Points of Order

Debate between Toby Perkins and John Bercow

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The response to the hon. Gentleman is twofold. [Interruption.] Order. If a Minister wishes to catch my eye, he or she is perfectly entitled to do so, but the hon. Gentleman raised his point of order, at least ostensibly, with the Chair and therefore perhaps he will rest content with my answer, and the answer is, as I said, twofold. First, it is up to Ministers to decide whether they think an oral statement is required. Secondly, in the absence of an oral statement, it is perfectly open to the hon. Gentleman to seek a debate in this House on the Adjournment. To the best of my knowledge, the hon. Gentleman has not thus far done so, but he might find that he is successful if he does. We will leave that matter there for today.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have notified the Justice Secretary of my intention to raise this point of order. Yesterday in Justice questions he claimed that my allegations about the selection process for the south Yorkshire probation service were nonsense and that there was a carefully constructed process of selection and a proper appeal mechanism for those who were not selected. I have here a letter from Angela Tinker, the human resources systems manager at South Yorkshire Probation Trust, to my constituent, Gwen MacDonald, in which she says:

“There was a random selection process and employee numbers were used to select between NPS”—

national probation service—“and CRC”, or community rehabilitation companies. It continues:

“Employee numbers were drawn out of a hat”,

which confirms exactly the allegations I was making, and also that yesterday the Justice Secretary inadvertently misled the House. Can you, Mr Speaker, let us know how he might have the opportunity to set the record straight?

[Mr Speaker]

There are two points here. First, everybody takes responsibility for his or her utterances in this House. There is a formal means by which a Minister can correct the record, if he or she judges it necessary to do so, and that is through a statement to colleagues. Secondly—and I say this in all politeness to the hon. Gentleman, as I did to another Member—Members should not use the point of order procedure to continue debate. Although I am greatly flattered by the extent of the powers that hon. and right hon. Members think I enjoy, they sometimes have a somewhat exaggerated notion of what, in practice, I can be expected to achieve. The hon. Gentleman is, I am sure, now an increasingly experienced and discerning fellow. Judging by the broad smile on his face, he knows that he has had a go and he has got it on the record, and he can now go and enjoy his lunch, resting content. We will leave it there.

Points of Order

Debate between Toby Perkins and John Bercow

Monday 17th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank you very much for what you have just said. I wonder if you might assist me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) in making our constituents aware that books of condolence lie in Chesterfield Labour club and Bristol city hall. We know people want to make their comments known and hope they provide some comfort to the family.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has effectively advertised his own point. It will be on the record and I am sure he will be taking further steps to ensure that people are aware of those important facts.

Pub Companies

Debate between Toby Perkins and John Bercow

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins]

I certainly do share my hon. Friend’s disappointment. My sense is that there is a lot of sympathy on this issue across the House and I want to bring people together rather than tear us apart. It is fair to say that a year ago the Government did a U-turn. I was not disappointed with that at all; I was delighted. They told the House that they were going to get on with the consultation. Many people were celebrating, and they went out drinking in the pubco pubs around the country that night. A few months later the consultation started and it finished about six months ago, yet despite the overwhelming response in favour of what we are proposing today and what the Government seemed minded to consider, we still have not actually had any action. We have not changed the situation on the ground for hard-pressed publicans and all those people who have seen their life-savings disappear and who want to know that the regime is going to improve for the people who follow them.

As I was saying, we can bemoan the situation, we can join the campaigns, or we can act. We can take court action on the cause of the closures. We have within our grasp today the opportunity to prove that actions speak louder than words and stand united across the House on behalf of our communities, but also on behalf of the hundreds who are looking to us to act. In just four days since Friday, 26,762 people have signed the 38 Degrees petition on the great British pub scandal.

CAMRA is an immensely important and well-respected body. It has the best interests of the pub in its heart and in its DNA; that is its raison d’être. It boasts a membership of almost 160,000, a staggering demonstration of the importance of real ale and pubs to people across our country. If I was seeking to make a political point, I might have mischievously pointed out that, with almost 160,000 members, CAMRA is bigger than the recently reported membership of the Conservative and Liberal Democrats parties combined, but as I said I wanted to be consensual, I am not going to mention that.

We all know that a fairer relationship between pub companies and their landlords is not a panacea that will end all the challenges faced by the trade. There are others and there will continue to be asks of us in Parliament even if we take action on this scandal today, but the fact that we cannot solve every problem does not mean we should not solve this major one. From the Federation of Small Businesses to the GMB, from CAMRA to the Forum of Private Business, from Fair Pint and the all-party save the pub group to Unite the Union, a diverse coalition of interests has consistently called for a new statutory code of regulation.

Let no one say that this House or the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee have rushed to judgment. Over four reports and eight exhaustive years, the Committee gave the major pub-owning companies every opportunity to make the changes that were needed to put their house in order, yet at every turn it found that the industry moved at a glacial pace, and always reluctantly, and only because of the scrutiny of the Committee.

Although I want to pay tribute to everyone involved in the work of the Select Committee and to say that I think the work done on pubco is a shining example of the Select Committee system at its best, it should not have to be the role of a Committee not only to investigate an issue but to be the body that constantly has to chase to see whether the assurances made to it have been kept. Following the final 2011 Select Committee report, there was widespread disappointment when the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) came to the House to defend opting for a self-regulatory regime. In January 2012 this House felt it had seen enough. We believed that voluntary regulation had failed and we voted unanimously for a statutory code, a vote that was ignored by the Government. Frankly, at every stage it has felt as though the Opposition and the Select Committee, ably supported by Members across the House, have had to make the running.

During oral questions to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in November 2012, there were three Labour pubco questions and it was suddenly announced that there would be an investigation into the success of self-regulation. A day before the Opposition day debate in 2013, the Government finally announced that they would consult on introducing a code to deliver a fairer balance between pub companies and their tenants. The response to the consultation was overwhelming: over 7,000 people responded, 96% were in favour of regulation, 67% were in favour of a mandatory free-of-tie option, 92% were in favour of open market rent assessment, and there was widespread support for a stronger independent adjudicator.

The strength of feeling was overwhelming, with 91% of respondents who ran a pub saying that the beer tie was one of the three biggest challenges facing their business, and more than nine in 10 saying they would take a free-of-tie option even if it meant paying a higher rent. It is therefore a little odd for the Government to say, as they do in their amendment, that they want to take more time to learn from the consultation. They chose the questions to ask and they got a big response. On almost all the big questions, the level of support was so overwhelming that even Robert Mugabe would have thought it was a bit one-sided, yet the Government then commissioned a report from London Economics, which critics felt was deeply flawed, apparently to try to persuade themselves against the view they appeared to have taken before their consultation. Nothing could more clearly demonstrate the failure of the big pub companies than the desire to leave them on the part of the very people they consider to be their business partners. But for all the warm words expended on the Floor of this House and elsewhere, still nothing has changed in legal terms, and every week 26 pubs close.

If the Government do not introduce a Bill on this issue in the Queen’s Speech, it is impossible to imagine that there will be sufficient parliamentary time to pass one in this Parliament. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said on Sunday’s “The Andrew Marr Show”, if this Government fail the challenge set them today, everyone who feels strongly about this issue will know that, for all the rhetoric, only voting for a Labour Government will bring about the fairness that so many people so desperately want. Hon. Members will today have an opportunity to choose whether to be part of the solution or, I am sad to say, part of the problem.

There is no doubt that the existence of large pub companies, which own the vast majority of British pubs and often force their licensees to buy beer only from them, are distorting the market. As we consider their devastating impact, let us remember that 57% of Britain’s pubco publicans, people who often work among the longest hours of anyone in our communities, earn less than £10,000. The Federation of Small Businesses, brilliant advocates but hardly Marxist radicals, found in 2013 that a mandatory rent-only option would generate £78 million for the UK economy, that 98% of respondents would have more confidence in the success of their pubs and that almost 10,000 would take on extra staff or give their staff extra hours of work. Hon. Members will know that the FSB does not propose additional regulation lightly.

My own Chesterfield pubs survey mirrored many of those encouraging statistics, but also sounded a deadly warning about the cost of inaction, with many pubs saying that they were on the brink of closure and that increased rents and beer prices were key issues. This morning, the British Beer & Pub Association claimed that tied tenants’ pubs were cheaper, but that is far removed from the reality that people see in their community. At The Nags Head in Dunston in Chesterfield, I dealt with a Marston’s tenant who was competing with Marston’s managed houses just across the road that were selling the same product at up to £1 a pint less. The big pub companies and the BBPA will tell us, “Yes, there is the odd problem, but it is not typical.” They say, “You can’t offer general criticisms. We need to know about specific cases.” However, when we bring them specific cases they say, “Well, that’s just a one-off.” It seems that no evidence is good enough for them to recognise the reality of what people are seeing in their pubs. The BBPA and the pub companies are saying, “Mainly it’s just people who have failed in their businesses wanting to blame someone else.” I do not think that stands up to any sensible scrutiny.

Many businesses and industries have undergone tough times, particularly in the past five years or so, but they have not all universally claimed that they have been misled by their suppliers. Corner shops have closed, but MPs are not besieged by former Londis or Spar shopkeepers claiming they have been ripped off by Londis or Spar. People in business generally know the difference between tough market conditions and plainly misleading practices.

On that note, the BIS consultation last year was sobering reading for anyone who thought that the threat of regulation would cause the industry leopards to change their spots. It told of a married couple who produced a careful budget plan before signing a lease, only to find on the day they received the keys that their pub company increased the prices, meaning the couple can only afford to pay themselves one salary. We also heard about the couple who ploughed—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say gently to the hon. Gentleman, to whose speech I am listening with close attention and great interest, that I know he will want to take into account the fact that several hon. Members on both sides of the House also wish to take part?

[Toby Perkins]

That has been preoccupying me for several minutes, Mr Speaker. None the less, I would not like the couple who ploughed their life savings into acquiring a pub only to find the agreed credit order with their pubco was unilaterally withdrawn, leaving the business in ruins, to be left out of my contribution. I am glad that they found their way in.

Our motion calls for three key steps to be taken that will ultimately lead to a better future for Britain’s boozers. First, we need a mandatorv free-of-tie option. The beer tie, whereby landlords can buy products only from their pubco, works for some licensees, but for many others it means that they can buy only limited products at inflated prices. We want every landlord to have the choice of whether to go free of tie. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), whom we all miss terribly, although she will be back with us soon, has previously said that she is

“committed to stamping out abuse of the beer tie”.

Clearly, there is only one way to do that.

The Government have previously committed to the principle that no landlord should be worse off than they would be in an otherwise free-of-tie pub, but the behaviour of the pub companies suggests to me that that will not happen without allowing the market to decide. Members who are worrying that such a measure would go against their free market principles should have no fear. What the pubcos are defending is an old- fashioned closed shop, whereas what we are proposing is a genuinely competitive market solution that stands up for the rights of the small entrepreneur.

Secondly, we need independent rent reviews. When a new licensee takes over a pub, or when an existing rent contract expires and is renegotiated, there should be a fully transparent and independent rent review, completed by a qualified surveyor. That would deal with so many of the horror stories that we have heard in this debate and previously.

Finally, there must be a truly independent body to monitor the regulations and adjudicate in disputes between licensees and pubcos. There is little confidence in how PICAS, the Pubs Independent Conciliation and Arbitration Service, or PIRRS, the Pubs Independent Rent Review Scheme, are operating, with many of the people going through the PICAS process unhappy with the outcome.

Those are our tests, which are grounded in the principles of building a market that works, with rules to prevent restrictive practices and big companies unfairly using their size in an uncompetitive way. I know that Members across the House share this vision, so let us unite today behind this vital British industry and this vital British institution, and deliver the change that publicans, licensees, business groups, trade unionists, beer enthusiasts and the great British public are crying out for. I commend the motion to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Toby Perkins and John Bercow

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Minister for Skills and Enterprise is struggling desperately to understand the impact of his policy on the most deprived 18-year-olds, so let me tell him about the impact of that policy in Chesterfield. It means that 655 students in this year’s cohort would not get the funding, which the principal of the college in Chesterfield tells me will directly impact on those students who do not achieve well in GCSEs, and clearly be very divisive. The principal told me that the assumptions made for this policy are alarmingly naive and fundamentally incorrect—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s inquiry has concluded. What does the Minister think of it?

Points of Order

Debate between Toby Perkins and John Bercow

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

No, I have not. It used ordinarily to be the case as a matter of course that there were statements on such matters, and generally speaking—if memory serves me correctly—that has continued to be so, with one or two exceptions. Those exceptions have sometimes been a cause of some concern to right hon. and hon. Members, and we no longer have the debate in advance of the European Council because the Government judge—which they are perfectly entitled to do—that that should come out of the allocation of time for the Backbench Business Committee. It seems a pity if there is no statement after a European Council meeting, but there are various means by which Members can try to pose questions on such matters orally, and get answers, and each case must be considered on its merits. The hon. Lady is an experienced campaigner and she can apply her own resources to the matter.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We all appreciate that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs may be tired after his endeavours in the past few weeks, but I know he would not want that to enable him inadvertently to mislead the House. He said that the figures I quoted in my question to him a few moments ago were wrong, but they were provided by a previous Minister in that Department, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), in answer to a parliamentary question on 9 September 2013. Either the Secretary of State was wrong to say what he said, or the written parliamentary answer given by the hon. Member for Newbury was wrong. I wonder whether you can assist me, Mr Speaker, and my constituents, in getting to the bottom of the matter and finding out whether the written parliamentary answer was wrong, or whether the Secretary of State was wrong earlier today?

[Mr Speaker]

What I say to the hon. Gentleman is that—

Start-up Loans

Debate between Toby Perkins and John Bercow

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. Given that I first saw it when I arrived at the House, I also thank him for not saying anything surprising during it. I want to place on record the thanks of the whole House for the work that has been done by James Caan and the Start-Up Loans Company to support people to set up their own businesses. I also record our congratulations to Allen Martin, the 10,000th recipient of a start-up loan.

I understand that Allen is one of the very first ex-servicemen to benefit from a start-up loan. It was immense good fortune—I am sure the Prime Minister, as a public relations professional, will have appreciated his luck—that the 10,000th recipient of a loan should happen to be a Royal Naval veteran who gave 22 years’ service to our country, is over the age of 30 and lives far away from London. Sadly, he is not all that typical of the people who are benefiting from the scheme. However, atypical as he may be, he is a great role model to inspire future business leaders.

Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, so the £50 million that has been lent to 10,000 new entrepreneurs is an important symbol of the enterprise spirit that runs deep through the proud history of our great island people. The Minister was right to broaden his remarks to address the broader context of the scheme. As we examine the performance of start-up loans in the context of the broader picture for small businesses and the support available, we will see that James Caan is right to say there is still much work to be done.

Does this scheme have a default target and, if so, how is it performing against it? A key lesson from the start-up loans programme is that access to finance schemes is only as good as the infrastructure that supports them and that the schemes rely on a wider system of business support, mentoring and signposting—the very fabric of support that is so lacking in many parts of the country in the absence of Business Link, the abolition of the regional development agencies and the impoverishment of local government.

That is borne out by the statistics that we are welcoming today. In every recession, there has been an increase in business start-ups. People faced with a flat job market and low demand for their skills will often seek to create their own job by setting up a firm. Desperation is not a bad motive for launching a firm—I have done it myself—but it is noticeable that far and away the most loans have been given where businesses support networks are strongest, namely London: 15% of the population lives in London, yet 36% of the start-up loans have been delivered there.

Does the Minister recognise the links between an integrated business support network and successful start-ups? If so, does he regret the destruction of Business Link and the failure to replace it with anything meaningful to provide support, not just to start-ups, but to developing small firms around the country?

Just as with the regeneration money from the Growing Places fund that went much more to London and the south-east, just 5% of the loans under discussion are going to areas such as the north-east, which has seen huge job losses and which we would have thought would be ripe for skilled workers looking to set up their own firms. What is the Minister doing to create a one nation business support network for those areas receiving the least of the start-up loans money? Although we absolutely recognise and welcome the scheme’s success in attracting people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds and the number of women who have benefited from it, it is important that that geographical aspect is recognised.

Is the Minister aware that James Caan has said that support and mentoring is a more important part of the success of this programme than the loan? Is the Minister therefore embarrassed that recent research has shown that people using the Government’s Mentorsme website are four times more likely to offer themselves as experts than as businesses needing mentoring? Does he think that a scheme with four times as many experts as recipients of that expertise sounds like a success?

Will the Minister promise that the success of this worthwhile scheme will not blind him to the fact that there is a crisis in business support in many areas of this country and that businesses that would have had a chance of success will fail because of a lack of signposting and mentoring?

The Minister spoke about commercialised British ideas going overseas, but this type of scheme, important though it is, is not likely to make a difference, because it seems to be targeting a very different part of the market.

The Government’s failure to support small firms with access to finance cannot be camouflaged by this worthwhile scheme. Given that the Government have overseen a £14 billion reduction in lending to small business, will the Minister, at the same time as he celebrates his £50 million scheme, recognise that total lending from it is less than 1% of the shortfall in net lending that British business has experienced? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I think he is approaching his last sentence?

[Toby Perkins]

You are very wise, once again, Mr Speaker, to notice that.

Will the Minister make a statement on the real access to finance crisis that he has done so little about? Will he recognise the need for radical change to the banks through the Labour party’s proposed network of local banks and support for challenger banks, which will lead to the desperately needed improvement in the position of small firms seeking access to finance?

Point of Order

Debate between Toby Perkins and John Bercow

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will remember that on 9 January the House unanimously passed a motion in favour of supporting the Government to regulate the pub companies industry. Consultees were expecting an announcement from the Government on 5 April, but that did not happen. On 7 April, The Mail on Sunday carried a piece saying that the Chancellor had overridden the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and that that Government policy would no longer be followed. I have written to the Secretary of State to ask whether the Government have changed their policy, but I have had no reply. I wonder whether you might be able to advise me on how to ensure that the House is kept informed. If the Government’s policy has been changed, it seems most unsatisfactory that the readers of The Mail on Sunday should be better informed than Members of Parliament.

[Mr Speaker]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. In respect of his latter point, I simply make the observation at the outset that it does not necessarily follow that the readers of the organ in question are, as he puts it, better informed. That said, Ministers will of course be conscious of their responsibilities to the House. It is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has placed on the record his real concern and it will have been heard on the Treasury Bench. He is a doughty campaigner and I feel sure that he will return to the theme if he remains less than satisfied.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Toby Perkins and John Bercow

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I shall be here, but I hope that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) will pass on my respect and appreciation, which I would have preferred to convey in person.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I echo the Minister’s comments on the massive contribution of 12th Mechanized Brigade.

I recognise what the Secretary of State has just said about the importance of the message that we send to the Taliban and the Afghan army, but what message will be sent by the reduction in the size of the Afghan army in respect of the security of Afghanistan?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Toby Perkins and John Bercow

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am interested in the logic of the Secretary of State’s position. If he believes it is right that academies and free schools should be able to take on whoever they like on the strength of the opinion of the head teacher, why is that not right for local authority schools? And if he believes it is right that we make the teachers’ training qualification more difficult, why is it right that academies can opt out of that?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be an egalitarian. One question will do—an equal distribution of the available fruits.

Points of Order

Debate between Toby Perkins and John Bercow

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his courtesy in giving me notice of it. I am bound to say at the outset that this is not a point of order about proceedings of the House; nevertheless, he has raised the point in good faith and it warrants a response.

It would of course be unthinkable to charge members of the public for access to the proceedings of the House and its Committees, or to meet their Members of Parliament. However, Clock Tower tours are special tours, allowing access to an area of the Palace that, realistically, cannot be open to all. The charges agreed by the House of Commons Commission are set at a level that will cover the costs—I emphasise: cover the costs—of providing the tours. No profit will be made. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman, but if he wishes to pursue the matter further my advice to him is that he should in the first instance take it up with the Chair of the Finance and Services Committee.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that on 12 January this House passed unanimously a motion relating to pub companies that called for the Government to commission a review of self-regulation of the pub industry in autumn this year, to be conducted by an independent body approved by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. In a response to a written question, I have been informed by the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), that the Government propose to ignore the will of the House. Is it in order for the Government to vote in favour of something and then act in entirely the opposite way? What is the point in having votable Back-Bench motions if the Government are going to agree to one thing in debate and do the polar opposite afterwards?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for giving me notice of it. The question of taking action in these circumstances, consequent upon a debate and vote, is a matter for the Government; it is not a matter for the Chair. There are, however, other courses open to the hon. Gentleman, and I know that those at the Table in front of me and in the Table Office will be ready to advise him. Indeed, unless my eyes deceive me, he has already availed himself of that course of action. I hope that he will persevere with that approach, and I feel sure that if he is not satisfied I will hear from him again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Toby Perkins and John Bercow

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, Mr Toby Perkins.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Last week I met the family of Jake Hardy, a 17-year-old with learning difficulties who died last week after hanging himself in Hindley young offenders institute. The family tell me that Hindley was aware that Jake had been a victim of systematic bullying, was of low mental capacity and had self-harmed earlier in the week, yet it declined to place him on suicide watch. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the full facts of the case emerge, and what will he do to prevent another family from feeling the grief felt by the Hardys?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Again, I rather suspect—I am not a lawyer, and I say that as a matter of some very considerable pride, but as far as I am aware—the question is likely to be sub judice. I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman, but I exhort the Minister to be characteristically cautious in his response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Toby Perkins and John Bercow

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Toby Perkins. [Interruption.]

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am here.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not usually fail to spot the hon. Gentleman, but there we go.

[Toby Perkins]

T2. Members on both sides of the House are very concerned about the implications for local communities and community cohesion of the initial proposals from the Boundary Commission. Although I recognise the importance of getting the numbers between constituencies relatively similar, community cohesion is also really important. Will the Deputy Prime Minister reserve the right not to support the Boundary Commission proposals if they are considered against community—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must move on.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Debate between Toby Perkins and John Bercow

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister seems to be suggesting that his appointment of Andy Coulson was a huge success. In fact, Sir Paul Stephenson has made it clear that that appointment prevented him from giving information to the Prime Minister that he would otherwise have given. Is it not fundamentally obvious to everyone that the Prime Minister made a dramatic error of judgment in appointing Andy Coulson, not with the benefit of—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Questions are becoming longer and longer, and they need to get shorter.

Points of Order

Debate between Toby Perkins and John Bercow

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I accept that this is an extremely serious matter and, in the mind of the hon. Lady and perhaps others, a matter of some urgency. She will know that, as I have just pointed out to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), Health questions take place tomorrow and the issue can be aired then. I have a suspicion that the hon. Lady, who has quite properly raised this matter a number of times, will return to it before long. The Minister on the Bench and representatives of the Government will have heard what she had to say.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier today, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) asked the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) a question about the way in which the pupil premium was spent in Lancaster. The Minister turned up, having clean forgotten to bring an answer to that question. That came hot on the heels of a recent written question that revealed that the Department for Education answers a very small number of questions on time. Can you, Mr Speaker, enable the House to hold the Department for Education to account by inquiring what problems it faces that can justify Ministers turning up unable to answer questions for which they have had a week’s notice?

[Mr Speaker]

I note the point of order and the hon. Gentleman will recall that when that question was answered—or, rather, not answered, as he describes—I indicated to the Minister that it would help if Ministers read the question before answering it rather than afterwards. To be fair, the Minister took responsibility for that, and I understood her to indicate that she would look into it and seek to avoid a repetition. I hope that that is helpful, but I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman will keep his beady eye on the matter. The House would expect nothing less.

european union bill (programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the European Union Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 7 December 2010 (European Union Bill (Programme)) and 24 January 2011 (European Union Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.

Subsequent stages

2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(James Duddridge.)

Question agreed to.

Auto Windscreens

Debate between Toby Perkins and John Bercow

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I rise to propose that the House should discuss a specific and important matter that I believe should have urgent consideration—the decision of Auto Windscreens to go into administration yesterday, with the possible loss of 1,100 jobs.

Auto Windscreens employs about 400 people in my constituency, in head office, call centre and manufacturing functions. The loss of those jobs would be catastrophic to an area that is already set to be the worst hit in Derbyshire by the cuts in public sector jobs. Staff were sent home yesterday, and as of today there is no money to pay them for the 14 days’ work that they have done this month, nor for their ongoing employment. However, in an effort to sell the business as a going concern, the administrator, Deloitte, has not yet made staff redundant, so they are effectively in limbo. The company is unable to trade, which will make it more difficult for it to be sold. Time is very much of the essence.

I would like to debate what action the Government can take to support Deloitte to get Auto Windscreens trading again. With every passing day that it is not trading, the task of finding a buyer becomes more difficult and the challenge of turning the business round grows. I would like to debate what action the Government can take to support finding buyers; to help them access the funding required to get the business back on a stable footing; and to support either the moribund regional development agency, which would previously have been expected to co-ordinate the response, or the fledgling Sheffield city region local enterprise partnership, to undertake that co-ordination.

I would also like to debate whether, in the absence of Auto Windscreens, Autoglass, the UK market leader, would have an effective monopoly, and the impact on pricing and, by extension, insurance premiums. I would further like to debate what action the Government can take, in the event of the company failing to be salvaged, to assist the 1,100 employees to find work, and to find out whether discussions have taken place with the trade union to explore the possibility of some sort of employee or management buy-out.

Auto Windscreens is an important employer in my constituency, an important contributor to the UK economy, an important part of the UK automotive industry, an important supplier to the motor insurance industry, and an important component of any private sector-led recovery.

At times like this, it is vital that the employees affected, and people throughout Britain, can see politicians working together swiftly to save those jobs in the national interest. I hope that we can debate in the Chamber what can be done, or that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) will agree to meet me, the administrators and any other people who can help get Auto Windscreens trading again and save those 1,100 jobs, which we can all ill afford to lose.

[Mr Speaker]

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, and I cannot therefore submit the application to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Toby Perkins and John Bercow

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

We welcome the Secretary of State’s humiliating climbdown on the school sport partnerships. It is hard to know what is most disgraceful: the refusal to meet Baroness Campbell or the way the Government badmouthed the Youth Sport Trust, the hundreds of school sports co-ordinators and the thousands of volunteers. The Secretary of State said that school sport partnerships had failed, another Minister slammed them and even the Prime Minister said they had a terrible record. Now, in the face of a storm of protest, the Government claim to be leaving them in place until shortly after the Olympics, albeit with dramatically less funding. We hope that the Secretary of State learns a lesson from this, which is just the latest shambles he has presided over. Will he acknowledge that school sports partnerships have not failed and have not got a terrible record, and will he promise to back them up to the Olympics and beyond?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In future, questions must be briefer, and I know that the Secretary of State will now provide an example of a brief reply.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Toby Perkins and John Bercow

Monday 12th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently say to Members that Stoke-on-Trent and Chesterfield are a considerable distance from Skipton and Ripon and, more widely, North Yorkshire? This is what we call a closed question, I am afraid.