All 4 Debates between Lord Cryer and David Heath

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Cryer and David Heath
Thursday 9th February 2012

(12 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham P Jones Portrait Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

5. Whether the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists will require any changes to the Standing Orders of the House.

David Heath Portrait The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Government published our initial proposals in the form of a consultation document on 20 January. Any effects on Standing Orders would best be considered in the light of what emerges from that consultation and subsequent legislation.

Lord Cryer Portrait John Cryer
- Hansard - -

Does not the fact that there are links between serving parliamentarians and certain lobbying firms imply that there would be a need to change Standing Orders in some way? Does not this exchange reinforce the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister should have made an oral statement on the Floor of the House to launch the document, rather than fobbing us off with a written statement?

David Heath Portrait Mr Heath
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I really think we need to understand that the House is not being fobbed off with a written ministerial statement, particularly when there is a consultation paper the hon. Gentleman can contribute to in the same way as every other Member. Consultation papers are there to consult, and it is perfectly appropriate to let the House be aware of a consultation paper that has been issued by issuing a written ministerial statement—a point you, Mr Speaker, have also made in recent weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Cryer and David Heath
Monday 29th November 2010

(14 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Heath Portrait Mr Heath
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I remember a very frustrating period of my life in the last Session of Parliament when I had a private Member’s Bill—a very important one about fuel poverty—and it seemed to me that some Members on the Government side, including the Minister, spoke at rather greater length than I had expected to avoid its making further progress. I therefore understand the point that the hon. Lady is making. I repeat, however, that this is a matter for the Procedure Committee to look at, and I am sure that she will make her observations known to that Committee.

Lord Cryer Portrait John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

Does the Deputy Leader of the House accept that a precedent for this arose during the passage of the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill, when the then Government used regularly to split business during a Monday or Tuesday evening to leave three hours for discussion of that Bill? It was a private Bill rather than a private Member’s Bill. Personally, I think it was a rotten Bill, and I would rather have hacked my head off than vote for it. Nevertheless, it established a precedent, and surely private Members’ Bills could be treated in the same way.

David Heath Portrait Mr Heath
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I really cannot support the process of head hacking as a way of expressing dissent with what was, I think, a Bill supported by the Government of the party of which the hon. Gentleman is a member. There is a slightly different procedure for private Bills as opposed to private Members’ Bills. Again, the points that he makes should be made to the Procedure Committee, which can then take them into account when coming back to the House with recommendations.

Summer Adjournment

Debate between Lord Cryer and David Heath
Tuesday 27th July 2010

(14 years, 4 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cryer Portrait John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

I congratulate the three maiden speakers, the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and my hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) and for Hyndburn (Graham Jones). However, I should point out to the hon. Member for Witham that when Napoleon said that Britain was a nation of shopkeepers, he did not mean it strictly as a compliment.

I was very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston mentioned Robin Cook. I remember, when I was in this place before, hearing Robin Cook’s speech when he resigned from the Government. He held the House of Commons in the palm of his hand. I have rarely seen someone make such a powerful speech. Shortly after that, 139 Labour MPs went into the Opposition Lobby and voted against the Iraq war. The suggestion that we are now hearing from the Liberal Democrats that theirs was the only party that opposed the war as a matter of principle is absolutely untrue.

As a matter of fact, I remember occasions on which we went into that Lobby—maybe 30 or 40 of us from the Benches on the Government side of the House—and the Liberal Democrats stayed here, sitting on their hands, because at that point it was not entirely clear in which direction public opinion was going. Only when public opinion was clearly swinging against the war did the Liberal Democrats decide to vote with us in the Opposition Lobby.

Lord Cryer Portrait John Cryer
- Hansard - -

No, it is not. That is the right way round.

It is five years since I took part in a pre-recess Adjournment debate. Such debates have become something of an institution. It is a sort of whingeing gits day, enabling us to get a few things off our chests. I am pleased to note that a number of speeches, particularly from Members on the Government Benches, have followed that tradition.

I want to begin by raising an issue which I hope concerns us all, namely unemployment. You might be right-wing, you might may be left-wing, you might be a Liberal—you would be a prat, but you might be a Liberal—but I hope that the issue of joblessness concerns Members on both sides of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Cryer and David Heath
Monday 21st June 2010

(14 years, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Heath Portrait Mr Heath
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Gentleman remembers well what happened in the last Parliament, when very often huge parts of Bills were not considered by the House, which was a disgrace. What will be different is that there will be fewer Bills, better drafted Bills and an end to the automatic guillotine of the Report stage. However, that depends on all parts of the House having a grown-up attitude to how we consider business. [Interruption.] I hear the grown-up attitude evinced by Opposition Members.

Lord Cryer Portrait John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

Is not the answer to remove timetabling, or at least relax it, so that it no longer strangles debate in the House? For years now, Bills have gone through with very little debate on key parts. The answer is to go back to a time before the Jopling proposals, when we had full and free debate, and when the House could sit as late as was necessary.

David Heath Portrait Mr Heath
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

This is the first opportunity that I have had to welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the House. I am very pleased to see him here.

Yes, we want to ensure that the bits of Bills that need longer scrutiny receive that scrutiny, and that we have a sensible dialogue with all Members of the House—the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee will help us in non-legislative areas—to ensure that the House has its say on matters about which it is concerned, and that we do not waste time on areas where no one has a genuine interest. That is what I mean when I talk about a grown-up way of looking at the business of the House. Let us hope we get it.