Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament
Lord Beamish Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate the new Leader of the House on his appointment and wish him all the best.
As the senior Opposition member of the ISC, I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for his contribution to the Committee. I do not think that I am betraying any confidences by saying that the Committee did not always agree on everything, but his commitment and dedication to its work cannot be questioned. I wish him well for the future.
I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). I agree with the Chair of the ISC, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), that the Home Affairs Committee’s gain is our loss: she was a dedicated member of the Committee and took an active part. She will be missed; I wish her well in her endeavours.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) to the Committee. Like the right hon. Member for New Forest East, I have worked with her for several years. I know that she will make a positive contribution.
Mr Jones
I also look forward to working with the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), who will be an asset to the Committee. The Committee does a lot of work that is often not seen. I know that our two new members will add to the Committee’s important role in the scrutiny of our security services.
Independent Expert Panel
Lord Beamish Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. Before the appointments were made, we had a number of representations from Members of this House saying that they would feel confident in the system if the chairman of the panel had the experience of a High Court judge, and Sir Stephen is a distinguished—
Mr Jones
Like the Leader of the House, I have no problem with the chair being a lawyer, and I accept what has just been said, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) raised an interesting point. There is no one on the panel from an HR background in business, the trade union movement or the third sector. There are a number of individuals in the third sector who could have brought great expertise—not legal—to the panel, so I question how the consultants drew up the list in the first place. I would have thought that if they were looking for a broad spectrum of interests, lawyers are important, but so are others.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Gentleman is being unduly uncharitable towards lawyers. Lawyers can, in addition to being lawyers, have a wide range of experience in the way that they practised. Other than Members of Parliament, lawyers probably see more of life in its many and varied forms than many people in a lot of other professions. To broaden out from the people who often serve on quangos is not a bad idea for this type of panel.
As I was saying, Sir Stephen has had a distinguished judicial career, which will be of great benefit to his role as chairman of the independent expert panel. The other candidates who have been recommended for appointment are also—I hope this will reassure the right hon. Members for Warley (John Spellar) and for North Durham (Mr Jones)—of an impressive standard. Miss Dale Simon, CBE, is a qualified barrister and a former director for public accountability and inclusion in the Crown Prosecution Service, which is an important role in a public body beyond the immediate application of the law.
Dr Matthew Vickers has been the chief ombudsman and chief executive of Ombudsman Services, and we know from our experience with constituents how valuable the ombudsman services are and what an understanding ombudsmen inevitably have of a variety of lives lived and experienced by our constituents.
Sir Peter Thornton, QC, is a retired senior circuit judge with almost a decade’s experience at the central criminal court, including hearing cases of serious sexual violence. I go back to the point that I made to the right hon. Member for North Durham: lawyers do see life in the raw, and probably the rawest is on the criminal circuit seeing cases of serious sexual violence. That is an experience that few people would have.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Leader of the House is misreading what I said. If he listened to what I said, he would know that I am not opposed to people with a legal background being on the panel—I think that the chair having a legal background is right—but if we look at the CVs of the other people, what is lacking from the panel are people from, for example, industry, trade unions, the third sector and local government. People from all those sectors could have huge experience and add something to this panel.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I say once again that this panel has come from 134 applicants, and the most distinguished and capable have been drawn from it. The panel’s members include Monica Daley, a barrister of 25 years’ standing and former independent legal chair of the police misconduct committee; Professor Clare McGlynn QC, professor of law at the University of Durham—the right hon. Gentleman’s part of the world—with particular expertise in the legal regulation of sexual violence, so there is a good deal of expertise in some of the issues that may come before the panel; Mrs Lisa Ball, who brings two decades of experience in determining cases and complaints in a range of fields, including bullying, sexual harassment, discrimination, misconduct and professional standards; and Mrs Johanna Higgins, Northern Ireland commissioner for the Criminal Cases Review Commission and a barrister of 27 years’ standing.
Mr Kevan Jones
My right hon. Friend was, like me, a trade union official in a former life and will have dealt with capable personnel managers, as they were in my day—human resources managers, as they are now. Would it not have been helpful to at least have had someone on this panel from an HR background, and possibly someone from a trade union who has actually represented people in the types of cases this panel is going to be dealing with?
John Spellar
Very much so. Such people are used to engaging with people and having to make decisions. We could have a senior nursing officer in an accident and emergency department or a senior matron in a hospital. Do they not see life? Do they not have to make decisions? Do they not have to weigh up what people are telling them? We could have retired police officers on the panel, as they are used to weighing up evidence. We must get away from this elitist concept that only lawyers are able to be above all this sort of thing.
I wish to mention the very substantial salary, which seems at variance with the advertisement. These retired judges will be on a stonking pension—we know about that because they are always complaining any time the Treasury has the temerity to try to keep their pensions in line with the pensions being imposed on other parts of the public service.
The approach being taken is also at variance with the advertisement, which said clearly that the people should have
“substantial and very senior experience in a judicial, quasi-judicial, or adjudicating capacity, or bring expertise in a relevant policy area, such as an employee or industrial relations or HR disciplinary processes.”
Of course, if we have a panel where two of those involved are part of the Bar Council or the judiciary, and we bring in headhunters, they are all part of the same social circle. I am sure the individuals would probably be very agreeable dinner table companions, but that does not mean they have wisdom or experience that outweighs that of the rest of the population, nor does it mean that we should have a pretty homogeneous group, rather than having a balance.
If we have a panel, we should have people with different realms of experience, because that would work—one for the other. Not just for this appointment, but right across the many appointments we have involvement in, the people all come from a very narrow band. We ought to be looking at the construction worker, the factory worker, the nurse and the care home assistant. I accept that we would be having people who were in a more senior representative or managerial role, as outlined in the job description. We could have somebody who is in charge of a major unit in a major retail environment. These are people with life experience.
Mr Jones
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been helpful to have had someone from the third sector on this panel, for example someone dealing with domestic violence and related issues? Many of those very able individuals could have stepped into this role well and added something to it.
John Spellar
Indeed. We could have people who have gone into those roles, often later in life, with a range of life experience, as opposed to people who have gone from elite school to elite university, then to chambers and into the courts, where they have done well, doing their public duty as judges. They may observe a bit of life, but that is very different from living it. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House seems a little distracted by his colleague. If he would care to listen to the debate rather than to the Whips, it would be rather courteous and it might even be valuable. The fact is that we ought to look at all appointments and not automatically go to so-called headhunters who just go to the people they know. We need to broaden this out. We need to ask the CBI and the Trades Union Congress. Interestingly enough, back in the day when we were looking at Members’ expenses, we came up with a much better scheme, ultimately, than the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The House invited the CBI and the TUC to each nominate two people, who gave up their time to do it. They made an excellent contribution because they understood what they were talking about. We need to get away from elitism.
I will continue to raise these issues, because they make us not even semi-detached but detached from the public we serve. Ultimately, Members of Parliament are here to represent the public. We need to be accountable mainly to them, and stop imposing elite individuals and an elite culture.
Virtual Participation in Debate
Lord Beamish Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz
I agree with the hon. Member. He will know how important it is for people with other responsibilities that there is a different way of voting. The motion states:
“The Speaker shall draw up and publish a scheme to permit Members who are certified by a medical practitioner as clinically extremely vulnerable (or equivalent) according to relevant official public health guidance issued in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, to participate virtually in such debates as are designed for virtual participation by the Speaker.”
Why is a certificate required? Hon. Members are not children. We are not going to school with a sick note. The Leader of the House has frequently said that he has needed that for PE, even though—we hope—one of his children might well play for England at cricket. It is concerning that hon. Members who are serious and want to take part in proceedings have to produce a certificate from a general practitioner.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is also incredibly sensitive? Many Members may have a mental condition that is possibly not known to constituents or even to family members. Why should they have to divulge that? I have no problem personally with this, but particularly with mental health conditions, people may want not to make that widely known. Why should they have to do that?
Valerie Vaz
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have frequently asked from this Dispatch Box, during the urgent questions and debates that we have had on this issue from the start, why on earth we should have to do that. We are all equal; we are all hon. Members. We were all elected on 12 December, equally. Why should we have to produce something to say that we wish to take part in basic proceedings and our basic democratic rights?
Valerie Vaz
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know how assiduous he is in his work as the Chair of a Select Committee. That is a key point, is it not? Chairs of Select Committees cannot be here. I do not think it is our business to say who can be here and who cannot be here. All Members have to be treated equally. As the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) said, there is a hierarchy of hon. Members and we have strived not to have that hierarchy in this House.
Let me go back to the motion and deal with the point relating to “clinically extremely vulnerable”. This is not a happy way to deal with right hon. and hon. Members. It places them in a difficult situation. It is not that they do not want to be here, but that they cannot be here. It is about what they say about their families. They do not want to bring their families into debates. They do not want to bring their families into the limelight or to this place. They want to keep them away from it. However, hon. Members are having to say— sometimes in public, Madam Deputy Speaker—why they cannot be here and they are having to bring their families into it. I say that, because the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay cannot be here. He tabled the amendment, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). He co-signed the amendment and he cannot be here for a very, very good reason.
Mr Kevan Jones
The motion from the Leader of the House refers to Members who are clinically extremely vulnerable, but I know of at least one case in my own region where a Member has not been here because her husband is undergoing cancer treatment. She cannot attend because he is very vulnerable. They live in a house that does not have an east wing to enable him to isolate from her. The motion would not cover extreme cases like hers, would it?
Valerie Vaz
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He hits the nail on the head and explains the difficulties for hon. Members who want to do their job but cannot. They have to make the difficult choice of whether to be here and balance family with their work.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
It is lovely to see everybody bobbing up and down—we do not get to see that nowadays—and there is no call list. Goodness me, Madam Deputy Speaker, what days we hark back to! How much we want to get back to those halcyon days.
I am afraid that I was not able to hear what my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House said, because I was unfortunately caught unawares and did not know that the debate was about to start. I am grateful to him for the debate. He knows that last week, I called strongly for a debate on this matter, but it is a shame that it was done in such an unexpected and surprising way. I was on a call with the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and it felt discourteous to say to her, “I’m terribly sorry, but I need to rush to the Chamber because apparently I am about to take part in a debate.” I set that call up several weeks ago and I was therefore disappointed to have to say that I could not complete our discussions on important matters relating to human trafficking and slavery. I should say that I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking and modern slavery.
I am also Chair of the Procedure Committee, which has issued six reports in this Session, four of which are on procedures under coronavirus. I thank all Committee members. A few have left us in the last few months, but we have a very active Committee and many of its members are in the Chamber, demonstrating that Procedure Committee members really do care about procedure.
We have worked incredibly hard to assist the House in considering what are appropriate proceedings and how we should change them to reflect the situation under coronavirus. I want to be clear up front: any recommendations by the Procedure Committee have been made on the basis of how we make the best of the situation. Nobody wants to be in this position. I keep using the word sub-optimal—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has quoted me on it. The position is undoubtedly sub-optimal.
Other members of the Committee will recall that in our first meeting, we said that we would have to consider proceedings under coronavirus because things might change quickly. We first convened on 2 March. By 6 March, we had the Clerk of the House and the House authorities in to give us private evidence and a private briefing. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was incredibly courteous in allowing time for me, as Chair of the Committee, to meet him privately to hear what the Government’s thinking was.
I remember that first briefing when Members heard, for example, “We will have to stay 2 metres apart.” It was the first time I had heard the term “social distancing”. None of us could comprehend the thought that the Chamber would have crosses on the Green Benches where we could not sit and that whole Benches would be out of bounds. None of us had any idea how that would function.
Karen Bradley
I give way to the august right hon. Gentleman and member of the Committee.
Karen Bradley
As I say, I will sit down shortly, because I want to make sure that the amendment can be moved and that we have time for the vote, but I urge my hon. Friend to consider voting for the amendment, because that will mean that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay will be able to vote and speak.
Mr Kevan Jones
There is a simple way to move this on: the Government could accept the amendment tonight. The fact that this debate has been curtailed into less than two hours is not the House’s fault or the Procedure Committee’s fault, because the Committee has asked for a full debate on this and it has been refused by the Leader of the House.
Karen Bradley
The right hon. Gentleman is correct. We asked for this debate during the urgent question last week, and we asked for it again on Thursday. This debate has been sprung on Members, and I feel strongly that we need to look at the House having its say. This is a House matter. The Government have kindly tabled the motion, but it is a matter for the House to decide.
I shall conclude, because I want to ensure that the hon. Member for Rhondda can move and speak to his amendment. I urge the Government to think about how this looks in the eyes of the public when their MP can take part in a question but not take part in a subsequent debate. Yes, they can vote by proxy—we can have a debate about whether the proxy voting system works and whether it is optimal—but all of this is suboptimal. None of this is as good as it should be. Why exclude Members who could take part in debates and make important contributions simply because of—well, I do not know. I do not know why the Government are refusing to accept this, but we must give the House a proper say, and the Procedure Committee will continue to pursue the issue.
Chris Bryant
Obviously I do not go quite as far as that, but when we had the firebreak in Wales—the Labour Government in Wales have dealt with all of this much better, delivering a clearer message all the time, but that is by the by—some of my constituents said to me strongly that they did not want me to come to Parliament, because they thought it would be inappropriate for me to do so as they were not allowed to travel. I make no judgment—some MPs felt they had to come, some felt that they did not, and all the rest of it—but the truth of the matter is that there are different rules in different parts of the country, and there will be different rules in different parts of England in the forthcoming weeks. It would seem to make far more sense, on an equality basis, to allow everyone to participate on an equal basis.
The Leader of the House denies this—I am sorry to be so obsessed with the Leader of the House, but I was looking forward to a long speech and we have barely had a word from him today, which is a terrible disappointment to us all—but on occasion he has intimated that we cannot really do our job as an MP unless we are here. My experience is that, of all my 19 years as a Member, this has been the toughest year as an MP in terms of the understandable demand from constituents. Most arrives by email, not from people physically coming through the door—several Members have mentioned that they have not held surgeries in person, but have been doing them online. On social media, Facebook in particular, I have been dealing with many thousands of cases every week. Some questions are not right—such as, “Is Lidl open?”, or, “How much are nappies in Sainsbury’s?”, neither of which I knew the answer to, but in a way, it has been a good thing for Parliament that many MPs have had engagement with their constituents that they never had in the previous year.
It is tough, because there is no point going on holiday this year as an MP, because frankly, at all hours of the day, we have been dealing endlessly with requests from constituents. A lot of the job we can do perfectly well from our living room, back study, outhouse or stable, depending on how grand or ungrand the house is.
Mr Kevan Jones
An example of that was this weekend. The annual NATO Parliamentary Assembly took place, involving individual parliamentarians from NATO countries, including the United States and all across Europe. It was all done virtually, and I was even chairing meetings on Saturday afternoon.
Chris Bryant
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and all sorts of organisations have been doing this perfectly well, fully engaging all their members and enabling them to take part. Members might say that it is more difficult for people to travel, but sometimes some Members in the House forget that the travel is as risky as the business of actually physically being in Parliament. Mr Speaker, you and all the staff in the building have done a phenomenal job in making this place as covid-secure as possible.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Speaker, but let me make the point clear. I am moving the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay and myself.
It is worth bearing in mind what Members are not able to take part in. I have heard very moving and important speeches by Conservative Members, saying that this year has seen a phenomenal suspension of liberty in this country—extraordinary. The Coronavirus Act 2020 has taken power away from individuals to live their lives as they want more than any other piece of legislation in our history. We subscribed to that because we believed that it was necessary. The Government insisted that they should require only a single vote every six months on a 90-minute debate, but the Members whom we are talking about are not able to take part in those 90-minute debates—to be honest, not many other people are able to take part in those 90-minute debates either.
If we look at the secondary legislation, we will see that, during this year, there have been 297 coronavirus statutory instruments, using powers in 106 Acts of Parliament. Why should none of the Members whom we are talking about be able to take part in any of that secondary legislation when it is depriving people of their liberty? More importantly, it is not about the Member; it is about the community that they represent—their constituency. Why should they be barred, for instance, from expressing a view about the 10 o’clock curfew in pubs, or whether their constituency should be in tier 1, tier 2 or tier 3? They are not able to take part in ten-minute rule Bills. They are not able to make points of order, which must be a terribly depressing thing for all of them—how can you live without making points of order? Ironically enough, they are able to table amendments, but they are not able then to speak to them. That is the irony of where we are at tonight. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay can table an amendment, but he is not able to take part in this debate because of the way that things have been structured.
I say to all hon. Members, first of all, I do not buy this argument about the perfect being the enemy of the good. Earlier today, I understand that the Government Whips tried to strong-arm the Opposition, saying, “Well, you’ll never get what you want. We’ll pull the motion.” But the Leader of the House said that he would enable the House to resolve this. The proper way to resolve this is to have a proper motion on the Order Paper when all Members know that the debate is coming and we can consider the thing properly.
Secondly, I believe that all MPs are equal—the good, the bad, the ugly. All of them are equal. It is a really important principle.
Chris Bryant
Oh. Anyway, the point is that it is such a historic principle that every MP is treated equally that it is a terrible shame that we have abandoned it this year just because there is a pandemic. I do not believe that House business should ever be whipped. I think it is wholly inappropriate to do that, and I think that there has been a tendency in the past year for the Whips to interfere. Sorry, I have just seen my Chief Whip—everything that he has done has been absolutely perfect. On a serious note, I just think that more of our business should be done without the Whips’ engagement, because sometimes that would mean that it was less cantankerous.
I especially object to the idea that large numbers of proxies should be used in a vote, unless the person who is delivering those proxies has asked each and every individual Member—every single one—how they intended to vote. Let me just say to Members who would even consider the idea of voting against the amendment, which I guess is the argument that many of them are advancing—
Mr Speaker
I do not really want to get into what we have already discussed. I want to suspend the House so that we can move on. It would be better if we did not have another point of order because I am not going to open up or extend the debate, but if it is very relevant, I will hear it.
Mr Speaker
I think we have—[Interruption.] Order. Let us calm down.
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am going to suspend the House for three minutes.
Committee on Standards
Lord Beamish Excerpts(3 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Commission looked at a broad paper setting out the way the recruitment would take place; it did not look at the details and the questions that the Committee would ask in terms of political affiliation. The issue—[Interruption.] That is just such a fatuous point. It is not about packing it; it is about having people who do not have a political affiliation of a recent kind.
As I said, objections were raised before we knew what party this lady belonged to, because the politicians on the Standards Committee are the Members of Parliament, not the lay members, who need to be impartial. Lay members should be genuinely independent and that did not seem to be the case, so questions were raised. It was at that point that it emerged that Ms Carter had joined the Labour party this year to vote in the Labour party leadership election. It seemed to me that anyone who had recently joined any political party in order to cast a vote in favour of an individual to lead that party, believing that doing so would ensure a viable Opposition, would find it hard to persuade people that they were genuinely impartial. Under those circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising that the House of Commons Commission did not achieve consensus in approving the appointment.
In the light of this candidate’s noted support for one particular Labour leadership contender over another, I find myself in the perhaps unexpected position of juggling the interests of the rival factions of the Labour party. A lay member of the Standards Committee should be impartial towards politics that I do not like as well as politics that I do like.
As Leader of the House, I have a responsibility to all Members to protect their interest, which extends to all Members who competed in the Labour leadership election, some more successfully than others. Let me ask the House what view it would have taken of somebody who applied to join the Standards Committee who had joined the Conservative party just to vote for my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) in the Conservative leadership contest because they believed in the need to get Brexit done. Under those circumstances, we would not be having this conversation. The same principle applies to somebody who joined the Labour party to support one particular candidate.
I do not make these points in an academic, theoretical or philosophical way. It is likely that, in the near future, the Standards Committee will be asked to consider a case relating to the activity or conduct of an MP. In this instance, there is a real risk of the appearance of bias, because this proposed member has made clear her support for one candidate over another and joined a party specifically to vote for that one candidate over the other. We cannot have a situation where a lay member of the Standards Committee is perceived as being linked to a faction within a political party—as it happens, within the Labour party, but it would be just as unsuitable if someone were to be linked to a faction within the Tory party, although of course the Tory party does not have factions. What happens when that lay member is asked to make a judgment about the activity or conduct of an MP from within that faction?
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Leader of the House just said that this individual is a member of a faction. Is it not the case that that individual might have just wanted to vote for one candidate? Does he have any evidence that she is organised as part of a faction within the Labour party, because that is what he just implied?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The point is self-evident: if somebody joins a party specifically to vote X, they also specifically vote against Y. Y is a Member of this House. The person in question who joined the Labour party clearly has a view that is unfavourable to Y and favourable to X. Y may appear in front of the Standards Committee. At what point could Y possibly have confidence that this lady, who claims not to be anything other than impartial in normal circumstances, should be impartial against them after she voted against them and specifically joined the Labour party to vote in that direction?
Mr Jones
I have to say the Leader of the House is tying himself up in knots, because that is not the question that I asked. He said that she is a member of a faction. Does he have any evidence that, apart from casting a vote for a candidate in an internal Labour party election, she has been organising with others to support a certain candidate? If he does not, he should correct the record.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I said quite clearly that she supported a faction. If someone supports one candidate in a leadership election, they are self-evidently supporting a faction. That is just normal use of English, which I am surprised the right hon. Gentleman questions, because he is quite hot on that normally. Any perception of partiality undermines the important role of lay members, who are there to provide a vital balance to the political membership of the Standards Committee. That is why we ask for lay members in the first place.
Patrick Grady
That is exactly where we seem to be heading, because it seems to me that if the integrity and the suitability of a candidate that has gone through the entire system is now being questioned on the Floor of the House, then in fact the integrity and suitability of the whole system are being questioned, and that is very serious. It is a bit of a problem, not least because the same system has produced a candidate that we are all welcoming, and want to indorse this evening, in the appointment of Professor Maguire.
Both candidates have been vetted and approved to the standards of the Nolan principles. They have been recommended to the House by this House’s Commission, which the House has appointed, and the House has a say on the appointment, obviously, because they will serve as members of the Committee on Standards, but we should have faith in the system and in the Commission. I am informed by our Member on the Commission, my hon.—it should be right hon.—Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), of the qualifications and suitability of the candidate named in the amendment; that is there for everyone to see in HC 437. Both candidates are there; their qualifications are listed.
Mr Kevan Jones
The only objection that the Leader of the House put forward was that the candidate had joined a political party, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out, that in itself was not a bar to being appointed. If it is for the Leader of the House—who is clearly the Whip tonight to the Conservative majority behind him—to determine why we do not just do away with the selection process and allow the Leader of the House to make the selection.
Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament
Lord Beamish Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome this motion to form the Intelligence and Security Committee. The only two survivors of the Committee that sat in the last Parliament are myself and the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), if the House agrees to the motion. It is right to pay tribute to the Members who served on the last Committee, including Dominic Grieve, the Chairman. He might be a Marmite figure on the Government Benches, but he was a good Chair, a fair Chair and someone who not only worked collegiately with Members across the House and political parties but took a keen interest in the subject of security and intelligence. I pay tribute to Richard Benyon and Keith Simpson. Keith is a loss because he was our resident historian on the Committee. I wish all three of them well. I would also like to pay tribute to my two Labour colleagues, Caroline Flint and David Hanson, for their service to not only the Committee but the last Labour Government, as two very fine Ministers.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman just said about the Committee’s previous members. Although many of us on the Government Benches had some points of difference with Dominic Grieve in his last few months in the House, I worked with him over many years, and he was a very distinguished Chair and a very distinguished parliamentarian.
Mr Jones
I am sure that he will welcome those comments.
I want to pay tribute to two peers who will no longer sit on the Committee. The first is the Marquess of Lothian, who had sat on the Committee since 2006. He was not only a great fount of knowledge but took a keen interest, and having that historical knowledge on the Committee was very important. The second is Lord Robin Janvrin, who also took a keen interest in the Committee and worked very hard. Being a Cross Bencher, he brought a different perspective from the party political point of view, and he made a huge contribution. Both should be recognised for the work they did on the Committee.
The shadow Leader of the House raised the length of time it has taken to form the Committee. It concerns me, because this is not the first time. In the last Parliament, it took an inordinate length of time to form the Committee. Independent oversight of our security services is an important part of our democracy, and we perhaps need to revisit the legislation to require the Committee to be formed within a certain period after the election of a Parliament. If we have these long delays, we are missing parliamentary oversight, and if we want to build public trust in the work of our security services, that oversight is important.
The Committee has completed three reports, although only one seems to get a lot of mention. The first is the annual report from last year, which is ready to be published. The second is the report on the procurement of the National Cyber Security Centre at Nova South. The third, which is obviously of interest to many, is the report on Russia. All three need to be published as a matter of urgency. It is important—and I will argue this if the House agrees to my appointment—that the Russia report is produced before Parliament goes into recess. There is no reason why it should not be. It has been through the Committee, agreed through the redaction process and agreed by Government. I would like to see it published at the earliest opportunity, and possibly next week.
In closing, I want to thank the secretariat, who work very hard to service the Committee, and put on record my thanks and the thanks of the whole House to the men and women of our security services, who work day in, day out to keep us safe.
Business of the House
Lord Beamish Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will do better than my right hon. Friend asks; I will ensure that an extract of Hansard recording the thanks of my right hon. Friend is sent to the Chancellor. His proposals have received widespread support across the country and the House. My right hon. Friend’s point on the self-employed is very well made, and I will ensure that that is also passed on.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
May I add my welcome to the support given last week to those in employment? There is, however, real anxiety out there among the self-employed. For example, Bill Croney, one of my constituents who runs an event catering business contacted me this morning. These people have got no money coming in, and I think people need to realise that. The Government need urgently to bring forward active measures, and the indication of a statement tomorrow would at least be a ray of hope for some of those people in desperate times.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Although the Bill coming before the House tomorrow is not specifically directed at the self-employed, the scale of tomorrow’s Bill is such that it will allow expenditure of £260 billion on account. That gives the Government the flexibility that they need, assuming the House is willing to pass that Bill, to ensure that steps can be taken. I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is giving urgent attention to ways of helping the self-employed. I think it is accepted across the House that that needs to be tackled.
Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)
Lord Beamish Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Chalk
Respectfully, that is not right. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said at the time:
“I am deeply unclear—are you asking for publication of the final advice or of any legal advice in full that has happened during the entire negotiation? [Interruption.] With due respect, I am being asked for my vote regarding the motion on the Order Paper. Are you asking for what is on the Order Paper, which is,
“any legal advice in full”—
that is, during the whole negotiation?”—[Official Report, 13 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 196.]
At that point, Mr Speaker rightly intervened to ask who my hon. Friend was referring to, and so it went on. The matter was not clear. Given the importance of these proceedings, and the potential impact on one or more individuals, is it not right that the House should be crystal clear about what is on the indictment, so to speak?
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but will he answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) asked? If the motion was so unclear, why did he not vote against it and why did the Government not oppose it?
Alex Chalk
It is no answer at all; absolutely not. To take an analogy, if the prosecution were to bring proceedings against the hon. Gentleman for an alleged crime and if the court were satisfied that the proceedings were bad through duplicity or lack of clarity, the court would stay those proceedings because they would be improper proceedings. That is what has happened here. There are real concerns about these matters. In these circumstances, if the high court of Parliament wishes to act in a way that is proportionate and fair, the proper outcome is to refer the matter in accordance with the terms set out in the amendment. Those are my representations, Mr Speaker.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
At the heart of our debate today is a question of Parliament’s powers and prerogatives. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) laid out a simple and clear case at the beginning of the debate. He said that the House passed a motion on 13 November compelling the Government to do something and that the Government have not done it. He said that it proceeds simply from those two facts that Ministers are therefore in contempt. I say that that analysis is too simplistic and is lacking in nuance, and that it presupposes that Parliament’s power, generally, is unqualified and unconstrained.
Indeed, two Members have made that point explicitly in this debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) described Parliament’s power as untrammelled, and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is at the Bar of the House, also suggested that Parliament’s power is entirely without limitation. Without wishing to open up an enormous debate on those two points, I would suggest that those two assertions cannot be taken at face value as self-evidently the case.
For example, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights impose limitations on Acts of Parliament. Any Act of Parliament we pass must conform with human rights legislation and with the European convention on human rights, so there are limitations on what Parliament may do.
When I asked the hon. Member for Rhondda whether Parliament really has the right, for example, to trample on somebody’s personal liberty, he replied that Members of Parliament could be relied upon not to trample on people’s liberty in that way. Yet when one reads the great tracts on personal liberty, and particularly John Stuart Mill’s essay “On Liberty,” one sees that Mill urges that we should seek to protect individuals from what he describes as the “tyranny of the majority.” We need more than simply a reliance on good will to protect, for example, individual liberty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who is not in his place, also referred to the limitations on parliamentary authority by highlighting the distinction in the powers exercised by the Executive versus those exercised by Parliament as a legislature. There are all kinds of areas where the Government act with prerogative power and Parliament does not seek to usurp that power by essentially becoming the Government or becoming the Executive.
There are all kinds of areas where the limitations of parliamentary authority can, at the very least, properly be debated. The assertion that parliamentary authority is unlimited is not something one can take immediately at face value, attractive though it is to us as parliamentarians.
Of course, in no way do I wish to fetter Parliament’s ability to make its will felt. For example, our Select Committee colleagues were entirely within their rights to summon Mark Zuckerberg, and it is deplorable that the chief executive of such an influential company contemptuously refused to appear before a parliamentary Select Committee. I urge the Chairman of that Select Committee to use his good offices to compel Mark Zuckerberg to appear.
A question has repeatedly been posed by Opposition Members: “Why didn’t the Government oppose this motion when it was first put on 13 November?” I would suggest that the reason is that, in order to properly debate what parts of the legal advice might or might not be disclosed, the Government would have had to disclose the legal advice. We would have had to examine what the legal advice says before deciding what could or could not be disclosed. The very act of debating it would cause its disclosure, which is why when matters of disclosure arise in a court of law, they are decided by a judge in chambers, not in open court. The judge then decides what can be disclosed and what cannot be disclosed. No equivalent provision existed when the House debated this matter on 13 November; it would have been a case of disclosing everything and debating it openly, or disclosing nothing.
There is clearly a tension between Parliament’s desire to get disclosure and the desire of the Executive to protect the public interest. The question is: how do we balance those two competing considerations? A number of right hon. and hon. Members today have suggested that there are various appropriate forums in which that might occur, one of which, evidently, is the Privileges Committee or indeed some other Committee of the House. Such a Committee might, behind closed doors, look at the legal advice—
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Gentleman is talking complete nonsense with the idea that in order to vote against the motion on 13 November the Government would have had to disclose the evidence in that debate. Is it not a fact that the reason why they did not oppose that vote is that they would have lost it?
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman is engaging in speculation. The fact is that when matters of public disclosure are considered in other environments, for example, a court of law, an independent person, in this case a judge, in chambers, in private, decides what might publicly—
Chris Philp
I must conclude, because Mr Speaker wishes to move on with the business. That independent person decides what gets publicly disclosed. No such device or mechanism was available to this House on 13 November and it strikes me that the Privileges Committee is a suitable forum in which the balance between the desire for disclosure and the public interest can be struck, and it is appropriate that that balance is struck in private. I will therefore be supporting the amendment. I know that you wish to move on, Mr Speaker, so I will conclude my remarks there.
Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions
Lord Beamish Excerpts(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is vital that we always keep a close eye on value for taxpayers. As I have said, progressing with this particular private Member’s Bill would place a potential financial burden of £8 million on taxpayers. The Opposition may believe that it is perfectly fine to spend this amount of public money on a further boundary review, but, given that we have already committed to the 2018 boundary review, the Government cannot support such extra cost to the taxpayer at this point. With one review under way, plus an incomplete review from a previous Parliament, this review would be the third and would push the total cost of reviewing boundaries towards £18 million. I am sure that many constituents of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton would share our concern at any further unnecessary expenditure of taxpayers’ money.
The other private Members’ Bills in this Session also of course have costs attached, but they are costs associated with unique legislation, not that replicated elsewhere. As I have made clear many times, the Government will keep this private Member’s Bill under review, but it is right that we should allow the boundary commissions to report their recommendations before carefully considering how to proceed.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I am sorry, but the right hon. Lady is talking complete nonsense. Is it not a fact that the Government could lay the money resolution now? The idea that that money would be spent is absolute rubbish, and as for the idea that the Bill will somehow go ahead, would it not be a suitable back-up if the boundary commissions’ review were to fall?
Andrea Leadsom
I cannot really understand why the right hon. Gentleman wants to support a Bill if he thinks the money will never be spent to enact it. That would be a ludicrous situation.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is not focusing on the totality of the constitution. The sovereignty of this House is there to give confidence to the Government of the day. If the Government do not have the confidence of this House, they fall. Therefore, if the Government do not operate correctly in bringing forward their requests for expenditure in terms of their dealings with this House, or if the House does not approve, the Government change.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will not give way again because time is short, much as I would like to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The point of the constitutional differentiation—the separation of powers—is that, as long as the Government command the confidence of this House, they are the sole proposer of expenditure.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) on securing the debate and on being successful in the ballot.
Private Members’ Bills are important and have been responsible for some major social change in this country. The Sexual Offences Act 1967, which legalised private consensual sex between males over the age of 21, was a private Member’s Bill promoted by Leo Abse. Sydney Silverman’s private Member’s Bill became the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, which suspended the death penalty in Great Britain, excluding Northern Ireland, if I remember correctly.
Major social change has been made in this country through private Members’ Bills. Sometimes, including in the case of those two Bills, Governments have preferred to use private Members’ Bills to make those changes, rather than to legislate for it themselves. Not as famous as those two Bills was the Christmas Day (Trading) Act 2004, which I successfully piloted through the House, to limit larger shops from opening on Christmas day. If anyone asks you, Madam Deputy Speaker, why they cannot shop in a large hypermarket on Christmas day, you can say that it is my fault.
The traditional route for private Members’ Bills then was to get selected in the ballot and then argue the Bill through on a Friday. I remind new Members that in those days, we had the formidable Eric Forth in the Chamber, who was the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I successfully fought him for a few Fridays, and then we did a deal to get my Bill through. It is an important way for Back-Bench Members to get legislation on to the statute book. That was the traditional route, but we now have a blocking move by the Government. When Members put in for the private Member’s Bill ballot in future, they will have to think about whether the Government will ever give the Bill a money resolution.
Mr Harper
I am listening carefully to the examples of private Members’ Bills given by the right hon. Gentleman; the thing they all had in common was that they did not involve spending large amounts of public money. I suspect that most of them did not require money resolutions, and that is the proper role for private Members’ Bills
Mr Jones
I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, because we then get into a situation where we have to ask who defines what the amount of money is. That is the point—it has to be down to the House to decide whether a money resolution is passed.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) quite rightly asked what is stopping the Government laying down a money resolution to be debated on the Floor of the House. I am sure there are Members in the Chamber tonight who know that I can speak and have spoken at length on money resolutions. Why are the Government not bringing forward a money resolution to be debated on the Floor of the House? If it is the will of the House that this Bill should have a money resolution, it should go forward. It should not be for the Executive to decide which Bill gets a money resolution. Otherwise, we should just scrap the current system of private Members’ Bills.
I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who is not in his place. He is wrong in the points he made. It is the convention of the House that we do not vote on estimates, for example, but we could, and we could block them. I would challenge him and ask: if the Government are so confident that they are right, why do they not test the will of the House and bring forward the money resolution for debate on the Floor of the House? We all know the reason: the Government do not have a majority and will not dare do so, for fear that they will lose that vote.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government had the opportunity to kill this Bill, by voting against it on Second Reading? That is the normal way in which to kill a Bill. Why did they not do that?
Mr Jones
Therein lies the problem. Clearly, there are a number of Conservative Back Benchers who will not vote for the current Boundary Commission recommendations, which I will get on to in a minute, and the Government are not confident about getting them through. Not tabling a money resolution to the private Member’s Bill is a new blocking technique. They do not want to test the will of the House because of their fragile majority—or rather lack of a majority; I do not think they could have carried the Democratic Unionists at that stage. What are the Government afraid of? They should bring the resolution before the House and let it decide.
In terms of the argument that the Bill will somehow be a waste of £8 million, I am taking no lectures from the Government. I remember the coalition Government flipping and changing over whether we should have cats and traps on aircraft carriers, for example, which cost the taxpayer £100 million. There was the decision to renationalise the east coast main line last week; the rebranding of the trains alone is going to cost £13 million. The argument is complete nonsense. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) summed it up very well when he said that the Government would not be wasting money because what will happen, if they lose on this matter, is that they will pick up the Bill as a way of enacting the new boundaries.
May I turn briefly to the new boundaries? I believe in the equalisation of constituencies, which is fair and a part of our democratic process. It is important to have confidence in that, and to keep the link, which is unique in our system, between individual Members and their constituencies and communities. The gerrymandering that was done by the Cameron Government in reducing the number of MPs to 600 has led to the Boundary Commission—and I do feel sorry for it—being given an impossible task. We only have to look at some of the recommendations that have been put forward for the shape of constituencies, with communities put together that have no connection whatsoever. For example, there is one in the north-east that would win a geography prize and, given its odd shape, would clearly not be out of place in Texas in the United States.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, and I apologise to him. There has been a technical problem with the clock, and the number of minutes apparently left to him is not the number of minutes he has left. He has taken two interventions, so I will add on two minutes of injury time, but I would be very grateful if he did the House the courtesy of finishing at 7.33 pm.
Mr Jones
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, brevity is my style; I will certainly do what you request.
A fundamental part of our democracy in this country is the link between the constituency and the community, but that has been thrown out completely in this process. I do not blame the Boundary Commission for that; I blame the coalition Government. Let us remember that there was a coalition, and the Liberal Democrats signed up as well.
There has also been the argument that the cost of democracy will somehow be reduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) asked how many peers David Cameron created. He created 198 in six years, and I understand that the cost of that is an additional £22 million a year.
Mr Jones
Unfortunately, I cannot give way because I do not have the time.
This debate is not about the cost, but about the fact that the Government cannot secure a majority in this House. They do not have a majority among their own Back Benchers to support their legislation, and if they were really thinking about the public purse, they would ditch the Boundary Commission review now, adopt the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton, so that we can equalise constituencies and get on with the process, which would actually save, not cost, money.
May I finish by making a point about the Leader of the House, whose job is to uphold and protect our rights as a Chamber? I am sorry, but I do not think she is doing a very good job of that at all. She has found herself on this occasion bowing to the inevitable, with a Government who clearly do not have a majority, but want to get their own way at all costs.
Chris Philp
No, that is not what we should do. I am specifically referring to the expenditure of significant amounts of money that requires budgetary balance—a discipline Labour Members may well want to reflect on.
The right hon. Member for North Durham listed a number of private Members’ Bills over the years, some of which have been very significant, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean pointed out in an intervention, almost all—in fact, all—of the private Members’ Bills that were listed did not require significant expenditure. The distinction I draw is about initiating expenditure and the balance between the Executive and the legislature.
Mr Kevan Jones
That is fine, but will we then get a situation in which, when someone initiates a private Member’s Bill, we get into a debate not about whether it needs a money resolution, but whether it needs what is deemed to be a significant amount of expenditure? As we all know, what is significant in the eyes of one person is different from what is significant in the eyes of others.
Chris Philp
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the expenditure in this case—I think it is some £13 million—is insignificant; that money would pay for 300 nurses. If Labour Members are seeking to advance the argument that £13 million of our constituents’ money is insignificant, I think they are sorely mistaken. If that is their attitude, it perhaps explains why the deficit they bequeathed us in 2010 was quite so large.
To move on to the process, the Government are taking quite a sensible view by saying that they will wait and see when it comes to the money resolution for this private Member’s Bill, because we have an active process that is currently running and on which considerable time and money have already been expended. There will be a report to the Government and also to the House in a matter of three or four months, and to have two separate processes cutting across and indeed contradicting each other before the House has reached a decision on the first process strikes me as duplicative and wasteful. It is therefore quite reasonable to wait for three or four months—it is not very long: a matter of a few weeks—before deciding how to proceed.
The House itself will reach a decision about the proposed boundaries with 600 constituencies in the month of October, and having waited seven or eight years we can quite comfortably wait until then. At that point, we will of course have a debate about the Boundary Commission proposals, and the fact that the Government are prepared to wait and see with regard to this private Member’s Bill until then hints at some degree of open-mindedness about the outcome of whether we are equalising at 600 or 650 constituencies. That open-mindedness actually shows respect for the House because the Government are saying that they will listen to the House’s opinion in a few months’ time. There are of course good arguments on both sides—in favour of 600 and in favour of 650. The arguments in favour of 600, of course, relate to reducing the cost of and having a more manageable House, but there are clearly good arguments in favour of 650, not least—
Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)
Lord Beamish Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Philip Davies
It is an ugly rumour but it also happens to be true: I do support the hon. Gentleman’s private Member’s Bill. It seems to me, therefore, that he does not need 26 days to get it through. This, however, might be his tactic in reserve, in case things do not go so well on the first day and he needs more days. I hope he will declare his interest when he moves his amendment.
The hon. Member for Walsall South has not given an explanation for her amendment. The House’s Standing Orders are clear that there shall be 13 days for private Members’ Bills in a Session—not a minimum or a maximum of 13 days, but 13 days. That is it. That is what is in the Standing Orders. If people want to meddle with those Standing Orders, they have to meddle with the whole thing. It is not acceptable to say, “We will have one ballot in this Session of Parliament, and we will have 26 days for that ballot.” That does not wash.
The hon. Members for Walsall South and for Rhondda could have come along with an amendment to the effect that over this two-year period we need to have a second ballot in a year’s time, with 13 extra days for that ballot. That would be a perfectly respectable position to hold, and I would have a bit more sympathy with that argument, although I am not saying that I would support it. The argument that they are making—that we should have 26 days for one private Members’ Bill ballot—is completely and utterly unreasonable.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the Standing Orders, but the Leader of the House just announced that the Government may come forward with additional sitting days for private Members’ Bills throughout the Session. Would he oppose those, and for what purpose would he suggest they should be used?
Philip Davies
I think the Standing Orders are perfectly adequate. There should be 13 days for private Members’ Bills in a Session; that seems to me a perfectly reasonable number. I do not really see any justification for saying, in effect, that those who enter this ballot of private Members’ Bills in this Session deserve a better chance of getting their Bills through than they would have done in any previous Session of Parliament.
Philip Davies
Just because something happened in the past, it does not mean that it was a good thing. The example that the hon. Lady has given falls into that category. If she looks at my voting record, she will notice that an awful lot of things that happened during the coalition years were not particularly to my taste. I used to vote accordingly, as the record will confirm. Praying in aid something that happened during the coalition years is not necessarily the best way to win my support.
My point is that this is a matter of fairness. Everybody enters a ballot in each Session of Parliament knowing that there will be 13 days in that Session when private Members’ Bills can proceed. We are being asked today to agree that in this particular ballot from this particular Session, MPs will have a better chance of getting their private Members’ Bill through than they would have done in any previous Session.
Mr Jones
I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but surely if this was a normal, year-long Session, the chances of getting a private Member’s Bill through would be less even than with the 13 days. I have some sympathy with him about the idea of having another ballot, but does he really think it is fair that the number of days should be limited when the Session has been increased to more than a year?
Philip Davies
As I have said, I think there is an argument for saying that there should be 13 days for this ballot, and that in a year’s time we should hold another ballot for which there would be another 13 days. That would give people 26 days within the Session. That would be a perfectly reasonable thing to request, and I would have a great deal of sympathy with that. But nobody in the Opposition appears to be making that case. Why can we not have another ballot in a year’s time if we are going to have double the number of days? The hon. Member for Walsall South has not been able to answer that question. No doubt the hon. Member for Rhondda will have a crack at answering it, but I do not think that there is much of an answer.
The hon. Lady seemed to be making the point that we should be trying to replicate what would normally happen over the course of two years. What would normally happen over the course of two years is that we would have two ballots, so why has the hon. Lady not included in her amendment the extra ballot that would normally have occurred during that time? She seems to be cherry-picking the bits that she wants.
I say to the Deputy Leader of the House that he should beware such requests for supposed fairness, when they would actually introduce a very unfair system in this Session of Parliament. He should stick to his guns and say that for each private Member’s Bill ballot, there should be 13 days. That is plenty of opportunity for people to try to get their legislation through. If people want another 13 days, there must be another ballot—something that nobody, as yet, seems to have called for.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Opposition’s view on the motion is not about causing trouble; it is about maintaining an important democratic principle of this House, which is that in a two-year Session that has already been declared it is perfectly legitimate and fair that the Government should allocate a proportionate number of days for private Members’ Bills. They could do that tonight if they wanted to. That is why we support the amendments on the Order Paper.
I want to refer briefly to some of the successful private Members’ Bills that reached the statute book in 2016-17, to illustrate the importance of that route and of sitting Fridays. The Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Act 2017, introduced by the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), is really important legislation that omits from the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 the sections that make homosexual acts grounds for dismissal from the crew of merchant ships. It makes society fairer and eliminates very serious discrimination from the statute book.
Mr Kevan Jones
The need for that legislation came to light when we were passing the Armed Forces Act, when we were able to remove that provision in relation to the armed forces but not in relation to the merchant navy. That came forward as a private Member’s Bill, rather than the Government using their time to do it.
Angela Smith
My hon. Friend strengthens and enhances my point. We need the route offered to us by private Members’ Bills to correct failures by Government to deal with such important issues.
The Scottish National party Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), has already referred to the very important measure introduced by the previous Member for Banff and Buchan, Eilidh Whiteford, the Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Act 2017, which relates to ratification of the Istanbul convention. The House overwhelmingly agreed to that on a sitting Friday through the private Member’s Bill route, yet even now the Government have not acted upon the instructions of the House. Rather than denying the democratic rights of Members of this House, the Government would do better to spend their time ensuring that the democratic will of the House is observed in letter and in spirit.
Finally, I want to refer to two measures predating 2016-17. My Bill did not immediately make it on to the statute book but became law when the dangerous dogs legislation made it possible to prosecute people for dog attacks that occurred on private property. It took about five years to get it on to the statute book, but we got there in the end. The private Member’s Bill route—the Friday sittings—made that possible.
The co-operation of both Front Benches in the closing months of the 2010-15 Government made possible the Control of Horses Act 2015, introduced by the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy). Why can we not have that co-operation now? If the Government believe in consensus, they should act on it and give us the time on Fridays.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
In the previous debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) talked about the power of the Executive not only over controlling the agenda, but over ensuring that laws that are in manifestos get through. However, we are in a unique position in this two-year Session of Parliament. As my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for Rhondda said, the important thing is that private Members’ Bill are sometimes big pieces of legislation that are too hot to handle—too hot for the Government to put through.
Many private Members’ Bills have gone through this House that make a real difference to people’s lives. I introduced the Christmas Day (Trading) Act 2004, which means that large shops cannot open on Christmas day —the Act was good for shop workers who were forced to work on Christmas day. In the same Session, Jim Sheridan, the former hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, introduced the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which brought in tough regulation following the tragedy at Morecambe bay to try to protect people from being exploited by gangmasters. Private Members’ Bills can make a real change to people’s lives.
I am a bit concerned that the Leader of the House says she is minded to announce additional days. How many additional days would she like to propose, and what are the criteria for introducing them? The current logic is that 13 days will be spread over a two-year Session. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) made the argument, with which I have some sympathy, that it is in the Government’s hands to move an amendment if they wish to have another ballot for private Members’ Bills in the second year.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) said, in the 2015-16 Session, 20% of successful private Members’ Bills did not come through the ballot but came through the ten-minute rule procedure and other routes. The hon. Member for Shipley is arguing that, somehow, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and others who have been successful in the ballot will have an unfair advantage, but I am not sure that will be the case. Other hon. Members will have a chance to get their private Members’ Bills on the statute book.
The hon. Member for Shipley thinks of himself as a great filibusterer on a Friday, but he pales into insignificance compared with the former right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the great Eric Forth, with whom I successfully did a deal to pass my private Member’s Bill because he wanted to stop a Bill lower down the Order Paper.
The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) mentioned the proposal to move debates on private Members’ Bills to Tuesday and Wednesday nights, thereby getting round the travel difficulties of Scottish National party Members on Fridays. Are private Members’ Bills an area ripe for reform? Yes, they are. We must not only show our constituents that we are listening to them but must enact Bills that are relevant to them. Private Members’ legislation is important.
I am not sure whether the Government have limited Friday sittings by mistake, or because they want to keep the decks clear or to ensure that nothing controversial is introduced in the next two years, as some Government Back Benchers might vote against the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda made the fundamental point that there are few opportunities in this place to change legislation, but we can do it in Bill Committees.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge mentioned the decriminalisation of homosexual acts in the merchant navy, which was originally raised during the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2016. We managed to get the discriminatory legislation on the merchant navy changed through a private Member’s Bill with the Government’s agreement. Again, the issue had been overlooked for many years, and it was only because of our scrutiny in this House that we could get rid of that discriminatory legislation on the military and the merchant navy. So I would support the amendments. It is nonsense to suggest that by giving these additional days the world is going to stop—it is not. It is going to allow Back Benchers, either through the ballot or through private Members’ business, to ensure that their voices are heard and that they can make a real difference in trying to get some of those Bills past even the hon. Member for Shipley.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Scheduling of Parliamentary Business
Lord Beamish Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This debate is about Opposition days and our ability to hold the Government to account. If the Leader of the House wants debates about the subjects she is now referring to, why does she not allow them rather than diverting from what this debate is about?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is aware that Front Benchers are usually accorded a modest latitude in developing their arguments, hence I have allowed a modest latitude, but I think the Leader of the House will shortly return to the thrust of the matter under debate—not what might have been under debate but what is under debate. I know that she will focus on that; I am perfectly sanguine on that score.
Andrea Leadsom
Yes, I think my hon. Friend speaks for all of us in his observation.
I have outlined the many opportunities that the Opposition have had since the general election to debate in this House. In four days, the House rises for recess, but not before there are many further opportunities to put their views on the record. Today we are supposed to be debating the abuse and intimidation of candidates during the general election. Members on both sides of this House have been victims of vile abuse from anarchists and hard-left activists, but obviously Labour Members are not interested. It is now unlikely that there will be any time for that critical debate to take place today. I sincerely hope that the Leader of the Opposition, having prevented this debate, will want to condemn in the strongest language the frightening and intimidating abuse endured by many Conservative Members, as well as a number of those on his own Benches.
This Government are working towards a brighter future for our great country. We are bringing forward the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and negotiating our exit from the European Union, fulfilling the will of the British people, and working to make a success of Brexit. We are putting in place a strong programme of social and economic legislation, introducing measures that will improve mental health provision, build the industries of tomorrow, and stamp out extremism and terrorism. These are issues that matter—
Mr Speaker
I have to take it on trust, but I hope it is a point of order rather than a point of frustration.
Mr Jones
I know that you were deep in conversation, Mr Speaker, but the Leader of the House has returned to issues that have nothing to do with this debate. She is just giving a long list of what this Government have achieved. If she really wants those issues to be properly aired, why will she not give us Opposition day debates so that we can vote on them?
Mr Speaker
I note the hon. Gentleman’s point. As far as I can tell—I hope I sense correctly—the Leader of the House is very likely approaching her peroration. A lot of Members wish to speak and there is usually a rough equivalence between the length of time taken by the Opposition spokesperson and the Government spokesperson. At this stage the right hon. Lady is in order, but I imagine that she is probably nearing the conclusion of her remarks.
Mr Speaker
Order. There was no need for that. It is rather ungracious of the hon. Gentleman to yell from a sedentary position. He can always adopt a gentle burr, like the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), which is altogether more seemly.
Angela Smith
Fortunately, the intervention of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) feeds directly into my next comment. Opposition days, Backbench Business Committee days and private Member’s Bill days on sitting Fridays are all very important and are the key means in this House of raising issues of concern to our voters. That precisely answers the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Opposition days and private Member’s Bill days give us a chance to effect real change to Government policy, yet we have had only 13 days allocated. The Backbench Business Committee is, and will be, crucial in this period of minority Government to developing the cross-party, cross-Bench relationships and the arguments necessary if we are to be effective as a Parliament in effecting real change to Government policy.
Mr Kevan Jones
This point has not really been raised in this debate, but is not the real reason why the Government are doing this the fact that there can be votes on those debates? The Government are scared of a number of individuals on their Back Benches doing what my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) said, which is voting in the national interest rather than their party’s interest.
Angela Smith
I completely agree with my hon. Friend and that was exactly the point I wanted to make.
The Prime Minister said only two weeks ago that she wanted cross-party working and a national consensus between the parties in order to serve the national interest. The Government have made a very poor start on that. If they want consensus, I am more than happy to play my part, but they need to show that they mean business and are ready to use the mechanisms of the House and to make it possible for a consensus to develop in real and meaningful terms in this Chamber. We have seen very little evidence of that so far.
I shall finish on a rather more controversial point. I believe that the real reason we are seeing so little action from the Government in providing for meaningful Opposition day debates or for legislation—there is still no Committee of Selection, and Bills are coming to the Floor of the House when they should not be doing so—is that the Government are absolutely desperate to avoid any kind of Back-Bench instability in the Commons. That is because they are so worried about the future of their own Prime Minister. The truth is that Government Front Benchers want to get beyond the conference season and beyond October to be sure that they still have this Prime Minister in No. 10. They are absolutely desperate to avoid any meaningful debate in this House, in order to shore up the Government’s position. That is an appalling abuse of parliamentary democracy, and it is not in the national interest. When is this zombie Parliament going to end?
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), and I may refer to one of her comments later. As she knows, I very much respect her, having worked with her in the Council of Europe. I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on her maiden speech. Well done to her! I would also very much like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair), who made an absolutely wonderful speech. It is so lovely to see another young lady—a Scottish one—in the House of Commons today, so well done and thanks for your contribution.
I find it quite surprising that I am speaking in this debate. I was not going to do so, but I read the request that came through and I found that I could not stop myself. I felt that I really had to contribute. I am disappointed that the debate will mean that, sadly, we will not have time for the debate that was to follow. I am quite sad about that. I am very surprised that the Opposition have called this debate today—
Kelly Tolhurst
No, I want to make some progress.
I am surprised that the Opposition are complaining about the amount of time they have had to debate issues that are important to them. Since the election, we have had six days of debate on the Queen’s Speech, which many Opposition Members took part in. They had an opportunity to have their say in those debates. We have also had numerous urgent questions involving current issues and matters that are relevant to our constituents. I cannot speak about what happened before 2015, because that is when I was elected, but I have looked back over the past two years. There have been a number of debates on Government business and on important pieces of legislation which have not taken the full allocation of time because there was little appetite from the Opposition to join in. One occasion in particular takes me back.
The Children and Social Work Bill was one of the biggest pieces of legislation on children and social work for a number of years. Interestingly, it did not use up all its debating time on Second Reading, on Report or on Third Reading. However, interestingly, when we were debating an amendment on unaccompanied minors that had been tabled to grab the headlines, the Opposition Benches were packed. As soon as the amendment had passed, the Chamber emptied again. In fact, only one Opposition Member spoke on that Bill, which covered issues such as advisers for care leavers and adoption. Did the Opposition feel that those key issues in that massive piece of legislation would not quite grab the headlines? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) that tonight’s debate seems to be about political point scoring and the Opposition trying to grab headlines when they think it will matter.
We have two years ahead of us in which, as the Government make progress, to debate the biggest piece of legislation that this Parliament has seen for many years. It covers something that my constituents are extremely concerned about. They are concerned that we should debate the issues properly and that we get the right legislation through the House, so it is absolutely correct that that must be the focus on both sides of the House. We must have enough time to debate that issue—
Kelly Tolhurst
It is the issue of Brexit: the laws that will come through and the intricacies of what will happen when we leave the European Union.
Really, I think the Opposition should get over themselves a bit. As many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, 20 Opposition day debates have been put aside, which will give Labour 17 to take part in. I look forward to joining in those debates when they occur—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is sitting at the back there, has spent the whole debate being quite rude, not only to the Leader of the House but to me. What a shame—
Mr Kevan Jones
May I give the hon. Lady some advice? If she is going to make a speech, will she please look at the subject before she stands up to speak? She said she was disappointed that this debate was limiting the time available for the next one, a point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies). If she had not given in to the Whips and agreed to speak in this debate, would we not have had more time for the next one?