Points of Order

Debate between Clive Betts and John Bercow

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Broadly speaking, the answer is yes. We would have to treat it as a discrete item that was beginning and needed to be continued and completed, and I would expect that that which had applied to the existing, but as yet by the House unapproved, agreement would be sought in respect of the new agreement. That would be the premise from which I would work.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I do not feel that I can rule on that now. I am certainly expecting that there will be debate and votes on that very specific and, I accept, extremely important point. I do not want to give an incorrect answer or a misleading impression, and I think it is better for me to reflect on that, and, if it would be appropriate, to come back to the right hon. Lady or to report to the House, because it is an extremely salient issue. I think that otherwise I stand by the rest of what I have said, and on that particular point I would like to take stock.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), if there were to be any changes to the agreement and the motion, would the assumption be that this House would be entitled to see any changes to the advice that the Attorney General gives on that?

[Mr Speaker]

Well, that is hypothetical. That does not mean that it is not an important question, but it is hypothetical at this stage. I am not sure that I could give such an automatic assurance to the hon. Gentleman. It may be that efforts would have to be made to secure a commitment to the release, or publication, of that advice. I think there would be a strong moral basis for expecting that that advice would be published, in the light—

Transport Emissions: Urban Areas

Debate between Clive Betts and John Bercow

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A point of order would ordinarily come later. Does it appertain to these exchanges?

[Mr Betts]

Yes.

[Mr Speaker]

And is it uncontentious and not a continuation of debate, but an honest pursuit of truth by the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee?

[Mr Betts]

It is an honest pursuit of truth, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Very good. I will give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt.

[Mr Betts]

I am sure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would not want an inaccurate statement to go uncorrected. He said that Sheffield City Council was felling trees and that that was adding to the pollution problems in the city. The truth is that while there has been some contention about the removal and replacement of some trees on some streets, overall there will be more trees in Sheffield at the end of the programme than at the beginning, and the city will have low-energy LED street lights throughout, which I hope the Secretary of State will welcome.

[Mr Speaker]

It is always useful to have a bit of additional information. We have learnt a bit more about the Sheffield tree situation, which is potentially reassuring. If the Secretary of State wishes to leap to his feet to respond, he is welcome to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman signals that he is content, such is the—

[Mr Betts]

He agrees—thank you very much.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees, but he gives no evidence of disagreement. The emollient tone of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) has served his purpose for now—[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) chunters from a sedentary position that this is an explosive issue. I do not know whether it is—[Interruption.] Locally; well, that may well be so. Very good, honour is served.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Clive Betts and John Bercow

Thursday 19th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

It is very good indeed to see the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) back in his place.

[Mr Betts]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Local Government Finance Settlement

Debate between Clive Betts and John Bercow

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently reiterate that those who arrived late should not stand. I have already made the point once, and it should not be necessary for me to make it again, but regrettably it has proved to be so.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I welcome some aspects of the statement, such as the increase in money from planning fees. On the flexibility on council tax increases, will the Secretary of State confirm the figures given to me by the Local Government Association that show that, even if the flexibility were fully used, it would raise just £250 million next year? That compares with the LGA’s estimate of the shortfall in funding for social care of more than £2 billion, even after the measures previously announced by the Government are taken into account. Will he also confirm that councils will raise very different amounts of money from such flexibility, depending on the size of their council tax base?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Clive Betts and John Bercow

Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

3. What steps he is taking to ensure that adult social care services are adequately funded.

Points of Order

Debate between Clive Betts and John Bercow

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am saving the right hon. Gentleman up. He is too precious to waste at an early point in our proceedings.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), which I entirely support, Mr Speaker. This is a major announcement affecting my constituency and many others. It is not an HS2 recommendation; it is a Government decision on a previous recommendation. The Government have always come to the House before with an oral statement. While we can ask for an urgent question tomorrow, by that time there will have been public debate on the matter. This House should have the first opportunity to debate it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman.

In the circumstances, the Secretary of State is bound to hear of these concerns within a matter of minutes. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to come to the House today to make a statement, I would certainly be very happy to facilitate him.

Finally, the hon. Member for Sheffield—

[Mr Betts]

South East.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts)—the former hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe—said that an urgent question could be applied for tomorrow, but by then all sorts of briefing would have taken place. I am afraid it is not within the power of the Speaker to reverse time. I cannot do anything about that; I can only deal with the situation as it evolves. What I will say, however, is that if no statement is forthcoming from the Minister, it will be perfectly open to Members to do their best to secure parliamentary time and attention tomorrow. It may be that such an exploration would take place at some length, and it may be that, faced with such a scenario, a Minister might think it prudent and judicious to anticipate the difficulty and offer the statement today instead. I do not know—we shall have to see—but I am on the side of the House in wanting Ministers to be accountable to it. That seems pretty clear to me.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Clive Betts and John Bercow

Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) on the campaign that she has run with the Public and Commercial Services Union and local residents to keep open the Eastern Avenue jobcentre, which serves both our constituencies. Will the Minister confirm that the only reason for closing Eastern Avenue is to save money, and that if it closes, extra capacity will be needed at Cavendish Court and Woodhouse jobcentres? In the light of that need for extra capacity, will he produce figures showing whether there will actually be any net saving as a result of the closure of Eastern Avenue?

[Mr Speaker]

It is very cheeky to ask three questions even when asked with the skill and confidence of the Chair of the Select Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Clive Betts and John Bercow

Thursday 12th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Almost as stylish and elegant as the right hon. Gentleman, I do not doubt.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

T3. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), is as frustrated as I am by the constant delays to the tram-train project between Sheffield and Rotherham. Will he confirm that passenger services will start next year? Will he also give a date by which lessons can be learned from that project and rolled out across the country? Will he give particular consideration to the availability of hybrid tram-trains, which would mean that the vehicles could run on non-electrified heavy rail routes?

Point of Order

Debate between Clive Betts and John Bercow

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 14 March this year, the Communities and Local Government Committee produced a report on litter and fly-tipping. The convention is that Government Departments will respond to such reports within eight weeks. Sometimes there is a reason for a delay, and obviously the general election intervened, but it is now eight months since the report was produced. Despite repeated requests at ministerial and official level on a regular basis, we are still no nearer to getting a response. That shows disrespect not merely to the Select Committee but to the House as a whole. Will you use your good offices to ensure that the report is responded to in a proper manner?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me notice of this point of order. Clearly, it is important to the effectiveness of Select Committees that Government Departments respond promptly to their reports. The Government’s own guidance makes it clear that Departments should aim to respond to Committee reports within two months, and states:

“Only in exceptional circumstances should a response be deferred for more than six months after the Report’s publication.”

I trust that the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman, who is, after all, the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, have been noted by those on the Treasury Bench and that the Government’s response will follow shortly. For the avoidance of doubt, and so that this is well recalled both in the House and beyond, I reiterate what he said. This important report was entitled “Litter and fly-tipping in England”, and it was published on 14 March 2015. It is hard to see why the Government have not been able to get round to determining and publishing a response, and they should now do so.

Royal Assent

Cost of Living: Energy and Housing

Debate between Clive Betts and John Bercow

Thursday 5th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

Yes—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman gives way, I express the cautious optimism that he is approaching his very brief peroration.

[Mr Betts]

Absolutely; I will give way to the Secretary of State and then reach my peroration.

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Clive Betts and John Bercow

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Of course I am in colleagues’ hands, but I simply point out that anyone who speaks for longer than three minutes will knowingly be stopping another colleague contributing. I just put that in my usual gentle fashion.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I want to speak to new clause 22 about letting agents’ charges. When the Communities and Local Government Committee did a report on the private rented sector last year, we had more evidence and more complaints about letting agents’ charges than almost anything else. That was reflected by the OFT, which said that complaints to Consumer Direct about letting agents were almost all about fees and charges. It is not just that there is one fee up front for a tenancy agreement; there are also the charges for inventories and for credit checks, and people enter into a viewing not knowing what the ultimate charge will be. It is a charge they have to find up front as a prospective tenant, at the same time as they are trying to find the deposit, and often these are people on very low incomes.

The process gets repeated to a degree every time people renew their tenancy after six months or 12 months, and that militates against having longer term contracts. Agents see this as an incentive not to let longer term contracts because short-term contracts mean renewals and more fees for them. I have described letting agents as being a bit like football agents as they make their money out of transfers and renewals of contracts. We ought to be extremely wary of that.

Shelter said the average size of a fee to a tenant was £355. The Foxtons website gives its fees as £420 to a tenant to create a contract, £96 to renew it and £150 for an inventory check. Such charges are replicated by most letting agents.

The Committee responded that there should be absolute transparency of fees up front when a property is advertised and it must be clear what the totality of charges to tenants will be and there should be no double charging. If there is transparency, it will be harder for a letting agent to charge a tenant and a landlord for the same thing, which happens at present.

We want these changes to be put in a mandatory code of practice, but the Government have not agreed to do that. On transparency, all that has happened is the Advertising Standards Authority has given a ruling saying the fees that are compulsory should be shown up front as part of the price quoted. However, when we go on websites like that of Foxtons, we see those fees are in very small print, so, in practice, letting agents are going through the motions when it comes to the ASA ruling, but they are not sticking to the spirit of it.

We did not recommend a complete abolition of fees to tenants. What we said was that it has been done in Scotland and that we should review the Scottish experience. The Committee will come back in the autumn and look at the Scottish experience and consider whether banning charges to tenants means higher rents. If so, there is a question as to whether tenants favour paying a bit more in rent rather than having a massive fee up front. The Committee will also look at the fact that the contract is with the landlord, not the tenant. We will take further evidence on those matters in the autumn.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Clive Betts and John Bercow

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I point out to the Chair of the Select Committee that the question relates exclusively to Stretford and Urmston, from which Sheffield South East is a little distant. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member and I am sure that he will tailor his question accordingly.

[Mr Betts]

I am sure that the Minister will be aware that his proposals on council tax benefits potentially affect Stretford and Urmston and other constituencies up and down the country. The Minister is aware that Capita wrote to local authorities on 12 January, saying it had real concerns about its ability to deliver IT systems in time to meet the changes proposed for April next year. Is the Minister not aware that authorities could end up with a real risk of system failure, affecting tens of thousands of low-income families? Is not the real answer to delay these measures for at least 12 months?

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Clive Betts and John Bercow

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

Does he accept that in the past—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is helpful if the Deputy Prime Minister indicates clearly to whom he is giving way.

Points of Order

Debate between Clive Betts and John Bercow

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I was as disturbed as the hon. Gentleman by this very unfortunate incident and breach of security. The Speaker’s Committee on IPSA is now the appropriate forum through which concerns about matters of operation or policy can be transmitted to IPSA. I have regular meetings with representatives of IPSA. It will not be my normal practice to talk in this House about the detail of those exchanges, but the hon. Gentleman has raised a very serious point, and I am aware of other Members who have expressed similar concerns. Those concerns will be transmitted, and I will be happy to play my proper role in helping to transmit them.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have made it clear in the past that if a right hon. or hon. Member makes a statement in this House that is subsequently proved to be inaccurate, they should—at the earliest opportunity—make a correction to the House. On 22 June, we learned in Prime Minister’s questions that the Deputy Prime Minister had made a statement about the directors of Sheffield Forgemasters not being prepared to dilute their shareholding. Subsequently, he wrote to the chief executive saying that he recognised the inaccuracy of those comments, that he withdrew them and that he apologised. However, despite repeated opportunities at Prime Minister’s questions today—I listened as carefully as I could—the Deputy Prime Minister did not apologise, accept that he had been wrong or withdraw or correct his comments. Do you, or the House in general, have any powers to ensure that the record of the House can be corrected in this instance?

[Mr Speaker]

I have several points to make in response to that point of order. First, I ruled on the matter yesterday and it would be unwise to add to or pick at an earlier ruling about the appropriateness of correcting in the House factually incorrect statements made in the House. Secondly, I know that the hon. Gentleman will not take umbrage if I suggest that he is as persistent a woodpecker in the House as there is to be found. He has raised this matter before and he knows perfectly well that it was raised at some considerable length with the Deputy Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions. I have a slight anxiety that the hon. Gentleman is now seeking to continue the debate, and that would not be right. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman need be patient for only a few hours because, unless I am mistaken, he has an Adjournment debate on the matter in which these and other points will probably be developed eloquently and at appropriate length.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Clive Betts and John Bercow

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is wide, and that is the end of the matter.

[Mr Betts]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, may I indicate that I would like to seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at a further date?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has done so and that is perfectly in order.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Clive Betts and John Bercow

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Not on this one. I therefore call Mr Clive Betts.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Regarding today’s written statement, does the Minister not accept that local authorities have been at the forefront of making efficiency savings—2% year on year—so to ask for a further 1% part way through the year, on top of the 2% to which they are already committed, will effectively mean cuts in local authority spending part way through the year of about 4% to 5%? Rather than being about efficiency savings, this is surely the first round of the savage cuts for local authorities that Ministers promised us.

Points of Order

Debate between Clive Betts and John Bercow

Thursday 27th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The whole issue of IPSA and concerns about it have already been significantly aired this morning, and the hon. Gentleman was in his place for business questions and can testify to that himself. He will also have heard the Leader of the House indicate his readiness to play his part, as appropriate, with others in ensuring that there is a good, smooth and fair new system. It would, frankly, be superfluous for me to say anything more on the subject today, but the hon. Gentleman has given another object lesson to new Members in how to ensure that he gets his point on the record.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. With regard to your particular comments about security, which is certainly a very important issue, the Leader of the House announced earlier that we will be coming back for a two-week period in September. If I remember correctly, on a previous occasion when that happened, we had security issues because of the amount of maintenance on the parliamentary estate, and I think that that is when the pro-hunt protesters broke into the Chamber. Will you provide some reassurance, Mr Speaker, that you will take this matter on board and ensure that the appropriate authorities are looking at issues of both maintenance and security on the parliamentary estate, given that we are returning for that two-week period?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. All these matters have been, and will continue to be, taken on board. Although what the hon. Gentleman says about the past is, of course, entirely right, he will be well aware that we have entered a brave new world. That is the situation.