Skip to main content

Business question from Hilary Benn (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 15 September 2011. It occurred during Business statement on Business of the House.


Business of the House

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. On behalf of the Opposition, may I join him in expressing again our thanks to Sir Malcolm for everything that he has done in the service of the House and of our democracy, and in wishing him all the best for the future? May we have a statement from the Prime Minister on why, at Prime Minister's questions, he keeps saying things that simply do not accord with the facts. Yesterday, he told the House:"““Bank lending is actually going up.””——[Official Report, 14 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 1034.]" Wrong. The Bank of England's most recent data show that overall lending to businesses is falling. Yesterday he also claimed that private sector employment has increased by 500,000. Wrong. The Office for National Statistics confirms that private sector employment increased by only 264,000 in the year to June 2011. In answering a question about growth in the European Union by trying to talk about America instead—curiously, as America has not been part of Europe for nearly 250 years—he claimed that the UK is growing faster than the United States. That was wrong too. The US economy has grown by 2.6% over the past year to the end of the second quarter, while the UK has grown by only 0.7%. The Prime Minister takes the most important decisions, and he has a responsibility to do so on the basis of accurate facts, yet it is now clear that he is repeatedly getting things wrong. It might be incompetence—he might actually believe all this stuff—but either way, it is no wonder that the public are losing confidence in the Government's economic policy. May we have a debate on the recommendations of the Boundary Commission for England? The Leader of the House will be aware of the deep disquiet, not to say anger, about the proposals, which, in places, will divide communities and destroy relationships that have been built up over many years between constituents and their Members of Parliament, and all in pursuit of an over-rigid mathematical formula. For example, there is a proposed constituency for Gloucester minus the cathedral that makes it a city, and one for a new seat called the Mersey Banks, covering three different local authorities, where one would have to leave the constituency three times and go over a bridge to get from one end of it to the other. It is no wonder that words such as ““muddle””, ““utterly random”” and ““barking”” have been heard this week. Even the mild-mannered Business Secretary has complained. This is only the beginning because, as the House will be aware, the same inflexible formula will be applied every five years from now on, so we can expect further regular disruption, with MPs and their constituents not knowing who will be representing whom next. Given the disruption that the changes will bring, I suspect that quite a few Members who voted for the Bill that led to the proposals will now be saying to themselves, ““What have we done?”” May we have a statement on reports that the Government propose to ask bereaved relatives, including those on low incomes, for payment when they go to register the death of a loved one? The charge, estimates of which vary from £100 to £180, is apparently intended to pay for a new system to check on causes of death, but the cost, which is no longer to be hidden in funeral directors' charges, will be collected when families turn up, often in a distressed state, at the register office, or they will be sent an invoice later. Given that the Conservative party made such a fuss at the last election about a so-called death tax, will a Minister explain at the Dispatch Box why they now plan to impose one? Finally, having mentioned Mr Steve Hilton last week, this week we have been helpfully provided with a restricted memo from his comrade at No. 10, Mr Andrew Cooper. Headed, ““The problem””, it reveals that women voters just do not like this Government. In a damning section, it says that"““we are clear that there are a range of policies we have pursued as a Government which are seen as having hit women, or their interests, disproportionately, including: Public sector pay and pensions…Tuition fees, Abolition of Child Trust Funds, Changes to child tax credit and the childcare element, Changes to child benefit.””" Mr Cooper is clearly a man who can get his judgment and his facts right. We wish him well in trying to persuade his boss to do the same.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
532 c1192-4 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Boundary commissions Constituencies Business Banks Women Employment Fees and charges Financial services Economic growth Private sector Loans Registration of births, deaths, marriages and civil partnerships USA Prime Minister's questions Clerk of the House Boundary Commission for England Jack, Malcolm Cooper, Andrew Hilton, Steve
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk