Business of the House

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that Graham Engineering and other firms in his constituency are appreciative of his support. That firm has put in a bid for funding under the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative, which is one of the initiatives to which I referred earlier that support the competitiveness of industry. Those bids are being assessed. Ministers will play no direct part in that process. The independent assessment board will meet on 14 November to decide on those bids.

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

I strongly endorse the call from the shadow Leader of the House for a further Government statement on energy tariffs. The Leader of the House should not underestimate the degree of disarray that will be caused to the energy industry by the combination of the Prime Minister’s answer yesterday and the answer to the urgent question today. The matter needs to be cleared up now, because companies will not know what the Government expect them to do on social tariffs and fuel poverty. On all these important issues, we need answers in days, not months.

[Mr Lansley]

I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) answered the urgent question and made it clear that simplification and tariff reform will form part of the Energy Bill, enabling us to deliver precisely what he and the Prime Minister said we would do, which is to use legislation to get consumers the best possible tariff.

Business of the House

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

Further to the original question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), I must say that it has been decided not to enter one of the Brethren halls on the register of charities because the legal basis for the registration of that organisation as a charity is not clear, and the question, as I said a moment ago, was whether the trust met the public benefit requirement, given the limited social engagement of the followers of the Brethren in the wider community. That decision has been challenged by way of an appeal to the first tier tribunal, and that is probably the right way to let it proceed.

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

Since the Rio+20 conference, the Environmental Audit Committee has been trying to get the Deputy Prime Minister to appear before it to report on the summit, at which he led the UK delegation. He has not yet found time to do so, but, given that his responsibilities for legislation might be a little lighter in the immediate future, will the Leader of the House ask the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that he appears before the Committee to report on the conference and on how the UK takes forward the issues raised at it?

[Sir George Young]

As I have been reminded, the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement to the House and is regularly accountable to the House at the Dispatch Box. It has been a convention, among all Governments, that they decide which Minister to put before a particular Select Committee. There have always been attempts to get Treasury Ministers to appear before individual Committees, but Governments of all persuasions have resisted that and put up the appropriate Secretary of State.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I know that my hon. Friend speaks with sincerity, but does he really think there will ever come a time when somebody will not cite some particular issue—national or international—as a reason for not having this discussion about the House of Lords? It will always be the wrong time; there will always be more important issues for some people.

[Mr Robinson]

I take my hon. Friend’s point and accept it, but this is not really a priority. If we accept that the language of politics or the art of government are about achieving our priorities and managing the problems that are in the way of achieving them, I cannot see the House of Lords as a big problem at the moment. It really is not. It may well be an anachronism with its robes, its frumpery and all that; yes, I would love to get rid of it. For those who want reform, as I do, however, the proposals put forward by Lord Steel seem to deal with the matter. They seem to deal adequately with all my principal objections to how the House of Lords works, how it is constituted and how it deals with various aspects of ritual that people either like or do not like. The proposals deal with it all. If we had a set of provisions broadly based on what Lord Steel had proposed, I believe that we could have gained cross-party agreement, but we have not got that. We have a dog’s breakfast of a Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

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

This is a complex Bill, but at its heart there is of course a simple principle that those who make the laws for the people should be elected by the people, and that is why I shall certainly support the Bill’s Second Reading.

That principle of election, if it is to be made as real and as complete as possible, also requires accountability, and that is why I have grave reservations about the proposals for 15-year terms with no possibility of re-election. I shall look for amendments to that as the Bill makes its way—eventually—through the House.

I also do not see why election requires 450 Members in the reformed upper House. At an earlier stage, it was suggested that 300 would be sufficient, but even that is on the high side. If the new House is to have Members with a revising role but no constituency responsibilities, it does not need anything like the suggested 450 Members, and, if the number of Members of a second House were lower, some of the cost objections that have been raised would be less powerful both in this House in debate and in a referendum.

I support the principle of election, so I also agree with Opposition colleagues who argue against reserved places for Church of England bishops. Many bishops who attend the Lords do offer an independent and critical voice, and it has challenged over-mighty Governments of all parties, but such a challenge should come from those whose authority to speak is derived from election, not from appointment. As many Members have pointed out, the additional objection is that, by giving a privileged place to leaders of one faith group, we discriminate against every other faith group, let alone against agnostics and atheists.

I am glad that the programme motion has been sent away for another day, because it limited, as is normal, not only the total number of days for debate, but the subject for debate on each day. So there were bound to have been occasions when, because of statements or whatever, and after Front Benchers’ speeches, perhaps only six, seven, eight, nine or 10 Back Benchers would have been able to join in the debate, and that would have been unacceptable on an issue about which so many Members have strong views.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Bill, in many cases and in many places, is opaque? For example, it does not indicate whether, in the other House that is going to emerge, Members will even be paid during the parliamentary recess. Given that so many questions are bound to be asked, it would be ridiculous to confine ourselves to a particular time limit.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Indeed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said, given that the Bill might end up in exactly the same format going through under the Parliament Act procedures, it is vital that we get it right first time while it is here. It would be ironic if a measure that is designed to improve scrutiny ended up restricting scrutiny here in this Chamber.

The programme motion has been taken away, but that does not necessarily mean that the Bill will not go through this place, although it will certainly take longer to do so. If it does not go through, that will not be because of actions on the part of Labour Members, as some Liberal Democrat Members have suggested; it will be because the Conservative side of the coalition has pulled the rug from under its Lib Dem partners, and the Lib Dems will have to draw their own conclusions about the future of the coalition.

I want to say a few words in support of the call for a referendum. I have not always been as enthusiastic as some colleagues about the case for referendums on almost any constitutional change, but it is now broadly accepted that any major constitutional change should be submitted for endorsement to those it affects. Having seen referendums approved for much less significant changes than this one, I cannot see any argument against a referendum ultimately being agreed to as part of a final requirement of endorsement by the people.

I suspect that the real argument as to why the Government—certainly the Liberal Democrats—are against a referendum is that they fear, particularly after the experience of the AV referendum, that they would lose it. I draw a different conclusion from that experience from that which some Liberal Democrats seem to have reached. I supported AV and campaigned for it. However, in the case of the AV referendum, hardly anyone who campaigned for AV really believed that it was the ideal solution, and they did not give it any enthusiastic support. That is the danger that will face the Government if and when this matter comes to a referendum. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. There is too much background noise—please keep it to a minimum.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The Bill is in danger of being a measure that does not have the kind of popular support that would be required. The answer to that problem is not to do away with the idea of a referendum but to improve it to make it more radical and democratic. We should make those changes during the course of the Bill’s passage through this House, and I will certainly support that.

--- Later in debate ---

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

This has been a fascinating debate for Members of the House, but perhaps a perplexing one for the public. A recent study by Democratic Audit showed that the public are increasingly distrustful of our political institutions and of corporate power, and are saying in ever-larger numbers that we face a crisis of democracy. That speaks to one conclusion: there must be a major democratic resettlement, with democratic reform of the second Chamber a key component.

Labour has always recognised that a programme of radical economic and social justice in government can take place alongside strong political reform. In the second general election of 1910, Keir Hardie stood for re-election in Merthyr Tydfil on a manifesto of introducing a minimum wage, home rule, votes for women and ending, not mending, the House of Lords. At the last election, our prescription for the democratic chasm that is the unelected second Chamber was a different one, and I am proud to stand tonight on an agenda of putting a wholly elected second Chamber to the people of the country in a referendum.

As the Executive have tightened their control over this House, a democratic second Chamber to offer an enhanced check and balance has become increasingly vital. We need only heed the lessons from Scotland, where the Scottish National party has been able to exert complete command over the single-chamber Scottish Parliament and all its Committees through an overall majority obtained with 45% of the vote at the last Scottish general election, even under a system of proportional representation. Unicameralism without electoral reform or a redistribution of power between Parliament and the judiciary would risk strengthening Executive power in Parliament, far from limiting it.

The current unelected second Chamber is a hangover from a mediaeval era of democratic illegitimacy. It has mushroomed from 666 Members in 1999, when nine out of 10 hereditary peers were ejected, to more than 830 now. The other place is one of only three second chambers in the world, alongside those in Kazakhstan and Burkina Faso, whose size outstrips that of the first chamber.

The second Chamber is also wholly unrepresentative of the modern United Kingdom. It fails to provide a sufficiently strong voice to the different nations and regions of the UK, as well as to working-class people, young people, the disabled, women, ethnic minorities and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

We are told that an unelected Chamber is more independent-minded than this partisan House, but a detailed analysis of results in the other place between 1999 and 2006, by Meg Russell of University college London’s constitution unit, shows that the Government were more likely to suffer a defeat because of partisan voting than because of the presence of independents in the second Chamber.

In February, 71% of people outside this House backed the principle that those who make the laws should do so on some form of electoral mandate, and 39% believed that the unelected principle should end entirely. The Bill is far from perfect, which is why it needs more scrutiny than the Government were prepared to concede before this afternoon. A 15-year term without a right of recall is an odd mandate to confer upon an elected Member, and the Bill still reserves seats for clergy from the Church of England. The UK would remain one of only two legislatures in the world, along with Iran’s, to continue such religious representation, even though 60% of the public say that bishops should not sit in Parliament.

I suspect that a long tussle faces this House and the other place.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My hon. Friend refers to a long tussle. Is it not fair to say that it is right that there should be such a long tussle and long debate, precisely because the Bill would make such a fundamental change?

Business of the House

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I commend Hatton & Harding for coming second in the competition to which my hon. Friend referred. He will know that we had a debate on the Mary Portas review in January in Back-Bench business time. The Government are grateful to Mary Portas for her review and are reflecting on its recommendations. We will announce in the spring our conclusions on that review. There may be an opportunity thereafter to have a further debate on the future of the high street.

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

The Government had let it be known that an announcement on the location of the headquarters of the green investment bank would be made in February. Even though February had 29 days this year, no announcement had been made by yesterday. What we did get was an e-mail indicating that the decision had been further delayed. There has been no written statement and nothing on the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills website. Will the Government ensure that a written statement is forthcoming so that we know what is going on with the green investment bank, at least as a courtesy to the 32 Members across the House who have supported its being located in their constituency?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is right that a large number of Members have bid for the green investment bank to be located in their constituency. I was not aware that a firm commitment had been given to make an announcement in February, but I will make inquiries at BIS to establish when a decision on the location of the green investment bank will be made.

Business of the House

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I understand the concern of another of my parliamentary neighbours about the outcome of that decision in his constituency. My hon. Friend asks for a debate, but I have just announced a debate next Thursday on the national planning policy framework, which will provide an opportunity for him to raise that issue and get a response. The decision was issued on 21 September. The Secretary of State has no further jurisdiction in the matter, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits as we are still within the six-week period during which the decision can be challenged in the High Court.

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

The Leader of the House will be aware that G20 meetings are increasingly becoming as important as those of the G8. The next G20 meeting, in November, will be particularly important. Will the Government agree to have a debate in advance of a G20 summit in which the House can express its views on the policies that the Government should put forward, as used to be the case for G8 meetings, and to ensure that there is a statement from the Prime Minister after the summit to report on and account for what has happened?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern and I agree that such an approach would be desirable. I am not sure whether he has approached the Backbench Business Committee to see whether it would find time for such a debate, but I will certainly take account of what he has said in planning future Government business.

Business of the House

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I commend the campaign being run by my hon. Friend. Many MPs have received letters from constituents who have been affected by that failure. As he may know, the Financial Services Authority is investigating the case, but I will raise his concerns with Treasury Ministers. Although I cannot promise a debate, I hope that I can promise him a letter.

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

For the third time in a year, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), has withdrawn proposed regulations on ship-to-ship oil transfer in British waters. Given that the reason for the latest delay appears to be a wish to comply with Government policy on simplifying regulation, will the Leader of the House intervene to cut the red tape and help the Minister, if necessary by providing time in which legislation can be brought to the House, so that we can resolve this matter on which we have been waiting for action for almost two years?

[Sir George Young]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to raise that issue just now in Transport questions, but I will raise it with the Secretary of State and see whether we can cut through the red tape.

Business of the House

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend will know that a Select Committee inquiry into the riots is going on; my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave evidence to it today. We have made it clear that we will support the police regarding the additional costs they face to ensure that front-line services are not hit. I will pursue with the Home Secretary the specific issue that my hon. Friend has mentioned of the impact on London.

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

The Leader of the House will know that today the Deputy Prime Minister slipped out a written ministerial statement on the establishment of a commission on the West Lothian question; this was presumably to pre-empt the private Member’s Bill that will be debated tomorrow. Given the importance of this issue for Members across the House and in all parts of the UK, may we have an oral statement on the Government’s intentions and thoughts behind that commission rather than leaving it to some kind of backroom deal between the Government and a rebellious and recalcitrant Back Bencher with a private Member’s Bill? This is an important issue for all of us and I hope that the Leader of the House can do something about it.

[Sir George Young]

Written ministerial statements are not slipped out; they are put on the Order Paper and they are in the public domain for everyone to see. This one delivers on a commitment of the coalition Government to establish a commission to look at the West Lothian question, and it should have come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that we are taking it forward. If he looks at the WMS, he will see the timetable envisaged by my right hon. Friend in announcing its membership and terms of reference, as well as the time scale in which it will report. I hope that the hon. Gentleman might feel minded to give evidence to the commission when it is set up.

Business of the House

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

Julie sounds like a courageous lady who was doing her best to defend Royal Mail property, and I will certainly draw my hon. Friend’s remarks to the attention of the Royal Mail chairman, and make sure this lady is recognised, if appropriate, rather than penalised.

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

It used to be the case that after the G8 summit the Prime Minister would make an oral statement to the House, which would allow us to question him on what he had done on the nation’s behalf, but we appear not to be having such a statement this year. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we reinstate this practice in future years, and not just for the G8 summit coming up shortly in the year that cannot be mentioned, but for other events such as the G20 summit, so we can properly hold the Government to account on what they do on our behalf in the international arena?

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made more statements from the Dispatch Box than his predecessor and has reported after most major conferences, and he is more than happy to hold himself to account. I will make some inquiries, including about the particular point the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but my right hon. Friend is certainly more than prepared to come to the House and answer questions after major international conferences.

Business of the House

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed to regular debates on the conflict in Afghanistan and Defence questions are on Monday—there are questions on policy in Afghanistan on the Order Paper, which will give him the opportunity to raise that. It is absolutely clear that there is the intention of withdrawing our forces when the job is done, and we all hope that the job will be done at the earliest possible opportunity. I do not see any difficulty in reconciling that position.

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

Last week, when I asked for a Government statement on Equitable Life, the Leader of the House rather breezily told me that there was no need for a statement because there would be a Bill, but there was no mention in today’s business statement of the Bill’s introduction. Given the time it takes for legislation to go through both Houses of Parliament, is not the reality that any legislation is unlikely to be enacted until the end of this year at the earliest, which means that payments will not be made until some time in 2011? May we have not only a statement but a debate on that cruel betrayal of Equitable Life policyholders by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, given the promises they made before the election? That is also a betrayal, incidentally, of Members such as myself, who misguidedly voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on the matter a few weeks before the election.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman has been a doughty supporter of Equitable Life policyholders over the years, as have I and many hon. Members on both sides of the House. It does not really help if he now uses the terms that he has for this Government, who are trying to deal with the issue after year after year of prevarication from the previous Government. They set up Sir John Chadwick’s review. He has not yet completed it. He is now talking about reporting in mid-July, so we have to await the end of the review. There is no question about that.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said that legislation will be introduced at an early opportunity, and it will be.

Business of the House

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I would require notice of the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but he has raised an important issue. There is a commitment, and it will be honoured.

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

Given that there is plenty of time for general debates over the next few weeks, may we have an early oral ministerial statement on Equitable Life? Before the election the Government parties made lots of sympathetic noises to Equitable Life policyholders, but they are now increasingly concerned that they are about to be betrayed. May we have an early ministerial statement to reassure them that the promises made not just by the Government but by 380 Members of Parliament across the House are to be kept?

[Sir George Young]

This side of the House will accept no criticism from Opposition Members about the treatment of Equitable Life policyholders. We can do better than a statement: we will introduce a Bill.