Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Robertson and John Bercow

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, a lion to roar. Mr John Robertson.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that the price of oil has come down, which means that there will be a lack of investment in the North sea either side of the Shetland islands and into the Atlantic as well. What will the Government do about the jobs shortages that are starting to come through the system, and how we will maintain the reduced prices for customers?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Robertson]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on what happened in Lima. Let us hope that when we get to Paris we can solidify all the things that were talked about.

Secretary of State, I sent your Department, Ofgem, the chief executive officers of the big six companies and many other interested groups a copy of a report that I did for the Energy and Climate Change Committee on how to help the safety of vulnerable people at times of need. Everyone except your Department and Ofgem has replied: why? All the others have contributed to a voluntary code of practice, and I am happy about that. Why cannot DECC and Ofgem put people before political point-scoring?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not have a Department and I have not failed to reply, but if someone has I am sure he or she will take responsibility.

Energy Price Freeze

Debate between John Robertson and John Bercow

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Robertson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that; he is of course right.

Let us face it: we are where we are. It does not really matter what the Con-Dem Government have done in the past four years, or what the last Labour Government did in the previous 13 years. The problem is what is happening now. Fuel poverty is a bigger problem today than it ever was. We could say that that is a result of bad government and that it is this Government’s fault because they have been in power for four years and they should have done something. Well, they did do something. The Secretary of State talked about getting reports and asking for suggestions, and he has done that. His predecessor also did it, resulting in the Hills report.

The Hills report stated that nearly 2.4 million people were still in fuel poverty, and the gap between their bills and what they could afford was getting wider. It also found that about 3,000 people could be expected to die over the course of a winter as a result of Government policy. That was not necessarily all to do with energy, however; it referred to Government policy overall, and it applied to all Governments. This was a good report, and it was commissioned by a Liberal Secretary of State. But what have the Government done since then? How many lives have been saved since the Hills report? What action have they taken to tackle fuel poverty?

The answer, Secretary of State, is that you have done absolutely nothing. Sadly, more people are dying now than when the Hills report first came out. An energy freeze might not be the answer to everything, but if you are happy with the way Ofgem is running things, with the way the energy market is conducting itself and with the present state of affairs, then do as you are doing now: do absolutely nothing—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I very gently exhort the hon. Gentleman not to use the word “you”? I know that he is doing it for the purpose of emphasis, but it is undesirable if it is widely mimicked. He is felicitous of phrase—he can express himself in a different way.

[John Robertson]

I apologise, Mr Speaker. Thank you for pointing out to anyone who might have thought I was talking to you that I was actually talking to the Secretary of State.

It is up to the Secretary of State to look at this problem. He has called the proposal from my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley a “con”, but I do not think it is a con if we try to do something. I believe that we need to fix the industry, because the big six are not doing the job that they should be doing. It is they who are conning people. It is a bit rich for the Secretary of State to say that we are conning the public, when it is the energy companies that are doing the conning. They are the ones putting up the bills, and the public have to respond by paying them their money.

So let us have a freeze. Let us look at the energy companies and see what they are doing, and if we have to fix the situation—as I believe we will—let us try to do it in a window lasting between 18 months and two years. If we can fix it in that time, and if the energy companies end up out of pocket, it will be up to the Government to fulfil the need that has been lost, rather than the general public, because the freeze will have been imposed by the Government of the day, which I hope will be a Labour Government. The most important thing is to look after the people in this country who are living in fuel poverty. In Scotland, 1 million people classify themselves as fuel poor. When we add that to the figure for England, it takes us well above the 2.4 million figure that we had years ago. We need to do something about that.

The energy companies have shown their true face recently. The chief executive officer of British Gas—a company that had a monopoly on gas supply for years—has said if a price freeze were imposed, there would be blackouts. If the Secretary of State believes that that is right, it will be up to him to sort out the problem, because it is the duty of the Government to ensure that the lights do not go out. The CEO might try to blame people for proposing a freeze, but I believe that a freeze would be helpful in sorting out the energy business in the long term.

The Secretary of State has not expressed the hatred for Ofgem that some of those on my Front Bench have done. I believe that it has got worse, rather than better, over the past two years, despite the discussions that the Select Committee and others have had with it. It has never worked quickly. Some might say that that is a good thing, because if it worked quickly, it might make mistakes. They would prefer that it took its time, in order to ensure that it did the right thing. However, I believe that it takes so long to act because it is frightened to make certain decisions and because it does not think it will have the backing of the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Robertson and John Bercow

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is time for the lion’s roar. I call John Robertson.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

T2. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Following the question on outsourcing from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), we have now passed £100 billion-worth of contracts to large companies that have absolutely no transparency. Is it not time to revisit the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to make sure that these companies do have the necessary transparency and are brought into the scope of the Act?

Points of Order

Debate between John Robertson and John Bercow

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his characteristic courtesy in giving me notice of his intention to raise it. He is, essentially, asking me whether the use of the word “separate” contravenes the rule against argument in parliamentary questions. The very fact that I am being invited to make a ruling suggests to me that a degree of controversy surrounds the word. There is a perfectly serviceable word that is used in legislation—“independent”. I think it would be best if we stuck to that in future where the rules of the House require neutral expressions. However, the use of the phrase “a separate Scotland” in debate or in supplementary questions is not unparliamentary. I hope that that is helpful.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

No further point of order arises in respect of the ruling on this matter that I have given. I know the hon. Gentleman well enough to know that he would not be so unwise or discourteous as to challenge the Chair, because he is both wise and courteous.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. Not for the first time, and probably not for the last, she has found her own salvation. She inquires about the quickest means by which to ensure that her concern is relayed to representatives of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what she had to say and I am sure that it will be a matter of only seconds before her remarks wing their way to the Secretary of State. It is then for him to decide how to respond. It is not a matter of order for the Chair but the hon. Lady is well aware of the opportunities she has to call Ministers to account and I feel sure that she will deploy the weapons at her disposal.

[John Robertson]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

This point of order from the hon. Gentleman is, I am sure, on an entirely unrelated matter.

[John Robertson]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

On a separate matter?

[John Robertson]

It is, but there is a connection to the first point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker. I totally agree with your judgment on the original point of order, but may we have a judgment on when that same party attacks Scottish Labour Members of Parliament and calls them “London Labour”? That is an insult not only to the MPs but to Scotland in general. May I have a ruling on that, please?

[Mr Speaker]

First, I have ruled. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman, who could not conceal the evident smile on his face, is an indefatigable campaigner. He has broad shoulders and he is well able to look after himself. I think that on this occasion I have nothing to add. He has made his own point in his own way and it is on the record. I trust that his appetite on the matter is satisfied, at least for today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Robertson and John Bercow

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I would not want the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) to feel socially excluded, so we will accommodate him, but he needs to be very brief.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the Serious Fraud Office’s ability to conduct a succession of large-scale inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Robertson and John Bercow

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Robertson, perhaps? I can take a horse to water, but I cannot force him to drink.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

8. I assume that you are calling me to ask a supplementary and not a main question, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) mentioned the Home Office. I pointed out recently that questions from my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State had still not been answered by the Secretary of State. Will the Leader of the House look into the matter? It appears to be something of a problem in the Home Office. How can the Opposition be expected to work properly if they cannot hold the Government to account? It is very difficult for us to do that if the Government do not give us answers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Robertson and John Bercow

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First, I want to hear the answers. Secondly, the greater the noise, the longer the delay and the fewer Back Benchers will have a chance to be called. That would be a great pity.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

T9. If the right hon. Gentleman had his time again, would he be for or against tuition fees?

Points of Order

Debate between John Robertson and John Bercow

Wednesday 23rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I recognise that he and other Members will be dissatisfied with the situation. However, what I want simply to say to him is twofold: first, the Committee is being constituted in accordance with party strength in the House; and, secondly, we are operating in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House by doing it that way. Not to proceed in that way would require us to revisit Standing Orders. Now, whether we should do so or not is a matter for the House to decide, but I am stating the factual position to the hon. Gentleman and for the benefit of the House.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I could have your guidance on how Back Benchers in the Opposition parties with only two Members on the Committee can get a fair hearing when there are five Members from the Government Benches.

[Mr Speaker]

The operation of the Committee is a matter for Members on the Committee and for its Chair. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has every confidence in the capacity of his colleagues to discharge their responsibilities on the Committee, and I am sure that he would not have wanted to suggest otherwise.