Hilary Benn
MP for Leeds South · Labour · United Kingdom
“As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Irish Government published on 8 June their legislative outline, entitled “The General Scheme of the Legacy of the Troubles Bill 2026”. That is intended to fulfil the commitment that the Irish Government gave in the joint framework to co-operate to the fullest extent possible with the commission.”
“Northern Ireland is a society, as the hon. Gentleman knows better than most, that has been undergoing profound change since the signing of the Good Friday agreement 28 years ago. As the famous lines go, we have a shared history, but not necessarily a shared memory.”
“The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important point, and I am grateful to him for his question. We all have a responsibility—political leaders have a responsibility to call out what was witnessed for what it is and not mince our words, and as I have already indicated, social media companies have a responsibility to ensure that such m…”
“I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that the common travel area, which is more than a century old, is of great benefit to the citizens of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Many people in Northern Ireland live their lives across that border every single day.”
“I do agree with my hon. Friend. The attack on Mr Ogilvie was truly shocking, and there was no justification whatsoever for the racist thuggery we witnessed on the streets of Belfast in the days following.”
“That was, of course, an awful feature of what we saw. One of the things I learned in my discussions was that those from the far right had taken a list of houses in multiple occupation in Belfast—a list that, in the interests of openness, was properly available on the Belfast city council website; the council has now taken it down—and used…”
The complete record
Every one of 6,304 lines we hold for Hilary Benn, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 75 of 127.
“He called the deal “pitiful”, the Treasury negotiators incompetent and arrogant—I wonder who he could have been thinking of—and he then said this about the bonus deal: “Whether....paid in cash or shares....a multi-million pound bonus is still a multi-million pound bonus whether you have to wait two years to buy the yacht.” Clearly, this was all too much for the truth deniers on the Treasury Bench, and especially his colleague the Chief Secretary to the Treasury who, it seems, sacked him live on television. Does this not all show that when it comes to the Conservatives and the “spivs and gamblers”—not my words, but those of the Business Secretary last September—they certainly are all in it together? The truth deniers have taken another battering this morning.”
“I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. We are due to have the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill at some point. Our clear understanding is that the legislative consent motion from Holyrood will be finalised before we start consideration in Committee. Will the Leader of the House confirm that that is still the case? This week, we learned that more than half the donations to the Tory party have come from City financiers. A party spokesman denied that City donors were influencing policy, but may we have a debate on this? Scarcely was the magic ink dry on Project Merlin—that was some conjuring trick—than the Lib Dem Treasury spokesman in the other place, the noble Lord Oakeshott, could contain himself no longer.”
“Members, “Come and tell us what you want to discuss.” The salon, so christened by the Leader of the House, is an open and transparent way for Members to have the chance to say, “This is what we would like to discuss.” It is a profound change, and we are still getting to grips with it, but one occasion crystallises the force of the change in my mind. That was the first of the Backbench Business Committee’s debates, on contaminated blood, which included a vote. I have never encountered such a thing in my time in the House. We have seen that same force in this afternoon’s debates, and there will be another example next week with the debate on voting rights for prisoners.”
“The fact that more Back Benchers are now called to ask questions—business questions and others—has helped to re-energise the Chamber. For me, however, the most significant change of the lot has been the creation of the Backbench Business Committee. In fairness, a reading of history would probably suggest that the Executive really grabbed control of time at some point in the 17th century. The creation of the Backbench Business Committee has wrested back for Back Benchers the opportunity to determine what we debate, how we debate it and whether it is put to a vote. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) for the skill with which she has chaired the Committee and for the really open way in which she and the other members of the Committee meet every week and say to hon.”
“We certainly should not argue, “Well, we’ve always done it this way.” We should argue the case, listen to the different views—we have heard a very wide range of views this afternoon—and make a decision. The work of the Wright Committee and others has meant that real change has happened. The election of Select Committee Chairs and membership has been a very important step in taking those positions away from the power of Governments and Whips and putting them in the hands of hon. Members. Select Committees are a very powerful force in the House. The change has been an important assertion of the principle of independent scrutiny of what the Executive do. More urgent questions have been granted. I pay tribute, if one can without breaching parliamentary order, to Mr Speaker, because he has certainly increased the number that are granted.”
“When I suggested a change in the system, because I believe that if a Member wants to resign, they ought to be able to write to the Speaker and say, “I hereby resign from the House of Commons,” the Leader of the House chided me slightly by saying that our procedure for the Chiltern hundreds had stood us in good stead for, as I recall, some 260 years and the Government were not inclined to change it. His reputation as a reformer goes before him. I trust that that is not an argument that we will hear deployed too often when we come to debate some of the other changes that have been discussed this afternoon, because the response to any proposal put forward by hon. Members should be that it will be considered on its merits.”
“The other thing that has been striking about today’s debate is the number of hon. Members who have come along and said, “My mind has been moved by my experience in the House.” It is very encouraging to see so many newly elected Members here. People’s minds have also been moved by the quality of the argument and the force of the case that has been put. We owe a lot to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion for the cogent and forceful way in which she has argued the case. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) referred to recent events surrounding the resignation of the hon. Member for Belfast West. The Leader of the House has been so good as to come and listen to the debate, although he is not winding up.”
“I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing for us this debate, with the support of the Backbench Business Committee. The turnout shows how many hon. Members want to discuss the subject. For me, what ran like a thread through all the speeches this afternoon was a passion for this place because of what it can do for the people whom we represent. That is why this issue matters. Like others, I pay tribute to those who have worked to bring about reform, including, certainly in the past year or so, the Wright Committee. I pay tribute to the former Leader of the House, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and to the current Leader of the House for the work that they have done to improve the way in which Parliament operates.”
“Turning to the specific proposals, I agree that we should consider ways to provide greater certainty about when votes are taking place, and I am all for considering ways to speed up the process. However, the chance for Members to come together collectively is important, and it is the reason for the proposed change. On sitting hours, I am in favour of returning to 11.30 am to 7 pm on Tuesdays, and I am in favour of moving private Members’ Bills to Tuesday or Wednesday evenings. It is wrong that Members should have to make a choice on a Friday between their constituency responsibilities—many choose to exercise them, myself included—and considering legislation. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), I agree that Bills should be disposed of by a vote and not by trying to talk them out.”
“I sense that we have a moment for further reform. Today’s debate demonstrates that, not least because there are long-standing Members here today who have expressed an interest and shared their views with us, and there are many new Members here—a large number of new Members. That is why the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion has done us such a great service. One thing that struck me today, which is not always the case in all debates, was that as the hon. Lady spoke—indeed, as all hon. Members spoke—every one of us was listening intently to what was being said, which is how it should be. That is a characteristic of Westminster Hall, and sometimes—and sometimes not—it is a characteristic of the main Chamber, which tells us something about the importance of our discussion.”
“From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) suggests how it could be done. I am not convinced that that is the most urgent of the reforms that is needed. The truth is that there is a tension here. On the one hand, we are members of parties; some are on their own and others have more around them, but that is part of the reason why we are elected to this place. We may or may not have great qualities as individuals, but we are elected because of what we represent, but that bringing together enables Parliament to do business. The other part of the tension is how that impinges on Members exercising their independent judgment, a point that I shall return to in a moment. I welcome the Procedure Committee’s report on ministerial statements, and its inquiry into sitting hours.”
“Members have mentioned balancing competing pressures on time, and we happen to be sitting in one of the solutions. The Adjournment debates that take place in Westminster Hall are hugely important for Back Benchers who want to raise issues and get an answer from Ministers. A number of ideas relating to that have been suggested by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) and others. The Procedure Committee has recommended that we use this place to question Ministers on written ministerial statements, which is a most sensible suggestion that I hope the House will adopt. The other question is who should control the time, as we seek to expand it to deal with the competing demands. The second matter is the fundamental one of the balance of power between the legislature and the Executive.”
“I agree completely. The neatness to the solution of having private Members’ Bills on Tuesday or Wednesday evenings is this. One of the arguments against the old hours was that, “Well, the place is dead in the evenings,” but there would be plenty to discuss for those who wish to stay and take part. That would acknowledge the fact that we have responsibilities to our constituencies, which we all understand, and would not put us in a bind. As for amendments and explanations, I am absolutely in favour of the recommendation. We had an experiment, but not everyone did so. A simple way to ensure that everybody does it is to say that those who want to table an amendment must offer an explanation or it will not be considered. Turning to the broader questions, many hon.”
“They want to see us solving their problems and they want their hopes and aspirations realised by what we do. In the words of the prayer, we seek “to improve the condition of all mankind”— I would change that to humankind—and it is good to reflect on that when we start the day. The truth is that our democracy is our best and only hope of doing those things; it is our Parliament, so let us make it work for the people whom we have the privilege of representing.”
“Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight)—I am sorry that he is not well and we have sent our best wishes to him—is the furnace from which the ideas should come. The ideas should be presented to us; we can debate them and then have a chance to vote on them. Completely different views have been expressed this afternoon, which is great. In the end, though, we have to have a mechanism for deciding whether or not we are going to do something. Voting is a wonderful way in which we can try to reconcile the apparently irreconcilable. Finally, why does this all matter? My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) expressed it on behalf of us all when she said that people look to this Parliament to be the forum for national debate. They want to see that their voices are heard.”
“I agree with those who say that we should have the chance to vote on proposals, and not see them slip off the edge of the Order Paper. The Government should have the courage of the argument and respect the vote. Turning to how representative we are, we have not touched on House of Lords reform, because that would have taken all of our time, but I am wholly in favour of the second Chamber being 100% elected. It should be part of the system of checks and balances while recognising that the first elected Chamber should ultimately have its way. Where do we go now? We need a process to take forward the ferment of ideas that we have heard this afternoon, and we must not lose the moment—for reasons that many Members have mentioned. The Procedure Committee, which is ably chaired by the right hon.”
“When the bankers appeared before the Treasury Committee—those folk had contributed somewhat to the economic difficulties that we face—people were interested in the process. The fourth question is how we legislate. I agree with the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and others about the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny. With the benefit of some ministerial experience, I can say that Governments of all colours do not draft perfect legislation. The notion that the Government should unveil legislation in the House and then repel all boarders, wherever they come from, is nonsense. The act of scrutinising legislation, both pre-legislative and in Committee, means that we end up with better legislation, which is what we want. That process tests the legislation, and things that have not been thought of are exposed.”
“I regret the fact that there is more commentary and sketch writing about what is said in Parliament than there is reporting of what parliamentarians say. It is a bit like “Match of the Day” having about five minutes of football and 55 minutes of analysis. We have to get the balance right, but it is up to us. We should think back to the tuition fees debate, when a wide range of views was expressed. That day, the eyes of the nation were on Parliament. My son told me that he went to the bar at university and saw something that he had never seen before—students watching the Parliament channel on television. On that day, people were looking to us, because we were debating something important.”
“That would be one way of addressing some of the pressures that we have been discussing. I shall return in a moment to how we could take it all forward. I was a local councillor for 20 years and, picking up on a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), when I was first elected to the House, I was astonished at the lack of scrutiny of expenditure, because councillors went through every year’s budget line by line. We have a lot of means by which to hold the Executive to account, if we choose to exercise them, and we can discuss ways to acquire more means. My right hon. Friend has made a number of suggestions on that point. The third question is how Parliament is seen and covered by the media.”
“Musing on hard times, he wrote: “I predict that The Times list of the most popular girls’ names in the year may include a new one—Austerity.” May I predict in return that, when it comes to boys’ names this year, Dave, George and Nick are not going to be very popular? If the right hon. Gentleman is looking for alternatives, may I suggest Complacency, Incompetency and, as for the Deputy Prime Minister, that is a really easy one: Duplicity? What is in a name? A lot!”
“It could not have been clearer. Except that we now learn that the budget is going to be cut. A survey by the Daycare Trust and 4Children shows that 250 Sure Start centres are expected to close in the next 12 months, and six of them are going to be chopped by the Tories’ own flagship borough, Hammersmith and Fulham. It is no wonder that parents are worried sick. Another week, another betrayal. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why anyone should now trust any promise made by the Prime Minister before 6 May? Finally, I have not only been reading the Leader of the House’s submission to IPSA; I have also been reading his blog.”
“Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have enough time in Committee properly to consider the Bill, because, to judge from the Second Reading debate, there are still far more questions than there are answers? May we have a debate on one of the greatest achievements of the previous Labour Government: Sure Start? [ Interruption. ] It is interesting to hear Conservative Members jeering Sure Start. Before the election, the Prime Minister went up and down the country—we have certainly heard that one before—saying that he was strongly committed to it. He promised that he would back it. He even had the nerve to criticise my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) for trying to frighten people about this; and his right-hand man, who is now the Education Secretary, said: “On Sure Start, we won’t cut funding”.”
“Gentleman that the Government are going to have to change their mind. Talking of which, there has been much comment this week about the Prime Minister having to come to the rescue of the Health and Social Care Bill because it, too, has been poorly presented. Will the Prime Minister come to the House to explain whether he blames himself for that, given the revelation this week that he is having trouble persuading his own brother-in-law, an NHS cardiologist, that the upheaval is a good idea? His brother-in-law is apparently worried that hospitals will be disadvantaged. If the Prime Minister cannot even reassure his own family about the proposals—and the Health Secretary certainly cannot persuade the House—is it any wonder that the public are not buying them?”
“As a former Environment Secretary, may I tell the Leader of the House that, in my three years in the job, not a single person raised this matter with me? The House is entitled to know what the Secretary of State has discovered in just nine months that none of her predecessors worried about in the 90 years since the Forestry Commission was founded. This is a bad policy looking for an excuse. I must hand it to the Government, however, and give them credit where it is due. Given that the proposal might not even save any money, it takes a special kind of genius to unite just about everyone else against it. The truth is that people do not agree with it and they do not want it; even No. 10 is now briefing that it does not think it has been very well presented. So not for the first time I say to the right hon.”
“Lib Dems will have noticed that they do not have a single Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I pity them, having to reply to all those e-mails to explain why they voted for a policy that they must, in their hearts, loathe. At least their president, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), had the courage to speak out and vote with us on that. May we have a detailed statement from the Environment Secretary on the extraordinary claim she made this week, which was repeated by the Prime Minister yesterday, that the reason for the sale is an apparent conflict of interest between the Forestry Commission’s roles as a regulator and as a seller of timber?”
“I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. On his submission to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority review, which has been published this morning in a written statement, may I welcome what it says about the need for fundamental reform? That view is forcefully shared right across the House, and we all hope that IPSA will listen. On counter-terrorism, the shadow Home Secretary has offered cross-party talks to draft emergency legislation, but it is still not in the Library. The Government said in their review last week that using a statutory instrument would be very difficult in the event of a major incident. May we have an update? Last night, we saw just how unpopular the plan is to sell off our woodlands and forests, with several Members on the Government Benches voting against the Government.”
“Because it is pretty clear, from what has been going on this week, that this Government are not actually very good at governing.”
“Because the Government have rightly recognised that there is a threat to the public from which we need to be protected, and the responsibility that comes from being in government has finally dawned even on the Deputy Prime Minister. Following the release of the extraordinary photographs showing the dismantling of the £4 billion fleet of Nimrod long-range reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft, which will then apparently be sliced up in an industrial shredder, can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence on the letter that the six former defence chiefs have sent today, describing the decision to destroy the aircraft as “perverse” and warning that it will create “a massive gap in British security” Finally, can we have a debate on the machinery of government?”
“Will the Leader of the House tell his colleagues that when they promise to put something in the Library, Members expect it to be available soon? It is now all too obvious that that legislation is not ready. In opposition, the Lib Dems criticised the Labour Government’s approach to dealing with terrorism and made another of those firm pledges—a firm pledge to scrap control orders. In the past few weeks there has been a lot of bravado briefing by the Deputy Prime Minister, promising that the orders would go, yet what was announced yesterday? Control orders by another name—with curfews replaced by “overnight residence requirements”. Liberty is very unhappy this morning, saying that control orders have been “retained and rebranded”. Why has that happened?”
“That is why the outgoing director general of the CBI, Sir Richard Lambert, this week warned that the Government have no strategy for growth and criticised Ministers for being “careless of the damage they might do to business and to job creation” Yesterday, George Soros said that the cuts could not be implemented without pushing the economy into a recession. Is it any wonder, therefore, that families up and down the country, who are worried about their jobs, rising prices and falling incomes, are beginning to ask themselves whether this lot know what they are doing? Can we have a debate on the shambolic way in which the counter-terrorism review has been conducted? Last Thursday, the Immigration Minister promised that the draft emergency legislation on detention would be placed in the Library of the House. It has still not appeared.”
“Last week, the Leader of the House said in answer to a question that “this Government did something that the previous Government refused to do—we set up the Backbench Business Committee” —[ Official Report , 20 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 1025.] I gently point out to him, in the interests of accuracy, that the decision to set up that Committee was in fact taken by the House on 4 March 2010, when we were in government and Members agreed to a motion moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). Can we have a debate on the Government’s handling of the economy? Only a few weeks ago, the Chancellor assured us that the recovery was on track. On Tuesday, we discovered that growth has in fact stalled. The Chancellor blamed the snow. It is not the wrong kind of snow; it is the wrong kind of policies.”
“It does not seem that in this case that long-standing precedent was followed, so can the Chancellor come to the House and tell us when he received a letter from Mr Adams applying for the Chiltern Hundreds or, if he received no such application, explain on what basis he appointed Mr Adams to the post previously mentioned, given that “Erskine May” states that those offices are “given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to any Member who applies for them”? Does the Leader of the House agree that it is time we changed these ancient ways of enabling Members to step down and moved to a simple system whereby a Member can write to you, Mr Speaker, to resign?”
“I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his statement. Will he clarify what the rest of the business will be on 7 February, apart from the half-day Opposition debate he has just mentioned? Last Friday, the then Member for Belfast West wrote to you, Mr Speaker, seeking to resign as a Member of Parliament, but as we know, such a letter has no effect, as the only way for a Member to resign is to apply for the Chiltern Hundreds. On Monday, the Treasury told the BBC that no such application had been received, and yet yesterday we were informed by the Prime Minister that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had appointed Mr Adams as Baron of the Manor of Northstead. The Chancellor’s power effectively to disqualify a Member must be exercised correctly.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There is quite an important issue here about the nature of an application, because if, for the sake of argument, a Member were to express the view that they might feel like resigning from the House, the Chancellor might then appoint them and they would find themselves disqualified. Surely there must be a clear procedure for making it transparent that the Member in question has applied for the Chiltern Hundreds. The question that is being asked—a question to which the House would like an answer—is: was an application made in this case specifically for the Chiltern Hundreds which then led the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the appointment, and was it accepted?”
“Does the Leader of the House agree that we should extend them to those Departments that still do not have them? Finally, on 8 March we will celebrate the centenary of international women’s day. As the Leader of the House will be aware, for a number of years there has been a debate in the House on that day, so will he join me in encouraging the Backbench Business Committee to mark that special occasion?”
“In case Members are somewhat puzzled, it seems that the Chief Secretary is passionately opposed to selling off forests in Scotland but wholly in favour of the sale of forests in England. If there is one thing that is even worse than breaking one’s promise, it is saying one thing in one place and the exact opposite in another—but as all of us know, the Lib Dems are world-class at that. I know that the Leader of the House will agree to my request for a debate, because he supports the procedure whereby petitions with more than 100,000 signatures trigger a debate in Parliament. So if I tell him that the petition opposing the sale of our forests has 160,000 names on it, and it does, can he tell us on what date that debate will take place? Topical questions have been very effective in helping to hold Ministers to account.”
“It is wrong, it is unfair and it hits those whose shoulders cannot be described as the broadest, and, when those people find out that their current support, which enables them to go to the shops, to church, or to see friends and family, is being taken by the Prime Minister, there will be outrage. Talking of which, may we also have a debate on the plans to sell off the nation’s much loved woodlands and forests? The last time the Tories were in office, that is exactly what they did, and they are at it again—only this time with Liberal Democrat support. Now, that is very strange, too, because visitors to the Scottish Lib Dem website can find a page opposing the sale of forests. There is a photo on it of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, looking very stern and holding a placard that says “Save our Forests”.”
“When the Prime Minister was asked about this last week, he said that “there should be a similar approach for people who are in hospital and for people who are in residential care homes.” —[ Official Report , 12 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 282.] That reply shows exactly why the Prime Minister does not get it. The right comparison for people in care homes is not with those who are in hospital, who do not plan to live there, but with those living in their own homes, and they will continue to get help with their mobility. The Government will have to change their mind on that issue, just as they had to on school sport and are in the process of doing on prisoners voting.”
“Is not the truth that he just knows he cannot do so, because the Health Secretary took his colleagues by surprise with his plans, and the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), has to be brought in because No. 10 got the jitters. It is the same old story: the Tories in charge of the NHS spells trouble. Is that why the Education Secretary yesterday told people from the Dispatch Box to vote Liberal Democrat? Moving on to another broken promise—namely, that those with the broadest shoulders would bear the greatest burden—may we have a debate on the plan to take the mobility component of disability living allowance away from people living in care homes?”
“On Tuesday, the Health Committee called the changes “disruptive”, stating that they were creating “widespread uncertainty” and had taken the NHS by surprise. Could that be because the Prime Minister assured people before the election, when he was going around the country making promises as opposed to breaking them, that there would be no top-down reorganisation? Yesterday, the Prime Minister could not answer a very simple question from the Leader of the Opposition. Three times he was asked to confirm that waiting times for NHS patients would not rise as a result of what he is doing, and three times he failed to do so. This is very strange. If all the upheaval really is about a better deal for patients, why can the Prime Minister not make that simple promise?”
“I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. Given what we have just heard from the Minister for Immigration, will the Leader of the House please consider bringing forward the Home Secretary’s statement to Monday, as has been suggested on both sides of the House. The Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill really cannot come soon enough, because it has not been a very good week for the Government’s NHS reforms, has it? On Monday, the Prime Minister was completely unable to explain why spending billions of pounds on turning everything upside down will actually help patients, especially when, as John Humphrys helpfully pointed out, we have seen big improvements over the past 13 years.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are just about to start an extremely important debate on the scrapping of education maintenance allowances. By my calculation, five Members will now be unable to take part in that debate because we have just had a statement that could perfectly well have been made yesterday. Have you been notified by the Minister’s office why it was necessary to have the statement on an Opposition day, and do you not agree that it is highly desirable that statements should not be made on those days unless absolutely necessary?”
“Finally, as it is the new year, on a consensual note, will the Leader of the House tell the House whether the Government plan to make a submission to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority consultation?”
“It went up to 20% last week, even though before the election the Prime Minister could not have been clearer when he told the British people: “Our plans don’t involve an increase in VAT.” May we therefore have a debate on why—first it was education maintenance allowance, then it was child benefit, then it was top-down reorganisation of the NHS, then it was tuition fees, then it was cuts to front-line services, and now it is VAT—the Government have broken one promise after another? Is it any wonder that public confidence in the Government is draining away, because they cannot keep their word, their members are at war with each other, and they cannot find the bottle to deal with the banks?”
“Yet as we have just heard, getting on for a month later there has still been no detailed statement clarifying exactly what areas of policy and which staff have been moved. One result, as you heard earlier this week, Mr Speaker, is that the Table Office is unsure where questions should be directed. This is clearly unsatisfactory and unacceptable, so will the Leader tell us when we can expect a statement on who is responsible for what? The latest broken pledge is on VAT.”
“On which subject, the Business Secretary also had this to say—same interview, same bogus constituents—about broken promises: “They”— he is referring to his Cabinet colleagues— “made a pledge not to do anything about universal child benefit. Cameron had personally pledged not to do it, so they had to bite this bullet…they haven’t yet done winter fuel payments, but that’s coming, I think.” May we have a statement to confirm whether the Business Secretary was right in inadvertently telling pensioners that a reduction in their winter fuel payments is coming? As we know, the main consequence of the Business Secretary’s comments on the other war he has been engaged in—the one with Rupert Murdoch—was that his responsibilities for media and broadcasting policy were instantly taken away from him.”
“What is going to be done about this? What is the Prime Minister waiting for? When is he going to act? Surely it cannot be that the Prime Minister is afraid about the use of nuclear weapons. I do not mean to start the year on a downbeat note but, as we know, just before Christmas the Business Secretary, who has now left the Chamber, revealed that being in the coalition was like fighting a war: “They know I have nuclear weapons, but I don’t have any conventional weapons. If they push me too far then I can walk out of the Government and bring the Government down.” Of course we on the Opposition Benches wish the Business Secretary every success in this endeavour, but it does not say much for the unity of the coalition.”
“On Tuesday, the Chancellor, in what was a truly dismal performance at the Dispatch Box—it was all waffle and wind—had nothing to say about what will actually be done to tackle unacceptable bonuses. Therefore, as the Chancellor is not up to the job, and as the Deputy Prime Minister is not much better—his contribution this week was to ask banks to be “sensitive to the public mood”— may we have a statement from the Prime Minister? After all, it was he who made an unequivocal pledge that if bankers “decide to pay themselves big bonuses...they should know” that a Conservative Government will step in. He also promised that in banks where the taxpayer has a large stake, no cash bonus would be more than £2,000. Yet yesterday we learned that the boss of Lloyds—which has a 41% taxpayer stake—is in line for a bonus not of £2,000 but of £2 million.”
“I thank the Leader of the House for his statement, and may I wish all Members and you, Mr Speaker, a very happy new year? After a week in which the Government have made it clear that while they will act to make it easier for people at work to be sacked, they will not act on bankers’ bonuses—as we have just heard—thereby breaking a pledge on the very first page of the coalition agreement. May we have a debate on “all in it togetherness” so that the House can discuss just how let down by this Government the British people feel? On Monday, the Leader of the Opposition proposed that last year’s bonus tax, which raised more money than the Government’s levy, be applied again.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Have you had any indication that the Business Secretary intends to come to the Chamber this afternoon to make a statement on his policy on News Corporation’s bid to take full control of BSkyB? As you may be aware, it is reported today that the Secretary of State has said that he has “declared war on Mr Murdoch and I think we are going to win.” Given that he is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity in considering that takeover, surely he must immediately step aside from any further involvement with that decision. Can you advise us whether you have been notified that either the Business Secretary or, indeed, the Prime Minister intend to come before the House today to confirm that that is what will now happen?”