Business of the House

Mark Harper Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government are gravely concerned by reports of church closures in Algeria, including the recent closures to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The Government have been active in raising cases with the Algerian authorities, including at senior levels, underlining the importance of freedom of religion or belief, as set out in Algeria’s own constitution, and the need for Algeria to ensure that its laws and practices are consistent with the constitution. The promotion and protection of religious freedom is a high priority for the UK in all its international engagement.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

The Leader of the House has set out his wish that the deal we have secured does not get bogged down for weeks and months. The Prime Minister has also said that—and I agree. If, as a result of the European Union’s decision, when it arrives, about the length of an extension, an opportunity presents itself to get that excellent deal ratified more swiftly, will the Leader of the House ensure that a Minister, if not the Prime Minister, can come to the House at an early opportunity to update the House about the Government’s plans?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government will, of course, keep the House updated on any developments, measures or happenings that take place at any time in relation to the European Union. The Prime Minister has spent almost 15 hours at the Dispatch Box, and he has therefore been most assiduous in answering right hon. and hon. Members’ questions.

Business of the House

Mark Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think the original understanding of limbo—one that is no longer widely accepted—is that it was a place for the souls of the unbaptised and for those who died before salvation was brought to us at the point of the Resurrection, but I think the understanding now is that that is rather a narrow interpretation.

The issue of what motivates people to vote in this House is one that is always very difficult to settle. I have always accepted that right hon. and hon. Members in this House want what is best for the country, but think that there are different ways to do it. But we must draw conclusions from people’s actions, and I do not think it is unreasonable to conclude that people who voted against the Second Reading of this Bill and against the programme motion are not the greatest admirers of the proposals towards Brexit.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

In the exchange that the Leader of the House and I had yesterday, I said, and he agreed with me, that if people voted against the programme motion they would have blocked Brexit. They have indeed done that for a period, and that is a fact. The question in front of us all is whether they have blocked Brexit permanently, and that is something I think we should deal with. I am grateful to those Members who have taken the difficult personal decisions on behalf of their constituents to vote for Second Reading, and I urge my right hon. Friend and others on the Treasury Bench to think about ways in which we can deliver Brexit on 31 October—to get it done—while allowing the House more time to debate it, to see whether those two things can be reconciled. I note in conclusion that the Opposition Chief Whip did make an offer along those lines this afternoon, and that is something I think worthy of at least some consideration.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is hard to see how the time could have been divided up otherwise. My right hon. Friend mentions the commitment to leave on 31 October and says that people may have voted to obstruct Brexit; they may find that all they voted for is for us to leave without a deal.

Business of the House

Mark Harper Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think the point is extremely obvious. If Parliament is legislating for something it is voting on it; under CRAG there is no need to have a vote on a treaty that is laid in front of this House.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I listened carefully to what the Leader said. He set out in his business statement the Government’s intentions for how long the Bill should take to pass through the House. That will happen only if the House agrees by voting for the programme motion. On Saturday, when the House failed to take a decision in principle following the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) being successfully carried, many who voted for his amendment were clear that they wanted the House to be able to vote on this deal and get it through. I think even the shadow Chancellor suggested that it could get through by 31 October. It is only going to do so if that programme motion is carried. Can my right hon. Friend confirm to the House that if any Member votes against that programme motion, it will be fairly clear that what they were doing on Saturday and what they will be doing tomorrow is not trying to give the House more opportunity to consider this matter, but trying to frustrate the decision being taken?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend’s grasp of detail is so great that it explains why Baroness Hale thought he was the Chief Whip; he is clearly completely on top of the subject, and that was an entirely understandable error to have made. He is of course absolutely right, and there is a very serious point in this: people who do not vote for the programme motion will be voting not to have Brexit on 31 October. They will need to understand that clearly, and they will not be able to persuade one set of people that they voted for Second Reading and therefore were in favour and another set that they voted against the timetable and were against; that won’t work.

Business of the House (Saturday 19 October)

Mark Harper Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I will keep my remarks brief because I am conscious that the House wishes to make a decision and the Leader of the House made such a comprehensive speech. I first want to reflect briefly on the timings for Saturday. I heard what the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said. It is very clear under what is known as the Benn Act—I will give it that term, given that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) is in the Chamber—that a decision has to be made by the House before the close of business on Saturday if an extension request is to be avoided. The reason why the drafting of the Act is so important is that now that the Prime Minister has secured a deal that has been recommended for approval by the Presidents of the Commission and the Council, an extension secured under the Act would be particularly perverse, because it would specifically require the Prime Minister to seek an extension not in order to pass the deal he has just achieved, but to go back and try to pass the deal rejected three times by this House. That seems to me to be remarkably foolish. I see the right hon. Member for Leeds Central looking at me quizzically, but that is what section 1(4) of his Act says, and it seems to me that that would be ridiculous. Avoiding that foolish eventuality does necessitate a sitting on Saturday.

My second point, in response to the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), is that the Benn Act requires the House to make a clear decision on whether it approves the deal. The cluttering up of a motion with lots of qualifications may not comply with the terms of the Act and it will be confusing. It may be that if my right hon. Friend’s amendment were passed, Members might be tempted to try to frustrate reaching a deal by tacking on an amendment for a second referendum. I wish to avoid that outcome and would say that anybody who votes in favour of my right hon. Friend’s amendment is helping those who wish not to carry out the democratic wishes of the British public.

The final point I want to make is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to note—perhaps he can respond to us before Saturday—and it is about ensuring that we are all able to be here. I understand that a march or a demonstration is to take place. First, will he make sure that the Metropolitan police take steps to ensure that Members may access the parliamentary estate and leave the estate in good order, and will that fact be communicated to Members? Secondly, will he not only ensure that all the documents are made available online, but reflect on how they will be made available to Members in hard copy in good time for the debate? Will he ensure that that information is communicated clearly? That will help to facilitate a good debate. I look forward to the House’s approving that debate today and its taking place forthwith.

Business of the House

Mark Harper Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Gentleman has not asked for a debate, an Adjournment debate or a statement. His question is therefore irrelevant.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

If the House does indeed sit on Saturday, and if it does indeed approve the deal that the Prime Minister has secured, does it remain the Government’s intention to bring forward the legislation necessary to implement that deal so that we can leave by 31 October? Will the Leader of the House therefore be returning to the House on Monday to make a further business statement?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that important question. If the motion tabled for Saturday is passed, legislation will have to follow, so I fear that I may be troubling the House with further statements next week.

Business Statement

Mark Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The report was meant to have been laid on 14 October, so I can only apologise if it is not in the Vote Office. That will be looked into immediately after I have sat down. With regard to Saturday, the issue there is that a Saturday sitting is an extremely unusual process dependent upon events, but the events that may require a Saturday sitting have not yet reached their fruition. It is only after that point has been reached that it would be sensible to confirm what exactly will be happening on Saturday, but of course it will be my aim to bring an announcement to the House as soon as possible in that regard.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I did not intend to intervene on the Leader of the House until the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) asked his question about Saturday. It might just be worth drawing this point to his attention, because he does raise some perfectly understandable diary uncertainty. The challenge around the Saturday sitting was really put in train by all those Members of the House who voted for the surrender Act. It is the deadline in that Act, Saturday 19 October, which would potentially necessitate the sitting of this House on that day, so if he has diary concerns, he should really look in the mirror.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend makes an absolutely valid point. It was of course the surrender Act that set the date of 19 October for its coming into force and that is why events may have to take place on Saturday. I hope that Members of the House will be reassured that the House has met on a Saturday in 1956 and 1982. We are Members of Parliament. It is our duty to attend to the serious business of the state, as we had set out to us by Her Majesty only yesterday, and to meet twice or three times on a Saturday in 70 years is not too inconvenient, even for those with the most pressing diary concerns.

Business of the House

Mark Harper Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady says from a sedentary position that it is general knowledge. Just because something has been in the newspapers, it does not make it general knowledge. It was attributed to me in a Cabinet meeting. Cabinet meetings are confidential. The files will be released under the 30-year rule in the normal way. I reiterate the Government’s position, as expressed by the Prime Minister:

“I have the highest respect, of course, for the judiciary and the independence of our courts, but I must say I strongly disagree with the judgment, and we in the UK will not be deterred from getting on and delivering on the will of the people to come out of the EU on 31 October, because that is what we were mandated to do.”

That is the Government’s position and that is my position.

The hon. Member for Walsall South said that we had been “spinning” our disagreement with the judgment. No, we had not. It was not spin; it was a straightforward statement by the Prime Minister, but with the highest respect for the judiciary. It is reasonable to disagree with somebody whom you respect. Dare I say it, Mr Speaker, sometimes I have disagreed with you, but that has never reduced my respect.

The hon. Lady raised the cost of Prorogation. If we remain in the European Union after 31 October, which the Opposition want, it would cost us £250 million a week. Any cost of Prorogation pales into insignificance compared with the extravagance wished upon the hard-pressed taxpayer by those on the Opposition Benches in their proposals.

Then we have the extraordinary view from the Opposition that our actions are not in support of parliamentary democracy. Government Members want a general election. What is more democratic than that? What sort of tyrants are we that we are willing to go to the British people and say, “Ladies and gentlemen, you choose: do you want my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) or the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)?” We know why the Opposition are running away from a general election and are so scared of it. They do not back their leader, let alone think that the country will. We know that people think our leader is a great, inspirational, charismatic figure. We trust the people and the Opposition do not.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I have a question about tomorrow’s business, but if you will allow me a small indulgence, Mr Speaker, I would like to refer to a matter that the shadow Leader of the House mentioned. She said that she would be grateful if you allowed the full judgment of the Supreme Court to be read into the record. I second that because the summary judgment contains an inadvertent error. I was listening to the esteemed President of the Supreme Court yesterday while I was eating my toast and marmalade, and I almost dropped said toast and marmalade when I discovered that, according to Lady Hale:

“Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Privy Council, Mr Mark Harper, chief whip… attended a meeting of the Privy Council held by the Queen at Balmoral Castle.”

I must say, I could not recollect having done so. I would be grateful if the Lord President of the Privy Council confirmed that it was indeed my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), who is the most excellent current Government Chief Whip, who attended the meeting. It would save me a lot of grief from those constituents who have written to me, wondering why I was attending upon Her Majesty at Balmoral castle.

The serious point about the business of the House tomorrow is on the motion to approve the conference Adjournment. If the Opposition are churlish enough not to be generous and support that motion, and the House sits next week, perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House could find time for a debate on the Labour conference’s extraordinary decision today to have a policy of no immigration controls, which would allow literally anyone from anywhere in the world to come to Britain, use our national health service, have unlimited benefits and vote in our elections. That policy deserves wide promulgation. I feel sure it will see us well in any forthcoming general election.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and it seems that there was some confusion over forests. He is of course the Member for the Forest of Dean, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip is the Member for Sherwood forest, where, I seem to remember, Robin Hood spent his formative years. My right hon. Friend’s point about the Labour party policy is why we want a general election; it would be wonderful to put that fantasy world to the British people and I am confident about what they would choose.

Business of the House

Mark Harper Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who set out his case very well. I will talk first about the business of the House motion, before discussing amendment (a) in the name of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), which Mr Speaker has selected. I will then also pick up on one or two points that have been made so far in the debate.

My real problem with the business of the House motion is that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) is attempting to take a controversial Bill—I mean, it is fundamental to the debate that we have been having for the past three years—and, to put it politely, to ram it through the House in a day. My right hon. Friend did not even give sufficient notice of the fact that he was going to do so. That is why my amendment, which I accept Mr Speaker has not selected, proposed a relatively modest change to allow us to debate the business of the House motion today, and then to debate the Bill tomorrow. At least hon. Members would then have had an opportunity to see the Bill, consider it and think about sensible amendments. That would have meant a better process and a reasonable balance. However, I accept my right hon. Friend’s injunction that there is a timetable to this process and that it would have been slightly otiose to have taken months to consider the Bill.

I am not going to dwell on the Bill in great detail, but I will mention it to provide one illustration of why I do not agree with having just a few hours today, with little notice and little opportunity to amend the Bill. One of the fundamental aspects of the Bill was drawn out by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), when she referred to clause 1(6) and (7). These subsections—and the structure of the Bill—refer to the time limit and the extension that may or may not be sought by the Prime Minister, and they mandate the Prime Minister to put before the House a motion that specifically mentions the length of the extension. Hon. Members will understand why I think that is fundamentally flawed, and therefore why the Bill needs more debate, if they think about the extension that the Prime Minister just sought. She sought a straightforward extension of a certain fixed length, but what the European Council actually gave us in return was actually a much more complex matter—a two-part extension with a number of conditions. The way in which the Bill as currently drafted does not really enable that complexity to be put before the House and properly debated.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Everything else that my right hon. Friend has said so far that I do not agree with was accurate, but I do not think that his final point was accurate. It is perfectly possible within the structure of the Bill for the Prime Minister’s motion to explain conditionality on the date because it can add to the motion that is given in form. Also, there is specific provision in clause 1(6) and (7) for the EU to come back with its view, whatever it is. The Prime Minister then has to bring that to the House. Obviously, in bringing it to the House she will need to describe what the EU has said about the conditionality. I do not think that there is any problem with that. The problem that my right hon. Friend has is a deeper one about timing and consideration, and that is a separate matter.

[Mr Harper]

I have listened to my right hon. Friend. I will not spend too much longer on this issue, because I will then be straying into a debate on the Bill. Having just looked at the Bill again, I do not think that my right hon. Friend is accurate, but the fact that he and I—both reasonably competent readers of Bills—have reached different conclusions about the same words proves my point that we need longer to debate the Bill, to test amendments and to understand exactly what the House is being asked to agree.

My right hon. Friend also talked about the role of the other place. This House often does not spend long enough debating legislation and then—it is a process I deprecate—expects the House of Lords, at a slow pace and in more detail, to improve it. I note that the Leader of the House was unable to give any information on what the plan is at the other end of the building, and I do not know whether any information has reached her from the Leader of the House of Lords—

[Andrea Leadsom]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Harper]

My right hon. Friend shakes her head, so we do not have that intelligence. My understanding is that an attempt similar to this one will take place in the other place. It might not be called a business of the House motion—I am not as familiar with the terminology used in the other place—but the intention is effectively to ram the Bill through in a day. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset suggested that the discussions he has had indicate that a large majority of the House of Lords was content with the Bill in advance, which does not suggest to me that it will receive significant scrutiny. Indeed, it sounds as though it is not going to get any scrutiny at all.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend heard the rumour that Government Whips in the other place are not planning in any way to stop the Bill being rammed through in a day? In fact, it has been suggested in some quarters that they might even be seeking discreetly to assist it.

[Mr Harper]

I had not heard that specific piece of information, but even if it is not the case, if the Bill does go through the other place very rapidly, in effect a Bill with significant constitutional effects will have been passed without proper scrutiny in either House.

[Mrs Main]

Before the political point that was just made, my right hon. Friend was making the extremely valuable point that the House of Lords is a revising Chamber. We do the Lords a great disservice if we do not give them adequate time to advise and revise. This House will have very little time to take advantage of all the expertise in that House if its Members are not allowed to do their job in a proper fashion.

[Mr Harper]

I completely agree, but my major point was that I do not like the process whereby we do not consider Bills properly and then expect the Lords to do all the scrutiny. Certainly, when I was taking constitutional legislation through this House a number of years ago, as Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, I tried to ensure that we had sufficient time to debate it properly, because for important constitutional matters, and particularly for this matter, which is effectively about enacting the result of a referendum of the people, it is important that it is elected Members who make the final decisions, not Members of the other place. My principal point on the substance of the business of the House motion is therefore that it provides insufficient time to allow proper scrutiny of the Bill.

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) all referred to precedent. I think that a dispute broke out on the SNP Front Bench, because the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire acknowledged that this process was indeed a precedent, and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West then tried to differentiate it and say that it was not really a precedent, arguing that Brexit is such an unprecedented process that we cannot draw any lessons from the use of this procedure. I think that they are mistaken.

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green made very reasonable points. As a former business manager, I think that future business managers will note that Members from a number of different parties have accepted this as a legitimate process. It is perfectly true, as the shadow Leader of the House said, that Clerks would not allow anything disorderly to take place. That is correct, but a majority in this House can override Standing Orders and ram things through, and it is convention and self-restraint that stop Governments using their majorities in inappropriate ways.

Members on both sides of the House ought to reflect on the fact that if in future a Government with a significant majority choose to use that majority to override the usual conventions and procedures of the House and ram through pieces of controversial legislation in a day, those Members cannot complain that the Government are behaving inappropriately. I would deprecate that behaviour and would not want any part in it, but the people will be watching these proceedings and following this precedent. I am pretty sure that someone will try to use this precedent again at some point, and Members may regret supporting it today.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is speaking about the importance of honouring conventions, which are one of the things that govern this House, but is there not a degree of hypocrisy in the Government making that argument? So often in this Parliament we have seen the Government, who refuse to accept that they are a minority Government, riding roughshod over conventions such as granting Opposition days and taking cognisance of Opposition day motions passed by the House.

[Mr Harper]

I accept some of the arguments that the hon. Gentleman makes. I have not been a member of this Government; I have not served as a Minister under this Prime Minister. Certainly when I was a Minister and when I was responsible for scheduling the business of the House as the Government Chief Whip, we did vote on Opposition days, and when we had a longer Session we gave the Opposition the appropriate number of days. I often argued that we should restrain the use of our majority, to ensure that we behaved properly. There is some substance in what the hon. Gentleman says. There has been, to some extent, an equal and opposite reaction by the Opposition, who have explored mechanisms such as use of the Humble Address because they have been frustrated that the Government have not responded appropriately to Opposition days. The Government should reflect on that.

But in a way, that rather proves my point, which is that if Members behave in this way today and ram through a piece of controversial, contested legislation without a consensus in the House, they should not be surprised if in future a Government with a majority use this precedent and behave in the same way. When those Members are arguing against that, they will find the arguments they are making today being thrown back at them, and the force of their argument will be undercut.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an interesting speech. This procedure has been used in the past for legislation on Northern Ireland or even the Emergency Powers (Defence) Bill in 1939, but does he agree that it has always been when it was desperately important to get legislation through and there was a broad consensus on it—not, as we see today, when there is clearly a debate to be had about whether something is the right thing to do?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I agree. My hon. Friend mentions Northern Ireland. I listened carefully to the point made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). Measures on Northern Ireland security matters and others have been expedited through the House because there has been a generally accepted need on both sides and between the usual channels that there is a need to do so. We have taken legislation through this House and the other place on a single day. She gave good examples of recent measures for which that has taken place. I understand that it has taken place with agreement between both Front-Bench teams, but she makes a perfectly reasonable point. I looked carefully at the most recent example of that, and I could not see any particular urgency or need to do that in a single day. It was agreed by the usual channels, but it may not necessarily be in the interests of Back-Bench Members, and particularly those from Northern Ireland, who may wish to have developed arguments about that legislation more fully than was possible. She made a good point.

The final point I want to make about the business of the House motion itself is in relation to the point made by the shadow Leader of the House on the detail of the legislation. She referred briefly to the Bill and made some points that I will not debate now, because that is properly to be done later. However, just as in the exchange between my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and me, I do not agree with the points she made about the Bill, but the fact that, again, two people who understand the processes of the House can come to opposite conclusions about the words in the legislation just proves to me that we should have more time to debate it.

Moving on, I want to say a few words about amendment (a), which you have selected, Mr Speaker, in the name of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central. It is not about today’s business, but an attempt to secure time on Monday. From listening to him, I think the plan is to have another session of indicative votes, and I want to say one or two words about that before I conclude. He, I think accurately, quoted the words in the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday that

“the Government stands ready to abide by the decision of the House”

in the event that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are unable in their talks today and perhaps later to agree on a unified approach.

I do not disagree with the Prime Minister doing so, but that precedent should have been followed rather earlier. It still remains the case that, so far in this process, the only proposition on which the House has voted with a majority is the so-called Brady amendment, which received a majority of 16 on 29 January. I am disappointed that the Prime Minister did not take the instruction of the House on that occasion and successfully prosecute a renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement to amend the backstop. I accept the result of the referendum, but for me it is very important that the whole of the United Kingdom leaves the European Union together and does not split apart.

[Lady Hermon]

The right hon. Gentleman mentions the backstop. May I just remind him and other Members of the House that all the arguments—all the bitter arguments—about the backstop will become totally irrelevant if we do not approve the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal? We need the Brexit deal to be signed and approved by this House in order to have an implementation period, and it is only at the end of the implementation period that a backstop even becomes a possibility—a possibility—not a necessary or a requirement at that stage. We need the Bill.

[Mr Harper]

I note very carefully what the hon. Lady says. I have opposed the Cabinet’s withdrawal agreement and political declaration twice because I think the backstop is a fundamental problem with the agreement. After the last couple of weeks of votes in the House and the Government’s response to them, I came to the conclusion that the most central, overriding promise I made at the general election was to deliver Brexit, and I reluctantly came to the conclusion that I needed to support the withdrawal agreement in order to deliver Brexit, so I agree with her on that point. I behaved in that way on Friday, and I wish more of my right hon. and hon. Friends had done so, so that we could have got the withdrawal agreement over the line to secure that outcome.

The final point, in concluding my remarks on the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central, was to ask him where we are hoping to go on this. I notice he referred to compositing motions, which is very much a Labour thing to do with sticking motions together. It seemed implicit in what he was saying and what one or two others have said, such as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), that there is an assumption that if we take a number of propositions, none of which would secure a majority in the House, and glue them together in this compositing process—I am not sure that is a verb, but it sounds as though it is—

[Hilary Benn]

indicated assent.

[Mr Harper]

The right hon. Gentleman is confirming that. I think that at Labour conferences compositing is a verb. There is an implicit assumption that, by gluing the motions together, we will automatically add up all the numbers and somehow magically majorities will pop out of them, but I just do not think that is very likely. I was looking at the various propositions, and I note that all of them received fewer votes in favour of them than the Cabinet’s withdrawal agreement received on 29 March. They all received fewer votes than the Brady amendment. None of them had a majority. Indeed, there was a majority against the motion in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, who is not here now, of 101, so it is more unpopular than the withdrawal agreement.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Ind)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, however, that if the Government were to Whip for their own withdrawal agreement and future framework, and to combine that with the undoubted support for putting that deal to the people, that would be the simplest way for the Prime Minister to get her deal through Parliament with an absolute guarantee of showing whether it was the will of the people?

[Mr Harper]

No, I fundamentally disagree, for this reason. I will give the hon. Lady a couple of examples. First, I suspect that there are many people—I do not know this, but it is my assumption—who supported the Cabinet’s withdrawal agreement and political declaration who, if we attached a referendum to it, would no longer support it, because those of us on the Conservative Benches made a commitment to implement the result of the referendum. Indeed, when the hon. Lady stood for election on these Benches, she made the same commitment, I believe. The public made a decision—it was a once-in-a-generation decision—to leave the European Union. That is what I want to deliver, and I promised not to have another referendum. If we added on a referendum, people who have currently supported the proposition would no longer support it. I for one will not vote for another referendum.

There is also something that I have spotted. It is no surprise to me that those who want to remain in the European Union want to have a binary choice between the Cabinet’s deal and remain, because they have spotted that the proposition put forward by the Government is very unpopular in opinion polls. They have also noticed that many people who campaigned for leave do not believe that it is really leaving, and they think that if that is the binary choice presented to the public, it will be the best opportunity to get remain. They do not want a referendum with a range of choices. For my part, the only referendum that would be even vaguely justifiable is one that accepted that the public had asked to leave and simply gave them the choices of how to leave. That might be defensible, but nothing else.

[Mrs Main]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of this, but I want to put it on record that when the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) pressed her amendment on having a people’s vote, it got 85 votes. Revisiting the matter, as she did just now, does not make it more popular.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I note from the indicative votes on Monday that, again, the motion on a confirmatory vote was supported by fewer people than the Cabinet’s withdrawal agreement and did not achieve a majority.

[Dr Wollaston]

What the right hon. Gentleman seems to be confirming is that the withdrawal agreement and future framework does not represent the will of the people and is rather unpopular. In that circumstance, surely it would be better to check what the public support is, once we know what a known deal is. As he will know, if there were agreement to a confirmatory vote, a referendum would require an Act of Parliament, and during the passage of a referendum Bill it would be this House that determined what the questions would be. It would not be for us to set the question in advance of that; it would be open to debate.

[Mr Harper]

Indeed, but given that a number of Members of this House have made it quite clear that they do not want to deliver the result of the last referendum, I am not sure that a fair choice would be presented to the public or that they would be given the full range of options.

Let me conclude with a message for those on my Front Bench. I do not know where the discussions with the Leader of the Opposition are going to go, but all I would say is this. Having looked carefully at the indicative votes, I would issue a word of caution. If the Government end up trying to deliver a withdrawal agreement and political declaration that tries to deliver something that has been opposed by a significant majority of their own Members of Parliament—75% of Conservative MPs voted against a customs union and common market 2.0—it is not going to end well. I urge the Government, even at this stage, to reflect on that and perhaps change course.

Proxy Voting

Mark Harper Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

As Government Chief Whip, I had responsibility for managing the pairing system, so it is a matter of some regret to me to listen to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), as I have done previously, and talk about her experiences and how she and other Members lost confidence in the pairing system. I would rather that confidence had been regained, but given that it has clearly not been, these proposals are welcome and I support them. I also welcome what the hon. Lady and others said about extending the provisions to cover shared parental leave. We have legislated for that arrangement for those outside the House; it seems to me that, if we are making provision inside the House, we should do so on that basis.

My final point is a note of caution. Perhaps this is to be built into the review mechanism, but transparency cuts both ways. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) said about the criticism she received for not appearing to be doing her job when she was quite properly absent from the House, but I would caution that pairing can sometimes be valuable in allowing Members to be absent for reasons they do not wish to be transparent about. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) explaining his absences. If a Member is ill, they may wish to be transparent about it, but often Members cannot be here because of family circumstances—children, parents or other family members—and we should be conscious of the need to enable them to be absent in a way that does not force either them or their family members to put into the public domain the reasons for their absence.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

It is important to stress that no one has to take a proxy vote; it will always be voluntary, and Members could continue with the pairing system. Like other Members, when I was on maternity leave, the campaigning group 38 Degrees emailed my constituents and said, “Where was Rachel Reeves?” The answer was I was on maternity leave with a very young baby, but it did not bother to check its facts. Many of my constituents thought I had just not bothered to turn up.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Lady’s experience just confirms what I have thought for many years about 38 Degrees and the way it campaigns against Members. I have always found that robust pushback and setting out the facts to my constituents have been very helpful. I take her point seriously. I would caution only that as we look at the results of the pilot, we should bear in mind that there are many circumstances in which colleagues may need to be absent, sometimes for reasons that they do not wish to share, and that no one in any other workplace would ever have to make public. I want us to ensure that we do not implement a system that makes it more difficult for people to keep private things that should remain private.

Just in practical terms, if the pairing system is to work, we need enough colleagues who are not here to be available to pair with. The hon. Lady was right to say that no one would be forced to use the proxy voting system, but if we end up with proxy voting it will become increasingly difficult for pairing to proceed, and colleagues may therefore find that they are forced to use the system in circumstances where they do not wish to draw attention to the fact that they are not able to be here. That is the only cautionary note that I wanted to add to the debate. I am very supportive of the specific proposals.

[James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

rose—

Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions

Mark Harper Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Afzal Khan]

Absolutely. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Government can table the money resolution but not then have to agree with it.

The Government have changed their line. Last week, the Leader of the House said:

“money resolutions will be brought forward on a case-by-case basis as soon as possible.”—[Official Report, 10 May 2018; Vol. 640, c. 894.]

There is clear water between saying the Government will always table a money resolution and saying that this will be considered on a case-by-case basis. What has changed since 2015? We have had the disastrous 2017 election, when the Government lost their majority.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Afzal Khan]

Let me make some progress and then I will be happy to give way. Too weak to defeat my Bill on a vote, the Government are hiding behind a procedure that they know is wrong. The convention is also that money resolutions are brought forward in the order that Bills pass Second Reading. Members will have seen on today’s Order Paper that the Government have tabled a money resolution for a health and social care Bill. It is the second Bill the Government have leapfrogged over mine. The Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill was given a money resolution at the beginning of May, even though its promoter came out 13th in the ballot, whereas I came out third.

The only logic to when the Government are bringing forward a money resolution is: what will help them avoid challenge? We know many on the Government side are willing to vote against them on my Bill, both for principled reasons and because reducing the number of MPs will mean that some Conservatives will lose their seats—turkeys do not vote for Christmas. Based on the 2017 general election results, 34 Conservative MPs are set to have their seats abolished or to lose to Labour at the next election, with the list including six Cabinet Ministers and six other Ministers. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who is in charge of my Bill for the Government, is set to lose her seat to Labour if the current boundary proposals go ahead. The Government’s motives are clear: this is not about principles, but about electoral maths. This is not just happening with my Bill; money resolutions are part of a pattern of this weak Government abusing Parliament to avoid scrutiny and challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I want to come on to talk about some of the excellent PMBs that are finding their way through—[Interruption.] In specific response to the hon. Lady, money resolutions are brought forward at the appropriate time, and it is for the Government of the day to initiate those money resolutions.

[Mr Harper]

As a member of the Public Bill Committee, I listened carefully to what the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), said. She did not say that the Government would never bring forward the money resolution. She said that she thought it appropriate given the Boundary Commission’s work, which is quite a long way down the road, to wait until it produced its reports to Parliament and the Government would then reflect further. That seems to me to be a perfectly sensible course of action that should command widespread support in the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz]

I appreciate the hard work the hon. Gentleman does on the Procedure Committee, but sadly it is not up to me; I wish it were—I would like to support him.

Thirdly, how do the measures in the Bill differ from the Government’s instructions to the boundary commissions? What would the Bill actually do? It was the ninth Bill of the Session presented and passed its Second Reading by an overwhelming 229 to 44 votes on 1 December. It is an important Bill because it would give instructions to the boundary commissions different from the previous constrained instructions. It would do several things to those constrained instructions. Clause 1 would alter the change in the size of the House of Commons made by the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 from 600 to 650 Members and provide a fixed allocation of 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland, with the remaining 632 in Great Britain. Six hundred is an arbitrary figure. Where is the evidence that the number of constituencies should be reduced to 600?

Clause 2 would change the current UK-wide requirement for constituencies, excluding the four island seats, to be within plus or minus 5% of the electoral quota and establish new quotas, one for Great Britain and one for Northern Ireland. In each case, there would be a requirement for constituencies to be within plus or minus 7.5% of the relevant electoral quota.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Lady says that 600 is an arbitrary number, but so is 650. However, there is an important difference: 600 is not an arbitrary number; it is the number that Parliament put into law for a boundary review that it legislated for in 2011. Is it not right that we allow the boundary commissions to finish their work so that the House can consider their reports before deciding what steps to take next?

[Valerie Vaz]

It is an arbitrary figure—it was plucked out of thin air without reference to any evidence. It might have been agreed by the House, but there was no evidence. The Bill would retain the status quo. It would also require the quota to be based on the total number of voters derived from registers of parliamentary electors published for the 2017 general election, or the most recent election thereafter. This would allow the 2.1 million electors registered after 1 December 2015 to be included in the review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin).

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) for securing a debate on this very important issue after the House voted overwhelmingly in support of his private Member’s Bill. It is unfortunate we have had to have this debate because of the Government’s wrongful persistence. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing last week’s Standing Order No. 24 application and for granting this debate. It is extremely important that we are able to discuss this issue.

Having listened to the Leader of the House speak of all the great things she has awarded Parliament and this Chamber, of the Bills she has allowed and of how gracious she has been, I should perhaps be on bended knee to await her grace and favour. I am aghast that I should even be here to question this situation.

Unfortunately for the Leader of the House, we are not in China. We are the longest-serving democracy in the world. We are the mother of Parliaments. Parliament is supreme, and her job as Leader of the House is to convey those things—not to block, and not to stand for the Executive rather than listen to the voice of this Chamber. In her speech she mentioned only what has been put forward by the Executive and the reasons why she is still not able to say, “Yes, we will grant this money resolution because it is the overwhelming will of this Chamber that we do so.”

I do not want to deviate too much on the boundary change issue, to which the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex and others have alluded, but these are the figures on which the boundary commissions have been working: 46,107,152 people were registered to vote in 2011; and in 2017, 46,826,481 people were registered to vote, a 2.67% change. This year’s electoral registration figure is 46,148,035, which means the number of people able to vote has reduced.

The big issues for the boundary changes are, first, the number of people actually on the electoral register and, secondly, how registration has happened over the past eight years and how this Executive have made it difficult for people to register to vote. That is the real problem that the Leader of the House needs to address, and she has not yet done so.

Members on both sides of the Chamber have mentioned the cost factor. The Government say the cost of Parliament is too high. Will a Government Member stand up and tell me how many Members have been appointed to the other place since 2010? What is the cost of those appointments?

[Mr Harper]

Owing to the cost-saving measures implemented both in this House and in the other place, the cost of the other place has actually reduced and not gone up over time, notwithstanding the increase in the number of Members.

[Mr Mahmood]

More wishful thinking, rather than trying to address the question.

[Mr Harper]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Mahmood]

No. The right hon. Gentleman cannot tell me how many people have been appointed. He cannot tell me the cost of the people who have been appointed. Members of Parliament have a specific role. Unlike Members of the other place, we serve the interest of our constituents and we look after their needs. Our constituents come to us at our surgeries. My constituents continually come to my office, which is open five days a week from morning till afternoon—my office has some of the highest caseloads in the country. As has been mentioned, Members of the European Parliament will soon no longer exist, and we will take on their work load. This is not an issue of arbitrarily trying to reduce the size of the House by 50 Members. To be a proper democracy we have to be held to account. To be able to move forward, we have to think about how we address the needs of the people we represent.

The Government’s proposals would dilute the democratic process, which is why the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton is important. The Bill would address the size of constituencies and the number of Members. There would be a 7.5% deviation in the size of constituencies, so the boundary commissions need proper, accountable figures. A census should be taken so we have the right sort of numbers that we can trust. The Bill would allow young people to come on to the electoral register, and the registration mechanism needs to be properly addressed to allow that to happen. That is a key issue.

Another key issue is the number of people we have appointed to the other place and the cost of doing so, and the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) could not answer my question. Democracy has a cost, and democracy is not about saving money. It is important for our people that they are democratically represented. That is what this country is about; it is not about making the House smaller and smaller, which would mean people cannot get to their Member of Parliament. On top of that, our constituents have to deal with austerity cuts on a day-to-day basis. We have seen a huge number of people coming forward about that, and now the Leader of the House tells us that austerity will now apply to private Members’ Bills because we do not have the money.

I could tell the Leader of the House about the issues in my constituency and how the Boundary Commission for England has completely torn asunder the communities in my constituency, but that would take much more time than Mr Speaker wishes me to have, so I will heed his advice.

The Leader of the House needs to be mindful of understanding the issues. She needs to look at granting a money resolution, as is the will of the House, and she must allow sufficient time for the Bill to be passed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I want to address most of my remarks to the motion before us. I will touch briefly on some of the points that have come up about the substance of the private Member’s Bill, but I will keep those remarks relatively tight, Madam Deputy Speaker, so as not to stray from the subject of the motion.

First, I want to pick up where my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) left off. He is absolutely right that the Government have the responsibility to bring forward money resolutions and to initiate the spending of money. If we think about it, there is a very good reason for that. In the case of Back Benchers bringing forward a private Member’s Bill under which they propose spending money on a popular cause, people will of course find that very welcome. Members of the public quite frequently like money being spent on good causes. However, if every private Member’s Bill spent a significant amount of money, although each individually might not have a huge impact, collectively they would do so.

That is one of the good reasons why the Government, when bringing forward Bills under their own programme, have to balance the individual measures not only in relation to the good that they do for the money that is spent, but, as my hon. Friend said, in relation to the ways and means—that is, the taxes that have to be levied to pay for those measures. It is therefore right that the Government initiate the spending of money and ask this House to assent to it. That important constitutional principle is worth maintaining.

[David Linden]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

Of course I give way to my fellow member of the Public Bill Committee.

[David Linden]

The right hon. Gentleman is speaking at length about the Government having to be careful about how they authorise spending of money and how that money is planned to be spent. Does he have the same feeling about the £1 billion that was bunged to the Democratic Unionist party after the general election?

[Mr Harper]

I have not really been speaking at length—I had only been speaking for about a minute when I generously gave way to the hon. Gentleman. The Government do have to spend public money wisely. As they said, spending money on the people—the people—of Northern Ireland, who had to suffer over many decades from the impact of terrorist violence and a divided society, is a perfectly proper spending of public money. I, for one, am very pleased that we have got to a situation where the public realm in Northern Ireland is much more peaceful and the communities are living much more closely together. Dealing with some of that legacy of the past is a very welcome and very proper thing for the Government to spend public money on.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I fully appreciate that there is a cost to putting right some of the legacy of the troubles in Northern Ireland, but why was that not an issue for the Government before the general election?

[Mr Harper]

I do not want to be taken off the central point that I was making, Madam Deputy Speaker, much as the hon. Gentleman tempts me.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. For the avoidance of doubt, the right hon. Gentleman is correct. This is a very narrow debate and we must keep to that.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was responding to the intervention by the hon. Member for Glasgow East, but I do not want to be taken off the point.

It is proper that the Government have that role of financial initiation. It is also clear that there is a convention that the Government will bring forward a money resolution, but it has not been an invariable convention. There have been a number of examples—the Leader of the House set them out—where Ministers have not brought forward money resolutions. I was intrigued by the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). The private Member’s Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on a European Union referendum was not given a money resolution despite the fact that the then Prime Minister was very keen on doing so. There have been plenty of examples of private Members’ Bills not being given money resolutions.

I repeat what the Leader of the House said, as did the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith)—that the Government simply want to wait for the Boundary Commission’s report. One of my hon. Friends, I think, asked whether it could report earlier. It cannot do that because the primary legislation means that it can report only between September and October of this year, and that is what it is going to do. Given that we have been having boundary commissioners look at the parliamentary boundaries since, in effect, 2011, I do not think it is unreasonable that we allow one of those reviews to reach completion and allow this House to make a decision before we then consider what to do. The position that the Leader of the House has set out is not unreasonable. I think the central thrust is absolutely right.

I wanted briefly to touch on some of the points that were made in the debate, before you were in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will not dwell on them at length because they touched on the substance of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan). The first is about the timing of his proposed review and about the members of the public who are not on the electoral registers under the arrangement that the current boundary review is considering. That sounds superficially like an attractive point. However, detailed analysis of the changes in the registers between the start of that review and a review that he would like to trigger showed that the distribution of voters across the country was fairly consistent, and so there would not actually be a significant impact on the distribution of constituencies across the country.

To Members who find that a huge point, I simply reiterate that the general election last year was carried out with boundaries that were drawn based on electoral registers that date from 2000, which was a point strongly made by the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). If they are worried about voters who were not on the electoral register in the last couple of years, they should surely be concerned that the current boundaries do not take into account voters who have gone on to the register in the last 18 years. That is a much bigger injustice. Allowing the current review to continue and this House to take a view on it is much the best thing to do.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

If Members are worried about the number of people appearing on the register, is that not a flaw in the argument that we should change to 10-year cycles rather than five-year cycles?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. I favour having more frequent reviews—one a Parliament—that are much smaller and less disruptive, rather than less frequent reviews that are much more disruptive because so much population shift has happened. That is a better balance. Indeed, that was what the House decided when it passed the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) talked about the House of Lords. The Prime Minister’s nomination of peers was very modest; I think it was 13 in total. If we look at the votes on Brexit legislation, I do not think anybody could suggest that it was anything to do with that, given that most of the votes the Government lost in the other place were by significantly more than that number. They were modest and very reasonable proposals.

There is a very real point about the size of the other place. My understanding is that they themselves recognise that, and I know that work is under way to look at reducing the size of the other place. I hope that some consensus can be reached, so that it can be shrunk. I say somewhat immodestly that I am very pleased when we debate this issue, because as some Members will remember, I made modest proposals to reform the other place by shrinking it quite considerably and making it more democratic, although they did not find favour with the House. Indeed, I do not think we received a huge amount of support from the Scottish National party in getting that legislation through Parliament. As much as SNP Members protest now, they were not supportive when it would have been helpful.

My final point, to come back to the debate at hand, is about what private Members’ Bills should be used for. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset touched on this. I do not think they should be used for significant constitutional measures. Detailed debate on those should take place on the Floor of the House, as we did with the 2011 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) put his finger on it when he suggested that most private Members’ Bills do not need money resolutions because they should not be used for significant areas of public policy that involve spending significant amounts of money. That properly should be the role of the Government, not private Members’ Bills. Private Members’ Bills most often should not require money resolutions because they should not require huge amounts of money to be spent; they should properly be for things that do not require the expenditure of huge amounts of money. We would not then be having the sort of argument we are having today.

In conclusion, the Government are right. The Leader of the House’s arguments are very reasonable. She has undertaken to keep this matter under review, and I do not think we can say fairer than that.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) on securing the debate and on being successful in the ballot.

Private Members’ Bills are important and have been responsible for some major social change in this country. The Sexual Offences Act 1967, which legalised private consensual sex between males over the age of 21, was a private Member’s Bill promoted by Leo Abse. Sydney Silverman’s private Member’s Bill became the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, which suspended the death penalty in Great Britain, excluding Northern Ireland, if I remember correctly.

Major social change has been made in this country through private Members’ Bills. Sometimes, including in the case of those two Bills, Governments have preferred to use private Members’ Bills to make those changes, rather than to legislate for it themselves. Not as famous as those two Bills was the Christmas Day (Trading) Act 2004, which I successfully piloted through the House, to limit larger shops from opening on Christmas day. If anyone asks you, Madam Deputy Speaker, why they cannot shop in a large hypermarket on Christmas day, you can say that it is my fault.

The traditional route for private Members’ Bills then was to get selected in the ballot and then argue the Bill through on a Friday. I remind new Members that in those days, we had the formidable Eric Forth in the Chamber, who was the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I successfully fought him for a few Fridays, and then we did a deal to get my Bill through. It is an important way for Back-Bench Members to get legislation on to the statute book. That was the traditional route, but we now have a blocking move by the Government. When Members put in for the private Member’s Bill ballot in future, they will have to think about whether the Government will ever give the Bill a money resolution.

[Mr Harper]

I am listening carefully to the examples of private Members’ Bills given by the right hon. Gentleman; the thing they all had in common was that they did not involve spending large amounts of public money. I suspect that most of them did not require money resolutions, and that is the proper role for private Members’ Bills