Madeleine Moon MP
Madeleine Moon MP - Working hard for Bridgend
Madeleine Moon MP - Working hard for Bridgend
Site Contents
Search
This Week in Westminster - January 16th - 20th
Another week where the House of Commons spent little time on legislation, but instead debates were dominated by the issue that is worrying everyone; rising unemployment and in particular the dreadful news about Peacocks. Elsewhere concerns were raised about the Government’s plans on individual voter registration and creeping privatisation of the NHS in England. I was able to raise a question over copyright of university exam papers. Ageism reared its ugly head in Prime Ministers Questions and Peter Bone’s campaign about what would happen if there was a national emergency.
• Crazy copyright (January 19th)
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and penblwydd hapus i chi.
May we have a debate on the nonsense issue of copyright law and university examination papers? Universities are unable to share past examination papers either in digital form or in photocopied classroom handouts because of third-party information in the questions. That is a nonsense, as universities are liable to prosecution if they do so, and it prevents students from preparing for exams. I am aware that the Conservative party had a manifesto pledge to deal with the issue.
Sir George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. It is a long time since I had anything to do with university examination papers, but I will of course raise with my right hon. Friends at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills the important copyright issue she raises to see whether there is a way through the dilemma she outlines, whereby it is apparently illegal to share past papers, which might be in the interests of students.
• Peacocks (January 18th)
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): What recent discussions she has had with Ministers in the Welsh Government on inward investment in Wales.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan): I have had a range of meetings with Welsh Government Ministers and look forward to meeting the Welsh Government Minister for Business, Enterprise, Technology and Science on 6 February, when we plan to discuss, among other things, inward investment.
Kevin Brennan: The right hon. Lady will know that RBS is blaming the lack of investors for its decision to pull the plug on a deal to save Peacocks, threatening thousands of jobs. My constituents cannot understand why they were expected to bail out RBS, but RBS is refusing to help them in their time of need, when their jobs are at risk. What is the right hon. Lady doing to talk to RBS about its responsibilities in this matter?
Mrs Gillan: The moment I heard about Peacocks, I discussed it with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the Welsh Assembly Business Minister has spoken to the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk). I have the greatest sympathy.
Owen Smith: As we have heard this morning, it is not only public sector jobs that are at risk in Wales. Does the Under-Secretary agree that the Peacocks jobs in jeopardy in my constituency and throughout the country are at risk largely because of the Government’s economic decisions to choke off consumer demand and raise VAT?
Mr Jones: Of course, I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the plight of Peacocks. However, so far as I can see from the reports that I have had to date, it is nothing to do with the Government’s economic policy, but everything to do with Peacocks’ banking arrangements. The Wales Office is intensely concerned about the matter and will continue to express concern.
• Individual Voter Registration (January 16th) – the Coalition Government has proposed to change the timetable for the introduction of Individual Voter Registration and not to have an annual canvas in 2014 which could greatly affect the accuracy of the Electoral Roll and disenfranchise thousands of voters.
I remind the House that it was the previous Labour Government who legislated to introduce individual voter registration, with cross-party support. The Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 made provision for the phased introduction of a system of voluntary individual registration up to 2015 and compulsory registration thereafter. The full and final move to an individual voter registration system would not take place until after 2015, the intention being to pace the transition, allowing the Electoral Commission to monitor registration levels adequately and guarding against any adverse decline in the size of the roll. There was genuine cause for a cautious, phased introduction. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) has already referred to the Northern Irish experience, but when Northern Ireland shifted to individual voter registration in 2002, there was an 11% drop in the size of the electoral roll. In the aftermath of that dip, lessons were learned from Northern Ireland’s experiences which were built into our phased approach, complete with safeguards.
The 2009 Act received cross-party support. The individual voter registration provisions—in particular, the timetable and the phased introduction—came in for particular praise. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who now sits on the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, but who was then the Conservative shadow Minister, said:
“I am very pleased to have the opportunity to put it on the record once and for all that we agree with the Government that the accuracy, comprehensiveness and integrity of the register and…the system is paramount. That is one of the reasons why we will not oppose the timetable the Minister has suggested this evening…the Electoral Commission, electoral registration officers and others who will be involved in the implementation of the Government’s current plans are concerned that this should not be rushed, but taken step by step to ensure that the integrity of the system is protected”.
She also made a commitment that
“any future Conservative Government would never take risks with the democratic process. They would take absolutely no risks with the integrity or comprehensiveness of the register or with its accuracy.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 108-109.]
The then Lib Dem spokesperson, the former Member for Cambridge, David Howarth, said:
“I do not think that anybody was suggesting that the timetable be artificially shortened, or that any risk be taken with the comprehensiveness of the register.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 112.]
I am afraid that some of this Government’s proposals renege on the cross-party support for the 2009 legislation, raising suspicions—fairly or unfairly—about the motives behind the shift in policy. Somehow, during that frenzied period of coalition building in 2010, the coalition agreement conjured up a specific commitment on individual voter registration, saying:
“We will reduce electoral fraud by speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration.”
That expediting of the process was new, having been in neither of the coalition parties’ manifestos.
• Creeping privatisation – (January 16th) – this Opposition Day debate coincides with the Health and Social Care Bill continues its slow progress through the House of Lords meeting opposition at every turn
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab): I want to speak in support of the motion and argue that NHS hospitals are not private businesses and should not be turned into private businesses, pitted against each other and competing for the most lucrative procedures.
Many of the dangers inherent in the Government’s plans have been displayed in the saga about PIP implants. In that case, tens of thousands of women have been left worried sick about implants received in surgery in private clinics. There are, of course, serious questions about regulation of the products used in private clinics on those tens of thousands of women. Indeed, it has emerged that the PIP implants were effectively counterfeit goods below medical grade, and I understand that some of the gel used in them is designed for use in mattresses.
On 23 December, the Health Secretary’s initial response to the scare affecting tens of thousands of women was that his current advice was that there was
“no need to routinely remove these PIP breast implants. In the meantime we would recommend that all patients who have questions about their PIP breast implants should seek advice from their implanting surgeon.”
As we have heard since, however, some women who had that surgery could not even contact their original surgeon and many clinics demanded hundreds of pounds even for a scan—money that the women involved just might not have. Last week, many private clinics said that patients must pay in cash to have the implants removed.
The concerns raised recently about the cosmetic surgery industry prompt many questions about where we will be if the Government continue with their Health and Social Care Bill. Last week in a letter to The Times, 14 consultants, general practitioners and public health experts wrote:
“The government proposes a vast increase in private provision of health care just as we are told that existing private providers are unable to supply adequate records of what they have been doing and are charging exorbitant sums to consult their records for those women seeking information on what happened to them.”
They continue to warn that the Health and Social Care Bill, now in the other place,
“provides much less protection for patients should their provider fail than is available to people booking package holidays.”
We have to think about that, because the implications are frightening for the future of the NHS.
• Ageism – (January 18th)
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): When does the Prime Minister expect to be cross-examined by the Leveson inquiry? Does he not agree that the British people deserve an answer to the question of why he appointed one of Murdoch’s top lieutenants, Andy Coulson, to the heart of the British Government?
The Prime Minister: I shall be delighted to appear before the Leveson inquiry whenever I am invited, and I am sure that other politicians will have exactly the same view. I shall answer all the questions when that happens.
It is good to see the hon. Gentleman on such good form. I often say to my children, “There is no need to go to the National History museum to see a dinosaur; come to the House of Commons at about half past twelve.”
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the areas of parliamentary life—the manners of this Chamber—that has improved in recent years is that it is now completely unacceptable for one Member to criticise another Member on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity or disability. The most under-represented group in this Parliament is the septuagenarians. Today we heard what I believe many of us thought was a gratuitous and entirely offensive insult to a greatly respected hon. Member, made entirely because of his age. Is it not right that ageist discriminatory remarks should be outlawed in the same way that other discriminatory remarks are?
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not also the case that “Erskine May” makes it very clear that no Member of Parliament should criticise another and call them a name that relates to an animal? In those circumstances, is it not only right that the Prime Minister should come back to the House and apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner)?
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not important that those of us of a certain age group should not be seen as the new persecuted minority?
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) rose—
Mr Speaker: Is it on the same matter? Gosh, a vintage quartet indeed, and a very high quality vintage.
• The bunker (January 17th and 20th)
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): What his role would be in a national emergency.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague): I would support the Prime Minister and the Government in their response, particularly in an international dimension.
Mr Bone: The Foreign Secretary might have a problem with that. Is it true that under Government contingency plans if the Prime Minister were killed in a terrorist attack it would be the Foreign Secretary who took charge of the Government until the Queen could choose a new Prime Minister?
Mr Hague: I can assure my hon. Friend that continuity of government plans are in place to deal with any catastrophic destabilising incident. I know that he has asked the same question of my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, and the answer is the same: we do not consider it appropriate to talk about these plans in public, but I can assure him that arrangements are in place for any such contingency. I cannot guarantee that there will be a place in the bunker for Mrs Bone, I am afraid.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): This week the Foreign Secretary revealed that there is a secret bunker from which the Government will be run in the event of some catastrophic and destabilising incident. Unfortunately, we do not know who would be in the bunker or who would be in charge. I should hope that the Leader of the House would make it, and for that matter his brother, the Deputy Leader of the House, but may we have next week a written statement listing all the people who would be in the bunker?
Sir George Young: No. But I was sorry to read in Hansard that among those specifically excluded from the bunker was Mrs Bone.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
TwitterPromoted by and on behalf of the Labour Party at 39 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0HA.