Sittings of the House

Debate between Lord Beith and Greg Knight

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Knight]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I shall come on to Mondays shortly.

The Procedure Committee accepts that our sitting hours are a matter of judgment for the House as a whole, which is why I have tabled motions to facilitate the majority view prevailing in respect of days Monday through to Thursday. Any changes made by the House will have consequences, which I hope Members will reflect on before they decide how to vote.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I am sure my right hon. Friend would be the first to recognise that it is not just a matter of individual preference; the House does not sit only in the Chamber, because Select Committees have to meet, preferably at times when they are not interrupted by votes and when witnesses can come a long distance to attend the meetings. That explains why Tuesday mornings, for example, are extensively used by Select Committees.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Beith and Greg Knight

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) referred to what he described as a “queue” of Members waiting to speak, and went on to express his concerns about the proposals. I think he is seeing shadows on the wall in both respects. It seems to me that if the Government were to abuse the process that they are asking us to approve—having put the matter to the Procedure Committee on the basis on which they have put it to the House today—Members in all parts of the House would seek to hold them to account. The Government have made clear that these are changes of process to accommodate occasions on which the House does not prorogue at the normal time, and I therefore think that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns are misplaced.

The Leader of the House initially wrote to the Procedure Committee on 8 February this year asking whether the Committee was content for the Government to develop proposals to set aside the principle of sessionality in respect of supply procedure, and to provide for the carry-over of Finance Bills from one session to the next. The Committee subsequently engaged in a detailed discussion about a number of issues relating to the proposed procedure, following which we decided that we were content with it and with the Government’s reasons for proposing it..

If the House prorogues in April or May, as the Government propose, proceedings on supply will be interrupted. At present the supply cycle begins with the provisional authorisation of expenditure in November, with legislative authorisation being given in the summer. The Votes on Account are presented in November, and the House is asked to approve 45% of Government spending to cover the period between the beginning of the next financial year in April and the passing of the Appropriation Act in the summer. The principle of sessionality meant that expenditure approved in the Votes on Account had to be appropriated before prorogation.

The problem could, of course, be overcome by means of an Appropriation Act passed in the spring, as happens before a general election, but that was not considered to be an ideal solution. It would mean that the main estimate each year would contain details of only 55% of Government expenditure, the remaining 45% having already been appropriated after the Votes on Account. A further disadvantage of that approach would be that the Votes on Account contain less detail than the main estimates, and 45% of the total of public expenditure would therefore be appropriated on the basis of less detailed spending plans. It might be considered unfortunate if, at the same time as the beginning of the alignment project, a separate change meant that the main estimate only ever included 55% of the expenditure for which parliamentary approval was needed. The Government instead propose that the resolutions on which the Appropriation Act is founded should not fall at the end of a Session but should be time-limited. The Procedure Committee, on a cross-party basis, thought this was quite a reasonable way to proceed.

With a Budget in March or April, the Finance Bill, brought in on resolutions following the Budget, will not have completed its passage before the House prorogues in April or May and will have to be carried over to the new Session. It is also necessary for the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 to be amended, because under it, the Budget resolutions cease to have effect when the House prorogues.

The Finance Bill could be introduced in the new Session rather than being carried over, but would therefore not be published until May. Although a draft Finance Bill could be published following the Budget, with the Finance Bill itself being introduced in the new Session, the Government of the day would not thereby have the flexibility to introduce some proceedings on the Bill, such as Second Reading, before the House prorogued. The Procedure Committee therefore concluded that the Government’s proposals for the carry-over of the Finance Bill would not affect the opportunities available to Members to scrutinise the Bill and vote on its provisions, and there would be no impact on the length of the Committee stage, for example.

Given that the Government wish to make the Budget statement in March, it seemed to us—again, there was cross-party agreement—that the carry-over of the Finance Bill is probably the simplest solution to the problem of the House proroguing in the spring, and one that does not interfere with Members’ ability to scrutinise the Bill.

We therefore concluded that these proposals were modest and reasonable, and I hope the House will reach the same conclusion.

[Sir Alan Beith]

rose—

Procedure Committee Reports

Debate between Lord Beith and Greg Knight

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Knight]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he thereby underlines my case for passing the motion unamended. He has made it quite clear that if Committees were exempt, he would not allow the use of electronic devices, whatever view we took in the House. If we wish to see the use of electronic devices, I would invite the House to reject the amendment and pass the motion unamended.

The point about participation is not one that we can ignore, either. There is an argument that Members are more likely to attend debates if they are able to do other work while they are waiting to be called. That is why I believe we should allow the use of electronic devices in Committee and on the Floor of the House.

The remaining motions on the Order Paper, which you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have indicated we may debate together, contain three sets of recommendations that share a common aim: improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny. First, the Procedure Committee was asked by the Liaison Committee to consider whether Select Committees should be allowed to table amendments to Bills and motions being taken on the Floor of the House. We agreed to look at this and think there is a case for their being able to do so, subject to certain safeguards. Any amendment tagged as a Select Committee amendment should be agreed unanimously at a quorate meeting of the Committee, and notice should be given to all its members that such amendments will be proposed for consideration at a forthcoming meeting. We have also suggested that, subject to the established conventions on selection for debate and decision, the Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means might look favourably on a Select Committee seeking a separate Division on its amendments where business is programmed.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Let me say on behalf of the Liaison Committee that we are grateful that the Procedure Committee has not only accepted our proposal, which originated from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but refined it, building in helpful safeguards. Is my right hon. Friend as astonished as I am that the Government appear to have it in mind to use the payroll vote to prevent what we propose from happening?

[Mr Knight]

I hope that the Government will have a change of heart even as this debate progresses, but I rather share the right hon. Gentleman’s feeling that that may not come about.

Secondly, we also recommended that we should conduct a further experiment in this Parliament whereby Members and Opposition spokesmen are encouraged to attach explanatory statements to amendments and the Government provide explanatory statements clarifying the origin of amendments and new clauses proposed on Report.

Thirdly, our Committee recognises that although written parliamentary questions are a vital part of parliamentary scrutiny, they impose a significant cost on the public purse. Although we felt it would be wrong to consider imposing restrictions on Members’ ability to table questions in person, we think we should have a three-month trial whereby Members are restricted to a quota of five written questions a day submitted electronically.

To assist Members, we also recommended that the Government should deliver all answers to parliamentary questions to the Member concerned by e-mail at the same time as the answer is delivered to the House, which is vital. I do not know whether Members know this, but answers are delivered by a person who literally walks round the building. He takes the answer into Hansard and then to the Press Gallery, and then he puts it on the notice board for the Member. I asked a question recently, and in my case I was the last point in the journey. The House business was collapsing and I was on a train when I had a phone call from a journalist wanting to know my view on the answer to my question, which my office had not received. On checking the board, I found that it had still not got there. I therefore do not think it acceptable for Members to be the last in the queue when receiving answers to their questions. That is why we feel that there ought to be a system in place whereby Members always receive an electronic reply immediately the answer is available.

Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Bill

Debate between Lord Beith and Greg Knight

Friday 21st January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

An even more telling point is that someone who has got into that situation without taking any precautions is, to put it mildly, extremely unlikely to be aware of this bizarre provision of the law.

[Mr Knight]

I accept that point absolutely and completely. The effect of the law does not produce the outcome that the intestate person in most cases would have wished anyway, and my Bill seeks to correct that anomaly.

There are a number of ways in which the state can and should seek to dissuade teenage pregnancies, but using the law of intestacy should not be one of them. I am not convinced that after a night out at a disco or bar, just before the moment of unprotected sex—perhaps in the back of a car—two young teenagers are going to feel in any way dissuaded from having sexual relations, and possibly thereby conceiving a child, by the expectation that they may die before reaching 18 or marrying, and thereby disinherit an unborn child that they might or might not be about to create. I absolutely agree with the comments made by the Chair of the Justice Committee.

We hope that most children are brought up in a loving relationship. Let us think of the poor child, who has an unmarried mother who is killed before she reaches the age of 18. What does the state say to the child? “Because of these circumstances, you will not be helped; you will not be able to inherit money that you would have inherited from your grandparents if your mother had reached the age of 18.” Clause 3, therefore, inserts new subsections (4B), (4C) and (4D) into section 47 of the 1925 Act. I remind the House that that Act lists what happens on intestacy. The subsections inserted by the clause deal with the situation of the young child of an intestate who dies under the age of 18 without having married or formed a civil partnership. As C is a minor at the date of Y’s death in the example, his or her interest in Y’s estate will be held in the statutory trusts imposed by the 1925 Act.

On commencement, clause 4(4) provides that only deaths occurring after the commencement of the Bill will be covered by it. Knowing, in this cost-conscious age in which we live, my hon. Friends’ concern about the financial implications, I draw their attention to the fact that the implementation of the Bill is not expected to impose any additional burden or to increase any other public expenditure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Knight]

I am doing that for the simple reason that I have confidence and trust in the coalition Government and I saw no reason to seek to override them on so footling a matter. If the Minister tells the House that he supports the Bill—which I hope he will in a moment—I expect him in good faith to see that the Bill is brought into effect as soon as is reasonably possible. Because I have confidence, particularly in this ministerial team, I decided to leave it to the Government to make that decision.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I return to the point that the Law Commission had made. Its recommendation about creating trust provisions—originally with the Public Trustee—arose from an anxiety that money should be administered without benefit, particularly indirect benefit, to a killer. Although that could have been done by private trustees rather than the Public Trustee and without public cost, its original thinking was that something along those lines was needed. Is the right hon. Gentleman confident that he was right not to include it in the Bill?

[Mr Knight]

I think so, because the court has power to determine who manages an estate, and I would have thought that that power was sufficient. If the court felt that the estate was being manipulated by an incarcerated prisoner—the father who had murdered the grandparent—I would have thought that the courts would have power to intervene and take over the management of the estate. That was why I did not include those provisions in the Bill, particularly when I noted that there had been further discussions between the Ministry of Justice and the Law Commission and that they had both reached the conclusion that the special trust provision was unnecessary. I assumed, and still do assume, that because that was where the debate ended up, we need not bother with that extra tier of bureaucracy in the Bill. However, should the Bill be given a Second Reading and should evidence to the contrary arise, I am happy to look at the matter by way of possible amendment to the Bill—although I hope and believe that will not be necessary or desirable.

On public manpower, I tell my hon. Friends that no change in the work load of any Government Department or agency is anticipated if the Bill is implemented. Usually, Ministers have to make a statement about compatibility with the European convention on human rights. I am delighted to say that this is not a Government Bill, so it does not require a statement under section 19(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998. However, if it did, my understanding of that Act is that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the convention in any event.

The Bill extends to England and Wales, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has said, it will come into force when the Minister so determines should it pass through all its stages in both Houses. I am sure, if he supports the Bill, that he will not stand in its way.

The Bill is merely intended to make our law fairer, by removing technicalities that run contrary to the general policy of the law of succession. It will allow direct descendants to inherit ahead of more distant relatives on intestacy. Where there is a will, the Bill will allow the people whom the deceased intended, or could be assumed to have intended, to take the inheritance if the deceased’s first intended recipient does not. More importantly, the Bill will produce an outcome that is fair, rather than one based on legal technicalities.

I am most grateful for the courteous and helpful assistance that I have received from the Minister, his departmental team, Officers and servants of the House and members of the Law Commission to whom I have spoken. I am also grateful to the Justice Committee, which has indicated its support for the measure, and for the comments made by its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, whom I am delighted to see with us today. Finally, I am most grateful to all hon. Members for giving me a fair hearing today. I hope that they will in due course give this modest but worthy Bill a Second Reading.