Covid-19 Update

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Pregnant women who are in any doubt about what they should do to shield from covid should consult the gov.uk website for advice, because there is plenty there for pregnancies.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I understand and agree with the need to prevent households from mixing to cut covid rates on Merseyside, but this tough local lockdown is going to destroy many businesses and jobs that will not be eligible for the limited local furlough so far announced by the Chancellor, because they will not be forced to close by law—they will just lose most of their business. Will the Prime Minister undertake to look again, with his Chancellor, at the business support scheme, with the aim of ensuring that jobs and businesses can survive this tough next six months and will be able to grow bigger again in better times, rather than have to close now, with all the misery, unemployment and bankruptcy that is going to result?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, in addition to the billions that we have invested—including £19 billion in coronavirus business interruption loans to small and medium-sized enterprises and £38 billion in bounce back loans, all of which are still available—we are making cash grants of up to £3,000 for businesses, such as those in Merseyside, that have been forced to close as a result of local lockdowns.

Covid-19: Strategy

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, and of course we will have effective accounting of the investments that we are making to protect the public—the furloughing scheme and all the many other expenditures we are obliged to make—but I think my right hon. Friend will also understand that the biggest single economic risk we face at the moment is the risk that the virus should surge back again and trigger a second spike. That is why we all need to work together, as I am sure everybody understands, to continue to depress the R, keep the virus under control and stay alert.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]]

The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government originally said that the Government would fund councils for whatever they needed to get communities through the covid crisis, but he now says they will fund only the things the Government have specifically asked councils to do. Liverpool City Council and Knowsley Borough Council have both received less than half of what they have spent so far, despite having one of the worst outbreaks in the country and already having lost two thirds of their Government funding in the last 10 years. Will the Prime Minister undertake to reimburse them the full costs of covid, as promised at the start of this outbreak?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady knows, we have invested £3.2 billion extra in supporting local councils. I will take away what she says about Liverpool City Council and Knowsley Council and take it up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Debate on the Address

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She raises a very good point. At the heart of the Queen’s Speech is provision for a new independent environmental regulator that will invigilate this Government and any Government in the future as we achieve our climate change targets. That is how this country can hope to be carbon neutral—to be net zero—by 2050, and that is what we are going to achieve. That is our programme.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister rightly said a moment ago that those who are poorest are the hardest hit by crime. Can he therefore explain why, having lost 1,120 police officers, the Merseyside force has been told by the Home Office that it is allowed to recruit only 200 more?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady raises a reasonable question. The answer is that this is the first wave—[Interruption.] Well, there are 7,000 or 8,000 being recruited this year, and the volume of applications is, I am delighted to say, very high. I believe that our approach is right.

Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications)

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Grieve]

The hon. Lady is right. That is what concerns me so much, and I think the House collectively ought to pause and consider it this evening. She will be aware that the next thing that emerged—I shall come back to the issue of it being just rumour—in the litigation that was brought against the Government was a desire to set out the reasons why Prorogation was being pursued. When the Treasury Solicitor’s Department, as it would properly do in conducting litigation, sought to find a public official willing to depose in affidavit as to why the Government had decided to prorogue—and I might add, asked Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament, one must assume—no such official willing to swear the affidavit could be found. As a consequence, a number of documents were simply exhibited by the Treasury Solicitor for the Government’s case.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall any instance, when he was Attorney General, of being unable to find public officials willing to swear affidavits about the Government’s case?

Priorities for Government

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We should promote mental health in this country by giving businesses incentives to look after the mental health of their employees, and prevent the burden from falling so heavily on the NHS and social services.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister said that he wants to govern for the whole country, but in a previous role he accused my constituents of wallowing in their “victim status”, repeated offensive and proven untruths about the cause of the Hillsborough disaster, and called Liverpool “self-pity city”. Will he apologise from the Dispatch Box to the people of Liverpool for the offence he has caused?

[The Prime Minister]

I ask the hon. Lady to look at my political record and at what we have achieved. Look at what I have done, as a one-nation Conservative, to lift up and help with policies that are uniformly delivering better outcomes for the poorest and neediest in society. That is what I stand for, that is what I believe in, and that is what the whole Government will deliver.

June European Council

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As my right hon. Friend knows, and as I referred to in my statement, we are committed to spending 2% of GDP on defence, but we are also committed to increasing the amount we spend on defence by 0.5% above inflation every year, which I did not refer to in my statement. Then there is the £179 billion we will be spending on equipment. The whole point of the modernising defence programme is to look at the defence of the future and the threats we now face, and to make sure that we have the capabilities to meet those threats.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

On Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister said: “I want to be very clear. We have put forward proposals and will produce further proposals”. Could she be a little clearer now and tell the House what those further proposals are?

[The Prime Minister]

We will publish next week a White Paper with details about the proposals for our future relationship, and that will include matters relating to customs and Northern Ireland.

Grenfell Tower

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I do not want there to be an outbreak of sibling rivalry, so I must now call Maria Eagle.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister confirmed in her statement that testing arrangements have discovered combustible cladding on some tower blocks in other parts of the country. Given that people living in those tower blocks are perhaps going to fear more than others the consequences of that discovery, what steps can the Prime Minister take to ensure that the landlords and the local authorities where these tower blocks are located can deal swiftly with the consequences of this discovery?

[The Prime Minister]

That work is already being undertaken. First, local authorities and housing associations have undertaken the testing work of their blocks, and we encourage private landlords to do that, too, to ensure the fire safety. We encourage everybody to send in samples so that we can undertake this checking by lab testing. Local authorities are immediately informed if the material is combustible. They will then be looking, with their local fire services, at ensuring the safety of those buildings. That will be done in a number of ways, but of course there is a responsibility to ensure that people are housed safely, and the Government are working with local authorities to ensure that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thought I had responded to a number of questions on this. The Government are working with local authorities. We will ensure that any essential works in terms of remedial action necessary for the safety of these blocks in relation to fire are undertaken. We will work with local authorities to identify how that—

[Maria Eagle]

Just say it!

[The Prime Minister]

There will be different circumstances in different local authorities. We will ensure that the work can be undertaken.

Food Banks

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that the number of people using food banks, according to the Trussell Trust, has increased from 41,000 in 2009-10 to 913,000 in 2013-14, of whom one third are children; recognises that over the last four years prices have risen faster than wages; further notes that low pay and failings in the operation of the social security system continue to be the main triggers for food bank use; and calls on the Government to bring forward measures to reduce dependency on food banks and tackle the cost of living crisis, including to get a grip on delays and administrative problems in the benefits system, and introduce a freeze in energy prices, a national water affordability scheme, measures to end abuses of zero hours contracts, incentives for companies to pay a living wage, an increase in the minimum wage to £8 an hour by the end of the next Parliament, a guaranteed job for all young people who are out of work for more than a year and 25 hours-a-week free childcare for all working parents of three and four year olds.

I welcome the Minister for Civil Society to his place in what is, I think, his first debate from the Front Bench, but I note that the Environment Secretary is not taking part in this debate. She transferred a question about food poisoning away from her Department just this week. She does not want to talk about food aid today, but she is—[Hon. Members: “Welcome!”] I would like to welcome the Environment Secretary to her place. She transferred a question about food poisoning away from her Department last week. This week she does not want to take part in a debate about food aid, yet hers is the lead Department. I just wonder what part of food policy she thinks she is responsible for.

Since the last Opposition-day debate on food banks a year ago, things have worsened. Over the past six months, there has been a 38% increase in the number of people seeking food aid from the Trussell Trust’s 420 food banks. The Trussell Trust expects the full-year numbers to be over 1 million. The report of the all-party parliamentary inquiry into hunger in the UK, entitled “Feeding Britain”, published last week, said that 4 million people are at risk of going hungry, 3.5 million adults cannot afford to eat properly, and half a million children live in families that cannot afford to feed them.

Nobody would choose to go to a food bank if they had any other option. Let us be clear about that. Research conducted by Oxfam, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Church of England and the Trussell Trust and published in November, entitled “Emergency Use Only”, indicates the truth of what many of us who have visited our local food banks have seen. People are acutely embarrassed to have to go to a food bank. They feel ashamed to have to accept such help, but the research is clear: people turn to food banks as a last resort, when all other coping strategies have failed.

The Trussell Trust says that 45% of people who visit the food banks that it operates do so because of problems with the social security system, a third because of delays to determining their benefit claims, and the rest because of benefit changes and sanctions, often unfairly applied, which have left them with no money.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only people on benefits, but what we would call the working poor, who have to use food banks? That is where the increases are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is correct. I know that the two Trussell Trust food banks in my constituency have figures similar to the national average, which show that over a fifth—22% in my constituency—of people who resort to food banks for an emergency food package are in work.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will be aware of the statistics from the Big Help project in Knowsley, which covers her constituency and mine: 23% of those who receive vouchers to go to the food bank are in work—in other words, the working poor. Even more alarmingly, 45% of the vouchers issued involve children.

[Maria Eagle]

My right hon. Friend is correct. The figures for the Knowsley food bank, which cover his constituency and mine, are pretty similar to the figures for the south Liverpool food bank: benefit delays 28.8%, benefit changes 14.5%, and low income—in other words, poverty pay—22%. This is a problem that he and I recognise from our constituencies, and it needs to be addressed.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

How are those figures collected?

[Maria Eagle]

The Trussell Trust collects figures from the vouchers which one has to have to obtain the food aid. They are filled in by the professional or the person who refers the individual to the food bank. That is how they are collected.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of a worrying trend that I am now seeing in my advice surgeries, which the local citizens advice bureau also told me is a problem—people are not going to the food banks because they do not have the means to cook any food as they cannot afford the gas or electricity?

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is correct. His experience is similar to mine. I know of people who go to food banks in my constituency who hand food back that has to be cooked, and ask for food that can be prepared without the necessity for cooking. That is anecdotal; I do not know what the percentage is. There is no tick on the food voucher for that, but that is indeed happening, in my experience and that of my hon. Friend.

It is truly shocking that, according to the Trussell Trust’s figures, 45% of the ever-increasing need for food aid—or 60% according to the numbers in “Feeding Britain”—is caused primarily by the actions of the Department for Work and Pensions, yet the Department has done nothing since our debate last year to tackle the benefit delays and changes that are causing so many of the problems. I notice that no DWP Ministers are on the Front Bench today for this debate. Why has the DWP done nothing?

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

The hon. Lady must be aware that the number of claims being processed on time by the DWP has gone up to 93%, compared with 85% in 2010, so action is being taken. She is right to say that delays are the biggest problem, so far as food banks are concerned, but things are improving.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

Well, it would be nice if a Minister from the DWP would acknowledge that delays from the Department were the cause of the problem. The hon. Gentleman is referring to—

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Maria Eagle]

I shall just finish responding to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley), then I will give way. I had not realised that I was quite so popular. The hon. Gentleman claims that the delays are being tackled, but the DWP’s target is to determine a claim in 16 days. If someone has no money and they have to wait 16 days for their benefit claim to be determined, and then wait for the cheque to arrive, they are going to have to go to a food bank. I do not think that those targets, whether they are being met or not, are anywhere near good enough, and nor did the report, “Feeding Britain”, which suggested that claims ought to be cleared within five days.

Why are DWP Ministers not doing something about this? They appear indifferent. The Minister for Employment has said that

“there is no robust evidence linking food bank usage to welfare reform.”

That is because she refuses to collect such evidence. Either the Ministers are indifferent and incompetent, or they are indifferent and venal. In reality, they do not care enough about the problems to take any action.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Is my hon. Friend also concerned by the Government’s view that food banks should have a degree of permanence? I commend the work of re:dish, which distributes food in the Reddish area of my constituency. When representatives of re:dish attended a meeting with the previous Minister for the third sector, the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), they were appalled by the view that their voluntary efforts should be there for the long term.

[Maria Eagle]

We ought to take note of the experience of other jurisdictions where food banks have become part of the social security system. Professor Liz Dowler of the university of Warwick carried out a piece of research—long-delayed, I might add—for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. When she commented on it on the “Today” programme, she dismissed the idea of using surplus food as a solution to hunger, saying:

“There is no evidence from any country that has systemised using food waste to feed hungry people that it is effective. It is better to reduce”

that waste. I am concerned that what has happened in Germany and Canada could happen here—that is, that we could institutionalise dependence on food banks. Policy makers on either side of the House should be very careful before embarking on a policy that institutionalised food bank use in this country.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Is it not clear that this is not just about delay and error, and that what is happening is partly a direct result of a deliberate policy? Benefit sanctions in particular have been a major cause of people going without food, sometimes for lengthy periods. That is not accidental; it is deliberate and it needs to change.

[Maria Eagle]

I cannot disagree with my hon. Friend. There is a deliberate attempt by DWP Ministers in this Government to sanction and stigmatise people who are on benefit.

The cost of living crisis means that people are more than £1,600 a year worse off since 2010. Living standards will be lower at the end of this Parliament than they were at its beginning. Prices have risen faster than wages for 52 of the 54 months that our Prime Minister has been in office. There are more working families living in poverty in the UK today than families with nobody in work—for the first time since records began. The cost of some food essentials has gone up in the past six years by as much as 20%. Families on the lowest incomes spent almost a quarter more on food last year than they did six years ago—they were already the families who spent the largest share of their income on food. People are now buying fewer, cheaper calories; they have been forced to trade down to less healthy, less nutritious, more processed foods.

It is not just food that has been going up in price: since 2010, people have been paying £300 more on average for energy to heat their homes and keep their lights on; water bills have gone up, with one in five people struggling to pay them; the cost of housing keeps rising, with renters now paying on average over £1,000 a year more than in 2010; and for those with children, the rising price of child care is making it harder and harder to take on work.

Yet during this time the Government have done nothing to address the cost of living crisis—and they plan much worse. Robert Chote, chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, said plans in the autumn statement now take

“total public spending to its lowest share of GDP in 80 years.”

The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the Government’s plans would take

“total government spending to its lowest level as a proportion of national income since before the last war”.

This Tory plan to recreate 1930s Britain, along with its hunger, low pay and non-existent rights at work, coincides with changes to the labour market making it tougher to make ends meet, even for someone who is in work. The “Feeding Britain” report says that 25% of food bank users are in work and the Trussell Trust says that 22% are: increasingly, being in work is no longer a guarantee against going hungry in Britain today. David McAuley, the Trussell Trust chief executive, said that

“we’re…seeing a marked rise in numbers of people coming to us with ‘low income’ as the primary cause of their crisis. Incomes for the poorest have not been increasing in line with inflation and many, whether in low paid work or on welfare, are not yet seeing the benefits of economic recovery.”

He is correct.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned that the Government have done nothing to address the cost of living crisis that so many people face, and she rightly talks about low pay. Does she agree that the effect of the Government’s policies has been to encourage zero-hours contracts, insecurity in the workplace and low pay? That has been the consequence of their policies, leading to more use of food banks.

[Maria Eagle]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. The number of people in precarious, low-paid employment is increasing. According to the TUC, since the financial crisis hit only one in 40 new jobs is full-time, 36% are part-time and 60% involve self-employment. Only a quarter of those on zero-hours contracts work a full-time week, and one in three reports having no regular, reliable income. No wonder many of them end up at food banks, despite being in work. This is happening in Britain—the sixth richest country on the planet—in the 21st century. It is a scandal that is only made worse by the fact that our economy is growing again and the number of people in work is increasing. The Conservative party never stops telling us that this is what success looks like—I would hate to see its version of failure.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is quoting extensively from the “Feeding Britain” report, but she is missing the key point of that report, which said that it was completely wrong to play party politics with such an important issue. What the people who use food banks deserve is for us all to work together to make sure we can find a lasting solution so that nobody is left behind as we move out of this recession.

[Maria Eagle]

Some 45% to 60% of people’s primary reason for going to food banks is benefit delays. It is not party politics for Labour Members to ask why DWP Ministers are not tackling this absolute scandal.

[Sarah Newton]

rose—

[Maria Eagle]

I will not give way again.

Can there be a more damning verdict on the indifference, incompetence or venality of Ministers in this heartless Government, who so love to sneer and scapegoat the victims of their back-to-the-1930s ideology, than the hunger that now stalks our land and is increasing? Thousands of volunteers across our nations who help to operate food banks and who donate food to them are outraged about the plight of our fellow citizens forced to rely on food aid. Unlike the Government, they at least refuse to sit idly by and watch the suffering of the men, women and children affected without doing something positive to alleviate it. I thank them all and pay tribute to them for their fantastic effort, but it should not be necessary in this day and age for 1 million people to rely on food aid.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Maria Eagle]

I will give way once more to an Opposition Member, and then to a Government Member.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

Volunteers at my local food bank collection centre in Glasgow told me that the main reason for the surge in the use of food banks in the past year is the number of people on exceptionally low wages. Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of people in Scotland, as in many other regions and nations in the UK, on less than the living wage is rising every month under this Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have already noted the number of people who are forced to rely on food banks even though they are in work. That is not right in this day and age, and he illustrates that very well with his own experience.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

We all recognise the full damage that the Labour Government did to public debt, but there is another area of debt of great concern—household debt, which stacked up radically and significantly during the last years of Labour government. Does the hon. Lady think that that had any impact on what is happening now?

[Maria Eagle]

The reality is that debt is a reason why people go to food banks—about 13% do so—but 45% to 60% of people go to food banks because of benefit changes, disallowances and sanctions. That is part of Government policy, and something that the Government could tackle if they had the will, which they clearly do not. They refuse to accept any responsibility, despite the fact that their policies are making the situation worse. They refuse to accept that as a Government they have a moral obligation to act to alleviate these problems.

Just look at what Ministers have said. They show no understanding whatever of how a lack of money affects the lives of people struggling to make ends meet. The welfare reform Minister, Lord Freud, said last summer that

“food from a food bank—the supply—is a free good and by definition there is an almost infinite demand for a free good”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 July 2013; Vol. 746, c. 1072.]

Lord Freud appeared unaware of the fact that people cannot just turn up at a food bank and get food: they have to be referred, and half of them are referred by statutory agencies. When pressed on 4 March this year in the other place, he opined that

“clearly nobody goes to a food bank willingly. However, it is very hard to know why people go to them.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 2014; Vol. 752, c. 1215.]

From ignorance to indifference in a few short months—and he is the Minister for welfare reform. If he really does not know why people go to food banks, I can tell him: it is because they are desperate and have no food to eat and no money to buy it.

The Chancellor, meanwhile, suggested that increased awareness explained the relentless rise in food bank use. He told the Treasury Committee in July last year:

“I think one of the reasons that there has been increased use of food banks is because people have been made aware of the food bank service through local jobcentres.”

The Government Chief Whip last September preferred to suggest that it was the fault of poor people themselves:

“There are families who face considerable pressures. Those pressures are often the result of decisions they have taken which mean they are not best able to manage their finances.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 682.]

Baroness Jenkin was forced to apologise just last week for suggesting that increased use of food banks was because:

“Poor people don’t know how to cook”.

Perhaps the most revealing quote is from the sneerer-in-chief himself, the Work and Pensions Secretary, who said in January this year:

“I think it’s a positive thing for people to use food banks”.

He went on:

“There are complex reasons why people use food banks but I think it’s excellent.”

So there we have it: it is part of this Government’s strategy to replace the social security safety net, which the Work and Pensions Secretary is demolishing. He is doing this in pursuit of the ambition of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to take us back to levels of public service spending and provision not seen since the 1930s. It is part of this Government’s ideological obsession with shrinking the state to replace social security with charity. What a disgrace!

Only by tackling the cost of living crisis can we begin to see the numbers of people relying on food banks decline. If things are going to change, the country needs a Labour Government. We will legislate to freeze energy prices and reform the market to stop energy companies from ripping people off.

[Mr Jeremy Browne (Taunton Deane) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

No. The hon. Gentleman has only just walked into the Chamber.

[Mr Browne]

rose—

[Maria Eagle]

No! He has not even had the courtesy to be here for the beginning of the debate.

We will introduce a water affordability scheme to support customers who are struggling, and we will give the regulator tough new powers to curb the excesses of the water companies. We will abolish exploitative zero-hours contracts and incentivise companies to pay the living wage. That will also help to increase income tax receipts and boost economic growth.

Labour will take action on low pay by raising the minimum wage to £8 an hour. We will introduce a compulsory jobs guarantee to get young people and the long-term unemployed off benefits and into paid work. We will help get parents back into work, too, by guaranteeing 25 hours of free child care a week for three and four-year-olds, paid for by an increase in the bank levy.

Labour will abolish the bedroom tax, address the huge delays in benefit payments and ensure that there are no more targets for sanctions in jobcentres. We will make housing affordable by increasing supply, building 200,000 homes a year by the end of 2020. We will support renters by introducing longer-term tenancies and banning rip-off letting fees.

That is how to tackle the cost of living crisis. That is how to build an economy that works for everyone instead of just a privileged few. That is how to reduce the number of people relying on food aid, and that is what the next Labour Government will do.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Hillsborough

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that the Attorney-General will listen carefully to what my hon. Friend says. As I have said, a number of apologies have been made over the 23 years by police, newspapers and others. I think that what matters is that you have to properly think through what has happened, what went wrong, what was got wrong, what it is necessary to apologise for, and then really mean it when you do so. I feel that it is very important the Government apologise as clearly and frankly as I have today because there is proper new evidence showing that the families were right, that an injustice was done, and that that injustice was compounded by the false narrative that, if we are frank, I think lots of people went along with: we all thought there was some sort of grey area and asked why all this was going on. That is why it is necessary to pay tribute to those MPs, newspapers and family groups who kept the faith and kept campaigning because they knew an injustice had been done, they knew it was wrong and they suffered in the way they did. It is for newspapers to decide what to do themselves, and I think it is important that they really think it through and feel it before they do it.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I join others in thanking the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for the way in which they have apologised on behalf of all of us for what has happened over the past 23 years. I know that it will be of some relief to the families. Even for those of us who have campaigned on this issue for many years, this report is profoundly shocking. Is it not indicative of the utter failure of our legal system that it has taken the suggestion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and me of a wholly exceptional arrangement to bring out, into the public domain, documents, truths and facts that were already there? This is new evidence only in the sense that it has been published. Does this not have a profound implication for how we deal in future with disasters and things that go wrong? What lessons can we all seek to learn from that?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. It deserves a proper, thoughtful, considered answer, which is what we should try to address in this debate in the House of Commons. As has been said, there was a public inquiry, a coroner’s inquest and, quite rightly, by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), a judicial inquiry into what had happened, yet these processes did not turn up what the Bishop of Liverpool and his patient panel, with the full disclosure of information, have turned up. We need to ask ourselves why that happened. What needs to change when we investigate these things? I do not have the answers today, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary can think deeply about it before the debate in October.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

That is exactly what we need to look at, and it is exactly why we need to consider whether the existing provisions are sufficient. The hon. Gentleman implies that they are not.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

rose—

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I would like to make progress. I have given way plenty.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Okay.

[Maria Eagle]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on this point. Is he saying that the problem occurred to the Government after the Bill was drafted? If it had occurred before the Bill had been drafted, surely some provision should already be in the Bill, but he will have to bring forward some new provision.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As I was seeking to explain, our approach is first to acknowledge that there is a legitimate issue—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady could just listen to me, she may find satisfaction in the explanation. We believe that the answer to that does not necessarily lie in this Bill, but in the powers enjoyed by the devolved Assemblies in Holyrood and in Cardiff. That seems to us to be the right way to proceed.

I note today that the Electoral Commission has highlighted that an extension to the electoral timetable would support participation by overseas and service voters, and support the effective administration of elections. The Government are considering this issue and I have already indicated to the commission that we think there is a great deal of merit in exploring the potential for a change to the timetable. As the commission said in its statement today, the matter requires a thorough review to ensure that any change is coherent with the arrangements for elections across the piece. We will set out our proposals and the timetable once that review is complete.

I want now to focus on the issue of early Dissolution. The Government of course recognise the possibility of exceptional circumstances that would make it appropriate for Parliament to dissolve before completing its full term. Currently, the House of Commons may vote—by a simple majority—to say that it has lost confidence in the Government, and there is a wide expectation that this will result in Dissolution. That is an important convention, which will be not just unaffected by the Bill but strengthened, a point that I will come to in more detail shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

Of course not. That kind of thing might go on in Stoke-on-Trent, but certainly not in Witney and the prosperous bit of Sheffield.

Whatever the provenance, the Bill is proof that Conservative Members made a Pauline conversion on the issue—

[Maria Eagle]

Some of them.

[Mr Straw]

From a sedentary position, again, my hon. Friend prompts me to correct myself: Conservative Members in the Government have made a Pauline conversion, although it is palpable from today’s debate that, unlike St Paul, they have taken few voluntary converts with them.

If the Government and the House get the Bill right, it will be a positive innovation for our democracy. I do not share the Deputy Prime Minister’s hyperbole, but I certainly share his belief that it is a step forward, not a step back. We intend to work constructively to deliver what would be a significant constitutional change. For that reason, we will not divide the House tonight. However, let us be clear from the outset: the Bill as currently drafted does not stand up to scrutiny, even the limited scrutiny that the Government have permitted the House to date. The Bill will need substantial revision if we are to be able to support it on Third Reading, as we had wished to do.

The introduction of fixed-term Parliaments is intended to strengthen Parliament and fetter the Executive, and to make the political process more legitimate in the eyes of the public by reassuring them that the date of elections can no longer be at the whim of the Prime Minister. We have heard a lot about the power of the Prime Minister. Having known one or two Prime Ministers, I think that many Prime Ministers and potential Prime Ministers would rather not have the right and power to call a general election, as it has a brutal logic: if they win, they have made the most positive decision of their life; if they lose, they are almost always out of office, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Williams]

My hon. Friend makes a telling point. It is one thing to have a general election and a one-issue referendum. I do not mind saying that I have chosen my line on that issue; my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has convinced me that the Welsh people are perfectly equipped to differentiate between one issue on one ballot paper and voting in a Welsh general election. However, having two general elections on the same day is quite another thing, not least because of the different boundaries that are likely to apply, as my hon. Friend suggests. That will lead to a huge amount of confusion. We need to take a few minutes to reflect on it; I know it is hard for Members representing English constituencies to understand. It would be immensely confusing to voters if two general elections were held on the same day. We already have difficulty in explaining the devolution settlement and how it works, and indeed explaining the distinction between powers for the devolved nations and powers exercised by this Parliament. It is a very big issue.

I did not necessarily expect my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to address this issue, but I am very pleased that he has. We do not know what it involves—[Interruption]—yet. He has acknowledged the problem, however, and I pay tribute to him for that, but we have to go further.

[Maria Eagle]

Did the hon. Gentleman not get the same impression from the Deputy Prime Minister as I did—that the solution brought forward will be that the National Assembly and the Parliaments will have to change their election dates?

[Mr Williams]

That might well be the consequence. I would personally much welcome the Welsh First Minister, rather than a Minister in this place, having the capacity to alter the election date, because that is what devolution is all about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are discussing the advantages of a system of fixed-term Parliaments. I am arguing that it would not only save money and increase turnouts, but allow local councils to govern for the long term in conjunction with the Government. The problem now is that councils govern for the short term because there is an election every 12 months, and are always seeking the political advantage rather than thinking about what needs to be done over the long term.

[Maria Eagle]

I am striving to understand whether or not the hon. Gentleman is in favour of fixed-term Parliaments. I hear what he says about councils, but what does he think about the Bill?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I was about to end my speech, but perhaps I can put the hon. Lady’s mind at rest by telling her that I am in favour of fixed-term Parliaments, and that I will vote with the Government this evening. I am trying to explain how I think we should be governing. I hope that my points will be taken beyond Westminster and considered at local level, because I believe that if Government are to govern for the long term—and I am in favour of fixed-term Parliaments because they will remove instability—local government will benefit from the powers that we want to pass down to it, by enabling authorities to govern for the long term as well rather than having their eye on annual elections.. Otherwise, by the time a deal has been hatched they will not have even one year of governance. They will probably have a maximum of three months before starting the next electoral process.

Thank you for indulging me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Minister will deal with my comments when he winds up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

We have had an excellent debate, kicked off by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) for the Opposition. I cannot let this debate pass without remarking on the fact that he intends that to be his final speech from the Front Bench. He has said that he will retire from the Front Bench: he has done 30 years of hard labour on the Opposition and Government Front Benches and has given distinguished service. He has been called many things: my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) referred to Barbara Castle’s remarks about how he had a degree of low cunning about him. I must say that I have found him wily as I have worked for him over the past few years, and wise. I thank him for the time that he has given to junior Ministers and spokespeople. He has always been illuminating to work with, and we will all miss his speeches from the Front Bench, although I am sure that we can look forward to many more from him from the Back Benches in future.

As my right hon. Friend explained, we agree with the principle of a fixed-term Parliament, although we believe that it should be for a shorter period than the proposed five years. We had a manifesto commitment to a fixed term favouring four years, and for that reason we will not be voting against Second Reading. However, the House should not misinterpret that as anything more than our agreeing with the principle behind the Bill. We have grave concerns about many of the measures proposed in it, about its timing, and about the way in which the proposals have been developed—although “developed” may be too grand a word for a Bill that seems to have been thrown together on the Deputy Prime Minister’s whim and then repeatedly altered as each new problem has emerged, all without the slightest effort to consult anyone else. As many Members have said today, that is not a recipe for good legislation.

We shall be looking closely at the details of the Bill and suggesting amendments. Indeed, it might be better if the Government took the whole thing away and started again from scratch, given the confused and shifting mishmash that appears to be before us and that so casually sets about riding roughshod over one constitutional convention after another. Little thought seems to have been invested in the devising of a scheme that works before the appearance of legislation to implement one that probably will not. Given that the Leader of the House—who is present now—suggested this morning that the present parliamentary Session would continue for two years, why should the Government not take the opportunity to take the Bill away, consult on it properly, and return with something that is in rather fitter shape?

It is almost as if the Deputy Prime Minister does not really care whether the Bill works or not, as long as he can send a reassuring signal to his parliamentary party and his Tory ministerial collaborators that this Parliament will last for five years, whatever the strains—which are already showing—may be in the interim. The rapidly changing provisions, the substantial but unthought-through shifts that we have already witnessed, the thoughtless interference with long-standing constitutional conventions which have been mentioned by many Members on both sides of the House, the indecent haste with which a major constitutional Bill has been introduced when there was no need for it to be rushed through the House, the total lack of consultation or pre-legislative scrutiny referred to not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Select Committee—all those things make us suspicious about what the true motivations might be.

So what is really going on behind the overblown rhetoric of the Prime Minister and, in particular, the Deputy Prime Minister, who specialises in it, about the purpose of their constitutional innovations? The Prime Minister says that he wants to give power away, while the Deputy Prime Minister says that he is embarking on a programme of constitutional reform more extensive than any since the great Reform Act. Of course, he forgets just how minimal the reforms of 1832 actually were in substance. In reality, little or no justification has been offered beyond the rhetoric.

We have heard from Members in all parts of the House—from the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), from the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) in interventions, from the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) in very witty speeches, from the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) in a rather more portentous but very serious speech, and from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who has form in this regard—some alternative theories about what might be going on. The truth is that the Deputy Prime Minister is using vastly overblown claims to hide a tawdry piece of fixing that took place over a few days in a testosterone-filled room packed with erstwhile political enemies who were intent on one thing: producing a political stitch-up that could deliver government to both parties, while preventing each from double-crossing the other for the duration of a Parliament. The fact that they decided to do that by using novel constitutional props is absolutely clear from the proposals that emerged.

Far from being born out of some kind of reforming zeal, and far from being derived from a carefully thought- out analysis of what is wrong with our current constitutional arrangement, the Bill was born out of a suddenly discovered political imperative to save the necks and promote the ministerial careers of those who negotiated it. That is what it looks like to us, because that is what it is. Let us have done with the overblown deputy prime ministerial rhetoric and just call a spade a spade. The long title of this Bill should be “A Bill to ensure that the inherent contradictions in the coalition Government are suppressed for a full five years; to make sure that neither party can double cross the other; and for connected purposes.” That would be a bit nearer the mark.

Those Government Members who are slavishly following the Government—many are not—may protest that I am being too cynical. If I am wrong, how come such an important piece of constitutional reform was not in both parties’ manifestos? It was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto; they were in favour of a four-year fixed term in their policy, but we appear to have a five-year term in the Bill. How come the Bill has not been afforded the opportunity of pre-legislative scrutiny, or preceded by a Green Paper, White Paper or draft Bill? How come it did not involve all-party consultations and discussions with a view to reaching cross-party agreement, which there may have been some possibility of reaching? How come the Bill has changed in substance more than once as the repeated announcement of ill-thought-through expedients has hit the reality of their not actually being workable or acceptable in the cold light of day?

How come the Bill is in such a poor state that the Clerk of the House has indicated that it has the potential to allow the courts, and even the European Court, to be second-guessing the Speaker, the monarch and this House on such fundamentally political issues as the date of the general election, or whether or not a confidence motion has been passed? It is not just me asking these questions. The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and the hon. Member for North East Somerset all asked this precise question.

The Bill contains too many novel and contentious constitutional principles to be dealt with in the arrogant and high-handed way that is becoming a hallmark of the Deputy Prime Minister’s dealings with this House. The subjects that the Bill addresses are constitutionally fundamental; there is no doubt about that. It ends prerogative powers to dissolve but not to prorogue Parliament—something Charles I would probably have been able to work with—but with the potential to drag the monarch into party political controversy, which would be highly undesirable in this day and age. It introduces the novel, ill-thought-though and potentially dangerous concept of super-majorities into parliamentary proceedings.

As our Clerk has warned, and as the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon set out, the Bill puts elements of parliamentary procedure into statute, thus fundamentally changing the nature of the legislature’s relationship with the judiciary by potentially forcing it to decide what we meant to do in parliamentary proceedings that have hitherto been unavailable to judicial interpretation, thus potentially politicising the judiciary; a most undesirable outcome. The possibility of this is the danger, not the probability, as the hon. and learned Member made clear. I agree with him.

The Bill refers to confidence motions without defining them, thus potentially requiring judges to define them in court proceedings. It draws the monarch and the Speaker into the most party-political aspects of parliamentary proceedings with the obvious risk that their deliberations and actions will be tarnished with party-political controversy of a kind wholly alien to our constitutional arrangements. As we have heard from many hon. Members, the Bill has a serious impact on the devolved institutions of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales because of the planned date of the election. If the Deputy Prime Minister had bothered to consult in advance, that particular difficulty might have been pointed out to him so that he could have avoided it.

It is reasonable for any Government to propose constitutional changes, but there is a proper and improper way of doing it. This is not the best way of handling constitutional issues. Why the rush? This is the big question that many of us have been asking during the course of the debate. There is no need for such an ill-thought-through Bill to be before us. The coalition agreement on 12 May said that there would be a “binding motion” placed before the House, whatever that is. I thought that most of our motions were binding. That was to be followed by legislation for a five-year fixed term during which a vote of 55% of Members would be needed to bring the Government down. It just so happened that the combined strength of Tory and Lib Dem Members in this Parliament is 56%, so this represented a clear effort to strengthen the Executive at the expense of the legislature, not to mention preventing the parties to the coalition agreement from ratting on each other.

The furore that ensued has led the Deputy Prime Minister to think again, and that is a good thing, but by the time of the publication of the coalition’s programme for government on 20 May this remained the policy. By the Queen’s Speech on 25 May, the legislation had been brought forward to be a major priority in the first Session, although we were still promised the binding motion. The Deputy Leader of the House promised it to us before the summer recess, but in the event it did not appear. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister ought occasionally to inform his ministerial colleagues about the back-flips that he plans to execute before they assure the House that the Government are going to do something that he has already decided not to do.

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has given the House a superb explanation of why this is a rotten Bill; anyone who came into the Chamber just after she began her comments might mistakenly believe that the Labour party is opposing this Bill. She has given many good reasons why we should oppose it, but can she try to explain to me why on earth we are going to be sitting on our backsides during the Division?

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend will do what he wants with his backside when the Division gets called; I am sure that he is capable of making his own mind up. We have made it clear that although we are not voting against the Bill on Second Reading, whether we support it on Third Reading will depend on how well it is put right in the interim.

The Deputy Prime Minister told the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee:

“We felt that”—

the resolution—

“was necessary on the assumption that the legislation would then come much further down the track.”

Why not put the legislation further down the track, in order to enable proper consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny to take place and to allow there to be properly considered measures, with cross-party agreement, that might actually work?

By that time, the measures that the Deputy Prime Minister had announced were already unravelling, because those in the testosterone-filled room of self-interest of the coalition builders, who came up with the 55% super-majority, were so focused on protecting themselves against mutual duplicity that they failed to consider little issues such as the sovereignty of Parliament and other constitutional conventions relating to Dissolution. The proposals in the programme for government were running into the sand; all it took was the light of day and the unravelling began.

By 5 July, the Deputy Prime Minister had changed his mind again, but alas the new proposals are not better; they are just different. The 55% super-majority has been abandoned in favour of a 66% one, which appears unlikely to be used. I say in all seriousness to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), for whom I have a lot of time, because he has great difficulties in his Department: what is the rush? We are at the beginning of this Parliament, so why not consult? Why not seek cross-party agreement? What on earth is the argument against doing so? Why not have pre-legislative scrutiny on such an important constitutional Bill? Why not allow the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee to do its job, instead of making it rush? Why not allow the time for concerns expressed by the Clerk about the risk to the privileges of the legislature to be properly addressed? Just asserting in the newspapers that he is wrong does not amount to a refutation of his arguments. Why was his informed advice not heeded a little more in the drafting of this Bill? Is it right that a Bill that provides for such massive constitutional innovation should be introduced five days before the House rises for the summer recess and debated one week after its return, given that the Leader of the House has just announced that this Session of Parliament will go on for two years?

The truth is that the Bill is a reflection of the Minister in charge of it and the political imperatives that led to its being devised. Our over-confident yet vacillating Deputy Prime Minister, who keeps changing his mind every few weeks about what should be in this legislation, appears armed only with his grandiose delusions of constitutional good sense and that characteristic overblown Lib Dem sense of self-importance, which all those who fight the Lib Dems at a local level will recognise very well. One wonders how much he is listening to, or absorbing and considering properly, the advice he must be getting. This is a dangerous combination for our constitutional settlement. We cannot and should not accept that constitutional arrangements that have worked well for centuries should be thrown away hubristically and without thought by a Deputy Prime Minister who cares only for his own neck and the short-term expedient of remaining in his post for a full Parliament.

We have a Deputy Prime Minister who flits from the whim of introducing super-majorities to allowing judges to tell us whether or not we can have an election, and who does not seem to understand that the sovereignty of Parliament and the independence of the Speaker are important principles that we should defend. We have a Deputy Prime Minister who appears more interested in lofty rhetoric about how radical his constitutional innovations are than the detailed work needed to make them both desirable and workable in practice. Members of this House will have to do the work for him. Her Majesty’s Opposition will play our part; we will seek to subject the Bill to the scrutiny it needs, and I also reiterate the fact that we intend to review whether to continue to support the Bill on Third Reading.