Points of Order

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Penny Mordaunt

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).

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Penny Mordaunt

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.

Risk-based Exclusion

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Penny Mordaunt

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[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—

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Penny Mordaunt

Thursday 25th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[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—]

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- 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

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Penny Mordaunt

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Penny Mordaunt

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Penny Mordaunt

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

From the Government Benches, I say happy birthday to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This week I met Ashley, the cousin of 19-year-old hostage Agam Berger. She is the girl that many Members will have seen in video footage, playing her violin in happier times. She volunteered with special educational needs children, and was actively involved in working towards a peaceful solution in her region. I thank the shadow Leader of the House for her remarks about the hostages and all Members who are working hard to keep the spotlight on these people and their families. I hope that they will all be home soon.

I also thank the hon. Lady for her remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who has said that he is going to stand down because of his safety and the wellbeing of his family. Such attacks on elected Members are attacks on democracy itself. I know that many hon. and right hon. Members and their families are enduring such threats. We condemn such actions and those who encourage, incite and excuse them. I thank the hon. Lady for her cross- party support on that matter.

I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to Alison, who was “banged out” of the newsroom. I also thank her colleagues who posted that on social media. I think it sends a very positive message for women in particular who want to work in that sector.

The hon. Lady asks about the Procedure Committee, and I again thank the Committee for its report on holding to account the Foreign Secretary on a range of issues. She will know that the recommendations in part rely on the consent of their noble Lords, and I am keen to hear the views of their Procedure Committee on some of the recommendations that our Procedure Committee has made. Since the Foreign Secretary was appointed, there have been 41 sitting days, and in that time Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Ministers, including the Foreign Secretary, have made 71 appearances in Parliament, responding to parliamentary questions and in Select Committees.

On Gaza, the hon. Lady raised some serious issues. She will know—the Minister for Armed Forces was just at the Dispatch Box—that the Government take compliance with international humanitarian law extremely seriously. We monitor that with our partners. She will know that, as we can see from previous conflicts, the Israel Defence Forces also produces reports after the event. All of that is subject to a great deal of scrutiny, but I will certainly ensure that the Foreign Secretary has heard her concerns.

The hon. Lady talked about the Home Secretary. She will know—indeed, many Opposition Members have acknowledged—that the plan for ending small boat crossings and ensuring that we are speeding up processing in the Home Office is working. I think the latest figures show that the Home Secretary has sped up processing in his Department by 250%. She will know that crossings are down by substantial amounts—I think now just shy of 40%—and returns are up, which is all to be welcomed. That has been helped in great part by the new legislation that the Government have introduced. I am sorry that right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have not been able to support that.

That brings me to the final topic that the hon. Lady raised. I will make the case that we are faithfuls on the Government side. We have been faithfuls in our obligations to the British public in strengthening our borders. We have brought forward legislation which the Opposition have voted against—over 70 times on one recent Bill.

We have been faithful to the British public in our promises. We have been faithful to them in delivering on their decision to leave the EU, for which we had a landmark anniversary this week. Whatever way people voted in that referendum, we stuck with that democratic result—we did not try to reverse it or campaign for a second referendum—and what the British people want to know is that we are on the right trajectory now. Since we left the EU, we have grown faster than many nations, including Germany, Italy and Japan. Our export services are up at a record high. For goods and services, we are rising through the global rankings—we are up a place since last year. We have overtaken France on manufacturing, and we have simplified tariffs on thousands of goods and removed hundreds of trade barriers.

We have been through tough times, but whether it is our plans to level up communities such as Teesside, which Labour Members seem to be objecting to, or maximising our new-found freedoms to control our destiny and our borders, or opening up more opportunities for the wealth of talent and creativity of our citizens, our plan for Britain is working. Britain is on the right course. We have been faithful to our promises to the British people. Labour has not, and it would turn us back on the EU, union reform, tax hikes and much more.

Further business will be announced in the usual way.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Wendy Morton.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Best wishes on your birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Last week was Neighbourhood Policing Week. I was able to join the local Aldridge and Brownhills neighbourhood teams out in the community. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking our local teams for all they do? Does she agree that central to neighbourhood policing is neighbourhood policing hubs? That is why I continue to campaign against the proposed closure of Aldridge police station—and with only a few months left of the west midlands police and crime commissioner role, there should be a moratorium on any closure.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting her concerns on the record. Since 2010, our communities have become safer on roughly the same resources. Taking out online fraud, we have, in effect, halved crime: violent crime is down 51%; neighbourhood crime, including robbery and theft, is down 48%. I shall ensure that the Home Secretary has heard what she has said.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

Points of order

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Penny Mordaunt

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I thank the hon. Lady. Once again, I appreciate that Members want to use the opportunity of a point of order to make the point that they want to make, but there is a big difference between—[Interruption.] Do not shout while I am speaking. There is a difference between a point of order on procedure in this House and a matter of opinion in the interpretation of statistics. There are also—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Lady just be quiet and allow me to answer her question?

There are inevitably differences of opinion on the interpretation of statistics. There are also, as the hon. Lady says, facts, as opposed to opinions. If facts are stated wrongly in this House, they should be corrected. However, it is not for the Chair to make a judgment as to who correctly interprets the facts put before the House. That is why we have debates and questions. We are not meant to come here and all agree with one another. That is why we have this Chamber, where proper debates can take place.

If the hon. Lady is saying that facts were stated wrongly, I am quite sure that a Minister will take the first opportunity to correct those facts. I think, perhaps, the Leader of the House will take that opportunity right now.

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

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be very happy to. This is obviously a matter of great concern and urgency to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson)—she would normally raise it at business questions tomorrow. I am quite sure this has nothing to do with the fact that the former First Minister is in front of the covid inquiry today. [Interruption.] There is nothing like a good old—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. What on earth do you think you are doing? The hon. Lady raised a point. The Leader of the House is answering an aspect of that point. It is not a moment when shouting should occur.

[Penny Mordaunt]

To get to the substance of the point, I understand that the hon. Lady mentions a House of Commons Library paper that she is relying on to do this. That particular Library paper is using a figure from the Scottish Budget in 2022, which is out of date. As she will know, income tax out turns are not going to be reported for many more months, so she cannot make that assertion. What I have done in my responses at business questions to detailed points on taxation is to give the House direct salary levels and the taxes that people are paying north and south of the border. Whatever our views and political disagreements, I take my responsibilities to this House extremely seriously.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Let me make it clear once again that there is a difference between points of order on procedure and matters for debate. That is why we have debates. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran will raise her points in debate on many occasions over the next few weeks, as indeed will the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), who made the previous point of order. That is what debates are for and it is not for the Chair to make those decisions.

Israel and Gaza

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Penny Mordaunt

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Lady makes a perfectly reasonable point. The Leader of the House is in her place and will have heard what she has said.

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

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues are making themselves available to speak to colleagues, because we are very aware that they will have constituency issues to discuss.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for giving that immediate answer. I hope the hon. Lady and the rest of the House will appreciate that Ministers are doing their best to make themselves available, especially where there are particular issues relating to constituents.

I hope the House will settle down, as we move on to the next item of business. Will those who are leaving do so quietly and swiftly?

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Penny Mordaunt

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

Attacking places of worship and religious buildings is a war crime. Russia has a long-standing record of domestic repression of religious belief, and that has only increased since its illegal invasion of Ukraine. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have welcomed the findings of the review to take forward the recommendations made in the Truro review, and we will continue to ensure that progress is made on freedom of religious belief, which is central to our wider work on human rights.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for continuing to raise these important issues. He will know about the work of the special envoy on freedom of religion or belief and the Foreign Office, which supports her. He will be able to scrutinise that on 13 June, at Foreign Office questions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I have been very lenient in letting questions to the Lord President of the Council run, but they have been far too long. I give notice to the Chamber that I will not be so lenient in the next three statements, because we have a lot of business to transact today. I want to ensure that everybody has a chance to contribute in a timely fashion, so we will not have any statements at the beginning of questions; we will just have questions.

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Penny Mordaunt

Thursday 15th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I am always pleased to be able to turn a spotlight on those issues, and will continue to do so. I shall certainly raise his concerns with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office. He will know that there is sometimes a lag before we receive data; he will also know that the Prime Minister—as he said this week—wants to be very clear about the legal and safe routes for people who are still trapped in that country and who could perhaps come here and be reunited with their families. I will flag up the issue with both Departments and ask them to update the hon. Gentleman.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the Lord President of the Council and everyone else who took part in that item of business. I will pause for a second to allow changes of personnel before calling the Paymaster General to make a statement on infected blood.

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Penny Mordaunt

Thursday 8th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s other point, if there were no route to having a referendum, we would not have had one.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I note that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) is trying to raise a point of order to the effect that he is not a Scottish National party Member. I think that is recognised, but it is not a point of order and I am not sure that it is relevant. He asked a question, he got an answer—the rest is irrelevant.

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Penny Mordaunt

Thursday 17th November 2022 Commons Chamber

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

The business for the week commencing 21 November will include the following:

Monday 21 November—Debate on the autumn statement and consideration of resolutions (day 1).

Tuesday 22 November—Conclusion of the debate on the autumn statement and consideration of resolutions.

Wednesday 23 November—Remaining stages of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (day 1).

Thursday 24 November—A general debate on the UN international day of persons with disabilities, followed by a general debate on the independent review of children’s social care. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 25 November—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 28 November includes:

Monday 28 November—Remaining stages of the Levelling- up and Regeneration Bill (day 2).

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Leader of the House, Thangam Debbonaire.

Point of Order

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Penny Mordaunt

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, and for the convenience of the House, it may be helpful if I give some advance notice of my business statement tomorrow. In tomorrow’s business statement, I will announce that the business for Monday 17 October will be all stages of the Energy Prices Bill that has just been introduced. A motion appears on today’s Order Paper that, if agreed, will mean that notices of amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted before the Bill has been read a Second time. I wanted to be able to advertise that fact, and I hope it is helpful to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order. It is indeed helpful to the House to know the intention of the Government on when this important Bill is going to come forward. I ought to add to that point of order and to the motion on today’s Order Paper relating to the management of the Bill that, for amendments at Committee stage, I will be lenient about the timetable for putting down such amendments. Just as the Leader of the House is trying to help the House, I will also try to help the House to engage in a full and proper debate on the Bill.

Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Penny Mordaunt

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 1st March 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to15.

[Penny Mordaunt]

My noble Friend Lord True said on Second Reading in the House of Lords that, although “specific and limited” in its aims, this Bill is a significant reforming measure for women and points the way to wider reform. It will make an important and long overdue change to existing law by enabling Ministers and Opposition spokesmen for the first time to take paid maternity leave from their job for an extended period. It ends the unacceptable situation where a Minister would have to resign from Cabinet or their post to recover from childbirth and to care for their newborn child. Members in the House of Lords have exercised their role as the reviewing House and have decided to return the Bill to this House with amendments and the Government are content to accept those amendments in the House today.

The Lords amendments make a number of changes to the drafting in clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill, substituting the word “person” with the words “mother” or “expectant mother” where appropriate. These amendments tabled by my noble Friend Lord Lucas were supported by the Government in the House of Lords in recognition of the strength of feeling on this issue displayed in both Houses. The Bill, as originally drafted, was in line with the long-standing convention to use gender-neutral drafting where doing so is necessary to achieve the full policy intent. The use of the word “person” in this Bill as originally drafted achieved both those aims.

The amendments that the Government are accepting today to substitute “mother” or “expectant mother” where appropriate for “persons” in clauses 1 to 3, although grammatically challenging in places, do not affect the operation of the Bill and achieve the twin aims of being legally accurate and delivering on the policy intention. Moreover, the use of the word “mother” or “expectant mother” where appropriate is in line with recent case law of the Court of Appeal, as was noted by Lord Pannick in the House of Lords. These amendments are legally acceptable and the intention and meaning of the Bill would be unaffected by such a change. As discussed previously, the word “woman” or the word “Minister” would have run into legal difficulties, and I hope the words “mother” and “expectant mother” will be acceptable to hon. Members. During the passage of the Bill through the Commons, we also amended the explanatory notes.

I know that there will be some who are concerned by these amendments and by the Government’s accepting them, and I hope to give them some reassurance today. Many of their lordships who spoke in favour of these amendments also spoke about their understanding of and commitment to LGBT rights. Many hon. Members in this place who I think would support the revision were, when discussing the Bill with me, also focused on ensuring that if we ever had a trans male colleague in future who needed to make use of the provisions, that would be the case. We also hope to bring forward work in future on shared parental leave and adoption leave. If legislation is needed, and we expect that it may well be, we would add new sections to the Bill, and we anticipate not having to return to amend the wording back to “person”.

I thank all those who have taken part in debates in both Houses and made interventions. The Bill before the House today makes an important and long-overdue change to existing law. It will enable all Ministers, for the first time, to take paid maternity leave from their job for an extended period. Women who aspire to and hold high office will no longer be disadvantaged. It is in recognition of these amendments that the Government wish to proceed on that basis.

We also recognise that there is much more to be done, and, as we have said, this Bill is the first step. Throughout the Bill’s passage, the Government have made commitments to Parliament both on the wider reports on issues that could no longer be accommodated in the Bill and in relation to a review of language used in drafting legislation, with a genuine willingness to work with parliamentarians. We are thankful to Members of both Houses for their willingness to work with the Government on this issue.

I once again thank the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and her colleagues for their engagement on this Bill, and all hon. Members who have contributed to and spoken with passion in these debates. The Government are keen—some members of the Government in particular, I might add—to ensure that this Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible. I ask the House to accept the amendments and send the Bill for Royal Assent.

Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Penny Mordaunt

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

There are many things that I could talk about, but one of the first meetings I held was to put together our negotiating position: we listened carefully to all the devolved Administrations on some of their concerns, particularly on programmes, and we changed our negotiating mandate accordingly. We do listen, and I have taken great pains. I gently point out—I am not going to repeat the vast number of meetings I have had, as I have done that frequently at the Dispatch Box—that as someone who has, in quite difficult circumstances, made sure that I could attend every single meeting that I had planned with the devolved Administrations and the Scottish Government, as I am happy to do, I was stood up by the Scottish Minister. I have shown up for every meeting—the Scottish Minister has not shown up for every meeting.

To conclude, I call on the SNP to adapt—to find common ground—for the sake of all our citizens and businesses, because that is what leadership looks like, and it is what Scotland deserves.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call the spokesman for the official Opposition, many people in the Chamber are making the serious mistake of calling other people “you”—even the Minister, whom I have never heard make such a mistake before today. I am anxious that people who are new to the House and have not really seen the Chamber operating properly should not be led astray by those who should know better. Throughout Prime Minister’s questions today, people called the Prime Minister “you”. In the Chamber, “you” means the Chair. One addresses other Members as “the hon. Gentleman”, “the hon. Lady” or something else, but not “you”. [Interruption.] Quite. I call Paul Blomfield.

Covid-19

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Penny Mordaunt

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Covid-19.

We gather here today in the midst of a very great darkness that has descended upon our nation, and not just our nation—all nations. It has been by far the biggest challenge we have faced in a generation. We knew it was coming, but not when and not what its clinical characteristics would be. We trained to face it. How we have all responded to it has been a defining moment for us as individuals and as a nation. We have all been involved. We had no choice about dealing with it, but we had a choice about how we did so.

In the past few weeks, the darkness that has engulfed us all has been emotional, economic and extensive, but it has been illuminated by a million points of light: the response from the British people has been immense. People in all our communities have performed selfless, heroic acts—stoic, disciplined, kind—from now Colonel Tom to our health and care workers, our scientific and tech community, businesses, those who came out of retirement, critical workers, volunteers and the public who through their resolve have reduced the rate of infection and sent this virus into decline.

People have faced this crisis with personal courage and often good cheer, and I pay tribute to their resilience with pride. This virus called forth the question of who we are, and that question was answered—for families, for parents, for children, for communities, for the nation. It illuminated our values and our strengths: we chose to prioritise lives; we chose to support businesses and jobs; so many stepped up and volunteered; we pull together in times of crisis; we have seen the validation of a devolved but national health service that is free at the point of use and not linked to employment—our NHS. It has shown what we believe in and how much we value the actions of so many who are taking on a greater share of the risk to protect us all and defeat the virus, including, I am very proud to say, some Members of this House of Commons working in health or as first responders. When united in a national effort, the British people are a powerful force.

The virus has also shown a fragility: the structural and funding complexity of social care; the invisibility of some of those in care settings and mental health, of those with learning or behavioural disabilities, as well as older people; the lack of resilience in supplies of equipment when faced with a crisis of global proportions; the obstacles to providing support to some of our most entrepreneurial people; and the challenges of getting the world working together when nations are also focused at home.

This debate offers us parliamentarians the opportunity not just to scrutinise what has happened and the next steps in our response, but to discuss how we can continue to improve our resilience and adapt to what will be fundamental changes in the way we live our lives. This is, without doubt, an inflection point for our country and for the world, and we all need to rise to those challenges. We all have a role to play in finding solutions and answers.

This debate affords us the opportunity to remember and mourn all those who have lost their lives to this disease, and to think of those who are grieving without comfort—in some cases, without having said goodbye. The reported death toll stands at 31,855 souls. Our thoughts, too, must be with those who have survived covid but whose health has been impaired as a consequence, and to acknowledge those who have had to put their treatment and therapy for other conditions on hold because the NHS would not have been able to cope unless they did so. The full cost of that sacrifice has yet to be counted.

In particular, it is right that we acknowledge all those working in health and care who have succumbed to the disease. In full knowledge of the risks, they chose to work on the frontline to save lives, give comfort to others and provide care to those in their charge. The metaphor of this pandemic as a war against coronavirus has been used, and the courage and duty demonstrated by all those working with those who are infected is the same as going into battle. Many will have seen their friends fall ill. Some will have seen their colleagues die. And they will have headed back into the danger zone, day after day. I know that there will be disagreements during the course of this debate, but I also know that every Member of this House will want to express their gratitude and humility in the face of such service, and all will agree that, despite the difficulties, we must ensure that all frontline workers in this crisis have the equipment that they need to keep them safe. We are all aware of the challenges and of the efforts being made, but that is irrelevant. We must, and we will, do what is necessary.

I also want to thank the volunteers who have stood up to help care and health services. This include individuals who are facing the prospect of losing their job, financial hardship or worries about relatives. Instead of devoting themselves to their own needs or those of their families, they have gone into care homes, medical wards and Nightingale hospitals to serve their communities—often having to separate from their own loved ones to do so. Over 3 million additional volunteers stepped up.

We should also thank the critical workers who have carried on so that we could all be fed, protected and provided for: those in the supermarket and the store; the police and fire services; post office workers; public transport workers; cleaners; prison officers; refuse collectors; pharmacists; teachers; nursery workers; public servants, especially those in the resilience forums; and, of course, our armed forces, who have delivered aid to those being shielded, brought testing to communities, and provided planning expertise at every level of this response and in every local resilience forum in the land—all while carrying out their other duties to protect the nation. They have taken risks for all our sakes.

In the past few months we have seen so many people and organisations rally: from the businesses that adapted so swiftly to meet the needs of the nation, expanding services, altering their production lines and generously donating equipment and expertise; to the others who managed to keep their businesses going throughout this ordeal in order that they could provide for our families and support our public services. We must remember that without the wealth they generate, we cannot fund the services that we all rely on.

We have been right to provide an unprecedented level of support to retain jobs and help cash flow, with 25,000 loans, half a million firms furloughing workers, and 600,000 grants. We as a Government and all of us as citizens must do all that we can to get Britain back to work and start the recovery, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set out.

We have seen charities, faced with their fundraising plans in tatters, lead the local response and, of course, the public have followed the requests of the chief medical officer by staying at home. It has been tough, especially for those in cramped housing with no gardens, but they have done it, and thanks to them R is now below 1. In the next phase of the response, we must all continue to demonstrate that resolve.

In all the steps and all the issues that colleagues will raise in this debate, we will be more successful if we tackle them together, across party lines and across the Administrations of the United Kingdom, as we continue to do, with international co-operation, and across all sectors—public, private and the third sector—no longer deterred by dogma, just pulling together and focusing on what needs to be done.

In that spirit, opening this debate affords me an opportunity to thank all Members of this House who joined the Cabinet Office daily calls at the start of the pandemic. They were cross-party and they were constructive. We helped each other to help our constituents, shared our ideas, cut down workloads and supported each other. The information gathered on personal protective equipment, care homes, businesses and operational matters was incredibly helpful to every Department.

We should continue to work together not only to tackle the challenges but to seize the opportunities to tackle problems that were previously almost impossible. For example, since the start of this crisis, 90% of rough sleepers are now in accommodation. They are safe and secure. There will never be a better opportunity to wrap the services that those individuals need around them while we deal with the crisis, so we must.

These are dark times, but they are also illuminating times. We have reminded ourselves, as a country, what we can do when we are united in a mission. Millions of us chose not to curse the dark but to light a candle. The British people have given us a beacon of hope in the days ahead.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I now call Rachel Reeves, who is asked to speak for no more than 10 minutes.

Coronavirus Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Penny Mordaunt

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will, but I am just going briefly to go through the amendments—[Interruption.] I know, but hon. Members have tabled amendments and I wish to tell them why we have not accepted them. [Interruption.]

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We are getting through this and we are not having interruptions from Members who are sitting down.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Thank you, Dame Eleanor. The first such reason is that in the event that Parliament is not sitting, we think that the made affirmative procedure would impede our ability to manage efficiently the use of these powers. It may be difficult to make an Order in Council during a pandemic. It may be difficult safely to convene the necessary Privy Council meeting. A made affirmative instrument can be made more, and ensures that there is a vote on the extension of the Act when Parliament returns. Secondly, it is not clear from the proposed amendment whether the Act can be extended more than once. It is the unfortunate situation that with this pandemic possibly lasting longer than a year it is essential that we have the flexibility to keep the important measures in this Bill in force for longer than a year where they are needed.

I am aware of the real policy concerns behind the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden. I should also point out that without clause 76 we would have no mechanism for extending the life of the Bill, should that be needed, other than by making further primary legislation, so we could be left without vital measures for protecting public health and supporting essential public services while in the middle of the outbreak. Similarly, without clause 76 we would have no simple means of sunsetting the legislation at an earlier date if it proves to be no longer necessary.

Finally, colleagues will wish to note that the amendment would impact on the devolved Administrations without their consent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

Can I just answer that point, because my hon. Friend made it on Second Reading, and I have checked the issue? The Department of Health and NHS England are looking at precisely the issue of being able to authorise healthcare professionals to administer other opiates. I can also assure my hon. Friend that he will shortly get a letter from the relevant Secretary of State with regard to the Isle of Wight ferry issue. I do not know its contents—I am not briefed on that—but his lobbying has worked.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call Jeffrey Donaldson, I should say that we really have to be quick now. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do three minutes.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Penny Mordaunt

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 11th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Penny Mordaunt)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment 2.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I intend to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, as this is not a contentious issue.

I hope you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will allow me briefly to update the House. Our team in the Invictus games so far has a medal total of 89, 55 of which were won on the first day of the competition. One of our chief cheerleaders is my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Personnel and Veterans, who has taken through this Bill. I am afraid that the House will have to make do with me today.

I am pleased to welcome the Armed Forces Bill back to the House to consider amendments made in the other place. These two amendments deal with a matter raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its 21st report—the regulation-making powers in new sections 304D(10) and 304E(9), which are inserted into the Armed Forces Act 2006 by clauses 10 and 11. The powers allow regulations to be made in relation to appeals against reviews of sentence.

Clauses 10 and 11 are part of the statutory framework that the Bill creates for offenders who co-operate with investigations and prosecutions. That framework closely follows the provision in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which applies to the civilian criminal justice system. It includes provisions that allow a person to receive a reduced sentence in return for assisting or offering to assist an investigator or prosecutor. A decision of the court martial on such reviews may be appealed by the person who is sentenced or the director of service prosecutions. The Lords amendments make provision with respect to such appeals.

The Bill does not set out the detailed rules that will apply to the conduct of proceedings on such appeals. Instead, new sections 304D and 304E of the 2006 Act provide for those rules to be set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State. The rules will be based on existing rules in the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968 that govern the conduct of appeals from the court martial to the court martial appeal court or the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, the Bill confers powers on the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to appeals against reviews of sentence that contain

“provision corresponding to any provision in Parts 2 to 4 of the Court Martial Appeals Act 1968, with or without modifications.”

That is provided for in new sections 304D(10) and 304E(9). Such regulations would be subject to the negative procedure.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was content with that, subject to one point of concern. The Committee noted in its report that the 1968 Act includes some provisions that may be modified by the Lord Chancellor by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. The relevant provisions in the 1968 Act are in sections 31A, 33, 33A, 46A and 47. They relate to the recovery of costs and expenses arising from appeal proceedings. The Committee’s concern is that the new regulation-making powers in new sections 304D(10) and 304E(9), which are subject to the negative procedure, could be used to make provision about the recovery of costs and expenses which, if made under the 1968 Act in relation to appeals covered by that Act, would have to be made by affirmative procedure regulations.

The Government therefore submitted amendments in the other place to clauses 10 and 11 to limit the powers in the sections of the Armed Forces Act 2006 under which regulations may be made about appeals. The effect of the amendments is twofold. First, regulations under those sections may not make provision corresponding to that which the Lord Chancellor may include in regulations under the 1968 Act. Secondly, regulations under those sections may confer regulation-making powers corresponding to those in the 1968 Act, but only if the exercise of the powers conferred is subject to the affirmative procedure, like the powers of the Lord Chancellor. The amendments address the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

Although I note that the amendments have been designated as engaging financial privilege, we do not expect any significant Government expenditure to arise from the use of the regulation-making powers. I therefore hope that hon. Members will support the amendments, which were accepted on all sides of the House of Lords without Division. I commend them to the House.

Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (England)

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Penny Mordaunt

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

No, the House should be clear that no alternative scheme is available. If the regulations were revoked, a new scheme would have to be designed and consulted on and then introduced in April, and there is very little time to do that. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The Minister must be heard. We have a short time for this debate, and Members must not waste time by jeering and laughing.

[Penny Mordaunt]

To refute the Opposition’s position is a straightforward job, but it is not the one I will focus on this afternoon. The fire service has had three years of wrangling over the arrangements, and there have been many changes to the scheme since it was originally proposed. Firefighters still have concerns, and we should remember that this is their debate. Many have taken the time to lobby Members and to write to me and meet me, and we owe it to them to focus on the outstanding issues, the facts of the matter and their concerns for the future. This is an opportunity to air their worries and their suggestions as to what should be done.

I thank all hon. Members who have put in to speak, raised their views with me or approached me with genuine concerns and in search of solutions. I am here to listen, and I will do all I can to address those concerns and provide reassurances, either today in the House or in the future. Let this debate be of the calibre that firefighters deserve, and let us remember that loose talk has potentially damaging consequences for those in the scheme, if they believe it. Many firefighters will be making financial decisions about their families’ future based on the messages that they take away from today’s debate. Let us remember that what we do today has far-reaching consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Lady will appreciate that that is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a contribution to the debate, and I am sure that the Minister will put her view or correct the record if she wishes in due course. [Interruption.] Perhaps the House will be quiet and allow the Minister to speak. There has been quite enough.

[Penny Mordaunt]

The retirement age of 60 was introduced in the new firefighters pension scheme 2006—a scheme that the shadow fire Minister, the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), helped to introduce as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Minister. It is the same age that Lord Hutton said should apply to members of the armed forces and the police, but it is well below the retirement age set for most public sector workers, recognising the unique nature of the occupation. Lord Hutton also proposed actuarially fair early retirement terms, and that pensions should be calculated on a career average arrangement. He found that the firefighters pension scheme 1992 is the most expensive public service pension scheme, at 37.5% of pensionable pay. Currently, for every £1 a firefighter pays into the scheme, the taxpayer pays an extra £5.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Mr Lammy, the Minister is not giving way.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will take interventions, but I want to make some progress.

Those costs are being met by taxpayers, many of whom have no expectation of enjoying such a generous pension. That is why we ask firefighters, like other public servants, to pay more towards their pensions and rebalance the cost to the taxpayer. There have been three years of negotiations and many changes to the scheme. The notion that there has not is plainly untrue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order. The Member who has the Floor can answer interventions as he or she wishes. [Interruption.] Order. We will have order in this House. This is a serious debate, not a matter for squabble. Now stop the noise.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know many Members wish to speak and make interventions. I am trying to take as many interventions as I can, but if people want me to take fewer I will consider that.

The Opposition and the FBU have two main issues: working until 60, and the impact that that might have on a firefighter’s ability to have a full career and, consequentially, a full pension in the service. I have already mentioned that the normal pension age for firefighters has been 60 since 2006. That was introduced by a Labour Administration. It is the same age for members of the armed forces and the police under the reforms. More than a third of firefighters currently in the service are members of the 2006 scheme and have the expectation that they would retire at 60. A natural consequence of the 2006 scheme is that all firefighters would, in due course, have a normal pension age of 60 without any further action by the Government. No strike was called in 2006, and nothing was done by the previous Administration—nor by the national joint council, which is made up of the employers and the FBU to oversee firefighters’ terms and conditions—to ensure that firefighters would get the support needed to work until 60. It is clear that this was not a particular area of concern to either the previous Government or the FBU in 2006, but it appears that it has become one now. I want all firefighters, whichever scheme they are on, to be confident that they will be able to work until their normal pension age and achieve a full pension.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The Minister is not giving way. Members must allow her—[Interruption.] Order. The House must allow the Minister to conclude her speech.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Given that time is short, I am going to turn to the issue of redeployment opportunities, which many Members raised. Let me be frank that the availability of other redeployment opportunities is a matter for the employers, but the situation today cannot be compared with what may be the case in 2022, just as it cannot be compared with the roles that applied a decade ago when fire and rescue services were responding to twice as many incidents. Increasingly, firefighters are doing different jobs, working more closely with their communities to prevent fire or developing more specialist rescue capabilities.

What I can say is that if firefighters are prepared to extend their roles away from those prescribed in the national joint council conditions of service—the “grey book”— more alternative roles may be possible. That in turn may allow the service to develop a more diverse work force that will benefit from the experience and skills of older workers, more women, and members of other communities who remain under-represented. I think that would be a good thing.