Valedictory Debate

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

With the leave of the House, may I add a very brief footnote to what the Leader and the shadow Leader have just said? When the three sponsors of this debate were successful in securing the debate, there was a lot of sucking of teeth in various quarters of the House. This was a dangerous innovation. It had never been done before and, I was told, it would literally end in tears.

I am very glad we went ahead with the debate for two reasons. First, it has provided a structured framework within which those who wished to make a farewell speech have been able to do so without shoehorning it into some other debate. There have been some excellent speeches and the next Parliament would do well to look at the advice that has been handed to them by those who have spoken.

The second reason is this: we have had a useful counterbalance to what happened this morning. This morning we had a very lively and, at times, bad-tempered, harshly worded debate. It would have been sad if the House had prorogued at that moment. I think this afternoon has provided a useful counterbalance to what happened this morning, and it has provided a more dignified, consensual end to a coalition Parliament.

I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. I hope that succeeding Parliaments might tread in our footsteps.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming dissolution.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I echo the sentiments expressed by the retiring Member, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young).

Yesterday, while I was asking a question, you intervened, Mr Speaker, because a Conservative Member shouted, “SNP gain”. I could have said, “Well, that’s exactly what the Conservative Members want—more SNP Members down here”, but I did not respond because traditionally if a Member does not respond to a sedentary intervention, it does not get recorded. In fact, however, I find it was entered in Hansard in column 1429. I denied myself that political point, because I wanted to concentrate, as you know, on the serious question facing my constituents. Will you look at this matter again, Mr Speaker? It has been said that someone else referred to the incident three questions later and therefore it was entered into the record.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I understand that Hansard followed its usual policy to include an intervention from a sedentary position if it is commented upon in subsequent proceedings, as in this case. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I am sure he will understand that we cannot take the matter further at this stage.

The sitting is suspended until 5 pm. Shortly before the sitting resumes, I shall cause the Division bells to be sounded.

Business of the House

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He is renowned for his reading and his reviews of books, but even he would need some time to read 1 million well-chosen words. Of course it will be important for the House to digest the report before having a full-scale debate on it. Whenever it is published, I certainly expect that to happen, but I cannot undertake—and the Prime Minister made this clear yesterday—that that will be in this Parliament. It may well be something for my successor in the next Parliament to deal with, but I am sure that those running the inquiry will have heard the concern in Parliament, which my hon. Friend has again expressed today.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

May we have a statement or a debate led by the Department for Work and Pensions on the guarantees or guidelines that have been given to local authorities for when the independent living fund is abolished? Sadly, no Conservative Members attended a recent lobby meeting to speak to people who are facing this problem. One representative told me:

“When ILF closes in June 2015, none of the 18,000 disabled people who currently receive the independent living fund, nor their families or friends, have any idea whether they will end up condemned to living in a care home or effectively imprisoned in their own home without adequate support.”

There were poignant tales of people who have gone from independent living to being put into care homes by local authorities. May we have a statement and a debate on this terrible tragedy, which has been caused by the Government’s abolition of the independent living fund?

[Mr Hague]

That is something that can be raised with DWP Ministers at their regular questions. It is a perfectly normal subject for debate, and the hon. Gentleman may wish to pursue all the various means of obtaining a debate—through the Backbench Business Committee and so on—but I will bring this matter to the attention of the Ministers concerned.

Devolution (Scotland Referendum)

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I need to emphasise this point. It is no longer fair or just for Scotland to be able to decide its own laws in devolved areas, only for Scottish MPs to cast decisive votes on similar matters that affect only England, or only England and Wales.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hague]

I will give way again in a moment; I am trying to give way a lot.

We must establish the principle that when this House makes decisions affecting only the people of England, or only the people of England and Wales, those decisions should be made only by, or with the consent of, the MPs elected to represent them. There will be considerable debate on how to do this. Many reports have been published and solutions proposed, but this issue must be confronted now.

[Michael Connarty]

Before the right hon. Gentleman moved on to that structural point, he mentioned the question of legislation. Some Members in the Chamber will leave at 2 o’clock to go back to the Modern Slavery Public Bill Committee, including myself and a Member from Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have been involved in that campaign long before this Government came in. Would it be right for Members from Scotland and Northern Ireland to be denied the right to sit on what is a piece of English legislation that will have worldwide repercussions if it is passed in its correct form?

[Mr Hague]

I believe that where a matter only affects England, then key decisions should be made, one way or another, by those MPs elected for English constituencies. The hon. Gentleman believes that for Scotland decisions on such matters should be made by Scottish representatives. We are not asking for anything greater than that. This is not a question that can be ignored or prevaricated over for the next decade. It is right we should address it now without establishing additional layers of government and without increasing the cost of politics.

Business of the House

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Of course, the debate will primarily be about what the House will make it about, but this is about the whole of the United Kingdom following the Scotland referendum. Therefore, it is a debate for all Members, including those who wish to raise the vital issue of English votes for English laws, as it has become known.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House assure the 55.3% of the people who voted to keep the Union that his committee will not do anything further to threaten the Union, including changing the franchise for UK Members of Parliament from Scotland?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman and I support the 55.3% and, indeed, the Union being able to work successfully, not just for them but for everyone in Scotland. For the great majority of us, all of our business should very much be about strengthening the United Kingdom, but the hon. Gentleman should not think that strengthening the United Kingdom will be achieved by indifference or insensitivity to the needs of other parts of it. This is a matter of fairness for the whole United Kingdom.

Business of the House

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am not aware of the plans to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I cannot promise a debate, but I will check to see whether there is any way in which we can provide him with the reassurance he seeks.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to report to the House when she will be taking the next step in delivering a modern slavery Bill? She asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) to set up a cross-party Joint Committee and it has just reported after 10 weeks of work. We need to build a consensus for a modern slavery Bill, which we promised on the 200th anniversary of Wilberforce’s Bill.

[Mr Lansley]

We are very grateful to the Joint Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I am not in a position at this stage to anticipate the contents of the Queen’s Speech.

Business of the House

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I applaud my hon. Friend and Crawley borough council for the way they are commemorating the first world war. I can remember talking with my grandfather about the great war, so in a way I can conjure up a sense of what it must have been like. Younger generations should also have an opportunity to understand the nature of what happened, the character of those who went from this country to fight and what they achieved. I think that is well worth commemorating. The House had an important and constructive debate on the first world war at the end of last year, and I hope that we will have another opportunity between now and August to debate how to commemorate it.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

On that issue, the European Scrutiny Committee has asked for a debate that would have freed up the Europe for Citizens programme, which is now frozen for the whole of Europe because we are the last country that has not had that debate and lifted the scrutiny. The House has passed a Bill to allow the programme to go ahead, and it has been granted Royal Assent, but it appears that since November neither the Leader of the House nor the Department has been able to find time for a debate to allow the programme to go ahead across Europe.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that, contrary to some impressions, we have had difficulty scheduling a number of debates on the Floor of the House. I hope that the issue he raises can be considered in one of the European Committees very shortly.

Business of the House

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the importance of employers taking on graduates and apprentices. He will be aware that we have created a million extra apprenticeships, which is beginning to have a real effect. I am sure that in the contacts that both he and I have with employers, they underline how much added value apprentices bring to their company. So he has helped publicise this today, and I am sure that all Members will want to do so in the contacts that they have with employers.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

The Deputy Leader of the House said that he was in the Chamber for Energy questions. He will have heard me tell the House that Grangemouth oil refinery and chemicals is shut down until further notice. It is not only the first time that there has been a full, cold shutdown of that plant, which represents 10% of the Scottish economy, in the 21 years that I have represented the town, but it is the first time since I first worked there as a student in 1967. The replies from the Energy Minister were all about securing supply and everyone getting supplies. May we have a statement from the Business Secretary and a debate in the Chamber about the fact that planning clearly went into this so that the company, which is owned by one man and two others but mainly by one man, who may be the equivalent of a Russian oligarch and may have been involved in collusion with this Government to store up supplies so that he could take on the work force and break them because he wants to take £50 million out of the terms and conditions of employment of the people on that site, so we need a debate on collusion—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman probably should seek an Adjournment debate on the matter in order fully to give vent to his multiple concerns on the issue. Business questions is an occasion when a brief request for a debate is made.

Business of the House

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the Government are deeply disappointed by this week’s judgment. We believe that whole-life tariffs are appropriate for exceptionally serious murders. The judgment does not mean, of course, that any offender who has received a whole-life tariff will be released immediately or that they will ever necessarily be released. The Court found a breach because there was no review point in the sentence. The Government will consider the detail of the judgment to determine what action might be necessary or possible, and we will make a further statement in response to the concerns expressed by him and others soon.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I have in my hand a letter from the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary in which they commit themselves

“to ensuring enhanced Parliamentary scrutiny of EU justice and home affairs matters, including the 2014 decision.”

It came with a list of 136 opt-ins for justice and home affairs matters in the EU. Why, therefore, are the Government pressing ahead with a motion on Monday that lists for consultation only the 35 issues in the Command Paper? What happened to the promise that consultation would take place on all these items? Is it not time to abandon this divisive motion?

[Mr Lansley]

Perhaps I should reiterate what I said to the shadow Leader of the House. It is very straightforward: the Home Secretary has published in the Command Paper the Government’s conclusions on the opt-out—last October, she made it clear that the Government’s policy was to opt out and then decide whether, and to what extent, to opt back in—and policy conclusions. Monday’s debate will enable the House to respond to that and to vote in support of the opt-out, but to note that we are entering negotiations that will lead to a vote in 2014 on the extent of the opt-in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall that, the week before last, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health published a consultation relating to access to NHS services for those coming from abroad. That consultation will enable us to introduce the legislation described in the Queen’s Speech later this year. On my hon. Friend’s point about his constituent, any NHS services provided to older and retired people from other European Union member states can be charged back to the member state, and that is what we do.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Points of order come after statements. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that, and that it had just momentarily slipped his mind. I feel sure that we will see him later today, and perhaps hear from him as well.

Wright Committee

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bone]

As the hon. Gentleman and I recently slept together—[Laughter.] I must explain that a little; it was an attempt by the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), who is in the Chamber, another colleague and me to take a little power back from the Executive. We spent four nights sleeping outside the Table Office, so that we were first in the queue for presentation Bills. We presented about 50 Bills last week; we took that power away from the Executive, so that we could introduce Bills. One of the Bills that I introduced was for an allowance for married couples, which I did not realise that the Chancellor was to take up this very week. In a small way, doing such things achieves something, although it is ridiculous that we have to spend four nights sleeping in a small attic room to take a little power back for Parliament.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) look at the minutiae of how things might get done, but what about the broad idea of considering private Member’s Bills on Wednesday afternoons, rather than on Fridays, so that Members do not have to disengage from their constituencies and stay here for matters that are prioritised by those who are in the ballot?

[Mr Bone]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. I would argue differently. Absolutely, we need to reform how private Member’s business is done. I do not like the idea of, in effect, reducing the amount of time Members are in Parliament, so I like sitting for 13 Fridays a year. We do not sit that often in the House, and I do not want to consider private Member’s Bills on a Wednesday if that means no one is here on a Friday.

If someone has a really important Bill, which the Member wants to get through but the Executive does not want to put on the agenda, it is incumbent on that Member to get other Members to feel passionately enough to turn up on a Friday. That is one of the hurdles that we should have to overcome; it should not be easy to get a private Member’s Bill through, but it absolutely should be possible, and it should not be possible merely to talk it out, as happens at the moment.

I do not want to speak for long, because other eminent Members wish to contribute, but I will run through some of the things that annoy me about how the system works. One is programme motions. When the Conservative party was in opposition, we routinely opposed programme motions; we thought they were the worst things because they reduced scrutiny, as happened to a terrible degree under Prime Minister Blair’s reign. Yet what have we done? We have come into power and made it 10 times worse. Every single thing, even if it is an amendment to the Scottish provisions for something or other, is timetabled, which is patently absurd. An important issue will be timetabled to such an extent that some of the amendments that we want to debate on Report will not be reached.

I tabled an amendment to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, for example, proposing a referendum, but it was not discussed, because it was not reached in time. When a controversial issue is due to be discussed, it is a sure bet that there will be two statements on the same day, reducing the time even further. If statements are made, we should be able to go through the moment of interruption on a timetabled motion and add on the amount of time taken by the statements.

I would move away from programming; the House is quite capable of running its own affairs. We would not be sitting to 4 o’clock in the morning every night, but if an issue needs proper discussion, we should let it be discussed; if Members want to be here, let them. I do not understand how we have allowed the Executive to make the House of Commons so ineffective that we do not scrutinise Bills properly. Without the House of Lords, most of the Bills would not get the proper, detailed scrutiny that is desired. I would get rid of programming at a stroke, which, in opposition, the Prime Minister indicated needed to happen.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North talked about only the election of Chairs of Select Committees, but we need the election of all Chairs of all Committees. Why on earth can we not do that? Why on earth does the Chair of the Statutory Instrument Committee, for example, have to be appointed? He or she could be elected.

Some key Committees absolutely need to be elected. The Committee of Selection is a farce; it is appalling that the Whips try to appoint its Chair. Earlier this year, we blocked an attempt to throw out the current Chair, but in general that Committee needs to have members elected by the whole House, and it should then do the proper job of selecting the membership of Committees and choosing Members who are interested in the Bill to be scrutinised. That would make a huge difference to how we work.

The Backbench Business Committee has done a tremendous job, and we are lucky to have its Chair, but the Whips are slowly undermining it—there is no question about that. We can have a vote on something in the House of Commons, but the Government might have said to their Members, “Please don’t turn up and please don’t vote.” It is not only the Executive who are wrong about this; the Opposition, or shadow Executive, also do not want to change anything, because they are planning to get into power and to behave in exactly the same way. That is one of the saddest things about how parliamentary democracy works at the moment.

We need a proper business committee, which should run the House on the basis of the Jopling priorities. The Government should have enough time to get their business through, but equally the Opposition should have enough time to scrutinise that business, and Back-Bench Members should have time to bring forward their own proposals. That is what we desperately need. I am agnostic on whether we keep the Backbench Business Committee separate or roll it into the business committee, but a committee for the business of the House must be introduced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

That is a splendid offer. I look forward to receiving the book.

There are seven or eight points that I would like to respond to in the limited time that I have. First, this might be heresy to some colleagues, but the Wright report is not a panacea. There is now this mythology that somehow it got everything right. I think that it is about time that a reality check was applied to that. This Parliament has made huge strides towards modernisation, but not just because of the Wright report. There are three other factors that have changed the dynamic of this Parliament compared with previous ones.

One factor is the 2010 intake of Members. I do not say that just because that was my intake; we have seen that it has been the most rebellious of intakes. In the excellent blog by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), he busts the myths about some of the rebellions that have taken place on the Government side and he points out that some of the most effective and important rebellions were led by Members who were part of the 2010 intake. I am referring to the entirely sensible pushing back against the Deputy Prime Minister’s nonsensical ideas for House of Lords reform, the EU budget vote that took place and what happened on the EU referendum. Those rebellions were all led by Members from the 2010 intake. They have been much more effective and much more willing to challenge their own Government than perhaps was the case in previous Parliaments.

The second factor is Mr Speaker. I am a huge fan of the current Speaker. He has changed how Parliament engages with the wider public and the use of urgent questions. I think that in the last Session, there were 130 days on which an urgent question was granted to hold the Executive to account. That should be commended.

Thirdly—this is not a good change—there is the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. IPSA has changed how Members of Parliament operate. It has driven Members away from taking part in Parliament. I think that, so far, Professor Wright has failed to change IPSA now that he is a board member and that he needs to be held to account for that failure to curb IPSA’s worst excesses.

On Select Committees, I agree that we have some very effective Select Committees, but—I say this very gently—there has been a contradiction today. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North applauded the fact that the choice of Select Committee members has been taken out of the hands of the Whips, but later he bemoaned the fact that keeping hold of Select Committee members as we get closer to the general election becomes harder and harder. This is a valid point. One problem that we have is that because they were elected by colleagues from their own party, many Members went on to Select Committees on the basis of their name. They arrived in the House in the 2010 intake with a reputation from outside and were elected on to Select Committees, but they have not been very effective performers in many cases. We must recognise the drawbacks.

If I may criticise the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North—

[Michael Connarty]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Thomas Docherty]

May I just finish this point?

I think that the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North meets on the wrong day of the week, at the wrong time. It is an excellent Select Committee—he has mentioned its work on lobbying, for example—but unfortunately it clashes with the highlight of the week, which is business questions. I think that if he moved it off the Thursday morning, he would have many people coming before it or wanting to take part in it.

[Michael Connarty]

I just want my hon. Friend to clarify his criticism of those Members who go on to Select Committees. Is he suggesting that the Whips should put Members on Select Committees regardless of their aspirations?

Business of the House

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a point on behalf of his constituents. There are many issues in respect of which we want to make sure that we have the right procedures in place to deal with misconduct. In this particular instance, I will, if I may, take advice from my hon. Friends and provide a response. There are a number of routes by which directors responsible for misconduct can be tackled through the companies legislation or, indeed, insolvency practitioners through their professional bodies. I will look at the issue in greater detail and ensure that we respond to my hon. Friend.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I would like to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the issue of modern-day slavery, which is mentioned in early-day motions 40 and 54.

[That this House sends its condolences to the families of the more than 600 people killed and to the many more injured in the collapse of the garment factory near Dhaka, Bangladesh; notes that this factory supplies clothes to some of the big name companies on Britain’s high streets; further notes that the factory managers and owners are alleged to have ignored signs of cracking in the building reported days before the collapse in a building that had had five more storeys added than it should have; further notes that factories in developing countries like Bangladesh are under enormous pressure to minimise costs from the western multinational companies buying from them; believes that western multinationals buying from developing countries have a responsibility to ensure that the factories producing these goods provide a safe environment for their workers to work in and for workers’ rights to be fully recognised and respected; further believes that the western multinationals that bought clothes from this factory should provide compensation to the bereaved families and the injured survivors; calls on the Government to work with the Bangladeshi government to secure safe working conditions for Bangladeshi workers supplying British markets; and further calls on the Government to enact laws that will provide for sanctions if western multinationals selling goods in this country fail to fulfil their responsibilities to ensure safe and decent working conditions for those working in their supply chain.]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is as shocked as I am to see the death toll in the New Wave Style factory near Dhaka, which now stands at more than 1,200. This means that the garments sold by Monsoon, Gap, Bonmarché, Primark, Walmart, Matalan and Kik are contaminated by modern-day slavery. May I ask that the promised regulation on narrative reporting of quoted companies be brought by the Business Secretary to the Floor of the House for debate, so that we can extend it to ensure that the “human rights reporting” that is talked about will include the eradication of modern-day slavery from company supply chains?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I am aware of that issue. As mentioned at business questions previously, I thought it very important to have the exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall, which drew the attention of Members to the issue in this country. We also need to be aware, however, of the extent of the impact of corruption on other countries. The Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr Duncan) takes the issue very seriously. I will raise the matter of company reporting with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, as the hon. Gentleman requested, and try to secure a reply for him.