PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

79 Debate on the Address 9 MAY 2012 Debate on the Address 80 [Jim Shannon] the banks should be listening to what is happening now so that they can make changes in anticipation of the legislative changes to enable small and medium-sized businesses to acquire the money they should already be able to get but which is being denied them at the moment? We hope the new legislation will give those businesses that opportunity. Mr Amess: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Some of the banks have forgotten everything that happened. They are not lending particularly to small businesses and I agree with him that they should act now rather than waiting until the Bill becomes an Act. The right hon. Member for—it is a Welsh constituency —[HON. MEMBERS: “Dwyfor Meirionnydd.”] Well, it is in Wales. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) mentioned the draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill. In 2008, the Competition Commission conducted an inquiry into the UK grocery market, because of concerns that supermarkets were exploiting their supply chains. The right hon. Gentleman was spot-on with the points he raised. The draft Bill was published last year and will establish an adjudicator. The right hon. Gentleman expressed some concerns about the powers, and another Member—I think it was the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker)—asked whether they should be in the Bill. It is good that an adjudicator will be appointed, with the power to investigate a grocery firm with revenue in excess of £1 billion if it is suspected of breaching the code relating to its suppliers. It is vital that we do everything we can to help small businesses in these troubling times of austerity. That certainly includes grocery suppliers that are often family-run local businesses. There is no doubt that the major supermarkets have a monopoly in the United Kingdom grocery market, so I welcome any steps to prevent them from using their powers to leave their suppliers out of pocket. Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the importance of having a grocery ombudsman. Over the last three years, 3,000 small businesses related to farming and the supply of large stores have gone out of business. That is a real concern. Does he feel that legislative change will prevent that and does he think it will come quickly? Mr Amess: I believe that the Bill will achieve that end and that it will be effective. I know how tough things have been for farmers, particularly in Northern Ireland. It is important to have a balanced grocery market, where suppliers get a fair deal. There will be further benefits for consumers, because they will be able to buy the best of British produce, which will make the market more sustainable. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), among others, mentioned adoption and family matters. Pro-life Members will have been sad to hear that Phyllis Bowman died at the weekend. With the late Lord Braine, she did iconic work on pro-life matters and I pay tribute to her. I was delighted to see that there will be a Bill on adoption and family matters. Some years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) introduced a measure on adoption, but we badly need updated legislation. It will remove the absurd barriers that make the adoption process difficult. A new six-month limit on care proceedings will be introduced in England and Wales, and the law will be changed to ensure that more children have a relationship with their father after family break-up. All Members get letters from constituents about that difficult issue. I welcome the provision for mothers and fathers to swap their parental leave allowance after the birth of a child. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Opposition would support the measures. The Prime Minister is right to be passionate about giving children a good start in life. I welcome the measures to deal with the royal succession that were announced by Her Majesty in the Gracious Speech. Very much in the future, when there is a change of monarch we shall have King Charles, but if Princess Anne had been the oldest child she would not have succeeded. Anyone who knows Princess Anne applauds her hard work; she does a wonderful job. I am delighted that there will be a change to the law on royal succession. As a Catholic, I suppose I am biased, but I am also delighted that Catholics will finally be allowed to marry into the royal family. I am already sick to death of hearing about Lords reform, even before we spend 18 months going on about it. If anyone wants to know what is wrong with the House of Lords, it is the Labour party, which completely messed up the House of Lords without a plan for dealing with it. I do not address my remarks to Labour Members elected in recent years, but it was a bit rich to listen to speech after speech from Labour Members who condemned the House of Lords and everything it stood for, when the next minute they accepted a peerage. There is no consistency. When the Labour Government took office in 1997, they thought for narrow class reasons that they would get rid of the House of Lords—all those hereditaries, all terribly posh—but there was no actual plan for reform. As a Conservative Member of Parliament, I am totally against the Americanisation of our system, so I am opposed to a wholly elected second Chamber, which would definitely be in competition with this place. I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch who asked how it could be fair to have Members elected for 15 years. It certainly is not fair. I hope that we shall not waste hours and hours of precious time arguing about House of Lords reform. I know that the Liberals are keen on it— Martin Horwood rose— Mr Amess: Herewego. Martin Horwood: On the subject of consistency, House of Lords reform was in the Conservative manifesto. Surely, if we all agree on a predominantly elected second Chamber, it should not take that much time. Mr Amess: I suppose the get-out clause is that we did not have a solely Conservative Government, but a coalition, so there was a compromise. I certainly was never in favour of reform. In the other place, there are women and men of wonderful experience, who bring great
81 Debate on the Address 9 MAY 2012 Debate on the Address 82 value as a revising Chamber. I am totally opposed to having the second Chamber in competition with this place. Charlie Elphicke: My hon. Friend is being extraordinarily generous in taking interventions. Is not part of the problem that the House of Lords used to be a brilliant revising Chamber but then Tony Blair, who is now to be found in various parts of the world making money and not paying tax, stuffed it full of cronies and wrecked the flavour and excellence of that House? He made it the broken place it is today because of Labour’s galactic incompetence in government. Mr Amess: I agree with my hon. Friend that there are now so many peers that apparently they cannot all even find a place for prayers. It is crazy. There are too many Members in the House of Lords—nearly 1,000. It is a complete mess and I do not want this Chamber to waste hours and hours talking about something on which we will never agree. It is certainly not No. 1 in the list of priorities of the British people. I welcome the proposal for a national crime agency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) is an expert in such matters and I shall not compete with him; I will speak in more simplistic terms. Phasing out the National Policing Improvement Agency is a good thing. Creating a new national crime agency will help further to tackle serious crime in the UK. As we have seen over the past year, our border forces and urban police forces can be overwhelmed, so the establishment of the agency will help to ease the burdens and protect us against one of the most serious threats facing this country—organised crime. It costs the United Kingdom between £20 million and £40 million in social and economic terms, and affects the most vulnerable people in society. Only yesterday, we heard the judgment in the terrible case of girls who had been groomed. I hope that the Bill can deal with that sort of issue and tackle it head-on. I hope the whole House will come together to support such welcome measures. On the defamation Bill, I do not know how honourable colleagues feel, but I am certainly libelled morning, noon and night but do not have the money to defend myself. A range of concerns has been raised about the detrimental effects that the current law on libel is having on freedom of expression, particularly in academic and scientific debate, the work of non-governmental organisations and investigative journalism, and about the extent to which this jurisdiction has become a magnet for libel claimants. I do not want to upset my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), who is a Queen’s counsel, but the law has become so expensive in this country that I do not know how ordinary women and men can possibly defend themselves. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our constitution, but it does not mean that people should be able to ride roughshod over the reputations of others. When someone writes to the newspapers these days, the letter is published on the internet and in no time at all there are very insulting comments posted on the website, particularly if the letter is about a politician, and we do not seem to have any legislation to deal with that. Therefore, our defamation laws must strike the right balance between protecting freedom of speech and protecting people’s reputations, and that includes those of Members of Parliament. I know that we are No. 1 on some people’s hate list, but the overwhelming majority of Members of Parliament are here for the right reason and do a jolly good job, and I am getting a little fed up with our being continually insulted and considered fair game, which I think is very wrong indeed. I want slander on the internet to be prevented. Her Majesty said that legislation would be laid before us. I know that we already have 14 Bills and four further measures, but I hope that there will be time to introduce legislation to deal with slander on the internet relating to comments on media articles. I think that there should be much tighter controls and more severe punishments. There is no point in any of us being Members of Parliament unless we have some real power, and over recent years our heads have been down and we have lost so much of our power, so we need to reassert it. I hope that the Government will consider introducing a measure to enable far greater scrutiny of public bodies. I will give the House one example. I have been on a mission in relation to Essex police—two Essex colleagues on the Government Benches are present—because I knew from the outset that the chief constable of Essex was chosen from a shortlist of one, which is absolutely outrageous. It has happened and nothing has been done about it; we just accepted it because we are more concerned about hacking and reform of the House of Lords. How could the Essex police authority allow the chief constable to be chosen from a shortlist of just one? That is unacceptable. Charlie Elphicke: Is that not why elected police and crime commissioners are such a good idea, because we can get the right chief constables and make police forces much more effective and responsive in cracking down on crime? Mr Amess: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and that is what I was about to say. I hope that in November there will be a huge turnout in Essex and we will elect a very good commissioner. Another point about Essex police is that I have had to resort to using the Freedom of Information Act to get confirmation that the chief constable was chosen from a shortlist of one. Why should a Member of Parliament have to use the Freedom of Information Act? Then there is the closure of police stations. When the Leighon-Sea police station was closed there was no consultation. The consultation took place in the car park of a large supermarket in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), which is on the other side of town, and received about 20 responses, which meant that they could close the police station. That is not good enough, which is why I think Members of Parliament should get power back from some of these public bodies. I have been trying to find out more information about Essex probation service, the Crown Prosecution Service in Essex and a range of public bodies. Members of Parliament are scrutinised all the time and have to submit themselves to the electorate. Why cannot we have more scrutiny of at least the management of public bodies? I hope that the Government might consider introducing a Bill to deal with that matter. I said earlier in my speech that I was concerned about the proposal to introduce the televising of sentencing in major criminal trials. I thought that the right hon.
Page 1 and 2:
Wednesday Volume 545 9 May 2012 No.
Page 3 and 4:
Chronology of The Parliamentary Deb
Page 5 and 6:
CHRONOLOGY OF THE PARLIAMENTARY DEB
Page 7:
CHRONOLOGY OF THE PARLIAMENTARY DEB
Page 10 and 11:
viii Alphabetical List of Members 9
Page 12 and 13:
x Alphabetical List of Members 9 MA
Page 14 and 15:
xii Alphabetical List of Members 9
Page 16 and 17: ii HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT—con
Page 18 and 19: iv HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT—con
Page 20 and 21: vi HOUSE OF COMMONS—cont. PARLIAM
Page 22 and 23: viii HOUSE OF COMMONS—cont. SENIO
Page 24 and 25: x HOUSE OF COMMONS—cont. Trade Un
Page 27 and 28: THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES OFFICIAL
Page 29 and 30: 5 Queen’s Speech 9 MAY 2012 6 for
Page 31 and 32: 9 Debate on the Address 9 MAY 2012
Page 65: 77 Debate on the Address 9 MAY 2012
Page 85 and 86: 117 9 MAY 2012 Universal Credit 118
Page 87 and 88: 121 Universal Credit 9 MAY 2012 Uni
Page 89: 125 Universal Credit 9 MAY 2012 Uni
Page 92 and 93: 3P Petitions 9 MAY 2012 Petitions 4
Page 94 and 95: Members who wish to have the Daily
show all

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?