Children and Families Bill

Debate between Neil Carmichael and Baroness Primarolo

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

My hon. Friend is making an outstanding speech on a critical issue. I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on the importance of access to national facilities, because we must not localise provision at the expense of national organisations. Ruskin Mill in my constituency, and the National Star College in my county, provide expertise that we do not necessarily find elsewhere that is critical to young people’s futures. I want to put down a strong marker that we should ensure that national facilities are not put at risk through the funding—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. We are drifting now. Interventions are supposed to be short points that are relevant to the speech at the time they are made. If Members want to contribute, they can. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) has had the floor for some time, and other hon. Members wish to speak in this important debate. Despite his generosity in giving way, I am sure he is probably coming towards the end of what he wishes to say in this part of the debate.

Examination Reform

Debate between Neil Carmichael and Baroness Primarolo

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) for that gesture, although I am not going to speak for what must now be only seven and a half minutes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman does not have to speak for eight minutes—if he does not, there will simply be longer wind-ups—but he should get on with it.

[Neil Carmichael]

First, I want to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on beliefs and experience. We all have beliefs and some of us have had experience as well. One of my sharpest experiences was that of marking examinations taken by undergraduates who displayed an innate intelligence but not necessarily a huge ability to communicate. We should all think about that during the course of this debate, because it is important that communication skills and mathematics should be embedded as early as possible.

My second point is that there is much more continuity between those on the two Front Benches than might first be supposed. That came to my attention when I was reading Lord Adonis’s recent book on education. He has paved the way for some of the changes that we are continuing—

Defamation Bill

Debate between Neil Carmichael and Baroness Primarolo

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way for the third or fourth time. I want to talk about an important aspect of the Bill—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman may have read the conventions of the House, which have been re-circulated. An intervention is on a point relevant to the one that the speaker who holds the floor has just made, not a list of abstract points that the hon. Gentleman might want to make. His intervention should be relevant to the point that Mr Buckland has just made.

[Neil Carmichael]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise. The point I was going to make—it is relevant—is that the Bill is not just about defamation and privacy, but about protecting freedom of speech. Does my hon. Friend agree that that must be considered in the debate?

Environmental Protection and Green Growth

Debate between Neil Carmichael and Baroness Primarolo

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

Doubtless the Department for Transport will deal with that. We have a new Secretary of State, and I look forward to seeing what she does. However, the fact is that joined-up government is important.

The story that I was telling hon. Members about is still relevant, because the Minister was talking about the national environment White Paper—which has been endorsed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the wildlife trusts and so on—in parallel with the national planning policy framework. That is absolutely excellent and is a true demonstration of effective joined-up government helping to deliver polices that make a difference across rural areas. I welcome that. In the past, we saw a Labour Government who were “siloed”; in the future, we see a coalition Government thinking in terms of Departments working together to produce policies that make a difference.

In an intervention, I talked briefly about flooding, but I want to emphasise the importance of localism with reference—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Unfortunately the clock was not going down as the hon. Gentleman was speaking, so he has had more than his time. I would therefore like him to conclude his remarks.

[Neil Carmichael]

I want to draw the House’s attention to the fantastic work that Water21 is doing to promote flood attenuation in the Slad valley. That is a classic example of good localism, good foresight and how flooding can be dealt with in a different, more imaginative way. It is a tribute to the people of Stroud and every—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I call Caroline Lucas.

Fisheries

Debate between Neil Carmichael and Baroness Primarolo

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I generally welcome the motion and will be happy to support it, because it is absolutely necessary that we have a different approach to the common fisheries policy. I wish to draw the House’s attention to a report produced many years ago by a House of Lords Committee, which highlighted the need to apply science and technology—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention. If he wishes to draw the House’s attention to something, he can make a speech, but he cannot do so in an intervention, so we will leave it at that.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If he wishes to intervene again briefly, I will give way.

European Union Bill

Debate between Neil Carmichael and Baroness Primarolo

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

rose—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, may I gently remind him that this is not a Second Reading debate about the entire Bill? We are discussing specific amendments to clause 6, to which I am sure he is about to return, as he said he would.

[Neil Carmichael]

You are absolutely right, Ms Primarolo. I have been taken down this track by others. I am very keen to answer any questions, because it is important that questions are answered—I would not want to be accused of ignoring them—so I am going to respond quickly to that one. I did not say that the Bill could not be repealed; I simply said that it would not be repealed, because no Government in their right mind would be keen to deny a referendum in that way.

The Bill will strengthen Britain’s negotiating position, because it will make sure—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. Mr Carmichael, I would like you to refer to the amendments. You have been speaking for some time now, and you keep saying that you are coming to the amendments. I would now like you to talk about them and not the general principles of the Bill.

[Neil Carmichael]

Thank you very much, Ms Primarolo. The problem is that I keep on getting interrupted.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Neil Carmichael and Baroness Primarolo

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I note my hon. Friend’s observations about America. Of course, its terms really are fixed: the Senate cannot alter its six years, the President cannot alter his four years and Congress cannot alter its two years. What we are saying, which is consistent with the Parliament Act 1911, is that five years would be the expected norm. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) notes, at least two mechanisms could bring an end to a Parliament should this House decide, so we are stopping the Prime Minister from having an election early for expedient purposes. Instead, we are saying that there should be a five-year term, as suggested in 1911 and as used by several Parliaments afterwards—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Interventions are supposed to be brief. I think that Mr Shepherd has got the gist of the point.