Valedictory Debate

Debate between Anne McGuire and John Bercow

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dame Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

It is a rare privilege to be allowed to make a valedictory speech, Mr Speaker. I have to admit that this is the first one I have ever had the opportunity to make in leaving a job; normally, there was a wee present and a drink in the local pub, so this certainly is an elevation beyond my expectations.

The people of Stirling paid me the honour of electing me four times and I thank them sincerely for it. Placed at the heart of Scotland, it is a constituency made up of many different and vibrant communities, across an area the size of Luxembourg. It is the most northerly rural Labour seat in the United Kingdom. I am its first woman MP, and there is a little picture of me in the city’s Smith museum, overlooking the marble bust of a previous MP for the city, Campbell-Bannerman, who was against votes for women—I think people going into our Smith museum get the message.

I want to echo the thanks of other hon. Members who have spoken highly of the staff of the Commons. From the moment I entered this place some 18 years ago, they have shown nothing but courtesy and service to me and other Members. Of course, I give a special thanks to my parliamentary staff, Graham, Heather, Aileen, Stephen, Rachel and Gerry, for their support and forbearance during my time in Parliament. I also thank my constituency party members and my trade union, the GMB.

Like you, Mr Speaker, I came into this House in 1997. At that time, pupils in my area were being educated in schools where buckets were needed to catch the rain; we needed a new hospital; our sports facilities were not able to cope with the demands of an increasingly keep-fit society; and the long-held ambition of creating a national park had still not been realised. Yet, within a few years those schools had been replaced or refurbished; new sports halls were built; we had our own new hospital; and one of the most scenic areas in the country, the Trossachs, had become a national park. I make no apology for saying that all those things were completed or commissioned under Labour Administrations.

I am going to pick out two or three highlights in this House for me. The first is the banning of handguns in 1997, and I hope there is never an attempt in this country to weaken that legislation. The second is the passing of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, because for me it was one of the most impressive House of Commons occasions, when people were prepared to put on the public record their own journey to accepting civil partnerships. That made such a contrast with the divisive and harsh debate about section 28 in the 1980s. The third was when, as Minister for Disabled People, I travelled to New York to sign the United Nations convention on the rights of people with disabilities on behalf of the UK Government, with a young disabled man, Miro Griffiths, at my side. I am sure the Leader of the House, as a former distinguished Minister for Disabled People, will appreciate the significance of that occasion. My regret about these past five years, however, is that some of the progress on disability rights has been seriously undermined, certainly in the eyes of disabled people themselves, by some of the very “radical”—I use the word advisedly—changes in our benefits system.

I am the eldest of a family of four girls. I, along with my sisters Kathleen, Helen and Frances, and our parents, lived for the first six years of my life up a small Glasgow stair, in a tenement. We had a room and kitchen, and an outside toilet. Down here it would probably be called a “studio apartment with bijou facilities”. Moving to a Glasgow housing scheme, which had a proper bathroom, was an unbelievable step up for my hard-working parents. Their ambition for us as their daughters was that we would take advantage of an education system, and we all did. They left school at 14, whereas we took advantage of the education system, and our children thought that university was the way to improve their own education. It was the ambition of that post-war generation that things would be better for their families.

Finally, I want to say a special thanks to my husband Len and my children Paul and Sarah, all three of whom have given me tremendous support. Mr Speaker, when I came into this House I was a “Blair’s babe”. I am pleased today to take leave of it as Orla and Seumas’s granny.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Lady for what she has said and the way in which she has said it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anne McGuire and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, Mrs Anne McGuire.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Given the First Minister’s threat to blockade Scottish fishing grounds if he does not get his own way on EU membership and given that licences are held across the United Kingdom, what analysis has the Secretary of State done on the impact on employment in the Scottish fishing industry?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anne McGuire and John Bercow

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs McGuire]

Scotch whisky is exported to about 200 countries, and the industry directly employs 10,000 people in Scotland. According to a recent White Paper from the Scottish Government, there will be about 90 Scotch whisky embassies if the Scottish Government have their way after independence. Does the Secretary of State agree that trade agreements brokered by a strong and extensive United Kingdom diplomatic and international trade infrastructure are integral to the success of Scotch whisky exports? I—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to be discourteous, but the question is too long.

Universal Credit

Debate between Anne McGuire and John Bercow

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Robertson, your voice is substantially louder than that of your hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). I do not wish to be unkind, but it is not always quite as mellifluous.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

On 11 September 2012, the Secretary of State said:

“For what it is worth, I take absolute, direct and close interest in every single part of the IT development.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2012; Vol. 550, c. 154.]

He said he held meetings and briefings, and worked on it at weekends from his box. He also said,

“we are testing stuff”—

I think that is a technical term—

“pretty much the whole time.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2012; Vol. 550, c. 157.]

Given that 15 months ago he was taking such a personal interest in that, why is he still in his job and facing this shambles today?

Employment Support

Debate between Anne McGuire and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement, but frankly it was a statement that she obviously did not want to give to this House in person. Let me give this advice to the Minister and to Government Members: even if the situation is difficult, it behoves a Minister to come to this House to explain it. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These exchanges have already been too noisy. The House must calm down. We cannot have a situation in which people trade insults across the Chamber, shouting out “Where is this one or that one?” Let us just cool the temperature and have a decent exchange. The House knows that I will want to facilitate such an exchange.

[Mrs McGuire]

It is fair to say that Remploy is not an ordinary organisation; it is one that has been part of Government’s provision for disabled people since the second world war. We all recognise, in all parts of the House, that it has had to adapt to changing conditions over the years, but there is no point in the Minister trying to hide behind the statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain). My right hon. Friend came to this House and answered questions in this House, and he made some of the difficult decisions that we hoped would set Remploy on the road to success. Recently, however, there has been only one debate in this House on the future of Remploy, and that was held, thanks to the courtesy of the Backbench Business Committee, in Westminster Hall on 15 December. Today, the Government have tried to abrogate their responsibility as the custodian of the Remploy legacy and as the ultimate employer of the 1,752 people who today found out by written statement, or in some cases from telephone calls from Members of Parliament, that they will no longer be in a job in three months’ time.

Nobody in this House disagrees with the Minister when she says that disabled people want to have a choice about where they work. Nobody argues that such opportunities have not opened up over the past few years for many disabled people. However, many of the opportunities have been offered by organisations such as Remploy that give disabled people a real job in the jobs market. It was clear even from the Sayce review that the best factories offer job satisfaction, a supportive and accessible environment, and a reasonable income for their employees.

I will not run away from the fact that my Government, and I as a Minister, had to wrestle with the issues relating to Remploy. We cannot rewrite history. However, our position on disabled people in 2007 was astonishingly different from what the Minister has put before us today. If she truly believes in co-production, why was there no co-production with the trade unions, the disabled people who work in Remploy and the Remploy board over the past few months? I have the greatest admiration for Liz Sayce and for some of the work that she has done, but to put forward a closure programme that will potentially put 1,700 on the dole on the basis of a report by an individual is not acceptable.

We must recognise the legitimacy of the position of the mainstream of the disability movement, which is that it does not like supported factories or Remploy. However, that does not mean that it is wrong to support people in these factories. Perhaps the mainstream needs to recognise that Remploy offers a real job in a supported environment.

I will put some questions to the Minister before you call me to order, Mr Speaker. In opposition, the Conservative party supported the five-year modernisation plan, so why did the Minister embark on a review nearly two years before that timetable had been exhausted? Why are the Government pulling the funding from the next financial year, which leaves a period of only a few days? Was warning given to the Remploy board before the last couple of weeks that it would have to manage this speed of change and a massive redundancy programme over the next few weeks?

When the modernisation statement was made to the House in 2007, the now Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)—[Interruption.] Please do not laugh if I pronounce “Ewell” wrong. I do not know how it is pronounced. He said at that time:

“Let me assure Remploy and its employees that the next Conservative Government will continue the process of identifying additional potential procurement opportunities for them and the public sector work force.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 451.]

What has the Minister done, now that the Conservative party is in office, to ensure that her ministerial colleagues fulfil that promise? What discussions has she had with the major procurement Departments, including the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence? Did she look at the procurement opportunities that her Department could have offered to Remploy? What discussions has she had with her colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to encourage local authorities to consider opening up opportunities for their local factories? What efforts has she made to encourage her colleagues to identify procurement opportunities under article 19?

Given the Minister’s intention to embark on this course of action, how did she involve the board of Remploy and the trade unions in the discussions about the issues identified in the Sayce report? I am not talking about their responses to the consultation, but about what real co-production she was involved in. What recognition did she give to the trade union analysis of the current operation of Remploy’s enterprises and the questions that it raised about the company’s business practices?

There is a feeling around the House that the consultation was flawed from the beginning because the Minister said that she was

“minded to accept the recommendations of the Sayce review”.

A Government cannot start a consultation if they have already said they are minded to accept the recommendations.

By how much will the Minister reduce the subsidy to Remploy in the next financial year and the one after? She highlighted the fact that there may be options for the so-called stage 2 factories. What will those options be, and what criteria will she lay down for the transfer of any business and its associated assets to the open market?

The Minister says that the support that she will give to disabled people who are made redundant will last for up to 18 months and potentially be a personalised budget of £2,500. How is that £2,500 expected to meet the needs of many of the people in Remploy?

Where will the jobs come from? At the factory in Ashington, 35 people are chasing each job, and in Acton—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the shadow Minister that I know these are extremely important matters, but I feel sure that she is bringing her questions to a close. In fact, I am certain that she is in her last sentence.

[Mrs McGuire]

I am indeed, Mr Speaker.

I finish by saying to the Minister that in each constituency where there are factories at which redundancies will be made, there are tens of people chasing every job. She made a point about the increase in Access to Work, but that scheme requires jobs. Tonight, 1,700 people do not know whether they will have one in three months’ time.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Anne McGuire and John Bercow

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister has finished her remarks. We are grateful to her.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

I will not follow the same order as the Minister. I will deal first with under-occupancy, because rarely have I heard such a pathetic defence of a Government’s position as I have heard here today. Their proposals are not based on fairness, and they are not intended to deal with the under-occupation of social housing. They are a bare-faced attempt to cut housing benefit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

I thank the right hon. Lady. It is very gracious of her to give way so that I can clarify matters. She will obviously be aware of the new national home swap scheme, which, importantly, will help people to identify housing in other areas, which is what she is talking about. We are also providing funding to councils of some £13 million over the next four years so that they can support under-occupying tenants who wish to move.

The right hon. Lady will also know that there is a great deal of commitment from the Government in terms of helping to build affordable housing: some £4.5 billion will help to deliver up to 170,000 new affordable homes. Those are all ways in which we can make the sort of changes that she wants. Just to clarify, as a lady who was born in a council house—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This really is an abuse. It is a novelty, in my experience, for a Minister to intervene from the Front Bench reading from a folder. That really will not do. Interventions should be brief, and it would be good if the House—both sides—could get back into the courteous mood in which it found itself yesterday and for part of today.

[Mrs McGuire]

I listened to what the hon. Lady said, but she has obviously had no experience of trying to arrange a mutual swap in a small local authority area. We will have not only mutual swaps in small local authority areas, but national swaps, all supported by some anonymous Government agency. Frankly, the hon. Lady is living in cloud cuckoo land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me just make it clear. It is obvious that the shadow Minister is not giving way at the moment. On the Government side, during my time in the Chair since 5.30, there was a preference—on the whole—not to give way to Opposition Members and that is now being replicated by the right hon. Lady. Members may make what they like of that, but there is nothing disorderly about it. It is no good people yelling from a sedentary position to express their frustrations. They must try to contain those frustrations, which I notice the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) is now successfully doing.

[Mrs McGuire]

Thank you for your wise words, Mr Speaker.

We welcome the reduction that the Minister announced today, and for the record, we welcomed in the other place the additional funding of £20 million that was going to be put in to encourage—

[Anna Soubry]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you help me? If a Member asks a question of the whole House, how does one respond to that question other than by asking that Member to give way?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady is asking me to speculate about a hypothetical. We could probably have a seminar about the matter, and it might be instructive. There could be a time for that, but it is not now. I feel sure that the hon. Lady has raised not a point of order, but a point of disappointment.

[Mrs McGuire]

I always hate to disappoint Tories, Mr Speaker.

The Minister mentioned some concessions, but it remains an unfair imposition on parents with caring responsibilities to make them pay a fee to obtain, in her words, a calculation of what they may be entitled to. The Government are always keen to say that people should do the right thing, but what happens when they try to do the right thing and adopt a collaborative approach? Frankly, all the evidence shows that a collaborative approach is often the last thing that people can get when a marriage breaks down—all sorts of issues to do with personalities, emotions and children being part of the bartering process between two parents make that almost impossible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anne McGuire and John Bercow

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am in a generous mood too, and it is always a delight to listen to my colleagues, so we will have a little more.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Earlier this week in the other place, the coalition Government voted down, by a majority of two, a proposal to protect the benefits of disabled children. Is reducing benefits for disabled children by over £1,300 a year something that reflects the Prime Minister’s often repeated mantra that we are all in this together?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anne McGuire and John Bercow

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the Minister.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Given that transport facilities offered by residential care establishments normally relate to social and care needs, not independent choice, could the Minister explain how the removal of disability living allowance from those in residential care is consistent with article 20 of the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, to which this country is a signatory? Has she assessed her policy against the commitment to the convention?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anne McGuire and John Bercow

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have been listening keenly to the Secretary of State’s every word for the best part of two decades, but I want the whole House to hear him, so may I just remind him that he must face the House?

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

In December I discovered that constituents who were appealing against their benefit decisions at the tribunal service, for which the Ministry is responsible, were having to wait for appointments or tribunal dates for between six and nine months. Given that those individuals will suffer a financial penalty in that time and that a significant number will win their appeals, does the Minister think that that is acceptable? What will he do to remedy it?

Points of Order

Debate between Anne McGuire and John Bercow

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the last point. The writ of the Chair applies to all Members, irrespective of whether they sit on the Back or the Front Benches. On his particular point, I must say that nothing was recorded. I was focused at all times on the questions being asked, those seeking to ask them and Ministers answering them. However, respect for the Chair is important, and respect by one Member for another’s right to be heard without interruption is extremely important. I hope that it will not be necessary in the course of the new Parliament and the new politics for that point to have to be made again from the Chair. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting an important matter.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week in the Budget statement, the Chancellor said:

“Today there are some families receiving £104,000 a year in housing benefit. The cost of that single award is equivalent to the total income tax and national insurance paid by 16 working people on median incomes. It is clear that the system of housing benefit is in dire need of reform.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 174.]

In order to drill down into that—I promise I will get to the point of order in a second—I asked, with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), a parliamentary question of the Department for Work and Pensions. I had a reply today, which said:

“The information requested is not available.”

Has the Chancellor sought to rescind his statement about the £104,000 housing benefit? It has become common currency in the debate about reforming housing benefit, yet the Department tells me, as a Back Bencher, that the information is not available.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order. I think that she is continuing a debate with some force, eloquence and insistence. She is an experienced Member and a distinguished former Minister, and the opportunity exists for her to table follow-up questions. I have a hunch that it will not be long before she avails herself of it.