| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Q10. [283128] Mr. Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab):
Does my right hon. Friend believe that to build Britain’s future we need to invest now in helping people through the downturn, and especially in young people’s
training and skills? [Interruption.] Will he reaffirm his September guarantee of a place in education and training for all 16 and 17-year-olds?
The Prime Minister: I do not know why the Opposition mock this. Giving a guarantee for school leavers to get a school place, a college place, an apprenticeship or work experience—some form of activity that prevents them from being unemployed—has never been done before. That costs money, and we are prepared to spend that money. The Opposition party would refuse that money. In other words, thousands would be unemployed as a result of the Opposition’s policy.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): Is the Prime Minister aware that some of the finest residential training for severely disabled people has been put in jeopardy by the decision this week of the Learning and Skills Council not to fund the expansion of the National Star college in my constituency? Would he agree to meet a delegation of some of the disabled students, some of the principals of the college and myself, to discuss the unique situation of that college and see whether there is a solution to this problem?
The Prime Minister: We have set aside £2.3 billion for investment in further education colleges over this spending review period. We put an additional £300 million into that in the Budget. I will ask— [Interruption.] This comes under expenditure on colleges, and it needs money that would have to be provided by the Government. I am saying to the hon. Gentleman that I shall get the further education colleges Minister to meet him about this, but we have put £300 million extra into the investment in capital buildings as a result of the Budget.
Points of Order
12.31 pm
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have learned overnight that two of the UK’s three shipyards may close in the years ahead. Given that that would cause thousands of job losses on the Clyde or at Portsmouth, have you heard from Ministers in the Ministry of Defence whether it is going to make a statement to this House or leave the Chamber without telling Members of Parliament what the future holds for shipyard workers in this country?
Mr. Speaker: I fear that is not a point of order, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for placing his views firmly on the record. The answer to his question is that I have not had any indication from a Minister of an intention to make a statement, but, as I said, he has taken his opportunity to place his concerns on the record.
Mr. Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, would regularly meet Back Benchers from both sides of the House. Why does not the current Prime Minister extend the same courtesy to us?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, South-West) (Lab/Co-op): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for me to raise the fact that the real threat to the future of the shipyards on the Clyde is the separation of Scotland from the United Kingdom?
Mr. Speaker: That is a debating point but not a point of order, as the hon. Gentleman perfectly well knows.
Mr. Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. Do you think it appropriate and acceptable that the major decision to renationalise the east coast main line should have been announced on the media this morning, and that this House will not have the opportunity to question the Secretary of State directly? Indeed, we will not even be the first to hear the statement. Do you think that that shows calculated disdain for the authority of this House?
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) has raised a point of order, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) will want to hear the reply.
My understanding is that there is to be a statement at 7 o’clock this evening. As to the choice of Ministers to head Departments and the particular House of Parliament in which they sit, as the hon. Gentleman will know, that is not a matter for me.
John Robertson (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right that a political party should misuse an unfounded allegation about shipyards, when the company and the Ministry of Defence refute the allegations that are being made? It always seems to happen—every six months, people use those allegations for their own political purposes.
Mr. Speaker: Something tells me that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to entice me into a political debate, and I must resist his blandishments. That is not a point of order.
Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. It cannot be right for a major statement on the future of our railways to be made by a Secretary of State who is absent from this House. I was grateful for your advice last week, and I have written to the Procedure Committee. However, would not it be far preferable for such statements to be made to this House? Is it not a nonsensical convention that the statement has to be made in the House of Lords first? Should it not be made at 12.30 in this House, rather than waiting for the Lords to assemble further up the Corridor?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is largely repeating what has already been said. I note his point, but I do not think that there is anything on which I can rule at this time.
Sir Alan Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We were told in a debate in Westminster Hall this morning about rail services that the Minister was not in a position to answer questions about what has happened to the National Express franchise because of the statement to be made in the House of Lords, which would be repeated in the House of Commons. Is there any reason for delaying that statement until 7 o’clock tonight? I presume that it will be made in the House of Lords at 3.30 and could be made much earlier in the Commons.
Mr. Speaker: We have programmed business to consider, so when the right hon. Gentleman asks whether there is any particular reason for not making the statement now, I have given him that reason. Hon. Members may like or dislike it, but that is the reason.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week, you promised the House that you would rebuke Ministers if they made announcements outside before making them in the House. On the “Today” programme this morning, I heard Lord Adonis announcing the nationalisation of the east coast railway a good 11 or 12 hours before the House will be told about it. What, Sir, can you do about that?
Mr. Speaker: My understanding is that the Secretary of State was commenting on commercial announcements that had already been made, so I am not sure whether the burden of the hon. Gentleman’s charge can be sustained.
Mr. Greg Hands (Hammersmith and Fulham) (Con):
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families visited a school in my constituency yesterday without informing me. I went anyway and was met by an abusive and unprofessional civil servant called Belshan Izzet, who told me that the constituency Member of Parliament had been informed of the visit—that was a lie—and that neither I nor the leader of the council nor one of the governors were allowed in during the prime ministerial visit. That is disgraceful behaviour by a civil servant. How can we ensure that it is not repeated and
that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families abide by the conventions and courtesies of the House, which you set?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a regular user of the device of the point of order, which he is perfectly entitled to use. Of course, the normal courtesies should be observed, be it by Back Benchers or members of the Government. Members who go into other Members’ constituencies should give prior notification. They do not have to ask permission, but they should inform. However, I say in all candour and courtesy to the hon. Gentleman that it would be a bad precedent if Members started naming civil servants on the Floor of the House. I do not like it and I hope that we will not have a repetition of it.
Mr. Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Ministers appear routinely to visit hon. Members’ constituencies without informing them, and your predecessor spoke out as strongly as you have today, asking them to observe the courtesies. However, they are not observing them, so what action can be taken to ensure that they do so in future?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, as is perhaps his wont, asks a hypothetical question and engages in some star-gazing. The convention of notification must be observed. In the event of a pattern of its not being observed, I would not let the matter rest there.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con): Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), Mr. Speaker. You said that you thought that the Minister on the “Today” programme did not refer specifically to the action to be taken about the company. I listened to the programme, and he made it clear and explicit that the Government would take over the responsibilities for that company. It seems to me that he went beyond what was acceptable in an interview and made a statement on air. I do not wish to be pedantic, but that may give you cause to think a little more about your response to the Government.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. He had the advantage of hearing the interview and I confess that I did not. What he has put to me is reasonable. I do not know whether the line was crossed, but the fairest thing that I can say on the strength of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments is that I will look into the matter and come back about it.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab):
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week I spoke to the Fabian Society in Chiswick and Sheffield, and I would like to apologise for not informing the hon. Members whose constituencies I was in. However, senior Conservatives regularly come to my constituency and do not tell me,
although I do not worry about that, because every time they appear, the Tory vote goes down.
Mr. Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is continuing the debate, although I am not sure that he is doing so by a point of order.
Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) rose—
Mr. Speaker: I hope that we are going to make some progress, as we have a great deal of business to consider, but the proceedings would not be complete without a point of order from Mr. Peter Bone.
Mr. Bone: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of clauses of the Parliamentary Standards Bill were left undebated in Committee yesterday. I have listened to your pronouncements on transparency and the power of Back Benchers to cross-examine the Executive, but what happened yesterday was wholly unacceptable. I therefore wonder what advice you could give a Back Bencher to determine this matter.
Mr. Speaker: There will be further opportunity to debate some of those matters on Report. I have seen the sheer weight of amendments to the Bill and I am not insensitive to the point that there is a need for substantial time to debate them. However, at this stage I can say to the hon. Gentleman only that everything has been done in a perfectly orderly way, and in any event, Rome was not built in a day.
Mr. William Cash (Stone) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the Parliamentary Standards Bill this afternoon, could you give us some guidance as to how you will approach the question of amendments that may be moved on Report, given that, as you have said, very weighty questions arise—for example, on new clauses 7 and 8, which may not be reached, because new clauses are taken at the beginning on Report—and could you therefore also say whether you would be kind enough to consider those questions before Report?
Mr. Speaker: I will consider those questions when I am aware of all the amendments that are before us, but it would be unwise and precipitate for me to do so at this stage. If there are no further points of order, we can move on.
Bill Presented
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Alan Simpson, supported by Mr. John Gummer, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Andrew Stunell, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Andrew Dismore, David Howarth, Mark Durkan, Andrew George, Mr. David Drew, Bob Russell and Steve Webb, presented a Bill to promote energy efficiency; to require specified bodies to publish sustainable energy plans; to make provision for the transfer of functions to principal councils; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 125).
Dangerous Dogs (Amendment)
Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)
12.42 pm
Ms Angela C. Smith (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997; and for connected purposes.
It is a pleasure to present this Bill to the House today. Before laying out what it is designed to achieve, I would like to pay tribute to the immense commitment shown by Claire Robinson of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and by Dave Joyce of the Communication Workers Union in putting together the campaign to change the law relating to the responsibilities of dog owners.
Why does the law need changing? At the moment, if a dog attacks in a public place, the owner can be prosecuted. However, this is not the case if the attack takes place on private property, yet there is clearly a problem as far as such attacks are concerned. Let us look at the statistics. Around 6,000 postal workers are attacked by dogs every year, with 70 per cent. of those attacks taking place on private property. In one instance, at Christmas 2007, Paul Coleman, a postal worker in Sheffield, was attacked so badly that he needed skin grafts and plastic surgery. At Christmas 2008, Keith Davies nearly lost a leg in a horrific attack in Cambridge. Of course, we all hear about the horrific attacks on children, who sometimes suffer from awful lifelong disfigurements as a consequence, and sometimes we hear about the terrible deaths that occur when children are attacked in the home by dogs.
Clause 1 would therefore aim to extend the offence of having a dog dangerously out of control, so that it applied not only to attacks in public places, but to those in private places, such as homes and gardens. For instance, where postmen and women or other workers have to visit properties and are attacked in the gardens or within the dwelling, section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 would apply. It would also cover instances where children are injured and/or killed in the home.
Such a measure is commanding support from diverse quarters. The Dogs Trust says:
“This Bill... places additional emphasis on dog owners to take responsibility for their dog’s behaviour at all times”.
That is an important point. At the moment, if there is an attack on a child or adult by a dog, more often than not, that dog is destroyed, but it is the owner who needs to be the focus of attention and who needs to face the consequences. That point is also supported by the Kennel Club, which says that this part of the Bill is warmly welcomed because greater responsibility is being placed on the owners to ensure that their dogs are not out of control.
Thanks to a campaign by the RSPCA, nearly 4,000 members of the public contacted their MPs to support the Bill. One comment is particularly worthy of mention. It comes from a mother whose own child was attacked by her own dogs some years ago and who has been campaigning for a change in the law since then. She said to me:
“I wholeheartedly support any moves for safety and find the current situation regarding postal workers and dog aggression wholly unacceptable. The consequences are devastating and life-changing.”
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |