General Election Television Debates

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dodds]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point about Sinn Fein, because one of the broadcasters’ arguments for including the SNP and Plaid Cymru was that they will compete against parties that could form the next Government and so could play a role in the formation of the next Government. However, they also say that if they go to Northern Ireland, they will have to include all the parties, especially Sinn Fein, because they get votes and have seats. The reality is that there is absolutely no point in listeners hearing from Sinn Fein Members because they do not come to Parliament, they will not be voting in Parliament and they have no role to play in Parliament, and that is of their own volition. It is clearly a nonsense argument that the broadcasters are using.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have been very generous, but we must try to have shorter interventions.

[Mr Donaldson]

My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is interesting, is it not, that Sinn Fein declares itself to be the strong supporter of Irish freedom and independence yet wants to take part in a national debate that is relevant to the United Kingdom. The very same party is acting in a way that suggests it wants to hand back all the powers we have in our devolved Assembly and Executive to the national Parliament of the United Kingdom, and it really raises a question about their credentials as Irish republicans that they are in favour of returning to direct rule, rather than honouring the agreements that have been reached and are moving forward—but I digress.

The hon. Member for Belfast East said that we should not really be debating this issue because there are more important matters to debate. I simply point out that on every opportunity that the Democratic Unionist party has had, as the fourth party in this Parliament, to discuss matters—this is relevant to the wider issue—we have sought to focus not on issues that are relevant only to Northern Ireland, but on issues that are relevant on the national stage, and they are issues that are important to the people we represent. This afternoon we will debate another motion that is of national significance as well as of importance to our constituents in Northern Ireland.

We are all concerned about declining participation in the democratic process in the United Kingdom, with voter turnouts and membership of political parties going down, so this is an important issue. In fact, I would argue that few issues are more important than encouraging people to respect and participate in the democratic process, because that is about democracy itself. Indeed, one of the two gentlemen who may well be the next Prime Minister seemed to think the question of TV debates important enough to devote the entire exchange in Prime Minister’s questions to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I will desist from getting into a discussion about licence fees, the payment of licence fees, the non-payment of licence fees, the compulsory payment of licence fees, or whatever. That is another favourite topic of mine, but it is not quite relevant to the motion before us.

Whatever the reason for it, we now have an unbecoming shambles that is not doing politics any good. Despite what is said about how rubbishy people think politicians are, I think there is a general desire among the public to hear debates on the issues. However, those debates have to be in a fair and properly structured format. The unbecoming shambles that we now have brings politics in this country further into disrepute.

We have put forward an unassailable case. We would prefer a much tighter arrangement for the debate, but if it is to be opened up—I add the qualifications put forward by Members from the Alliance party and the SDLP, and ourselves—there are absolutely no grounds for saying that the fourth largest party in this House, which stands only in a regional capacity but is no different in that regard from Plaid Cymru or the SNP, and has more members than many of the smaller parties that will be included, and could have the same influence as all those parties, should be excluded. That is especially the case because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said, it is not as though we operate in some kind of bubble in Northern Ireland and will not be competing against some of the parties that are represented on these Benches and that will be participating in the debates.

I will have a UKIP opponent and perhaps even have a Conservative opponent and, by proxy, I will have opposition from Labour in the form of the SDLP and from the Liberal Democrats in the form of the Alliance party. When I say “opposition” from competitors I mean it in the loosest possible sense of the word, because such opponents will be somewhere down at the bottom of the pile when it comes to counting the votes. I will also have an opponent from the Greens, but given the fact that the Greens in Northern Ireland want to prevent the good constituents of East Antrim from eating bacon butties on a Monday in order to save the planet or from seeing adverts for flying to the Mediterranean because they will put too much CO₂ into the air—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we will both agree that this is not about debates between the party leaders, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman wants to get back to that.

[Sammy Wilson]

The point I am making—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Never mind what point you are making. The point is that you are offbeat. Get back to the debates.

[Sammy Wilson]

I am trying to explain my point, Mr Deputy Speaker. My point is that the inclusion or non-inclusion of the Greens in the debates will not make any difference because their policies are so outlandish that nobody will vote for them anyway. However, they have been included, and given that they are a small party and much smaller than our party, our argument is that we ought to be included as well.

The problem, which has of course been created by the broadcasters, is that if we end up with seven parties, as we now have, or eight or nine parties, we will not have a debate—or even a beauty contest given some of the people involved. We will have a shambles or, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, a Tower of Babel—utter confusion—with points not being properly debated.

The problem created by the broadcasters is one reason why we believe that there should be some attempt, even at this late stage, to resolve the issue either by accepting the inclusion of all parties with a sizeable representation and candidates standing nationally and regionally, or by finding some way to narrow the number down. We cannot have the worst of all worlds, which is including some and excluding the others.

Another part of the motion that has generated a fair range of comment is about how we proceed. The proposal for an independent body to make an adjudication may well come too late for this election, but that is not to say that it should not be considered for future elections; otherwise this shambles might be repeated. On the one hand, there are the politicians who have their agendas, but on the other hand, the broadcasters have their own agendas, as we now know. The broadcasters are no less guilty in all this than those that some of the public may see as self-seeking politicians. We therefore believe in the creation of an independent body.

The Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), asked how independent the body should be and how it could be made independent. Such an idea has already been rejected in the House of Lords, but only because greater faith was placed in the broadcasters than should ever have been placed in them. Now we have seen that they are incapable of the degree of independence and objectivity required to ensure fair, reasonable and rational debate on the issues, we must look again at having an independent body. It should be no more difficult to create an independent body to oversee broadcasts during elections than to have an independent body for any other job for which such a body is required. The Minister’s point about how we ensure the body’s independence should not cause us a great deal of concern.

Another issue that hon. Members have raised is whether whatever is decided should be mandatory, as the Labour party wants, or voluntary. Our view is that the job of the independent body should be to set the rules. If the rules are set fairly, there will be no need for coercion. People will be able to sign up to the conditions attached to the rules, so there should not be any unseemly rows. At the end of the day, I must say that I am not attracted to making participation mandatory. Even once the rules have been set and the parties have agreed to them, there should still be a right and an opportunity for the parties—they will have to explain the circumstances to the electorate—to decide whether to participate.

House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Friday 27th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

My new clause 3 is in the same grouping. As it is well precedented in the 2012 Bill, which did not make much progress, I wish, if it is possible, to test the will of the House on it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The new clause will have to be moved formally.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Code of conduct

“(1) Standing Orders of the House of Lords may provide for the adoption of a code of conduct.

(2) A resolution passed by virtue of section 1(4) must include a reference to the relevant provision of any code of conduct which the House of Lords may have adopted and which has not been superseded by a subsequent decision of the House.”— (Mr Chope.)

This Clause allows the House of Lords to adopt a code of conduct and also requires the application of penalties under this Bill to be linked to that code, if there is one.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 4, leave out paragraph (a).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment 7, page 1, line 17, at beginning insert

“in relation either to an expulsion or to a suspension”.

This is linked to the amendment below which prevents retrospective judgement of behaviour leading to a final expulsion of a member of the House of Lords.

Amendment 6, page 1, line 17, after “Act”, insert

“and any Standing Orders made under subsection (1)”.

Amendment 19, page 1, line 17, after “Act” insert

“and any Standing Orders made under this section”.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).

This removes all reference to previous conduct that was not public knowledge.

Amendment 9, page 1, line 18, at beginning insert

“in relation only to a suspension”.

This removes the power of expulsion in respect of previous conduct that was not public knowledge.

Amendment 10, page 1, line 18, leave out from “Act” to end of line 19 and insert

“but since 1 January 2015”.

This limits the application of the Bill’s sanctions to previous conduct that was not public knowledge to just the current year.

Amendment 11, page 1, line 18, leave out from “Act” to end of line 19 and insert

“but since 1 January 2000”.

This limits the application of the Bill’s sanctions to previous conduct that was not public knowledge in the past 15 years only.

Amendment 12, page 1, line 18, leave out from “Act” to end of line 19 and insert

“but since 1 January 1985”.

This limits the application of the Bill’s sanctions to previous conduct that was not public knowledge in the past 30 years only.

Amendment 13, page 1, line 19, after “knowledge”, insert “in the United Kingdom”.

This limits the scope of public knowledge of previous conduct to what was not known in this country.

Amendment 14, page 1, line 19, at end insert—

‘(4A) A resolution under subsection 4(b) may not relate to expulsion”.

This is an alternative approach to removing the power of expulsion in respect of previous conduct that was not public knowledge.

Amendment 15, page 1, line 19, at end insert—

“(4A) Standing Orders of the House of Lords set out guidance on what constitutes public knowledge under subsection 4(b)”.

This allows for some certainty as to what might constitute public knowledge of previous conduct.

Amendment 20, page 1, line 19, at end add—

‘(5) nothing in this section shall authorise the expulsion or suspension of members of the House of Lords on the grounds of age, health or length of service”

Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out “Expulsion and”.

Amendment 4, page 2, line 4, leave out clause 3.

Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 2, line 9, leave out “Expulsion and”.

Amendment 16, in the title, line 1, leave out “expel or”.

[Mr Chope]

Effectively, amendment 1 seeks to remove from the Bill any reference to the expulsion of Members of the House of Lords, which means that the Bill would relate only to their suspension. The reason why I wish to circumscribe the Bill in that way is that the main point of the Bill is to make the House of Lords’ powers relating to Members’ suspension more consistent. On that, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young). Where I disagree with him is over the use of the expulsion power.

When this Bill was originally put forward, it was said to be very minor and technical, but as one of their lordships said, the expulsion power was certainly not about routine housekeeping. The power to expel Members from the other place is a fundamental interference in the constitutional arrangements of our country; people are appointed to the other House for life, or they are elected as part of the cohort of elected peers. To expel such a person is an extreme measure.

Following the House of Lords Reform (No.2) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) and passed into law, the House of Lords and this House effectively have the same powers of expulsion. That includes ensuring that anyone who is convicted of an offence that results in imprisonment for more than one year is expelled. In this House, we have not expelled anyone for a very long time. A number of people, following critical newspaper reports, have chosen not to stand again, or even in extremis to resign their seat, but expulsion is a draconian sanction. Introducing it in this Bill is unnecessary; it is over-egging the pudding. That is why I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire will accept my amendment. Essentially, all the amendments in the group deal with the same issue, which is the conduct that gives rise to potential expulsion from the House.

Amendments 2, 7, 6, 19, 8, 9 and the others are worth considering because they tighten up the Bill and bring it more into line with what would be regarded as fair and reasonable. Rather than spending a lot of time going through them, I would prefer to see whether we can persuade my right hon. Friend, the promoter of this Bill, to drop the expulsion power. As was said on Second Reading and Report in the other place, this is a power that the Lords hope that they will never have to use, but the danger is that if it is available and can be used in relation to a wide range of conduct, people might be expelled from the Lords in circumstances in which they would not be expelled from this House.

Let us consider the interaction between this Bill and the recall Bill. The recall Bill gives electors the power to vote when a Member’s conduct falls short of what is expected but would not give rise to a sentence of imprisonment of more than one year. If we are to link in with that, it would be best to do away with the expulsion provisions and rely on the suspension provisions instead. Under the suspension powers in this Bill, the other place would be able to suspend Members for five years or more. If a Member was suspended for that length of time and felt that justice had been done, they might well choose to resign. That is a different issue, but given the constitutional implications, it would be a step too far to give the other House the power to override our constitution by expelling somebody who has been appointed a peer of the realm for life, or an elected hereditary peer. If we want to go down that route, we should not do so on a Friday through a private Member’s Bill.

As with so many powers that have been taken, people say that they will never have to use these powers. We were told, when certain legislation was originally introduced, that it would be used only to proceed against terrorists, but as the years went by we found that the rules became rather different. People forget the basis on which the law was introduced. The lack of safeguards in this Bill about the conduct that would give rise to expulsion means that it would be much cleaner to remove references to expulsion from it. Some of my amendments would therefore ensure that the Bill was called not the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill, but the House of Lords (Suspension) Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

At the start of his contribution, the hon. Gentleman said that he would be brief. Is he now straying into the uncertain waters of misleading the House?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think that is a job for me.

[Philip Davies]

Looking at the clock, I have been speaking for 21 minutes, which, as a regular attender on a Friday, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will agree is brief—to be honest, I contend that that is more than brief, but we all have our own standards. I will not say too many nice things about the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) as it might not go down well in Liverpool—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I think I can help. We need to get back to the amendment, not discuss the time as that is not a worry. I want to hear more about the amendment.

[Philip Davies]

As ever you are right, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am sorry that I was led astray by the hon. Gentleman. It will not happen again.

The amendments deliver what we all want the Bill to do—that is how I view them—and I think they are useful in ensuring that we stick to what we think the Bill delivers, rather than go beyond that. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire will agree to them. The amendments are good, and should the opportunity arise I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will consider dividing the House on amendment 1. I would support him in that.

Iraq Inquiry

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I would like to suggest that Members speak for up to 10 minutes. Otherwise, we will have to impose a time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

Because they were fooled. The right hon. Gentleman should recall—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This has been a good debate, and we do not want to spoil it. Let us continue in the manner we have done so far. I want to get to the end and make sure everybody gets to speak.

Higher Education Funding

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Binley]

I am most grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, and I add that this situation should cause real alarm to not only every Member of this House, irrespective of their position or party, but to every parent, business man and citizen in the land. At some stage their children and grandchildren will have to meet this charge if we do nothing about it now. I do not take the accounting answer given earlier by a man I respect, my right hon. Friend the Member for Havant, and I welcome the comments made by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), a former Labour Minister, who, sadly, is leaving this place, too—that will be a great loss. He made the point that we cannot avoid debt of any kind and we cannot talk it off a balance sheet; it has to be dealt with at some stage. I would rather it be dealt with now than at some point in the future.

Any business would stem the flow of debt immediately, as it would be so damaging—it would threaten the very livelihood and stability of that business. Any business would be looking for ways of tightening up on credit control—it would probably have done that already, because it could never have afforded to have got into this situation. Any business would look for ways of increasing productivity within the system, and you will be pleased to know that I wish to say a few words about that relatively shortly, Mr Deputy Speaker, and then I will sit down. Does that reassure you?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am sure it reassures the rest of the Chamber.

[Mr Binley]

I fear that they are enjoying my contribution immensely, but your job is another matter.

Any business would be seeking to tighten credit controls and to find ways of increasing productivity in the areas of service provision, and would talk to its bank about contingency arrangements that might be in put in place and how that might be done. We are simply appealing about that aspect, because in this respect our bank is the taxpayer. I wonder what the taxpayer might feel about our not considering those contingencies. I have made that point in a number of ways during these remarks, but it is a vital part of what this place is about.

How must we seek to emulate that good, solid business man who would take those steps? I would seek from the Minister a wish and plans to improve loan contracts, with special emphasis on repayment procedures. We now have the information to prove that the procedures are simply not good enough to reclaim taxpayers’ money, especially from overseas students, and we have to look at that. Secondly, we have to improve collection procedures—again, particularly in respect of overseas students. It is not the job of this House to finance the education of those people, even though doing so creates a better world; I understand that aspect, but it is still not our job to finance their further education for the nations that they come from—I do not believe that our bank of the taxpayer would disagree with that view.

I would also equalise the cost of university education through the nation. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is no longer in his place, has already talked about the disparity in the fee situation between England and Scotland, which many people find unfair and unacceptable.

We need to increase university productivity. We should also consider compressing the time it takes for a student to complete a course. We could have courses of two years, or even 18 months if we are talking about golf course management. As a businessman, I despair at some of the degrees that come before me when people seek jobs, but that is another matter. We need to think about compressing courses and improving the productivity of a sector of our national life that has had it easy for too long. Members may think that there speaks a secondary modern schoolboy who did not have the opportunity to sit at the high table, but many people in this land believe that our university structure has been too aristocratic and too full of itself and that it needs to recognise that it is a contributor to our national wealth and well-being, and it is from that aspect that I come to this subject. We need to ensure that the Treasury finally improves contingency planning to reduce the impact of the deficit that we say will meet us in ever greater amounts as time goes by.

I have some questions for the Minister. I would welcome his confirmation on some of the details of our assumptions. In particular, what proportion is assumed to be used up by foreign nationals whose offspring would not have legal access to loans? What analysis has there been of the key variables affecting repayment rates, such as the future performance of the economy? A very long telescope is required for such a difficult job. None the less, we must have some contingency plans in place for worst-case scenarios, as they have not been built into the sector.

What work are the Government undertaking to understand more the nature of defaulters and, in the light of other options, the desirability of the continued expansion of higher education, particularly in the context of apprenticeships? We need to put even more effort—I do recognise how much the Government are doing in this regard—into technology apprenticeships and all those practical skills that the target of university entrance has demoted in the minds of many of our young people. I see too many people who think that the only objective in life is to go to uni. What a tragedy that is. We are increasing the number of people who see opportunities in engineering, technology and other such skills, but we are still not putting enough effort into that sector, and we are still not changing the view of young people that university really is the place to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I did not expect to have to do this, but may I advise Members that the Front Bench speeches will start at 1.45? Two speakers have taken an hour already, and that cannot continue. I would be grateful if all Members could bear that in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Byrne]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that contribution, because I think he has given us one of the best arguments that I have heard this afternoon for precisely the review that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) has called for. If the right hon. Gentleman poses significant questions about the right interest rate and the right earnings threshold—which we all know was a compromise with the Liberal Democrats—there are obviously some serious questions that demand a review. That is why the logical conclusion is that the Minister should stand up later today and admit that he has changed his mind. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will just underline an acceptance that, although we might dispute the right way of calculating a RAB charge, being concerned about the level of debt write-off is none the less very important, because the lower we can keep it, the more money there is for future generations.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman should save some speech for later.

[Mr Willetts]

On write-offs, I hope people can accept that what we are talking about here is a forecast shaped with some rather peculiar assumptions, not an item of public spending today. On a review, a lot depends on what people mean. My view is that the last thing that the higher education sector needs is another equivalent of Robbins, Dearing or Browne. All three political parties represented in the Chamber today, when faced with how to finance higher education when money is tight, have all essentially reached the same decision: to go for a graduate repayment scheme. My right hon. Friend the Minister is entirely correct when he quotes Andreas Schleicher and the OECD in saying that this is the sustainable model.

In my experience as Minister—I am sure that it is my right hon. Friend’s experience as well—there were certain Ministers around the world who looked at us and tried to work out how to get something closer to what we have. The last thing we need is a review that throws all this up into the air, particularly if the anxieties that people are focusing on arise from an unfair comparison. The reason why there are so-called anxieties about the sustainability of this model is the forecasts, which are very peculiar indeed, and the assumption that everything is fixed until 2046.

When the advocates of a graduate tax stand up and say that they want a graduate tax, they do not then say, “It’s going to be 9%, and it’s going to have an earnings threshold of £21,000, and we commit now that that will be the threshold related to earnings for 30 years.” As soon as they did that, exactly the same kind of calculations would be possible and we could calculate the x billion pounds that they expect to collect in the next 30 years, and every six months we could recalculate and announce that they had just lost £3 billion and ask what they were going to do about the fiscal crisis in their scheme. In other words, the advocates of a graduate tax are of course assuming that it is a flexible device to ensure that people continue to pay for higher education, and that is what this graduate repayment scheme is. Although designed by Labour and adjusted by us, it is conceptually the same thing. The last thing we need is to reopen that question.

Food Banks

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

(Strangford) (DUP): The Trussell Trust food bank in Newtonards, in my constituency, was the first in Northern Ireland. It is run by the Thriving Life church and does excellent work. I am the main referral agency for it, and for the record, the main reasons for referrals are benefit delays at 30%, benefit changes at 15% and low income at 22%. Last year—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Interventions need to be short. We are trying to get everybody in, and it is not going to happen at this rate.

[Mr Weir]

Clearly the main issues are a direct result of the current Government’s policies. Many people turning to food banks have been “sanctioned”, to use the Government’s word, often for seemingly unfair reasons. Some 86% of food banks say that they have seen an increase in referrals for that reason. It is not just the Trussell Trust making that point; Barnardo’s also does, citing the rising cost of living, cuts in welfare support and benefit delays.

Those matters are under the Government’s control. There do not need to be delays in sorting out benefits when circumstances change or for there to be sanctions for seemingly minor reasons. From my constituency experience, there appears to be a particular problem when someone wishes to change from a dual to a single claim. They cannot get a clear answer on what information is required to prove their status. Such cases can drag on for months, which is completely and utterly unacceptable. Sorting that out would not necessarily increase costs and would certainly reduce the misery that many of those who use food banks are suffering.

The use of food banks is not just about benefits. It is also about incomes, as many Members have said. The Scottish Government are promoting the living wage among their own employers, and the new ScotRail contract will include a living wage clause. SSE has just become a living wage employer. Food banks are not an easy route for anyone, and those who will be most pleased when food banks cease to be required are the volunteers who are putting so much into running them and helping those in need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I have met members of the Trussell Trust.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need to keep the debate going. We cannot have people talking across each other.

[Stephen Timms]

The Secretary of State refused to meet the chairman of the Trussell Trust, because he wanted to explain to him the problems that the policies of his Department were causing for the hundreds of thousands of people having to go to food banks as a result.

As we now know, the big reason so many people are going to food banks is delays in benefit payments. Whenever that is raised, Ministers say that delays in benefit payments have fallen. The all-party inquiry has shed some welcome light on the matter. It wrote:

“We found that the Department for Work and Pensions does not currently collect information on the length of time taken for benefit payments to be made.”

It is not surprising they do not know what is going on, because they do not collect the information. The big problem is with sanctions, as we have heard: between 19% and 28% of food bank visits are the result of benefit sanctions. As Government Members have confirmed, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), enormous pressure is being placed on advisers to sanction people, whether or not those sanctions are justified.

We have all-party recognition that hunger is stalking the land. The all-party inquiry is right. We need a strategy to end hunger, and a big part of that will involve putting right the terrible problems in the DWP, but with DWP Ministers not even willing to take part in this debate, it will take a change of Government to do it.

Recall of MPs Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith]

No, I did not. I was not aware that I was supposed to. Perhaps I will be recalled under the new mechanism that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The point has been made. Normally, it is good practice to let people know if you are going to name them. I am sure that it was not done intentionally.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I do apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker; it is not a convention that I was aware of, and it certainly was not intentional.

The Deputy Prime Minister has formally opposed, on the record, real recall six times in this House. Then, as the pressure for proper recall began to rise earlier this year, he clearly felt it. He told his LBC listeners:

“Zac and I are completely at one. I actually have no objection at all to the kind of radical California style recall that he likes.”

The real problem, he added, is that

“It has absolutely no hope…of being passed into law because of profound objections from conservative colleagues.”

Of course, when it came to a vote—a free vote for the coalition, if not for the Labour party—his party trooped as one through the No Lobby, against real recall.

In the last debate on recall, Members were asked to trust voters to hold them to account, and a majority declined, sadly. I genuinely believe that the establishment’s refusal to share power means that ultimately, it will lose that power. However, the result was clear and for that reason I have not tabled any new amendments. It was clear that the House as it is today is not ready for proper recall, and I would be wasting the House’s time if I rehearsed all those arguments and re-tabled those amendments.

However, there is some good news. In an impassioned speech, a Scottish National party MP—the name of his constituency is so complicated that it is a disincentive to quote him, so I will not. [Hon. Members: “Western Isles.”] Is that right? So that is what we call it in English. I was not aware of that. I was going to attempt the native version, and I am afraid that I would have got it wrong. Nevertheless, in an impassioned speech, the hon. Gentleman said that even if reform were rejected by the House, it was inevitable, and he was right. Prospective parliamentary candidates up and down the country from all the parties—Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative and the rest—are positioning themselves against the incumbents on the basis of where they stand on recall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) might find me as a supporter. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the Government’s reasoning in this regard may be to draw a line under the past? In fact, they said as much earlier on. We all know that the public were appalled by the expenses scandals of the past. That is why IPSA was set up. It was designed to draw a line under the past and make sure that everything was independently audited. I hope we will continue to do that as far as future independent salary reviews are concerned, but the principle applies here as well. We need to draw a line under the past, and keep the future in mind.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let me help to draw a line. Members must make short interventions, not speeches. If we can make future interventions shorter, it will help.

[Thomas Docherty]

We absolutely agree on the point about IPSA expenses. To provide justice to our constituents, it is a relatively uncontentious tweak to the Bill to say that if a Member of Parliament were convicted of serious wrongdoing they should not be able to evade natural justice just because their offence was carried out before Royal Assent. Let me now make a little more progress.

We see these three amendments as sensible steps towards improving the Bill and significantly strengthening the rights of constituents to hold their Members of Parliament to account. I am grateful to Members from the other parties and to those on the Government Benches who have signed our amendments or who have indicated that they will support them tonight. I hope that when the Minister responds he will confirm that he, too, supports our proposals and that he will encourage all his colleagues to endorse them so that they can be carried without a Division.

I now turn to the new clauses and amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Cambridge and for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). I want to deal first with new clause 2 and the amendments relating to it. As I said in Committee, we support the principles behind the idea. We agree with the hon. Gentlemen on the idea of an independent mechanism when it can be demonstrated that wrongdoing has occurred. Like the hon. Gentlemen, we entered into talks with Ministers in good faith to make it work. However, as has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge, despite lots of warm words from Ministers the Government have walked away without fully engaging. At no point did Ministers proffer alternative wording, which will of course leave many wondering whether parliamentary counsel were ever engaged properly. The Government Chief Whip who, yet again, is nowhere to be seen, seems to have decided that this is all too much effort.

That is no way for the Government to behave, not only after giving clear assurances in Committee but on a Bill that was, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, a key plank of the coalition agreement. The result of the Government’s behaviour is that we are left with a new clause that is, by the admission of the hon. Member for Cambridge, not in a fit and proper state. I appreciate that its promoters have tried as hard as they can to get these principles into a workable state, but despite their best efforts the amendments are simply not there.

--- Later in debate ---

New Members are being attracted from an increasingly wide range of professional experience, which has been hugely beneficial to Parliament, because they bring with them additional areas of knowledge, expertise and experience, but coming to this place from a different professional environment can be a culture shock. Our procedures are complex and newly elected MPs need to know what is appropriate and acceptable, and—more importantly—what is not. The proposal for an induction course has received encouraging first reactions, and I hope that the parliamentary Committee on Standards will consider the recommendations in our lobbying report when forming its proposals for changes to the code of conduct and guide to the rules as part of the long-term review of the Common’s standards system.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are dealing with the new clauses and amendments. The hon. Lady’s comments might relate to some of the amendments, but she will want to bring her remarks back within the scope of the discussion.

[Dame Angela Watkinson]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

To conclude, when he winds up the debate, I hope that the Minister will indicate that an induction course for new Members after the 2015 general election will be put in place.

Recall of MPs Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend plans to serve on the Bill Committee, but given his knowledge and expertise I think that that would be a great advantage to us. Is not the challenge to try to find something better than the original Government proposals and that addresses the need for the public to feel that they have recall power while protecting people from the political risks of the amendments? Is not the challenge to find something in the middle, perhaps better defining the kinds of offences that would lead to recall—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

[Steve McCabe]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Iraq: Coalition Against ISIL

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Friday 26th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I advise Members that we will be dropping to a three-minute limit. If people can try to shave a little more off their speeches, we will get everybody in. The limit is four minutes now but will drop to three minutes after the next speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I am happy to give way.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman took seven minutes in speaking. If he wants to intervene, he should remember that other Members have not yet spoken.

[Rory Stewart]

I apologise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I briefly seek your guidance. A number of hon. Members have been in the Chamber since half-past 10 but are probably not going to be called. A number of hon. Members in the Chamber have not been here all day and are making interventions. Can we have a ruling on that?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The ruling is that that is not a point of order.

Industrial Action Update

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

I point out to the hon. Lady that what the police do locally affects every single resident in the area, and every single resident over the age of 18 has the right to vote in those elections. When unions call strikes that affect local residents, parents and vulnerable people who depend on public services, such people are not consulted. It is not asking very much to require a union, when it calls its members out on strike in ways that damage the public, to have to rely on a vote of substantive quantity, with a majority behind it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call birthday boy Sir Tony Baldry.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Was it not Lord Hutton, a former Labour Cabinet Minister, who made it clear that as we are all living longer, everyone will have to pay more into their pensions and to work longer? Has my right hon. Friend had any shadow of a scintilla of a suggestion from the shadow Chancellor that if Labour were elected, it would treat either public sector pensions or public sector pay in any way differently from the present Government?

Civil Service Reform

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Mr Bernard Jenkin to speak for between 10 and 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

May I suggest to Members that they take up to 10 minutes only?