|

Parliamentary speeches by Sir Patrick Cormack

Point of Order 1st July 2009

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.

Parliamentary Standards Bill 1st July 2009

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): On a point of order, Sir Michael. There has been a most extraordinary development since we met yesterday. The Justice Committee produced a report to the House this very morning in which it has recommended that clause 10 be not proceeded with. That was decided unanimously, and with a majority of Labour Members present. The Justice Secretary has already indicated that he will not proceed with clause 6, and I am sure that it would assist this Committee's deliberations considerably if he indicated now whether he is minded to accept the unanimous report of a Select Committee of the House.

The Second Deputy Chairman: As far as the Chair is concerned, our proceedings must simply follow the order that is set out before us. I am sure that if the Justice Secretary wishes to alter those arrangements or make any other interventions, he will do so in his own time.
I understand that amendment No. 63 is not to be moved

Topical Questions 2nd July 2009

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): From his meeting with the farmers of South Staffordshire earlier this year, the Secretary of State will remember the acute concern expressed about bovine TB. Has he rethought his policy on a badger cull?

Hilary Benn: No, I have not—I believe in being straight—because the evidence from where badger culling has been tried, as reported by the independent scientific group, was clear. However, we are working with the industry through the TB eradication group. In the end, the considerable amount of money that we are putting into vaccines will, I hope, offer a better way of dealing with the disease. We are looking to start the demonstration projects next year, subject to licensing, in the six areas that are being identified now.

Saville Enquiry 8th July 2009

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): The Secretary of State will know that the Select Committee is unanimously concerned about both the length and the cost. Can he give the House an assurance that if there ever has to be another major public inquiry, there will be tighter control over the legal costs?

Mr. Woodward: The hon. Gentleman's work on inquiries, and that of his Committee, have been a very important contribution. It is a matter for the House to determine other inquiries and when they take place, but if we want independent inquiries, they must be just that. An independent inquiry will, I am afraid, have to be a process whose length we cannot control. In the end we can try and hold the inquiry accountable for costs, but independence must mean independence. If the hon. Gentleman's wish were to be granted, he would also have to accept some loss of independence, and that may not be what he would want.

Bingo Taxation 14th July 2009

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: We have not had a policy of taxing gambling in accordance with how addictive or dangerous it is. That does not mean to say that we would not consider that in future. We have to take into account a lot of considerations as we look at different rates of duty, particularly for the bingo industry. The changes that we made in the Budget were designed to simplify the regime.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): Does the Minister wish to go down in history as Miss Killjoy?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I do not wish to go down in history as Miss Killjoy, and I certainly do not think that is my function or what I am doing in this instance.

Parliamentary Standards Bill

21st July 2009

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): I do not for a minute dissent from what my hon. Friend is saying. He is moving an important amendment that certainly has my support. Does he agree that it is appalling that we have only one hour to consider a completely rewritten Bill? I readily acknowledge that it was substantially improved in the House of Lords, but we have only one hour to consider all the important Lords amendments, as well as my hon. Friend's very important amendment. Is this not a terrible way to treat the House on the last day before we rise?

Mr. Cash: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The entire proceedings on this Bill have been conducted in an extremely shabby manner. Indeed, some important statements have been made by some of the most distinguished officials in the House—and in the other place—and the reservations that have been expressed, for example by the House of Lords Constitution Committee, about the fast-tracking of this Bill are a matter of record.

The problem is that because of the sovereignty of this House it is essential that we protect our supremacy with regard to the borderline between what we do here and what may be referred to the European Court of Justice or the European Court at Strasbourg. The wording that I originally proposed, and which was adopted by my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench a couple of weeks ago, contained the words that I now propose to reinsert.

Issue of Writ 21st July 2009

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): Will the Leader of the House give way?

Ms Harman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will simply allow me to make my argument to the House.

We did not move the writ at the point at which the Speaker left the House on 22 June, as it is preferable not to have an election in the Scottish school holidays.

Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. and learned Lady has not exactly conveyed accurate information to the House. The fact of the matter is that the last time Michael Martin was elected a Member of Parliament, he was elected as the Speaker seeking re-election—therefore as an independent and not as a member of the Labour party. I therefore suggest to you, Sir, that the Leader of the House is out of order on this matter.

Ms Harman rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can look after the matter quite easily, if the right hon. and learned Lady will let me. The short answer is that the content of what the Leader of the House says is a matter for the Leader of the House. What the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) has just said is a contribution to the debate, but as a point of fact, it is not a point of order.

Equitable Life

21st July 2009

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): Cannot the Minister realise that those suffering hardship—often extreme hardship, to use his own words—are desperate to know when they will be put out of their misery and when they will know what they are going to get? Will he please give the House an assurance this afternoon that when we come back on 12 October, he will give a definitive report with definitive dates to the House?

Mr. Byrne: As I said in reply to another Conservative Member, my ambition is to come back to the House with a long-stop date by which we can get the ex gratia scheme up and running. I accept entirely the hon. Gentleman's point about the uncertainty and hardship that many Equitable Life policyholders are now confronting. The hon. Gentleman will accept that, in the world of limited resources where all Governments operate, we must make sure that the help provided goes to those who need it most. That is the question that Sir John is now considering.