Valedictory Debate

Debate between Jack Straw and John Bercow

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to see the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) in his place. I first stood for Parliament in February 1974; I was able to discover that there were 14,000 socialists in Tonbridge and Malling, but unfortunately they were 10,000 fewer than the number of Conservatives who voted for the right hon. Gentleman. I took his and his constituents’ advice and moved elsewhere, and it has been my privilege to have served as the Member for Blackburn for the past 36 years.

Blackburn is a singular town in many ways, one of which is that it has had only two Members of Parliament—Barbara Castle, my predecessor, and me—in the 70 years since the war. I learned a great deal from Barbara, not least that the first and most fundamental responsibility of any Member of Parliament is to his or her constituents, however high and mighty that Member thinks they are and whatever office of state they may hold. It is our constituents who are, as it were, our employers and grant us the extraordinary privilege of serving in this place.

When I finally came to the House in May 1979, the conditions of the country were harsh and difficult, yet there was a greater instinctive faith in our political system and respect for its representatives collectively than there is today. There is a paradox here: in the 36 years I have been in the House, this place has become more effective, not less, in holding Government to account. In turn, governance itself has become more responsive and transparent.

In the past, the processes of government were protected by secrecy; judicial review was a rarity; there were no Select Committees; many Back Benchers on both sides held down full-time jobs outside; and the regulation of Members’ interests was elementary. The demands of constituents were far fewer: in the Select Committee that I chaired, we had evidence that, in the 1960s, each Member of Parliament had an average post box of between 15 and 20 letters a week.

Parliament has become stronger, MPs have never been more hard-working and this place has never been more visited, yet cynicism about politics is more pervasive than I can recall. The age of deference has come to an end, which in many respects is no bad thing. We are no longer on a pedestal. But I am reminded of those lines by T.S. Eliot in “Burnt Norton”:

“Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind

Cannot bear very much reality.”

We are now having to bear much reality. It would be good to see the prism through which this place and our politics are reported distorting the reality rather less often, but we have to examine the beam in our own eye as well.

The most urgent change needed by this place is in respect of Prime Minister’s questions. This is not a trivial matter about half an hour a week; it is part of the way in which people see our politics. Whatever purpose it served in the past, it now gives a terrible impression and rarely illuminates. It is time to change it. In the short term, we should go back to the 15 minutes on a Tuesday and Thursday; in the medium term, we should ask the Procedure Committee to look more closely at how it should be changed. I suggest that we also need to do something more about attendance in the Chamber. Perhaps we could consider Committee days and Chamber days, as happen elsewhere.

The average length of service for a Member of Parliament is 11 years, and I have been incredibly lucky to have served my constituents for three times that. For a big village, as we often describe ourselves, my town has had to change more than most others as it has absorbed a large Asian-heritage population, but it has done so with a generosity of spirit.

Deciding to leave was incredibly difficult. I love my constituency and I love this place. There has not been a day when, coming into this building, I have not marvelled at its inspiration. I thank my constituents for the privilege it has been to serve them; my wife and family for their unstinting support; my staff; and friends and colleagues on both sides.

This is a wondrous place. I felt that in May 1979 when I first arrived. I feel it still now, as I leave.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who has been a model of courtesy and companionship to me and colleagues right across the House. He leaves this place as a hugely respected figure.

House of Commons Governance

Debate between Jack Straw and John Bercow

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Straw]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should also say that my general remarks about Whips exclude him, as a pairing Whip, because I have to ingratiate myself with him on a regular basis.

[Mr Speaker]

It is important that our proceedings are always intelligible to those beyond the Chamber who are listening. Therefore, I know that the right hon. Gentleman will want it to be made clear that the significance of the pairing Whip in this context is that the pairing Whip gives him permission to go away when he wishes to do so.

[Mr Straw]

But not very often.

The House will note that the recommendation of our report was that the Chairs of both those Committees should be chosen by the Commission itself from the four Back-Bench Members who, in turn, would be elected by the House. However, the motion before the House today proposes a variation to that recommendation, stating that

“without changing the party balance of the Commission as proposed in the report, the recommendations relating to the composition of the Commission be implemented so as to allow the Chairs of both the new Finance Committee and the Administration Committee to be elected to these positions rather than appointed to them by the Commission.”

That change in our recommendation was made after taking account of the views of both the Leader and the shadow Leader of the House. My Committee met informally after it had reported to consider this proposal, and we accepted it, as is clear from the fact that we have signed the motion effectively amending our report.

While the motion does not explicitly say so, it is implicit that these Chairs should be elected by the whole House, whatever prior agreements may have been made about from which party group they should come. I also hope that the Whips on both sides will ensure that these elections are held promptly in the new Parliament. They should not be put at the back of the queue, after departmental Select Committee Chairs, otherwise much time—perhaps three months—will be lost in getting the new governance proposals bedded down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

Had a cold shower been available, I would have taken it; the problem was that there was no shower.

[Mr Speaker]

I think we now have adequate information on that important matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Straw and John Bercow

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister share my astonishment at a decision announced yesterday that First TransPennine Express, whose train services cover the whole of the north of England, is to lose one in eight of its trains, which are to be transferred to Chiltern Railways for the greater comfort and convenience of commuters in the south of England? [Interruption.] Is he aware that First TransPennine Express services are already among the most overcrowded in the country? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is quite a simple issue of courtesy. The right hon. Gentleman will be heard, however long it takes. So the quicker people remember their manners, the better.

[Mr Straw]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This may be a laughing matter to Government Members, but it is certainly not a laughing matter to people in the north of England. Could the Prime Minister bear it in mind that this decision has been made without the agreement of the train operating company, but by Porterbrook and the leasing company? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I was fair to the right hon. Gentleman, but the question was, frankly, too long.

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Debate between Jack Straw and John Bercow

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is notable interest in this subject, which I am keen to accommodate, but I am also keen to move on to the next business shortly after 1 o’clock. There is therefore a premium on brevity, which I know will now be observed by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw).

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

It will now, Mr Speaker.

First, will the Secretary of State accept that the wording of article 1 of protocol 30, whereby Britain opted out of the charter, could not be clearer? Nobody was duped; the wording makes it absolutely clear that the charter does not extend the ability of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg or any other court, so far as British rights and duties are concerned. Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman is now so aerated about this matter, will he explain what action he took once the decision of the European Court of Justice in 2011 first became known to him more than two years ago?

Points of Order

Debate between Jack Straw and John Bercow

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I thank the right hon. Lady, the Home Secretary, for her generous remarks, and you, Mr Speaker, and just say that I am not dead yet?

[Mr Speaker]

I think we are clear on that point now, even if we were not before.

Interest Rate Swap Derivatives

Debate between Jack Straw and John Bercow

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

I wish to express my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for his leadership on this issue. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are very grateful. Like so many colleagues, I have a firm in my constituency—it does not want to be named—that has been in this situation. I was able to get the redress payment paid and was about to get compensation in hand, when the FCA intervened to say, “Oh well, the 8% simple interest paid for the redress payment is sufficient compensation for the consequential losses.” Does he accept what must be blindingly obvious—that no bank seeking redress for a loss that it had unfairly suffered and then seeking compensation for consequential losses would dream of ever seeing the two rolled up together? What is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander.

[Mr Speaker]

We all look forward to the publication of the right hon. Gentleman’s thesis on this subject, but in fact I think we have just heard it.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Jack Straw and John Bercow

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he is being just a tad disingenuous in claiming—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Although the list of proscribed words ceased to exist some time ago, I would say that the right hon. Gentleman is on somewhat dodgy ground in using that word. In view of his known dexterity in the use of language, I exhort him to deploy another term to make his point.

[Mr Straw]

I thought perhaps the word “tad” would ameliorate the effect. Would “dissembling”—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accuse somebody of behaving disingenuously, it is small comfort for that person to be accused of behaving only a tad disingenuously.

[Mr Straw]

Is “dissembling” acceptable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

No.

[Mr Straw]

Would the Leader of the House accept that he has put only a part of his argument when he justifies the measure on the grounds of seeking equality of electorates? That principle is agreed across the Chamber. The objection to the 2011 Act was that it was a wholly partisan measure, breaking a clear convention that this kind of measure be agreed across the parties, to arbitrarily reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600. That is the real reason.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Jack Straw and John Bercow

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has accused the Deputy Prime Minister of being disingenuous, but he has also cited an instance in which, he says, he persuaded members of his Front Bench to change their minds and support a referendum. Is he telling our Front Benchers that they should do the same, but should then change their minds again and break their promise?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who is immensely versatile in his use of legitimate parliamentary language, that he might wish to reconsider his use of the word “disingenuous”? He has a very versatile vocabulary, and I feel sure that he can deploy another word.

[Mr Straw]

I am happy to do so, Mr Speaker. I will substitute the word “unconvincing”.

I hope that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) will concede that I was persuaded by the arguments advanced in this place in favour of referendums. I am now urging the Deputy Prime Minister to do the same.

As I was saying, the fact that those on the Front Benches may agree on this measure does not trump the need for the British people to decide. Indeed, it strengthens the imperative for the British people to have the final say.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Straw and John Bercow

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mark Tami. He is not here.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister said earlier that there was no criminal sanction on individuals if they failed to register to vote. The only reason that is so is that the obligation rests on the householder, on whom there is a criminal sanction. Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that as we move towards individual registration, Ministers must reconsider the proposal to allow opting out without any criminal sanction whatsoever?

Rehabilitation and Sentencing

Debate between Jack Straw and John Bercow

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I would love to try to get everyone in, but I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to help me to help them.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Why is the Secretary of State so unwilling even to utter the words that would acknowledge that, in the past 15 years—the last two years of his Government, from 1995, and through the 13 years of the previous Labour Government—crime fell by a record 50%? Why does he not acknowledge that and also accept that the cost-cutting led programme that he has announced today may put crime levels at risk?

Higher Education Funding

Debate between Jack Straw and John Bercow

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A very large number of colleagues are seeking to catch my eye so, as usual, brevity from both Back Bench and Front Bench is vital if we are to make some decent progress.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

May I first repeat to the Minister the commendation expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) on the statement of 12 October for the work of Lord Browne? On any basis, whatever the final view that people take, it was an extraordinary effort.

May I press the Minister on what will happen to the Exchequer contribution to universities? That is a matter for the Government, not for Lord Browne, and it seems to us in the Opposition to be the most serious defect in what the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing—almost that pound for pound, the increase in fees will be used to offset a reduction in Exchequer contribution.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Debate between Jack Straw and John Bercow

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not think that we will go with that. With respect, Members must get into the habit of asking questions about the policy of the Government, not about advice to shadow Ministers. Let us get that straight.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer failed to answer the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) about the extraordinary 11,000 reduction in the number of front-line probation and prison staff in the Ministry of Justice. Will the Chancellor confirm that this runs completely counter to what the Prime Minister said on 2 May about protecting front-line services, and that, even worse, it can only be a grave gamble with the security and safety of the British public and will eat away at the very successful fight against crime?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Straw and John Bercow

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Straw]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members must calm themselves. I cannot imagine why they are so excited, but I want to get down the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Straw and John Bercow

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Straw]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that the second question needs to be shorter.

[Mr Straw]

The Minister has obviously not read his own Bill. If community cohesion is good enough for separate seats on the outer isles of Scotland and for the invention of an entirely artificial rule to protect the seat of a former leader of the Liberal Democrats, why is it not good enough for the rest of the United Kingdom?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Straw and John Bercow

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy Prime Minister, but that is very discursive and not relevant to the precise responsibility of a member of the Government. [Interruption.] Order. I do not require any guidance. We will leave it there.

[Mr Straw]

Let us consider affordability—not the reason that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister gave originally, but affordability. The Deputy Prime Minister says that he is concerned about affordability, but we are talking about a loan, not a grant, to help Sheffield Forgemasters build Britain’s future in low-carbon manufacturing. He is not prepared to make that loan, but why is he prepared to acquiesce in spending £550 million a year on so-called tax breaks for marriage—a policy that he described as “patronising drivel”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear what the noble Lord has been saying. Let us hear it. There is far too much noise.

[Mr Straw]

Lord Ashcroft says today,

“even in the Liberal Democrat-held seats, less than a quarter of voters thought the Lib Dems were having a significant impact on the Government’s agenda.”

First, the Deputy Prime Minister blamed the cancellation of the loan on Sheffied Forgemasters’ unwillingness to dilute the shareholding, then he said that it was unaffordable. Last week he told the Yorkshire Post that the company did not need a loan after all. [Interruption.] I am not surprised that hon. Members are baying, because there has been one excuse after another. He said—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members are beside themselves. I am quite worried about their health. They really do need to calm down. [Interruption.] Order. Let me simply say to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) that I want some time to be left for Back Benchers.

[Mr Straw]

The Deputy Prime Minister said to the Yorkshire Post:

“Forgemasters can find the money for expansion elsewhere”.

Now that we know that it cannot find the money—as it said yesterday—has not the whole edifice of the Deputy Prime Minister’s argument been demolished? Why on earth will he not reconsider this ludicrous decision?

[Mr Straw]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Claire Perry. [Interruption.] Order. I want to hear Claire Perry.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

On the issue of progress, will the Deputy Prime Minister—

[Mr Straw]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has had his allotted span. [Hon. Members: “No.”] I apologise. It felt like it. I call Jack Straw.

[Mr Straw]

With apologies to the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), Mr Speaker.

Just over a month before the election, the Deputy Prime Minister warned about the dangers of policies of the kind that he is now following. He said:

“just imagine the reaction of my constituents in South West Sheffield.”

People like that are going to ask, “Who are these people who are telling us that they are suddenly going to take our jobs away? Who are these people?” Well, now we know who these people are. Are they not the Liberal Democrats—the people who are giving power to the Conservatives without any influence over the policies that they used to oppose?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Straw and John Bercow

Tuesday 22nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I recognise that there are people who are angry, but before we continue, let me appeal to the House to have some regard to the way in which we are viewed by the public whose support we were so recently seeking.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

On 7 June, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that he accepted the case for smaller island and heavily rural constituencies in the north of Scotland, which happened to be Liberal Democrat. Does he also accept that in urban areas there is a very heavy case load of constituents, that it is growing, and that in every urban area there are tens of thousands of citizens who are not on the electoral register and who ought to be taken into account in these calculations?

Constitution and Home Affairs

Debate between Jack Straw and John Bercow

Monday 7th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Angus Robertson]

On that point, can we—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We cannot have an intervention upon an intervention; a few words from Mr Straw before we hear from the hon. Gentleman would be helpful.

[Mr Straw]

I can give the hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) an answer, and it is not a bad one. He ought to read carefully both limbs of section 3 of the 1998 Act. If he had bothered to read it and if those negotiating this coalition agreement had done so—I have the Act before me for the sake of greater accuracy—they would know what it states. Under section 3(1)(a), the presiding officer has to require an “extraordinary general election”—an early general election—for the Scottish Parliament if two thirds of the Parliament vote for that. However, the provision contains an “or”, not an “and”, because section 3(1)(b) states that if there is

“any period during which the Parliament is required under section 46 to nominate one of its members for appointment as First Minister ends without such a nomination being made”,

after 28 days there has to be a general election. That election is triggered by a simple majority, not by a two thirds one. Therefore, we should hear no more rubbish about there being a two thirds lock in the Scottish Parliament, because it is not true.

Point of Order

Debate between Jack Straw and John Bercow

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Lady has again demonstrated her parliamentary ingenuity, but I fear that she knows very well that what she has just raised is not a point of order, but a point of debate, and she has put her views—and probably the views of her colleagues—fairly and squarely on the record.

Did Mr Straw wish to raise a point of order?

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.