand greater accountability and transparency from people in business, and then to seek to avoid being held to account for their policies in that area in the House of Commons.

The problems of excessive executive pay and rewards for failure have grown over the past few decades; in fact it was probably 30 years ago, when the current Business Secretary was a happy and active member of the Labour party, that things were more in proportion. We agree that it is right that those who work hard, generate wealth and create jobs for our country are rewarded, but excessive pay and rewards for failure are bad for business, the economy and society at large.

I welcome much of what the Business Secretary says, but his proposals simply do not go far enough in promoting the transparency, accountability and fairness that people want to see. We support all the recommendations of the independent High Pay Commission, to which the Business Secretary referred, but why will he not do the same, particularly given that his Treasury spokesperson in the Lords is a member of the commission, and presumably supports its recommendations?

The Business Secretary and other Ministers have underlined the importance of consulting employees, so why will he not back moves for employees to sit on the remuneration committees that set pay? Employees play that type of role in Europe’s strongest economy, Germany, and on the board of one of our most successful businesses, John Lewis. We read that he would like to back the proposal but has been prevented from doing so by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Can he confirm that?

The right hon. Gentleman said nothing about the publication of pay ratios within businesses. Why will he not agree to that proposal? If I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected. I agree with him on the need for greater clarity about the role of remuneration consultants. They currently owe their duty to the board, as I understand it. Does he agree that there is a case for changing the situation so that, much like auditors, they owe their duty to shareholders?

Above all, I do agree that increased shareholder activism is key. Two issues have been cited as obstacles: that more of our UK stock is held by foreign investors and that it is held for a shorter period. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that need not be an insurmountable barrier to increased shareholder activism?

Finally, on shareholder activism, the Business Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers who ultimately bear responsibility and control the public stake in the banks—RBS, in particular—have said that they are in a position to stop the chief executive of that bank receiving a large bonus while he is issuing thousands of redundancy notices to RBS employees. How and when will that happen? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is acceptable for the chief executive of RBS to take a bonus of the order of £1 million when thousands of company employees are being made redundant?

Points of Order

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman. I am saving him up. He is too precious. I do not want to waste him too early. I call Mr Chuka Umunna.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and on a point of order. You will be aware that excessive pay and rewards for failure in the City and in boardrooms round the country are a matter of huge public interest. The Government have let it be known that they will announce what they plan to do about the issue on Tuesday next week. Our strong view is that the Business Secretary should do so in an oral statement to the House. He is giving a speech to the Social Market Foundation at 12.30 pm on Tuesday, before the House sits. Can you advise the House whether you have been given notice that he intends to come first to the House on Monday to give an oral statement on what the Government are to do about the matter, and whether you would expect him to do so?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, of the content of which I did not have advance notice. I would certainly expect that if a significant policy announcement is to be made, a statement in one form or another—there are different forms of statement, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware—would first be made to the House. I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand if I say that more widely than that I would be reluctant to go. I would want to observe how the Government conduct themselves and judge matters accordingly, but both the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House are aware of the premium that I attach not on my account, but on behalf of the House, to the House hearing and, preferably on very important matters, having the opportunity first to question Ministers. It is desirable that the House hears first, rather than audiences outside.

Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is important that the hon. Lady makes it clear to whom she is giving way.

[Nadine Dorries]

I give way to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. To date there has been no breach of order from either the Opposition Front Bench or the Treasury Bench, but I remind hon. and right hon. Members that they should be very careful in their use of the word “hypocrisy”.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

5. What assessment he has made of the equity of the distribution of Government funding for local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Umunna]

Of course, the fact is that the most deprived single-tier local authorities are seeing their spending power reduced by nearly four times the amount of the least deprived local authorities. For example, Lambeth—the Minister omitted this point—is having to make just under £40 million-worth of cuts to services in my area, including to Lambeth senior citizens day centre in Brixton Hill. That centre provides food and a place to go for—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It seems to be contagious. Both sides are taking too long. We will have a quick question from Mr Umunna.

[Mr Umunna]

The older people’s centre is facing cuts of up to 80%. Will the Minister come with me to the centre and explain how he will help it to continue to survive in the coming financial year?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chuka Umunna and John Bercow

Thursday 13th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call George Eustice to ask Question 10. He is not here.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

11. What discussions he has had with representatives of the banking industry on payment of bonuses since 21 December 2010.