Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Warman]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are having a review that will look into all these matters. As he knows, the residence of an individual director is not one of the defining characteristics of whether a company is based in the UK.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. If she will make it her policy to maintain free TV licences for people over the age of 75.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

10. If she will make it her policy to maintain free TV licences for people over the age of 75.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nicky Morgan)]

The Government are very disappointed with the BBC’s decision on the future of the TV licence concession. We know that older people in particular value television as a source of companionship and entertainment, and as a way to stay connected with the world. I have met the chairman of the BBC board and the director-general of the BBC, and I have asked them to do more to help those affected by the decision.

[Rachael Maskell]

Promises matter, and people who are elderly, lonely and housebound are not interested in squabbling in this place or in excuses—they want that promise honoured and their free TV licence. So will the Secretary of State say why she made a promise at the election, why she is letting down older people across the country and what she is going to do about it?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

Because I am quite convinced and completely satisfied that this Government will obey the law.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the implications for Government policy of the Supreme Court judgment of 24 September 2019 on the Prorogation of Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General (Mr Geoffrey Cox)]

I cannot comment on the content of Cabinet discussions but, as I told the House last week, the judgment sets out the definitive and final legal position on the advice given to Her Majesty on the Prorogation of Parliament. We are carefully and deliberatively considering the implications of that judgment. We need some time to do it, but a Queen’s Speech is necessary to bring forward a fresh legislative programme, and a short Prorogation, as announced yesterday, is necessary—we are advised to this effect by the parliamentary authorities—for the Queen’s Speech.

[Rachael Maskell]

In the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment and the vital role it identified for this House of scrutinising the Executive, what discussions is the Attorney General having with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that we have sufficient time to discuss the proposals the Prime Minister is due to bring forward? How much time will we actually have to debate them?

[The Attorney General]

I know that those matters are being actively considered. I am sure they will be considered in consultation and through the usual channels. As much time as conceivably can be made available will be made available to debate those very important matters. The Prime Minister is making a statement later this morning, and the Government are more than conscious—acutely conscious—of the need for all Members of this House to scrutinise any deal that may be agreed.