business of the house

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

This year we have an early Easter, though not so early, perhaps, that we needed to provision ourselves with chocolate eggs as soon as the Christmas decorations were down at Epiphany. As some supermarkets seem to have substituted Easter eggs, fluffy chicks and chocolate bunnies for tinsel and crackers at cock crow on 7 January, the animals of spring have been a common sight in our supermarkets for some time. But even though the weather continues to be distinctly wintery, there is no reason to give the real egg layers the cold shoulder.

The cause of hen and cock welfare is one raised with me by many constituents, particularly with regard to beak trimming and battery cages. Although inhumane battery cages were banned at the start of last year, and even though we are assured by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers that beak trimming will be banned in 2016, hen welfare is not a done deal, and we on the green Benches should take a keen interest, both for the sake of animal welfare and because our constituents increasingly expect to eat food that either was or is from an animal that was treated well.

At one time, consumers would not deign to notice what, if anything, was said about welfare on food packaging. Now, thanks in no small part to the efforts of well-known TV chefs, we want to know from where our food has come. Indeed, the term “higher welfare” has even found its way into the ingredients list of the king of school dinners, Jamie Oliver, and there is undoubtedly a culture in which it is considered poor form to offer for sale food that is lower welfare. In a January 2010 survey, twice as many people as in 2006 said that animal welfare informed their shopping choices—that made 19%, and I am sure that the figure would be higher today.

The previous Prime Minister’s GOAT—his Government of all the talents—might have been a tur laid to rest by the British people, but that was either the exception that proves the rule on our love of animals or an act of mercy that confirms it. It should be the proud boast of British farmers that no land does more to ensure the welfare of its animals, and the success of the ban on inhumane cages in this country is a case in point. There was concern that increased prices would lead to a drop in demand for eggs, but the reverse was true and the British consumer bought 5% more eggs in 2012 than in 2011.

Concern for welfare does not stop at the good treatment of hens during their working lives, and the British Hen Welfare Trust should be cock-a-hoop about its successful record since 2005 of re-homing 360,000 laying hens of pensionable age that were otherwise destined for slaughter. The British public should be applauded for their adoption of so many of those creatures, and those acts of mercy will, I am sure, continue.

Keeping hens is somewhat in vogue at the moment, despite the prospect of heartache. Many a hen keeper will be prepared for the early morning discovery of scattered feathers and an empty coup, but how many are ready for the emotional business of dispatching unwanted chicks? In “The Good Life” idyll one imagines several hens and a single proud cockerel, but one strutting coxcomb will lead to many chicks and what is to become of the male contingent with not a layer among them? I encourage people to consider homes for hens, but to think carefully about a coop for a cockerel.

Despite the positive step of banning battery cages, many British consumers might be surprised that 17 million hens are still housed in cages, albeit of an enriched variety. These birds provide the eggs that are sold as a constituent part of another product and then, despite the efforts of the British Hen Welfare Trust, sold for the table. The Government should consider the value of labels that would show the origins of eggs when used as an ingredient and when a chicken is an end-of-lay bird as a means of promoting high welfare standards. I also entreat the Government to stick to their plan to hold a thorough investigation into beak trimming in 2015. When we eventually head into spring, let us have no cock-ups on hen welfare.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield]

Indeed; the plan was pretty transparent, and it seems to be falling apart under the scrutiny of another place and with the support of other parties across the House. I am delighted about that because accepting Lords amendments 5 and 23 will provide the pause that we need to ensure that our democracy is not weakened. That would give us the time to get this right, and I look forward to the House supporting those amendments.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I hope I can cheer up my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and the whole House by quoting Edmund Burke, who told the electors of Bristol:

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment”.

We cannot be on autopilot in the House; we must do what we think is right, in the interests of our constituents and the country, which is why I did not join my Government in voting against the measures on payday loans proposed by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), or Labour’s proposed extension to the national insurance contribution holiday to the south-east, and it is why I voted against my Government over the constitutional car crash that was the House of Lords Reform Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, but one thing that I think we probably can agree on—certainly, some of us who have different positions on this—is that it was simply wrong to include those two very separate items in the Bill. I wanted to oppose the boundary changes, others wanted to oppose the AV measures, but we could not do so because they were tied up in the same Bill.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Presumably, when the Division bell rang on that occasion, 54 Liberals did not take collective leave of their senses—whether they lost them some time ago I cannot say. But I am sure that they were present in a moment of brilliant acuity as the bell tolled, and they voted to improve our parliamentary democracy, which is what the hon. Gentleman did.

[Greg Mulholland]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will make some progress.

We can take it that the Liberals believed in equalising the size of constituencies and reducing the number of MPs. I say that with some confidence because we know that they believe it still; they just do not want it yet. Today, we are not asked to throw out the concepts altogether, which would be a bizarre but perhaps defensible position intellectually; we are simply asked to put them off till the next Parliament—a curious position of which some further explanation is required, and I hope that you agree, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

One of the words that has been overused in this Parliament is “fairness”. Fairness, fairness, fairness is all we have heard from some of our coalition colleagues, but a word that I would like to introduce is “honourability” and ask whether it is honourable for someone to take a position and then move, frankly, to a different one when they see what is before them.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend, and to ensure that I do not offend Mr Speaker or anyone else in the House, I welcome the opportunity to put on record the fact that I think all Liberal Democrat Members are honourable ladies and gentlemen, but I hope during my speech to point out to them what they would need to do to remain so by tomorrow morning.

The answer to this puzzle is found not in the amendments but in the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister has made it quite clear that Liberal support for the changes has been withdrawn because the House of Lords Bill could not be passed. I remind the House that that is the same Deputy Prime Minister who was quite categorical in his assurances that one had no influence over the other, while the battle for the constitution still raged. It has doubtless not helped the Liberals’ mood that the public so comprehensively rejected their plans for electoral reform. The Liberals have withdrawn their love because of a contrived slight.

The Deputy Prime Minister can repeat until he is blue in the face—although a fuller conversion to that colour might prove harder to achieve—that the programme for government promised Lords reform, but that will not make it true. There was never any obligation for Conservatives to support Lords reform, and I rebelled with a heavy heart but a clear conscience. Will the same be true for the Liberals in the wrong Lobby today?

[Mark Field]

I share much of my hon. Friend’s frustration, but does she agree that this row would not have happened if, instead of focusing on the rather fatuous arguments about saving a relatively small amount of money, we had set out to equalise the constituencies but to keep the number at 650 for this House?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Even if we set aside the vital matter of the absence of an obligation on Lords reform, to make the allegation that Conservatives broke a coalition promise requires considerable front. Thirty-six per cent. of the Liberal Democrats rebelled over tuition fees, by comparison with less than 30% of the Conservatives on Lords reform. It is only because the Liberals have fewer MPs than we do—that is, they received a smaller mandate from the people—that their rebellion did not matter.

[John Thurso]

May I put the record straight? The coalition agreement on tuition fees was that all Liberal Democrats had the right to abstain. What happened was that a certain number of colleagues chose to go against the measure. In order, therefore, to give the Government what they needed, the remainder of my colleagues voted in favour of it. That is what really happened.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am trying to give the Liberal Democrats a chance to justify their behaviour. Even if we accept the Liberal code of conduct of an eye for a coalition eye, after their flawed portrayal of the Lords Bill the score is, at best, even.

[Mr Spencer]

What message does my hon. Friend think is conveyed to colleagues who lost their job when they voted against that legislation and who will now witness some of our Liberal Democrat colleagues walking through the Lobby against Government policy but keeping their jobs?

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend makes his point well. I am sure it is not lost on those in the Chamber and outside.

We are forced to conclude that industry and judgment have indeed ceded the stage to spite, pettiness and self-interest. The people have rejected the Liberal Democrats’ voting reforms and the Liberal Democrats cannot win the argument for Lords reform, so they will oppose boundary changes, which they want, in the hope of re-opening negotiations after the next election, while casting flirtatious glances across the Chamber. The Liberals have exchanged their legendary sandals for flip-flops in the hope that that will enable them to keep their options open, but they would be wrong to think that the real damage they will do today is to the prospects of the Conservative victory in 2015 or to the notion of a Conservative government.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

On the subject of Liberal Democrats, has not our hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) been strangely inconsistent today? Was not what he said on tuition fees exactly what happened on House of Lords reform? Some of us voted against House of Lords reform. In any case, is it not clear in the coalition agreement that the link was not to House of Lords reform but to AV? Is it not also clear that in the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto they advocated a reduction of 150 Members of Parliament?

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend is right. That is not lost on the House or on the general public. The only harm that the Liberals will do today is to themselves. They confirm what has long been suspected—that the national interest and the constituency interest come a poor second to Liberal Democrat interest.

[Dr Wollaston]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrats have had to get off their high horse because they have sent it to be turned into horse burgers?

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend makes a good and amusing point.

[Paul Farrelly]

Does the hon. Lady agree that, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso)—the hon. Member for three and a bit counties—explained, the Liberals are only following the very wise maxim, “When the facts change, I change my mind”? It is a maxim that her Chancellor might also follow.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. This comes to the heart of the matter. When the Division bell goes today, the 54 Liberals who voted in favour last time must ask themselves why a boundary review is a less valid measure now than it was in 2010 or will be in 2018. They must have a care for their consciences, do what is right for the country and their constituents, and do the honourable thing.

[Chris Ruane]

I have been interested in this issue since 2001, when my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) informed me that there had been a massive drop in voter registration in 100 constituencies, 90 of which, I discovered when I looked at the figures, were Labour constituencies. Some might say that it was our fault for introducing the changes in 2000.

I have sought to get the facts and figures on this for the past 10 years. I have tabled over 400 parliamentary questions on registration, population size and boundary size, and I have spoken in every debate on the matter in this House. I have come to the conclusion that what is, or was, proposed is a political act to deliver, in the case of the boundaries review and legislation, the 2015 general election, and in the case of individual electoral registration, the three or four elections after that. I hope that we will find out very shortly that it has all come to naught.

The reasons why I say this are many. I wish to compare the attitude of this Government with the attitude of the previous Labour Government. I blame the previous Labour Government, and I do so to their face, for not getting what we thought were 3.5 million missing electors on to the register. It was our fault that we did not do that. However, no one can accuse the previous Labour Government of using our political majority, which was huge, for party political advantage on constitutional issues. One of the first things that Labour did was introduce proportional representation in the European elections. In Wales, we went from having four Labour MEPs to one Labour MEP. We had a majority of 180 back in 1997—such a huge majority that we could have delivered devolution to Northern Ireland, to Scotland and to Wales without PR, but in the interests of fair play and playing properly on the constitution, we introduced PR, which did down Labour’s vote.

Business of the House

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, check that that written ministerial statement has been laid, and I have no doubt that it will make clear to the hon. Gentleman and the House the nature of what it is announcing. If outstanding issues arise from its contents, the hon. Gentleman will note that he may have an opportunity to raise them with Justice Ministers, not least at their question session next Tuesday.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

A supplier can make an informed judgment as to whether it continues to provide goods to a company in difficulty, but most consumers are not similarly aware. May we have a debate on the merits of changing administration law to make those holding gift vouchers or savings preferred creditors?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. If I may, I will ask my colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to respond on that, as they consider issues relating to consumer rights generally.

Business of the House

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Members on both sides will appreciate not only his sentiments, but how he expressed them. I share in that and know that the staff of the House will appreciate it too.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of the heroic efforts of Portsmouth supporters trust in its quest to enable its community to own its club. It has often had to do battle with football governance rules that are not fit for purpose—not least the “fit and proper person” test, which is less rigorous than a five-minute session on Google. Given the importance of the national game to our communities, is it not time that we debated the reform of football governance and finance?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. I am aware of how she has supported the Portsmouth supporters trust’s trailblazing bid, and I very much appreciate the sentiments that she has expressed. The Government share her view that we need to impress on the football authorities the need for stronger scrutiny of clubs at all levels and transparency about ownership. She will be aware of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee inquiry into football governance. I would be happy to refer the matter to the Sports Minister; she might also talk to him about the issue. There may be an opportunity, not least in light of the Committee’s inquiry, for the matter to be considered by the House.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

This Bill is concerned with the very heart of the constitutional settlement of this country. It is not just about the abolition of a 700-year-old institution; it is about the way in which a Government are formed and sustained, and about the primacy of the Commons—the elected House. To pretend that nothing in the relationship between this House and the other place will change should this Bill pass into law is folly, whether it be wilful or unwitting.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will not give way, because of time and the fact that many colleagues want to speak.

There are aspects of the House of Lords that should be reformed, but elections address none of them. On reform to improve the working of the scrutinising and revising Chamber, I am convinced that we in this House and those in the other place would come to a speedy consensus. There would be no opposition to the introduction of retirement procedures, to the reduction in the number of working peers, to the weakening of party patronage or to the forfeiture of the right to sit by peers who break the law. Such measures address the concerns of our time and could be enacted without affecting the constitutional settlement. There must be good reason to reject this path of consensus.

We are told that if we believe in democracy, we must support elections, that the laws of the land should be made by people elected by those who obey the laws of the land and that there is a democratic deficit in our polity because the upper House is not elected. That is disingenuous; there is no democratic deficit because the will of the elected House is unambiguously superior. The will of the people cannot be gainsaid. It is only through pretending that peers are law makers that one can confect a democratic deficit from the supremacy of the elected House. Of course, peers are not legislators; they are scrutinisers and revisers, and they accept that settled role in the constitution. However, it is absolutely true that those with the legitimacy of a democratic mandate will expect to be legislators. These new senators will not accept the limitations that are currently readily accepted in the other place.

The Bill would have the primacy of this House continue after reforms are made, but it does not explain why. Consent to taxation by the populace through its representatives in Parliament has been a thread that has endured through the near 800-year history of this institution. The House’s sole privilege of the purse has existed since the reign of Charles II. In the last century, the right of the Lords to frustrate the will of the Commons was denied it by the Parliament Acts and by the self-denying Salisbury doctrine.

When an elected upper House would have a mandate from the taxpayer why should it be denied a say in financial matters? On what legitimacy would the Parliament Acts rest if the House against which the Commons is imposing its will has been elected by the people? How can the Salisbury doctrine endure when the Deputy Prime Minister’s new senators will presumably be elected on party manifestos of their own? What will the Commons do but back down when an elected upper House opposes it with the support of the people? How can a Government endure when they cannot carry their legislation through the other place? In such circumstances, how can Governments continue to be formed solely on the basis of a majority in the House of Commons?

The Executive and the legislature derive their legitimacy from the same electoral mandate, which is why comparisons with the US are so bogus. Elections to a reformed upper House would weaken that essential relationship between the election of the Commons and the formation of a Government. Why is that not admitted? Why do the proposers of the Bill believe that they can hold back the natural forces of constitutional change with clause 2? That clause simply states that the Parliament Acts “will continue to apply”. No explanation is offered of their continued legitimacy. The clause would also repeal the preamble to the 1911 Act, because it is merely

“a short statement of the Government of the time”.

The preamble contains the seeds of the Act’s destruction, explaining that legislation would follow to create an elected upper House and to codify its powers, in essence nullifying the validity of the Parliament Act.

The Bill before us can seek to repeal a preamble, but it cannot repeal the self-evident truth: to change the Lords is to change the relationship between it and the Commons. The Bill labours under the delusion that nothing will change. In repealing the 1911 preamble, the Bill’s promoters admit that the powers of Governments are but transitory. The Government of today are soon the Government of yesterday and soon enough the Government of yesteryear. Constitutional reform is not an experiment; it can be undertaken only when there is just cause, not at the whim of whoever happen to be today’s politicians. The 1911 Act solved a constitutional crisis. There is no crisis now, but the Bill will surely create one.

Colleagues can vote on the principles of the Bill confident in the knowledge that the undertakings in the programme for government have been delivered. A commitment was made to whip both coalition parties to support the AV referendum, but there was no such commitment on Lords reform. Proposals have been made and it is now up to the advocates of those reforms to convince Members of this House that they are right. An unfettered debate will allow arguments on both sides to be made, and we can then vote on the principles of this momentous decision. I am glad that the programme motion will not be moved and the Government should comfort themselves with the fact that so many principled and sound constitutionalists sit on their Benches and stand ready to work on a Bill for Lords reform on which there is consensus.

The fact is that the progenitors of this Bill have tied a chain around one of the central pillars of our constitution and are pulling at it for all they are worth, cheerfully telling us as the marble begins to crack that its removal will not bring down the entire edifice. I will not be party to that; I will not support this Bill.

General matters

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I am going to speak about Portsmouth football club. I warn the House that there is some good news and some bad news. The good news is that fans have come together to set up a supporters trust. I declare an interest as a proud member of that trust: like so many others, I pay a £5 subscription, which goes towards funding community projects and, potentially, safeguarding the future of the club. I pay tribute to all who brought that about, in Portsmouth and at Supporters Direct.

Now for the bad news. It is often said by enthusiasts—although we in this House would disagree—that the mark of a good referee is that he goes unnoticed, letting the game run its course. Sadly for fans of Portsmouth, the financial referee has been too much in evidence in recent years. Yet again, Portsmouth has been let down by one of its owners. At about the time when we were debating the problems with the European arrest warrant, one such warrant was issued for the Russian owner of the club so that he could answer charges of money laundering in Lithuania. His company, Convers Sports Initiatives—or, rather appropriately, CSI—was placed in administration, and the hunt for another new owner is under way.

Fans and the club staff are right to feel disappointed after the extraordinary amount of work that has been put in by so many people over the last 18 months to avoid closure and rebuild the club. The sense of despair is all the more acute given that the “fit and proper person” test was supposed to weed out unsuitable owners. I am keen to hear the Minister’s views on the situation, and to be told what he can do to support the club in its latest challenge. Needless to say, I have a few suggestions.

I think that the Minister should be anxious for the vetting of prospective club owners to be done well, and I should like to hear his assessment of the process that led to CSI’s being allowed to buy Portsmouth. I was very pleased both by the report on football governance by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and by the Government’s response to it. The social value of the game is very much recognised in this place.

Those who invest in football clubs as a means of making money would do well to recognise that they have put their money not just into a vehicle for profit, but into the collective identity of communities—the bonds shared between generations of families. It is that simple enjoyment of the game and love of the club for its own sake that makes supporters clubs appropriate participants in club governance. Their sole interest is the club, and without them there would be no club. In my view, that is the most compelling argument for supporters trusts to have a governance role.

Like the Portsmouth supporters trust, I think that the option of supporter involvement via a financial stake should be considered for Portsmouth, and I am helping with the production of an assessment of the amount that could be raised. The professionalism with which the trust has conducted itself has been hugely impressive. The core working party is composed of knowledgeable and skilled individuals with the financial and legal expertise to develop this proposition. However, they have been faced with a series of improbable but all too real barriers. They do not yet have access to the financial information any prospective buyer would be entitled to see. There appears to be a bias against them—a suspicion that they are not serious, and an assumption they do not have the funds and that they are not competent. We will demonstrate, because we can, that all these prejudices are unfounded, but it should not be necessary to go to such lengths. I would be grateful if the Minister made it clear to the administrators that in taking such a stance they are not acting in anyone’s interests. Discrimination is not the better part of valour. The administrators should be left in no doubt that this House and the Government believe in supporter involvement and that the Portsmouth supporters trust should be both treated and judged on a level playing field.

I would be grateful if the Minister took an active interest in this latest episode of Portsmouth football club’s life, and for anything the Minister could do to support the trust and the fans in safeguarding their beloved club’s future.

Finally, I wish colleagues a happy Christmas.

Business of the House

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I think that that is more a matter for Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government or, if it is a delegated matter, for the Welsh Assembly. I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s concern to the attention of the relevant Minister, but we are anxious to devolve decisions and we believe that most of those decisions are best taken at local level rather than here in Whitehall.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

Now that this House has voted to bring an end to the racketeering that is clamping on private land, we should not lose sight of the fact that until April next year many, often vulnerable, people will still be caught out by unscrupulous firms. May we have a statement to set out what can be done for my constituents who have had tickets issued by City Watch for cars they do not own, when they were at home, or before they arrived in the car park, or who have been clamped while administering emergency first aid to a fellow patron? Perhaps most disgracefully, the vehicles of the elderly and disabled have been towed away and they have then been issued with four-figure fines.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She will know that the Protection of Freedoms Bill, which is currently in another place, bans the clamping of vehicles on private land. In the meantime, I applaud what she is doing to protect vulnerable people from the activities of clamping authorities. I commend all Members of Parliament to do what she has done and, where appropriate, if they cannot reach a resolution with the clamping company, to raise cases with the Security Industry Authority or the British Parking Association. She reminds the House of how important it is that that Bill should reach the statute book and that such abuses should not take place again.

Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation Bid for BSkyB

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

It is not often, I expect, that I shall sign a motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. On this particular occasion I thought it right to do so. I commend the Leader of the Opposition on his approach, which is that we must tackle these appalling matters on a cross-party basis. I have always tried to do that in the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I am proud to chair, and I think that we have succeeded. I will merely say that I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition’s predecessor did not choose the same approach this afternoon.

I believe that the atmosphere at present has become so poisoned by the stream of appalling revelations that it would have been quite wrong for the News Corporation bid to acquire the whole of BSkyB to go ahead. We still do not know—we still have not even begun to know—the full extent of what has been going on in the newsroom at the News of the World, in the higher levels of News Corporation or, possibly, outside that, in other organisations, but clearly there were already question marks about the “fit and proper” test for News Corporation’s bid. The important thing is that we should obtain answers to questions very rapidly. There is an ongoing police inquiry, which needs to be concluded as fast as possible; there is the judicial inquiry that the Prime Minister has rightly set, which I fear will take much longer; and then there is my Select Committee, which has asked Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks to appear before it next Tuesday. We have not yet received a response. The Select Committee will meet tomorrow morning, and if we have not received a reply by then, we might well wish to return to the House to ask it to use the powers available to it to ensure that witnesses attend.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

There is an assumption that, once the News of the World ceases to trade, the victims of phone hacking will still have legal redress and that there will be a compensation fund for them. I doubt that that is the case, however. Is that something that the Committee could look at?

Business of the House (Thursday)

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

It would be very nice if that were the case, but I fear that on this occasion the amount of time that the Government want to allocate is in inverse proportion to the consensus. That is the difficulty that we have. The truth is that if the Government could get away with it, they would much prefer the House of Commons not to debate and discuss the proposal at all, so that they could try to get it through on the nod. I can think of no other change in student support that has been put before the House with so little scrutiny or debate.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I have to say that I find it deeply ironic that so many Members opposite are now raising concerns about the amount of time for debate. I remember that when I was president of Reading university students’ union and was raising concerns with the National Union of Students about the value for money of our affiliation fees, many Members opposite would set the fire alarms off.