House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie]

67: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Ministerial members(1) In each Parliament, a limited number of persons may be appointed as temporary ministerial members of the House of Lords.(2) Appointments are to be made by His Majesty the King on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.(3) A recommendation may be made only for the purpose of facilitating the performance by the recommended person of that person’s functions as a Minister of the Crown.(4) An appointment may be made only at a time when there are fewer than 8 ministerial members appointed to the Parliament by the current Prime Minister who are Ministers of the Crown.(5) Any person appointed as a ministerial member of the House of Lords ceases to be a member of the House of Lords when they stop serving as a Minister of the Crown.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to allow temporary appointments to the House of Lords for serving Ministers of the Crown.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment in my name on the Marshalled List, Amendment 67, regards the potential appointment of temporary ministerial Members of your Lordships’ House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for his support of this amendment and for having added his name to it.

In the very few months during which I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House, I have seen from the inside what outside observers cannot appreciate fully: that this is an institution that works. It is a House that does its duty efficiently and effectively. I hope that discussing Amendment 67 will give the House, and indeed the Government, an opportunity to consider how the House could work even more effectively.

It is vital that a significant number of Government Ministers should be Members of this House, and equally vital that a significant number of Members of this House should be Government Ministers. Our duty to hold the Government to account is accomplished in a variety of ways, as your Lordships are well aware, the most obvious of which is asking questions of a Minister at the Dispatch Box.

In recent years, 36 Ministers have been directly appointed to this House as Ministers. They have come in and made their maiden speeches at the Dispatch Box as Ministers of the Crown. I am not for a moment suggesting that there is anything wrong with that.

A Prime Minister is entitled to appoint the person he or she considers best for the job. It is in all our interests—indeed, in the interests of the country as a whole—to have Ministers carrying out the business of government who know their subject and know how to put policies into action.

It has long been an accepted practice that a Prime Minister can appoint a person who has not been elected to Parliament to become part of the Government. But surely we all accept—some of us more than others—that the ability to win votes at a general election is not the only attribute that makes a good Minister. A successful government department needs a mixture of talents. The aim of Amendment 67 is not to restrict the ability of a Prime Minister to appoint the right person to do a particular job. On the contrary, the effect of this amendment would be to make it easier for a Minister to be appointed.

At present, the only possible appointment to this House is as a Peer for life. I put it to the House that there should be an alternative: the Prime Minister should be able to appoint a person to be a Government Minister and they should be a Member of this House during their tenure of the ministerial appointment and only for that time. Of course I will give way to my noble friend.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for giving way. I just seek some clarification. She is making a very strong, cogent argument. When they leave their appointment as Ministers, will they keep their title or not?

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that very pertinent question. I think the answer is yes. A title is an honour—we have discussed this in various aspects of the Bill and in the changes that we are considering. There is no harm in a title. It is the presence of being in this House and having the ability to vote, et cetera, that is really the point at question. So, indeed, a title, once conferred, would be kept for ever. It is a great honour to be appointed to this House, but I ask noble Lords to consider that an appointment for life means something rather different to a person aged 30 and a person aged 60. None of us can predict what “for life” will mean, but if one is planning one’s career, it looks rather different from the point of view of having accomplished most of the things you are going to do, rather than from the point of view of having accomplished not very much yet.

There might be bright young things out there who could serve a few years as very effective members of a Government but who do not wish to undertake the duty of being a Member of this illustrious House for the rest of their lives. All recent Prime Ministers have vowed that they want to reduce the size of your Lordships’ House. Let us try to help the current Prime Minister to do that, by giving him the option to appoint Ministers on a temporary basis. It would be a modest step towards a 21st-century House if the Government were to consider adopting Amendment 67. I beg to move.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Laing of Elderslie proposes the creation of a new class of Members of your Lordships’ House, as ministerial members. It is not clear from her very eloquent speech whether such persons would be created Peers or not. She did suggest that they would be accorded titles, not only for the duration of their tenure in office but for life. This amendment does not address the problem of unpaid Ministers in your Lordships’ House. I am not so sure there would be many volunteers for such posts in the absence of a salary and a peerage. I hope my noble friend will clarify whether, on reflection, these temporary Ministers would be given a peerage or the right to sit after retirement from ministerial responsibilities.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. Just to clarify, it is set out in Amendment 67 that such a person would be created a Peer, but not a Peer for life. Although the title might continue, the right to sit in your Lordships’ House would not, once the ministerial appointment had ended.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for her clarification, but I wonder about the creation of yet another type of Peer. I wonder how many people would be happy to be created that kind of Peer, if others appointed as Ministers were created proper Peers for life. It might be a bit difficult.

I will comment on Amendment 90C, which my noble friend Lord Brady is going to move. He seeks to abolish the Lords Ministers altogether. Who would speak for the Government in your Lordships’ House? My noble friend clearly has in mind a very different role for the House, and I look forward to his elucidation of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

I thank my honourable—I am sorry, he is not my honourable friend; he has stopped being honourable. I thank my noble friend for giving way. I was trying to be brief in my initial remarks, so I did not go into great detail. This amendment would not apply to all Ministers; it would simply give the Prime Minister the ability to appoint some Ministers on a temporary basis. It would not oblige the Prime Minister to make all ministerial appointments to this House on a temporary basis. I hope that reassures my noble friend.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

The noble Baroness was effectively my first employer, when I was 21 years old, and we have this telepathic understanding: she has seamlessly introduced the main point I wish to make.

I want to turn this round and pick up precisely on what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, was saying. Moving to a system where the Government of the day could appoint temporary Ministers to this place would give the Prime Minister and the Government a huge amount of flexibility to fill government posts with genuine experts with, effectively, executive ministerial power to carry out their functions. There must be a small, niggling doubt when a Prime Minister is filling positions. Even with the very distinguished people appointed in recent months, he—and it is “he” in this case—must be thinking, “Am I appointing too many people to fill these Benches; people who are going be here for the rest of their lives?” If he had the freedom, for example, to appoint 12 or 13 experts in the field to fill specific ministerial roles, knowing that at the end of those roles they will leave this House, that would sit better with public opinion and give him more freedom. It would serve the country better if he were able to appoint such experts to carry out these functions—by definition, almost certainly as junior Ministers—and help the Government of the day. That is a very powerful argument.

As I say, there would be discretion to convert those Ministers into life peers at the end. In fact, I had not considered the question of whether they should have a peerage when they enter this House. My conclusion is that they should not. They should be called MILs—Ministers in the Lords—and then they can aspire, based on their service as Ministers and their contribution to the House, to a peerage after they have served as Ministers here.

Finally, I turn to the question, raised by one of my noble friends, of how many people would be attracted to the unpaid role of a Minister in the Lords. First, it does not necessarily need to be unpaid. It is a matter for the Government of the day as to whether they have the courage to face down public opinion and expand the number of paid ministerial positions. But this House should certainly seriously consider giving the Prime Minister and the Government of the day the freedom to appoint temporary MILs to help service its business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As the noble Lord knows, we are going to look at participation generally. That means that we have to engage in proper dialogue and consultation, so I do not accept the noble Lord’s point. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his assessment of the amendment that I have put before the Committee. It had not been my intention to have any argument ad hominem. I was not looking backwards in my tabling of this amendment in order to eject from the House any particular former Minister—and certainly not any sitting here.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I just make it clear, as far as I am concerned, that a copy of today’s Hansard is going directly to my mother, and I am very grateful for what my noble friend said.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

In consideration of the feelings of the noble Lord’s mother, let me make it absolutely clear that I share the Minister’s admiration for recent Ministers on both sides of the House, and, indeed, those who are now shadow Ministers and those who were previously shadow Ministers. The quality of the personnel who take charge of this House is exemplary and magnificent. Does the noble Lord think that that will be enough for his mother?

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will focus on paragraph (3) of Amendment 11, suggesting what should be in the consultation paper on methods for introducing elected Members to the House. House of Lords reform has been unfinished business now for well over a century, as emphasised in the Parliament Act 1911. I believe the Bill provides an opportunity for looking at several different ways of reform for the House: elected or appointed, or a mixture of both.

The Electoral Reform Society produced an interesting paper on an elected House in December 2023. I will first explore how other countries select members of their upper houses, to give comparison for an elected House of Lords here. The majority of second chambers choose their members by election, whether direct or indirect. The Inter-Parliamentary Union—the IPU—categorises 55 second chambers as predominantly chosen by either direct or indirect election, and only 22 as predominantly chosen by appointment. Many chambers do, however, combine a direct and/or indirect election with a small element of appointment. For instance, while the Italian Senate is nearly wholly directly elected, a handful of life seats are held by ex-officio members, formerly presidents, and up to five citizens are appointed by the President for outstanding service.

In Ireland, of the 60 members of the Senate, 43 are elected by panels representing different vocations, six are chosen by graduates of the two major universities, and 11 are nominated by the Taoiseach, creating a mix of direct and indirect election for some appointments.

In Spain, the Senate combines direct and indirect election based on different territories. The majority of senators are directly elected in multi-member constituencies based on the 50 provinces. Around a fifth are appointed by the legislatures of the autonomous communities, which are themselves elected by closed-list proportional representation—PR.

Concerns are often raised about the potential conflict arising from having two directly elected chambers. Wholly directly elected second chambers can be found in Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Switzerland and the USA. Within this group are significant differences in the electoral system used, which in turn affects their composition. It is generally agreed that one party should not have a majority in both chambers. Because of this, few parliaments with direct elections for both chambers choose similar electoral systems for both chambers.

Two notable exceptions are Italy and the United States. Italy employs a similar mixed system for both the upper and the lower house, with both chambers also electing on the same day. Because of this, while there may be some differences, the party balance tends to be the same in both chambers. The United States is the only country to use a majoritarian system for both chambers. While using the same system, the two USA chambers have different compositions because of the difference in size of their constituencies and the length of term. However, with party competition forcing a two-party shape due to the nature of the electoral system, the opportunity for gridlock is high. In both Italy and the USA, similar electoral systems are also matched by similar powers.

The majority of parliaments with wholly directly elected upper chambers use different electoral systems in the lower chamber. Brazil, the Czech Republic, Poland and Switzerland have PR-elected primary chambers and use majoritarian systems for their second chambers. Australia has a majoritarian-elected lower house and a PR-elected upper house. Japan and Mexico use mixed systems for both chambers.

Using different electoral systems for both chambers tends to produce different electoral outcomes, which are also supported by arrangements such as different term lengths and staggered elections. For a wholly or partly elected second chamber, the question remains as to which system of election to use. If direct election is chosen, there are many options for the type of electoral system that could be used.

Previous suggestions for Lords reform have put forward different options, including versions of party lists and single transferable vote, STV. The STV option was recommended in the cross-party Breaking the Deadlock proposals in 2007 and the House of Lords reform draft Bill in 2011. As Liberal Democrats will know, STV is a proportional and preferential election system in which voters get to choose their choice of candidate. Constituencies are multimember, returning usually around three to five candidates per district, although constituencies can be larger, and voters can put a number to as many or as few candidates as they like. Candidates who reach the quota are elected, and any votes over and above what they need are redistributed to vote as second preferences, and so on until the places are filled.

The 2011 draft Bill selected STV to ensure that those elected have

“a personal mandate from the electorate, distinct from that of their party”.

STV is a candidate-based system, which means that independents are placed on an equal footing with party-political candidates. In addition, because it is a candidate system, voters are able to choose between candidates of the same party, putting an emphasis on which party candidate they think will be most suitable. Candidates such as community leaders, who have a party leaning but would rather stand as independents, are able to do so without harming their party’s chances by splitting the votes.

According to the Electoral Reform Society:

“In the Scottish local elections of 2017, between a third and a fifth of voters gave their second preference to a candidate of a different party to their first choice. And, whilst many voters are loyal to their party, when no more candidates are available for their first choice party … the majority go on to give lower preferences to candidates of other parties. This opportunity for voters to make more nuanced choices would likely result in a chamber that has a different political character to the Commons.


STV could also help elect a more diverse chamber. Because STV is a multi-member constituency system, it encourages parties to put forward candidates who differ from each other in order to maximise their vote. District magnitude, the number of people being elected in an electoral district, has an impact on the diversity of those elected, so larger STV districts are … more likely to create a more representative chamber without needing additional measures … STV would likely go furthest to fulfilling the goals of a more politically diverse and independently minded chamber where voters would be able to select candidates according to their expertise and experience, as well as ensuring representation from across the regions and nations of the UK”,


which I believe the Labour Party wished for the Lords in its manifesto.

Another form of rank ordering preference is the AV system. While STV is considered a form of proportional representation using multimember constituencies, AV would operate in single-member constituencies and is not. There are of course other forms of PR, namely list PR, which was recommended by the Wakeham commission and the subsequent White Paper in 2001. In 2010-11 the House of Lords reform draft Bill put forward semi-open regional lists. List PR systems can be open, closed or semi-open.

With apologies to the Lib Dems, I will briefly go into the three main types of list. First, there is the closed list PR; secondly, the open list PR; and, thirdly, the semi-open list. There is a range of these types of list PR. Finally, we must not forget the first past the post system.

The 2008 White Paper modelled the options for election to the House of Lords on the basis of an 80% and 100% elected Chamber of between 420 and 450 seats. Using the four different systems I have outlined, while the first past the post and AV options produced results close to those in the Commons, the list modelling showed a greater proportion of seats for other parties, with no single party gaining an overall majority, but highlighted the problem for independents to get a place under this system.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

My Lords, with all due respect to my noble friend who has just spoken, there is no point in going into all those details about methods of election, interesting as they are. Amendment 11 is wrong, and I oppose it because it would undermine the very basis of our democracy, which actually works very well.

The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, referred to the Joint Committee report published in 2012. I had the duty—I almost said pleasure—to sit on that committee, along with the noble Baroness and others, for eight months while we went into these matters in very great detail. I recommend that report to noble Lords. The report itself was critical of the then Government’s plan to introduce a directly elected second Chamber. The minority report, which was signed by 12 of the 25 members of that committee, was even more critical of the Government; I especially recommend that to noble Lords.

If we had direct election to this upper House, it would not only upset the delicate balance of our constitutional settlement. It would also totally undermine the delicate relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I seem to recall that in speaking on this matter back then in 2012, I said something like, “Mr Speaker, I don’t care about the House of Lords; I care about the House of Commons”. If I may correct myself, I do now care passionately about the House of Lords. It is for that very reason that I hope Amendment 11 does not have support here.

The great value of your Lordships is that the majority are not politicians, as the noble Lord, Lord Moore, most articulately said a few moments ago, whereas if we had direct election, the moment anybody stands for election and puts their head above the parapet, they become a politician. I can be critical of politicians because I am one to my fingertips; I have been a full-time one for more than 30 years. As a new Member of this House, I appreciate just how valuable noble Lords who are not politicians are in the work that they do and the scrutiny that this House brings to holding the Government to account.

My second point is that if the upper House is elected, that undermines the position of the House of Commons. It undermines the authority and accountability of the House of Commons. The electorate have to know where the buck stops. There is a direct relationship between the voter and the elected person, which is embodied in our House of Commons, one of the best democratic institutions anywhere in the world. If the upper House were to have democratic accountability and authority, that would challenge the House of Commons—and then the electorate would not know where the buck stops. As Tony Benn used to say, “If you don’t know how to get rid of the people you elect, then you don’t have accountability and you don’t have true democracy”. It is very strange to find myself agreeing yet again with Tony Benn.

My third point is simply that a well-functioning democracy is not just about elections. Our democracy works because of the checks and balances of civic society. That includes the work of your Lordships’ House as a revising Chamber, not as a representative Chamber. I beg your Lordships not to support Amendment 11.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend, for two reasons. First, I served with her on the Joint Committee on the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill. Secondly, I intend to follow her in actually referring to the text of Amendment 11, which makes me somewhat exceptional in this debate, because it has been about an elected second Chamber. The amendment does not actually stipulate that.

Let me begin with one or two quick points. First, it is not self-evidently the case that an appointed second Chamber is undemocratic. I have developed this case before; there is a democratic argument for an appointed second Chamber.

Secondly, it is not self-evidently the case that elected second chambers fulfil functions that benefit the political system, certainly not in terms of facilitating good law. Following what the noble Lord, Lord Moore, said, this Chamber is defined by its relationship to the other place. This is a complementary second Chamber. It adds value by fulfilling functions the other place does not have the time or political will to carry out. That renders it distinct, it adds value and I would argue that good law is a public good that deserves to be preserved.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Baroness, Lady Laing, said, as a demerit of elections, that the House would be composed principally of people who were politicians. Let us not fool ourselves about what we are: this is a House of politicians. She is no less of a politician now than when she was in the Commons. Politicians would arrive by a direct, rather than indirect, route. Frankly, the idea that we are not politicians is strange.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

I am grateful to the honourable—

[Noble Lords]

Noble!

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

I think I just proved the point there. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My point was not that I am not a politician, but that I am a lesser person for being a politician. The great thing about this Chamber is that it has a very large number, if not a majority, of Members who are not politicians, and that is what gives it its value.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am happy to debate the numbers, but I disagree that the majority of people who take a party Whip can legitimately not call themselves politicians. The Cross-Benchers are not politicians, although they are very political in many cases. Under my proposal, they are not being abolished anyway.

On the noble Lord, Lord True, I was intrigued by his reference to Lloyd George. Lloyd George does not come with a totally unblemished record when it comes to matters relating to the House of Lords.

As I said at the start, this amendment is to set up a process. It is not a blueprint. We on these Benches believe that this process should now be commenced. We believe that it is very long overdue, and we will return to this amendment on Report with that in view.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hamilton. I am one of the latest recruits to your Lordships’ House and I have to say to my noble friend that, in the very few weeks I have been here, I have so far encountered no violent criminals at all, as far as I am aware. Everyone has been extremely kind and gentle, and, given that I spent nearly three decades in the other place, I have been astounded at the courtesy and politeness. Being new, I hesitated to take an active part in today’s debate, but it is perhaps my very newness that allows me to observe your Lordships’ House from a slightly different angle.

I begin by congratulating my equally new noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham on his excellent maiden speech—90% of which I agreed with. We will argue about the other 10% for many years to come, I hope, as we have for many years in the past.

I had the privilege of serving, during the consideration of the Bill that was brought forward by the coalition Government in 2011, on the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform. Some noble Lords might recall that committee. I remember very well that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, who I see in her place, was a very active member of that committee and that we drafted together an excellent minority report, which I draw to the attention of noble Lords. That committee sat for nine months, so we looked at this matter in some depth.

I make just three points this afternoon. First, there is a general misunderstanding among journalists, commentators and Members of the House of Commons about what this House actually does. The fact is that your Lordships’ House has influence but not power. The elected Government have power. This misapprehension means that many observers of the current constitutional settlement are looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope.

Secondly, the hereditary Peers are in a unique position in the democratic world because they have genuine independence. They owe their position to no one—well, perhaps to their great-grandfathers, but to no one to whom they are answerable now. Our unwritten constitution requires inbuilt checks and balances, and the hereditary Peers provide a very important element of that balance because they are truly independent. We should value that independence.

Thirdly, there is a sharp contrast between theory and practice. If we were constructing a constitution from scratch, we would not start from here, but our constitution has developed over centuries, and the fact is that it works. The current balance between our two Houses of Parliament works. It is our duty as Parliament to hold government to account. Government is held to account in one way by the elected Members of the House of Commons, and in a different way by your Lordships. The current system works, and, as a wise man once said, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Business of the House

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I hand over to the Chairman of Ways and Means, may I thank right hon. and hon. Members for the very kind words they have said during this business statement? It will obviously be the last business statement that I will be in the Chair for. It is always a highlight of the week to see colleagues raising a dizzying array of concerns on behalf of their constituents and a great opportunity for them to pursue the causes in which they believe. Thank you very much for everything you have said, and I particularly thank those colleagues who have praised our very hard-working staff members in the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It is goodbye from me and it is goodbye from her.

[Sir Conor Burns]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before you took the Chair, numerous Members paid tribute to the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton). I have been looking at the Twitter machine—something that would not have been allowed when I was first elected to this place—and I have seen that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have also announced you are leaving the House of Commons when we dissolve. May I be the first to wish you all happiness and success and thank you for your many years of service to this Parliament?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you very much indeed. I will not say too much in reply, lest the tears come back to my eyes again. My fellow Madam Deputy Speaker and I have carried out quite a double act these last few years. I will miss all of you, and her, very much indeed. Thank you.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I feel it is incumbent on me to say, “There’s nothing like a Dame.” I am very grateful to both of you in a personal regard. You have always helped me enormously, mainly through your sense of style, and I hope the House will continue to benefit from your legacy in that regard.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you very much. I suppose it could be said, “What’s worse than encountering a Dame? Encountering two Dames together!”

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a fellow Doncaster MP, it is only right that I thank Madam Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton), for all her hard work, which is very much appreciated. I know that it must have been difficult for her sometimes to listen to a Conservative Member of Parliament, but throughout my time in this place, she has been nothing but professional and fair in the Chair, so I thank her on my behalf and that of the people of Doncaster.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you. That is very nice.

[Sir John Hayes]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday in the House, every single Member was moved by the account of my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) about the extraordinary challenges that he has faced and overcome, but many Members of this House face extraordinary challenges, including with their health. Those challenges are often invisible—known to us but not beyond this place. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, have been a model, as someone who has faced such challenges, overcome them and returned to this House to preside with dignity and grace. It has been a great pleasure to be in the House for the whole time that you have been here. I hope to continue, and I hope that I can follow your example as I do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you very much indeed, Sir John, my dear friend of 27 years. Doesn’t time fly when you are enjoying yourself?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I also add my thanks to you and the other Madam Deputy Speaker? You have always been enormously kind to me. I know that I am often quite eager to make a contribution, and you have always done your best to ensure that that happens. I suspect that, because of my language and the way I speak at 100 miles an hour, it may not always be possible to know exactly what the words are, but I know that you understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, given that we are Gaelic cousins—you are Scottish and I am Northern Irish, so we share that interest. I was very pleased to find out that you are a Rangers supporter. Next year will be our year, and I hope that we will remember it more than most. I will miss you and the other Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much for keeping me right, as well as for telling me off the odd time as well —I probably needed it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman speaks in this House more than anyone—possibly more than everyone else put together—but it is always a pleasure to hear what he says, and I thank him very much for his kind comments.

I think that I had better not take any further points of order lest we deflect from the business statement and the work that the Leader of the House has to do. I call Bob Blackman.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to you and Dame Rosie for your service to the House, which has been long and very valuable.

Colleagues are asking for items to be dealt with in the wash-up, so may I give a big push to my private Member’s Bill? The Zoological Society of London (Leases) Bill, is currently in the Lords, where it has been given its Second Reading, having passed unopposed and unamended in this place. If we could get it into statute, everyone would be grateful.

As we approach the 4 July election, it is fair to say that the voters of this country have a choice. In exercising that choice, they can look to Wales, where Labour has been in power and a disaster, and to Scotland, where the SNP has been in power and another disaster, but we in London can look even closer at what it has been like to live under the Labour Mayor. I could go through a litany of his disasters, but his latest ruse to improve the air quality in London is to order electric buses from China, even though suitable buses are available in this country and would provide jobs for people here. Will my right hon. Friend set out the choice that people will have come 4 July?

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on all that he has achieved for his current constituency. I hope that he has the opportunity to continue serving, because he does a fantastic job for his constituents and is one of the hardest working Members in this place. I also thank him for his kind words about cross-party working. A lot of good is done on that basis in this place, although it rarely gets a lot of attention, so I am glad that he has shone a spotlight on it this afternoon. He is right that the prospect of Labour being at the helm during business questions is not something I wish to contemplate, which is why I will do everything I can over the next six weeks to ensure continuity on this side of the Dispatch Box.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Danny Kruger.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

My sincere thanks to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all Members who are stepping down, particularly my great friend the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), to whom, more than any other individual, this country owes the restoration of parliamentary sovereignty, and there can be no greater legacy for an MP.

It is very good news that inflation is coming down, particularly because of global energy prices, but business energy costs remain high for many of our constituents. In particular, one agricultural business in my constituency is facing an extraordinary rise in the standing charges it has to pay: it has to pay £32,000 before it even starts to pay for electricity, and the electricity itself will cost only £12,000. The Government, commendably, are asking Ofgem to look at the impact of standing charges on household consumers, but will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to request that Ofgem also looks at the impact on businesses?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter, and I will certainly write to the Department and ask that it makes that request to Ofgem. I remind colleagues that clearly people will want casework and support for constituents and businesses to continue. I know that Ofgem is particularly interested in the practices of individual suppliers, so I would encourage my hon. Friend to do that. For as long as I can, I will be able to assist hon. Members in that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

And the prize for patience and perseverance goes to Robin Millar.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you also for your kind and carefully chosen words to me at different times through this Parliament; they have been much appreciated. The contributions in this Chamber over the past day or so have given me cause to reflect that each of us owes our place here not just to desire and effort, but actually to the mercy of God as well.

When I was growing up in north Wales, it was with an unspoken expectation that I would have to leave in order to find a job, build a career and make something of myself. But now, after four years, I can say that the Conservative MPs in north Wales have managed to secure a freeport in Ynys Môn and an investment zone in Wrexham, both of which will bring new business, new technology and new jobs to north Wales. We have also secured £1 billion for investment in the north Wales main line, which will connect families to each other and people to business, and connect to more investment and even to public services across the border. And of course yesterday we heard that there will be a nuclear future in Wylfa, which will bring thousands of jobs and the creation of green energy to north Wales. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that record of delivering for the people of north Wales over the past four years, young people there can now look to a future where they can develop the skills they need for the jobs they want, and build the homes and make the place for themselves that they deserve in north Wales?

Points of Order

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I, too, wish to pay tribute to you and offer you immense thanks for being such a wonderful colleague. People know you for many things: you are formidable in the Chair, and you are an incredibly stylish and generous individual. I will share just one instance with hon. Members. In the week of the late Queen’s death, I had arrived on Monday as a junior Trade Minister with enough clothes for four days. I do not have a home in London and was unable to go back to Portsmouth, so I had no clothes to wear, let alone anything black. It was thanks to your initiative and kindness that I was dressed for the Accession Council—your hairband, in particular, became a global viral sensation. It is just one example of your care for all of us. Thank you also for being a role model for women in this place. I wish you well.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Thank you very much indeed—the tears are definitely coming now. Who would have known of our skills in millinery, but it is amazing what one has to turn one’s hand to in this place, especially in an emergency. People see the tip of the iceberg; they have no idea how much is going on underneath the surface.

It is very difficult to leave a job that one loves. For me, being Chairman of Ways and Means is the tip of my iceberg, or the summit of my Everest—something like that. As far as I am concerned, it is the best job in the world, and it is very difficult to leave. I am also honoured to have served the people of Epping Forest for 27 years. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. I would like it to be thought that I was 20 when I started, but that is not quite correct. But 27 years has flashed by and this is very difficult; I guess that is why it took me until 1 o’clock today to tell people I will not be coming back after the election. But the time comes when the right thing to do is stand aside and give others the opportunities that I have been so fortunate to have. I am very touched by everything that everyone has said today—and I will stop now in case the tears come. Thank you.

Bills Presented

Prime Minister (Nomination) and Cabinet (Appointment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Patrick Grady, supported by David Linden, Marion Fellows, Alison Thewliss, Kirsty Blackman, Kirsten Oswald, Gavin Newlands, Alan Brown, Chris Stephens, Carol Monaghan and Owen Thompson, presented a Bill to make provision for the House of Commons to nominate the Prime Minister and approve appointments to the Cabinet; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 May, and to be printed (Bill 226).

Scotland (Independence) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Patrick Grady, supported by David Linden, Marion Fellows, Alison Thewliss, Kirsty Blackman, Kirsten Oswald, Gavin Newlands, Alan Brown, Chris Stephens, Carol Monaghan and Owen Thompson, presented a Bill to make provision for the dissolution of the Union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom; to make provision for the transfer of powers from the UK Parliament to the Scottish Parliament; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Thursday 4 July, and to be printed (Bill 227).

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Oh dear! I have stood here for 10 and a half years not saying what I think, but the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) knows very well what I think of that Bill.

Risk-based Exclusion

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Procedure Committee on 18 December 2023, on Commons scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords, HC 338, Qq15-22 and 48-54; correspondence between the Procedure Committee and Mr Speaker, on risk-based exclusions, reported to the House on 18 December 2023, 17 January and 29 January 2024; correspondence from the Procedure Committee to the Leader of the House, on the exclusion of Members, reported to the House on 7 June 2023, Session 2022-23.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We now come to motion No. 3 on risk-based exclusion, as on the Order Paper. I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the following amendments to motion No. 3, as listed on the Order Paper: (o), (h), (i), (j), (n), (p), (c), (k), (l), (m), (q) and (d). I know, it sounds like an eye test, but I am sure I have got it right. I shall call Members to move their amendments formally at the end of the debate.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)]

I beg to move,

That—

(1) this House approves the Report from the House of Commons Commission, A risk-based exclusion policy for the House of Commons – updated proposals, HC 386, save that the threshold for risk-based exclusion should be when a Member has been charged with a relevant offence;

(2) the following Standing Order be made:

“Risk-based exclusion policy

(1) When the Clerk of the House is informed by the police that a Member is charged with a violent or sexual offence a risk assessment will take place.

(2) The risk assessment will be carried out by a Risk Assessment Panel, appointed by Mr Speaker.

(3) In carrying out a risk assessment the Panel will have regard to—

(a) the nature of the alleged misconduct;

(b) whether there is any safeguarding concern;

(c) the risk to the Parliamentary community, or a particular individual, group or groups within it;

(d) information from the police; and

(e) any undertaking that the Member in question is subject to an existing voluntary agreement not to attend the Estate.

(4) The Panel shall have the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker, the Director of Parliamentary Security and such other members of the House administration as it thinks fit.

(5) The Panel will decide on appropriate measures to mitigate any risk, and such mitigation may include one or more of the following—

(a) exclusion from the Parliamentary estate;

(b) exclusion from domestic travel funded in whole or in part through the House of Commons Estimate; and

(c) exclusion from foreign travel funded in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, through the House of Commons Estimate.

(6) Members must not lobby the Panel in a manner calculated to influence the outcome of a risk assessment process.

(7) A Member subject to exclusion from the Parliamentary estate may apply for a proxy vote.

(8) If the Panel considers a Member should be subject to exclusion it shall inform the Speaker, and the Speaker shall authorise the House administration to take such measures as are necessary to ensure the Panel’s decision is implemented.

(9) The Panel may review its risk assessment in the light of new information, and as a consequence of that review may recommend ending any exclusion, varying any existing risk mitigation measures, or introducing further measures as a result of its review.

(10) The decisions of the Panel in relation to a particular case and actions taken thereafter shall not be made public and shall be kept confidential (except insofar as is reasonably necessary to ensure the decision is effected).

(11) A Member’s exclusion will end if—

(a) the Panel so decides and informs the Speaker accordingly;

(b) the Speaker and the Panel are informed by the police or another competent person that the police have concluded their investigations and the charge has been withdrawn; or

(c) a criminal trial has been concluded.”

(3) the operation of Standing Order (Risk-based exclusion policy) be reviewed by a panel appointed by Mr Speaker, and the report of that panel shall be laid before the House no later than six months after the date of this Order; and

(4) Standing Order No. 39A (Voting by Proxy) be amended as follows:

(1) In paragraph (2)(d) after “injury” insert

“() risk-based exclusion from the Parliamentary estate”; and

(2) After paragraph 5(b) insert

“() The Speaker shall not specify the reason for which a proxy vote has been given in any such certificate.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this, we shall discuss the following:

Amendment (o), in paragraph (1), leave out

“, save that the threshold for risk-based exclusion should be when a Member has been charged with a relevant offence”.

Amendment (h), in paragraph (1) of the proposed Standing Order, leave out “is charged with” and insert

“has been arrested on suspicion of committing”.

Amendment (i), in paragraph (1) of the proposed Standing Order, leave out

“a risk assessment will take place”

and insert

“Mr Speaker shall authorise the House Administration to take such steps as are necessary to ensure that the Member is excluded from—

(a) the Parliamentary estate;

(b) domestic travel funded in whole or in part through the House of Commons estimate; and

(c) foreign travel funded in whole or in part through the House of Commons estimate.”

Amendment (j), leave out paragraphs (2) to (6) of the proposed Standing Order.

Amendment (n), after paragraph (2) of the proposed Standing Order insert—

“() The Panel shall have power to meet notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, in person or by electronic means.”

Amendment (p), after paragraph (2) of the proposed Standing Order insert—

“() The Panel will not be given the name of the Member being risk assessed.”

Amendment (c), leave out paragraph (7) of the proposed Standing Order.

Amendment (k), leave out paragraphs (8) to (10) of the proposed Standing Order.

Amendment (l), in paragraph (11) of the proposed Standing Order, leave out sub-paragraph (a).

Amendment (m), in paragraph (11)(b) of the proposed Standing Order, leave out “and the panel are” and insert “is”.

Amendment (q), in paragraph (11)(b) of the proposed Standing Order, leave out

“the charge has been withdrawn”

and insert

“no charge has been made”.

Amendment (d), leave out paragraph (4).

[Penny Mordaunt]

On behalf of the House of Commons Commission, I rise to speak to the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I will keep my opening remarks short and try to answer right hon. and hon. Members’ issues at the end of the debate.

The motion before us provides for four things: for the House to approve the updated proposals on risk-based exclusion published on 14 December 2023 and modified by the Commission at its meeting on 18 March; to agree a new standing order to implement the risk-based exclusion policy; to require Mr Speaker to appoint a panel to review the operation of the new Standing Order, to report within six months; and to allow MPs who are excluded from the parliamentary estate to apply for a proxy vote. There is also an amendment tabled in my name on behalf of the Commission, which would enable the risk assessment panel to meet during recess. This is a technical amendment—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I hear what the right hon. Lady is saying. How does she answer the charge that we in this place may be hypocrites—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We cannot be hypocrites in this place. I am sure that the hon. Lady can find a more appropriate word.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Karen Bradley]

My right hon. Friend is right that excluding a representative’s voice from these Benches is a severe punishment for constituents.

I will make a final point in my role as chair of the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. BGIPU has agreed it will follow whatever is decided by this place on travel, so outbound delegations will not feature anybody who has been excluded on the basis of a decision taken by the panel. We will ensure that decision is upheld. I believe the other various parliamentary groups are looking at the same thing.

I realise you have indulged me, Madam Deputy Speaker, with the time I have taken. To conclude, on balance, I support what the Leader of the House has put forward and I will be voting in favour of that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I will have to impose a time limit of seven minutes.

Business of the House

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

It absolutely does; I am asking the Leader of the House for her opinion on these matters.

Another week, another litany of problems for the Government. Last week, there was more scandal and internal positioning, and this week, there is a catalogue of failings. The Government’s flagship childcare plan is in tatters. They spent months in denial, yet this week the Department for Education finally admitted what many parents have been experiencing: that the roll-out targets are “problematic”. Yesterday, the spending watchdog warned that the Government’s plan does not

“achieve its primary aim or demonstrate value for money”.

The report was damning about the DFE’s oversight and planning for new places. Can the right hon. Lady guarantee that full delivery of the plan is on track? This is the reverse-Midas-touch Government. Only they could turn what should be a popular policy into such a vote loser.

Another policy that the Government have turned to dust is their pledge on renters’ rights. Ahead of Report stage of the Bill on that subject yesterday, the Government tabled hundreds of amendments—a poor reflection of the Leader of the House’s oversight of the legislative agenda. The amendments watered down that weak Bill even further, and there is no guarantee that banning section 21 evictions will ever happen. Is it any wonder that the Renters Reform Coalition has pulled its support for the Bill?

Despite the Government finally passing their Rwanda legislation, it has emerged that around 100,000 illegal migrants will languish in hotels at the taxpayers’ expense in perpetuity, unable to be removed or even processed because of the Government’s last piece of legislation. How is stopping the small boats going?

The Government promised levelling up, yet the chair of Middlesbrough football club, a former Ben Houchen superfan, said that the Tees Valley Mayor is

“giving away our children's future”

through his management of the South Tees Development Corporation. He is right, isn’t he?

In perhaps what will become the Conservatives’ most lasting and damaging legacy, there is more worrying evidence today about generation lockdown, among which there is not only massive school drop-out and absenteeism rates, but more drinking, because this Government failed to put in place the catch-up support needed. It is no wonder that this country is crying out for change. How is the Leader of the House feeling about her party’s chances next week? We all want to know. I see that on the day we return after the local elections there is a general debate. Is that in anticipation of something, or to keep Government Members away from Westminster? We are still waiting on a lot of important legislation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I will do so now before she comes to her peroration. Earlier in her questioning, she referred to matters in the Scottish Parliament, and asked the Leader of the House her opinion on them. She has just asked the Leader of the House her opinion on a general political matter. This is business questions, and it is about the business of the House. I let the hon. Lady’s questions go very wide. They do not have to be exactly about the business of the House for next week, but they ought to relate to the business of the House of Commons. If, rather than asking the opinion of the Leader of the House, she asked a question about the business before us, that would be perfectly in order.

[Lucy Powell]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was about to ask why legislation such as the Criminal Justice Bill and the Sentencing Bill is not coming forward the week after the local elections, as has been demanded by Members on both sides of the House. Many other things could also come before us for debate, yet the day we come back after the local elections is very light. I wonder why that is. Has the Leader of House cleared her diary for that day, too? Is that why we have such light business that week? No matter how much the Government’s Mayors and candidates hide behind their green and purple branding, there is no escaping the fact that they are standing on the woeful record of this Tory Government.

We have a plan—they might not like it, but we do—to bring down waiting lists, to deliver lower energy bills, to build more homes and, as we have set out today, to reform our railways in the interest of the travelling public. It is not more free cash, as some have said. The truth is that a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for this chaotic mess to continue. Is it not the case that if people want change, they have to vote Labour next Thursday?

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the Leader of the House finishes, I can take a point of order if it relates directly to the matters that we are discussing.

[Dawn Butler]

Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House is misleading the House. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House just said—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Hold on. The hon. Lady cannot accuse the Leader of the House of misleading the House. That would be quite wrong and, if the Leader of the House had done something along those lines, I would have stopped her immediately. If the hon. Lady means that she disagrees with the Leader of the House, that is a different matter.

[Dawn Butler]

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a matter of fact that Labour Members celebrated St George’s day. We all put it on our social media, and the leader of our party has made a point of wrapping himself in the flag. The Leader of the House is completely incorrect in what she just said to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I think the hon. Lady means that anything that the Leader of the House might have said would have been inadvertently misleading.

[Dawn Butler]

I hope that the Leader of the House will correct the record right now.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I wanted to take that point of order while the Leader of the House was still on her feet. I am quite sure that the Leader of the House did not intend to make any misdirection. Would she care to take that point?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I had finished my response to the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), but I am happy to add: the truth hurts.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Let us be clear: we will be taking questions that relate to the business of the House. I call the vice-chairman of the Backbench Business Committee.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I bring good news from the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), whose daughter-in-law is recovering. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is good news, and he hopes to be back next week.

May I add my condolences to those sent to the family of Lord Field? I had the opportunity to meet him when I was a student at Liverpool University. He was a redoubtable campaigner on everything he believed in and one of those people I profoundly respected.

On behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, in addition to the business that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has announced, on Thursday 9 May there will be a debate on miners and mining communities and a debate on the BBC mid-term charter review. If we are given the time for Thursday 16 May, we have offered a debate on the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report on women’s state pension age, which is extremely well subscribed; and if we are given 23 May, there will be a debate on UK arms exports to Israel and inequalities in dementia services.

In further good news, we have filled up the business for Westminster Hall on Tuesdays until the Whitsun recess with debates on: costs associated with illegal immigration; the impact of smartphones on social media; and the introduction of UK-made zero-emission buses in the UK. On Thursday, we have debates on global health agencies and on Global Intergenerational Week. The Backbench Business Committee has been aiming to get as many debates on the agenda as possible, but, as always, if Members have requests, they should please submit them by Friday lunchtime and we will deal with them as appropriate.

Over the weekend, I spoke to a number of women who are frightened of walking home after dark. The fact is that the rise in crime in London has been dramatic, the rise in knife crime has been dramatic, and the Metropolitan police is the only force in the country that has failed to meet its recruitment target. Could we have a statement next week on actions that the Government will take to ensure that we have the police that are needed in London to make women—and men—feel safe when they are travelling home?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for stepping up and making that very helpful announcement on all Backbench Business in the forthcoming weeks. I am sure the whole House will want to send good wishes to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and his family. It is very good news that his daughter is making a recovery; we send all our love to him and his family.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the failings of the London Mayor. London has got less safe and crime is on the rise, particularly violent crime, and it is no surprise to hear that my hon. Friend’s constituents are very concerned about that. Unfortunately, many of the areas he mentions are the responsibility of the Mayor of London, but there is something that not just Government Members but the general London public can do in the coming days, and that is vote in a new Mayor of London. I think people will agree that you are indeed “Safer with Susan”.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Scottish National party spokesman.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I associate myself with the comments about the dreadful news from Wales, and of course those about Frank Field.

I make no apology for starting this week where I finished last week. The Leader of the House may recall that I asked for a debate on the new Brexit border controls due to come into effect next week. Answer came there none, but things became clear later on, as the Financial Times reported within hours of my question:

“The UK Government has told the country’s port authorities that it will not ‘turn on’ critical health and safety checks for EU imports…because of the risk of ‘significant disruption’… the new border systems will not be fully ready.”

It is being called a phased implementation approach—very “Yes Minister” speak from some hapless civil servant trying to excuse the sixth such delay. More delay, more confusion for business, but no statement from the Minister.

Scotland’s importers, exporters, agricultural and hospitality sectors and businesses large and small are all at their wits’ end because the Tories insist on imposing their Brexit folly on us. Brexit is estimated to be costing salmon producers—the largest food exporters in the UK—up to £100 million a year. Tourism in the highlands and islands has been devastated, with staff shortages affecting 45% of businesses to date. Brexit was named as the main difficulty for 44% of businesses in Scotland trading overseas.

Before the latest delays were announced, the chair of the Chilled Food Association, which represents 30 trade and professional organisations, said that every time there is a proposal from the UK Government, people invest in paperwork and computer systems and then the Government change the rules again. Since 2021, £200 million will have been spent on just one export health certificate. A recent report found that the UK economy had shrunk by £140 billion, with the average citizen around £2,000 worse off—thanks to good old Brexit that Scotland did not vote for.

Yet this place shuts its eyes to the devastating impact that Brexit has had on people’s lives and businesses. Scots are accustomed to being ignored, overruled and treated with disdain by this Government, but being dragged out of the EU against our will has been an economic and social disaster for us. No party can claim to be the party of business and back Brexit, so I urge the Leader of the House to overcome the vow of silence—an omertà between the Tory and Labour parties—and tell us when we can have an urgent debate on the effect of Brexit, starting with this disastrous delayed Tory trade tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Frank Field was a great mate. We even forgave him, in the end, for his daft views on Brexit. He was a great guy and a great colleague, and we miss him dearly.

I genuinely seek the guidance of the Leader of the House this morning—I am not trying to make a political point. We have worked very hard to ensure that standards in this House are of the highest order, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) has played a big part in that. This Parliament’s reputation is based on standards here and in the upper House. Is it possible for her to have a conversation with her senior colleagues in the House of Lords? I do not know whether she saw a recent article in The Sunday Times that said the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, a former MI6 chief in Moscow, is a lobbyist for a man in the US who is believed to be involved in Russian gang crime. Everybody knows there is a group in the upper House that is very close to Russia. Could we look into this issue? It will impinge on Parliament if it is not dealt with.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Is the hon. Gentleman relating his question to the business of the House?

[Mr Sheerman]

Oh, and may we have an early debate on it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that others will follow his learned example.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will answer the hon. Gentleman with the same good faith with which he asked his question. If he has serious concerns about anyone on the parliamentary estate, he needs to raise them formally, and in the appropriate way, with the House authorities. That would be the right course of action if he had genuine concerns about anyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving not just me, but the whole House the opportunity to say a big thank you to Arthur for his many years of service. It is because of him that our communities are not just safer, but stronger and better places in which to live.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

And I expect the hon. Gentleman wanted to ask for a debate on the matter.

[James Murray]

That would be lovely; a debate would be great as well.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you, we shall take that as read on this particular occasion.

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

In stark contrast to London, in Essex, our brilliant police, fire and crime commissioner Roger Hirst has cut knife crime by over 11% in just one year and his hotspot policing model to tackle antisocial behaviour is now being rolled out around the country. But education is also key to tackling knife crime, which is why I am working with Roger Hirst and with our city cabinet member, Councillor James Courtenay, who is also up for election next week, to bring the Knife Angel to Southend. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to continue cutting crime, particularly knife crime, is to re-elect Roger Hirst next week and all Conservative councillors on 2 May, and can we have a debate on how we should strengthen the successful PCC model?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Owen]

So you back those statements. That is very dangerous.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Do not shout from the Back Benches. I have already said that this is not a time for asking the opinion of the Leader of the House. This is business questions. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady asked her question perfectly well; it is her comments from a sedentary position on which I am commenting. This is not about opinions. She asked a perfectly reasonable question, and it has been answered.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I add my voice to the tributes paid to Frank Field, whose assistance and wisdom was of great help to me as a newly elected constituency MP for a nearby seat. He is held in very high regard by my constituents, and his legacy will live on in Ellesmere Port through Ellesmere Port College and the Frank Field Education Trust.

Can we please have a debate on private parking companies? I have had a number of instances recently where these companies seem to be operating by their own rules. Constituents have put appeals in against fines. There seems to be absolutely no consideration given to technical issues, or wider questions about why tickets have been issued. Frankly, it seems to me to be nowhere close to approaching justice in the sense that Members of this House would understand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

I think the improvements in the statistics that the hon. Gentleman gave at the start of his question are something to be proud of and show that improvements are being made. I will certainly ensure that the relevant Department has heard what he has said. Given that I am a member of the Government, I stand on the Government’s position.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

And the prize for patience and perseverance goes to Christian Wakeford.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Monday, the Official for National Statistics released its reports on alcohol-specific deaths registered in 2022. There were 10,048 deaths related to alcohol, which is a 32.8% increase on pre-pandemic levels and the highest number on record. It has been over a decade since the Government last set out an alcohol strategy. Can we have a statement from the Government on what they are doing to tackle the issue and the stigma of addiction?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important matter. I will ensure that the Department of Health and Social Care has heard what he has said. He will know that, in addition to that strategy, a huge amount of work has been going on in all parts of our healthcare system to ensure that the right interventions are getting to the right people, including, notably, alcohol screening services at hospitals, which for many are now part of the standard processes to go through when people are taken into accident and emergency, helping to identify those who need support, particular interventions, and, of course, an expansion of those services.

Royal Assent

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before we proceed to the next item of business, I must notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Pedicabs (London) Act 2024

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.

Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024

Business of the House

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before we proceed may I, on behalf of Mr Speaker, thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, and all other Members who have expressed their sympathy to him on the loss of his father? Lord Hoyle, Doug Hoyle, was a dedicated parliamentarian, an inspirational, kind and amusing gentleman, and a very proud father. He will be very greatly missed, and I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our sympathy to Mr Speaker and his family. Our thoughts will be with them as they make arrangements for Lord Hoyle’s funeral.

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

We will remember Doug Hoyle’s smile, we will remember him with a smile, and I remember that he got elected eight months before I did.

Questions on the Cass report in this House were followed yesterday by those in the other place, and the Lords Minister said that he would respond to a number of points in writing. If information is given by the Minister that was not given to this House, could it be put in a written statement or put in the Library? Many of the points, especially those made by Baroness Hayter, were important. We need an inquiry into how things got into the state that had to be exposed by the four-year review by Dr Hilary Cass, for which we all thank her.

One thing that has not yet happened, but may happen in the next week or two, is the publication of the report from the Select Committee on the Holocaust Memorial Bill through its hybrid procedure. It is coming later than we anticipated, and may contain some interesting recommendations or decisions. Will the Government say, as soon as possible, whether they intend to go on trying to ram this proposal through? They have already spent more than £30 million achieving nothing in the last eight and a half years, so will they have a roundtable and consider spending £20 million getting a memorial up in the next two years, during the lifetime of some of the holocaust survivors, and moving the learning centre to the Imperial War Museum?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I will certainly ensure that his request about the Cass review is undertaken. He knows that a process is being gone through at the moment for the memorial, and I will again ensure that the relevant Secretary of State has heard what he said today. There are also questions to that Secretary of State on Monday, and he may wish to make use of that opportunity.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

May I associate myself with the remarks about Passover and about Mr Speaker’s late father, and send my sincerest condolences to him and his family?

Since we last met for business questions, the Leader of the House has been keeping busy, and I thought that one of her social media posts on X during the recess was particularly eye-catching. Indeed, it was unique because it asked her constituents to contact her directly, so outraged was she by a burning injustice. It started:

“Damn right. I know many people will have strong feelings on this…email me…and I will make sure your concerns”

are heard. Those are such strong feelings that you may wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, what caused that righteous anger, which was not just from the Leader of the House but from Members across the Chamber.

Was it children getting sick swimming through human faeces in the rivers of England, or perhaps the endless strikes in the NHS in England? Was it arms sales to Israel, or an economic crisis that was triggered by a former Prime Minister, now saviour of the west? Was it the cruel, immoral, illegal and ruinously expensive Rwanda scheme? Perhaps the angry post was just a response to the Leader of the House’s constituents in Portsmouth, who are now furious—rightly enough—about the likely demolition of the brand new border control post in Portsmouth, which is among a herd of such white elephants around the UK, and a direct result of the right hon. Lady’s ongoing Brexit confusion that will cost a fortune. No—that was not what prompted the outburst. The Leader of the House and many of her colleagues were furious about England’s new football top—“damn right” they were.

So, no, the farce of the doomed border post on the right hon. Lady’s doorstep has not figured in the busy social media output we see from her. Her Government’s disastrous Brexit import charges are none the less coming in on 30 April, causing even more costly confusion and raising very real concerns about food shortages, as well as her own local difficulties. May I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on these new Brexit charges and the ongoing catastrophe of Brexit, which Scots rejected, yet are forced to suffer the ill effects of? Her constituents will be interested to hear an answer—ideally before she wastes more time launching into another anti-Scotland video script.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

This is a speech. Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. If the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) was out of order and had to sit down, I would tell him so. I do not need the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) to tell me how to conduct the affairs of the Chamber.

[Bob Blackman]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. One of the Mayor’s key advisers has let slip that the Mayor is planning to do precisely that if he is re-elected. Can we have a debate in Government time on promises made at elections and promises broken?

Business of the House

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Normally, points of order come after all the statements, but if the hon. Gentleman’s point of order is pertinent to the business before the House, I will take it.

[Ian Mearns]

I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I owe the House an apology: in my earlier advertisement for the wares of the Backbench Business Committee, I suggested that the deadline for applications for estimates day debates was lunch time on Monday, but it is in fact close of play on Monday—when the House rises on Monday evening.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am so pleased when I hear a point of order that is a point of order. [Laughter.]

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)]

Write it in your diary.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I will write: “Today I dealt with a point of order that was, in fact, a point of order.” The hon. Gentleman rightly corrected what he had said before, and hopefully that means he will receive even more applications for Backbench Business debates. I thank him.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my question to the Leader of the House about the announcement of the winning designer of the holocaust memorial project, I referred to the year 2016, but I should have referred to 2017 or 2018. I am sorry to have to correct the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Once again, this is getting very exciting. I have taken two genuine points of order, including that one from the Father of the House. I am grateful to him for correcting the record, and I understand the importance of the points that he has made.

Business of the House

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I am very proud to represent historic Runnymede and Weybridge. I was in the Chamber yesterday evening when two motions of great concern were passed without a Division. I disagree with SNP Members on many, many issues, but I respect their position in this place as elected Members of Parliament. Right now it is on the record that the motions were passed unanimously, which I believe, given the clear vocal opposition, misrepresents the will of Parliament. [Interruption.] Does the Leader of the House share my deep concerns about the implications of that for our democracy and the rule of law, and does she agree that Opposition days must be upheld and respected in line with convention—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The shadow Leader of the House should not be shouting from the Front Bench. Simply don’t!

[Dr Spencer]

Does the Leader of the House agree that Opposition days must be upheld and respected in line with convention as an essential part of the democratic operation of this House, and will she work to remedy the injustice of yesterday’s debate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

We have to be clear about that, and I will tell you why—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I think the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is trying to make a point of order. I do not know what he is trying to say.

[Stephen Doughty]

The word “corruption” has been used.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I’m sorry?

[Stephen Doughty]

Isn’t the word “corruption” unparliamentary?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

No—[Interruption.] Order. Please, it really is time to calm down and take the heat out of this. Let us calm down. I did not hear what the Leader of the House said.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I fully understand why right hon. and hon. Members have raised the point about intimidation, but they should reflect on the message that that sends to people outside the Chamber. Members of this House will not be moved from carrying out our duty to the people who send us here by intimidation and threats outside; that has not happened. That is not the reason why what happened yesterday was done. We should do everything we can to ensure that that remains the case. It is the case, it will be the case, and it must be the case.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

That concludes the business question.

[Bob Blackman]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Points of order are taken after statements, Mr Blackman, but if yours relates directly to the business that we have just concluded, I will take it.

[Bob Blackman]

It does, Madam Deputy Speaker. The long-standing convention is that during oral questions, Ministers may, for the convenience of the House, choose to group similar questions to be answered together. When that happens, it is with the permission of the Chair. By custom and practice, the individuals whose questions have been grouped are notified by the Department in advance that that will happen. Twice now, when my question has been lower down the Order Paper, it has been grouped with another, but I have not been granted the courtesy of being told in advance that that would happen. As a result, I have not been present when those questions have been called. Clearly, that is unacceptable for those on all sides. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, through your good offices, encourage the Leader of the House to reinforce the view that Departments must notify Members in advance when questions have been grouped?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. As it happens, I recall the first of the incidents that he describes because I was in the Chair; I called him, but he was not here. Knowing that he is an assiduous attender of this Chamber, I was very surprised. He then told me that he had not been here because he did not know that his question had been grouped. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Members ought to be contacted, and that the Department ought to be sure that Members have received the message that their question has been grouped. Grouping does indeed happen with the permission of the Chair. It will be stopped if it is not properly carried out, I should think. Is the Leader of the House happy with that, or does she want to add anything?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have heard what my hon. Friend said, and you are absolutely right. If he wants to give me the details of the Department, which I am confident is not the Ministry of Defence, I will deal with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I will take the point of order if it relates to this business.

[David Linden]

It does indeed relate to the proceedings just now. I had hoped that Mr Speaker would be in the Chair for this point of order. I did give notice to the Chair that I would make this point of order, and to the Leader of the House.

It is with a huge amount of regret, because I like Mr Speaker personally, that I have signed early-day motion 412, indicating that I do not have confidence in him. If my understanding is correct, he outlined today that his desire is to allow the House to express its view. In the space of about 13 or 14 hours, scores of MPs—approaching 60 at the last check—have signed that early-day motion expressing no confidence in the Speaker of this House. Can I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ask Mr Speaker to make it clear to the Government, as he said he would, that he has no objection to that motion of no confidence being tabled, and to allowing the House to express its view? Whether we like it or not, the conduct of the Speaker of the House of Commons has raised wider questions. The fact that 60 Members of this House have indicated that they do not have confidence in him means that the matter now has to be put to a vote. He cannot object to that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very clear point of order. Let me clarify: he is asking me to convey to Mr Speaker the message that he has just given, and the question that he has just asked.

[David Linden]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I can undertake to convey that message to Mr Speaker.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Is the point of order directly in relation to this business?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

It is, Madam Deputy Speaker. Further to a point of order that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), I seek your guidance on why a Division was not called yesterday. It was clear that there were shouts of both “Aye” and “No”, and it is clear from the Standing Orders that in such a scenario, a Division should be called.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, and I thank him for his point of order. I will simply say this: at the point just after 7 o’clock last night when Questions were put to the House, the noise and turmoil in this Chamber made it impossible for the then occupant of the Chair, my colleague Madam Deputy Speaker—who was doing her best in very difficult circumstances—to ascertain whether she could hear any calls of “No”. She has told me that she could not hear calls of “No”, and she acted accordingly. It is always very easy to go back in hindsight and examine what each of us might have thought happened, but I can assure the House that Dame Rosie did her very best in difficult circumstances, and that she thought—and I think, too—that she was carrying out the wishes of the House at the time. I was standing beside the Chair at that moment. I appreciate that other people have different views on the matter, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House will accept my assurance that Dame Rosie did her very best in difficult circumstances.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am very reluctant to take further points of order. Is it directly related to this business?

[Alan Brown]

Yes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

In that case, I call Mr Alan Brown to make a point of order.

[Alan Brown]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance; perhaps as Chair of Ways and Means, you might be able to give further clarity. My point of order is regarding the response that Mr Speaker gave earlier to the SNP group leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), about the sequencing of the decisions he took. Yesterday, the guidance he gave at the start of the debate was that there was precedent for selecting an amendment by the main Opposition party to a smaller party’s motion, but the letter from the Clerk makes it quite clear that there is no precedent for that. Mr Speaker also said that that was about having the widest possible debate, but last night, the rationale changed to security.

In his response just now, Mr Speaker really homed in on security as the primary reason for his decision, and he intimated that lives were at risk. That is a very grave matter; it implies that as things stood, decisions that Members took on the SNP motion would effectively have put their life at risk. It implies that somehow, debating the Labour amendment took away that security risk, which in turn implies an assumption about how Members were going to vote. Why were those security concerns not shared with other party leaders? What do the security services say, and does this not set a precedent that mob rule can change the business of the House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I have to stop the hon. Gentleman there: he is trying to continue the debate, and he is again asking questions that Mr Speaker has already come to the Chamber and answered. Mr Speaker has dealt with those matters, and it is not for me to deal with them any further. I think there will be further opportunities to explore these matters, both in public and in private, and the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party will no doubt have discussions with Mr Speaker, but I will not continue debate on these matters.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

If it is another point of order directly relating to this business, I will take it now.

[Dr Spencer]

Thank you for taking my point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on an issue of substantial constitutional importance. It has been made fairly clear in my question to the Leader of the House, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) and several other Members, that there are concerns about the motion yesterday evening. The BBC is reporting that the House approved the motion, and the Labour party is putting out adverts saying the same, yet there is concern as to whether it was a valid vote. It is critical that the public have faith in our democratic process. What mechanism is there to void yesterday’s motion and have a rerun?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Once again, the hon. Gentleman has reiterated matters that have already been considered. On behalf of the people whom we all represent, I plead that this matter should now calm down, and that tempers and anger should not be encouraged to flourish further. These are matters that might have to be further explored, and Mr Speaker and the Leader of the House have both made clear to the House this morning that there will be other opportunities to consider and fully debate them. I will take no further points of order on this matter, recognising that Members on all sides of the House have strong feelings, most of which have been expressed. I now plead for calm.