Civil Service Compensation Scheme

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Friday 2nd December 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing this debate, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to his concerns. I know that, in his role as chair of the PCS parliamentary group, he takes a close interest, as do I, in matters relating to the civil service. I, too, greatly value and appreciate the work of the civil service. Now more than ever, the work of the civil service is vital to delivering the best service to the public and to allowing us to meet the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

To provide the best service for the public, the civil service needs to be ready to meet challenges and opportunities. The Government must therefore ensure that the civil service can recruit and retain the best people, but we must also ensure that there is an efficient and cost-effective compensation scheme in place to support civil servants when exits are needed.

As the hon. Gentleman set out, important steps towards this goal were taken during the last Parliament. My noble Friend Lord Maude, in his then role as Minister for the Cabinet Office, introduced important reforms to modernise redundancy arrangements in the civil service. A revised civil service compensation scheme was launched in December 2010, when my noble Friend Lord Maude set out his hope and intention that it would be a fair settlement for the long term.

In the years since 2010, however, it has become apparent to the Government that the reforms did not fully deliver on their aims. For example, we were concerned that the 2010 compensation scheme provisions for early access to pensions were no longer appropriate. These provisions allowed staff aged as young as 50 to retire and draw all their civil service pension without any reduction for early payment. This was often very expensive for the employer, and it is increasingly out of line with the Government’s wider aim of responding to very welcome increases in longevity by encouraging longer working lives.

More widely, the Government’s view was that, even after the 2010 reforms, the civil service compensation scheme was simply too expensive, when considered against the background of the current economic situation. We of course recognise the need to provide good financial support to bridge the gap into alternative employment or retirement—we of course recognise that—but the Government also have a duty to balance that against the wider financial situation and the interests of the taxpayers who ultimately fund the scheme.

The 2010 compensation scheme terms were becoming increasingly out of line with those the Government believe should be available more broadly across the public sector. For example, we have made it clear that we do not believe it is appropriate to pay six-figure compensation payments within the public sector, and we are legislating to put a stop to that. We are also embarking on reforms to compensation schemes across the main public sector workforces, so it is right that the civil service scheme is consistent with those wider reforms. For all those reasons, it was clear that further reform of the civil service compensation scheme was needed.

[Peter Dowd]

With public services under absolute stress and strain—many are at breaking point—what is modern and efficient about cutting wages, numbers and training, and massive negative restructuring, in the light of the chaos in the civil service that is about to unfold with Brexit?

[Michael Ellis]

The hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the skills of the civil service. In fact, the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead can and will be adequately dealt with by our excellent civil service, which we value greatly.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister confirm that the six-figure cap will affect employees with long service who earn less than £27,000 a year, which is not a high salary? Are the Government considering how to address that?

[Michael Ellis]

It is not unreasonable for the Government to take the view that it is not appropriate to pay six-figure—£100,000—compensation payments within the public sector. We are legislating to stop that. As I have said, we must take the economic challenges and climate into consideration.

The Government launched a consultation on our proposals for changes to the civil service scheme in February and set out five principles for reform. I will not rehearse them now—they are on the public record—but it was an open consultation and we invited responses from all those who would be affected by reforms, including trade unions, employers, civil servants and other interested parties. The consultation ran for 12 weeks, but as well as that we held a series of meetings to discuss the proposed reforms with the civil service unions throughout the consultation period. Six such meetings were held during that period, attended by representatives from PCS, Prospect, the FDA, Unite, GMB and the POA. After the consultation closed in May, we gave careful consideration to all the responses we received and to the views expressed by the unions.

After the closure of the consultation, the Government did not stop our efforts to achieve agreement on a set of reforms. We invited all unions that had responded to the consultation to a series of further meetings. In order to give the best chance of reaching agreement, the participation of unions in the further meetings was made conditional on their acceptance that a proposed basic structure would form the starting basis of a reformed negotiated set of arrangements that could lead to a final agreement.

I am pleased to say that five employee representative bodies—Prospect, the FDA, Unison, GMB and the Defence Police Federation—agreed to take part in further meetings at that time and on that basis. The Government held a total of 13 further meetings with those bodies between June and September to discuss the detail of the proposed reforms. Those highly constructive meetings played a big part in shaping our thinking and the final offer we made to unions. However, I should make it clear that we do not in any way accept that the PCS or any other union was barred from those discussions, as has been claimed. The decision not to participate was made solely by the unions concerned and not by the Government.

Following the conclusion of the discussions with the unions that chose to participate, the Government made a formal offer of revised compensation schemes. The offer reflected the constructive discussions between June and September. As such, we proposed a number of improvements on the package of reforms set out in the consultation, including taking more account of longer service, which is only right and fair; increased protection for the lower-paid, which is also appropriate; greater flexibility for those over the minimum pension age; and improvements to the terms for inefficiency compensation. The consultation and discussions therefore worked.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister refresh the House’s memory? I did not say that the trade unions were barred from those talks; I said that they had to sign up to preconditions before them. Does he agree?

[Michael Ellis]

The arrangements for the talks were satisfactory to eight trade union organisations; they were not satisfactory to the PCS, but that is a matter for it. However, the offer reflected the points that I have made and those improvements. Nevertheless, the offer was made on equal terms to all civil service unions—all of them—including those that had not taken part in the talks.

All unions were then also given the same amount of time to consider the Government’s offer and to ballot their members. I am pleased to say that eight unions were able to make a formal response to the Government by the requested date of 31 October and I am also pleased to say that all eight of those unions responded to say that they accepted the Government’s offer. As such, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office considered that the Government’s offer had been accepted by a sufficient number of trade union organisations to constitute an agreement.

A revised civil service compensation scheme, consistent with the terms of the Government’s offer, was therefore laid before the House on 8 November and took effect from 9 November. However, I regret to say that, unlike other unions, the PCS and the POA did not feel able to ballot their members and respond to the Government within the requested timeframe.

I understand that it can take time for unions to make such arrangements. However, the PCS gave no indication that more time would be required at the time the offer was made. Indeed, the issue was not raised at all until more than half the time intended for union consideration had elapsed, and even then a formal request for an extension to the deadline was not received by the Government until some time after that. By that point, the Government did not consider any extension to the deadline to be either practical or fair on the other unions, which had made strenuous efforts to respond in time.

Since then, I understand that the PCS has balloted its members with a recommendation to reject the Government’s proposals, and that they have done so. While the Government will of course take note of the result of that ballot, that does not change the fact that the Government’s offer of revised compensation scheme terms was accepted by the large majority of unions consulted, or that the new scheme has now taken effect.

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[Michael Ellis]

I am very conscious of the time; if I may, I will just carry on a bit more and then give way.

To summarise all that I have said so far, the Government are very clear that the reforms to the civil service compensation scheme were carried out in an open and consultative fashion. The process benefited greatly, as such processes do, from the constructive approach of the unions that chose to participate fully, and the benefits can be seen in the improved terms I have referred to, which were able to be adopted as a result. So, while it is regrettable that not every union sought to participate in a constructive manner, that is a matter for them and it will not discourage the Government from our belief that it is right to seek to reach negotiated agreements in such matters, wherever that is possible.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the Minister for giving way and I will be brief. He has mentioned individual trade unions, which is fine, but I would be curious to know what percentage of civil servants those unions represent. If he could write to me on that, I would be obliged.

[Michael Ellis]

I am always very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Turning quickly to the reforms themselves, I fully accept, as I have said, that any change of this sort can be difficult for those affected and as a result will often be unwelcome. However, I am clear that the revised terms of the 2016 civil service compensation scheme represent a good deal for civil servants. The new scheme strikes the right balance in achieving the savings that are required while reflecting the nature of the civil service workforce and the benefits of reaching a negotiated agreement. Also, the new scheme will continue to meet its main objective, which is to provide a good level of support to help to bridge the gap into new employment or until retirement, where that is necessary, when exits are unfortunately required.

Because of all of that, the Government believe that these are sustainable reforms and therefore I will close by echoing the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office in his written ministerial statement of 8 November, in which he described the reformed compensation scheme as providing

“a firm foundation for the management of the Civil Service and its people for a generation”.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House (29 November)

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has, not for the first time, made an interesting point. It is not the case that this is a routine matter, and I take on board what he has said. I undertake to review the situation, and we will write to him with a full and detailed explanation of the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2016

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 General Committees

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2016.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. The order was laid before the House on 13 October 2016 and is made under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for necessary or expedient legislative provision in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The order is made in consequence of the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016, which I will refer to as the 2016 Act. The Act was passed by the Scottish Parliament and received Royal Assent on 14 January.

The purpose of the 2016 Act is to modernise the system of fatal accident inquiries in Scotland in line with the recommendations of Lord Cullen of Whitekirk, following his independent review of fatal accident inquiry legislation in 2009. The order will enable the 2016 Act to be implemented in full by making the necessary consequential amendments to reserved legislation. It gives certain provisions in the 2016 Act effect in the rest of the UK where that is required, and makes expedient substantive legislative provision in relation to matters reserved to Westminster.

Members will be aware that FAIs are held to establish the circumstances surrounding certain deaths. Mandatory fatal accident inquiries must be held when, for example, someone dies in legal custody or in relation to their work. Among the changes brought forward by the 2016 Act is the extension of the categories of death for which it is mandatory to hold a fatal accident inquiry in Scotland to include the deaths of children in secure accommodation and deaths in police detention. The changes relate to devolved matters, so it is right that the Scottish Parliament has legislated for them.

This section 104 order, on the other hand, will enact changes to reserved matters to ensure that there is consistency with the 2016 Act of the Scottish Parliament and make some substantive provisions. Perhaps the most significant of those is to make clear that it will become mandatory for a fatal accident inquiry to be held into deaths of military service personnel in the course of active duty in Scotland. Up to this point, under legislation reserved to the UK Government, that has been at the discretion of the Lord Advocate. The order also proposes that a military death in the offshore area of the continental shelf adjacent to Scotland would require a mandatory FAI.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I declare that I am a non-practising Scottish solicitor. I welcome the order on behalf of those of us who have practised in both jurisdictions. Does the Minister agree that the order is an example of the UK Government being cognisant of the needs of Scotland and respecting Scottish devolution?

[Michael Ellis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The order is an example of Westminster working well with the Scottish Parliament. It is a most appropriate measure.

The proposed change has become of some relevance in recent days following the tragic death of Lance Corporal Joe Spencer of 3rd Battalion The Rifles. The death occurred at Royal Air Force Tain, near Inverness, on Tuesday 1 November. I take this opportunity to offer my sincere condolences to Lance Corporal Spencer’s family and friends. In legal terms, the mandatory requirement for a fatal accident inquiry proposed in the order is not retrospective, so even if the death is found to have been in the circumstances provided for, it will not apply to the death of Lance Corporal Spencer. Instead, the arrangements that have existed for some time under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 will apply, and it will therefore be within the discretion of the Lord Advocate to rule on whether a fatal accident inquiry is held in that case.

That sad incident none the less highlights the relevance and importance of the order. It highlights why the UK and Scottish Governments, Ministers of the Crown and officials have worked closely together to ensure that the order makes reserved legislative provision in consequence of the 2016 Act of the Scottish Parliament, the aim of which is to ensure that the fatal accident inquiry legislation in Scotland is fit for purpose. That collaboration represents another example of the Westminster Government’s commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I commend the order to the Committee.

Good Parliament Report

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mrs Moon. I very much congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) on securing this important debate. If I may say so, I would like to see more Members like her. She can be proud to be here and we are proud to have her. I thank Professor Sarah Childs for her report. This is a recent report and a significant work. The work she continues to do on the subject of gender and politics is important.

I have listened to the contributions of hon. Members with great interest and I assure them that the Government take this subject seriously. The debate comes at an important time for Parliament as an institution as it considers the recommendations made in “The Good Parliament” report.

In the report, which was published a few months ago in July 2016, Professor Childs outlines a blueprint for a more representative and inclusive House of Commons. It contains 43 recommendations to a variety of stakeholders, including the Government but not just the Government. Also included are the Speaker of the House, the House of Commons Commission and a number of Select Committees in the House among others. The report also recommends the establishment of a Commons reference group on representation and inclusion.

Mention has been made of the Women and Equalities Committee, an important Committee of the House, which is undertaking an inquiry into women in the House of Commons after 2020. It is examining both the impact of the proposed boundary changes and the recommendations made in Professor Childs’ report. The Government have submitted written evidence to the inquiry and very much look forward to reading the Committee’s report.

All sides should acknowledge that progress is being made. This is the most gender-diverse Parliament in British history and we should celebrate our many talented parliamentary colleagues. We have our second female Prime Minister, and women now make up an unprecedented third of the House and a third of our Cabinet. Therefore, the House as an institution has made great strides since 2010. The House of Commons nursery opened on 1 September 2010 to support Members and other passholders with childcare responsibilities. The nursery now provides a post-6 pm service, and of course the children of Members have unrestricted access to the Estate when they are accompanied by a parent.

The House of Commons monitors and reports on the diversity of its staff. The Commons has goals to increase the diversity of its staff and monitors the position carefully and actively. Outreach has greatly improved and grown, including the annual Parliament week, and civil marriages, for example, can now be conducted on the Estate. Improvements have been made and changes have taken place, but there is still a long way to go to reach a representative and inclusive House. That is not just about finding diverse talent. This should be a place where all people want to work. The Government are carefully considering the recommendations contained in Professor Childs’ report and look forward to working with the Commons reference group on representation and inclusion, which is considering the recommendations.

A lot of progress could be made if the main parties worked together to build a more consistent voluntary approach to growing diverse talent. I am glad that only a week or two ago the Women and Equalities Committee took evidence from all the main parties about this important issue. That hearing received media attention, which reflects the good work that the Committee is doing. Indeed, “The Good Parliament” report specifically called on the Leader of the House of Commons to support the permanent establishment of that Select Committee. It is clear that the Committee has a key role in driving forward this agenda, so I am pleased to say that the Government are indeed able to offer that support.

Professor Childs also recommended setting the recess dates for each parliamentary session at least one session in advance. Members and staff of the House, together with their families, want to know that information as far in advance as possible. That is perfectly understandable, so we make every effort, as previous Governments no doubt did, to announce recess dates as soon as is reasonably practicable. However, the setting of recess dates is complex and depends on many varying factors, not least the progress of legislation through this House and the other House. It is difficult to settle a whole session in advance. The consideration of Lords amendments, for example, could never be predicted before a Bill has even begun its passage through both Houses.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but this is nonsense. It is perfectly easy to work out when the recess dates will be next year—I can give the Minister a draft later this evening if he wants. At this stage last year I predicted exactly what the recess dates would be this year, and that was what the Minister ended up announcing. Frankly, I do not know why he cannot get on with doing it for next year now.

[Michael Ellis]

Of course, if it were as easy as that, no doubt the Labour Government would have done it between 1997 and 2010. With regards to the recommendation relating to the conference recess, it is important to note that any decision would have to be made some years in advance because things are booked years in advance—large-scale plans are made for conferences by all the parties—and it would require cross-party agreement. As always, such issues are subject to discussions between parties, which should continue to be the case. Only if agreement were reached on that change would it be possible to consider that proposal and the one to abolish sitting Fridays.

On that subject, Members will know that the Procedure Committee has looked in detail at that. Abolishing sitting Fridays, as referred to in Professor Childs’ report, has not formed part of the package of recommendations in the Committee’s latest report on private Members’ Bills. Should the Committee be minded to resume the line of inquiry, the Government would consider the proposals in detail and respond in the appropriate manner.

With regards to political parties providing data relating to parliamentary candidates, also referred to in Professor Childs’ report, there are no plans to introduce legislation at present. Once again, we believe we can make progress if the parties build a more consistent voluntary approach to growing diverse talent. I am glad that the Women and Equalities Committee took evidence from all the parties about that.

One other specific proposal I want to talk about is the aim to increase the voice of disabled people in this place, which is also under consideration. The three-year pilot of the access to elected office fund, which aims to support people with disabilities to stand for election as local councillors or Members of Parliament, is being reviewed. The views of disabled candidates, all political parties and disability charities have been sought as part of this inclusive process. An announcement about the future of the fund will be made in due course.

To conclude, I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and who continue to contribute to this area of work. We thank Professor Childs for her work and, for that matter, Mr Speaker for his leadership.

Electoral Commission (Motions)

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 General Committees

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the motion, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will appoint Sir John Holmes as the Chair of the Electoral Commission with effect from 1 January 2017 for the period ending on 31 December 2020.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion, on the Electoral Commission,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will appoint Dame Susan Bruce as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 January 2017 for the period ending on 31 December 2020.

[Michael Ellis]

It is a pleasure to appear before you, Mr Wilson.

The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission has produced a report—its fourth of 2016—in relation to the first motion. The vacancy has arisen because the term of office of the current chair of the commission, Jenny Watson, comes to an end on 31 December 2016. I am sure that the Committee would like to thank Ms Watson for her service as chair for the past eight years.

Appointments to the Electoral Commission are made under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, as amended by the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, under which the Speaker’s Committee has the responsibility of overseeing the selection of candidates for appointment. Commissioners are appointed for a fixed term and may be reappointed for up to a maximum term length of 10 years. As is normal for such appointments, the Speaker’s Committee established a recruitment panel to oversee the shortlisting and interviewing of candidates and, given the importance of the role, it asked the Commissioner for Public Appointments to appoint a public appointment assessor to chair the panel. The commissioner nominated Mark Addison, a former civil service commissioner, to that role, and the other members of the panel were Max Caller, a former electoral commissioner and former chair of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, Dr Jane Martin, a local government ombudsman for England, and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), a member of the Speaker’s Committee. The unanimous view of the panel was that Sir John Holmes should be appointed as chair of the Electoral Commission.

Sir John’s most recent role was director of the Ditchley Foundation, an organisation established to promote transatlantic dialogue and understanding of international policy issues. The majority of Sir John’s executive career was spent working in foreign affairs, in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and as a foreign affairs adviser to two Prime Ministers. After leaving the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, where his final role was as British ambassador to France, he moved to the United Nations to be the under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief co-ordinator.

The Committee received the panel’s report in April and put the name of the recommended candidate forward for consultation with the leaders of the political parties represented here at Westminster, as is required by statute. This statutory consultation provides an opportunity for the party leaders to comment, but they are not required to do so. The responses received are published in the Speaker’s Committee report. Following the consultation with the party leaders, the Speaker’s Committee held a public meeting with Sir John, to test his suitability for the role and discuss his priorities for the commission. The transcript of that session can be found on the Committee’s website. Following that meeting, the Committee agreed to recommend Sir John’s appointment to the House.

The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission has produced a report—its third of 2016—in relation to the second motion, that Dame Susan Bruce will serve on the commission as the electoral commissioner with special responsibility for Scotland.

The vacancy has arisen because the term of office of John McCormick, the current commissioner with special responsibility for Scotland, comes to an end on 31 December 2016, and I am sure that the Committee would wish to join me in thanking him for his service. The Speaker’s Committee appointed a recruitment panel to oversee the shortlisting and interviewing of candidates for this role also, and asked Judith Alderton, an independent human resources professional with experience of senior recruitment, to chair the recruitment panel. The Speaker’s Committee agreed that a nominee of the Scottish Parliament should take part in the recruitment exercise for the role, to reflect the Electoral Commission’s increased accountability to the Scottish Parliament for its work in Scotland since the Scotland Act 2016. The other panel members were Jenny Watson, chair of the Electoral Commission; Graeme Pearson, former MSP for South Scotland; my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon, and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who are both members of the Speaker’s Committee.

The panel’s unanimous view was that Dame Susan Bruce DBE should be appointed as an electoral commissioner with special responsibility for Scotland. Dame Susan currently holds a number of senior non-executive positions in Scotland, spanning the public and private sectors. Before taking on those roles, her career was in local government: she was chief executive of Aberdeen City Council and then of the City of Edinburgh Council. The Speaker’s Committee received the board’s report in April and agreed to the nomination. Dame Susan’s name was then put forward for the statutory consultation with the leaders of the political parties represented here at Westminster. The responses received to that consultation are published in the Speaker’s Committee’s report.

In summary, this Committee is being asked to consider motions to appoint Sir John Holmes as chair of the Electoral Commission for four years and Dame Susan Bruce as an electoral commissioner for four years. I hope that the Committee, and ultimately the House, will support their appointments and wish them well as they take up their new posts.

House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)]

It is a pleasure to open for Her Majesty’s Government in this debate, and a particular pleasure to debate with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), if saying so is not too deferential for him.

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this important subject. It is vital that our Parliament works effectively, and the House of Lords plays an important role in scrutinising and revising the legislation that governs us all. If I may say so, I think that the hon. Gentleman does a disservice to Members of the House of Lords who work very hard and are very valuable public servants. In many cases, they have been public servants for decades and devoted their lives to public service. In that House, there are leaders of industry and business who bring to it incredibly valuable expertise. There are Law Lords—formerly Lords of Appeal in Ordinary—as well as former Cabinet Ministers and Chiefs of the Defence Staff, so there is vast experience and expertise that is not available in this House or in many second Chambers in bicameral legislatures around the world. That House is replete with considerable expertise and experience.

[Mr MacNeil]

One of two things follow from what the Deputy Leader of the House has said. He is saying either that it is such a good arrangement down the corridor that we should abolish the Commons and repeat that arrangement in this place, or that other countries in the world should follow the same arrangement, in which case which ones would he advise to do so?

[Michael Ellis]

I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that this country has centuries of history, and we should recognise that our system has evolved over those centuries. That does not alter the fact that the House of Lords has vastly experienced people from all fields of life—doctors, lawyers and the like—but we recognise, as was clear from the Conservative party manifesto last year, that it cannot continue to grow indefinitely.

We must keep the question of the size of the House of Lords in perspective. Members of the Lords are not full-time or salaried. Many peers balance professional lives outside the House with work in it, so they do not attend all the time. It is a mischaracterisation to portray it as though 800 Members were permanently in the House. In fact, when one looks at the average daily attendance in the last session—I invite hon. Members to do so—we see that it is below 500. The figure is 497, which is well short of the number of Members of the House of Commons. To use a journalistic phrase, 800 is the figure for the available talent.

[Mr Jackson]

Did my hon. Friend notice an omission from the witty and erudite speech of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)? He had the brass neck to complain about over-representation, but Scottish National party Members, who receive the same salary as English MPs and have Members of the Scottish Parliament in near-coterminous constituencies to take the burden off them, vote against the boundary changes that will ameliorate the situation in which massive electorates in constituencies in England are represented by just one MP.

[Michael Ellis]

I had noticed that brass neck, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on making that point. At least 61 peers are registered as living in Scotland.

[Mr Hanson]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House answer one question? Does he support the principle of hereditary peers in the 21st century, or will he support the ten-minute rule Bill to abolish them that I introduced last year or Lord Grocott’s Bill to end them that is now in the other place? Will he confirm that he could now do so?

[Michael Ellis]

As I have said, as was set out in the Conservative party manifesto, the Government recognise the need to reduce the size of the House of Lords. However, comprehensive reform of the House of Lords is not considered a priority in the current Parliament, given the other pressing constitutional matters, not least, I should say, the further devolution of powers to Scotland and Wales. We consider there to be higher priorities.

The House of Lords has not stood still in the past few years. In the last Parliament, it took forward some important reforms, with Government support. Although there is more to do, that Chamber has constantly evolved. The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 allowed peers to retire formally and permanently for the first time. It also provided for the expulsion of peers for non-attendance. Previously, a peer had to apply for a leave of absence. The Act was promoted by Lord Steel.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because I have been trying to get in for some time. He tried to make a virtue of the fact that so many peers work part time. Does he not share my concern that that leaves things open to conflicts of interest in a way that even this place does not have? Does he share my concern that so many party donors are in the House of Lords?

[Michael Ellis]

I do not accept that characterisation at all. There is a proper process for appointments to the House of Lords by committee and a proper vetting process. The reality is that, as I have been saying, the House of Lords is a constantly evolving Chamber. The 2014 Act provided for the expulsion of peers—for example, for non-attendance—and for their retiring, a process that has seen some results. Further reforms introduced in 2015 empowered peers to expel Members for serious misconduct and suspend them beyond the end of a Parliament.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

I would like to go back to last year’s Conservative manifesto and the desire to reduce numbers. Did David Cameron not singlehandedly put more than 230 peers into the House of Lords? That is more than 25% of the House of Lords appointed by him alone.

[Michael Ellis]

Tony Blair created far more peers than David Cameron. Until such time as there can be comprehensive reform, we have a system in place that is still being operated.

[Stephen Doughty]

rose—

[Michael Ellis]

I am being generous, but I will give way.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the Minister, who is indeed being generous. A moment ago he said that not all the 800 or so Lords turn up, but the fact is that they can, and often do on some of the most controversial legislation. People were flown in, for example, to vote on tax credits, and the bishops voted on equal marriage legislation, which many of us found pretty unacceptable given that the bishops are only from the Church of England. The fact is that they can turn up. They have a vote in our system on our laws. Surely that is the fundamental principle: they have more votes than we, the elected House, do.

[Michael Ellis]

We have a process whereby we accept that the size of the House of Lords needs to be looked at, but there are priorities, and that is not a priority in this Parliament. Attempts were made in the last Parliament. This Parliament has pressing business. Although the size of the House of Lords is recognised as large, reform needs to be dealt with in due course, and preferably by consensus.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Before my hon. Friend moves on, will he give way on that point?

[Michael Ellis]

I need to make some progress, if I may. Time is moving on, as Mr Speaker said.

The coalition Government also introduced some small-scale reform under the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015— the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) referred to bishops—which fast-tracks female bishops into the House of Lords by prioritising them in filling vacancies for the next 10 years. The reality is that there have been reforms. The first female bishop was introduced about a year ago in October 2015.

I should point out that the House of Lords has cut its operating costs by 14% in real terms since 2010. Its membership has changed, too. More than 150 peers have left the Lords since 2010, with more than 50 retiring since that facility was introduced two years ago. Indeed, there are 400 fewer Members of the House of Lords now than in 1998. The House of Lords is not as large as it was but is substantially smaller than in 1998.

It is right that the House of Lords continues to look at how it can work more effectively. Where further possible steps can command consensus, Her Majesty’s Government would welcome working with peers to take reasonable measures forward in this Parliament. If that is possible in consensus with peers, we would welcome doing so.

At the same time, it is vital that we continue to reform parliamentary boundaries. The Conservative manifesto commitment was to

“address the unfairness of the current Parliamentary boundaries, reduce the number of MPs to 600 to cut the cost of politics and make votes of more equal value.”

It is crucial that votes are of more equal value. Without the implementation of the boundary reforms, MPs will continue to represent constituencies that were drawn up on data that will be up to 20 years old at the 2020 general election, disregarding significant changes in the population. The principle of equal-sized constituencies, endorsed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, is one that I would have thought Members on both sides of the House accepted. It is crucial to have votes of equal value across the United Kingdom.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Ellis]

I need to make some progress. There are a number of people who wish to speak and I have given way several times.

The reforms have already been delayed once by the Opposition parties and it is vital that they are not waylaid again by mixing them up with a discussion about reform of the House of Lords.

[Mr MacNeil]

The Minister says it is not a priority to deal with the House of Lords in this Parliament and that there are other issues. If he has other important issues—I can say this with authority, because my constituency is not affected—why is it so important to deal with the House of Commons? He wants a situation with fewer democratically elected parliamentarians, while he stuffs the other place. That does not ring true. We know full well that it is an attack on the Labour party, an attack on Scotland and an attack on Wales. That is the long and the short of it, and he might as well be honest about that.

[Michael Ellis]

There is a public demand for value for money and to reduce the cost of politics. In all areas of public life, savings have been made so that we live within our means. It is right that this House should find savings, too. By reducing the number of MPs, we will save up to £66 million over the course of a Parliament.

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

The Minister is right to talk about the importance of democratic legitimacy. Does he accept that it is democratically illegitimate to have hereditary peers sitting and having any say in our democratic process? It gets in the way of the legitimacy of some of his other arguments when that very simple change could be put forward to help him carry through some of the arguments he is making about constituency equalisation.

[Michael Ellis]

As I have already said, the Government recognise the need to reduce the size of the House of Lords, but comprehensive reform is not considered a priority in this Parliament. I would have thought that the Scottish nationalists recognised the priority being given to other pressing constitutional matters, particularly the further devolution of powers to Scotland and Wales.

As I was saying, by reducing the number of MPs, we will save £66 million over the course of a Parliament. It is therefore right that we move forward with these proposals. The boundary proposals need not be tied with reforms of the House of Lords, not least as we do not believe that now is the right time to embark on comprehensive Lords reform. There are many different views on what form the House of Lords should take, and without any consensus there is no practical possibility, frankly, of taking such reform forward. There needs to be some practical realisation that, without consensus, it will not be possible.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes the point about reducing cost by reducing the number of MPs. Will he commit to reducing the size of the Government by the same proportion as the number of MPs he is trying to cut? If he does not do that, it will give the Government more control over Parliament, which to many of us is unacceptable. Of course, if he reduced the number of Ministers, he would save a bit more money as well.

[Michael Ellis]

The appointment of Ministers is ultimately a matter for the Prime Minister and I am certainly not going to comment on that. Ministerial numbers must reflect what the Prime Minister of the day feels she or he needs for the Government to work effectively.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On the number of Ministers, the maximum is set by legislation. It is not purely in the gift of the Prime Minister.

[Michael Ellis]

I recognise that—the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, I think—but that relates to the maximum, not the minimum. However, the appointment of Ministers is a matter for the Prime Minister.

There are many different views on what form the House of Lords should take and we have heard some of them this afternoon. Without consensus, as I have said, there is no practical possibility of taking such reform forward, and this was clear from the attempted passage of the House of Lords Reform Bill in 2012. It was withdrawn not for lack of commitment from the Government, but because there was no overall agreement about what that reform should look like. When there are so many pressing constitutional reforms, not least devolving more powers to Scotland and Wales and delivering all that is necessary for the UK’s exit from the European Union, it is on those subjects that we should focus our attention in this Parliament. It would not be right to distract from or derail important reforms elsewhere by making House of Lords reform a priority. That is why we do not support the motion.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the Minister—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am not entirely clear whether the Deputy Leader of the House concluded his oration or whether he was giving way.

[Michael Ellis]

I had concluded, but out of generosity, perhaps you will accept it if I give way on this occasion.

[Mr Speaker]

Very well, but it is very unusual. I do not think the word exists to “unconclude” one’s speech, but if it possible to do so, the hon. Gentleman has done it. Let us hear the hon. Lady’s intervention.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

The Conservative party manifesto said that the Conservatives would

“address issues such as the size of the House of Lords”.

Why does the Minister think that the electorate thought that was less important than some of the other things in the manifesto? How can he get into the heads of the electorate? This was front and centre of the manifesto.

[Michael Ellis]

The Government have decided that it is not a priority for this Parliament to address that issue. The fact of the matter is that attempts were made during the last Parliament, as I have said, and there is no consensus. There are high priorities, including exiting the EU and further devolution for Scotland and Wales. Those are the priorities. That is why we do not support the motion, as I said. That, Mr Speaker, is the conclusion.

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the next speaker, let me explain that the time limit on Back-Bench speeches will begin at six minutes. Dependent on progress, it may have to be reviewed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, but I did not in any way suggest that the commissioners were gerrymandering. My view is that the Conservative party—this Government—are attempting to gerrymander the boundary changes. They are the ones who want the reduction from 650 to 600. I do not believe that there is any other party in the House of Commons that wants that. That is my point, and I wonder how reducing the number of MPs from 29 to 25 in my native north-east or from 59 to 53 in the west midlands fits in with the Tory devolution agenda. I am unsure, but perhaps the Minister will answer that at some stage.

[Michael Ellis]

Does the hon. Gentleman have an objection to equal-sized constituencies, because that is what we are seeking to achieve with these boundary reforms: equal-sized constituencies across the country, which we do not have now?

[Ian Lavery]

I have absolutely no objection to equal-sized constituencies, but I do have an objection to gerrymandering and changing the boundaries to ensure there is a distinct advantage to one party rather than another. But perhaps the Minister will respond to the point about devolution.

The Conservatives have once again done what the Conservatives do best: look after themselves and their party despite the real needs of this country. While on the Opposition Benches there is broad agreement about equalising the size of the constituencies, we cannot support this Tory attempt at what we would class as establishing perpetual rule. Let me make it absolutely clear: the Labour party will emphatically oppose the proposals of the Boundary Commission.

On the question of the second Chamber, it is my party that has always sought to reform the Lords. We passionately believe in the role of the second Chamber in our great democracy: we believe that no Government of any colour should be able to implement legislation without the proper scrutiny that a bicameral legislature provides. But while this is true, I must add that my party firmly believes that the House of Lords should be a democratic Chamber, not one appointed to through the patronage of the Prime Minister. We will not support any curtailment of the powers of Cross-Bench Lords and other measures designed to weaken the ability of the House of Lords to properly scrutinise, and where needed oppose, Government policy.

Under this Government, the use of secondary legislation has soared and is now being used for controversial and far-reaching policy changes such as tax credit cuts that traditionally have been introduced through primary legislation. Last year we were left with the sickening sight of Lord Lloyd Webber being flown back to the UK to try to defeat attempts to stop the Tory Government punishing hard-working British families through the Tory tax credit cut. I think it is appropriate at this point to put on record our sincere thanks for the great efforts and deliberations of Labour Peers and others who ensured that the attack on tax credits was defeated. It is vital that the Lords are able to continue to use the powers they have to scrutinise the Government’s plans and prevent such disastrous Government policies from being introduced.

Draft Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2016

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2016 General Committees

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2016.

It is a great pleasure to appear before you, Mr. Rosindell.

The draft order that we are considering was laid before the House on 13 July. By way of context, the order is made under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for necessary or expedient changes to legislation in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The order is made in consequence of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016, which is referred to as the “2016 Act”, and which was passed by the Scottish Parliament and received Royal Assent from Her Majesty on 28 April.

The purpose of the 2016 Act is to consolidate Scottish laws on insolvency and simply makes bankruptcy policy more accessible, both for the money advice community, which is very helpful, and for those experiencing financial difficulties, which is particularly helpful for them as well.

The drafting of the Bankruptcy consolidation Bill was led by the Scottish Law Commission, which, alongside officials from the Accountant in Bankruptcy in Scotland, undertook a consultation in 2011 on consolidating bankruptcy legislation before the Lord Advocate brought forward proposals for a Bill. The legislation has followed an entirely logical process.

At the moment, bankruptcy legislation in Scotland is considered rather confusing and difficult to follow. The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 has been heavily amended over the years, and new primary legislation has been introduced since then, most recently the Bankruptcy and Debt Advice (Scotland) Act 2014.

As a result of the passage of time, and a number of measures being amalgamated, the legislation has become rather complex, and the time is now considered right to bring the elements together through primary consolidation legislation, and that is exactly what the legislation is. The move has been supported by the money advice and insolvency industry, as reflected in evidence to the Scottish Parliament when the legislation became the 2016 Act earlier this year.

Some provisions of the legislation consolidated require not merely to be restated in Scots law but for the other parts of the UK. That is one purpose of this particular order; we must make sure that it marries up with all parts of the United Kingdom. Articles 4 and 6 accordingly restate provisions on the effect of the discharge from debts and on limitation of actions outside Scotland as a result of Scottish bankruptcies. Article 3 restates the current arrangements for examination in certain Scottish bankruptcy proceedings of persons residing in parts of the UK other than Scotland. In schedule 1, the order also updates cross-references in statutes across the UK, for instance it replaces references to “the 1985 Act” with references to “the 2016 Act”, which was passed in Scotland. Lastly, article 5 restates minor procedural provisions about powers of the Secretary of State.

The United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Government, Ministers and officials have all worked closely together to ensure that the order makes the necessary amendments to UK legislation in consequence of the 2016 Act of the Scottish Parliament.

I hope that you will agree, Mr Rosindell, that the order is an appropriate use of the powers in the Scotland Act and a further example of the UK Government’s commitment to work with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I commend the order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I know that my hon. Friend has said that we should proceed without delay, but being a politician and as I am here, I feel that I should speak. What I liked in the explanatory note, and what the Deputy Leader did not refer to, is its reference to section 104 of the 1998 Act. It states:

“Section 104 of the 1998 Act provides for subordinate legislation to be made by the UK Government”.

Hopefully, that is important for the future, and I am looking forward to more subordination from Westminster to Holyrood. On that note, I am happy to support the order.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)]

There is nothing more that I wish to add, Mr Rosindell. I commend the order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 (Consequential provisions and modifications) Order 2016

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2016 General Committees

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2016.

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe? The draft order was laid before the House on 11 July 2016. If it pleases the Committee, I will briefly put the order in context before setting out what it does. I think that it will be highly uncontroversial, given that there is unlikely to be much air between the parties on the matter, but it is important.

The order is made under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for necessary or expedient changes to legislation in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. That is what has happened here: the Scottish Parliament has passed an Act and we are seeking to make expedient changes for its operation in England. The order is made in consequence of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 1 October 2015 and received Her Majesty’s Assent on 4 November. The Act consolidates and strengthens the existing criminal law in Scotland against human trafficking and exploitation, and it enhances the status and support for victims of those heinous crimes.

The 2015 Act that was passed by the Scottish Parliament is in six parts, which I will address briefly. Part 1 introduces two new criminal offences: one is a single offence of human trafficking for all types of exploitation; the other is a new offence of slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour. Those replace existing criminal offences in Scots law that deal with similar conduct. The maximum penalty of 14 years for human trafficking has now been increased to life imprisonment.

Part 2 provides for the support and assistance to which adult and child victims of human trafficking are entitled. Part 3 deals with the confiscation of property and the proceeds of crime. Part 4 introduces two new prevention and risk orders, as they are called, in Scotland: the trafficking and exploitation prevention orders, and the trafficking and exploitation risk orders. The Act also places a duty on Scottish Ministers to prepare a trafficking and exploitation strategy.

This order updates existing UK legislation to give the Scottish Parliament’s 2015 Act full effect; to reflect the new Scottish offences; to ensure that the relevant powers—this is a key point—of UK immigration officers are updated in line with what has happened under the Act in Scotland, so that they are able to detain vehicles, ships and aircraft when a person or persons have been arrested for the offence of human trafficking; and to reflect the new powers conferred on the police under the 2015 Act, which are welcome.

The proposed changes are consequential and have not raised any objections. For example, the order updates references to existing Scottish offences in relevant legislation applying in other parts of the UK. These changes, which are primarily to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 but also to the Immigration Act 1971 and the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, will refer to the new single offence of human trafficking and the new offence of slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour in Scottish legislation. They will then allow the repeal of existing offences.

The order will enable English and Welsh courts—it applies, of course, to England and Wales—to enforce the two new Scottish trafficking and exploitation prevention and risk orders. That will ensure a joined-up approach and robust enforcement, which is what we all want for such serious offences. It will also implement the policy intention of some aspects of the Modern Slavery Act that relate to Scotland, by ensuring the scope of the UK’s independent anti-slavery commissioner’s work, and the duty of large companies to report on transparency and supply chains, are both updated so that, in Scotland, these flow from the new Scottish offences.

Finally, the UK and Scottish Governments—Ministers and officials—have been working closely together, as would be expected, to ensure that the order makes the necessary amendments to UK legislation in consequence of the Scottish Parliament’s 2015 Act. There is mutual respect here and I believe that the order demonstrates the UK Government’s continued and very important commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work.

I hope that you will agree, Mr McCabe, that the order is an appropriate use of the powers in the Scotland Act 1998, and that the practical result is very much to be welcomed. I commend the order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

I very much welcome what the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East said. It is reassuring to see cross-party support on something as important as this—there is very little controversy about the measure, and rightly so. We need to get it right and the authorities in Scotland have clearly worked hard to do so, in consultation with many.

I heard the shadow Minister’s representations on definitions and consultations. With regard to wider consultation, the reality is that the Scottish Parliament’s 2015 Act was the subject of numerous reports, inquiries and consultations. The Scottish Government drew on the analysis and recommendations in all those reports to inform the Act. I can assure him that they have taken the same approach with this order.

As for the hon. Gentleman’s point about the definition of the word “travel”, we are content that it is compliant with international obligations. The matters have been perused by the appropriate authorities, and the Scottish Government have indicated to the UK Government that they are content and that it meets international obligations.

[Mr Anderson]

I accept that the point about travel has been resolved and that the Government acted on the concerns that were raised. The issue was more about the definition of

“slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour.”

I hope that the Minister or his civil servants will advise that there is a definition in this place that covers the same things in Scotland, but I just wanted to make sure that we do not leave a loophole that could be exploited.

[Michael Ellis]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for exploring the matter, because clearly it is crucial. Lawyers—I was one before I came to this place—will always look for loopholes where they can find them and definitions have to be very carefully considered and tightly demarcated, otherwise they provide undesirable opportunities to exploit any lacunae that might exist within them. I am very confident that the authorities have considered that carefully and that legal representations have been sought. I am assured that numerous reports, inquiries and consultations have taken place, and I can only assume that they will have included legal representations. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Claim of Right for Scotland

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)]

I start by saying what a pleasure it is to appear before you, Mr Bone, a fellow Member from Northamptonshire. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on securing this debate, which is one in a series along similar lines, I think, that have been secured. It has been an important opportunity to discuss the democratic tradition in Scotland, of which both the 1689 and 1989 Claim of Right documents form an important part, and to highlight the significance of that tradition today. It is good to be reminded that the constitutional issues which we grapple with are not new. Of course, it is arguable that the Claim of Right was put into practice in 2014, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) mentioned. The people had a say then—they voted to stay in the United Kingdom and that should be respected.

The United Kingdom shares a democratic tradition, exemplified by the Parliament in which we are gathered today, which works in harmony with and not against the particular traditions of Scotland. That was recognised in the devolution settlement, for which the 1989 Claim of Right, drawn up by the Scottish Constitutional Convention, helped make the case, and which was voted for in the 1997 referendum and reaffirmed in the 2014 referendum. That settlement respects the right of the Scottish people to have a say, in two Parliaments, on a range of important issues affecting their lives while remaining a strong and vital part of the United Kingdom.

Most recently, the Scotland Act 2016 ensures that the Scottish Parliament has a significantly greater say on matters including taxation and welfare support in Scotland, putting into practice the agreement of the Smith commission, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) alluded. That agreement was reached by all the major parties in Scotland. The heads of agreement in the commission’s report recognise the principles of the 1989 Claim of Right by citing

“the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to determine the form of government best suited to their needs.”

The Act now being implemented, with a number of its new powers having already come in force, provides the right balance to the devolution settlement and will create a more powerful and accountable Scottish Parliament within a strengthened UK. That is what the people of Scotland voted for. It balances the desire for more decisions to be taken in Scotland, closer to those they affect, with retaining the strength and security which come from membership of the larger United Kingdom and for which people voted in the crucial, once-in-a-lifetime referendum in 2014.

The Scottish Parliament at present has extensive powers. Today, it has a budget of around £30 billion, but with little responsibility for raising the funds it spends. The 2016 Act, when implemented, will provide the Scottish Parliament with much greater tax-raising powers. From responsibility for raising around 10% of what it spends today, Holyrood will in future be responsible for raising more than 50% of what it spends. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath mentioned, the Scottish National party is not currently using the powers that it has, and one can draw conclusions from that.

The Scottish Parliament will be given unprecedented flexibilities on income tax to set income tax rates and thresholds for earned income, including the ability to introduce new bands. These crucial powers represent around £12 billion of income tax revenues. In addition, there are extensive new powers over welfare and employment support, which allow the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to support those who need it in a way that reflects Scottish circumstances.

What is important now is how those new powers will be used for the benefit of people in Scotland. We respect the importance of historical traditions and we have heard a great deal this afternoon about the 1689 Claim of Right. Traditions are very important, but the priority should be the future. We have delivered on our commitments in the Smith commission, and the United Kingdom Government will support the Scottish Government using those powers in the interests of the Scottish people.

On the outcome of the EU referendum, the Prime Minister has had constructive discussions with the First Minister and has made her position clear. Hon. Members may have heard that position enunciated frequently: Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a success of it. It was a high priority for the Prime Minister to visit Scotland and meet the First Minister to discuss that matter very soon after she became Prime Minister, but in 2014 the Scottish people decided in a legal, fair and decisive referendum to remain a strong part of the UK. That is a vivid example of the Claim of Right in force, and should be respected. That is how we will now approach our negotiations for leaving the EU—together as one United Kingdom. I say to the SNP that our focus should now be on working together to get the best deal for Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom in the negotiations with the European Union. The people of Scotland will expect the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments to work closely together, as part of team UK, to find a constructive way forward and therefore, as we prepare for a new negotiation with the European Union, we will fully involve the Scottish Government. I say in the strongest terms that our aim should be to unite to ensure the best deal for Scotland and the whole United Kingdom as we take forward the necessary work following the referendum result.

The 1689 Claim of Right and its more recent successor are important documents that reflect a venerable democratic tradition in Scotland, but they should not be invoked now in an attempt to justify another independence referendum. That is not what should happen. Respecting the will of the Scottish people means respecting the result of two referendums by ensuring that we negotiate an exit from the European Union that achieves the best deal for Scotland so that it remains stronger within the United Kingdom. The focus now should be on working together to achieve that aim and, at the same time, on ensuring that the significant new powers that the Scottish Parliament has are implemented and used in such a way that delivers practical benefits for the Scottish people.

Summer Adjournment

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)]

It is a pleasure to make my first appearance at the Dispatch Box before you, Mr Speaker, and opposite the shadow Leader of the House. I believe the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is also the shadow Deputy Leader and holds other positions. I am very reliably informed that he holds no fewer than four shadow positions. I am reminded of the classic film “Kind Hearts and Coronets”, in which Sir Alec Guinness played all the different roles. I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider taking on more responsibilities, because the main character in that film ended up as a duke. He alluded to Her Majesty’s 90th birthday—I did not know he was a royalist—and if he does want to hear any more about heraldry and the story of the unicorn, when he next has a couple of free days I will give him more details.

We have heard a lot from Members in this debate, which has clearly been a very good opportunity to expound on constituents’ and constituency activities, and the issues and difficulties they face.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I add my congratulations and those of other members of the Home Affairs Committee on the hon. Gentleman’s ministerial appointment? Two former members of the Select Committee are at the Dispatch Box opposite each other today and, as he says, occupying six jobs between them. Through him, may I also congratulate the Leader of the House—whom I first met when he was chairman of Cambridge University Conservative Association over 40 years ago? He was destined for high office, and he has got to the Cabinet at last.

[Michael Ellis]

If it were not for the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee we would no doubt still be in our original positions. Where we will be in due course is another matter altogether. I thank him for his support.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) spoke about flooding in his constituency, which is clearly of considerable concern. He raised the difficulties involved with flash flooding and sewage coming through, and I know his constituents will be very grateful to him for doing so in this place. He is very impressive in his representation of all communities in his constituency, and he is well known and recognised for that in the House.

On a lighter note, my hon. Friend also spoke about the advantages of yoga. I know you, Mr Speaker, have often recommended Members to take up yoga in certain circumstances. I do not know whether you and my hon. Friend would like to get together on that subject, but we await further developments with interest.

The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) spoke about the problems on Southeastern trains. He was not the only Member who spoke about train issues. There clearly are some issues, and the fact that he has raised them will have been to the satisfaction of his constituents and of others’.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) spoke about the railway station and the fact that there are insufficient rail services. He also mentioned his cycling expertise. I had noticed that he has a rather painful black eye, which I was sorry to hear about, but I am reassured that the Whips had nothing to do with it. I hope he is well. I know that the summer of music, arts and culture is coming up in Gloucester. People will no doubt want to visit for that.

The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) spoke of her success in dealing with B&Q, and I congratulate her on that. Reducing wider remuneration packages and blaming the national living wage would be short-sighted and would yield only a one-off gain. Doing so is not in the spirit of the national living wage, and I am sure that B&Q and others are acting accordingly.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) that ultimately open access decisions are for the Office of Rail and Road to determine, and we respect its independence in doing so. However, I recognise the potential benefits that open access competition can deliver for railway passengers and others.

I understand that the Queen’s handbags are made in the constituency of the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz)—so another quality product from Walsall. The hon. Lady indicated that the local authority was not listening to her or her residents about road humps. No doubt that authority will want to be rejuvenated, shall we say, in its attention to her representations. She also spoke about litter, a topic that resonated around the House, with Members on both sides speaking about it. It is a major problem. She wants to restart the Keep Britain Tidy campaign, and I will ask the relevant Department to write to her about that.

One could hear the medical expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) coming through in her remarks. She spoke about the importance of having water provided on platforms when it is too hot on crowded trains. She also spoke about aircraft noise and other pollution issues. Her expertise brings a great deal of richness to the House.

I think I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) helped to create the Backbench Business Committee, so it is apposite to credit him with that this afternoon and say how much we appreciate it, as so many Members have taken part in the debate. He spoke of disadvantaged areas in his constituency and the casework that he deals with. I was struck by the way in which he thanked his staff and by the wonderful success that he and they have achieved for Max and, no doubt, many, many others. I congratulate him on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) spoke about Brexit. I know that she is particularly alive to the issue of young voters, and is on the all-party parliamentary group on voter registration. The value of her work in respect of young voters is recognised in this House, and that issue will not be forgotten about. It is very important indeed.

The hon. Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson) spoke about quarrying on Gillies hill. I wish him well with his lobbying on that. It is a devolved matter, but he will no doubt get the requisite attention from the local authority. The wooded area he described sounds very pleasant indeed.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) for welcoming the military regiments he spoke of which have come to his area. He spoke also of the county hospital doing well. The House knows him to be a powerful advocate for his area.

We also heard from the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), whom I had the pleasure of debating with in Westminster Hall yesterday. I can tell her that the Type 26 warships are certainly not indefinitely delayed. My information is that that is not correct. It struck me that she took particular care to thank the Clerks and staff on the Scottish Affairs Committee and to wish them well over the summer recess.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) spoke of the engineering skills gap. The Wiltshire festival of engineering that she is arranging in her constituency sounds very impressive, and I know that there are wonderful opportunities in Wiltshire. She said that she had visited 100 local businesses in the past year—what a superb ambassador for job creators in her constituency.

I welcome the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) to her place and congratulate her on her by-election success. She was a vocal advocate for junior doctors in her remarks, but I can assure her that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health cares deeply about the national health service, its patients and its staff. No doubt the hon. Lady will agree that legal action is expensive, unnecessary and unwarranted, and we hope that the matter can be resolved.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) spoke about Rugeley B power station, and some allusion was made to its beauty or otherwise. That is no doubt a matter for extensive debate, but she did indicate that she had held a jobs fair in her constituency. No doubt that was welcomed by those who worked at the Rugeley B power station and by many others. I was also interested to hear about Mill Green, Cannock’s own Bicester village in the making, and look forward to my invitation. She also mentioned Watchman V who is, I believe, the dog of the year. We wish Watchman V well as the mascot in her constituency.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) spoke about tuition fees. I am pleased to be able to reassure him that the statistics show that more disadvantaged young people are now going into university education than ever did under the Labour Government. I would have thought it right to welcome the written statements that have been released today, because Members will have a considerable opportunity over the next six weeks to study them and to return to the matters fully refreshed in the autumn.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) gave his usual extremely impressive performance. He mentioned dozens of separate items, and, if I may, I will write to him about his remarks. I was not able to write them down fast enough by hand. I will, if I may, send my best wishes to his mother, who is 104 years of age. He mentioned Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, and I am sure we are all fully supportive of its work raising awareness of cervical cancer and the importance of cervical screening—just one of the matters that he mentioned, among many other important subjects.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) was concerned about housing, employment security and the NHS. He will be reassured, one hopes, to hear that this Government have built more housing than Labour did in its 13 years in government. This Government also introduced the national living wage and are supporting the NHS to the tune of £10 billion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) spoke passionately about her constituency. It is an expanding town, and she is rightly proud that youth unemployment is now at a record low. So much is being done to continue and ensure business investment in the town. She did say there were too many traffic lights, certainly at one junction. No doubt many Members will have some sympathy with that.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) can be reassured that not only can Hansard understand him but so can everybody in the Chamber, too. He spoke passionately about the history of Northern Ireland and the Orange Order. It was a fascinating, if brief, history lesson. No doubt we will hear more in due course.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) spoke of the air quality in London, which Members from across the country no doubt take an interest in, as we in the House of Commons are subject to it. It is not quite as bad as the great stink in the Victorian period, when the curtains of the Palace of Westminster had to be draped in lime to try to disguise the aroma, but there are still pollution issues. No doubt he will continue to be alive to those issues and to represent his constituents accordingly. I will ask the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to write to him about the rescheduled meeting. He will appreciate that, with the changes that have occurred in recent days, his meeting had to be postponed. That is regrettable, but it can be rearranged. He mentioned the Company of Shipwrights, of which he is a proud member, and made a very important point about those who are detained in India. I will ask the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to write to him about that.

I take this opportunity to wish everyone well over the summer recess, in particular the staff of the House, you and your Deputies, Mr Speaker, and the Chairs of all the Committees—not only the Home Affairs Committee, although perhaps with particular good wishes to that one. Like many other Members, I would like to send my best wishes to the retiring member of staff, Noeleen Delaney. I understand she is approaching the thirtieth anniversary of her employment here. She has, no doubt, served generations of Members of Parliament with the same excellence, warmth and kindness of spirit throughout the past three decades. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

It is an honour and privilege to serve in this House. It is a duty that is borne with great humility and service by everyone on all sides. To be a servant of this House and to appear at the Dispatch Box for the first time is a great honour for me. I thank everyone for their good wishes. I wish everyone well over the recess.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful, on behalf of the House, to the Deputy Leader, whose warmth and good grace have been hugely appreciated. The same goes for the shadow Leader. It seems a fitting conclusion to our proceedings and I wish everybody a very relaxing and revitalising summer break.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.