here - United Kingdom Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

823 Public Libraries and Museums Act 1 DECEMBER 2010 Public Libraries and Museums Act 824 1964 (Amendment) 1964 (Amendment) [Alison McGovern] They’re not good enough for the people in your area. They need a library service that provides public education”—and for a very good reason. My argument is that this public education role should be extended to the wider cultural service. There are lots of people in local authorities up and down the country who are fearful of what is to come. My question is what kind of country do we want to be? Do we want to be the kind of country where culture is, by and large, for those who already access it? Or do we want to be the kind of country where culture is for everybody and where local authorities fulfil their responsibility in involving people? I know that there is a real appetite among local authorities to take on that role. When I put the word out that I was seeking to ask leave to introduce my Bill, I asked people to come forward with examples. I would like to quote Councillor John Warmisham from Salford. I do not know whether Councillor Warmisham agrees with my Bill—he might not—but he told me that the best example of what can be done is that of Salford Quays: “First we had the Lowry, which attracted the Imperial War museum in the north, and this laid the foundation for MediaCity. This will give us more jobs than when we had the docks in Salford”. That, coming from a local councillor, is a powerful example of the good that culture can do. There is sometimes a view in the cultural sector that local authorities do not care about cultural services because they do not consider them to be as important as housing or social services, but there are many councillors out there who really do care. I want this Bill to start a debate, to highlight those councils that do great work and to determine whether we need protection in law for the cultural services provided by local authorities. I think that we do; and we at least need to have that discussion. In Merseyside, we know—probably better than many other parts of the country—the massive value of culture to places. Of course, this is about the economy, and I must mention the impact that City of Culture ’08 had on Liverpool, Merseyside and the wider north-west. I know that people will understand the importance of that, but this is also about the strength of community that was created at the time. People have pointed out to me examples of the work that went on to bring culture not only to Liverpool city centre but to the wider area of Merseyside. I know from experience in my own constituency how empowering it was for the young people and older people in our communities when the cultural services in the local authorities brought them together to discuss their history and their heritage. We need to ask whether that needs some protection in law. The 1964 Act has been a vital backstop to our library services at a time when they feel under constant threat of being de-prioritised, driven down and questioned. I have every sympathy with local authority leaders, who are having to make terribly difficult decisions, but the 1964 Act is an important check on what might happen. It ensures that we will never have to face the situation that my own grandfather faced when he was growing up in the inter-war years. He used to go to Liverpool central library and, I confess, he used to steal books because it was not possible to borrow library books for free at that time. The Act is important because it provides a backstop and enables the Government to question any local authority that is proposing to decimate its library services. We all know the importance to our own constituencies of the local art gallery, the museum and the local theatre. We have all seen young people from our schools gain confidence from coming into the theatre for their first performance. My reason for introducing the Bill is simply to ask whether we want to be the kind of country in which those services are available to everybody. Do we want the Secretary of State to take responsibility for those services? Such a task need not be prescriptive or demanding, and it would not require a large amount of funding, but it would allow local people to appeal to the Secretary of State and say, “Please stop. We don’t want our local cultural services to close.”That is important for all of us. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Alison McGovern, Tristram Hunt, Stephen Twigg and David Miliband present the Bill. Alison McGovern accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 June 2011, and to be printed(Bill 118).
825 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 826 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill [3RD ALLOCATED DAY] Further considered in Committee [DAWN PRIMAROLO in the Chair] Clause 2 EARLY PARLIAMENTARY GENERAL ELECTIONS Amendment proposed (24 November): 5, page 2, line 11, leave out from ‘Government’ to end of line 14. —(Mr Cash.) Question again proposed, That the amendment be made. The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 22, page 2, line 12, leave out ‘14’ and insert ‘ten working’. Amendment 36, page 2, line 14, at end insert— ‘(2A) In reckoning for the purposes of subsection 2(b), no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is prorogued or during which the House of Commons is adjourned for more than four days.’. Amendment 37, page 2, line 14, at end insert— ‘(2B) Where the House of Commons passes a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government, the Prime Minister shall tender his resignation to Her Majesty within a period of seven days of the motion being passed. (2C) On tendering his resignation under subsection (2B), it shall be a duty on the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty to appoint as his successor the person who appears to him most likely to command the confidence of the House of Commons.’. Amendment 25, page 2, line 24, at end add— ‘(6A) In this section a “motion of no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government” shall be— (a) in the terms “This House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government” or (b) in the terms “This House has no confidence in the Prime Minister”.’. 12.44 pm The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper): Being in this position almost persuaded me of the merits of knives, which at least enable us to conclude debates at approximately the point at which everyone else has spoken. I remind the Committee that the amendments deal with the mechanism providing for an early general election following a vote of no confidence, as set out in clause 2(2). Last week, on the second day of this Committee stage, we engaged in a wide-ranging discussion both of the merits of the various amendments and of the Bill. Before I deal with the amendments, let me respond to some of the questions raised by Members last week. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who is present and who speaks for the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, asked a number of questions relating to the constitutional consequences of a vote of no confidence under the Bill. She was particularly concerned about the possibility of a Government’s forcing a general election by refusing to act both in accordance with conventions and in the spirit of the Act. She gave the example of a Government who engineered a vote of no confidence in themselves, or who sought to trigger a series of elections close to one another by refusing to resign after an election result. If a Prime Minister who would presumably be seeking to be re-elected in a subsequent election engaged in such constitutional shenanigans, he or she would first suffer a political penalty at that election. If a Prime Minister behaved in an absolutely unconstitutional fashion, there would always be the ultimate long stop: Her Majesty the Queen could dismiss the said Prime Minister. That is the ultimate check and balance in our system. Clearly it would require an extraordinary set of circumstances, but it is the position that would obtain if our unwritten or other conventions were breached in a really appalling fashion. Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con): By what constitutional authority does the Minister cite the extraordinary proposition that the long stop of the constitution is that the Queen may dismiss a Prime Minister? Mr Harper: Her Majesty the Queen appoints the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister were to behave in an unconstitutional fashion, the Queen would have the right to dismiss the Prime Minister. Mr Shepherd: So that is the Minister’s new interpretation of a constitution, or of defined practice over the years. Mr Harper: It is not an invention; it is the constitutional position. Mr Shepherd: No, it is not. Mr Harper: Yes, it is. Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): I cannot think of an example of such a position since the reign of Queen Victoria, who refused to accept Robert Peel as Prime Minister, and I think it inconceivable that it would arise in a modern constitution. Mr Harper: I did say that there would have to be an extraordinary set of circumstances for the Prime Minister to behave in such a constitutionally outrageous way. They would be circumstances in which a Prime Minister was abusing and stretching the constitution in order to stay in office and avoid the consequences of losing a vote of confidence in Parliament. Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think that that is extraordinarily unlikely. It is theoretically possible that the Queen could refuse assent to a Bill, but that has not happened since the reign of Queen Anne. Such constitutional anomalies remain theoretical, but so theoretical that it is inconceivable that they would arise whatever the emergency. I really feel that to rely on that for the passage of the Bill is most unsatisfactory. Mr Harper: I am not relying on it for the passage of the Bill. I was referring to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, who last week, on behalf of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, raised some potential scenarios with which she was uncomfortable. I believe, and the Government believe, that those scenarios are indeed, as my hon.
Page 1 and 2: Wednesday Volume 519 1 December 201
Page 3 and 4: 801 1 DECEMBER 2010 802 House of Co
Page 5 and 6: 805 Oral Answers 1 DECEMBER 2010 Or
Page 13: 821 1 DECEMBER 2010 822 Point of Or
Page 17 and 18: 829 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 D
Page 47 and 48: 889 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy
Page 49 and 50: 893 National Policy Statements 1 DE
Page 65 and 66:
925 National Policy Statements 1 DE
Page 67 and 68:
929 1 DECEMBER 2010 930 always be f
Page 69 and 70:
933 Libel Law 1 DECEMBER 2010 Libel
Page 71 and 72:
937 Libel Law 1 DECEMBER 2010 Libel
Page 73:
941 Deferred Division 1 DECEMBER 20
Page 76 and 77:
271WH Candour in Health Care 1 DECE
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
291WH 1 DECEMBER 2010 PACE (Stop an
Page 88 and 89:
295WH PACE (Stop and Search) 1 DECE
Page 90 and 91:
299WH 1 DECEMBER 2010 HIV 300WH HIV
Page 92 and 93:
303WH HIV 1 DECEMBER 2010 HIV 304WH
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
323WH 1 DECEMBER 2010 Metal Theft 3
Page 104 and 105:
327WH Metal Theft 1 DECEMBER 2010 M
Page 106 and 107:
331WH Metal Theft 1 DECEMBER 2010 3
Page 108 and 109:
335WH [Julian Sturdy] Health Care (
Page 110 and 111:
339WH [Paul Burstow] Health Care (N
Page 112 and 113:
75WS Written Ministerial Statements
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
801W Written Answers 1 DECEMBER 201
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 177 and 178:
ORAL ANSWERS Wednesday 1 December 2
Page 179 and 180:
Col. No. JUSTICE—continued Depart
Page 181:
Volume 519 Wednesday No. 82 1 Decem
show all

here - United Kingdom Parliament

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?