European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hague of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to be asked to set the first example of sticking to six minutes before the 178 speeches that follow. I declare my interests, non-financial and financial, in many organisations with an interest in EU membership: as chair of the Royal United Services Institute, as a director of Intercontinental Exchange, as an adviser to Citigroup, Linklaters and Teneo, and as a speaker for many organisations for a lot longer than six minutes.
I voted to remain in the European Union but I support the Bill, because the referendum was decisive. It was decisive because there was such a high participation—more people voted to leave the European Union than have ever voted for any British Government in history; because so many parts of the UK, although not all of them, voted that way; and because people were promised a referendum in the manifesto of the governing party of the country, and were promised that it would be decisive. Attempts to refight that referendum, which have begun a little in the last few days, are a great error. To ask people to “rise up” to fight Brexit—the words a few days ago of the former Prime Minister Tony Blair—is a great mistake. I have enormous respect for him—more than many in his own party have—particularly as he roundly defeated me in the 2001 general election. But if, nine months after that, I had asked people to “rise up” against the result, Mr Blair would not have been amused. He would have told me to listen to the voters and to abide by the result. The same advice can be given to him in these circumstances.
If there was a real chance of rising up successfully against leaving the European Union, it would open up the most protracted, bitter and potentially endless conflict in British society and politics that we have seen since the decades of debate on Irish home rule, and possibly even longer than that. It is not in the interests of our democracy and the governance of our country to do so. If there is no or little prospect of that succeeding, to ask people to rise up against it serves only to strengthen the hand of some in the EU who believe that if they make the negotiations difficult enough, we will somehow lose heart, which does not help a successful, negotiated outcome.
In any case, a country cannot go round in circles. Opinion will vary over the next few years. Opinion polls will say that people do not agree with leaving the EU any more, and then, six months later, that they do agree. But we cannot leave the EU in 2017, remain in it in 2018, and leave it again in 2019; by 2020 we will be too confused to know what we are doing. A country cannot go around in circles. A decision was made in the referendum. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, saying that people “expressed a view” in the referendum. That has a casual connotation to it, suggesting that they sauntered by the ballot box on 23 June and “expressed a view” about whether we should be in the EU. They made a decision in a process that was intended to be decisive and which was agreed at the time to be decisive. Therefore, as someone whose preference was to remain in the European Union, my second preference—given that my first is not available—is to leave it with some degree of unity, good order, confidence and determination, and for the country to seek advantages from leaving the EU, since we will inevitably have the disadvantages of doing so.
The case for invoking Article 50 is therefore overwhelming, and the case for doing so now is inescapable. There is a need to end the uncertainty—I go a long way with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, on this. There are immensely complex negotiations to undertake. There is no reason to delay the start of those negotiations, as some have argued, because there are elections in Germany, France and the Netherlands. It is in the nature of the process set up by Article 50, with a two-year timetable, that the real bargains, compromises, trade-offs and deals will be made near the end of that process, allowing time for the consideration of this Parliament and the European Parliament. Therefore elections across Europe over the next six months are no reason to delay that, as that is not when those decisions will be made. I conclude that it is necessary to do this, and to do it now. Real democratic accountability comes from the Government being able to go to a general election in 2020 and be judged on how they conducted this process, as well as in Parliament beforehand.
If those two things are true, what form should the Bill take? It should take as simple a form as possible. Again, I go a long way with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I have negotiated in the European Union many times on behalf of this country, and I know that anyone involved in this negotiation will want this legislation to be as simple and straightforward as possible without additions to it that undercut and undermine Ministers’ positions. This Bill is pleasingly and unusually simple in its construction and content, and that should be welcomed. I fear that amendments of process to the Bill will turn out not to be so well thought out in two years’ time and that amendments of policy will undermine Ministers’ positions as they seek a successful outcome. Therefore, it is right to invoke Article 50 and to do so now with the simplest Bill that it is possible to bring forward, and I commend Ministers for doing so.
Outcome of the EU Referendum
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hague of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, is it not deeply unfortunate that an inevitable side-effect of this referendum result is that we have lost an outstanding Prime Minister who has given long service to this country and had more to give? Although it was his decision to hold an in/out referendum, we should remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, that not long ago, in the general election of 2010, that was the policy of the Liberal Democrats as well, so they should not be too condemnatory about that. But will my noble friend broaden the thoughts rightly expressed in the Statement about bringing the country together to include the need for the economic and foreign policies pursued by a country leaving the European Union to be able to command the support of the millions of people who voted to remain in the European Union? Will that not be an essential attribute of a re-formed Cabinet and of a new Prime Minister?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My noble friend is absolutely right and I join him in paying great tribute to David Cameron as Prime Minister: it has been an honour for me to serve in his Government and his Cabinet. He is a remarkable man in the way he carries out his responsibilities as Prime Minister.
My noble friend said that we must ensure that the way we proceed from here commands the support of everybody in the United Kingdom, especially those who did not vote for us to exit. That is absolutely essential, and the next Prime Minister and his Government must give absolute priority to it.
European Council
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hague of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, now that the negotiations conducted by the Prime Minister can be subject to intense scrutiny and analysis, does my noble friend agree that it is very important that all possible alternative arrangements with the European Union be subject to an equivalent degree of scrutiny and analysis? Is it not the case that, as even many of us who are long-standing critics of the EU have to recognise, there would be a basic choice between leaving the single market in order to escape its requirements, freedom of movement and regulations, and staying in the single market with those same requirements and regulations? Would that not represent a loss of sovereignty rather than the recovery of sovereignty?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I do not think the House will be surprised to hear me say that I very much agree with my noble friend. He is absolutely right: anybody campaigning for Britain to leave the European Union will have to spell out what that means and what they are suggesting the people of this country would be voting for. They need to be specific about the model that is being proposed. If it is a model like Norway, they need to explain to the people of this country that there is no cost-free alternative; that is important for people to understand. There is not another way in which there is no disadvantage. It is quite possible for the United Kingdom to survive and prosper outside of the European Union, but we believe that Britain would remain stronger in the EU, and it is for others to make their case as to what “leave” means.
Syria: UK Military Action
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hague of Richmond (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it may be regarded as a perilous exercise to embark on a maiden speech and comment on a grave international situation in a matter of a few minutes but, as someone who led the Conservative Party at the time of the height of the power and success of Tony Blair, I am no stranger to perilous exercises—or indeed to time-limited exercises. It is a great honour to follow the speech of the most reverend Primate. Indeed, it is a great honour to be here at all and to find many old friends residing here on all sides of the House—and many old foes residing here on all sides of the House as well. I intend to use my membership of this place to comment on issues such as this but also to work on issues I am passionate about, such as the prevention of sexual violence in conflict and combating the illegal wildlife trade, matters on which I know I will find common cause in many parts of this House.
Like many former MPs, I am hugely influenced by my former constituents, and I am proud to bear the title of “Richmond” in this place. My former constituents are distinguished by many things. One is their common sense—after all, it is Richmond, Yorkshire, we are talking about. One is their ability to choose Members of Parliament—I am followed by a very able MP in Rishi Sunak. One is the huge military presence at Catterick Garrison and RAF Leeming, and that brings me directly to this debate because it means I spent a quarter of a century listening to and learning from people in the Army and the RAF. That has given me great confidence when we ask them to go into any action, but has also taught me never to take lightly any decision to extend their action, as is being debated today.
I want to make three points in two minutes about that. First, we should always be open to imaginative diplomacy, however difficult it may be. I can tell noble Lords that it is desperately difficult. In June 2012, I helped to negotiate the nearest we came to a resolution of the Syrian crisis. All the members of the Security Council and all the leading Arab nations agreed that there would be a transitional Government in Syria formed by mutual consent from the opposition and the Assad regime. Those of us with influence over the then Syrian opposition delivered it to the peace conference to implement that. Russia, with its influence over Assad, did not deliver the Assad regime to implement that. Had it done so, we would not be having this debate and Russia would not be embroiled in Syria today. However, every renewed effort must be made. We have heard about the efforts being made now and, if they do not work, we should be open to new solutions. In the end, if communities and leaders cannot live peacefully together in Syria and Iraq, we will have to try to have them living peacefully but separately in the partition of those countries, although I say that regretfully.
Secondly, while military force alone cannot defeat Daesh, it cannot be defeated without military force. That is a very obvious point. When it enslaves women, murders hostages and persecutes minorities, it is not seeking a negotiation. Since our security as the United Kingdom rests on our alliances, and our greatest alliances are with the United States and France, if our security is indivisible from theirs it would be extraordinary and we would need a very compelling reason not to act with them in this crisis.
Thirdly, if we are to take this action, it must be effective. That means that it has to be, sadly, against economic infrastructure that Daesh controls. It should not rule out, as the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said, the use of perhaps small specialist ground forces from western nations in the future if that helps to tip the balance on the ground. However, on that basis, I believe that it is in the national interest of the United Kingdom to act with our closest allies in this crisis.
Today’s Business of the House
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Leader of the House to make a statement about the change in today’s business.
The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)
The reason for the additional business is to allow the House to reach a decision on procedural matters that relate to the opening days of business in a new Parliament and therefore merit a decision now. In each case, I have received representations either from the Procedure Committee or from Members around the House—[Interruption.] Including Members on the Opposition Benches. They would like to see these issues decided. Three factors prompted the Government to table these motions yesterday. One is the absence of Lords amendments to be considered, as provided for in the original business, freeing up parliamentary time today—[Interruption.] It has freed up parliamentary time today. If Opposition Members do not believe that there was ever going to be any Lords amendments, they have great insight into what the House of Lords would decide.
The second factor is last week’s Procedure Committee report, specifically requesting that one of the four issues, concerning the programming of Bills, be dealt with before Dissolution. The third is the view of Government business managers that if we were to do that, the other three outstanding matters relating to the beginning of a new Parliament should, if at all possible, be decided at the same time.
Tabling motions at short notice is not unusual in the closing days of a Parliament and is specifically provided for in the motion agreed on Tuesday—agreed by the Opposition.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this grubby decision is what he personally will be remembered for? After a distinguished career in the House of Commons, both as a leader of a party and as a senior Cabinet Minister, he has now descended to squalor in the final days of the Parliament. Without consultation, without consultation with the Opposition parties and without notifying the Procedure Committee, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) pointed out, the right hon. Gentleman wants to make a fundamental change in how this House proceeds—[Hon. Members: “Grubby!”] Grubby, squalid, nauseous: we can go through the catalogue of adjectives to describe what the Leader of the House has descended to being. In seeking to push this through, he has made sure that there is a large attendance of Conservative Members of Parliament at a whipped event in another building here, so his claim of a free vote is fraudulent: sad, sad, sad, Mr Hague—change your mind.
Mr Hague
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, as always, for his remarks. I do not mind any amount of personal abuse, because he cannot compete with the abuse I have received in previous years in the House; it is water off the back of this particular duck as I leave the House today. I make no apology for asking the House, on a day when the public are entitled to expect large numbers of Members to be here, to make a decision on its procedures for the day it returns after the general election. That is what Members should be able to do; that is what the public would expect us to do. I have received representations from Opposition Members who will not speak or ask questions today for fear of their formidable Chief Whip—I could say who they are but will not—and they are entitled to have matters debated, just as everyone else in this House is.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I would not put it quite the way the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) did, but the gist of what he said is correct. This House should not be asked without proper notice to decide on such an important thing. I think that the Leader of the House will live to regret this—[Interruption.]
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend has been a long-standing champion of a business of the House committee, as I am sure he will be in the next Parliament, but that is when that will have to be decided. What we are proposing to bring to the House today are those issues that would affect the opening days of a new Parliament, which obviously cannot be decided with any usefulness or meaning any later than today.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
In my 23 years in Parliament I have never seen a Government behave in such a grubby and underhand way. In October 2011 the Procedure Committee published its report. At the express request of the Government, the Committee did not pursue bringing forward the necessary debate in that Session. In the following Session, in February 2013, the Committee looked again at its report and concluded that it did not feel that a change was necessary. However, it wrote to the Government to request a debate on a Monday or Tuesday to allow the House to consider the matter properly and to ensure that as many Members as possible were present. The Government refused. The Committee raised the matter again in the previous Session with both the current Leader of the House and his predecessor. On every occasion the Government refused to grant time. As recently as February, the Chair of the Committee wrote to the Leader of the House to ask for a debate, stating that it
“should not be tucked away on a Thursday afternoon”.
The Government again refused to grant that request.
What has changed over the past six weeks? Why did the Government, who had so resolutely refused to allow the debate for three and a half years, suddenly change their mind on Tuesday? Why did the Government decide that this motion was so sensitive that it would not and could not be discussed with Opposition Front Benchers, the Chair of the Committee or even the Speaker himself? Why did the Leader of the House wait until the last moment yesterday before tabling it, without any warning or notification to anyone? Why did he claim to me that the Government Chief Whip had spoken to the Procedure Committee Chair in the afternoon, when in fact no such conversation had taken place? Why is the motion before us today the complete opposite of the motion drafted by the Committee and given to the Government?
Is not the truth that this is nothing to do with the Procedure Committee’s report and everything to do with the character of the Prime Minister? It is a petty and spiteful act because he hates his Government being properly scrutinised, thanks to this reforming Speaker. The Leader of the House should be ashamed of himself for going along with it.
Mr Hague
The hon. Lady quotes the Procedure Committee, which said in 2011:
“We recommend that the House be invited to decide whether on the first day of a new Parliament, where the Presiding Member’s decision on the question that a former Speaker take the Chair is challenged, the question should be decided by secret ballot or by open division.”
The Committee asked for an opportunity for the House to decide, so Opposition Members cannot consistently complain that that has not been debated and that now it is going to be debated. The debate is not “tucked away”. It cannot possibly be described as being “tucked away” when there are hundreds of Members here on both sides of the House entirely able to make a decision, and they should be able to do so of their own volition on a free vote. They should be able to do so, and I hope Opposition Members will be able to have a free vote on this question.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
If the House passes the first motion today in the name of the Leader of the House, it will be to our credit that by extending the deadline for amendments on Report we will have more considered debates with time to consider the arguments, so how can it be that he considers it appropriate for Back Benchers to give the rest of the House more notice, yet in the very same set of motions he gives the House barely 12 hours’ notice of his motion on elections for positions in the House?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is right about the first of the motions, which implements the recommendation of the Procedure Committee, but on his second point the public would expect this House on its last day to be able to decide on any important question and to be here in order to do so. Indeed, hon. Members are here in order to do so.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Ind)
The Leader of the House must know that there is always a reason for taking urgent action without giving notice to the Opposition. I hope he will acknowledge that the reasons in this case are partisan—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker will confirm this—it is a matter of public record: I did not support Mr Speaker in the election in 2009. I nominated the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), and I suspect the Leader of the House voted for him too. Will the Leader of the House accept from me, having supported a different candidate, that this is an underhand measure to try to undermine the incumbent of the Chair, and that I am surprised that someone—the Leader of the House—who has upheld the honour of this House should be party to manoeuvres by his own Whips Office?
Mr Hague
I have not spoken to Mr Speaker. I do not accept that. I do not think that the institution of a secret ballot that frees all Members from pressure from Whips on either side or from the Chair is an underhand thing to bring about. As I will explain in the debate, I think that would be an improvement in our procedures and would help Members on both sides of the House.
Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
May I ask the Leader of the House for clarity in this debate? Following the progressive reforms that there have been, how many elected House positions are decided by secret ballot and how many simply on an open Division?
Mr Hague
The great majority of our positions are now elected by secret ballot, and that has been warmly welcomed across the House. It applies to the Chairs of Select Committees; only two weeks ago, we agreed the election of the Standards Committee Chair by secret ballot, with the support of the Opposition on that occasion. That has increasingly become our standard procedure, and the public would be surprised to hear that it was anything other than our standard procedure.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
May I tell the Leader of the House, for whom, as I think he knows, I have the highest respect, that his shabby manoeuvre demeans him and the office of Leader of the House, and shows contempt for Parliament? His successor should bring the matter back for a proper debate in the next Parliament.
Mr Hague
I think it is appropriate to decide the matter in this Parliament; that is what we are disagreeing about. All the motions that I am bringing forward are matters that, if not decided today, could not take effect in the next Parliament. That is their distinguishing characteristic.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
A case can be made for an open ballot and for a secret ballot; what there is no case for at all is the staging of a debate at the eleventh hour of the last day, when people have been sent away to get on with campaigning and when people on my side—[Interruption.] I should be grateful if my colleagues allowed me to speak. People on my side of the House were due to be campaigning for my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), a Minister in a critical marginal seat, but were unaccountably told that that had been postponed. Now I know the reason why.
Will the Leader of the House answer me one question? When the notice was put around at 5.45 last evening saying that this would be a matter of debating the Procedure Committee’s reports and recommendations, why was it that the first that the Chair of the Procedure Committee heard of that was when I spoke to him at 6.30? Why was it concealed from the Chair of the Procedure Committee?
Mr Hague
I assure my right hon. Friend that all these issues arise, one way or another, from reports of the Procedure Committee. Last week’s Procedure Committee report called for one of these motions to be brought forward before Dissolution, and in 2011 the Procedure Committee recommended that this debate take place.
Mr Shaun Woodward (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
The office of Speaker in this House is the guardian of fairness. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the reputation of Parliament and the fairness of this House is enhanced by his not sharing even at the beginning of this week his intention to bring about this debate today?
Across the country, people look at Parliament, whose reputation has not been enhanced by many of the actions taken in recent years. This, the last sitting day before the country goes to a general election, is an opportunity for the country to look at us and see that we behave fairly. In the next Parliament, if the Speaker is to be able to conduct business properly, all hon. Members must feel that his election is fair. Yet today, many hon. Members cannot be part of this debate. Will the right hon. Gentleman simply explain to us why it was not possible to inform all Members at the beginning of the week that this debate would take place today?
Mr Hague
I have already explained why there was a change in the business. However, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that it is very important that people should have confidence that any future election, in this House or elsewhere, is fair. I have no doubt that when we come to the debate, that will be the case that Members wish to make in favour of a secret ballot in the particular election that we are discussing.
We would not ask voters to go to the polls on 7 May in anything other than a secret ballot, and there are long-established historical reasons for that. There has to be an opportunity for Members to put the case for a secret ballot in elections in this House.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is one of the most revered and admired figures within the Conservative party. He is a figure who has made his reputation by being a great parliamentarian. Throughout the years when he was leader, we were all cheered by his success at the Dispatch Box against Mr Blair. Does he therefore appreciate the deep sadness that many of us feel that his career should end with his name being put to a bit of parliamentary jiggery-pokery that has come about, representing grudges that some people have against Mr Speaker, and that this is deeply unfortunate?
Mr Hague
I obviously disagree with the idea that it has come about from any grudges. Hon. Members on both sides of this House have asked for this debate to be held, and they are entitled to have a debate held. It is part of the job of the Leader of the House to do what is in the best interests of the House. I believe that the House resolving these issues before the end of the Parliament is in the interests of the House of Commons.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)
The coalition agreement promised:
“A House Business Committee, to consider government business, will be established by the third year of the Parliament.”
Is the Leader of the House proud that instead of that, his legacy is continued Government control of the bulk of the parliamentary timetable to be exploited for partisan purposes as we see today?
Mr Hague
This Parliament has seen the greatest transfer of the parliamentary timetable from outside the Government’s control of any Parliament of modern times, with the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee as well as maintaining Opposition days. There has been historic reform, and I am sure that that trend will continue in the future. This Parliament has also seen the election of Select Committee Chairs by secret ballot, and that is now an important principle in this House. What we are discussing today is in line with that.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I started with the presumption that I would vote in favour of a secret ballot for the Speaker. However, this is a constitutional matter of some importance that also goes to the heart of the relationship between the Executive and this Parliament, and as such, it should have been heard on a prime-time day, with the whole House here, with plenty of time. Instead, if the House votes for this today, people will get the impression that what should have been a constitutional matter has been allowed to become an ad hominem matter, and a rather mean-spirited one at that, and that in future this House will tolerate the Executive taking action against an uncomfortable and difficult Speaker.
Mr Hague
It is for the House to decide on the merits of this. I do not think my right hon. Friend can argue that we are in anything other than prime time at the moment, since the House is well attended and this debate is receiving a great deal of attention. It is for the House to decide on the merits of the motions. If the motion on a secret ballot is carried, it will be for the House to make its own decisions in the future.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May I say to my right hon. Friend—I call him my right hon. Friend having known him for 35 years and, as he knows, admired greatly his qualities, including his qualities of Churchillian speech-making—that I am afraid that today will not go down as his finest hour?
Mr Speaker
We all echo the comment about the Leader of the House’s Churchillian speech-making—a point that I have myself made several times.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend read out the words on page 11 of the report. May I take some words from the earlier report? It suggests that an
“open division for deciding the question can be seen as a deterrent to the House expressing its views honestly”,
wherein it is bound by the seven principles of public life to be honest. That seems to be a plus for the motion. It says:
“A secret ballot…may…seem unnecessarily unwieldy.”
That seems a bit odd. Its reference to
“a more frequent turnover of Speakers”
makes me question whether you, Sir, have been asked whether you have a personal objection to the House considering this and whether you mind what decision we come to.
Mr Hague
I think it is for me, rather than you, Mr Speaker, to answer that, since the questions are to me. My hon. Friend correctly quotes other passages of the report. Those are indeed issues that can be discussed in the debate that we are about to hold, and in the considerations in favour of a secret ballot on these occasions.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House makes great speeches, but he is also a streetwise Yorkshireman. He knows what is going on here. The fact of the matter is that this is an absolute challenge to our parliamentary democracy. This is a politicisation of the role of the Speaker, because this is a Speaker who has opened up this Chamber as never before, and what the Prime Minister cannot stand is that he has liberated Back Benchers in this place. Can anyone imagine the Prime Minister who is not here today, on Bosworth field? He would have been skulking in a hole in London rather than fighting.
Mr Hague
I think that was a bit of mock outrage from the hon. Gentleman, if I may say so. The question of whether a vote in Parliament should be held by secret ballot cannot possibly be an attack on parliamentary democracy. It would, of course, in the view of those in favour of it, be an affirmation of parliamentary democracy. I can understand some of the comments made by Opposition Members, but I think the hon. Gentleman is getting a little too excessively outraged on this occasion.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The office of Speaker is centuries old and it is absolutely essential for all of us and our democracy that it is seen to be above party politics. Therefore, I appeal for calm. We may or may not like Mr Speaker, and there may or may not be a case for a secret ballot. We all accept that. However, in order that we are not accused of making this about a particular individual, should we not do this on a consensual basis and come to an agreement when Mr Speaker has announced his retirement? There would then be no question that this is about the present Speaker, but about the House of Commons we love.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
It will be said of the present Leader of the House that nothing demeaned him as much as the manner of his leaving, with a mean, spiteful kick at the best reforming Speaker we have had for 30 years. The task of this Parliament after the nightmare of the expenses scandal was to restore the public’s faith, but we leave with a House that is unreformed. It is still possible to buy a peerage and to buy access to Ministers, and the revolving door is still spinning, making it possible for former Ministers to prostitute their insider knowledge for the best job. Is not the Leader of the House ashamed of himself?
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Leader of the House knows that there is no greater admirer of him than me, but even if I agreed with the motion—as it happens, I do not—it is unjustifiable to keep it secret until the last minute and to have just one hour to debate it. The tactic of keeping the parliamentary party here for a meeting so that as many people would be here as possible in the hope that the Opposition parties would have left so the motion could be sneaked through at the last minute is the kind of student union politics that has the fingerprints of the Whip’s Office all over it. I think the Leader of the House will regret that the greatest parliamentarian of his generation has gone along with that kind of tactic.
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend continues his fruitful relationship with the Whip’s Office with that remark, which we all understand. He has views about the motion and he will be able to express them. Members should be able to vote freely on this question, which they certainly can do on this side of the House.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
Does the Leader of the House not deserve better than to allow his political epitaph to be written by a lazy, cowardly, bullying, spiteful, vindictive Prime Minister, who is not fit to lace his shoes?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) has just said about the Prime Minister—calling him “vindictive” etc.—cannot be within the bounds of parliamentary discourse. I really object most strongly. [Interruption.]
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Progressives everywhere will surely welcome the possibility of a secret ballot throughout a Parliament, but is it not the case that this motion could not have been brought forward earlier without precisely a constraint on the potential freedom of Members to vote as they see fit?
Mr Hague
I agree with my hon. Friend that it can been seen in that light: the institution of a secret ballot would be an important strengthening—I will come on to this during the debate—of our parliamentary democracy. I noted earlier that there are Members, particularly Opposition Members, who feel constrained in expressing their views on this question, and indeed, have stayed silent during these exchanges. That is their right, but they do have a fear of expressing their views on this issue, as is very clear from this discussion.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It pains me to say that the Leader of the House has today betrayed the House. May I simply ask him: when did he first make the decision to bring forward this matter for a vote today?
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
There seems to be an assumption among some Members that Thursday is some kind of day off, but those of us who attend every Thursday see it as a day of work. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government are entitled to table whatever business they like in their own time?
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Does it bother the right hon. Gentleman that his legacy will not be that of a parliamentary statesman, but of a grubby, cowardly assassin?
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend remember that he and I were the only participants in the debate on the business motion on Tuesday? Will he explain why he did not take that opportunity to say that he would bring forward changes to Standing Orders, bearing in mind that, in the absence of a written constitution, our Standing Orders are effectively our freedom and democracy—our unwritten constitution. The proposals before the House today would effectively change that constitution without proper notice. Why is my right hon. Friend going along with that?
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
May I quietly remind the Leader of the House that during the last Parliament, when he was on the Opposition side of the House and I sat on the Government, he spoke before me in a debate and I then paid him the compliment—some might say it was not a compliment—that in my view, he was quite frankly the best of a bad bunch on the Opposition Benches? I have to say to him that he has gone down seriously in my estimation today, and that will be shared by many across the country. As the shadow Leader of the House has said, this is a grubby piece of work. The hand and fingerprints of the Prime Minister are on this, and I just hope that the Leader of the House will seriously consider what he is doing.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has written eloquent books about the history of our country and about great parliamentarians. He grew up, as I did, with a great reverence for this institution of Parliament. Regardless of the merits of the motion on which we will vote, does he agree that on this, the last day of this Parliament, it is sad that the tone and atmosphere in the Chamber has been so partisan and so bitter?
Procedure of the House
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)
I beg to move
That this House takes note of paragraphs 21 to 28 of the Seventh Report of the Procedure Committee, Matters for the Procedure Committee in the 2015 Parliament, HC 1121, concerning the trial of a three day deadline for the tabling of amendments and new clauses/schedules at report stage of all programmed bills; and approves the Committee’s recommendation in paragraph 28 that the trial should be extended for the duration of the first session of the 2015 Parliament, and extended to amendments and new clauses/schedules in Committee of the whole House of all bills and at report stage of un-programmed bills.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to debate the following:
Motion on pay for Petitions Committee Chair—
That the Resolution of the House of 19 March 2013, relating to Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of Section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, be amended by inserting after “the Liaison Committee”, “the Petitions Committee,”.
Motion on elections for positions in the House—
That this House notes the recommendation of the Procedure Committee in its Fifth Report of Session 2010-12, 2010 Elections for positions in the House, that the House should be invited to decide between a secret ballot or open division where the question at the start of a new Parliament that a former Speaker take the Chair is challenged, and accordingly makes the following change to Standing Orders, with effect from the beginning of the new Parliament:
Standing Order 1A (Re-election of former Speaker) Line 11, at end insert—
“(1A) If that question is contested, it shall be determined by secret ballot, to take place on the same day under arrangements made by the Member presiding, who shall announce the result of the ballot to the House as soon as is practicable.”
Motion on Deputy Speakers—
That, at the start of the 2015 Parliament, the Speaker may nominate no more than three Members as Deputy Speakers to serve until the House has elected Deputy Speakers in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 2A; and that the Members so nominated shall exercise all the powers vested in the Chairman of Ways and Means as Deputy Speaker.
Mr Hague
We have already anticipated some of this debate during the urgent question, but I rise to speak to the motions standing in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House.
The motions facilitate making decisions on areas which, to have any meaningful usefulness, need to be decided before the early days of the next Parliament. They include matters raised in the Procedure Committee’s latest report “Matters for the Procedure Committee in the 2015 Parliament”, published last week. The report specifically called for a decision of the House before the end of this Parliament on the issue of extending the trial of new arrangements for programming legislation. Let me deal with that motion first.
The House agreed on 8 May last year to the trial of new arrangements with regard to programming legislation, following the Procedure Committee report on the same subject, published in December 2013. The arrangements included bringing forward the deadline for tabling amendments, new clauses and schedules from two days to three days before the day on which the debate takes place. The Procedure Committee agreed to review the operation of the arrangements at the end of the current Session. That review, aided by a memorandum produced by the Public Bill Office, is summarised in last week’s Procedure Committee report. The report noted that the trial had not produced very much evidence on the impact of the change, and therefore recommended that the trial should be continued in the first Session of the next Parliament. The Procedure Committee also recommended that the deadline be extended to cover amendments in Committee of the whole House for all Bills, and on Report for unprogrammed bills.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
If we are having a secret ballot for the position of the Speaker of the House, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should have secret ballot for the position of the Leader of the House?
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
As the Leader of the House will recall, the purpose of changing the arrangements for timetabling amendments was to facilitate debate on non-Government amendments in order to democratise the Report stage and consideration of Lords amendments. Will he explain why he is continuing with only one part of the experiment, and—if I may say so—not going all the way to facilitate proper consideration on Report?
Mr Hague
We have generally had a great number of days for Report, and we worked closely with the Opposition on that in the last Parliament. We are implementing the recommendations of the Procedure Committee—the part that the Committee recommended should be implemented before the end of the Parliament, which is today. That does not exclude further changes in the new Parliament, but if the motion is agreed to we will implement the urgent recommendation of the Procedure Committee. The Committee also recommended that the deadline be extended to cover amendments in Committee of the whole House for all Bills, and at Report for unprogrammed Bills. Those are further improvements to the procedures.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I understand that the delay in tabling these matters was that the Government needed to see whether any Lords amendments would be sent to the House today. What would have happened to this amendment to our Standing Orders if Lords amendments had been sent to this House? Would it have been held over until the next Parliament?
Mr Hague
It would certainly have been much more difficult to do it, so the absence of Lords amendments made a big change and allowed us to consider more motions than might otherwise have been the case. On that issue I am happy to facilitate bringing the motion to the House for decision before the end of this Parliament, as requested by the Procedure Committee. I hope the House will support the extension of the trial in the way outlined. It will then be for the Procedure Committee in the next Parliament to evaluate the trial further, before bringing it to the House for a decision on whether the changes should be made permanent.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Given that the right hon. Gentleman told the House that he tabled these motions on the basis of representations by anonymous Members of Parliament whom he was not prepared to name, is he proposing further changes so that in future amendments and resolutions can be tabled anonymously by Members of Parliament and considered by the House?
Mr Hague
I think that would be too much of a revolutionary change, but the particular change I am talking about was recommended before the end of the Parliament by the Procedure Committee.
The second issue, which I shall cover briefly, concerns the pay of the Petitions Committee Chair. On 24 February the House agreed the Standing Order changes necessary for the Petitions Committee, recommended by the Procedure Committee as part of a collaborative e-petition system to be established at the start of the next Parliament. It considered issues relating to the Chair of the new Committee. The motion before us adds the post of Chair of the Petitions Committee to the list of Select Committees that attract an additional salary. That principle is a matter for the House to decide, but in the light of the expected responsibility and work load of the Committee, I believe that a valid case has been made, and I hope the House will support it.
The final motion, which comes after the issue of the secret ballot, follows up one of the final acts of the Procedure Committee in this Parliament, which was to publish a report recommending a revision of the Standing Orders of this House. I shall respond immediately to one of the recommendations and bring forward a motion that facilitates the nomination by you, Mr Speaker, of three Members of the House to serve as Deputy Speakers at the start of the next Parliament and in advance of elections to those posts under Standing Order No. 2A. I hope that the next Parliament will get an early opportunity to consider the report of the Procedure Committee on Standing Order revisions in full, and that the motion to nominate Deputy Speakers at the start of a Parliament, as I have described, will be incorporated in the Standing Orders of this House on a permanent basis.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to Mr Speaker who, on 20 July 2000 and again on 23 April 2009, advocated the need for secret ballots to stop Government Whips “browbeating” honourable Members as to the way they might vote?
Mr Hague
That is an important consideration and it brings me to the fourth motion, on whether there should be a secret ballot or an open Division in a contested re-election of a former Speaker. In its latest report the Procedure Committee reminds us that the issue has not yet been addressed, and I believe—we discussed this during the urgent question—that it is in the interests of the House for the matter to be resolved before the start of a new Parliament. The Committee recommended in 2011 that the House be given the opportunity to determine whether, on the first day of a new Parliament if the decision on a former Speaker is challenged, the question should be decided by secret ballot or open Division. There are arguments both ways.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I very much support the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) who said that these matters ought to be determined when the current incumbent of the post of Speaker stands down. Otherwise, it looks precisely like what I fear it is: partisan behaviour on the part of the governing party.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
If the Committee made this recommendation years ago, as has been said, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if proper time been allocated for it and people had had notice of the fact that it was to be discussed, he would not be facing the criticism he faces today, which is that this is very much a stitch-up by the Government?
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I think my right hon. Friend has inadvertently misled the House. The recommendation from the Procedure Committee in 2011 that we should visit this issue and vote on whether the election of the Speaker should be by secret ballot was a reiteration of an argument that that Committee first put forward in 2009, as it felt that the decision should have been made before the 2010 election.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House confirm what would happen at the beginning of the next Parliament? As I understand it, the Father of the House—whoever that is—will take the Chair and will decide on the collection of voices whether there is a contest or not. It will be up to the Father of the House to decide whether there are enough voices
Mr Hague
That is absolutely true. All that we are discussing is whether that would be followed by an open Division or a secret ballot. My hon. Friend will be aware that we have already changed the procedure for the election of a new Speaker, so that that is by secret ballot. Indeed, most of the elections to offices in this House have been changed on that basis, and what remains—I will quickly cover the arguments now—is in my view an anomalous situation where an open Division remains in one part of those procedures.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
May I suggest that we accept that, with the presence of the Speaker in the Chair now, it is a depersonalised issue and one for the House and the procedure it wants to follow, rather than a yes or no against a particular person?
Mr Hague
Before I give way again let me discuss some of the arguments because I want to leave time for the shadow Leader of the House and others.
The arguments in favour of the status quo are that it is a familiar procedure, that it is a quick procedure, and that the Speaker stands for election as the Speaker in his or her constituency in expectation of continuing in office and is therefore in a different situation from other officeholders. But obviously the arguments the other way are very strong. We conduct the great majority of elections in the House, and all elections out in the country, by secret ballot for reasons well understood and instantly appreciated. That has been a general principle of our democracy since the 19th century. Whenever voters elect someone to a position of power and authority over them, the principle is that they should be able to do so without fear or favour. It is how we elect our party leaders, it is how we elect our Select Committee Chairs—[Interruption.] It is certainly how we elect our party’s leader. It also frees MPs from pressure from the Chair or from their parties.
Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
This proposal, like the elections for Committee Chairs, goes against one of the major principles of standards in public life: transparency. Should we not bring Parliament into the 21st century and make all elections for everyone open, so that we and the electors can see exactly what we are doing in here? We have a bad enough reputation now; this motion sullies it further.
Mr Hague
I think it would be a minority view on both sides of the House that all elections should be by open Division or open voting. The right hon. Gentleman can make a case for that, but it is a minority case. Indeed, the Liaison Committee has said that the election of Chairs by the whole House gives those chosen a greater degree of authority in their role in the House, their relationship with Ministers and their standing in the wider community. The Standards Committee, which he chairs very capably, said:
“We recommend that the Chair of the Committee be elected by all MPs”—
which means in a secret ballot—
“as we believe this would enhance the confidence of the House in the Committee”,
so his Committee has made the case, as he will have to admit, for election by secret ballot.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I was elected Chair of the Education Committee under the new procedure in this Parliament by secret ballot of the whole House. If it had been up to the party Whips, I doubt I would ever have taken that position. How can a secret ballot be anything other than a protection of the voice of people in this Chamber so that they can speak up? For the Opposition to suggest otherwise can only be for partisan purposes.
Mr Hague
Personally, I come down on the same side of the question because I think that a secret ballot frees Members from pressure from their parties or from the Chair. It is the right thing to do in principle. Although the case can be made that those arguments do not apply when it comes to the election of the Speaker, it can also be argued that they apply particularly in that instance so that Members can vote without fear or favour.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Earlier the Leader of the House said that these proposals were coming forward today because we had no Lords amendments to consider and, as a result, there was time. If there had been some Lords amendments, would these proposals not have been brought forward today?
Mr Hague
I have already answered that question. It would certainly have been much more difficult and I doubt whether we would have been able to do so, but we have been able to bring them forward, and we do have time.
The House can decide as it wishes, and it should decide on the basis put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), which is not on any individual case but on what it thinks is the best and right procedure. My opinion, as Leader of the House, is that a secret ballot would be right, fair and democratic in such circumstances, and thus completely justified. I hope therefore that the House will approve the motion.
Mr Speaker
That is not a matter for the Chair. The Leader of the House can respond if he wishes, but he is not obliged to.
Valedictory Debate
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)
My challenge in seven minutes is to mention one thing about as many as possible of the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, and to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for suggesting it. I also join him in thanking the staff of the House for the professionalism of our security staff and Doorkeepers, the long hours of the Clerks and the staff of the Library and the massive expertise that keeps this building running despite all our best efforts to make it so difficult.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). I have disagreed with him about virtually everything in his career, but we should thank someone who has been Prime Minister of our country and served 32 years—a lifetime of public service in this place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) has been one of my cheeriest colleagues in my time in the House, and I can tell the House that when I was Leader of the Opposition, I needed cheery colleagues.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) spoke of the importance of being a woman MP when she was first elected. It is still important, and there should be more. One of the great prizes of the 21st century will be the full social, political and economic empowerment of women everywhere. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) spoke about the importance of the connection with the constituency, which is a good argument against proportional representation, on which many of us will reflect.
The most revealing comment from the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) was that when he was first appointed a Minister, the call was from Alastair Campbell, not Tony Blair. That tells us something about that Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O’Brien) is going on to an important role in the United Nations which, sadly, will only carry bigger burdens with it. The House wishes him well in that role.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) for his recent work in the House. I hope that after recent controversies his career will be seen in the full context of his achievements. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) said that he had created two businesses and employed 300 people before he came to the House, and we need more people who create wealth and business here.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) said that as a Welsh nationalist he came to Parliament in order to leave it, and I am pleased that he is not leaving with his country as I will live there for much of the time. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) has been a great advocate for his constituency, and I remember that when he was selected for Newcastle—which he also became a great friend and fan of—he was astonished, because he had gone to the selection meeting not really caring about the result and not pretending to have any link with the constituency or any familiarity with it, and the selection committee chose him because he was honest.
We should recognise the important role played by the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) in staging the best ever Olympic games in the history of the world. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) spoke about the decline of scrutiny in this House, but he has been a very good example in his own career, as Chairman of the Committee on Arms Export Controls, of the enhancement of scrutiny in this House.
The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) spoke about ending the annual shuffle of Ministers, but actually this Prime Minister has made quite a lot of progress in that regard, something I have always urged on him. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) spoke about the eastern powerhouse. He has been an intellectual powerhouse.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) has made a great contribution to the House and its Commission. My right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) almost morphed into the Mayor of London in his speech, which was quite a spectacle.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) spoke about having only been to London three times when he was elected—more a culture shock to London than it was to him—and spoke about the compassionate side of the Whips Office. That is a new concept for the nation, but an important one that Members of this House are familiar with.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) spoke about not going back on the role of Select Committees. He is right. The right hon. Member for Stirling (Dame Anne McGuire) spoke about going from being a babe to a granny and about her work for disabled people. I regard my proudest legislative achievement as the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. My right hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Willetts) has been one of the most outstanding Ministers of science ever.
I cannot go through all the other remarks by the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) and for Hove (Mike Weatherley), the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), my right hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), but they all spoke powerfully and well. It has been such a display of brilliance that it is hard to imagine how the House will do without us all, but I am sure it will.
I have found the people of north Yorkshire, with their enterprise, resourcefulness and good humour, to be the inhabitants of one of the most welcoming places on earth and one of the best places on earth to be. To be their MP for 26 years has been a privilege beyond measure.
I want to thank my colleagues around this House. I can say with conviction, as Leader of the House, that I believe the great majority of colleagues in all parties are sincere and hard working. The reputation of this House can be restored by a continued display of that.
When I saw the Youth Parliament sit in this Chamber in November last year, I could see how inspiring the future can be and how, as so many of us leave the House, we can be confident that there will be a new generation of extremely impressive young people who will come to this House. Meeting young people is generally the single most encouraging experience that most of us have as Members of Parliament. The Youth Parliament was a display of that a few months ago. It is something I will remember on leaving this House after such a long time in it.
I again pay tribute to all colleagues who have taken part, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, to whom I must leave the last word in this debate.
Legislation in the 2014-15 Session of Parliament
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)
Following the conclusion of business in the House today, I expect Parliament to be prorogued prior to dissolution on 30 March under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Subject to proceedings, 34 Bills will have received Royal Assent in the 2014-2015 Session.
Government Bills
Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance)
Childcare Payments
Consumer Rights
Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland)
Counter-Terrorism and Security
Criminal Justice and Courts
Data Retention and Investigatory Powers
Deregulation
Finance
Finance (No.2)
House of Commons Commission
Infrastructure
Lords Spiritual (Women)
Modern Slavery
Pension Schemes
Recall of MPs
National Insurance Contributions
Serious Crime
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment
Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism
Stamp Duty Land Tax
Taxation of Pensions
Wales
Law Commission Bills taken forward by the Government
Insurance
Private Members’ Bills
Control of Horses
Health and Social Care (Safety and Quality)
Health Service Commissioner for England (Complaint Handling)
House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension)
International Development (Official Development Assistance Target)
Local Government (Religious etc. Observances)
Local Government (Review of Decisions)
Mutuals’ Deferred Shares
Self-build and Custom Housebuilding
Specialist Printing Equipment and Materials (Offences)
Hybrid Bills
The High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill will carry over into the next Parliament
Business of the House (24, 25 and 26 March)
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)
The type of motion before the House is usual in the run-up to the end of a Parliament, and this motion facilitates the effective and efficient use of the time of the House in bringing this Session, and this Parliament, to a satisfactory conclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is quite right to say that this Parliament is different from its predecessors in being a fixed-term Parliament. That is why there are so few Bills left to consider, and so few Bills moving between this House and the other place, at this stage. As is set out in the motion, we will go on to consider Lords amendments to two Bills, including the Modern Slavery Bill, which is still before the other place, but they represent a small proportion of the legislative programme and there is no reason why this should not come to an orderly conclusion. The motion provides for it to do so.
The one exception to the Bills that have been able to make such progress is of course the Finance Bill, to which my hon. Friend has referred. We have known for a long time that the Budget would take place six days ago on 18 March, which it duly did, and that a Finance Bill would therefore have to be considered in fairly short order between then and the Dissolution of Parliament. This is not an uncommon development. Those of us who were here in 1992 will remember the Budget being delivered only a couple of days before the Dissolution of Parliament, and that has happened on a number of other occasions as well. That has often led to substantial Finance Acts being introduced immediately after the Budget, as is the case here. I do not see any difference in principle between those occasions and this one.
Mr Hague
It is true that there was a further Finance Act, but it is also true that many provisions were included in the initial Finance Act, as far as could be agreed with the Opposition. The present Opposition have not opposed—let us put it that way—the great majority of the measures in this year’s Budget, and we have therefore been able to include a greater proportion of it in the Finance Bill. As with any Bill, however, it will be for the House to reach its judgment in the normal way on the Finance Bill when we debate it tomorrow. My hon. Friend will be able to take part in those debates. We are providing the time that is available for the Finance Bill before the Dissolution of Parliament, which must by law take place on 30 March, which is next Monday, so the time available to debate the Bill is tomorrow. If my hon. Friend wants to tell Treasury Ministers that he wishes it was a smaller Finance Bill, he will of course be able to do so during those debates.
On my hon. Friend’s final question about paragraph 1(c) of the motion, the answer is a fairly comprehensive no. As I pointed out in my first answer that he read out on a change to Standing Orders relating to English votes on English laws, this is a party matter. It would be possible to lay a Government motion under the provisions of paragraph 1(c) only if such a motion had been agreed across the whole coalition. My hon. Friend is well versed in these matters, and he will know that the policy on this issue is not agreed across the coalition and that it therefore remains a party matter. It is therefore not for me, as Leader of the House in the Government, to publish any such proposed changes to Standing Orders; I could do so only as a Conservative party spokesman. It remains my intention to do so, but not as Leader of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Business of the House
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)
With permission, I should like to make a statement on next week’s business:
Monday 23 March—Conclusion of the Budget debate. I expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a statement following the European Council.
Tuesday 24 March—Consideration of a Business of the House motion, followed by consideration of Lords Amendments to the Recall of MPs Bill, followed by consideration of Lords Amendments to the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill, followed by a motion relating to section 5 of the European Communities Amendment Act 1993, followed by a motion to approve statutory instruments relating to counter-terrorism, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.
Wednesday 25 March—All stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, followed by motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.
Thursday 26 March—Consideration of Lords amendments, followed by an opportunity for Members to make short valedictory speeches as recommended by the Backbench Business Committee. The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received. All consideration of Lords amendments announced for next week will be subject to the progress of business. The House will not adjourn until Royal Assent has been received to all Acts.
This is the last weekly business statement of this Parliament. Although I will be seeking to catch your eye on several occasions next week, Mr Speaker, now seems an opportune moment to thank the shadow Leader of the House for her good humour, her support for reform of the House and her commitment to the interests of the House. We worked together on many bodies, such as the House of Commons Commission, and she has always been a constructive colleague. I have enjoyed working with her.
I would also like to thank my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House for his dedication and companionship, particularly on Thursday mornings. I praise his industry, because since becoming Deputy Leader of the House in September 2012, he has clocked up more than 114 legislative hours dealing with six different Bills. I wish him well. I thank other colleagues for their assistance and often their patience, particularly those who have regularly attended business questions and given close attention to our proceedings.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for the final days of this Parliament, and, of course, for his extremely gracious and entirely typical thanks and tributes not only to me, but to all Members. I am sure that next week, during the “valedictory addresses”, we shall have an opportunity to repeat some of the graciousness.
I must say, however, that despite the heroic efforts of the Leader of the House since he took the reins, this is a Parliament that will be remembered for being so devoid of business in its second half that “zombie Government” has entered the political lexicon, and so badly managed that it has lost two MPs to UKIP, seven Cabinet Ministers, and no fewer than 103 votes in the House of Lords. No wonder the Tory Chief Whip cannot even organise his way out of a toilet.
Yesterday, we heard a Budget that people will not believe from a Government whom they do not trust. No amount of rhetoric can mask the Chancellor’s failure. He told us that the deficit was the most important thing, and promised to eliminate it by the end of this Parliament. He has failed. He claimed that we were “all in this together”, but he has given us tax cuts for millionaires and a bedroom tax for the most vulnerable. We have had tax breaks for hedge funds from a party that is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the tax avoiders, and, for the first time since the 1920s, working people are worse off at the end of a Parliament than they were at the beginning.
What did the Chancellor offer when he told us to choose the future? Extreme and dangerous cuts, the deepest for 50 years, which the independent Office for Budget Responsibility has described as a “rollercoaster”. It is no wonder that the Chancellor mentioned Agincourt more than he mentioned the NHS. It has been calculated overnight that he spent £80 million on bad jokes in his Budget speech. I can give you this promise, Mr Speaker: my jokes will always be cheaper than that.
It is no surprise that this week one Tory MP has been caught desperately trying to hide his true identity. He has come up with a cunning disguise, and has taken on a whole new persona. I am not talking about Michael Green. This week, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) contacted constituents, begging them to endorse him to their families and friends. So confident is he about the Government’s stunning record that he said:
“it'll be much more effective if it doesn’t mention the Conservative Party”
or the Prime Minister.
Meanwhile, the Tory party chair, after years of denial and threatening to sue one of his own constituents, has finally admitted that he did, after all, have a second job while serving as a Member of Parliament. He created a brand-new alternative to “economical with the truth” when he apologised for “over-firmly” denying the facts. After five years, there we have it: the Liberal Democrats misadvise themselves, and the Tories over-firmly deny.
As this is the last session of business questions during the current Parliament, I thought it would be remiss of me not to take a few moments to poke fun at the Liberal Democrats, but, given what we have just heard from the Chief Secretary, I think that they have done it all by themselves. The Chancellor’s apprentice, the mini-me of the Treasury, came to the House to deliver his very own faux-Budget statement—and what did he say? That today he disagrees with everything that he signed up to yesterday. Apparently, he is so determined to feel important that he had his very own yellow Budget box constructed, and—absurdly—posed with it at the weekend. However, I hear that he has already taken it to a Liberal Democrat fundraiser and sold it off to the highest bidder, much like his principles. I understand that he got fifteen hundred quid for it.
Meanwhile, the former president and aspiring next leader of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), tried to boost morale at the party’s spring conference by saying that he thought they might lose half their seats, and that they deserved a mark of just two out of 10 for their time in government. I think that that is a bit generous.
Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Leader of the House, who is retiring from this place in just a few days’ time after 26 years of service. He has gone from blond bombshell to slick statesman. He commands respect across the House. Over his career he has befriended celebrities, he has written books, he has travelled the world, he has led his party, and he has been a hard-working and effective Leader of the House whom I have enjoyed working with. Now that’s not bad for someone who was once rejected for a job as a special adviser by Margaret Thatcher, who wrote on his application form, “No, no, no.”
I know the right hon. Gentleman is off to a new house in Wales, which I gather has 10 bedrooms, 10 bathrooms, and I am not sure how many kitchens—perhaps he will tell us. All I can say is that he is lucky a Labour Government will repeal the bedroom tax, although he may be less happy about our plans for a mansion tax.
Yesterday the Chancellor laughably claimed that this Government were helping the north, but what he does not realise is that he is about to lose the only northern powerhouse the Tories have ever had.
Mr Hague
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s touching remarks. As last week, I will not join her in making fun of the Liberal Democrats; I pointed out that I am going to wait a little while for that. I have spent a lifetime making fun of the Liberal Democrats, but I have had a five-year interregnum, and I am looking forward to it coming to an end. Since I will be released from this place anyway, I will be able to join in, but they are deeply valued colleagues—for another few days anyway—and I very much meant the tribute I paid to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House.
The hon. Lady asked about various matters including referring again—we have debated this before—to the Chief Whip and his experiences in toilets. I have explained that it is an essential part of the duties of a Chief Whip to know who is lurking in there at any one time.
I want to take the hon. Lady up on what she said about this Session of Parliament, because I believe when we come to the end of it next week a great deal will have been achieved: the Infrastructure Act 2015 that provides a nearly £4 billion boost to the economy; the small business Bill that will help businesses get credit from banks and ensure they can expand; the Pension Schemes Act that gives people freedom and security in retirement; the Criminal Justice and Courts Act that allows us to properly punish serious offenders; the Modern Slavery Bill, which will be a landmark piece of legislation; and the Childcare Payments Act that helps more parents with the cost of child care. These are all from this Session of Parliament. That is not a zombie Session of Parliament; that is real, constructive legislation that is of immense assistance to many people in this country.
I have all the great respect for the hon. Lady that I spoke of earlier, but I think she may have written part of her remarks before the Budget, because she said people would be worse off at the end of the Parliament than they were at the beginning of it, but as we now know from the Office for Budget Responsibility one of the achievements of this coalition—Conservatives and Liberal Democrats—will be that on average households will be £900 better off in 2015 than they were in 2010. So the script will have to be changed, albeit at the very end of the Parliament.
Talking of the northern powerhouse, I am very proud that, as the Chancellor pointed out yesterday, more jobs are being created in Yorkshire than in the whole of France. That is not remotely a surprise to those of us from Yorkshire, but it is part of the achievement of this Government that employment is at its highest since records began, and that 1,000 more jobs have been created every day under this Government. One particularly striking aspect of yesterday’s figures is that the rise in youth employment in the last year has been higher than in the whole of the rest of the European Union put together. It is very rare for a Government at the end of a Parliament to be able to say that—very rare indeed—and the Opposition, who voted for the charter for budget responsibility but are now unwilling to maintain any spending discipline, have to explain where the tax rises are going to come from in their programme. There will be a great deal of suspicion that there will be large hidden tax rises from a Leader of the Opposition who has that large hidden kitchen he did not want to speak about.
Such issues will be considered in the Budget debate, continuing until Monday, and in the general election campaign. We will do everything we can in the meantime to bring the business of the House next week to an orderly conclusion.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend and I were both born on 26 March but a decade apart. I wish him well, but I do think he is retiring at too young an age.
Will my right hon. Friend please find time for a debate on the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013? My constituents Nick and Jane Winfield feel that all manner of people are collecting and selling scrap metal without a licence, and that something needs to be done to ensure that the law is being enforced.
Mr Hague
This is a very important issue that has affected rail services, and war memorials have been desecrated and church roofs damaged. We have taken action, as my hon. Friend knows, and there is indeed the 2013 Act. The licensing scheme is administered by local councils, and we fully expect them to take action where scrap metal dealers are found to be unlicensed or are failing to comply with the Act. I hope that is of some reassurance to my hon. Friend. I do not think it will be possible to add a debate about that issue into the remaining few days of this Parliament.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I have known the right hon. Gentleman for a long time, and on Yorkshire issues we have got on very well indeed. I shall certainly miss the double act, which is one of the best I have seen in business questions over the years.
We have had the Budget and we are debating it, but I urge the right hon. Gentleman to give even more attention in the remaining few days to the reality out there: museums, libraries and art centres are closing, as are hospitals—we are in a dreadful state. Is there an opportunity in the coming week to reconnect with the people out there, because they are not connecting with the Budget we heard yesterday?
Mr Hague
It is sad that the double act is coming to an end—although my jokes might be more expensive than those of the shadow Leader of the House.
I point out to the hon. Gentleman that part of the Budget debate can of course be about the matters he has raised. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will open tomorrow’s Budget debate, for instance, so the hon. Gentleman will have a further opportunity to raise those matters. He talks about the reality out there. The reality is that there are more people in work than ever before, and that we have the fastest growing of all the major industrialised economies. That, of course, allows us to have strong public services in the future, and without a strong, growing economy, we cannot have the public services the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
May we have a debate on election conduct? As the Labour party clearly has nothing positive to offer, I fear that this will be the dirtiest election campaign on record. My right hon. Friend may be aware of some of the disgusting smears and lies that have been put out about our hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) by the Labour candidate. Does my right hon. Friend agree that although it is perfectly reasonable for political parties to point out the threats, as they perceive them, posed by the other parties being elected to government, personal smears, attacks and abuse of individual constituency candidates are not acceptable and bring politics into disrepute? Perhaps a debate next week in advance of the forthcoming general election would allow all the political parties to maintain that they will not tolerate that kind of behaviour.
Mr Hague
I cannot offer a debate, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right: we believe in vigorous political debate in our elections, but I have seen comments made about my hon. Friend the Member for Witham that are offensive, malicious and often false, and which will be particularly offensive to women and to people of Asian origin. It is time the Labour party took that in hand in Witham.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I join others in paying tribute to the Leader of the House. He has clearly been one of the most outstanding parliamentarians, certainly in my time in the House. I played a small part in his career when I gave him his first job, as secretary of the all-party footwear and leather industries group, and look how well he has done!
Next Thursday will be a very important day in the history of Leicester when the interment of Richard III takes place. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a ticket for the occasion, I can try to arrange one for him. May we have an urgent look at the criteria for boroughs and cities being permitted to use the title “royal”? Leicester must surely be entitled to use it—as Kensington and Chelsea, and Greenwich, have done—and to become a royal city, given our new connection with royalty.
Mr Hague
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words. The role I played as secretary of the all-party footwear and leather industries group was so crucial that I have completely forgotten it, actually. But it played a very important part in my career in the House a quarter of a century ago—
Mr Hague
It was indeed a footnote to my career. I thank my hon. Friend for that.
There are periodic opportunities and competitions for towns to compete for city status and for cities to request an increase in their status. I do not think that that will be able to happen in the coming week, however. Leicester will have many important claims for advancing its status but I do not think that the connection with Richard III would be decisive, given that he lost the battle of Bosworth and that the royal line that flowed from him was rather weakened as a result.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Will the Leader of the House welcome the new manifesto for change which calls for justice for the victims of criminal driving? This is a hugely important issue, and a number of changes need to be made in order to bring justice to many people. I should like to thank the many people who have contributed to the process. May we have a debate on this new manifesto, which is backed by Brake and other organisations as well as by a number of MPs from both sides of the House, so that Parliament can discuss how we can get the changes that we need?
Mr Hague
I welcome the continuing debate on this matter and on the many concerns that have been raised. The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 has increased the maximum penalty for causing death while disqualified from two to 10 years, and created the new offence of causing serious injury while disqualified, which carries a maximum penalty of four years. That does not mean, however, that all the concerns have been dealt with. This is a welcome campaign and manifesto, and I will certainly ensure that ministerial colleagues are made aware of my hon. Friend’s work, alongside the Government review. Although there is not time to debate the matter further in this Parliament, I am sure that it is an issue that the next Parliament will want to return to.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I should like to associate myself with the tributes that have been paid to the right hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), his shadow.
I do not expect the Government to comment on the outcome of elections in other countries, but will there be a statement on Premier Netanyahu’s announcement that he will not support a two-state solution? Might the Prime Minister refer to it at the European Council and then comment on it in the House next week? The two-state solution has been the policy of the UK, the US and the EU for some time, and the statement by the Israeli premier must have disappointed the Government as much as it has disappointed so many people in this country.
Mr Hague
Support for the two-state solution is a very important part of our policy on the middle east peace process, and it is common across the House of Commons. I did a good deal of work on this as Foreign Secretary, although the greatest amount of work has been done in recent times by Secretary John Kerry and I salute all the work that he has put into the process. I have often said in the House that time was running out for a two-state solution and, sadly, that remains the case. The best opportunity to ask Ministers about this will be when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gives a statement to the House next Monday or at Prime Minister’s questions next week, when this would be a perfectly normal thing to ask him about.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Leader of the House is not only one of the finest Foreign Secretaries and parliamentarians that Britain has ever had but a much loved and respected local North Yorkshire MP. May we have a debate about North Yorkshire, its people, its businesses, its beauty and its beer?
Mr Hague
Everybody is being very kind, but none of this will persuade me to stay. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for all his support and co-operation on North Yorkshire issues. There would be a great deal to say in a debate on North Yorkshire, including about the beer. I understand that a beer has been launched in my honour called Smooth Hague and I have already tasted it. We could debate all those things, and I hope, if I manage to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, at the end of the valedictory debate next week, to say a few sentences about the great people of North Yorkshire and what a privilege it has been to represent them over the past 26 years.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I first met the Leader of the House when I was 18 and I went to his 21st birthday party, which I remember was subtitled “wine, women and song”, so it is with mixed emotions that I congratulate him on leaving the House. We will miss him, but we are all looking forward to some wonderful new books, as he is a very fine writer. He says that he will keep up his campaign against the use of sexual violence in war and we all praise him for that, but who knows, perhaps he will appear down the corridor in a few weeks’ time in another guise.
May I ask him about the use of LIBOR fines announced yesterday? I gather that more announcements are coming today. Of course we support the Government’s announcements on how they are being given out, but it feels a bit like pork barrelling at the moment, as Treasury Ministers, without any formal process, have just been doling out cash to organisations that have not even asked for it. Would it not be better to go through the Arts Council or the Heritage Lottery Fund?
Mr Hague
I had already given up my support for proportional representation at that point, but yes, I have known the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for a very long time and I am grateful for his remarks. He mentions my work on preventing sexual violence, which I will continue outside this House, but that is another illustration of the use of LIBOR money. Last month, I was able to announce £1 million of that money going to the London School of Economics to create a centre for women, peace and security. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has just joined us, and I do not think that it is fair to say that that is pork barrel use of money. That is an example of how well used the LIBOR funds are. They are, of course, available only on a temporary basis, so setting up a whole structure to disburse them is probably not the way forward, but I will be able to pass on to the Chancellor what the hon. Gentleman has said.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I join colleagues in paying tribute to the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House for the work they have done, on the House of Commons Commission in particular. Much has been achieved together and it has been great working as part of that team.
Will it be possible to have a debate on the provision of communication infrastructure by BT? It has been suggested recently that that should be hived off from the company. In the highlands of Scotland, in my constituency, I have received 45 complaints, such as that from John Sinclair of Caithness Creels, who has been waiting for more than three weeks to get broadband. The residents of Lothmore have been waiting for up to six weeks to be reconnected. There is a clear shortage of engineers, and BT seems to regard that as perfectly acceptable. I wrote two weeks ago to the chairman, Sir Michael Rake, pointing out the potential reputational damage to BT; I never received an answer from him. The high-level complaints team has however told me that it will look at the issue, but that it might take some time. That is not acceptable from the provider of a national infrastructure and I believe we should be concerned about that.
Mr Hague
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and pay tribute to the tremendous work he does for this House, which I have seen at close quarters. We have been able to work together very well in the House of Commons Commission, so I thank him very much for that. He raises an important issue. The Government of course have a very strong record on the development of superfast broadband around the United Kingdom, particularly in rural areas, but he is right about the difficulty in some of the remotest areas. I see that in North Yorkshire, and he highlights the difficulties in the extremely remote areas that he represents. Although there is not time for a debate, I think he has succeeded in raising the matter on the Floor of the House, and I hope that BT will take that very seriously and attend quickly to the matters affecting his constituents.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be remembered in Wales as one of the most agreeable alien governor-generals we have had, in a period when he had the great good fortune to meet the wonderful Welsh woman who was to become his wife. Can he add further lustre to his reputation today by looking at a profoundly anti-democratic measure that was blocked by several voices last night? It would remove from the local authorities their powers to control drilling and the dumping of toxic waste, including nuclear waste, in their country. Would it not be an affront to democracy if that measure passed through the House on a deferred decision by a thinly attended House? Should the measure not now be withdrawn, for consideration by the next Parliament?
Mr Hague
I am grateful for the nearest thing to a ringing endorsement from the hon. Gentleman. I have fond memories of being Welsh Secretary. The Prime Minister who appointed me to that role, Sir John Major, asked me to take Wales to my heart. When, a year later, I married my private secretary, he said, “I think you are taking this a little bit too literally now.” Of course I have been deeply fond of Wales ever since.
On the measure the hon. Gentleman refers to, we must follow the procedures with all matters before the House, including the large number of orders in the remaining few days of the Parliament, so I cannot offer him an additional debate, but he will be able, as ever, to use every possible procedure of this House—he is very skilled at that—to make his views known. I am sure he will continue to do so on that matter.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
My first question in this House resulted in £2 million being awarded to Jewish schools in my area to enforce their security. Yesterday, I was pleased to present the petition signed by more than 2,000 people seeking that sum again to be renewed. Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to confirm the Prime Minister’s announcement last night that not only has that money been extended and increased, but that it will now also cover independent schools, synagogues and Jewish cultural centres such as the JW3 centre on Finchley road?
Mr Hague
The Jewish community is a vital part of British life. Although we meet additional security costs at state-funded Jewish schools, we recognise that a wide range of independent establishments face the same risks, as my hon. Friend has said. We are therefore widening eligibility for the grant to cover those schools and colleges, so that their pupils and students can have the same degree of security as those attending state schools. The new package announced by the Prime Minister is in addition to the existing Department for Education grant, which will also continue in the next financial year. So we remain staunchly committed to tackling anti-Semitism wherever it occurs, and I can confirm the announcement, as my hon. Friend says.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
As a former political child star, the Leader of the House will, I am sure, join me in wanting today’s young people to grow up informed and active participants in the political process. Will he find time for a debate on how we might do more to encourage young people to become involved? Pending that, will he join me in endorsing today’s BBC school report news day, which has involved 1,000 schools and 30,000 teenagers at schools in making the news? The Westminster and Paddington academies in my constituency are taking part, as are schools right across the United Kingdom. Does he think that is one important way in which we can get young people actively involved in citizenship, news making and understanding politics?
Mr Hague
Yes, I absolutely join the hon. Lady in welcoming that initiative. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will be marking this day with one of his own schools later today. It is important that all parties keep up the work to engage and inform young people. The new education centre, which you, Mr Speaker, have always strongly supported, will be available to encourage that work. One of the most impressive moments of the past year for me as Leader of the House was when the Youth Parliament gathered in this Chamber. Its representatives set quite a good example to all of us who are not so youthful, and we should be greatly encouraged that, in this country, we have great young people who will be the leaders of the future.
Mr Speaker
I shall communicate colleagues’ shared enthusiasm for youth participation when I meet the students of Holland Park school this afternoon. Those students will be comforted and reassured to know of the esteem in which their involvement is held.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I am confident that I speak for all members of the other coalition party when I pay tribute to the Leader of the House and endorse the comments made by the shadow Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman is a remarkable parliamentarian who will be missed in this House. Perhaps he will find a perch at the other end.
Is there time to have a quick debate on the geography of the United Kingdom? The reason I ask is that the Conservative party has issued a leaflet in my constituency, which has Colchester on the coast. Mr Speaker, you will be aware that Colchester is on a tidal river. Although the Conservatives may be at sea, I am not.
Mr Hague
As always, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I doubt that we will find time in the remaining five days for a debate on the geography of the United Kingdom. How close to the coast anywhere is in the United Kingdom depends on the scale of the map. If it is small enough, we are all on the coast; this is an island. I am sure that he will bear that in mind.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
May I reiterate the tributes to the Leader of the House? I wish him, very sincerely, good luck for the future. I was particularly delighted with his remarks about the Office for Budget Responsibility. I wondered whether they meant that the Government had had a change of heart over the OBR scrutinising manifesto spending commitments. If they have, will he enlighten us?
Mr Hague
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks about me. As for the OBR, it is an important innovation that was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. There was no such independent auditing of Government Budgets and statements before. It has produced an extensive report that goes with the Budget, but it would be in some difficulty assessing the policies of the Labour party, because we do not know what all the tax rises would be in order to fill the gaping hole now left in its finances. That is something that it will have to explain.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend indulge me while I say that he is the finest Prime Minister we never had? I feel that I have grown old with him, because he has been there on the mantelpiece for successive elections since 1997. Talking of growing old, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who has just taken his place, said yesterday that we should provide for people in their old age, as they have paid tax on what they have earned. In the future, could we have a debate on council tax reduction and exemption for the over-75s?
Mr Hague
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whom I have known for a long time. He says that we have grown old together, but I do not feel very old. I have enjoyed all the work that we have done together over the years. He is quite right about the importance of council tax and other fixed costs for older people, which is why it is so important that, under this Government, councils have had the opportunity to freeze council tax for the entire period of this Government, whereas it doubled under the 13 years of the previous Government. That freeze, the reduction in the scheduled increases in fuel taxation and now falling energy prices are major benefits for older people.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I bring good news from Kettering. International food manufacturer Alpro has opened its new extension to its UK production facility at Burton Latimer. Alpro’s sales in the UK are increasing by 25% year on year, and its £30 million investment will double production in its drinks made from almonds, hazelnuts, soya, oats and coconut, and create 50 additional jobs for the local economy. That investment is a vote of confidence not only in the UK, but in the local economy in Kettering. Before Parliament is dissolved, may we have a statement from Her Majesty’s Treasury about how much foreign investment this country has attracted over the past five years as a result of the success of this Government’s long-term economic plan?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend has been absolutely assiduous, particularly in recent months, in bringing good news to the House from Kettering and in creating, through his work as an MP, great good news for Kettering. He has missed only one week, which was, I think, last week. His absence caused much concern about Kettering, but I know that he was working on additional good news. Again, Kettering is a microcosm of what is happening in the country as a whole with the remarkable growth in employment, of which I spoke earlier. He is right about the importance of foreign investment, which has, in the UK over the past five years, far outstripped foreign direct investment in other countries in the European Union, and it will continue to do so provided that we stick to a long-term economic plan.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Last week, the deposed elected President of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, was sentenced to 12 years in prison by a corrupt court. Although it is believed that he is safe in Dhoonidhood, it is expected that when he is moved to Maafushi island, there will be real concerns for his safety. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Foreign Office is doing all it can to highlight the concerns of Nasheed’s supporters, and can a statement be made to the House about sanctions and whether they should be taken against this much misunderstood set of islands?
Mr Hague
The Government are deeply concerned about the sentencing of former President Nasheed of the Maldives. We have called on the Maldives to follow due legal process. The Foreign Office Ministers were the first to make a strong statement, making it clear that we are monitoring the case closely. We are pressing the Government in the Maldives to give international observers access to any appeal hearing and to allow them to visit the former President in prison. We continue to urge calm across the country, to encourage political parties to act with moderation and to appeal to the Government of the Maldives to ensure that they work within the bounds of the law.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
It has been a privilege to serve with the Leader of the House, and I appreciate the advice that he has given me over the years. I wish him a wonderful retirement, which I am sure will be as energetic as his time here in Parliament.
In Windsor and across the country, unemployment is at the lowest level that I have ever seen, which means that young people are getting livelihoods and life chances that they have not seen for a very long time. That has been driven by private sector businesses competing with each other in a very enterprising way. They have been set free by the pro-enterprise policies of the Government. May we have a debate on how markets work, largely for educational purposes for the Opposition party?
Mr Hague
That is not a bad idea. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about me. He is quite right about employment. I pointed out earlier how the rise in youth employment over the past year has been greater than in the whole of the rest of the European Union put together. We have also seen in this Government more than 750,000 new businesses created in the United Kingdom. We have a strong economic future ahead provided that we continue to follow a long-term plan. I hope that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity of the Budget debate—[Interruption.] Oh, he has already done so. He has spoken in the Budget debate and so has already been able to contribute to the education of the Opposition, but they clearly need more educating. As the shadow Chancellor has just arrived, they could do with a bit more educating in the next half hour.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
As a relatively new Member, may I say to the Leader of the House that it has been an immense privilege to see not only an outstanding parliamentarian, but someone with immense integrity and humour?
This week the first council houses to be built in Medway for 40 years were officially opened in Gillingham, and last month MHS Homes in Medway was shortlisted for a UK housing award for its construction of shared ownership apartments in Rainham. Will he join me in wishing MHS Homes every success for the award ceremony, and may we have a statement on the excellent work that this Government are doing to build more homes?
Mr Hague
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, although it is getting a bit embarrassing—I am beginning to think that I might have died. Of course, had I died, hopefully I would not still be here. He makes an important point about affordable homes. Our affordable homes programme is on track to deliver 170,000 new, good-quality and affordable homes, and over the next Parliament we will build more of those than were built in any equivalent period in the past 20 years. That includes a £400 million rent to buy scheme for up to 10,000 homes. That is very important work that the Government have done, and I know that my hon. Friend has done great work to encourage such developments in his constituency.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
May I associate myself with the tributes to the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House and wish the Leader of the House a very long life? [Interruption.] Of course, I wish that also for the shadow Leader of the House.
Many of my constituents are facing problems with blight because of High Speed 2. Although there is an exceptional hardship scheme, which I must say in some cases works reasonably well, some people, particularly those who have difficulty negotiating with the scheme or who might have real personal difficulties because of illness or disability, find this a very troubling time, and I believe that sometimes they end up with a less than satisfactory outcome. May we therefore have a debate on ensuring that the compensation for people who have been put in that position through no fault of their own is full, fair and speedy?
Mr Hague
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He raises an issue that of course is very important to his constituents. As he will be aware, the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill is receiving painstaking consideration, and that will continue into the new Parliament, so there will be further opportunities to raise those matters. They are matters that would naturally fall to Adjournment and BackBench business debates, but no more of those are available in this Parliament. However, he will be able to pursue the matter in the next Parliament, to which I am confident he will be returned.