Points of Order

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 25th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Quite. Take two: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and I understand why she makes it, but it is not one for the Chair. She knows that she and many others have debated these matters for many, many hours in recent weeks, and I have personally heard her speak for hours, cumulatively, on the subject. The Government have replied to her questions and those of other hon. Members in so far as they are able to do so to. I am sure that the Leader of the House will have heard the hon. Lady’s request for even more time for this business on the Floor of the House, but I should point out for the sake of clarity that many, many hours have been spent on that business in recent weeks.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the course of business questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) raised a point of order, understandably concerned about something the Leader of the House had said implying a lack of patriotism on the part of some Members of Parliament. As I said earlier, I have been a Member for 23 years, and as a regular attender of business questions, I do not remember it previously being possible to raise a point of order during the course of business questions. Can you clarify from the Chair for all of our benefits whether that is now something that is going to be permitted, in case we want to do the same thing in future?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which is actually not a point of order, but a direct challenge to me on a decision that I took about an hour ago here in the Chamber. That was a matter of my judgment: the hon. Lady indicated to me that she wished to raise a point of order about a matter that had immediately occurred in the Chamber, and I took the decision that it was reasonable for her to raise a point of order on that precise subject at that precise moment.

[Kevin Brennan]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

No, the hon. Gentleman cannot come back. I am not having a debate with him about procedure. The rule is that a point of order can be taken at any time if it is pertinent precisely to the matter that is currently before the House.

[Kevin Brennan]

May I make a further point of order?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I will allow the hon. Gentleman to make a further point, but I am not having a debate with him in the Chamber, either about my judgment or about procedure.

[Kevin Brennan]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not attempting to call your judgment into question, and I apologise if that was the impression I gave. I was simply trying to clarify what the position is for hon. Members who might wish to raise points of order. You have made that very clear, and I thank you for that clarification.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the question, and I am glad the matter is now closed.

Business of the House

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

This is a speech. Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. If the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) was out of order and had to sit down, I would tell him so. I do not need the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) to tell me how to conduct the affairs of the Chamber.

Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

2nd reading
Friday 23rd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

With the leave of the House, I will briefly sum up. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed and intervened. This debate has given an extremely useful airing to the issues related to Bill. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) raised some very valid points, some of which were subsequently addressed in interventions by me, the shadow Minister and the Minister. I am sure we will delve further into those points in Committee.

I thank all Members who contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) is obviously very knowledgeable about supporting football, even when it is painful. We also heard interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), who is now sitting in the Whip’s seat, having moved from the Back Benches during the debate.

The Bill has had a good airing, for which I thank everyone. I thank in particular the Minister and the shadow Minister. The Minister mentioned the Football Association, which covers England. The Football Association of Wales has also been very supportive of the Bill. All members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee have supported the Bill, which featured in the Committee’s report. I also thank the civil servants; the Clerks; you, Madam Deputy Speaker; Mr Speaker, who was here earlier; Mr Deputy Speaker; and everyone else in the room. The Whips on both sides of the House have been extremely helpful. And I thank Mary in the Members’ Tea Room for supporting the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

That is a fitting end to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. We are always thankful to Mary and everyone else who looks after us in the Members’ Tea Room, especially on a Friday.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Channel 4 Privatisation

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I endorse what the Father of the House just said. That is not to say that I do not have sympathy with Ministers. I was a Minister in the last Labour Government and I understand that Ministers face very difficult decisions. It is not always a decision between simply what is right and what is wrong. Sometimes, it is not a decision between good and evil. Sometimes, it is a decision between the unacceptable and the unpalatable. So I have sympathy with Ministers when they are considering policy.

However, I have been trying to imagine the meeting that the Secretary of State and her Ministers must have had to discuss this topic. Presumably, the permanent secretary came along and said, “Secretary of State, I’m afraid that I’ve got some bad news for you: we haven’t got a problem.” The Secretary of State said, “Really? That’s worrying. What haven’t we got a problem with?” The permanent secretary said, “I’m afraid we haven’t got a problem with Channel 4.” The Secretary of State said, “Why? What has it been doing?” The permanent secretary said, “I’m afraid to tell you that it hasn’t been costing the taxpayer a penny while it has been operating as a public service broadcaster. It gets worse. Last year, it brought in £1.2 billion in revenue and a record financial surplus of £100 million. If that is not enough, it does not even need to borrow any money to finance its operations. I’m afraid to tell you, Secretary of State, that there is much more of this. It has also been rapidly growing its digital advertising revenue, moving into the advertising market that is the future in a way that is far outstripping all of its commercial competitors. Worse still, its digital strategy is way ahead of all its commercial competitors. It has been, annoyingly, fulfilling its remit to appeal to young people. It is the most successful broadcaster of any commercial broadcaster in reaching 16 to 34-year-olds and hugely diverse audiences.

On top of that, I’m afraid to tell you, Secretary of State, it has been commissioning content from independent producers all over the country—”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is doing it, too. You cannot say, “I want to tell you, Secretary of State.” You have to say, “Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to tell the Secretary of State.”

[Kevin Brennan]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was quoting, in an imagined scenario, the permanent secretary. I was not referring to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a creative debate about the creative industries. I was creating an imagined conversation, so I do apologise if—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I had not quite picked up on the context. He is probably allowed to make an imaginary quotation, saying, “You, Secretary of State.” Fine—proceed!

[Kevin Brennan]

I know that satire and irony does not translate very well into Hansard, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it could be put into italics, so that everybody can realise.

[Kevin Brennan]

I have a feeling that that might not be in order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I would just point out to the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) that he might find he is disappointed at the end of the debate when he himself loses a minute.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his motives. I hope he achieves his objective, but I am not sure whether I will get that extra minute.

In the imaginary conversation, the permanent secretary might have gone on to say, “On top of that, Channel 4 works with 300 production companies a year. It spends more on external production in the nations and regions than any other commercially funded broadcaster, dedicating over half its total content spend to content produced there. I’m afraid to tell you, Secretary of State, that, in addition, Channel 4 has created hundreds of high value jobs in the nations and regions, including by moving a large part of its operations out to Leeds”—I am afraid it was not Cardiff; I wish it had been Cardiff, but it has moved an important HQ out to Leeds—“and announcing plans to significantly increase its investment in skills.”

The permanent secretary might have continued, “On top of that, I am afraid it has been taking decisions with the public interest at heart. I’m afraid to report, Secretary of State, that it has been taking those sorts of decisions, including broadcasting the Paralympics, which otherwise would not have been exposed, and giving a whole hour every night in prime time to news. The news, which counters the misinformation that is such a blight of our age because of the internet, is subcontracted to a production company”—as ever, to ITN—“and subject to Ofcom’s rules of impartiality. And it has been absolutely integral to the success of our film industry.”

“In other words, Secretary of State,” the permanent secretary must have said, “it is a shameful litany of success from Channel 4, and we really ought to do something about it.” Presumably, the Secretary of State would have said in response, “Well, quite clearly, we cannot allow things to go on as they are, because we are going to risk the Government’s reputation for incompetence if this carries on. We have to protect it, and, after all, we were absolutely silent in our manifesto on the issue of privatising Channel 4. Therefore, it is absolutely imperative that we should definitely do it. We did not seek a mandate from the electorate to privatise this successful, publicly owned, public service broadcaster, so we absolutely ought to do it.”

I say to the Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez)—a very thoughtful Minister, who I am sure will make the best fist of this whole thing both here and eventually in Committee, if this lamentable proposal ever gets that far—that that is where we are at the moment: caught up in an episode of “Parliamentary Pointless”, with a policy that nobody promised in search of a problem that nobody perceives.

Lord Parkinson, the Arts Minister, appeared before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee this morning, and told us he has six Bills coming down the track in the House of Lords. I would have thought he had enough on his plate, without a pointless proposal of this kind. If colleagues in this place do not prevent this daft proposal from going any further, and the idea ends up down in the House of Lords, I am telling you—you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House—that it has no chance of making swift progress in the House of Lords, because it was not in the manifesto. As a result, as Lord Parkinson accepted this morning, the Salisbury convention will apply, and their lordships will feel as free as ever to delay the proposal and if necessary, as they are constitutionally entitled to do, invoke the Parliament Act. The proposal is pointless and should be abandoned.

BBC: Dyson Report

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Monday 24th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman coming to a question?

[Kevin Brennan]

I am, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Pretty quickly, please.

[Kevin Brennan]

With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise.

“It’s important for us to also reiterate that the BBC is not its management, past or present. The BBC and the values and principles of public service broadcasting it personifies is in fact our members, and all its staff, who do the work that makes the corporation an entity that is valued at home and throughout the world.”

Does the Minister agree with that statement?

Welsh Affairs

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) [V]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Welsh affairs.

Thank you very much for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Prynhawn da; diolch yn fawr. I thank the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) for supporting the application to the Backbench Business Committee, and I thank the Committee for granting this time this afternoon, although it is and always has been my view that time should be set aside every year, as a permanent fixture of the UK parliamentary calendar, to debate the affairs of Wales on or around St David’s Day, which occurs on 1 March, next week.

I want to open on a sad note, by paying tribute to the former Member for Aberavon, Hywel Francis, who died earlier this month. Hywel entered the House nearly 20 years ago, alongside me and other current Members from Wales, my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Caerphilly (Wayne David), my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), and the hon. Member for Arfon.

It will not surprise hon. Members and others listening who knew Hywel that, in his maiden speech back in 2001, he spoke about Labour history, the miners’ strike of 1984, Welsh devolution and the rights of disabled people, the latter a subject that was personally very close to Hywel and his wife Mair and their family. In calling, in that speech, for equal rights for disabled people, he said:

“Those are, after all, universal rights, whether they apply to a disabled child in Soweto, or to a disabled miner or steelworker in Skewen.”—[Official Report, 25 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 456.]

Typical of Hywel: a voice for the oppressed everywhere, an internationalist voice, a compassionate socialist voice, a distinctly Welsh voice. Rest in peace, good friend and comrade.

Circumstances mean that I am participating in today’s debate from Wales’s capital city. I recently heard a quote about Cardiff from the late, great Victoria Wood, who said it was

“classy and yet somehow seedy at the same time”—

surely the slogan to put on our road signs; but in truth Cardiff has developed in the last 20 years, in the era of devolution, into a classy capital city that truly feels like a modern capital, with a vibrant cultural sector and the seat of the elected Government of Wales. Wales is second only to London in percentage growth, for example, in music tourism in recent times, not least here in Cardiff itself; and this Saturday, in normal times, our streets would be thronged with people for the Six Nations rugby encounter between Wales and England. Sadly, there will be no crowds this Saturday, but millions will watch on free-to-air public service television. I say to the Welsh Rugby Union: do not lock this important part of our sporting culture in a dark cupboard behind a paywall. All Wales’s Six Nations matches must remain free to air in Wales in any new broadcasting deal.

But I do not want to talk just about union as in rugby union today, but I want to say a few words about the state of the Union of the United Kingdom, and Wales’s place in it. Any union, whether a sporting union, or a trade union, or a political union of nations, can only with the consent of its members, and that consent can only be obtained through a culture of respect. I am genuinely worried that the UK Government, Prime Minister and current Secretary of State for Wales do not understand that. We read that the Union unit, set up at the heart of Whitehall to save the Union, has been so disunited itself and beset by brutal rows that it has had to be disbanded. Well, if the Government cannot even keep their own unit in charge of unity united, what hope is there that they can keep the United Kingdom united?

But all may not be lost, because the Union unit is being replaced, we are told, by a Cabinet Committee consisting of—I quote from the press—

“Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Welsh Secretary Simon Hart, Scottish Secretary”

Alister Jack,

“Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis and other Cabinet members.”

They are to

“discuss how best to save”

the United Kingdom. Well, forgive me if I am sceptical that this news will have people running down to the bookies to put money on the improved chances of the survival of the Union, because the problem is, there is no evidence here of any understanding of that principle of consent and respect. In fact, we have clear evidence to the contrary from the Secretary of State for Wales himself. While aggressively undermining the democratically elected Welsh Senedd and Government by centralising spending powers from Wales, this week he said:

“I do wish Welsh Government would stop fretting about their own little status in Cardiff”.

Those words—

“their own little status in Cardiff”—

contain not an ounce of respect for Welsh voters and the two referendums that established elected devolved institutions in Wales.

I say to the Secretary of State: he is treading a dangerous path. He has revealed that he has had no respect for Wales’s democratic institutions, choosing instead to look down his nose from Gwydyr House, sneering those words—

“their own little status”—

with reference to the elected Government of Wales. I presume he will soon be getting fitted for his governor-general’s costume and plumed hat at this rate.

I sometimes hear colleagues say that these constitutional issues do not matter. They say, “I have never heard anyone on the Ely omnibus talk about devolved powers.” That may be right, but they do matter to the things people really care and talk about, and which affect their everyday lives, including those riding with a bus pass on the No. 17.

It does matter to Welsh people that they have the right to elect a Government who genuinely reflect their values and aspirations, and who are empowered to make real changes that affect their lives. Devolution has allowed those values of the Welsh people to be expressed in progressive policies that are an alternative to neoliberalism and to running the country in favour of the wealthiest through crony capitalism.

It does matter to people in Wales that their NHS has been true to its Welsh roots, with free prescriptions and freedom from market-driven motives and privatisation. The UK Government are now mimicking that, after the abject failure of the experiment in competition under the Lansley reforms.

It does matter that Wales can decide to have an integrated public transport system, which was denied by the centre to all but London until recently, with rail brought back into public control, bringing Wales in line with modern European countries. It does matter to people that their education system remains free from divisive selection, with local governance and free of outsourcing and fragmentation.

In this covid crisis, it has mattered to people that the Welsh Labour Government have not ducked or delayed difficult decisions, but have always put health and welfare first. They have struck better deals on personal protective equipment for the NHS and social care because of their public service values, rather than turning to expensive and dubious outsourcing, which has failed repeatedly. It has mattered to people that Wales has had a successful, publicly run contract tracing service, rather than a massively wasteful, outsourced chumocracy.

It also matters that in Mark Drakeford, Wales has a First Minister who is rightly praised for integrity, difficult decision making, grasp of detail and open communication, in contrast to a Prime Minister held hostage by headlines and headbangers. Now is not the time for empire Unionism from the Welsh Secretary or the Prime Minister; now is the time to recognise that this voluntary Union of four nations can function only through equality, respect for devolution and a commitment to enhance and develop our democratic institutions in Wales and the other nations and regions of the United Kingdom.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

There is an immediate time limit on Back-Bench speeches of three minutes.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

No, it is not correct. There was no need for the 7 o’clock motion to be moved, because of the terms of the business of the House motion relating to today.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I intervened on the Leader of the House to ask about the possibility of introducing proxy voting to enable people to vote remotely during the current way in which Parliament has been organised, and the Leader of the House said that that matter had been referred to the Procedure Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who is in her place. Today at Prime Minister’s Question Time, the Prime Minister said that the Government were proposing to introduce proxy voting. Have you had any notification from the Government that they intend to table a motion tomorrow introducing proxy voting for Members other than those who are on maternity leave, and to provide time for that matter to be debated and voted on?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Now, I thought that we were doing very well, because all the other points of order that I have just taken were real points of order, and it is such a pleasure to have real points of order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman will be able to ask those questions tomorrow.

Before we move on to the next item of business, which is the Committee stage of the Bill, in order to allow the safe exit of Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next item of business, I am now suspending the House for five minutes. I would be grateful if hon. Members would leave the Chamber.

Points-based Immigration System

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Monday 24th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We do not conduct debates while sitting.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The clock.

Music: Contribution to the UK Economy

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Friday 3rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned the Live Music Act. As she knows, that started as a private Member’s Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) mentioned the private Member’s Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar). If the Government are considering any kind of change, will they consider taking up his Bill?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I did not jump up immediately to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it is not in order for the Opposition spokesman sitting at the Dispatch Box to intervene or take part in an Adjournment debate such as this. However, this is a good-natured debate and he is not causing trouble, so on this occasion I am not going to prevent the Minister from hearing what he said. But, for the record, it is not in order for him to take part in the debate.

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Programme motion No. 3: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 28th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 8—Responsibility for policy and funding of TV licence fee concessions—

“After section 365(5) of the Communications Act 2003 insert—

“(5A) It shall be the responsibility of the Secretary of State to—

(a) specify the conditions under which concessions are entitled, and

(b) provide the BBC with necessary funding to cover the cost of concessions,

and this responsibility shall not be delegated to any other body.”

This new clause seeks to enshrine in statute that it should be the responsibility of the Government to set the entitlement for any concessions and to cover the cost of such concession. This new clause will ensure the entitlement and cost of over-75s TV licences remain with the Government. It would need to be agreed with Clause 76 not standing part of the Bill.

New clause 17—PSB prominence—

“(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of section 310(1) add “that satisfy the qualification criteria to be set by OFCOM in the code.”

(3) In section 310(2) leave out “OFCOM consider appropriate” and insert “required by OFCOM”.

(4) In section 310(4)(a) after “programmes” insert “, including on-demand programme services,”.

(5) In section 310(5)(a) after “service” insert “, including on-demand programme service,”.

(6) In section 310(8)(a) after “services” insert “, including on-demand programme services,”.

(7) In section 310(8)(b) after “services” insert “, including on-demand programme services.”

This new clause would modernise the PSB prominence regime, as recommended by Ofcom in its 2015 PSB Review. This proposal would extend the provisions in the Communications Act 2003 which currently only apply to traditional public service television channels and menus to on-demand services.

New clause 18—Listed events qualifying criteria—

“(1) The Broadcasting Act 1996 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit section 98(2)(b) and insert—

“(b) that the service has been watched by at least 90 per cent. of citizens in the United Kingdom in the course of the preceding calendar year.”

(3) After section 98(2) insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State may by Order amend section (2)(b) by substituting a different percentage for any percentage for the time being specified there.

(2B) No Order under subsection (2A) shall be made unless a draft of the Order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.””

This new clause seeks to future-proof the listed events regime. This replaces the criterion on the capability of ‘receive’ a channel with an alternative based on its actual usage over the period of a year, lowers the threshold from 95% to 90%, and proposes delegating powers to the SoS to amend the 90% threshold.

New clause 24—Review of sale of counterfeit electrical appliances on the internet—

‘(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission a review of the sale on the internet of counterfeit electrical appliances and shall lay the report of the review before each House of Parliament.

(2) The review under subsection (1) shall consider whether operators of trading websites that allow individual sellers to use those websites to sell electrical items should be obliged to report to the police and trading standards any instances of the selling of counterfeit electrical appliances during the course of their business of trading.”

New clause 33—Report of cost to UK economy of counterfeit electrical goods on the internet—

‘(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall prepare and publish a report on the cost to the UK economy of counterfeit electrical goods on the internet and shall lay a copy of the report before Parliament.

(2) The report under subsection (1) shall include an assessment of—

(a) the amount of counterfeit electrical goods being imported into the United Kingdom,

(b) the efficacy of the 1994 Plugs and Sockets regulations, and

(c) the amounts of counterfeit electrical good being sold on trading websites on the internet.”

New clause 34—Review of impact of digital platforms on media advertising—

‘(1) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, Ofcom shall conduct a review of the impact of digital platforms on media advertising and the sustainability of the UK media.

(2) Ofcom shall conduct another review on the matters under subsection (1) within five years of the publication of the first review, and within every five years thereafter.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report of any review in this section before Parliament.”

Government amendments 20 to 22.

New clause 15—Power to provide for a code of practice related to copyright infringement—

“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a search engine to be required to adopt a code of practice concerning copyright infringement that complies with criteria specified in the regulations.

(2) The regulations may provide that if a search engine fails to adopt such a code of practice, any code of practice that is approved for the purposes of that search engine by the Secretary of State, or by a person designated by the Secretary of State, has effect as a code of practice adopted by the search engine.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

(a) for the investigation and determination of disputes about a search engine’s compliance with its code of practice,

(b) for the appointment of a regulator to review and report to the Secretary of State on—

(i) the codes of practice adopted by search engines, and

(ii) compliance with the codes of practice;

(c) for the consequences of a failure by a specified search engine to adopt or comply with a code of practice including financial penalties or other sanctions.

(4) Regulations made under this section—

(a) may make provision that applies only in respect of search engines of a particular description, or only in respect of activities of a particular description;

(b) may make incidental, supplementary or consequential provision;

(c) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

This new clause would amend the Bill to present an opportunity for the Government to fulfil its manifesto commitment to reduce copyright infringement and ensure search engines do not link to the worst-offending sites. There is an absence of a specific provision in the Bill to achieve this.

New clause 16—E-book lending—

“In section 43(2) of the Digital Economy Act 2010, leave out from “limited time” to “and loan.”

This new clause aims to extend public lending rights to remote offsite e-book lending.

New clause 30—Devices or services that infringe copyright—

“(1) The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 107(1)(d)(ii) after “offers” insert “, advertises”.

(3) After section 107(1)(d)(iv) insert—

(v) installs, maintains or replaces, or

(ii) otherwise promotes by means of commercial communications, or”

(4) In section 107(1)(e) after “article” insert “, device, product or component”.

(5) In section 107(1)(e) after “work” insert “or which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, primarily designed, produced, adapted or otherwise used in a manner described in this section whether alone or in conjunction with another article, device, product, component, or service supplied by or with the knowledge of the same person for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the infringement of copyright”.”

This new clause allows the Government to fulfil its commitment in the IPO’s Enforcement Strategy to ensure that UK business and rights holders have the necessary legal means to protect their IP. It brings in language to cover the supply of IPTV boxes clearly being marketed or sold for the purpose of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement, recognising that many devices may not, themselves, infringe copyright, but are supplied in conjunction with information which enables users to infringe copyright.

New clause 31—Offence to use digital ticket purchasing software to purchase excessive number of tickets—

“(1) A person commits an offence if he or she utilises digital ticket purchasing software to purchase tickets over and above the number permitted in the condition of sale.

(2) A person commits an offence if he or she knowingly resells or offers to resell, or allows to be resold or offered for resale on a secondary ticketing facility, a ticket that the person knows, or could reasonably suspect, was obtained using digital ticket purchasing software and was acting in the course of a business.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) a person shall be treated as acting in the course of a business if he or she does anything as a result of which he makes a profit or aims to make a profit.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to—

(a) imprisonment for a period not exceeding 51 weeks,

(b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or

(c) both.

(5) In this section—

(a) “digital ticket purchasing software” means any machine, device, computer programme or computer software that, on its own or with human assistance, bypasses security measures or access control systems on a retail ticket purchasing platform that assist in implementing a limit on the number of tickets that can be purchased, to purchase tickets.

(b) “retail ticket purchasing platform” shall mean a retail ticket purchasing website, application, phone system, or other technology platform used to sell tickets.

(6) Subsections (1) and (2) shall apply in respect of anything done whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.”

This new clause creates an offence to use digital ticket purchasing software to purchase tickets for an event over and above the number permitted in the condition of sale. It also creates an offence to knowingly resell tickets using such software.

New clause 5—Personal data breaches—

“(1) The Data Protection Act 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 24 insert—

“24A Personal data breaches: notification to the Commissioner

(1) In this section, section 24B and section 24C “personal data breach” means unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data or accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data.

(2) Subject to subsections (3), (4)(c) and (4)(d), if a personal data breach occurs, the data controller in respect of the personal data concerned in that breach shall, without undue delay, notify the breach to the Commissioner.

(3) The notification referred to in subsection (2) is not required to the extent that the personal data concerned in the personal data breach are exempt from the seventh data protection principle.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) prescribe matters which a notification under subsection (2) must contain;

(b) prescribe the period within which, following detection of a personal data breach, a notification under subsection (2) must be given;

(c) provide that subsection (2) shall not apply to certain data controllers;

(d) provide that subsection (2) shall not apply to personal data breaches of a particular description or descriptions.

24B Personal data breaches: notification to the data subject

(1) Subject to subsections (2), (3), (4), (6)(b) and (6)(c), if a personal data breach is likely to adversely affect the personal data or privacy of a data subject, the data controller in respect of the personal data concerned in that breach shall also, without undue delay, notify the breach to the data subject concerned, insofar as it is reasonably practicable to do so.

(2) The notification referred to in subsection (1) is not required to the extent that the personal data concerned in the personal data breach are exempt from the seventh data protection principle.

(3) The notification referred to in subsection (1) is not required to the extent that the personal data concerned in the personal data breach are exempt from section 7(1).

(4) The notification referred to in subsection (1) is not required if the data controller has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner—

(a) that the data controller has implemented appropriate measures which render the data unintelligible to any person who is not authorised to access it; and

(b) that those measures were applied to the data concerned in that personal data breach.

(5) If the data controller has not notified the data subject in compliance with subsection (1), the Commissioner may, having considered the likely adverse effects of the personal data breach, require the data controller to do so.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) prescribe matters which a notification under subsection (1) must contain;

(b) provide that subsection (1) shall not apply to certain data controllers;

(c) provide that subsection (1) shall not apply to personal data breaches of a particular description or descriptions.

24C Personal data breaches: audit

(1) Data controllers shall maintain an inventory of personal data breaches comprising—

(a) the facts surrounding the breach;

(b) the effects of that breach; and

(c) remedial action taken

which shall be sufficient to enable the Commissioner to verify compliance with the provisions of sections 24A and 24B. The inventory shall only include information necessary for this purpose.

(2) The Commissioner may audit the compliance of data controllers with the provisions of sections 24A, 24B and 24C(1).

(3) In section 40 (Enforcement notices)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) after “data protection principles,” insert “or section 24A, 24B or 24C”;

(ii) for “principle or principles” substitute “principle, principles, section or sections”;

(b) in subsection 6(a) after “principles” insert “or the section or sections”.

(4) In section 41 (Cancellation of enforcement notice”)—

(a) in subsection (1) after “principles” insert “or the section or sections”;

(b) in subsection (2) after “principles” insert “or the section or sections”.

(5) In section 41A (Assessment notices)—

(a) in subsection (1) after “data protection principles” insert “or section 24A, 24B or 24C”;

(b) in subsection (10)(b) after “data protection principles” insert “or section 24A, 24B or 24C”.

(6) In section 41C (Code of practice about assessment notices)—

(a) in subsection (4)(a) after “principles” insert “and sections 24A, 24B and 24C”;

(b) in subsection (4)(b) after “principles” insert “or sections”.

(7) In section 43 (Information notices)—

(a) in subsection 43(1)—

(i) after “data protection principles” insert “or section 24A, 24B or 24C”;

(ii) after “the principles” insert “or those sections”;

(b) in subsection 43(2)(b) after “principles” insert “or section 24A, 24B or 24C”.

(8) In section 55A (Power of Commissioner to impose monetary penalty)—

(a) after subsection (1) insert—

(1A) The Commissioner may also serve a data controller with a monetary penalty notice if the Commissioner is satisfied that there has been a serious contravention of section 24A, 24B or 24C by the data controller.”;

(b) in subsection (3A) after “subsection (1)” insert “or (1A)”;

(c) in subsection (4) omit “determined by the Commissioner and”;

(d) in subsection (5)—

(i) after “The amount” insert “specified in a monetary penalty notice served under subsection (1) shall be”;

(ii) after “Commissioner” insert “and”;

(e) after subsection (5) insert—

(5A) The amount specified in a monetary penalty notice served under subsection (1A) shall be £1,000.

(5B) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (5A) to change the amount specified therein.”

(9) In section 55B (Monetary penalty notices: procedural rights)—

(a) in subsection (3)(a) omit “and”;

(b) after subsection (3)(a) insert—

“(aa) specify the provision of this Act of which the Commissioner is satisfied there has been a serious contravention, and”;

(c) after subsection (3) insert—

(3A) A data controller may discharge liability for a monetary penalty in respect of a contravention of section 24A, 24B or 24C if he pays to the Commissioner the amount of £800 before the time within which the data controller may make representations to the Commissioner has expired.

(3B) A notice of intent served in respect of a contravention of section 24A, 24B or 24C must include a statement informing the data controller of the opportunity to discharge liability for the monetary penalty.

(3C) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (3A) to change the amount specified therein, save that the amount specified in subsection (3A) must be less than the amount specified in section 55A(5A).”;

(d) in subsection (5) after “served” insert “under section 55A(1)”;

(e) after subsection (5) insert—

(5A) A person on whom a monetary penalty notice is served under section 55A(1A) may appeal to the Tribunal against the issue of the monetary penalty notice.”

(10) In section 55C(2)(b) (Guidance about monetary penalty notices) at the end insert “specified in a monetary penalty notice served under section 55A(1)”.

(11) In section 67 (Orders, regulations and rules)—

(a) in subsection (4)—

(i) after “order” insert “or regulations”;

(ii) after “section 22(1),” insert “section 24A(4)(c) or (d), 24B(6)(b) or (c),”;

(b) in subsection (5)—

(i) after subsection (c) insert “(ca) regulations under section 24A(4)(a) or (b) or section 24B(6)(a),”;

(ii) for “(ca) regulations under section 55A(5) or (7) or 55B(3)(b),” substitute “(cb) regulations under section 55A(5), (5B) or (7) or 55B(3)(b) or (3C),”.

(12) In section 71 (Index of defined expressions) after

[Kevin Brennan]

We have 12 new clauses and amendments—and one that we withdrew so that the Select Committee could table it—in this group. New clause 6 stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh). As the Minister has done many times, I pay tribute to the latter, who unfortunately is not here because she is part of a pre-planned parliamentary delegation. She did a tremendous job in Committee and has been praised universally on both sides of the House for her efforts.

On new clause 6, although subtitling is at or near 100% across public service broadcasters, three quarters of the UK’s 90 on-demand providers still offer no subtitling at all, despite the fact that according to Ofcom nearly one in five of the UK population use them. The principle behind the Communications Act 2003 recognised that those with sensory loss should not be denied access to the information services that many of us take for granted, but those with sensory loss cannot keep up with changing technology. In July 2013, the then Minister for the Digital Economy, the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), acknowledged this, arguing in the Department’s 2013 document, “Connectivity, Content and Consumers”, that if

“progress isn’t being made in three years’ time…we will consider legislation.”

Well, here we are, three years later, with an appropriate legislative vehicle right here in front of us, and the Government are failing to act.

We wonder why. There were strong rumblings that the Government were planning to act, and we were checking the amendment paper every day, anticipating that they would, so it is a bit odd that we, the Opposition, have to bring forward this new clause, which takes on the Government’s concerns, when it is supposed to be the other way around—the Government taking on the concerns of others in the House during consideration of a Bill. The new clause would update the existing regulatory regime and apply it to on-demand providers. It is clearly time the Government acted to reflect the digital world in which we live and allow those with sensory loss to play a full and active part in it. The Government should accept the new clause, and I look forward to the Minister telling us that he will.

UK Steel Industry

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Yet again, we have had a very good debate on the steel industry, featuring plenty of contributions from Back Benchers. I think that I counted 21 Back-Bench speeches during our short debate. We heard from the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), the hon. Member for Gower (Byron Davies), my hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), my hon. Friends the Members for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), for Redcar (Anna Turley), and for Blackburn (Kate Hollern), and the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland).

I join others in paying tribute to the Community trade union and the leadership of Roy Rickhuss and others. I also pay tribute to Carwyn Jones, the Welsh First Minister, who has been mentioned today, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, for all her efforts.

Our role as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition is to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on this issue. Our industry has to have a future, and we must make sure that it has one. We are having to do this because immediately after the general election, the new Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills signalled, clearly and overtly, that he would not continue the consensus that had been emerging and growing over the last decade on the need for a UK industrial strategy. [Interruption.] I wonder whether the new Secretary of State for Wales wants to learn that his job is to sit there and shut up and listen during this debate. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Let us stay calm. The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) may wish—I would strongly suggest—to rephrase what he has just said.

[Kevin Brennan]

I think that the new Secretary of State needs to sit there in silence and listen to what is being said about a very important issue that affects Wales in particular, which is his responsibility.

The UK needs an active, modern industrial strategy that understands the importance of foundation industries such as the steel industry to the rebalancing of our economy. I understand why the Business Secretary, given his City background and professed laissez-faire philosophy about politics, does not want to use the term “industrial strategy”. He is wrong about that, however. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, I am being asked what my background is. I worked at the Llanwern steelworks for six months and my father worked there for more than 20 years, so I do not need questions about my background from a Secretary of State for Wales who cannot sit there and shut up and listen to the debate as he should do on behalf of his constituents in Wales.

I understand why the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills does not want to use the term “industrial strategy”, but I am afraid he is wrong not to do so. Unless the Government are prepared to support British industry strategically, the Chancellor’s so-called march of the makers will simply become a death march of the makers in this country. We will not stand by and let that happen. We believe that there is a future for the steel industry in the United Kingdom, and I put it to the Secretary of State that that future should not just be about steel recycling; we need to hear that he is committed to steelmaking, and not just to the recycling of steel, important though that is.

We have been asking the Secretary of State for months to make clear the Government’s view on the minimum strategic steelmaking capacity that they believe must be maintained in the UK’s national interest. They have not been prepared to give that information, which inevitably leads to a suspicion that they do not have a view on the minimum steelmaking capacity necessary for the UK’s long-term economic interest. That doubt at the heart of the Government is like an impurity in steel being poured at a steel plant. If we do not get rid of that impurity, it could lead to a disaster, and it will be a disaster if the doubt at the heart of the Government’s policy is not got rid of.

We need to make sure that the blast furnaces at Port Talbot remain. We also need to ensure that the ability to make new steel—not just to melt down old steel and reuse it—remains in the armoury of UK plc. That is why it is important that we have an industrial strategy, and not just an industrial approach. We need clarity on steelmaking, not just vague warm words. In short, we need strategic leadership, not the laissez-faire laxity now undermining UK plc.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

I beg to move, That the schedule be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 18, in clause 41, page 56, line 18, at end insert—

“(1A) The restriction placed on public sector exit payments must be reviewed at regular intervals and, where necessary, be adjusted in line with inflation and earnings growth.”.

This amendment would ensure that the level that the restriction on public sector exit payments is set will be linked to inflation and earnings growth.

Amendment 15, page 57, line 10, at end insert

“, including payments relating to employees earning less than £27,000 per year”.

This amendment would provide that regulations may exempt from the public sector exit payment cap those earning less than £27,000.

Amendment 16, page 57, line 27, at end insert—

“(10A) Nothing in this section applies in relation to payments made by the bodies listed in NS1.”.

This amendment would exclude employees of companies listed in NS1 operated by the private sector from the scope of the proposed cap on exit payments.

Government amendments 3 to 9.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am happy to confirm that the Opposition will be supporting amendment 18, tabled by the Scottish National party, which we discussed in Committee.

This is the bit of the Enterprise Bill that has nothing to do with enterprise; it is largely about spin, to be perfectly honest. Let me make it clear, as I did in Committee, that Her Majesty’s official Opposition agree that excessive exit payments in the public sector should not be paid, and that any abuses in that regard should be ended. The problem with the Government’s approach is that they are attempting to govern by headline in a very complex area, and in so doing they are creating the sorts of anomalies and unfairnesses that I am sure we will hear about during this debate. Including a headline-grabbing figure—in this case £95,000—on the face of the Bill is, frankly, the worst kind of utterly vacuous government, and it is exactly the sort of rigid legislating that good civil servants advise against, and that bad Ministers promote.

The inclusion of that figure in the Bill is really about allowing the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to have his tabloid headline about fat cats, which was one of the odious remarks he made on Second Reading. That was an insult to thousands of decent, hard-working people across this country, many of whom have never been paid anywhere near £30,000 a year, let alone the £3 million a year that the Secretary of State used to get when he worked for an investment bank. [Interruption.] That has a lot to do with it, because of the language he used.

If I was to accuse the Secretary of State of being a fat cat—I am not going to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker—the Minister would be huffing and puffing in her usual way, muttering “Outrageous” and “Disgraceful” from a sedentary position. She and the Secretary of State like to dish it out, but they do not like to take it when it comes back their way. She was quite content to sit there on Second Reading and cheer the Secretary of State on as he traduced public servants, including long-serving local librarians and even privatised nuclear decommissioning workers, and described them as fat cats. I wonder how they felt about the Secretary of State using that language. Actually, I know exactly how they felt, because they wrote to us in their droves to express their anger at his insulting rhetoric, and that evidence—there was a lot of it—was officially submitted to the Committee.

Amendment 15, tabled by the Opposition, seeks to protect those workers who earn less than £27,000 a year from the proposed exit payments cap—yes, those who earn less than £27,000 a year are the Secretary of State’s so-called fat cats.

Student Maintenance Grants

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the shadow Minister would not wish to mislead the House, but he has just said that tuition fees were introduced not after the 1997 election, but after the following general election. That is not true. They were introduced in 1998. Having said that they would not introduce them, the Government started the process 12 weeks later.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a point of debate, not a point of order for the Chair. We have very little time.

[Kevin Brennan]

I would have been happy for the hon. Gentleman to intervene. Actually, I was asked about student loans, not tuition fees.

Students in constituencies such as Cardiff North are registered to vote in Wales, but, subject to the decisions that will be taken after this debate, local Welsh MPs can have their votes nullified under the constitutional monstrosity that is the English votes for English laws procedure, which the Government have foisted on this House.

Who will be affected by these measures today? This is what the IFS says:

“The poorest 40% of students going to university in England will now graduate with debts of up to £53,000 from a three-year course, rather than up to £40,500. This will result from the replacement of maintenance grants”.

Of course, as I just pointed out, it is about not just students going to university in England but students who are attending university and who are registered to vote in Wales, a thought that will not be lost on students in Cardiff North during next May’s Assembly elections.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hon. Members]

Sit down!

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Nobody tells anyone to sit down except the Chair. The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) should know when to resume his seat; nor should he challenge the House from a sedentary position.

[Kevin Brennan]

Well tell them to shut up then.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. If the hon. Member for Cardiff West had whispered that remark, I would not have heard it. As he made it very loudly, I could not help but hear it, and I must ask him to apologise to the House for using that language.

[Kevin Brennan]

Of course I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope we are not going to be second-class MPs in this House with that sort of attitude. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We will have a calm and sensible debate this afternoon, and I hope that tempers will now be kept under control.

School Funding

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The whole House heard the hon. Gentleman’s remark from a sedentary position. An apology would be appropriate.

[Kevin Brennan]

Without reservation, I apologise.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for acting honourably and trust he will now be a little quieter.

Qualified Teachers

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that during the Division, no Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament voted against the motion—not even the Minister for Schools, who spoke from the Dispatch Box against it. Is that in breach of the “voice and vote” provisions of “Erskine May”?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the way in which individual Members decide to use their right to vote is not a matter for the Chair.

I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the motion relating to the designation of the UK Green Investment Bank. The Ayes were 290 and the Noes were 22, so the Question was agreed to.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

My right hon. Friend is right. I shall come to that point.

The Minister is still trying to obfuscate over the threshold and suggest that in some way it would negate the proposals in the Bill. What is unusual about the proposed referendum is that the Government are making it binding. Normally under our constitution, referendums have been advisory to Parliament, not binding in their outcome, and that includes the devolution referendums that were mentioned. The difference in threshold in the Scotland and Wales Bill back in 1979 was that it required 40% of those voting to vote in a certain way.

All the amendment does is say that if 40% of people fail to vote in total in the referendum, Parliament should reconsider the matter. That is an entirely different and reasonable position and in keeping with the traditions of our constitution that referendums are advisory and not binding, particularly when turnout is so low.

The amendment that we are sending down to the House of Lords is an insult to the other place. The Minister’s puerile explanation of it and the cursory way he dealt with the amendment that he is now asking us to vote for was a complete insult to our intelligence and that of the public.

I am afraid that when one lifts a stone in this place, procedurally what one sees underneath is sometimes quite unpleasant. Constitutionally, the Minister had to table an amendment, but instead of putting down a serious amendment that attempted to meet the House of Lords somewhere along the line of compromise, he tabled the parliamentary equivalent of a colouring-in book; he had to fill it in with something and so produced this puerile and meaningless amendment. It is an insult to the other place and to our intelligence. They sit there on the Front Bench, hairy man and smooth man, abusing our constitution. The Government should try to meet the other place somewhere on the spectrum of compromise. That would have been the reasonable thing to do and in line with our constitution.

As someone who will vote yes to AV in the forthcoming referendum and encourage as many people as possible to vote, I think that the idea that this House should not even have the constitutional right to look at the outcome of the referendum if only a very small number of people vote is an insult to democracy.

[Mrs Laing]

The arguments of Lord Lamont and his colleagues in the other place are absolutely right, as was everything the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said this evening; I would repeat them in my remarks, but time will not permit me to do so. Sadly, those two rights are incompatible, because the choice before this House this evening is no longer about AV referendums and thresholds. I hate AV and do not want this £100 million referendum. I have always been in favour of a threshold and have said so many times in this House, but that is not the choice before us.

Sadly, the choice before us is between a Labour Government who ruined this country’s economy over 13 years and a coalition Government between the Conservatives and the Liberals that will give the country the stability it needs to recover from the dire economic situation. This referendum on a simple majority, which is stated in the coalition agreement, is a high price to pay for that stability. I, for one, agree to pay it with a very heavy heart.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Laing]

We have had many, many hours of debate on this Bill— not enough, some would argue. Unfortunately, there are parts of the Bill that have not been reached and not been examined, for various reasons. The other day I found a quotation in one of those amusing books that said: “Laws are like sausages. It is better not to see them being made.”

[Kevin Brennan]

Bismarck.

[Mrs Laing]

I believe it probably was Bismarck. If ever that were true, it is true of this Bill. However, this is also a necessary Bill. I said at the beginning that I appreciated why we had to have it and that I would support it, and I will continue to do so.

The Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform did its best, on a rushed timetable, to perform what legislative scrutiny of the Bill we could. On behalf of the Committee, let me say that I hope that our reports and investigations, and the evidence that we have made available to Members has been useful in informing some of the debates that have taken place. While mentioning the Committee, let me say that the Chairman, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), will be sad to have missed this part of the proceedings on the Bill, just as he has had to miss many of the Committee’s sittings, because he has been unwell. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing him a speedy recovery, although he is not seriously ill, so I believe that he will be back soon—it is okay, I should tell Opposition Members that he will not be missed for too long. The Committee has done its best to help the House to consider this Bill properly.

The second part of the Bill is excellent—the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will not be surprised to hear me say that. It is correct that we should at last grasp the difficult nettle of the composition of the House of Commons. It is correct that we should reduce the number of Members of Parliament to the perfectly round and reasonable figure of 600. It is correct that this House and this Parliament should make that decision, as it is doing this evening. It is also correct and inarguable that every constituency in the United Kingdom, whether in Scotland, Northern Ireland, England or Wales, that sends a Member to this United Kingdom Parliament should be of equal size.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Laing]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, but it does not change my arguments about the Bill. I appreciate his point, but I still say that we should have a coalition in order to provide the stability that the country needs in the aftermath of Labour’s economic disasters. It is therefore necessary to have this Bill and to have a referendum.

It is a great pity that the referendum is to be held on the same day as other elections. We have heard many very well put arguments, particularly from Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, about why the referendum should not take place on the same day as their national elections. Nor should a referendum go ahead without a threshold. That could result in a vote on a derisory turnout of some 15% changing our constitution. That is quite simply wrong, but I realise that the Government are not going to accept that argument because, once again, these provisions are in the coalition agreement, by which we are bound.

[Kevin Brennan]

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the date of the referendum is not set in stone in the coalition agreement, and that it is simply a part of the Bill? Does she also agree that the Deputy Prime Minister’s desire to maximise the chances of winning the referendum by holding it on that date could well backfire on him, because of the manner in which the Bill is demotivating many of us who are in favour of electoral reform but who have consistently been appalled by the way in which it has been railroaded through, against the wishes of the devolved Administrations?

[Mrs Laing]

Yes, I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. He is totally correct. The fact is that some of us have tried, in all good faith, to improve the Bill, but we have failed to do so. On those matters of principle, we now have a Bill in more or less the state that it was in when it first came to the House. I must not presume what might happen in another place, but let us assume that we will now have to go ahead with a referendum on the same day as the elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and some local elections in England. The turnout for the referendum could be derisory, so it would not have much validity. However, I am now sure of one thing, and the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) has just reinforced my point. As this argument has gone on in the country and the media over the last few months, it has become clear—and it will become even clearer—that the British people will not be duped into voting for a voting system that is representative neither of a fair first-past-the-post system, nor of the sort of proportional representation seen in some countries, which I do not like, although I agree it has some validity. The system we will be voting on will be neither one nor the other—and I do not believe that the British people with their good sense will vote for it.