Business of the House
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Indeed he may. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) will be in his place.
Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Later today, the House will debate devolution and the Union. The debate takes place before the report of the Smith commission is published, and before the Cabinet Sub-Committee on English votes for English laws, which my right hon. Friend chairs, has completed its work. Does he agree that we really need a debate once we have both those documents, and will he use his best endeavours to secure one?
Mr Hague
Yes, I do agree with that, absolutely. There is no harm in having debates on the subject even at this stage, and I welcome the Back-Bench business debate on devolution and the Union that will take place later today. However, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right: it will be necessary for us to have further debates. The Smith commission is committed to reporting before the end of this month, the work of our Cabinet Committee continues, and the arguments on these issues develop, so I am sure that the House will need a major debate on them within the next couple of months.
Business of the House
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
It is very important for Departments to answer letters promptly. When I was Foreign Secretary, I took a good deal of action to ensure that the Foreign Office improved its performance in that regard. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Procedure Committee reviews the issue each year and, I believe, publishes data, but if he has a problem with a particular Department, I should be happy to help him pursue it.
Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)
In his written ministerial statement on the northern powerhouse, which was published on Monday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
“The Government will now prepare legislation to enable these changes”.—[Official Report, 3 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 37WS.]
Now that the House’s appetite has been whetted by the prospect of more local government legislation, will my right hon. Friend tell us when we will see the Bill? Will it appear before the curtain falls on this Parliament?
Mr Hague
My right hon. Friend knows very well that current Session is now pretty full of legislation, and there is, of course, further legislation to come, on counter-terrorism powers, which I hope will receive wide support from Members on both sides of the House. My colleagues in the Treasury are considering the legislation that will be necessary to make the changes outlined in the written statement, and will introduce it when parliamentary time allows.
Business of the House
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
I have not had any request from DCLG about making a statement in the House, but I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman raising the issue and asking for an update. I will convey that to my ministerial colleagues, including that great Yorkshireman who presides over the Department.
Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The Leader of the House has announced that on Tuesday we will debate the recall Bill. Looking at the Order Paper I can see that there is a motion for Second Reading and a money resolution but no programme motion. Is it his intention to table a programme motion between now and Tuesday so that when we debate the Second Reading we can pace ourselves for the Committee stage?
Devolution (Scotland Referendum)
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the former Prime Minister and, in a moment, I will deal head on with the argument he has just made about two classes of MPs. I am delighted that this issue has been taken off the back burner and put on the legislative hot plate by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who as party leader some 15 years ago set out a very clear statement of our party’s policies on this.
Let me deal with the argument we have just heard about two classes of MPs. First, it asks the wrong question. We are here to represent our constituents, so the question is not whether there should be two classes of MPs, but whether there should be two classes of constituents, one of which would be for those who have a significantly more powerful democratic leverage than the other. Post-devolution, the Scottish voter has more democratic leverage than the English voter. Through his or her MSP, he or she has total control over the matters that have been devolved to Holyrood. That is fair enough. They have leverage over those matters that have not been devolved, such as defence. That is fair enough. But they also have leverage over matters that exclusively apply to England, and in some cases that influence is decisive. My voters have none of that. They have no leverage over devolved matters in Scotland, and they can be outvoted on matters that are exclusively English. That is indefensible and unsustainable, as some of us have been saying since 1999.
Let me deal with the question about all MPs being equal. MPs are not equal. Post-devolution, we have different case loads. Four Members of Parliament never vote. MPs who are Ministers cannot initiate debates on behalf of their constituents or ask parliamentary questions. Some MPs can speak for more than six minutes, and others cannot. Some are paid more because of their responsibilities in the House. It is not the case that all MPs are equal.
The McKay commission summed up the situation very well in paragraph 59 of its report:
“These survey findings suggest a potent combination of dissatisfactions in England. There is a clear and enduring sense that England is materially disadvantaged relative to the other parts of the UK, especially Scotland.”
What a disappointing response we heard from Opposition Front Benchers to that clear statement. They refused to answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on what the principle that the Labour party seeks to defend might be.
Margaret Curran
I am quite taken by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is so focused on the role of Scottish Members of Parliament. In his principles and plans, does he intend to apply that focus to Members of the House of Lords as well, or is he only worried about the House of Commons?
Sir George Young
The proposition in my party’s manifesto was absolutely clear: it applies to Members of this House.
Sir George Young
I want to make some progress and so will not give way.
In 1999, it looked as though we might make some progress on rebalancing the constitution post-devolution. The fourth report of the Procedure Committee in the 1998-99 Session looked at the consequences of devolution for this House. The report was unanimous and the Committee included a majority of Labour MPs. This is what they said, in paragraph 25:
“The main point of principle to be considered is whether it is appropriate to retain special procedures for bills relating exclusively to one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom, as currently apply to bills relating exclusively to Scotland or Wales. On balance we believe it is.”
That was the proposition put forward unanimously by a Select Committee of the House, and it provided the building blocks for resolving the West Lothian question.
However, for the rest of that Parliament, and for the subsequent two Parliaments, we had nothing but obfuscation by the Labour party. First we were promised regional assemblies, and when they imploded we were offered a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. That, in the polite words of the Library, “met infrequently”. It met infrequently because the previous Government never actually set it up. After it was abolished, we then had the fiasco of the regional Committees at the end of the last Parliament, which often could not meet because they were inquorate.
Throughout the previous three Parliaments, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends harried the Government time and again to do something about the West Lothian question. The flimsiest of arguments were produced in response. On one occasion, the then Deputy Leader of the House said:
“The arguments are new and opportunistic, and they were not heard when the Conservatives were in government.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 60WH.]
Of course they were, because Scotland did not have its own Parliament when we were in government. In response to the Procedure Committee’s clear recommendation, which I have just referred to, the Government said:
“If…it were possible to identify some Bills as relating exclusively to England, it is not clear what benefit that would have for the House.”
That was an absolutely astonishing statement. They put the telescope to the blind eye.
To bring us up to date, my party made a clear commitment in our manifesto to put that right:
“Labour have refused to address the so-called ‘West Lothian Question’: the unfair situation of Scottish MPs voting on matters which are devolved. A Conservative government will introduce new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or to England and Wales, cannot be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those countries.”
That did not make it into the coalition agreement, as a result of caution on the part of our Liberal Democrat colleagues—having listened to the Deputy Prime Minister during Question Time, however, I think that they might be reviewing that position.
What should we do now? There have been a number of imaginative suggestions from right hon. and hon. Friends, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). One possible solution was in the Scotland Act 1978, which would have introduced devolution had it been carried in a referendum. It stipulated that if it turned out that a measure that impacted only on England was carried by Scottish votes, there should be an interim period for reconsideration. That recommendation was never implemented because the referendum produced a negative vote.
I would suggest that a Bill should get a Second Reading with all Members of the House voting, then go to a Public Bill Committee composed solely of English MPs, and then come back on Report during which everybody can vote. However, if it turned out that a specific amendment had been carried only with the votes of Scottish MPs, the relevant section of the Bill should be recommitted back to the Public Bill Committee. We would then have a process that we are familiar with through, for example, negotiating with the House of Lords. If we can negotiate to get a Bill through with the Lords, we can negotiate with elected English MPs to get it through the Commons.
Business of the House
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
I will be going to Clacton next week, and I trust that Opposition Members will be going there, because in Newark their vote fell, which, for an Opposition, is quite remarkable in a by-election. If they are not careful, the same will happen in Clacton. We all enjoy taking part in by-elections, and that is particularly so for the one in Clacton.
I note that the hon. Lady has written an article for the LabourList website, which talks about the Labour party now showing
“real fiscal responsibility and an understanding that in the next Parliament we will have less money to spend, not more.”
Will she convey that to the shadow Chancellor, or, still better, become shadow Chancellor? I would happily nominate her for that post, because he does not seem to show any recognition of having put the country £160 billion a year in debt. He recently racked up £21 billion of spending commitments without having the slightest idea of how to pay for them.
Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)
With the publication of the recall Bill, will the Leader of the House tell the House what progress has been made with the Bills that were announced in the Queen’s Speech and say whether the recall Bill is a constitutional Bill, with all stages to be taken on the Floor of the House?
Mr Hague
We are making good progress. The introduction today of the Recall of MPs Bill means that we have introduced 10 of the 11 Government Bills promised in the Queen’s Speech, and they are proceeding well through Parliament, despite the fact that we have had some additional emergency legislation, as my right hon. Friend knows. I announced in the business statement that the Committee stage will begin on Monday 20 October on the Floor of the House, so, yes, we will be taking all stages of the legislation here.
Select Committee on Governance of the House
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I am conscious that I am the fourth former Leader of the House to speak, with possibly one more still to come. I fundamentally disagree with what the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) said about the role of the Clerk of the House.
It is worth reminding the House of what happened when the other place decided to modernise an historic office of Parliament—namely the office of Lord Chancellor —and split it into its component parts. There were all sorts of good intentions, but it turned out to be not nearly as straightforward as the authors of the plan assumed and resulted in a considerable backlash. That should be a warning to us to proceed with care, as the motion proposes.
On the central issue of whether it is realistic to expect the diverse qualities needed for a Clerk of the House on the one hand and a chief executive on the other to be found in one person, my view is that in the case of Sir Robert Rogers the answer was yes. I said as much in the tributes to him a few weeks ago, as did many others. One of the key questions for the Select Committee is whether it continues to be realistic to expect to find one person to hold those qualities or whether they need to be separated. The other reason that the Select Committee needs to re-examine the issue is this: not only should it look at separation, but it should look at something short of separation—a sort of devo-max; in other words, as hinted at by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), keeping a Clerk, but having underneath him a chief operating officer to whom certain functions are delegated.
The House has to be crystal clear on the issue of accountability. As Sir Robert Rogers made clear in his letter, many of the decisions that he took as Clerk impacted on the decisions he took as chief executive and vice versa. If we had a chief operating officer answerable to the Clerk, that would provide a focus for services of the House and avoid all the problems of having co-equals, and it would not need legislation. Without primary legislation, the Clerk would still be the corporate officer, with statutory responsibilities that could not be separated from the responsibilities of a chief executive.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend recall that in Sir Kevin Tebbit’s report into the management of this place, one of his recommendations—recommendation 19—was that there should be such a role, namely an operating officer with commercial experience who was the deputy to the Clerk?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for refreshing the House’s memory of that particular Tebbit recommendation. If we had two co-equals, they could play Members off against each other; indeed, Members could play them off against each other too. That has to be taken on board.
Mr Jenkin
I do not prejudge this question, but if we went for a chief operating officer under the Clerk, the really important thing is that the chief operating officer should be directly and visibly accountable, in a way that the present officers under the Clerk are not visible and accountable.
Sir George Young
I think the Commission could make that happen in the terms of reference if we go down that particular route.
I agree that some of the considerable burdens on the Clerk’s shoulders should be removed. In the meantime, I think the appointment process should not be paused; I think it should be aborted. If Carol Mills, with whom I have some sympathy, wanted to show that she understands how this place works, she would withdraw her application, resolve a constitutional impasse and generate some good will among colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) made a good point about there being robust interim arrangements in place.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) said, we have to take on board the interface with the other place, where there is a Clerk of the Parliaments, who has a unified command. How would he interface if one separated the jobs down this end?
I have two final points. I am slightly worried about the ambitious time scale for the Select Committee. Nominations for the proposed Select Committee do not close for over a month and then there are but three months to complete the task, including Christmas. The House may have other things on its mind by then. Braithwaite and Tebbit took many months, with people doing nothing else. We may need an interim report in January, if the ground is to be thoroughly covered, and a final report later.
I end by gently asking a question. What would have happened in this case had we not had the safety valve of the Backbench Business Committee, enabling the House not just to make its views known, but to pass a resolution, in a way that was not possible before—a resolution that I am happy to support?
Business of the House
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
The hon. Lady was right to start her questions by referring to some of the horrific events of recent days and the crimes against humanity that are being committed in Iraq and in Syria. The House’s united voice on the matter is very important, as was discussed at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. She has welcomed the holding of a broad foreign policy debate next week. That is an important response to the demand for such a debate. It is important, too, that regular statements are made. There is a need for both those things when there are so many crises in the world. I made perhaps more statements than any Foreign Secretary in history when I was Foreign Secretary. I know that my successor will also want to make regular statements on these huge issues. Whenever it is possible to have a debate as well, so that Members can discuss them in more detail, we will have one, including next week.
On tackling extremism and bringing forward legislation, again the Prime Minister made the position clear at Prime Minister’s questions. We will introduce specific and targeted legislation to provide the police with a temporary power to seize a passport at the border. We are clear in principle that we need a targeted and discretionary power to allow us to exclude British nationals from the UK. We will work up proposals on that and discuss them on a cross-party basis. It is important to have as much cross-party unity on this as we possibly can.
It is important to get that legislation right. Over centuries there has been a legitimate debate in this country on where the balance is to be struck between liberty and security. That arises every time there is a threat to our national security. The House of Commons has always had a variety of views on these matters, so we must make every effort to proceed on a cross-party basis. Consistent with acting with sufficient speed, we will try to get the legislation right. That means that it will not be introduced next week; we will be ready to do that at some stage after the conference recess.
The hon. Lady asked whether there would be a statement by the Prime Minister on Monday following the NATO summit. There will be. The Prime Minister is very keen to do that and to inform the House after that summit. There will be time in Wednesday’s debate to discuss the situation in Ukraine.
On the Elliott review, a written ministerial statement has been published today by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. There will be a debate on food fraud on Monday on the Floor of the House. The Secretary of State has accepted all the recommendations giving top priority to the needs of consumers, improving laboratory testing capacity and capability, introducing new unannounced audit checks by the food industry and many other measures. They are set out in the written ministerial statement.
The hon. Lady took the Chief Whip to task again, although I was a bit disappointed that it was the same joke about his being in the toilet as seven weeks ago. Recycling has its limits and we would like slightly more up-to-date—[Interruption.] I am all in favour of recycling jokes, but I expect more from the hon. Lady. I am sure that she will be able to deliver that next week.
I cannot go into the Prime Minister’s plans for his birthday, but certainly I and many of my hon. Friends will be visiting Clacton in the coming weeks. Our former hon. Friend Douglas Carswell explained in May that the Conservative party’s policy on Europe was 100% right. He may be the only person in British history to leave a political party because he was 100% in agreement with it. That is particularly striking as there are many people who sit in this House in their political parties perfectly happily who certainly do not agree 100% with their party’s policies; that is true in every party. This is no doubt something he will want to explain to the voters of Clacton, and it will be very interesting to see how he tries to do so.
The shadow Leader of the House accused the Government, or the Conservative party, of having no strategy on Europe. That is a bit rich from a member of a party that was against a referendum before the European constitution came up, then in favour of one and announced one, then against one when it came to actually holding the referendum, then against one on the Lisbon treaty, then against our referendum Act of 2011, but now has accepted it into law, then toyed with the idea of being in favour of a referendum, and has now come out against it. There is absolutely no way we will take any lectures from the Opposition on strategy on Europe.
I conclude by saying that after a summer recess in which we have seen strong figures on GDP growth in this country, our world economic ranking for competitiveness now go up four places from where it was left by the last Government on grounds of controlling the fiscal deficit, an excellent reduction in unemployment and a growth in employment figures, a major increase in car registration, and consumer confidence at its highest for a long time, it is rather revealing that there are no requests from those on the Opposition Benches to discuss the economy and the long-term economic plan of the Government.
Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The House will welcome what my right hon. Friend has just said: that there will be a statement from the Prime Minister on Monday on the NATO summit. Will he confirm that on Wednesday the general debate will run until 7 o’clock? After 7 o’clock, when we move on to the Backbench Business Committee debate, will there be a time limit or it will be open-ended?
Mr Hague
Yes, certainly the debate on foreign affairs and security will be able to run until 7 o’clock. That is a full day’s debate, and there are many, many issues that hon. and right hon. Members will wish to address, so it will last until 7 pm, provided that that time is taken up. I therefore envisage that the debate requested by the Backbench Business Committee on the governance of the House will take place after that, and between now and then we will bring forward a business of the House motion to facilitate that, and to establish an appropriate time limit on that debate.
Retirement of the Clerk of the House
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). One advantage of no longer being Chief Whip is that one can take part in debates rather than moving, from the Dispatch Box, that they be curtailed. I can think of no better way of resuming an innings on the Back Benches than by adding a brief and well-deserved footnote to the generous tributes that have been paid to Robert Rogers, who holds a post that 100 years ago was held by my great-grandfather, Sir Courtenay Ilbert.
Sir Robert joined the House at about the same time as I did and, as we have heard, he helped to guide the House through the changes that were necessary if we were to continue to do our job properly. He was on my radar in the 1990s when I was shadow Leader of the House, when he was secretary to the Braithwaite committee—one of many committees set up to consider the administration of the House—which considered the vexed question of whether the job of the Clerk should be split into two, a Clerk and a CEO. He navigated his way around those rocky waters with dexterity.
That debate is for another time, but I endorse what the Leader of the House has just said: in my view, Sir Robert has all the qualities necessary to perform the job of both Clerk and chief executive and he has the energy to do both at the same time. His knowledge of procedure is legendary, but is backed up with some sensitive antennae that can assess the mood of the House, steer it through “Erskine May” and arrive at the destination that the House needs to reach. He has been a fantastic chief executive, which requires a totally different portfolio of skills from that of the Clerk. He has pioneered the introduction of new technology into this place and has been the accounting officer for a huge budget. He has taken his HR responsibilities very seriously and has helped to shape the debate about the long-term future of the building.
He has always been totally impartial. As Leader of the House and as Chief Whip, I have had frequent occasions to ask his advice and he always put the interests and reputation of the House at the heart of any advice. The Deputy Leader of the House at the time has asked me to say how grateful he was to the Clerk for his advice on the highly complex issue of privilege.
Sir Robert has been a great servant of Parliament. He is a civilised man, a successful author, a man with a mischievous sense of humour, legible handwriting and a delightful turn of phrase. He is excellent company, and he is a man with interests outside this place. We wish him and Jane all the best as he pursues those interests with the same commitment and enthusiasm with which he pursued the interests of the House, its staff and its Members.
Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)
May I add a brief footnote to these exchanges and, in so doing, speak for the first time for 22 years from the Government Back Benches? May I place on the record my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and his Deputy for getting the two best jobs in the Government? They have the necessary qualities of respect and affection for the House to enable them to discharge their duties, and they will be assisted by an outstanding private office and the best Parliamentary Private Secretary in the business. I wish them well in navigating the Government’s legislative programme through the House.
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the report refer to John Lyon. I worked with John Lyon for his first two years in the post, when I chaired the Standards and Privileges Committee, and I endorse every word in paragraph 5. I pay tribute to his discretion, and one of his predecessors had difficulties on that front. He was meticulous in his dealings with the press, and I commend his integrity and thoroughness, and the clarity with which he wrote his reports. As we have heard, he was commissioner at a time of unparalleled difficulties for the House, but he never faltered. I know that he will want to clear his in- tray to the extent that he can before he departs from office, and we wish him well in his retirement. We are all grateful to the selection board for sifting the candidates. I was very impressed by Kathryn Hudson’s quiet authority when she was interviewed by the Commission. She has absolutely the right background and I wish her well.
Finally, paragraph 12 deals with the number of days. This job is demand-led, in that the in-tray is determined by the propensity of Members of Parliament to misbehave and the propensity of members of the public to complain about it. Neither of those things can be forecast. I think it is right to start where we have started and then raise the work load if necessary. I know that the incoming commissioner will be reassured by the commitment from the Commission to give the resources that are necessary should the work load, for whatever reason, increase. With those remarks, I join others in commending the motion.
Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
I beg to move,
(1) That a Committee of this House be established, to be called the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, to consider and report on—
(a) professional standards and culture of the UK banking sector, taking account of regulatory and competition investigations into the LIBOR rate-setting process;
(b) lessons to be learned about corporate governance, transparency and conflicts of interest, and their implications for regulation and for Government policy;
and to make recommendations for legislative and other action.
(2) That Mr Andrew Tyrie be Chair of the Commission.
(3) That Mark Garnier, Mr Andrew Love, Mr Pat McFadden and John Thurso be members of the Commission.
(4) That the Commission have leave to join with any committee appointed by the Lords to consider the said matters.
(5) That the Commission may hold meetings under the provisions of paragraph (4) of this order at any time after the Lords has agreed to appoint a committee.
(6) That the Commission shall, except as provided for in this order, follow the procedure of a select committee of this House.
(7) That the Commission shall have power—
(a) to send for persons, papers and records;
(b) to examine witnesses on oath;
(c) to appoint specialist advisers;
(d) to invite specialist advisers (including Counsel appointed as specialist advisers) to examine witnesses;
(e) to adjourn from place to place;
(f) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; and
(g) to report from time to time.
(8) That the Commission shall have power to appoint sub-committees to consider matters specified by the Commission within the terms of this order and a subcommittee shall have—
(a) the powers in paragraph (7)(a), (b), (e) and (f); and
(b) the power to invite specialist advisers appointed by the Commission (including Counsel appointed as specialist advisers) to examine witnesses;
and the quorum of a sub-committee shall, subject to paragraph (12)(b), be one member of this House.
(9) That the Chair may report to the House an order, resolution or Special Report as an order, resolution or Special Report of the Commission which has not been agreed at a meeting of the Commission if he is satisfied that he has consulted all members of the Commission about the terms of the order, resolution or Special Report and that it represents a decision of the majority of the Commission.
(10) That the quorum of the Commission shall be two members of this House.
(11) That, whenever this House shall stand adjourned other than to the next day, any report, Special Report, order or resolution agreed to by, or evidence taken or received by, the Commission, including any under paragraph (9) of this order, may be published or printed under the authority of this House, shall be deemed to have been reported and shall be reported when this House next sits.
(12) That, when the Commission operates under the provisions of paragraph (4) of this order, the following provisions shall apply—
(a) the quorum of the Commission shall be two members of this House and two members of the House of Lords;
(b) the quorum of any sub-committee shall be one member from either House; and
(c) the power of the Chair to report under paragraph (9) may also be exercised with the Chair’s agreement by a member of the Commission who is a member of the House of Lords.
(13) That the costs of the Commission shall be assessed by the House of Commons Commission from time to time and shall be paid by Her Majesty’s Government for the credit of the House of Commons (Administration) Estimate.
(14) That the Commission shall report on legislative action no later than 18 December 2012 and on other matters as soon as possible thereafter.
(15) That a message be sent to the House of Lords to desire their concurrence.
On 5 July, the House debated professional standards in the banking industry for a full day and resolved to establish a Joint Committee of the two Houses on that matter. As I said in that debate, I do not think there is any disagreement between the Government and the Opposition on what we need to do, which is to sustain in the UK a strong, vibrant, transparent and more accountable financial sector that commands international confidence.
The motion before us is the result of negotiation following the House’s decision to establish a Joint Committee. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) for the work that he has undertaken while also chairing a very active Select Committee. I also thank Her Majesty’s Opposition. Following the debate, it was essential that Parliament was seen to be acting in the best interests of the public in resolving the issue before it, and that could happen only if the Joint Committee were supported not only by the parties in Government but by the Opposition. I am grateful to those who have added their signatures to the motion.
I do not intend to detain the House for long. I want to make five points, spending half a minute on each. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the Leader of the House makes his five points, to which I wish to listen carefully, may I gently say to the House that he should be heard? Any Member should be heard, but the Leader of the House is a very senior Member, and Members should not be sitting chuntering to each other; they should show him some courtesy, which they all learnt at one time.
Sir George Young
As I said, I have five points and will spend half a minute on each one.
First, the process to establish the Commission is not following the normal process for establishing a Joint Committee. The Commission, if established tonight, will be able to begin its work immediately and to meet during the recess. It is my hope that before the other place rises, it will also establish a Committee of an equal number of members to act jointly with the Commission that we are establishing tonight.
Secondly, the Commission is being established with powers that are already inherent in our parliamentary system. It will also have the novel power to invite special advisers, including counsel appointed by the Commission, to examine witnesses. I do not think that that will become the modus operandi of other Select Committees, but it will give the Commission the teeth that it needs to carry out its important investigative role quickly and effectively.
Thirdly, it is proposed that
“the Commission shall have power to appoint sub-committees to consider matters specified by the Commission”.
Unusually, the sub-committees will have a quorum of one. I have discussed that with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester. The purpose is to allow a single member of the Commission to consider a specific issue, for example a technical matter, and to send for papers with a view to informing the wider Commission. That will feed into the Commission’s work and allow it to tackle a broad-ranging subject in a compressed time frame.
Fourthly, paragraph (13) of the motion directs the House of Commons Commission to assess the costs arising from the Parliamentary Commission to be paid by the Government. As the Chancellor said in the debate on 5 July:
“I commit to giving it any resources it needs to do its job.”—[Official Report, 5 July 2012; Vol. 547, c. 1136.]
I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who sought reassurance during our debate on 5 July that the Commission should not raid
“the staff and resources of other Committees.”—[Official Report, 5 July 2012; Vol. 547, c. 1149.]
Fifthly and finally, the motion sets a deadline for a report on legislative action of 18 December. That will include pre-legislative scrutiny of the banking reform Bill and any recommendations of the Commission’s inquiry that require a legislative vehicle in order to be implemented. The December deadline will give the Government time to consider any recommendations in time for the introduction of the banking reform Bill, which is planned for January 2013. If the Commission cannot complete all its work by 18 December, we will expect it to report on the other areas as soon as possible thereafter.
We have in this Parliament the skills, expertise and mandate to do the job. I am confident in the ability of the new Commission to rise to the challenges that confront us and to address the central issue at stake: restoring confidence in the UK banking industry. I commend the motion to the House.