Business of the House

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will recall the answer I gave at previous business questions about the Government’s position, which is that we feel we are currently striking the right balance in the law on Sunday trading. I know that the debate on consideration of the Consumer Rights Bill was abbreviated—it was short—but there was an opportunity for points to be made in the course of it. Of course, if my hon. Friend wishes to bring forward any proposals, he can seek an Adjournment debate to raise issues in the House.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that the letters to on-the-runs have aroused great anxiety in Northern Ireland and that efforts should be made to ensure that those letters cannot be allowed to let people evade justice, as appears to have been the case for one person. Without wishing to prejudge the outcome of the statement on 17 July, will the Leader of the House set aside parliamentary time if necessary to legislate on the annulment of those ministerial letters to on-the-runs?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not want to prejudice that statement and I do not think I can comment on his question at this stage. I think it is sufficient for now that the statement will be on 17 July, and separately in this House the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is undertaking its own inquiry, which I can see is detailed, into all the matters surrounding the on-the-runs.

Business of the House

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure the House will completely understand and indeed endorse my hon. Friend’s view of the importance of regional airports—in this instance Manston—in his constituency and in other neighbouring constituencies across Kent, and Thanet in particular. As he knows, my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport are well aware of the issue, and in addition to what he said about the desirability of a debate in the House, I know that they will want to keep in touch with him and with the owners and operators out of Manston airport, recognising all the while that it is a commercial matter, but that the importance they attach to regional airports is undiminished.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

My constituent, Miss Perry, of Gracehill in Ballymena, recently received her house insurance premium, which is double what it was last year, and she was told by the insurance company that that is a direct result of the floods that affected England. Although those floods were terrible and awful, and thank God they did not affect Northern Ireland to the same extent, is it appropriate that premiums should be increased by that amount in Northern Ireland, and may we have a debate on the matter?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that by its nature insurance is a pool of risk. The insurer to whom one goes, depending on the parameters of the insurance offer, will sometimes pool risk across very large populations and very big geographical areas. The Government do not interfere with the commercial operation of insurance markets, but the Water Bill, which has just completed its consideration in the House of Lords, will ensure that people can continue to have access to flood insurance. Flood Re, as a reinsurance mechanism to back that up, is very important, but it does not in itself reduce insurance overall. The £10 addition across all insurance premiums is necessary to meet the costs of Flood Re.

Business of the House

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I can tell my hon. Friend that, on more than one occasion in my constituency, flagging down an Openreach engineer’s van is exactly what my constituents have done.

I know that my hon. Friend will raise this issue with BT herself, but, exceptionally, I shall refer our exchange to BT and ask it to respond directly to her. Under the programme for extending superfast broadband access, contracts are now rolling out across the country, and we are trying to make that happen as quickly as possible. However, we need to ensure that we achieve not just notional access to superfast broadband, but reliable, good-quality access. I entirely take my hon. Friend’s point.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the sad and tragic case of Colin Worton, who, as a soldier serving in Northern Ireland in 1983, was wrongly arrested and charged with a sectarian murder? He was subsequently released without conviction, but owing to the reputational damage that has followed him since, he has been unable to work. Would it be appropriate for us to have a debate about the case, and to see what recompense can be given to that former serving soldier?

[Mr Lansley]

It might be suitable for a case of that kind to be raised in an Adjournment debate, and the hon. Gentleman may wish to apply for such a debate. However, I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), will be only too happy to talk to him about the case.

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

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is always a joy to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), although it is sometimes a bit frightening as well. On this occasion, I am probably on stronger ground than at other times. It is not hard to knock down any arguments that the Bill is “excellent”, “balanced”, “sensible” or demonstrating “care and thoughtfulness”. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that lobbying is an important part of our democracy, but we must be sure that it is transparent and open to scrutiny. However, the Bill excludes most lobbying activities. As a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, I know that it would have been daft if any lobbyist’s first port of call had been my office or that of the permanent secretary. They went first to the officials who were writing reports for me. Any Bill that excludes that aspect of lobbying is not excellent, not balanced and not sensible.

Let us look at who the Bill covers. It must cover the main lobbying activity, even though there are many ways of disguising that. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) pointed out, if anyone wants to get round the rules, they need only turn to schedule 1 of the Bill, because the way to get round them is to ensure that they get their man on the inside. The lobbying organisation simply needs to ensure that their lobbyist becomes an official and an employee. The Bill is not balanced, and it certainly does not address some of the issues that we are concerned about.

I tend to agree with the hon. Member for North East Somerset—and to disagree with some Opposition Members—about third-party organisations. Of course they should be covered by the legislation, because many of them involve themselves quite openly in political activity. I suspect that many of the organisations that have lobbied me on this issue do not share my views on a whole range of subjects, but they nevertheless play an important part in the debate in our democracy. However, if we are to have rules and regulations covering third-party organisations, there needs to be certainty in that regard. The organisations need to know what the rules are, and what is expected of them.

The hon. Member for North East Somerset said that this part of the Bill was sensible, but let us just look at the hurdles those organisations will have to overcome. Any expenditure that they undertake that is deemed to be controlled expenditure will not be able to be used for “election purposes” or in connection with

“promoting or procuring electoral success at any relevant election for…one or more particular registered parties”.

How is that to be measured? Who will measure it? We carry out assessments within our own parties after elections to determine what worked and what did not, and half the time even we cannot quantify which have been the important elements in the election campaign and which have been irrelevant. We find it difficult to determine what counted, what brought votes in and what did not. And it is even worse than that, because such controlled expenditure will also not be able to be used for

“otherwise enhancing the standing…of any such party or parties”

not only in the next election but in “future relevant elections”.

That being the case, how will a third-party organisation be able to determine whether the expenditure has had an impact and ought therefore to be registered and declared? Of course, it gets worse because there are implications for the parties. The Bill goes on to set out that, if such expenditure has enhanced the standing of an individual or a party, or helped to procure their election, the relevant party will have to declare that. If it does not, it is a criminal offence. Let me ask the Leader of the House a genuine question: how are third-party organisations meant to measure that? How are parties themselves meant to make that assessment? If the Bill is as ambiguous and unclear as that, it is not good legislation; it is not sensible legislation; it is not carefully thought out legislation. That is one reason why we shall vote against it tonight.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I think that the momentum of my hon. Friend’s comments is absolutely spot on, but does he agree with me on this? Whenever lobby groups approach us, we assume that they have already spoken to all of our colleagues and all of our competitors—sometimes, by the way, that might be the same person! The lobbyists, we assume, have already spoken to all of those other people in the round anyway, so there is no big secret about what they are telling us. Is it not just that they are giving us their spin on a particular subject?

[Sammy Wilson]

We have already discussed the importance of lobbying groups in providing the sort of information we require to do our job, but if we are to regulate them, they have to know what they are being regulated for. In closing, let me give a couple of examples.

I can think of many lobbying organisations that, because of the position I previously had in the Northern Ireland Assembly, had to see through many of the expenditure cuts that came as a result of decisions made here. They probably attached a lot of the blame for the consequences to me, and when it comes to the election, I am sure they will make that point. Does that sort of campaigning have to be declared as controlled expenditure, or is it simply what we would generally expect from organisations that have control over welfare changes, capital spending cuts and so forth?

Business of the House

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and he is absolutely right. I value the way my own local authority and his have taken up the commitment to the armed forces covenant. He is right that we should make sure that it is understood, not least by veterans and their families. The first annual report on the military covenant showed good progress, but I know my colleagues, not least at the Ministry of Defence, will be very keen to take up his suggestion to consider how we can do more to publicise it.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

In the past 10 years, £1 billion has been stolen from the UK Exchequer through the illicit trade in and smuggling of fuels, yet in the past 10 years no one has been jailed in Northern Ireland for these crimes—an atrocious record. Given that today another oil-laundering plant has been smashed by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, is it not time for a statement from the Treasury on the sentencing and arrest policy of HMRC officers, so that we can get these criminals behind bars where they belong?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. He will forgive me if I do not know HMRC’s immediate response, but I will of course talk to my colleagues at the Treasury and encourage them not only to respond to him but to update the House at an early point.

Business of the House

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, not least in relation to the commendable enterprise in his constituency. I draw the House’s attention to what is really important about the Youth Contract, launched by the Deputy Prime Minister, which is its fantastic range of support for young people. In addition to apprenticeships, it involves: 250,000 work experience or sector-based work academy places; 160,000 wage incentives to take on 18 to 24-year-olds; 20,000 incentive payments specifically to support additional young apprenticeships; and £126 million to support the hardest to reach 16 and 17-year-olds. The Youth Contract will make the biggest difference we have seen yet in helping young people into work experience and then into work.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I know that the House will be saddened and outraged in equal measure to learn of the dastardly murder of a prison officer this morning in Northern Ireland, ambushed on his way along a motorway in our country. Given that that happened 10 days after the security threat level was reassessed across the whole United Kingdom, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland comes to the House at her earliest convenience and makes a statement about the current security threat level in Ulster and what she is doing about it?

[Mr Lansley]

The House will share the hon. Gentleman’s sense of shock and outrage in relation to that death. My understanding—I am happy to correct this if I am wrong—is that the Home Secretary made it clear that there was a change in the security assessment for mainland Britain, but not for Northern Ireland. I will talk to my hon. Friends at the Home Office, who continuously consider and assess these matters.

General Matters

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and wholeheartedly agree with what he says. I could give a number of examples of constituents who have to travel a great distance to get to an appeal. The stress and trauma that they go through to get to the appeal before it is even heard is incredible.

We are all very aware of the financial situation that we find ourselves in—everyone has referred to it—the savings that need to be made and the fact that no one should receive a benefit unless they are entitled to it. I do not think that anyone here disagrees with that, but common sense would say that a person who has fought cancer and is in the early stages of recovery is entitled to a little help because they physically cannot work. It is little wonder that Macmillan Cancer Support has said that 40% of cancer survivors in Northern Ireland say that not all their health and social care needs are met and that cancer sufferers have ill health for years after. Although the circumstances in Northern Ireland are not unique, I suggest that perhaps in other parts of the United Kingdom they are probably equal to that. That needs to be taken into account when the standard ESA tests are carried out. Cancer has no one standard to fall into. To disallow people the help that they need when they are entitled to it is not acceptable and, I believe, must be addressed.

Macmillan Cancer Support recently sent me a brief—I am sure that many Members also received it—that makes for uncomfortable reading for those in government who have made the decisions on the changes and how they affect those people. Macmillan strongly believes that the Lords amendments on employment and support allowance are votes for compassion, common sense and compromise—the three Cs—and are very important. Few of us are untouched by cancer—indeed, I suspect that every family has been touched by cancer at some time—and many face financial uncertainty as well. It is clear that they should receive ESA and not be forced into work when they are still recovering.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

One of the issues that have recently come to my attention is that 80% of my constituents who have gone to appeal have been successful, which is a startling result. I would have expected the figure to be up to around 50%, or about a third. That shows that the initial assessments, as we discussed in Committee when this was coming through Parliament, have got it wrong. The current system for giving out these assessments is wrong.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, which will apply elsewhere, although perhaps not as much as in my area, where a number of ESA and DLA appeals are regularly fought and won after the wrong decision was made the first time around. That shows that changes are needed.

I am also concerned that blind and partially sighted people are being excluded from ESA payments, despite the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations of an independent review last year to improve the work capability assessment process. Many constituents have sent me copies of the Royal National Institute of Blind People briefing paper. They are concerned, and it would be remiss of me not to raise the issues in the House or to appeal to the Government to consider them.

ESA gives vital support to blind, partially sighted and other disabled people who are unable to work, and provides them with immediate employment support to move towards work, where they are able to do so. Since April 2011, it has no longer been possible for blind or partially sighted people to qualify for ESA and the vital support that it gives, because changes to the assessment criteria fail to recognise the barriers that they face in relation to work. That has dramatic consequences for the individuals concerned, by unfairly forcing blind and partially sighted people on to jobseeker’s allowance, with an associated loss in income and vital support to prepare for work. They lose benefits when they come off such programmes. The severe disability premium would give them a better quality of life, by giving them more money to bring in people to care for them.

In November 2011, the independent review, led by Professor Harrington, of the work capability assessment recommended that consideration be given to the need to review the sensory loss descriptors, which are the criteria used to assess entitlement for ESA. The Government accepted that recommendation, but as yet no concrete action has been taken to change the assessment, so blind and partially sighted people continue to lose out. It is frustrating that, despite the recommendations and despite the fact that the Government asked for them, we have not moved on and achieved the vital changes that are needed.

The current impracticalities can be addressed only through revised descriptors in the communication and navigation activities of the WCA. To be specific, new descriptors should reflect the real challenges of obtaining a job, including ones concerned with awareness and with locating and finding.

I will focus on some of the key activities and illustrate the problems faced by those who apply for ESA and those who are blind and partially sighted. Activity 4 is an area of concern. It focuses on picking up and moving or transferring of an object by the use of the upper body and arms and manual dexterity. For someone who is blind or partially sighted, descriptors in this activity fail to account for whether the person can see, locate and know where safely to put the object. The criteria assessment and the questions asked of blind and partially sighted people do not even realise how that affects them—they should, but they do not.

Activity 7 centres on understanding communication, and there are practical problems relating to a claimant’s ability to read Braille. The addition of the ability to read Braille to understand a basic message was not in the previous guidance. If the objective is to consider adaptation—and it should be—a notice detailing the location of a fire exit in Braille is simply not realistic, unless the workplace is specifically and totally geared towards Braille readers.

Further impracticality arises from the expectation put on the interaction between a stranger and a blind person. It is inconceivable that a stranger would walk up to a blind person and hand them a sheet of Braille, especially in the context of a fire. That should not be used as a proxy to satisfy the descriptor and assessment on understanding communication by non-verbal means. It is another simple illustration of how the ESA process does not work for those who are blind and partially sighted.

Activity 8 is on navigating and its “getting about” descriptor scores only nine points for someone who needs to be accompanied around familiar and unfamiliar places. If the intention is to measure impairment functionality, the need to be accompanied is not a sign of adaptation, so the person should be able to score 15 points. Again, that descriptor should be changed, so that those who have limited capability because they are blind or partially sighted qualify for the 15 points and, therefore, for ESA.

The last activity is the awareness of everyday hazards. The descriptors in that activity are too narrow and apply only to people with cognitive impairments. They do not adequately consider the impact of sight loss.

Extremely ill people, people with health problems and people with sight problems who really need help and are looking to the system to provide it cannot get it. The descriptors prevent them from qualifying, when the opposite should be the case. My office is inundated with appeals against DLA decisions because of the guidelines that are in place. Over and again, the same problems are occurring, which is frustrating.

I watch people struggle into my advice centre who can hardly walk, who are suffering from cancer or who do not have the quality of life that the rest of us take for granted. I help them to fill out their forms correctly, which can take an hour and a half or two hours, in the hope that they will get the funds that they need to get the help that they cannot do without. They cannot afford to pay for carers because they do not have the funds that they need. The forms are complex and difficult.

I will give another example of how the system lets people down. I once fought a DLA appeal for a man who had only one leg. His other leg had been amputated. He suffered from diabetes to such an extent that he had to wake up during the night to inject himself. He also suffered from Crohn’s disease and—this is a very personal issue—he often soiled himself during the night before he could get to his crutches and make his way to the toilet. Despite all that, he was turned down for DLA.

I ask myself over and again, “Who are the people who are making these decisions? Do they really grasp what is going on? Do they know what problems the person who has applied for DLA or ESA has?” I would like to take them into that man’s house for one night and leave them to care for him. The next day, they would understand his problems. That would be a good example for most of these people.

I urge the Government to do the right thing by the most vulnerable in our society. I know that this is an Adjournment debate and that the Deputy Leader of the House will reply, but perhaps this will filter through to the people who make the decisions. Of course, we have to consider the money ledger and should not ignore the financial circumstances that the country is in, but we have to consider people’s lives and their mental health.

I see the frustration and anxiety of those who have depression, anxiety and other mental health issues. One woman who comes into my office screams in frustration and says that she will end her life because she is so stressed out by the forms after forms that come to her house. She says that she has no reason to live and that the pressure of filling in the forms becomes overwhelming. She then does not eat, which is another problem. That leaves the girls in my office distressed at the system. It does not take into account the state of this lady’s mental health, when it should do so, and does not understand what the issues are. That disconcerts me.

That woman could not find employment in any workplace. I am not an expert, but when I see people, I can near enough judge whether they are able to work. This lady would not be able to work. She has been trailed through appeal after appeal and wins each time. One wonders whether anybody looks at the background. The girls in my office are concerned that one day they will ring up to check on her and she will not answer.

The Government are right to stop those who are not entitled to benefits from claiming them. However, some people are entitled to help, and they seem to be the ones who are suffering the most. The ball is clearly in the Government’s court. What will history record about what has been done with the vulnerable and the needy? I hope that it will be positive.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak about Sunday trading. The point that I want to make is simple.

As Members may recall, on 30 April this year, the Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Act 2012 was passed. Its effect was to extend Sunday trading hours temporarily during the limited period of 22 July to 9 September.

During the debate on the Bill, I expressed my concerns about those proposals, and in particular about whether they would be used as a precedent for a further—or permanent—extension of Sunday trading hours. I will not repeat those concerns in detail as they are on the record, but they included: the potentially negative impact on family and community life; the need for us all—as individuals and as a nation—to have a recognised rest period each week for our health and well-being; and the potential consequential pressure to work on Sundays, especially for some of the lowest-paid workers in our society, and the subsequent strain on their families. I also referred to concerns raised by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and to the fact that for many people of faith, Sunday still has a special significance.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Lady is raising an issue that is crucial to our nation’s trade. Was she as concerned as I was on hearing the word “temporary”, which sometimes does not mean what it says on the tin? Temporary provisions in Northern Ireland lasted 30 years, but I hope that through the hon. Lady’s speech, we can obtain absolute clarity that temporary means temporary, and that the extension to the trading laws will cease on the date that was given to Parliament when this matter was first raised.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because obtaining such clarity is exactly the purpose of my contribution to the debate.

My concerns—and other concerns—were shared by several colleagues during the debate on 30 April. Responding to the debate, the then Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), stated:

“The concern has been expressed that this Bill is somehow a Trojan horse, preparing the way for a permanent relaxation of the rules for large stores. Let me assure hon. Members again that that is not the case.”

Referring to my particular concerns about the impact on families and family time, he stated:

“I think she is absolutely right, so let me say to her that the Bill affects just eight Sundays and the deliberate inclusion of a sunset clause means that the Bill will be removed from the statute book after 9 September. Indeed, as the Secretary of State has made clear, if a future Government were to consider a permanent relaxation, they would have to undertake a full consultation and present new legislation to this House. As the Secretary of State also pointed out, we have no such plans.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 1352-53.]

I was pleased to hear the Minister’s words and I took them as a personal assurance, although I still abstained rather than vote for the proposals. I understood, however, that many of my colleagues also took those words as a firm assurance on behalf of the Government that the temporary alterations to Sunday trading hours would not be further extended or used as a precedent, and hon. Members voted accordingly on that basis.

Some weeks later, towards the end of the wonderful Olympic and Paralympic period of which our nation is so rightly proud, suggestions circulated in the press— I know not from what source they originated—that a permanent deregulation of Sunday trading hours should perhaps be considered, following the limited extension period.

Such suggestions were completely at odds with the statements expressed by more than one Minister during the passage of the Bill. Another Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), stated at the time:

“I want to make it clear that this is a temporary measure and not a test case for a permanent relaxation of the rules in the future”,

and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills stated that the Bill was

“not a signal of the Government’s intent on the broader issue of Sunday trading;”. —[Official Report, 30 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 1293.]

In the light of recent press speculation about a possible further extension to Sunday trading hours, I seek today, either from the Deputy Leader of the House, or after the debate from the new the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), clear confirmation that the assurance given on behalf of the Government still stands, and that despite references to an extension of Sunday trading hours, the Government have no such plans. The Government’s assurance was carefully noted not only by me and many colleagues in the House, but—crucially—by many millions of people across the country.

I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House and the responsible Minister will take this point in the spirit of the utmost courtesy with which I express it, but there is an issue of integrity here. In issuing the confirmation that I seek, Ministers would put an end to continuing speculation that is a cause of concern to many. Of course, the extension of Sunday trading hours was in neither coalition party’s manifesto nor in the coalition agreement.

I turn to some comments that have been made since the summer extension of hours. The British Retail Consortium has recently announced that it does not want to lobby for permanent deregulation of Sunday trading hours. According to Retail Week magazine, momentum for a permanent change among retailers has begun to wane, which may be a result of the BRC’s announcement that retail sales fell by 0.4% in August, compared with August 2011 on a like-for-like basis, with no sign of the Olympic boost that was promoted as a reason for the temporary extension. According to the Association of Convenience Stores, independent retailers reported a loss of sales of up to 20% and a 30% drop in footfall over the Olympic period. That reported negative impact is of considerable concern to many small retailers, which often live on narrow margins, and to their employees.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

In following the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), I acknowledge the strength and sincerity of his contribution, but I strongly and sincerely disagree with his views on these matters. I pay tribute, none the less, to his conduct and to his positive contribution as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in relation to Northern Ireland, where his insights and instincts were hugely appreciated by all parties and by people outside of party politics as well.

The Social Democratic and Labour party does not take seats in the House of Lords. As a point of principle, we do not believe in taking seats in a Chamber that is unelected, and in any other situation people in this House would see a wholly unelected Chamber as being anomalous, anachronistic, absurd and, indeed, a constitutional atrocity.

Only a few weeks ago, here in this Parliament, we hosted Aung San Suu Kyi. The majority of the parliamentarians who were present and called to assemble to hear her speech, however, were unelected, and she was talking about the importance of elective democracy. That is an irony which should not be lost on anyone in this House or, indeed, in the other House.

I have listened to many arguments from Members on both sides of the Chamber, and people seem to be turning themselves inside out in relation to the different position that they now hold on programme motions, compared with how comfortable they were with such motions when their party was in government and was the absolute master practitioner of them.

I have listened to Government Members raise queries about the West Lothian question, and they might rightly feel affronted that in this Chamber elected Members who are not from England are able to pass laws that affect England, but they seem to have no problem at all with unelected people from wherever passing laws, or with their numbers being inflated and added to all the time.

There are easy ways of dealing with primacy. The Parliament Act needs to be affirmed, but it also needs to be amended and updated. There is no reason why that could not be done if the Bill receives a Second Reading and we go on properly to amend it. Primacy can also be reflected in ensuring that this Chamber is the sole seat of the Executive. There should be no Ministers in the other place. If it is meant to be a revising, second legislative Chamber, its role should be primarily to do with legislation and its revision, and it does not need any Executive membership. Ministers can go to that Chamber and speak to and answer for their Bill, but they need not be Members of the other House.

We have heard the arguments about 15-year terms. If the fixed-term Parliaments had been for four years, then three terms would equal only 12 years, which would be more reasonable than 15 years, but unfortunately we are stuck with that because the legislation gave us five-year terms. However, it is better that people are elected for 15 years than appointed for life.

As regards how we can justify the Parliament Act in terms of maintaining financial privilege in this House, we can do that because the people elected to the other House will be, in some ways, unaccountable. The only people who should have powers over taxation are those who will be accountably representative. The justification is to say that there should be no taxation without accountable representation.

I, like others, would criticise many aspects of the Bill and hope to see them amended and changed if it were to make progress—although of course it now has the “uncommitted” status that the Speaker told us about earlier. Many people have said that there is a strong case for having some appointed Members, but I am not sure about that. If there is such a case, I want to hear it tested and proved further. Perhaps that is the issue that would most justify a referendum. If there is to be constitutional reform with a democratic House of Lords, and if other people will continue to be appointed through some obscure system, perhaps that should be subject to the decision of the people. They will have the right to elect the first set of Members, so perhaps they should have a say in a referendum whether they want the other Members as well.

On the question of the bishops, I am not comfortable with the idea that there should be a Bench of prelates drawn from one Church alone. If there is a case to be made, as I have heard people argue, for a pastoral Bench from which people can speak on the basis of certain ethical and faith-informed values, its Members should not be confined to one denomination or one faith. Perhaps they should not have votes either, because they should not want to be sullied or compromised in relation to party political matters.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman diminishes the role that the bishops have played in the other House, but he must accept that on welfare reform they led the charge that brought that matter back to this House and got it to change its position.

[Mark Durkan]

I would accept the hon. Gentleman’s point if he and his party colleagues had not voted against the bishops’ amendment on child benefit, which said that it should be excluded from the benefits cap. If there is a case to be made for the bishops on the basis of the contribution that they have made, which I do not decry, I still do not know why they should be solely confined to the Church of England and why that is ordained in the Bill.

Members are telling us that the Bill is not wanted by the public and that it will be a waste of parliamentary time and a distraction, yet some of them would have been prepared to vote against the programme motion to say that they wanted even more time taken up on it in this Chamber and elsewhere. A wise observation is that irony in politics is usually hypocrisy with panache. There is a lot of irony in the strange positions articulated by many Members on both sides of the House, and there is a lot of panache in the way that they have presented their cases, but of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have heard no hypocrisy.

Business of the House

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

We can indeed have such a debate: on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and—[Hon. Members: “Saturday?”] No, not Saturday—on Monday. We are doing everything we can to support businesses through this difficult time, and I was interested to hear about what is happening in Dudley. We also have the business growth fund of £2.5 billion—a bank-led investment scheme without any Government money—investing in businesses across the country in return for a 10% equity stake. My hon. Friend might like to promote that scheme in his constituency.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Can the Leader of the House arrange for a statement or debate about the appointment of an independent oversight team to watch over current live police investigations? Does the Leader of the House not find it peculiar that one of the members of the team is a political appointee and a Member of the other place? Should not the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland make a statement about this matter, especially as it has national security implications because some of the murders involve key witnesses in national security cases?

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

The honest answer is that I do not know how many hon. Members have taken part, but from speaking to colleagues around the House, it seems that a significant number have done so. Those who have not done so have missed an opportunity, and let us hope that they will do so at different stages, not only during Parliament week next year but throughout the year, as the hon. Lady suggests.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The promotion of Parliament is of course a noble cause. However, does the Leader of the House agree that the continuation of allowing Members who do not take their seats in this place to claim expenses from this place, to claim offices in this place, and to claim salaries from this place is a scar on Parliament? When is he going to bring a comprehensive statement to this House—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to place his thoughts on the record on that very important matter, but unfortunately it does not relate to Parliament week, and therefore we will have to leave it there for today.