Leader of the House

The Government firmly believes that an MP’s primary job is and must be to serve their constituents and represent their interests in Parliament. The House has historically benefited from Members having outside experience; this is why we brought forward an amendment during the debate on 17 November 2021 that outside work should be undertaken only within “reasonable limits”.

However, the imposition of fixed constraints such as time limits would not necessarily serve to address recent concerns over paid advocacy and the primary duty of MPs to serve their constituents. It could be possible, for example, for a Member to conduct work within the accepted time limits but that does not necessarily mean such work is “appropriate” even if it did not constitute ‘paid advocacy’.

In respect of a cap on earnings from outside work, to impose such a limit could serve to prohibit activities which do not bring undue influence to bear on the political system. Earnings from activities such as writing books for example, would not preclude Members from meeting their principal duty to their constituents. We believe that it is possible for MPs to strike the right balance between their parliamentary duties and outside work so long as it falls within reasonable limits.

This will ultimately be a matter for the House to consider and the Government awaits the recommendations of the Committee on Standards.

The regulation of the amount of time that Members spend on outside work is a matter for the whole House to consider on a cross-party basis. The Standards Committee is likely to bring forward recommendations on this as part of its inquiry into the Code of Conduct and we await the Committee’s final report with interest.

The Government firmly believes that an MP’s primary job is and must be to serve their constituents and represent their interests in Parliament. That is why the Government brought forward an amendment (which the House approved on 17 November 2021) to support the introduction of limits on Members undertaking outside work. These were that MPs should be prohibited from any paid work to provide services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant and that outside work should be undertaken only within “reasonable limits”.

The powers of the Standards Committee are provided for in the Standing Orders (Standing Order No.149). It is for the House as a whole to consider on a cross-party basis whether the Standards system as set out in the Code of Conduct for MPs is sufficiently robust. The Committee is currently reviewing the Code of Conduct and the Government has responded to their proposals for reform.

The Office of the Leader of the House of Commons is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. member to the response from the Cabinet Office (133915).

The Committee on Standards is currently undertaking a wide-ranging inquiry into the rules and regulation of All-Party Parliamentary Groups. As part of its inquiry, the Committee has taken written and oral evidence which is available on its website (https://committees.parliament.uk/work/659/allparty-parliamentary-groups/publications/). I look forward to seeing the Committee’s recommendations once its report has been published. The rules governing APPGs are overseen by the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and are ultimately a matter for the House.

Any chartered body seeking to change its name will need to apply for a Supplemental Charter which takes the form of a petition to The Queen. No such petition has been received by the Privy Council from an Oxford University College, in the terms described. Should such a petition be submitted, it will be dealt with in accordance with the process and set criteria as published on the Privy Council website (https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/royal-charters/applying-for-a-royal-charter/). Formal applications for Royal Charters and Supplemental Charters are published and gazetted to allow other interested individuals or organisations to comment or to lodge counter-petitions within a set period of time. Each petition is considered on its own merits and it would not be appropriate for me to make a policy statement concerning current or future individual Charter petitions.

The Government takes the safety and security of all Members of Parliament extremely seriously. Security measures for Members are continuously kept under review, including through the Consultative Panel on Parliamentary Security and the police work with the Parliamentary Security Department (PSD) to make sure that appropriate measures are in place to ensure that Members can continue with their jobs. Security and other measures in place on the Parliamentary estate are ultimately a matter for the House authorities and PSD. Regulation of noise disturbance is a matter for the police and local authorities and the House authorities have made representations to the relevant authorities.

I look forward to continuing the work of my predecessor in encouraging the engagement of young people with Parliament. I would welcome suggestions from hon. and rt. hon. members across the House on how we can engage young people and encourage democratic engagement. More widely, the UK Parliament’s Education and Engagement Team supports a variety of work to promote public engagement with the House. I am pleased that the Education Centre has now reopened and that tours can take place once again.

Questions (a) and (b) are not matters of Government responsibility. There have been no official engagements held by the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons at 5 Hertford Street in the last two years.

The Office of the Leader of the House of Commons is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. member to the response from the Cabinet Office (80384).

The Office of the Leader of the House of Commons is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. member to the response to be given by the Cabinet Office (76745).

Good progress is being made on establishing the European Parliamentary Partnership Assembly and we expect the House to consider arrangements later this year. The House of Commons Finance Committee has endorsed funding arrangements to support the UK delegation, should the House agree to establish one. The next stage is for the Commission to make a decision on those arrangements. The House of Lords Commission is expected to consider the same proposals in November. The House of Commons will then be asked to agree to the establishment of the Assembly and the participation of 35 members as a delegation from the UK Parliament. Members of the delegation will be announced in the usual way through a Written Ministerial Statement, after consultation with political parties.

Face coverings are not mandatory for Members in the House of Commons Chamber, voting lobbies, Members’ lobby and Westminster Hall. The current UK Government guidance on face coverings is available on gov.uk. Face coverings are not required by law in the workplace and the Government removed the legal requirement to wear face coverings in public indoor spaces. If you are in a crowded, indoor space where you come into contact with people you do not normally meet, wearing a face covering can help reduce the spread of COVID-19. I encourage all eligible individuals to take up the vaccinations on offer, in order to protect themselves and others in the best way against COVID-19.

The Office of the Leader of the House of Commons is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. member to the response to be given by the Cabinet Office (38198).

On Monday 19 July 2021, the majority of legal restrictions in England were removed and people are now expected to protect themselves and others through informed choice. Guidance on social distancing and mask wearing in the House of Commons are matters for the House authorities and the Commission to agree, rather than the Government and Mr Speaker has written to Members to encourage them to wear a face covering when in the Chamber. Prayer cards to reserve seats have also been reinstated, Erskine May part one, paragraph 6.51 states:

In the Commons no place is allotted to any Member, but by custom the front bench on the right hand of the Chair (called the Treasury bench or government front bench) is appropriated for the members of the administration. The front bench on the opposite side, though other Members occasionally sit there, is reserved by convention for the leading members of the Opposition. It is not uncommon for senior Members who are in the habit of attending in one place to be allowed to occupy it as a matter of courtesy.

Members who have no such claim to a seat must be present at prayers if they wish to secure the right to a particular seat until the rising of the House (Standing Order Nos 7 and 8). Members may leave cards upon seats to indicate that they intend to attend prayers (and so secure seats for the remainder of the sitting). These ‘prayer cards’ are dated and must be obtained personally by the Member who wishes to use them from an attendant who is on duty in the House for that purpose from 8 am until the House meets.

The House has already agreed that the arrangements for proxy voting and virtual participation in the Chamber, Westminster Hall and committees should remain in place until the House rises for the summer recess.

On Monday 19 July 2021, the majority of legal restrictions in England were removed and people are now expected to protect themselves and others through informed choice. I encourage all adults to take up the offer of two vaccine doses, to protect themselves and others against covid. Guidance on social distancing and mask wearing in the House of Commons are matters for the House authorities and the Commission to agree, rather than the Government and Mr Speaker has written to Members to encourage them to wear a face covering when in the Chamber. The House has already agreed that arrangements for proxy voting and virtual participation in the Chamber, Westminster Hall and committees should remain in place until the House rises for the summer recess.

The House should return to physical proceedings as soon as it is safe to do so, as the Government firmly believes constituents are best served by parliamentarians conducting extensive in-person scrutiny. The Government has always been clear that our approach should be in line with the wider road map. The measures, agreed by the House, will take us through to 22 July when the House rises for the Summer recess.

Hybrid measures were agreed by consensus on the basis that they were temporary. The pandemic should not be used as an opportunity to make long term changes to our proceedings. Changes to procedure are ultimately a matter for the House and, once we return to normal, the House may wish to take time to reflect on the last year and review the impact on our proceedings. Should any changes be considered desirable, the House may wish to undertake an equalities assessment as part of its consideration.

I have regular discussions with members of the Cabinet. The Government has put a number of arrangements in place to allow for proper scrutiny of proposed trade deals with other countries by Parliament. This includes publishing negotiating objectives and economic scoping assessments before starting negotiations; regular statements to Parliament and briefings with Members and relevant Parliamentary Committees during negotiations.

At the conclusion of negotiations, there will be opportunity for scrutiny of a final deal and Parliament can resolve against ratification of a treaty under the scrutiny processes set out under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Any legislative changes required to give effect to a Free Trade Agreement will need to be scrutinised and passed by Parliament in the usual way before ratification of the agreement can take place.

It is a recognised fundamental right of Parliament that hon. members receive full and timely responses to Parliamentary questions and I have reminded all departments of the importance of this. I raised my hon. friend’s specific question with the Department of Health and Social Care and I understand that it has now been answered. I will continue to raise hon. members' questions with departments where there is a significant delay or unsatisfactory response.

During the height of the pandemic, departments were under significant pressure when replying to written questions and correspondence and I had some sympathy with departments. Nevertheless, members must receive full and timely responses when they request information. I continue to raise the hon. members specific questions with the Department for Health and Social Care and have impressed upon it the need to answer these questions as a matter of urgency.

No. The Government firmly believes that our constituents are best served when Parliament meets physically to the fullest extent possible. The cost associated with virtual participation is not a matter for the Government but one for the House.

I refer the hon. gentleman to my response during business questions on 28 January (Official Report, col. 570). It is vital that the Government sets out its position on motions tabled by the opposition. In my view that is best done during the debate, in particular in the Minister’s closing remarks that respond to the points that have been raised. The Government will always listen carefully to the views of the House and will continue to make regular oral or written statements to announce policy developments, provide updates and respond to events.

I refer the hon. member to my previous answer (133774), it is the Government’s view that the current arrangements for proxy voting are a better alternative to a system of remote voting. Details regarding the operation and use of the electronic voting system is not a matter for the Government but one for the House.

I have regular meetings with the Leader of the House of Lords. However, what is considered suitable for the House of Lords is not always suitable for the House of Commons and as I have said before, it is essential to strike the balance between facilitating virtual participation and allowing scrutiny and legislation to continue.

This information is not held by the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons. The Procedure Committee routinely publishes information regarding the performance of departments in answering written questions following the end of each parliamentary session, the last of which was published on 9 October 2020 for the 2017-19 and 2019 sessions. This is available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmselect/cmproced/790/79002.htm

I have written to all members of the Cabinet to remind them of the importance of timely and helpful responses to written questions. I encourage members who get an unsatisfactory or late response to write to me and I will take this up on their behalf.

On 13 January, the House agreed a motion to suspend sittings in Westminster Hall. I refer the Hon. lady to my words during the debate on the question of virtual participation in Westminster Hall.

It is the Government’s view that the current arrangements for proxy voting are working well and are a better alternative to remote voting. Details of all proxy votes are readily available through the House service to all members and the public. Proxy voting has significantly reduced the overall number of people who are required to vote in person in the division lobbies and it is also flexible as members can choose their own proxy, irrespective of party. This strikes the right balance between ensuring a robust form of physical voting, which is not dependent on technology and individual members’ wifi connections, while ensuring that very few members have to vote in person, thus ensuring safety.

It is vital that members' votes are cast in accordance with their individual will and, as set out in the proxy voting scheme agreed by the House, members who are eligible to vote by proxy must agree with the member nominated as their proxy when the proxy vote will be cast and how it will be exercised. The member designated as a proxy is expected to act in strict accordance with the instruction given by the absent member, ensuring the voting decisions of backbench members are upheld.

The Government has taken a number of actions to ensure that MPs can work from home more readily where possible. Measures are in place in both Houses, including virtual participation in all Chamber proceedings and as we have said throughout the pandemic, the Government continues to keep the approach in Parliament under review.

The Government guidance is clear that you can continue to travel into or out of Local COVID Alert Level: Very High areas, if you need to for work, school, or caring responsibilities, or where doing so is necessary as part of a longer journey. It is the Government’s view that we best serve our constituents when we are in Westminster, carrying out our essential functions. The House authorities have put in place robust and effective measures to ensure that the House of Commons is a covid-secure workplace.

The Government is sympathetic to those Members who are currently unable to participate in some aspects of our proceeding and has worked hard to mitigate that, including a wide scale roll out of proxy voting and providing for remote participation in scrutiny proceedings. The Government also brought forward a motion to enable those Members who are clinically extremely vulnerable to contribute virtually in Chamber debates and it was unfortunate that this was talked out so the House did not make a decision. I will continue to engage with Members on how we best strike the balance between facilitating virtual participation and allowing scrutiny and legislation to continue. As I have always said, the Government continues to keep this matter under review.

The Office of the Leader of the House of Commons is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. member to the response from the Cabinet Office (124846).

I have regular discussions with members of the Cabinet and have reminded all departments of the importance of full and timely responses to Parliamentary questions. I have raised the hon. member’s specific questions with the Department for Health and Social Care and have been assured answers will be provided as soon as possible.

The Department of Health and Social Care responded to an urgent question on Thursday 19 November 2020 in relation to its performance in answering written questions from right hon. and hon. Members.

The Office of the Leader of the House of Commons is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. member to the response to his question to the Cabinet Office (121122).

The Government guidance is clear that you should continue to travel for work where it is not possible to do so from home. It is the Government’s strong view that Parliament best serves the UK public when MPs are present in Westminster, carrying out their essential functions. We have ensured that Members who cannot be here for a range of reasons can vote by proxy and participate in interrogative proceedings. Members’ travel arrangements and public transport do not fall under the Leader of the House’s portfolio of responsibilities but all Members must wear face coverings where mandated on public transport and I would encourage all to follow the Government’s guidance on this and other measures such as social distancing.

We have ensured that people who cannot be here for a range of reasons can vote by proxy and participate in interrogative proceedings. The Government has brought forward a motion to allow additional virtual participation for debates in the Chamber for any member who has been classed as clinically extremely vulnerable. The change is in line with the Government advice to the whole country that the clinically extremely vulnerable should currently not go into work.

I will continue to engage with Members on how we best strike the balance between facilitating virtual participation and allowing scrutiny and legislation to continue. As I have always said, we continue to keep this matter under review.

The Committee on Standards published its report on Confidentiality in the House’s standards system in June and recommended that “the Commissioner should be given authority to publish a list of ongoing non-ICGS investigations and to confirm or deny whether a non-ICGS matter is being looked into, as she did before 19 July 2018.” The Government is continuing discussions with the Committee ahead of bringing forward a motion to implement the Committee’s recommendations.

Procurement guidelines are a matter for the Cabinet Office.

The UK’s exit from the EU offers us a huge opportunity to reform public procurement so that it better meets the needs of the country. Following extensive engagement, the Government has developed a package of proposals to reform the UK's procurement regulations. Our aim is to create simpler, less bureaucratic processes for our businesses, and better commercial outcomes for our public bodies; all while continuing to comply with our international obligations. We plan to publish our proposals soon and bring forward legislation when Parliamentary time allows.

I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave to an urgent question on Monday 16 November 2020, available at: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-11-16/debates/5A282C48-FAE0-4214-8B3E-EE545E2C6DF7/ParticipationInDebates

It is the Government’s view that we best serve our constituents when we are here in Westminster, carrying out our essential functions. At a time when the nation is dealing with the widespread impacts of coronavirus, this work could not be more important. The House authorities have worked hard to put in place robust and effective measures to ensure that the House of Commons is a covid-secure workplace and all Members should follow the government’s guidance when travelling to Parliament.

In October, the House took the decision to extend the current arrangements for virtual participation to March 2021 and ensured that people who cannot be here for a range of reasons can vote by proxy and participate in interrogative proceedings. This was agreed without debate and without division. The hon. Member asks specifically about Westminster Hall and remote voting. Technical limitations meant it was only possible to resume business in Westminster Hall last month. However, the Government's understanding is that, owing to House capacity constraints, it is not currently possible to extend Westminster Hall debates to Members participating virtually. On remote voting, in the context of a physical return of Parliament, not returning to physical voting would be a significant anomaly and I welcome the House’s agreement to the new voting system, which is an effective way of managing safe physical voting.

The Government is sympathetic to those Members who are currently unable to participate in some aspects of our proceedings. However, the Government has done everything it can to mitigate that, including a wide scale roll out of proxy voting and providing for remote participation in scrutiny proceedings, including select committees. In addition, I am working with the House authorities to see how we can support additional virtual participation in the Commons for those who are clinically extremely vulnerable.

I refer the hon. member to the answer I gave to his earlier written question (105448).

It is the Government’s view that we best serve our constituents when we are here in Westminster, carrying out our essential functions, as we have been throughout the pandemic. Covid Alert Level - High includes a number of additional restrictions to limit social contact to help lessen the spread of the virus; it does not seek to close workplaces in general and people may still travel for work purposes. Parliament is a place of work and an institution that performs an essential constitutional role, making and changing legislation, debating key issues and scrutinising the broader work of Government. A return to hybrid proceedings would mean that we would necessarily need to make difficult decisions to limit what the House of Commons can do.

The Government is sympathetic to those members who are currently unable to participate in some aspects of our proceedings. However, the Government has done everything it can to mitigate that, including a wide scale roll out of proxy voting and providing for remote participation in scrutiny proceedings, including select committees.

The House authorities have worked hard to put in place robust and effective measures to ensure that the House of Commons is a covid-secure workplace.

The Government guidance is clear that you can continue to travel into or out of Local COVID Alert Level: Very High and High areas, if you need to for work, school, or caring responsibilities, or where doing so is necessary as part of a longer journey. This guidance applies equally to Members of Parliament whose constituencies are in High and Very High Alert Level areas and to Members of the House of Lords. Similarly, guidance issued by the Scottish and Welsh Governments and Northern Ireland Executive also allows for travel for work purposes.

All Members must wear face coverings where mandated on public transport and I would encourage all to follow the government’s guidance on this and other measures such as social distancing.

The Government attaches great importance to the effective and timely handling of correspondence and written questions. Some departments are seeing a significant increase in correspondence during the pandemic but it is vital that members are able to ask questions of departments on behalf of constituents with confidence that they will receive a timely and useful response. I have written to all members of Cabinet to remind them of the importance of this.

My Hon Friend will appreciate that there are a number of competing demands for time in the House of Commons chamber. This includes ensuring adequate time for scrutiny of the government's legislative programme and meeting the standing order requirements to provide opposition and backbench time. While I am not in a position to commit to an annual debate on the Council of Europe, this is the type of subject matter for debate that my Hon Friend may wish to take up with the Backbench Business Committee.

Since 1 March 2020, and as of Monday 20 July, the Government has laid 127 statutory instruments in response to the Coronavirus pandemic. This has enabled the Government to swiftly put in place the legislation needed and we will continue to bring forward further SIs for Parliament to consider, as required. The table below provides a list of each SI, outlining the powers it was made under; the date it was laid before Parliament; the date the SI came into force; and, where applicable, the date it was approved by Parliament.

The Government continues to make every effort to ensure that announcements are made in good time ahead of the legislation being brought forward, while balancing the need for urgent action to deal with the pandemic.

Table of Statutory Instruments laid since 1 March 2020

We remain committed to full transparency in our aid spending and there will continue to be parliamentary and independent scrutiny of the aid budget. The form this takes following the merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be set out in due course. In reference to a cross departmental Select Committee, I refer the Hon. member to my previous response to the Member for Brighton, Kemptown on a similar subject (59864).

The Government is clear that the House Authorities must continue to ensure that the Estate is safe and that we must all continue to work in line with public health advice. The House Authorities have been undertaking risk assessments of various work spaces and are in direct contact with Public Health England (PHE) on any specific concerns. PHE also published its review at the beginning of June to help us understand how Covid-19 may affect different ethnic groups. The Equalities Minister is taking forward further work following the PHE Review so that we can better understand the disparities. The Government continues to advise members of the parliamentary community, such as Members’ staff and most House staff, to continue to work from home where they can. I would like to commend the House Authorities for their work in ensuring that the Parliamentary Estate is a Covid-19 secure workplace, and I have every confidence in their efforts to make sure House staff at increased risk of contracting coronavirus are suitably protected.