Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Kerry McCarthy

Wednesday 24th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

What I can add, which I hope will be of some reassurance to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), is that the House of Commons is indeed an accredited living wage employer and has been for some time. I hope that that warms the cockles of the hon. Gentleman’s heart.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

6. What steps his Department is taking to prevent the intimidation of candidates in the event that the UK participates in the upcoming European Parliament elections.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Ah—Kerry McCarthy.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I was inspired suddenly, Mr Speaker.

I asked the Minister about this when he appeared before the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs yesterday: he says that he will bring back the sentencing Bill and the animal sentience Bill when we have parliamentary time, but we have spent an awful lot of parliamentary time sitting around, twiddling our thumbs and waiting for Brexit votes. He could bring forward that legislation very soon, could he not?

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Kerry McCarthy

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, and he comes from a constituency that is very academic, rather highbrow, intellectual—

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

And he is one.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady observes from a sedentary position that “he is one”, meaning that the hon. Gentleman is highbrow, intellectual and academic. He has found his own salvation. He has got his point on the record. I feel sure that copies of the Official Report will be veritably winging their way to his Cambridge constituents ere long so they can note his prodigious efforts on their behalf.

If there are no further points of order, we come to the presentation of a Bill. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has been a most patient fellow.

Bill Presented

House of Commons (Precedence of Government Business) (European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir William Cash, supported by Sir Bernard Jenkin, John Redwood, Mr Owen Paterson, Priti Patel, Mr David Jones, Mr Mark Francois, Mr Steve Baker, Mr Marcus Fysh, Suella Braverman, Michael Tomlinson and Richard Drax, presented a Bill to give precedence in the House of Commons to Government business in connection with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 until the United Kingdom withdraws from the European Union.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 April, and to be printed (Bill 367).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 24th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We do not allow two bites of the cherry at substantive questions, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to chance his arm at topicals, he might be successful. We look forward to that with eager anticipation.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

There is a real danger in looking at farming policy dissociated from what happens further along the food chain. This week, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee took evidence from the National Farmers Union and the Food and Drink Federation. Those organisations are obviously concerned about things like tariffs if we exit without a deal, but they are also really concerned about packaging, machine parts and so on—everything that is involved in food production.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between John Bercow and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

Well, it was vegan, but the Secretary of State had cheese.

There is definitely a consensus that no deal would be absolutely disastrous for the farming community. The Secretary of State is totally focusing on the risks of no deal, and to me that is something of a red herring. We could easily avoid no deal—it is entirely in the Prime Minister’s power to avoid no deal either by extending or revoking article 50 if we get to that cliff edge. Can the Secretary of State now talk about the deal that is being put before us for the meaningful vote and try to persuade us of the merits of that deal, rather than talking about no deal?

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State might wish to describe to us his cheese selection and his salivation over it.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Kerry McCarthy

Report stage: First Day: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 57, page 2, line 42, leave out clause 4.

This amendment is linked to NC19, which would aim to preserve, more comprehensively than the existing Clause 4, rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures derived from EU law and incorporated into domestic law via the European Communities Act 1972.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 4, in clause 5, page 3, line 23, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—

“(4) Notwithstanding subsection (5), the Charter of Fundamental Rights continues to apply to retained EU law after exit day save as set out in subsections (5) and (5A) below and all references in the Charter to “the law of the Union” shall be deleted and replaced with “retained EU law”.

(5) The following provisions of the Charter shall not apply after exit day—

(a) the Preamble, and

(b) Title V.

(5A) Article 47 of the Charter shall apply after exit day as if it was drafted as follows—

“Right to a fair trial

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by retained EU law are violated is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented.

“Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources insofar as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice.”

(5B) With effect from exit day EU retained law, so far as it is possible to do so, must be interpreted consistently with the Charter.

(5C) With effect from exit day decisions, judgments, advisory opinions of the Court of Justice of the European Union must be taken into account when determining cases under the Charter.

(5D) With effect from exit day in relation to the rights conferred by the Charter with respect to retained EU law—

(a) section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall apply and the words “a Convention right” shall be replaced by “a Charter right” and all references to “primary legislation” shall be replaced by “retained EU law”,

(b) section 5 of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall apply,

(c) section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall apply and the words “the Convention right to freedom of expression” shall be replaced by “the Charter right to freedom of expression and information”, and

(d) section 13 of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall apply and the words “the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” shall be replaced by “the Charter right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.

(5E) With effect from exit day, any derogation or reservation made under sections 14 or 15 of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall apply to rights under the Charter in the same manner as they apply to Convention rights.

(5F) With effect from exit day sections 16 or 17 of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall apply to rights under the Charter in the same manner as they apply to Convention rights.”

This amendment would retain the Charter Rights in UK law and afford them the same level as protection as the rights in the Human Rights Act.

Amendment 7, page 3, line 23, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

This amendment would allow the Charter of Fundamental Rights to continue to apply domestically in the interpretation and application of retained EU law.

Amendment 42, in clause 6, page 3, line 36, at end insert

“other than a matter referred to in paragraph 38 of the joint report from the negotiators of the European Union and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of the negotiations under Article 50 TEU on the United Kingdom’s orderly withdrawal from the European Union dated 8 December 2017.”

This amendment would ensure that UK Courts and Tribunals can refer matters to the CJEU as agreed between the EU/UK negotiators in December 2017.

Amendment 55, page 3, line 36, at end insert—

“(1A) So far as it is possible to do so, retained EU law must be read and given effect in a way which allows it to operate effectively.”

This amendment (linked with Amendment 56) borrows language from the Human Rights Act 1998 to require courts and tribunals to interpret retained EU law, so far as possible, in order to overcome deficiencies in the operation of retained EU law which have not been dealt with using powers under clause 7.

Amendment 43, page 3, line 37, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(2) A court or tribunal may regard the decisions of the European Court made on or after exit day to be persuasive”

This amendment enables UK Courts and Tribunals to consider the decisions of the European Court to be persuasive.

New clause 7—EU Protocol on animal sentience—

“The obligation on Ministers of the Crown and the devolved administrations to pay regard to the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings when formulating law and policy, contained within the EU Protocol on animal sentience as set out in Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon Treaty, shall be recognised and available in domestic law on and after exit day.”

This new clause transfers the EU Protocol on animal sentience set out in Article 13 of Title II of the 2009 Lisbon Treaty into UK law, so that the obligation on the Government and the devolved administrations to pay due regard to the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings when formulating law and policy is not lost when the UK leaves the EU.

New clause 9—Saving of acquired rights: Anguilla—

“(1) Nothing in this Act is to be construed as removing, replacing, altering or prejudicing the exercise of an acquired right.

(2) Any power, howsoever expressed, contained in this Act may not be exercised if the exercise of that power is likely to or will remove, replace or alter or prejudice the exercise of an acquired right.

(3) In subsection (2) a reference to a power includes a power to make regulations.

(4) In this section an acquired right means a right that existed immediately before exit day—

(a) whereby a person from or established in Anguilla could exercise that right (either absolutely or subject to any qualification) in the United Kingdom; and

(b) whereby the right arose in the context of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union and Anguilla’s status as a territory for whose external relations the United Kingdom is responsible.

(5) Nothing in this section prevents the use of the powers conferred by this Act to the extent that acquired rights are not altered or otherwise affected to the detriment of persons enjoying such rights.”

The intention of this new clause is to mitigate the impact of Brexit on the British territory of Anguilla which is dependent on frictionless movement between Anguilla and adjacent French and Dutch possessions of St Martin/Sint Maarten that are EU territories.

New clause 13—Classification of retained EU law (No. 2)—

“(1) Any retained EU law that was a legislative act or implements a legislative act enacted under Article 289 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is deemed to be primary legislation on or after exit day.

(2) Any retained EU law that was a delegated act or implements a delegated act under Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or was an implementing act or implements an implementing act under Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is deemed to be a statutory instrument on or after exit day, unless that law is already enacted as an Act of Parliament.

(3) Any change to the preceding characterisation shall be by regulation which may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would provide greater legal certainty by classifying retained EU law as either primary or secondary legislation.

New clause 16—Consequences of leaving the European Union: equality—

“(1) This section comes into force when this Act is passed.

(2) The purpose of this section is to ensure that the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union does not diminish protection for equality in the law of the United Kingdom.

(3) All individuals are equal before the law and have the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law.

(4) All individuals have a right not to be discriminated against by any public authority on any grounds including sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation.

(5) The following provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 apply in relation to the rights conferred by subsections (3) and (4) as they apply in relation to Convention rights within the meaning of that Act—

(a) section 3 (interpretation of legislation);

(b) section 4 (declaration of incompatibility);

(c) section 5 (right of Crown to intervene);

(d) section 6 (acts of public authorities);

(e) section 7 (proceedings);

(f) section 8 (judicial remedies);

(g) section 9 (judicial acts);

(h) section 10 (power to take remedial action);

(i) section 11 (safeguard for existing human rights); and

(j) section 19 (statements of compatibility).

(6) A court or tribunal must have regard to any relevant decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in considering—

(a) the application of this section generally, and

(b) in particular, the meaning of discrimination for the purposes of this section.”

This new clause would ensure that the rights of equality presently enjoyed in accordance with EU law are enshrined in free-standing domestic law after the UK leaves the EU.

New clause 19—Saving for rights etc. under section 2(1) of the ECA (No. 2)—

“(1) Any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures which, immediately before exit day are part of domestic law by virtue of section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 continue on and after exit day to be recognised and available in domestic law (and to be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly).

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations restrictions, remedies or procedures so far as they form part of domestic law by virtue of section 3

(3) Where, following the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU, retained EU law incorrectly or incompletely gives effect to any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies or procedures created or required by EU law in force immediately before exit day, a Minister of the Crown shall make regulations for the purpose of giving effect to such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures.

(4) This section is subject to section 5 and Schedule 1 (exceptions to savings and incorporation).”

This new clause is linked to Amendment 57 to leave out Clause 4 and aims to preserve, more comprehensively than the existing clause 4, rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures derived from EU law and incorporated into domestic law via the European Communities Act 1972. Where such rights are incorrectly or incompletely transferred, it imposes a duty to make regulations to remedy the deficiency.

Amendment 40, in schedule 8, page 54, line 6, at end insert

“to which subsection (2) of section (Classification of retained EU law (Amendment2)) applies.”

This amendment is consequential on NC13.

Amendment 41, page 54, line 44, at end insert

“to which subsection (2) of section (Classification of retained EU law (Amendment2)) applies.”

This amendment is consequential on NC13.

Government amendments 37 and 38.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Amendment 57, which would leave out clause 4, is linked to new clauses 19 and 21. Many of the amendments I tabled in Committee have been proposed by Greener UK, a coalition of many environmental organisations that are concerned about the possible impact of Brexit on environmental protections. They see it as one of the biggest threats: I know other people see it as an opportunity, especially when it comes to rejigging how we subsidise agriculture once we leave the common agricultural policy. The concern is what protections would remain, given the importance of our membership of the EU for everything from cleaning up water pollution and protecting biodiversity to improving recycling and reducing waste. It is hard to believe that we used to allow untreated sewage to flow into our seas before the EU’s bathing water directive forced the UK Government to make our bathing waters fit for swimming and to test for bacteria such as E. coli. In 1990, only 27% of our bathing waters met minimum mandatory standards; by 2014, 99% complied.

When the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gave evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry on the natural environment after the EU referendum, she told the Committee that approximately a third of the more than 800 pieces of EU environmental legislation will be difficult to transpose into UK law. The Committee also identified a considerable governance gap, which the Government have acknowledged, and I support new clause 18, which would enshrine what the Government have said they want in relation to carrying over environmental principles and establishing a new environmental regulatory body.

My amendment addresses the substantial flaws, gaps and democratic deficit in the Bill that were not addressed in Committee, in particular to fully transpose current EU environmental legislation in all areas effectively into UK law to avoid any weakening or loss of existing environmental protection during Brexit. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been encouraging in saying that:

“We must not only maintain but enhance environmental standards as we leave the EU. And that means making sure we secure the environmental gains we have made while in the EU even as we use our new independence to aim even higher”.

Opposition Members share the same aspirations and visions, but we cannot just take his word for it. We need those promises written into the Bill and concrete measures to deliver on those aspirations. This has to last longer than he is in post.

Amendment 57 would leave out clause 4, with a view to replacing it with new clause 19 which would preserve—more comprehensively than clause 4—rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures derived from EU law. The new clause seeks only to properly realise the Government’s stated ambition for the Bill—they have repeatedly assured us of this during the process—that the same rules and laws will apply after we leave the EU as before.

In their White Paper, the Government sought to reassure us that this Bill will mean that

“the whole body of existing EU environmental law continues to have effect in UK law”.

The Prime Minister has promised:

“The same rules and laws will apply on the day after exit as on the day before”,

but that is simply not the case. As drafted, the Bill will not properly capture and convert all EU environmental law into stand-alone domestic law.

Clause 4 appears to deal with full transposition. In Committee, the then Minister of State for Courts and Justice described it as a sweeper provision that

“picks up the other obligations, rights and remedies that would currently have the force of UK law under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.”—[Official Report, 15 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 498.]

But it fails to do its sweeping properly, because some inexplicable and unnecessary restrictions in clause 4(l)(b) and (2)(b) mean that important aspects of environmental law will be lost. Those exceptions include rights that have not been recognised by a court before exit day. Effectively, the basic rights that everyone accepts but that have not been litigated on are at risk. Those rights have been hardwired into EU law and do not need enforcing, but once we no longer have the safety net of the EU, they could fall.

The Government’s defence of the limitations in these subsections in Committee was far from convincing. The Minister essentially argued that they were necessary because directives do not produce directly effective rights until they have been recognised as such by courts. However, if a provision in legislation creates directly effective law, it does not need a court to confirm that that is the case. If a piece of legislation creates a legal position, it does not need a judge to verify that that is the case. In fact, the Government have often not transposed certain provisions of directives on the basis that they function adequately directly from the directives without any need to transpose them into national law. That clearly demonstrates that there are parts of directives that currently form part of UK law that will be removed by subsection (2)(b).

Clause 4 does not adequately engage with failures to properly transpose EU law. An obligation should be placed on the Government to remedy incorrect and incomplete transposition. The powers to do so are contained in clause 7(2)(f), but there is a significant difference between a power to do something and a duty to use that power.

To summarise, amendment 57, in getting rid of clause 4 and replacing the linked new clause 19, seeks to rectify those errors. New clause 19 is simpler and more comprehensive than the existing clause 4. It would ensure that rights arising under EU directives are preserved and that a mechanism is in place after exit day to deal with problems arising from the incomplete or incorrect transposition of EU law before exit day.

If clause 4 is not amended, we could lose vital EU law provisions, including requirements to review and report on the adequacy and implementation of laws that are crucial to ensure the law is complied with and up to date. That includes the requirements contained in article 20 of the marine strategy framework directive, article 17 of the habitats directive and article 32 of the air quality directive. Without reported data under the latter, ClientEarth would not have been able to hold the Government to account through the courts on air pollution.

We will also lose obligations on the Government to report and send information to the European Commission, which is then able to aggregate it and use it for considering the appropriateness of laws and their implementation. On day 6 in Committee, I gave an example of how losing reporting requirements under article 10 of the birds directive could, for example, present a barrier to future investment in, and the roll-out of, marine renewable energy and other developments. The Government still have not said whether they intend these reporting requirements to disappear.

Without amendment, we will also see a loss of environmental standards and conditions. Some obligations on member states have not been transposed into UK law, such as article 9 of the water framework directive, which requires water pricing policies to provide adequate incentives for users to use water efficiently, or article 5 of the energy efficiency directive on energy performance requirements for publicly owned buildings. We have been promised a green Brexit, and we are told that leaving the EU will not threaten the health of people or nature, so why is there opposition to amending the Bill to make those promises legally binding?

Let me turn briefly to the other new clause tabled in my name. New clause 21 would ensure oversight of the transfer of functions from EU institutions to domestic institutions. It would do that by requiring the Government to establish a publicly accessible register of environmental governance functions and powers exercised by EU institutions and to make regulations that ensure that all relevant environmental powers and functions are continued. The register would allow the public to monitor and hold the Government to account on their plans for robust arrangements to be in place on exit day to deliver their ambition for a world-leading environmental justice system. The new clause also reflects strong public concern that the environmental governance gap that would arise on leaving the EU is filled as quickly as possible.

To conclude, I am simply saying that if the Government want the Bill to match their stated intentions, they need to accept these provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Minister for praising me as a shining example on animal welfare, but that does not quite make up for my disappointment that he has failed to address the issues in my amendments. I therefore seek to press amendment 57 to a vote.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady had 10 seconds, and she has been indulged very modestly.

Higher Education Funding

Debate between John Bercow and Kerry McCarthy

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I was happy to indulge the Minister and to listen to his mellifluous tones, but as he will quickly discover as part of his apprenticeship in this place, the Minister is not responsible for the observations on “Question Time” or elsewhere of the shadow Secretary of State on this or any other matter.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Minister talks about the expansion in student numbers. How often does he have conversations with the local government and housing Ministers about the impact on housing pressures in cities such as Bristol and on council finances, given that students do not pay council tax and developers do not pay the community infrastructure levy? Although those students are welcome, it does come at a cost.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Kerry McCarthy

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has transmitted his concerns through me to the Government, who will very quickly hear that he is on the war path on the matter, which might yield a positive outcome for him over the next 48 or 72 hours. It is up to him to judge whether, having heard or not heard anything from Ministers, he wishes to find ways of trying to secure attention to the issue on the Floor of the House before we rise for the summer recess.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would have given advance notice of this point of order, but I thought that we were having points of order a little later. Last week, after meeting trade union representatives from Rolls-Royce outside Bristol, I attempted to table a written question asking whether the Government are seeking to stay in the European Aviation Safety Agency post Brexit. My question was rejected, on the grounds that a similar question had been asked back in January and nothing had changed. The answer to that question had been that we cannot pre-empt the negotiations. Today I would like clarity on two points. First, how will we know that nothing has changed if we are not allowed to table questions about this? Secondly, I have been told that I cannot ask the question again until the end of the Brexit negotiations, which seems absolutely ludicrous.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, it strikes me as a very rum business indeed. I hope that it will be possible for the hon. Lady to receive some satisfaction. My strong advice to her is that she should make the very short journey from here to the Table Office and seek advice, because I am quite sure that it will be possible to achieve a satisfactory outcome. Forgive me for making this point again, but I do make it again: the hon. Lady effectively refers to being denied on grounds of repetition. Repetition is not a novel phenomenon in the House of Commons. I think that we will leave it there for today.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to both hon. Members for raising their points of order. Let me seek to deal, in so far as they require to be dealt with, with each in turn. First, in relation to the point of order from the hon. Member for Broxbourne, who is, as we all know, the illustrious Chair of the Procedure Committee of the House, I remind colleagues that the hon. Gentleman asked the Chair by what means he could register his concern. As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he is a perceptive and sagacious fellow, he has found his own salvation. He has made his own point with his own inimitable eloquence, and it is on the record. I know how strongly he feels about it, and I know there are many Members across the House who feel very strongly about it, and these matters will doubtless be further debated.

Secondly, in relation to the hon. Member for Shipley, I note the force of his point about reductions in the number of MPs needing, as he sees it, to be accompanied by reductions in the number of Ministers. The hon. Gentleman has got such a long-established good memory for what people have said in the past that I feel sure that, although he did not say it today, he will be well aware that I myself expatiated on this matter on 19 January 2011 in a lecture to the Institute for Government. On that occasion, I made the point that it would be a rum business to reduce the number of MPs but not to cut the number of Ministers. I said it then and was right then, and therefore I am very happy to say it again, five and a half years later, and to be right a second time.

We had better leave it there. I am not sure that either of them was a point of order, but they were jolly good fun.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, I was allocated question 12 in Cabinet Office questions, asking:

“What recent progress has been made on the National Flood Resilience Review.”

We did not reach question 12, so I received a written response later that day:

“The National Flood Resilience Review has been assessing how England can be better protected from flooding and extreme rainfall. The review has been working to identify actions needed to strengthen our resilience to flooding.”

That is one of those answers that tells you absolutely nothing. To my surprise, this morning we had a written statement and this very hefty document, the “National Flood Resilience Review” published. The written statement, although it is from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is jointly in her name and the name of the Cabinet Office Minister. At the very least, was it not extremely discourteous of them not to flag those things up in the written response yesterday, or does it suggest that the Cabinet Office Minister was not aware that he was about to publish this review?

[Mr Speaker]

It would be rather disturbing, it has to be said, if a Minister of the Cabinet Office were unaware of the imminent publication in his, or a departmental colleague’s, name of such a report. I find that very hard to credit. It might well be regarded as discourteous; that is, to some extent, a matter of opinion. What I can safely say is that it was, at the very least, unhelpful. There is a general principle that ministerial answers should be as informative as possible, so it was unhelpful. I think I can say—possibly at the risk of irritating a Cabinet Office Minister, which I will have to bear with stoicism and fortitude—that at the very least it was extremely unimaginative of the Minister answering not to consider providing more information or, alternatively, to consider and then to decline. Very unsatisfactory—he really ought to be able to do better than that.

The great thing that we have on our side is that the new Leader of the House—there have been lots of illustrious Leaders of the House—as was flagged up a moment ago, is, of course, I think twice a winner on “University Challenge”, with a gap of, I think, 30 years in between. It used to be said that the former Member for Havant, in the previous Parliament, was “Two Brains”. I leave colleagues to speculate or, indeed, to compute how many brains the Leader of the House has. He is a very cerebral fellow, and I am sure that he can spawn more imaginative and considerate thinking among his ministerial colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I must admit that I did not know that, but I do now, and I promise not to forget it.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am obliged at this point to say that I was on the first ever season of “Blockbusters”, but all I came away with was a sweatshirt.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady has made the best case she can, and I thank her for that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 17th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Kerry McCarthy. [Interruption.] I had thought the hon. Lady was seeking to come in on Question 2.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

No.

[Mr Speaker]

We have been misadvised. Never mind.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 19th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Untypically, we are ahead of time and can proceed with dispatch to Topical Questions.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Kerry McCarthy

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I trust that the appetite has been satisfied. Question Time is definitively over. In a moment we will move on to the next business, but I am happy to take other points of order.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I spent this morning trying to keep up with the obfuscations and excuses emanating from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the application to extend the badger cull in Somerset, and I understand that an application will soon be made to extend the cull in Gloucestershire. I know that we will have DEFRA questions tomorrow, but do you agree that we really need the Environment Secretary to come to the House and make a full statement so that we can have the opportunity to question him, because there are so many unanswered questions about why the Department has agreed to go down that path?

[Mr Speaker]

A variety of mechanisms are open to the hon. Lady and other Members to ensure that such rigorous and detailed scrutiny takes place. In the meantime, however, the hon. Lady can satisfy herself with the thought that tomorrow will indeed be the occasion for DEFRA questions; I confidently predict that she will be in her place. Thereafter, all sorts of things can happen. To judge by the experience of the House, they probably will.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I must say that the initial answer was the shortest that I have ever heard, especially from a lawyer.

[Kerry McCarthy]

There is real concern that the orders are being used increasingly to resolve—or supposedly resolve—domestic violence incidents. In 2012, nearly 2,500 of the orders were issued rather than cases being put before the CPS for possible prosecution. Does the Minister share my concern that the orders may be being used as an easy disposal, rather than taking domestic violence seriously?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are not debating the question of whether Richard III incurred parking fines.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I have been in touch with the Youth Justice Board about the decision to change Ashfield young offenders institution into an adult prison. I am told that young offenders from the Bristol area will now be sent as far away as Feltham. I am concerned about their contact with their families, chances of rehabilitation and so on. What reassurance can the Minister give me that those facts will be taken into account?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have already heard from the hon. Gentleman in substantive questions and it is not long before we will have the delight—I hope—of hearing from him again in topical questions. Members cannot, I am afraid, have two goes at substantives. One can almost have too much of a good thing.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

16. What recent assessment he has made of his changes to higher education and to the level of student tuition fees; and if he will make a statement.

Regional Pay (NHS)

Debate between John Bercow and Kerry McCarthy

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

I very much hope that when the Government—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me say to the Minister once and for all—[Interruption.] No. I say to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry)—perhaps she will have the courtesy to listen when she is being spoken to from the Chair—that it is not acceptable for any Member of the House to treat the debate as a private conversation between himself or herself and the Member on his or her feet. If the Minister is dissatisfied with what is being said, other people on her Benches can pick up those points. It is totally unacceptable to behave in this way and it will stop straight away. I hope the Whip has noticed it, and I will be speaking to others about the matter.

[Kerry McCarthy]

There is some confusion. When I wrote to the Health Secretary to get some clarity—

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I could not help but notice that the clock did not stop during that intervention. I see that a minute has been added on, but I think it should have been more than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Interventions on both sides should be brief, and rather briefer than that.

[Kerry McCarthy]

It is sad that the Secretary of State resorted to the union bashing that we also heard from the Minister in the Westminster Hall debate. I have had a meeting with the Royal College of Nursing, and I have a briefing from the BMA about the case against the local and regional approach to pay. That has nothing to do with Labour-affiliated unions. Those organisations are speaking up for their staff, who are extremely worried. It is patronising to say that staff are concerned only because someone stoked them up and told them falsehoods or whatever. They are worried about the proposal because they work in the NHS and they know what impact it will have on them.

The south-west consortium’s explicit intention is to reduce costs by considering

“further more radical changes to the pay and conditions of the workforce”.

Yet to do this at a time when hospital budgets are under great strain and nurses are being made redundant, each trust paid £10,000 of public money to join the consortium. They have to appoint a consortium director, establish a consortium working group and commission legal advice, so it remains to be seen how much the added bureaucracy of the consortium will cost.

Even more worrying is the lack of transparency or accountability for that spending, given that we still do not know who is responsible for employing the director of the consortium or to whom they are answerable. Perhaps most disturbingly, the project initiation document explained that

“it is likely that Trusts would be obliged to dismiss and re-engage staff to secure such changes”,

which not only calls into doubt the validity of their proposals, but has serious cost and legal implications.

I can only agree with the BMA that regional pay is a

“costly and time consuming distraction”.

But of course this affects not only the NHS as an institution, but the individual staff on whom the whole service relies, who potentially face a 15% pay cut. The consortium proposes to cut sickness absence payments so that they are paid only at the base rate, yet for staff permanently on nights, the extra payments that they get for working night shifts are an intrinsic part of their salary, on which their mortgage payments often depend. It would constitute, on average, a 20% pay cut if they were ill and were paid just at the base rate.

Reducing annual leave entitlement not only amounts to a pay cut but means that staff who rely on their leave to balance caring responsibilities will face additional costs, if they can even continue to work. At the same time, extra child care costs will be even less affordable if enhanced payments for nights and weekends—payments which are intended to recognise their personal sacrifices and the additional costs that these workers incur—are changed.

The consortium is also considering increasing working hours. Once again, this is an effective pay cut, which ignores the fact that so many overworked staff already work longer hours. According to the Royal College of Midwives, 87% of midwives “frequently” or “always” worked more than their contracted hours, and more than half reported that none of those extra hours were paid for. These are emotionally and physically demanding jobs and the consortium risks leaving staff even more tired, or coming into work when they are really too ill to do so, in order not to lose their extra pay.

The south-west is a net importer of NHS professionals, but our trusts risk losing demoralised and under-appreciated staff to other regions where the terms and conditions are more favourable. NHS staff require the same training, dedication and commitment all around the country, so why should my constituents be paid less simply because of where they live, especially when there can be a greater demand for health services in the south-west because of our older population, and when the cost of living in many places is so high?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am greatly obliged to the Chief Secretary, but from now on we need rather shorter exchanges if I am to maximise the number of Back-Bench contributors.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Chief Secretary will know that one thing that is really hitting people at the moment is the rising cost of food. A huge number of people, even those in work, are having to resort to going to food banks. What action are the Government taking to address that situation?

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for her point of order. As she will be aware, and as the House will appreciate, this matter was raised from the Opposition Front Bench yesterday. On that occasion I undertook to look into the matter, and I can assure her and the House that I am doing so. As and when there is anything further to report to the House—I recognise the premium on time—she may rest assured that I will do so without hesitation. I hope that that is clear.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier this year the Prime Minister said to the House:

“I do not believe in making tax changes outside a Budget, which is the proper way we do things in this country.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 284.]

Yet today, the Chancellor has announced a decision on North sea oil and gas taxation which will cost the taxpayer £50 million a year. He did so not only outside a Budget, but outside this Chamber, despite the Government having an opportunity during yesterday’s Finance Bill debate, when the House discussed at some length an amendment on the North sea tax regime, to discuss the issue and to make the announcement then. Is it in order for the Chancellor to announce a tax decision in this way?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, of which on this occasion I did not have notice. She certainly raises a very serious concern that she and others feel. My initial response and advice is that she should look for other opportunities to debate the matter, possibly using the Order Paper. I do not know whether it would be in order to debate the matters within the context of consideration of the Finance Bill, because I have not looked at the groups of amendments. If that opportunity exists, I have a keen sense that the hon. Lady will be aware of it. If not, she will pursue it on other occasions. I hope that also is helpful.



Bill presented

Police (detention and bail) bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mrs Secretary Theresa May, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Secretary Kenneth Clarke, Mr Attorney-General and Nick Herbert, presented a Bill to make provision about the calculation of certain periods of time for the purposes of Part 4 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 216) with explanatory notes (Bill 216-EN).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is no requirement or need for the Chancellor to comment on Opposition policy. I would have thought that we had grasped that point by now.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

In reaction to this year’s Budget, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that, if the Chancellor is to meet his borrowing targets, he will be

“now even more dependent on a bounce back in the rate of economic growth from 2013”.

Borrowing has already been £1.5 billion higher in the first two months of this financial year than it was in the same period last year, as the Chancellor’s tax rises and spending cuts kick in. If growth outturns fail to meet the forecasts, will the Government change their plans on borrowing?

Business of the House (Thursday)

Debate between John Bercow and Kerry McCarthy

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think that the very least the architect of the policy could do, particularly in view of the pledge he signed before the election, is go and talk to students and explain why he has changed his mind.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Many Members have tonight mentioned the fact that constituents of theirs—students and potential students—will be coming down tomorrow to lobby their MPs. Is my right hon. Friend aware that under the “#” tag “name and shame” on Twitter there is a growing list of names of MPs from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties who have refused to meet the students coming down tomorrow? I suspect they are refusing to meet them tomorrow because they will be too busy attending tomorrow’s debate. Does that not suggest that we ought to postpone tomorrow’s debate so that they have time to meet their constituents who are coming down tomorrow?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is mounting evidence that Members are referring to matters outside the Chamber as a not very subtle ruse to try to get their point across in the House, but unfortunately they are then almost always outwith the terms of the motion. We have had a few examples of that, but I hope we will not have any more. Mr Hilary Benn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Anyone in the House of Commons can move a closure motion.

[Kerry McCarthy]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that 49 Labour Members have applied to speak in tomorrow’s debate and that the number for Government Members is between 20 and 30. It will obviously be very difficult for everyone to get in. Will you consider over night whether there ought to be a limit on Front-Bench contributions? We obviously want to hear about the proposals from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills or whomever he delegates to do his work for him, but it is important that Back Benchers get a chance too.

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot adjudicate on that matter now, nor give any advance indication to the hon. Lady on how the debate will run. I say only that I am sure that Members will want to be courteous to each other. We are all concerned that right hon. and hon. Members from the Back Benches should have a chance to air their views. That is right and proper, but I shall be here and I attach great importance to these debates in the interests of all Members.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I am afraid that the answers that the Minister is giving are simply not good enough. Can he explain the logic behind the child benefit proposal, if there is any? Why is the assessment not being made on household income rather than just on the highest earner’s income? Will it apply to a cohabiting high earner or just to married couples, and why will there be a phenomenally high marginal deduction rate? Is it not true that this is just another “back of a fag packet” policy that the Government have not thought through at all?

[Mr Speaker]

There were four questions there, but one answer will do.