Business of the House
Jeff Smith Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
Under the Parliament Acts, the House of Commons will have the final say, as on practically all legislation. As is always the case, the House of Lords has its own procedures. It is not in the gift of the Government to set down what time for debate there will be in the House of Lords on any Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
And the prize for patience goes to Jeff Smith.
Jeff Smith
Thank you also for that, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am grateful.
It is quite right, of course, that other parliamentary business should be shelved over the next couple of weeks so that we can debate article 50, and that includes the Bus Services Bill. In Manchester, we have been demanding London-style bus franchising powers for many years. We can wait a little longer, but may I encourage the Leader of the House to reschedule the Bus Services Bill as soon as possible after the recess so that Manchester can properly manage its transport network?
Mr Lidington
This may be an inadequate birthday present, but I will do my best to deliver what the hon. Gentleman wants.
Business of the House
Jeff Smith Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
Let me begin by paying tribute to the hon. Lady for what she did as shadow Leader of the House. We on these Benches are sorry to see her move back three rows, but I am sure that she will not be in that row forever—unless things carry on as they are. I also pay tribute to those in her constituency who are doing so much work for young people and sporting achievement, which makes such a difference to their development. The work she has described is enormously valuable.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Recent NHS figures show that 142 people per 100,000 in Manchester die prematurely from cardiovascular diseases. Someone is more likely to die prematurely from a heart attack or a stroke in Manchester than anywhere else in the country. May we have a debate on how to address high rates of cardiovascular disease in cities such as Manchester?
Chris Grayling
That is a very good example of why Manchester will benefit from having greater control over healthcare services in the area as a result of our devolution package. There are clearly particular problems that are found in some of our great cities, and devolution of responsibility to those cities will enable local solutions to be put in place that can make a difference.
Business of the House
Jeff Smith Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
I sometimes wish local authorities would make that distinction. The intention is to give them options to pursue, rather than telling them exactly what they should do. Local circumstances vary around the country, and when the participation of residents of holiday homes is lost for part of the year, that can have an economic impact. My hon. Friend has made an important point and I hope his local authority will take a long, hard look at what it must do and what is right for its area, and not simply tick a box because it thinks it must.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
A number of my constituents have suffered long delays in having their Disclosure and Barring Service applications processed, particularly where those have been processed via the Metropolitan police, and more than one has fallen into serious debt as a result of not being able to take up employment as a result. May we have a statement or a debate on how we can tackle this problem and resource the service properly?
Chris Grayling
I know that this problem crops up from time to time for all of us as Members of Parliament. I have had experiences similar to that of the hon. Gentleman. The Home Secretary and the Policing Minister will be here on Monday. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to put that question to them and ask what can be done to improve things.
Private Members’ Bills
Jeff Smith Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the procedure for debating and voting on Private Members’ Bills.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the good number of MPs who are present and who have expressed an interest in speaking. I also thank the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), who will be wrapping up for the Government and the Opposition respectively.
A debate on parliamentary procedure would not normally generate much interest outside this estate, but the level of interest may be rather different this morning, because many members of the public have become disillusioned with some of the things that we do in Parliament, and no more so than with the charade of those Fridays when we discuss private Members’ Bills.
Some of the most progressive legislation by Parliament in recent decades has come through private Members’ Bills: the suspension and then abolition of the death penalty, the partial decriminalisation of male homosexuality in 1967 and the Abortion Act 1967—all the result of private Members’ Bills advanced by Back Benchers and given time by the Government. Between 1997 and 2015, however, across four Parliaments, of the 1,977 private Members’ Bills introduced, only 103 became law. Since many of those were Government handout Bills, the number of private Members’ Bills with which an individual Back-Bench Member was able to make a difference to law and society by bringing forward a Bill was tiny.
That is no surprise when we see what happens to private Members’ Bills under the existing system; when a small number of MPs are present in Parliament to discuss Bills because MPs know there is only a very small chance of them being enacted; when Bills are talked out by an even smaller number of usually Conservative Members, whose only aim is to stop them being voted on; when serious Bills about serious issues are not given serious consideration or the chance to become law; and when most private Members’ Bills do not get discussed at all and those that do rarely get a Second Reading vote. The system is broken.
The procedure for debating and voting on private Members’ Bills is dishonest and misleading. It is an expensive and frustrating waste of time. What happens on Fridays in this place not only brings Parliament into disrepute, but feeds the cynicism that increasing numbers of people feel about politics and politicians. It does us no good service.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on a really important issue, which I have personal experience of, with my High Cost Credit Bill in the previous Parliament. Does he agree that sorting the system out will contribute significantly to rebalancing the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, and that one of the practical issues we need to look at is how to prioritise private Members’ Bills according to their degree of support, as well as the possibility of using Tuesday evenings, to avoid conflict with constituency work on Fridays?
Jeff Smith
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come to some of those issues shortly. He is right, which is why tackling the matter is important, as he says.
I will try to be brief, because a lot of Members who want to have a say are present, some of them with extensive experience of this issue, and because my suggestion is quite simple: if we want to do something in this place, let us do it properly. If we are going to allow a system in which Members may bring forward Bills, we should have a system that allows those Bills to be debated properly and voted on.
The Procedure Committee is looking at this issue, and I hope our debate will help to inform its deliberations. In its current review, the Committee has taken evidence from a whole range of people: the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House, Back-Bench Members, parliamentary officials, journalists, charities and the Hansard Society. When the Committee reports, I hope that this time the Government will act on the findings, because as hon. Members might know, the Procedure Committee also discussed the issue in the last Parliament. The Committee accepted that the system was flawed and came up with some proposals for change, so that private Members’ Bills would at least be put to a vote at the end of Second Reading—not as much of a change as I would have liked, but progress nevertheless. It was disappointing, however, that the Government found no time to debate or endorse the Committee’s proposals in the last Parliament.
I hope that the Procedure Committee will have more success this time around. Last time, the Government rejected the first proposal and did not even respond to the second proposal, so perhaps this will be third time lucky. I also hope that better progress will be made in this Parliament, because it is now widely agreed that the system is flawed. I do not often quote a Conservative MP, but I completely agree with what the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), said:
“In their current form private members’ bills are a cruel deception that we play on our electorate.”
I agree, because the existing system gives a false promise to the public—that the procedure for private Members’ Bills will result in meaningful legislation and make a difference to their lives.
I do not want to get too bogged down today in talking about the technicalities of parliamentary procedure. We could talk for a long time about process—I will make a couple of suggestions about that—but other hon. Members present also have suggestions, and I look forward to hearing them. What is more important is the wider principle: the false hope that the process gives members of the public, who think that they might be directly affected by what is being debated, and the impact not only on constituents, but on the reputation of Parliament, as the existing system fails the public.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making many good points. Does he agree that it is not just about the Government’s ability to stop legislation on Fridays, but that the existing system is discriminatory against non-London or south-east hon. and right hon. Members, who find it more difficult to attend the Commons on Fridays?
Jeff Smith
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As a fellow Mancunian MP, I could not agree more.
The system gives false hope to people who want to see action on issues that matter to them: people, for example, who think it is a good idea for children to be taught first aid at school or carers who have to pay high car-parking charges when they visit hospital—the subjects of two Bills that were talked out on Fridays in recent months. Let me quote two people who were particularly frustrated. Jonathan Ellis of the British Red Cross said:
“It is very frustrating that the emergency first aid Bill was ‘talked out’ as we had cross-party support from MPs, over 14,000 members of the public and a number of other organisations. Filibustering denied the opportunity for a democratic vote on this uncontroversial issue and ultimately denied school children the opportunity to learn first aid.”
Ellie Rose of Macmillan Cancer Support said:
“It’s not fair that many cancer patients and their carers pay extortionate hospital car parking charges in order to access life-saving treatment. An important opportunity was lost to vote on an issue that could have made a significant difference to hundreds of thousands of people’s lives.”
We have all heard similar complaints and we have probably all had representations from our constituents. I have spoken to people who have tuned in to watch debates on issues that they had a personal interest in and that they thought Parliament was being given a chance to make a change on—a change that might have improved their lives or the lives of people they know, only to see a debate ruined by filibustering—
Jeff Smith
How could I not give way to an hon. Gentleman with such experience of the subject?
Mr Nuttall
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If the Bills to which he has just referred were so important, why did they not attract sufficient numbers of MPs to be able to close the debate through the use of Standing Order No. 36?
Jeff Smith
Simply because the debates were on a Friday—I will come to that. If the hon. Gentleman is so convinced of the arguments against those Bills, we should have had a proper debate on a day in Parliament when lots of people are present. We could debate the issue and vote on it, rather than talking it out.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I am on the Select Committee on Procedure and have had a private Member’s Bill, and I have quite a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that we are almost victims of our own misfortune, as it were, in that we have transferred sitting Fridays, on which we are sent to Westminster to represent our constituents and constituencies, to be constituency days? My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) is absolutely right that if issues are important, we should be able to say to our constituents, “I will not be at the opening of the school or the fête”—whatever it might happen to be—“because I am discharging my duties as a Member of Parliament on a sitting Friday,” of which we only ever have 13 in a year.
Jeff Smith
The hon. Gentleman has identified an important point, and I will come to sitting Fridays shortly. In some cases I have had hundreds of emails from constituents urging me to turn up on a Friday for a private Member’s Bill—sometimes because charities or other organisations have mobilised them—and we are doing a disservice to those organisations and constituents, and to ourselves, by allowing expectations to be raised that a debate in Parliament will lead to a Bill being passed.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Expectation management is important, both for charities, in managing the expectations of those who are emailing us, and for us, in the way that we respond. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to a certain extent that extends to the ten-minute rule Bill procedure? I had emails from constituents who wanted me to vote on a Representation of the People ten-minute rule Bill because they genuinely thought there would be a debate in this place that would change the voting system of the United Kingdom, but that was not going to happen. I do not think that is necessarily the constituents’ fault. The charities have to take a bit of responsibility for managing the expectations of the people they ask to write to us.
Jeff Smith
I agree with that important point. Sometimes it is difficult to know whether it is due to lack of knowledge or wilful misreading of parliamentary procedure. I like to think it is the former, but that indicates that we need to be much more open and clear about not just private Members’ Bills but a whole range of other parliamentary procedures, as the hon. Gentleman rightly indicated.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman not think it ridiculous to expect people outside this place to know the minutiae of procedure? Those of us who are in our first term are still struggling to come to terms with it and, when we have 27 Bills on a list and we are getting emails about No. 17, that brings the House into disrepute. The responsibility is on us, not on the charities or constituents.
Jeff Smith
That is a good point, and if the responsibility is with us, our responsibility is to change the system to make it understandable for the public.
When people write to us about these Bills, they think they are something that will make a difference, but we know as parliamentarians, once we have learnt the rules—some of us are still learning them—that it is not going to happen. A case in point is the NHS reinstatement Bill. Many constituents wrote to me and implored me to attend the debate because they thought it was an opportunity to change Government policy on the NHS, an issue of huge importance to many of our constituents. I was interested to hear the debate on the Bill. I thought there were flaws in it, but I understood the sentiment behind it and I was hoping to hear a debate in which the issues were explored. However, on the day, as a result of filibustering, the Bill was left with around 20 minutes at the end of the sitting.
Jeff Smith
Seventeen minutes at the end of the session. That was hardly enough time for the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) to introduce the Bill properly. There was no chance to vote on it and now it is lost in the parliamentary wilderness. There is a fundamental dishonesty in a system that allows people to believe that a private Member’s Bill will make a difference, when we parliamentarians know that the system will not allow that.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
On the day we were in the Chamber for that, one Member took up one hour and 20 minutes speaking on the first private Member’s Bill. The general public think that there is a speech time limit, and that may be something we should really consider, because one hour and 20 minutes of chuntering on, as Mr Speaker would say, is ridiculous. That gave no time for the NHS Bill that everyone was desperate to have debated.
Jeff Smith
That is absolutely right, and I will come to time limits shortly.
We have two key problems. The first, which is widely acknowledged, is of Bills being talked out. Other hon. Members may want to speak about their experience of that. I have no doubt that Members who indulge in that practice will say in their defence, “We are working within the rules.” If that is the case, we must change the rules.
It is not just about MPs talking Bills out, however. The second problem is that it is very difficult for a private Member’s Bill to make any progress without the Government’s support. If a Bill gets a Second Reading, even if the will of the House is clear, there is no guarantee that it will get parliamentary time to enable it to make progress. Back-Bench Members from all parties find it incredibly difficult to make a difference unless they have Government support and co-operation. It is therefore dishonest to pretend that Members can bring in a Bill without at least tacit Government support. Those are the two key problems, but we could introduce a combination of measures to tackle them and allow a culture change in this place in which private Members’ Bills are taken seriously and given proper consideration. They relate both to when private Members’ Bills are taken and how they are dealt with.
The key question, which has already been identified, is whether private Members’ Bills should be confined to Fridays, because when they are, it is almost inevitable that they will not receive the consideration they are due. I am a new MP who came in last year, but from speaking to long-serving colleagues it seems there has been an increasing expectation in recent years that hon. Members should spend more time in their constituencies being available to their constituents.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. As a Member in this House since 2001, I have put a high premium on being accessible to constituents on a Friday, as well as during as much of the rest of the week as I can, as I am sure that he does. Does he agree that the suggestion that private Members’ Bills should perhaps be discussed on a Tuesday evening would be at least a step in the right direction, rather than giving them the graveyard slot of a Friday, which massively inconveniences those of us who put a premium on Fridays and who live a considerable distance from Westminster?
Jeff Smith
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. It is quite correct that Members should be able to spend some time on a weekday in constituencies, visiting schools and businesses, doing advice surgeries and meeting residents, and it is sensible to allow one weekday a week for that. There should not necessarily be the need, therefore, to attend Parliament on a Friday. If we were to move consideration of private Members’ Bills to another day, that would give all Members the opportunity both to take part in debates that consider those Bills seriously and to have time in their constituencies.
There are options. We could take private Members’ Bills on a Tuesday or Wednesday evening or morning, or we could use some Back-Bench business time. I think it is recognised that that time is not heavily subscribed, so we could use some of it more effectively to deal with private Members’ Bills on days when all Members are around Parliament. In addition, we should ensure that private Members’ Bills are properly programmed, with sufficient time to discuss each one that comes forward.
It is not just about when, but about how we deal with the business. Here are three things we could do. First, there is no reason not to have time limits on speeches in debates on private Members’ Bills. We have them regularly in other debates, so why should we not have them in those? Secondly, we could bring in rules to guarantee a vote on a private Member’s Bill on Second reading.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. As he knows, the Procedure Committee is undertaking an inquiry into this matter and in our evidence gathering it has transpired that on a sitting Friday the Chair can indeed impose a time limit—there is nothing to stop them doing that. Without questioning the Chair’s decision, the fact that they have not used that power is a question for the Chair, but the residual power is there for them to respond if they so wished.
Jeff Smith
The point is that that does not happen. My understanding is that under Standing Order No. 42 the Chair can direct a Member to discontinue their speech, but between 1945 and 1999 that was used on only 21 occasions, so that parliamentary procedure is used rarely. I also think there are better ways of organising our time. As I have said, if we moved the debates to a Tuesday or Wednesday, we could have a fuller debate, and all Members could be there. This is about a package of measures, not just a single measure.
We should guarantee the vote on Second Reading and, thirdly, if a private Member’s Bill is agreed on Second Reading, we should guarantee time for it to be considered in Committee. Those are not difficult things to do, but if the measures are too revolutionary to bring in at once in this place, we could even introduce them as a pilot and see how they go. They would be easy ways to improve the way we debate and vote on private Members’ Bills.
The reason I was keen to debate this issue today is not solely the extensive negative publicity that the current process has generated in the media in recent months—and we have all seen such negative publicity, which reflects badly on Parliament. There was a more personal reason. I was sitting in the Chamber on a private Members’ Bill Friday a few weeks ago, as hon. Members talked out a Bill, and I looked up and saw a group of school students in the Gallery. As a student of parliamentary oratory—I take an interest in it—I have to acknowledge the extensive skill involved in talking out the Bill. It was a masterclass in filibustering. However, to the group of school pupils in the Public Gallery the speeches must have been as boring as the process was mystifying. I remember thinking, “Is this the impression we want to give those young people of our Parliament? Is this really a positive image of politics and politicians?” I was, frankly, embarrassed to be in the Chamber that day.
We are sent here by our constituents to try to make a positive difference to their lives. They have a right to expect our discussions to be honest, realistic and serious. It is dishonest to the public to maintain the illusion that Friday’s private Members’ Bill debates are proper legislative process. Members bring forward private Members’ Bills on serious and important issues. It is about time we debated them and voted on them as such. The last report of the Procedure Committee said of reform of programming:
“This is an idea whose time has not yet come.”
After what we have seen in recent months, I believe that that time has come.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jeff Smith
I do not have much time, so I will be brief in thanking all the Members who have contributed to this debate. We have had a respectful, interesting and mature debate, which is more than we usually get on Fridays. There is a consensus that there is deep frustration with the system on both sides of the House. The system is broken and change is needed. We have had some good suggestions, and I particularly thank the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) for their suggestions about ways forward. I hope that the Procedure Committee and, more importantly, the Government will listen to those suggestions and take them on board, because one thing is clear: the longer we continue with the current system, the more the reputation of Parliament will be damaged. The time has come for change.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the procedure for debating and voting on Private Members’ Bills.
Business of the House
Jeff Smith Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
Obviously, I cannot comment on the specific detail of that case, because I do not know enough about it, but it is always right and proper for those putting in planning applications to treat local communities with respect. If people feel that they have been let down by local authority processes, they can and do go to the ombudsman to seek a determination of maladministration. It sounds as if my hon. Friend is doing a fine job of representing his constituent anyway.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Civil society organisations have legitimate concerns about restrictions on their ability to challenge school admission arrangements. May we have a statement about the proposed ban on objections from these organisations so that we can better understand who will and will not be affected?
Chris Grayling
These things are, of course, predominantly for governing bodies and local authorities to decide, but the hon. Gentleman is free to raise this issue as an Adjournment debate and bring a Minister to the House to respond to his concern.
Business of the House
Jeff Smith Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
Of course tax credits are normally paid directly, through a different route from the benefits system. This will therefore depend entirely on the individual cases, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me with some more detailed examples, I will make sure that I pass his comments on to the Secretary of State so that he gets a response.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
My constituent Naheed Kausar Ali was tragically killed during the crushing incident at the Hajj in September. The Saudi authorities committed to an investigation, on which they have yet to report back. May we have a statement on what pressure can be applied and what assistance can be given to the Saudi authorities to ensure that they report back rapidly and publicly, so that lessons are learned and British pilgrims can travel to the Hajj in safety?
Chris Grayling
This was, of course, a great tragedy, and the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. By coincidence, a Minister of State at the Foreign Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), has just arrived in the Chamber. Although he is not directly responsible for relations with Saudi Arabia, I will ask him to pass on that concern to his colleague in the Foreign Office so that the issue can be addressed. This was a tragedy for the families involved and they will want to see answers.
Business of the House
Jeff Smith Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and one that he perhaps more than anyone in this House understands well. It is important that we have a police force with the freedom to take actions in the interests of justice. I think of the case of Stuart Hall, where allegations that appeared to be questionable initially proved to be very serious and very substantial once his name entered the public arena. I was brought up in a world where the reporting tended to be, “A 30-year-old man is helping police with inquiries,” not the publishing of the full details of the person arrested. Unless our police forces, and indeed all involved in our criminal justice system, are absolutely certain that there is very good reason for putting the name of a suspect into the public arena, they need to think very long and hard before doing so. That lesson needs to be at the heart of the way in which this House behaves, but clearly in recent times it has not been.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Government have made a number of attacks since the election in May on support for green energy. In the light of reports this morning that our current emissions targets may be insufficient to meet the challenge on global warming, may we have a debate in Government time on support for sustainable energy?
Chris Grayling
In the past few months the level of electricity generation from sustainable sources in this country has passed 25%. That is far in excess of anything that was envisaged in the early days by the previous Labour Government, so I do not think we have anything to be embarrassed about in our record on sustainable and renewable energy. Also, in a week when the Labour party has been complaining of the high energy costs faced by our steel producers, it is surely right and proper that we in this country do not seek to impose on consumers an ever higher burden of support from either the taxpayer or from bill payers without recognition of the impact that that can have.
Business of the House
Jeff Smith Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his assiduousness in pursuing the issue. I sometimes wish that those in Brussels would pay attention to and sort out problems that are extant, rather than simply continuing to seek more powers for themselves.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Like other Members, I have constituents who are affected by birth defects resulting from the use of hormone pregnancy tests in the 1960s and 1970s. Following a Backbench Business debate some 10 months ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences agreed to set up an expert panel of inquiry, which will sit for the first time on 14 October. It now appears that the panel’s terms of reference are at variance with what was promised in the Chamber. Will the Minister come to the House as soon as possible after the recess to make a statement explaining why?
Chris Grayling
I am certain that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences takes that issue seriously, but a number of very difficult inherited historical problems have arisen from treatments that have gone wrong and treatments that have not been proved to be right for the future, and the treatment that the hon. Gentleman has raised is clearly one of those. I will ensure that his concern is drawn to my hon. Friend’s attention, and I will ask my hon. Friend to respond to him directly and to the House.