Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

5. What assessment he has made of the current level of independence of select committees.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The independence and impact of Select Committees has undoubtedly increased markedly since the implementation of this Government’s reforms. The election of Chairs by the House and of Committee members by the members of political parties has been instrumental in achieving this increased independence.

[Keith Vaz]

Does the Leader of the House agree that Ministers should not seek to influence or interfere in the work of Select Committees?

[Mr Lansley]

I do agree with that. I attach great importance to mutual respect and trust between Ministers and Select Committees.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

6. What plans he has to extend the practice of pre-legislative scrutiny.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

1. What steps he is taking to improve the role of the House in scrutinising European Union-level decision making.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

This coalition Government have significantly increased scrutiny of European Union-level decision making through the provisions of the European Union Act 2011. Three Bills were taken forward in the last Session to signal the approval of Parliament under the Act. In addition to that, the Prime Minister has made 16 statements to this House on business at the European Council. The House will be aware that the European Scrutiny Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the European scrutiny system in the House and we await its findings with interest.

[Mr Jones]

What more can the House do to ensure early engagement with the European Union in such matters?

[Mr Lansley]

The Deputy Leader of the House and I visited the European institutions during the Whit recess. It was clear to us that there is more that we can do in this House to improve our engagement with and impact on European legislative proposals, especially through the work of the Select Committees of this House. In my view, which I think is widely shared, this House is the prime source of democratic legitimacy and accountability for law making. We should therefore be taking every opportunity to develop our influence, including in EU law making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

8. What plans he has to introduce an e-petitions system applicable to both Parliament and Government.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The introduction of the coalition Government’s e-petitions system has been a successful improvement for public engagement with Parliament. However, it is clear that the public expect to be able to petition their Parliament and seek action from their Government. I want to work with the Procedure Committee, the Backbench Business Committee and interested Members from across the House to develop the current system into something that more fully meets that expectation.

[Sarah Newton]

I thank the Leader of the House for his answer, but can he really assure the House that any changes to the e-petition will not impact on or restrict the work of the Backbench Business Committee?

[Mr Lansley]

I agree that reforms of this House should not have an adverse effect on the successful work of the Backbench Business Committee, which this coalition Government established. It may be possible, none the less, that there is a role for a Select Committee or Committees in examining petitions, taking evidence on petitions, seeking information from Government, and even recommending debates in Parliament. However, I envisage that it would remain for the Backbench Business Committee to consider and schedule debates.

[Simon Wright]

Under the current system, the MP of a signatory to an e-petition is not made aware that a constituent’s signature has been added. Can reforms to the e-petition system take account of the importance of promoting direct engagement between the signatory and their elected representative?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Improving engagement with Parliament and politics must be the focus of any improved system. I am grateful to him for his suggestion on how we can achieve that. However, I alert him to the fact that more than 11 million signatures have been added to petitions in the two years or so since the Government’s e-petitions system was established. I am not sure that hon. Members would welcome an e-mail for each of those signatures, but I do agree that there are ways in which we can open up the data overall to help Members and their constituents to identify and work together on popular petitions.

[Glyn Davies]

In order to increase opportunities for debate on e-petitions with 100,000 signatures, will my right hon. Friend consider bringing forward a motion to reopen Westminster Hall on Mondays?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend may not know this, but I have this week written to the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), to set out the Government’s response to the Committee’s sixth report of the previous Session, which related to debates on Government e-petitions in Westminster Hall. I hope that we will shortly be able to bring forward a motion to extend the practice of opening up Westminster Hall for e-petitions until the end of this Parliament while we consider longer-term proposals for the petition system in this House.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

When the right hon. Gentleman is looking at the e-petition system and perhaps setting up a Committee to do so, will he ensure that we do not ignore paper petitions and give e-petitions and paper petitions the same status?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady is right. I referred to the petition system advisedly—that is, not just the e-petition system. At the moment the e-petition system is working well and is a significant improvement on what happened in the past. The paper petition system in this House is somewhat anachronistic. What we need—I want to work with colleagues to make this happen—is a petition system that enables our constituents to petition their Parliament but also engages with Government to get a response from Government. The signal improvement, I hope, will be for this House to be able to use the petition system as a basis for demonstrating further improvements in the engagement of the House with the issues that matter to our constituents.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

5. What progress he is making on the introduction of measures to improve financial scrutiny of Government expenditure.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

1. what progress has been made on bringing forward proposals to set up a House business committee to consider Government business as set out in the coalition agreement.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

I continue to consider proposals and will be discussing some practical proposals to meet this challenge when I give evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee next month.

[Simon Hughes]

Both coalition parties have a commitment to transfer more power over business from the Executive to Members of the House of Commons. Given that we made a commitment in the coalition agreement that this should happen by the third year of the Parliament, may I have a guarantee that, in this year—2013—and in the next, and third Session, that will be done?

[Mr Lansley]

The House will understand that any House business committee would need to add value to our existing processes. I hope that my right hon. Friend and others across the House will recognise that we have made substantial progress in that direction already in this Parliament, not least through the creation of the Backbench Business Committee. I want to make sure that we build on that and that it is not compromised, while meeting the requirement for responsive and effective business management and recognising—as the Wright Committee did—the opportunity for the Government to secure their legislative programme.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I am sure that the whole House is overwhelmed to hear that one member of the Cabinet is interested in the views of Select Committees; perhaps the Leader of the House could have a word with the Secretary of State for Education about the merits of that. This is yet another handbrake turn and broken promise by the coalition. What is the delay? The deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats supports it and the Government Chief Whip is a vocal supporter of a House business committee, so who is holding it up?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his implication. As I said in my previous answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), I am considering these proposals, discussing them with colleagues and looking at the practical issues. When I visited the Scottish Parliament during the February recess, I saw in its parliamentary bureau what is to all intents and purposes a House business committee. When one looks at how that works, Back Bench Members in this House already have considerably more influence and control over the scope of debate than Members of the Scottish Parliament. It is not about creating a thing with a title; it is about delivering the objective.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

A House business committee would timetable business in this House. Were there to be a rule that it must facilitate Government business—and given that its make-up is likely to reflect the balance of parties in this place, that it was a firm part of the coalition agreement when other things were dropped, and that we have had three years to sort it out—should there not be a firm commitment in the Queen’s Speech on 8 May?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is making assumptions about the character of a House business committee based on the Wright Committee recommendations, which are being considered by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, to which I am sure he will be giving his views. It is important to recognise that among the evidence that the Committee has already received is evidence about the impracticality of implementing the Wright Committee recommendations as first set out, not least because we have already made progress in the Backbench Business Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

6. What plans he has to improve the quality of parliamentary scrutiny of Government expenditure.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The Government are keen to promote better financial scrutiny and would welcome discussions on how best that can be achieved. As Leader of the House, I hope that I can work with colleagues in the Liaison Committee and across Government to ensure that the scrutiny of Government expenditure in this House promotes efficiency and value for money in all Departments.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, but may I press him further and ask whether he sees a role not only for the Public Accounts Committee but for Select Committees in scrutinising Government and departmental expenditure?

[Mr Lansley]

I do indeed see such a role. Select Committees have a responsibility in relation not only to the policy of the Departments that they scrutinise but to the Departments’ expenditure. It is fair to say, however, that there is a variable focus among Select Committees on the extent to which they scrutinise the expenditure of their Departments, but I hope that we can increase the extent of that scrutiny through the Estimates process. Also, as a member of the Public Accounts Commission, I know from the matters that we have discussed with the National Audit Office that the NAO has already made itself available to some Select Committees to help them with that process, and I hope that we can encourage more of that in future.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of the Report of the Commission on the Consequences of Devolution for the House of Commons.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

5. What comparative assessment he has made of the annual number of sitting days of the House and that of other parliaments around the world.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

Based on statistics from the Society of Clerks at the Table in the Commonwealth, United States Congress and European Parliament—an unimpeachable source—the House of Commons sits for more days and for longer than most comparable Parliaments.

[Mr Hollobone]

The important thing is not the number of days that a Parliament sits but how effectively that time is used. Does the Leader of House believe that the success in this House of the scheduling of debates by the Backbench Business Committee is likely to be a model copied by other Parliaments around the world?

[Mr Lansley]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are unique in this place in having established a Backbench Business Committee which puts a substantial proportion of the time of the House at the disposal of Back-Bench Members without being controlled by the respective Front-Bench teams. That is terrifically important. I was struck when I visited the Scottish Parliament last week that, although there is time for Members’ debates, it is at the behest of the business managers. As a business manager, I might see advantage in that, but the House of Commons has resolved to give Back Benchers a substantial amount of time, and that is a welcome reform led by my predecessor.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

5. What assessment he has made of the pilots of public reading stages for Bills.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

We have conducted pilot public reading stages for the Protection of Freedoms Bill and the Small Charitable Donations Bill, and an online consultation was conducted on the draft Care and Support Bill.

Following evaluation, I have today informed the House in a written ministerial statement that public reading stages will form part of a tool kit to consider legislation on a case-by-case basis. I hope we will continue to improve public engagement in the legislative process—for example, through pre-legislative scrutiny and evidence sessions in Public Bill Committees rather than by adopting a uniform approach to legislation.

[Sarah Newton]

I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s response and congratulate him and his predecessor on the great innovations in this Parliament to make this place more relevant to the people who sent us here. I urge that we use the new tool in our tool kit as often as we can.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, with whom I share an appreciation of my predecessor. Over the past two and a half years, the House has made considerable progress in engaging the public directly with legislation. We can do that through a number of routes. Sometimes, pre-legislative scrutiny on draft legislation or evidence sessions before Public Bill Committees are very effective, and public reading stages are a further option. We do not want to specify in relation to any particular legislation that all those things must be applied, but we have the mechanisms to engage the public more fully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

9. What recent discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on the requirements of the ministerial code relating to making policy announcements to the House before the media.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The ministerial code is clear:

“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”

I regularly remind my colleagues of this.

[Diana Johnson]

We know from the Government’s relaunch that they are planning to make 12 policy announcements over the next 12 weeks. Will the Leader of the House assure us that those announcements will be made first to the House of Commons, and that there will penalties if that does not happen?

[Mr Lansley]

I reiterate to the House and to the hon. Lady that the ministerial code is clear and that I regularly remind my colleagues of it. It is our intention and our practice that the most important announcements of Government policy be made in the first instance to Parliament. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is saying from a sedentary position that I am inaccurate. I have quoted directly the ministerial code to him and to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

I continue to consider this matter and I look forward to further constructive discussions on the issue with the Procedure Committee and others.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I am concerned about the timetable. Yesterday, the Prime Minister expressed regret, in an answer to the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), that he did not have control of the House of Commons agenda, but actually he does have control of most of the House agenda. A decision of the House was made in 2010 and the proposal was in the coalition agreement. When are we actually going to see the House business committee?

[Mr Lansley]

As I said, it is my responsibility as Leader of the House to ensure that we make progress in enabling the House to conduct its business effectively and efficiently. It is incumbent on me to ensure that any development in this area takes into account the progress that we have already made since May 2010. For example, just last week the Procedure Committee published its review of the operation of the Backbench Business Committee. That gives us important information about that progress, which has been very positive. It also enables us to consider the question of a House business committee constructively.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Leader of the House could make a real name for himself. I would like to see him as the chairman of this new parliamentary timetabling committee, but should he not be elected by the whole House rather than being appointed by the Executive? I am sure that he would get a lot of support from Members on both sides of the House.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his solicitude for my future. When I was talking about constructive discussions, I was including the discussions that I have had with him, and with many others across the House, to ensure that we add value to the way in which the House manages its business. That is what I am looking to do.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

We know that there is no greater champion of the House business committee than the Government Chief Whip, who said two years ago that

“we must not lose sight of the progress that we want to see made in the third year of this Parliament on a House business committee”.—[Official Report, 15 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 782.]

Given that we are halfway through that third year, when will the Leader of the House sit down with me to discuss how he intends to turn the Chief Whip’s vision into reality?

[Mr Lansley]

I share with the shadow Leader of the House admiration for what the former Leader of the House, now the Patronage Secretary, has achieved. In the context of the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee and the clear progress consequent upon it, I want to make sure that we follow up constructively on the progress already made.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Following on from that, will the Leader of the House confirm that whenever the House business committee is established, there will still be a valuable role for the Backbench Business Committee to play and that that role will continue?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who illustrates precisely the point that I hope I was making, which is that we want to build on the progress that has been made and that we want to do it in a constructive way. The progress made regarding the Backbench Business Committee, as illustrated in the Procedure Committee’s report last week, provides a very good basis on which to continue those discussions.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to ensure that written questions for named-day answer receive a substantive answer on the day named.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

My office collates information on departmental performance in relation to ordinary and named-day parliamentary questions, which is then submitted sessionally to the Procedure Committee. I intend to continue to work with the Committee and with Departments both to report on and to improve performance.

[Jessica Morden]

My named-day question to the Home Office about the cost of the police commissioner in Wales after the mess-up over the ballot papers appeared not on the day named but more than 20 days late, conveniently after the election was over. I should not have been surprised, however, as the Home Office replies to only 37% of named-day questions on time. What more can be done to make Departments respect this process?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the Procedure Committee is following the matter up and that I am in contact with Departments about it, and she will be encouraged to know that the Home Office has improved its performance recently. I think that what we need to do is lead by example. In the last Session, the largest number of named-day questions—2,260—were submitted to the Department of Health, which achieved a 99.6% positive response rate.

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Robertson, perhaps? I can take a horse to water, but I cannot force him to drink.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

8. I assume that you are calling me to ask a supplementary and not a main question, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) mentioned the Home Office. I pointed out recently that questions from my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State had still not been answered by the Secretary of State. Will the Leader of the House look into the matter? It appears to be something of a problem in the Home Office. How can the Opposition be expected to work properly if they cannot hold the Government to account? It is very difficult for us to do that if the Government do not give us answers.

[Mr Lansley]

I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. As I said to the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), it is perfectly possible for Departments to achieve a positive response rate of virtually 100%, but not all Departments do so. The Procedure Committee is following that up, and I shall be working with Departments to try to improve their performance. I might point out that in the last Session a 100% positive response rate was achieved by the Office of the Leader of the House, and, as I said earlier, the Department of Health achieved a 99.6% rate.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with the Minister for Europe on future scrutiny of European affairs in the House.