Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

2. How many sittings of Public Bill Committees took place in the last Parliament; and how many such sittings have taken place in this Parliament to date.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

There were 935 sittings of Public Bill Committees in the 2005 to 2010 Parliament, and there have been 797 sittings so far in the current Parliament.

[Sir Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

It is clear that the work rate of Public Bill Committees in this Parliament has been considerably lower than that in the previous Parliament, and I say that as a member of the Panel of Chairs. Will the Government now look at allocating more time for Public Bill Committees to consider private Members’ Bills, so that more private Members’ Bills get through the House and get Royal Assent?

[Tom Brake]

First, I should perhaps correct the impression that the hon. Gentleman wants to give that this Parliament has not been busy. The 2010 to 2015 Parliament will sit for 734 days, which compares with the 718 in the 2005 to 2010 Parliament. Of course, for individual Bills there have been more Public Committee days or sittings than there were under the previous Government. I have heard what he has said about private Members’ Bills. I know that the Procedure Committee has some strong views about private Members’ Bills, and I suspect that we may have to return to the matter in the next Parliament.

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

The reality is that too many Bills have been leaving the House of Commons without adequate scrutiny and have to be salvaged in the other place. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has proposed a new stage for Commons scrutiny—the whole House scrutiny stage. Does the Deputy Leader of the House accept that we need to improve scrutiny in this place, rather than simply using the Lords to bail us out?

[Tom Brake]

I do, of course, accept that in this House we need scrutiny, but the Labour party is responsible for scrutiny and what we have seen in this Parliament is that far more Bills have finished early than was the case in the previous Parliament. I am afraid that is because the Opposition are not undertaking their job of scrutiny effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

Since the launch of the Government’s e-petitions site, more than 3.7 million individuals have given their support to the 37 petitions that reached the qualifying 100,000 signature threshold for debate. The topics of 32 have been the subject of debate in the House of Commons, most as a direct result of the e-petition.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Procedure Committee on its work on this and other issues? Does he agree that the introduction of e-petitions has perhaps done more than anything else to start to reconnect this Parliament with the public?

[Tom Brake]

Yes, I am very happy to join my right hon. Friend in congratulating the Procedure Committee on the work it has done on this issue. It is a fact that since August 2011, more than 10 million individuals have signed one or more of the 30,000 petitions initiated. I, and I hope all Members of the House, look forward to a Petitions Committee being established in the next Parliament, which will allow perhaps a wider range of petitions to come before the House and, for instance, for petitioners to come and give oral evidence to that Committee.

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of the Backbench Business Committee on the work of the House.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

The Leader of the House has not made a recent assessment of the effect of the introduction of the Backbench Business Committee on the work of the House, but the Government response to the Procedure Committee’s review agreed that the Backbench Business Committee has been widely welcomed as a successful and effective innovation.

[Mrs Glindon]

This Parliament has seen votes on numerous Back-Bench motions completely ignored by the Government, including a vote to end the badger cull, which proceeded, and a vote to make personal, social, health and economic education a statutory requirement. Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that it is time to take the will of the House seriously? What is the purpose of Parliament if the Government just pick and choose which votes they want to act on?

[Tom Brake]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will be aware that the outcome of Back-Bench debates is not binding on the Government. However, the Government have taken account of many Back-Bench debates. For instance, policy has changed on the issue of VAT on fuel for air ambulances, and on cheaper petrol and diesel following a motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). Of course, there was also the successful campaign on the release of documents relating to Hillsborough.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Huw Irranca-Davies. Not here.

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

May I, too, welcome the excellent work of the Backbench Business Committee, which has chosen debates that the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) and I have asked for on a number of reports by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? The strength of the Backbench Business Committee is that its time is for debating purposes, but will my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House consider the possibility of a debate either selected by the Backbench Business Committee or in Government time on how the House deals with the scrutiny of European Union matters? When an implementing regulation comes before the House, hon. Members should be allowed to amend as well as just debate it.

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I am sure that if a cross-party group of Members of Parliament went to the Backbench Business Committee with a proposal for a debate to examine that, the Committee would be happy to accept the request.

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

The Office of the Leader of the House of Commons provides guidance to all Departments on the practice of answering parliamentary questions. The guidance advises Departments that Members should receive a substantive response to their named day question on the date specified and should endeavour to answer ordinary written questions within a working week of being tabled.

[Mrs Glindon]

The Government’s official guidance on written questions requires answers to be both accurate and truthful, and not highly politicised. Yet written answers recently received from a number of Ministers, most notably a Minister of State from the Cabinet Office, have been of a party political character. Will the Leader of the House ensure that his ministerial colleagues are aware of the proper processes to be followed when answering questions?

[Tom Brake]

If the hon. Lady has issues about the speed with which questions are being answered or their content, that is clearly a matter she can raise with the Procedure Committee. It is best that she provides the background information, but if she wants to provide me with the examples she has mentioned, I would be happy to follow them up with the relevant Secretaries of the State.

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

May I follow up that point and remind the House that in recent months the Procedure Committee has invited two Secretaries of the State and their permanent secretaries to appear before it to explain their lack of performance? If Members of any party have any concerns about the content or timeliness of their answers, they should bring the matter to the attention of the Procedure Committee.

[Tom Brake]

I am grateful for that point of clarification or information. When Departments want to respond promptly, they can do so. I have frequently quoted the ability of the Department of Health, for example, to respond to 99% of questions within the appropriate time scales, and I am now happy to be able to refer to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which has been able to respond to 100% of them within the appropriate time scales.

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

One of the Secretaries of State dragged to the Procedure Committee was from the Ministry of Justice, which provides one of the worst examples of Ministers dodging their responsibilities and parliamentary scrutiny. Under the current Lord Chancellor, fewer than one in five questions was answered on time in the last Session. That is because, as he has admitted, his own special advisers are vetting every answer. Do we not need more substance and less spin from Ministers?

[Tom Brake]

I am sure that the Ministry of Justice is not dodging its responsibilities. I do, however, think that there is a very strong case for that Ministry to improve its performance quite significantly. I will raise that issue with the Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

2. If he will make it his policy that topical questions be asked in the House to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

While the status of oral questions is, of course, kept under review, there are no current plans to change the policy so that topical questions may be asked of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

[Mr Robertson]

I thank the Minister for his response. He will be aware that there are occasions, particularly in Northern Ireland, when urgent matters need to be discussed and that that has sometimes proved problematic. I ask him to reconsider the possibility of perhaps allowing 10 minutes to be given over to topical questions in each session.

[Tom Brake]

I guess that one of the issues with topical questions for Northern Ireland is that matters are often more complex because of devolution. Mr Speaker has rightly been generous in allowing urgent questions, which provide another route for consideration of urgent matters in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I very much support the proposition put forward by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. The Democratic Unionists very much support the introduction of topical questions and urgent questions for Northern Ireland matters. I do not accept the argument about complexity: every Department has complex issues to deal with and Northern Ireland issues are no more complex. I thus urge the House authorities and the Government to consider this very carefully.

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid that I am not in a position to change my earlier response. Urgent questions provide a route to raise urgent matters. The complexities of devolution are a fact, which makes it more difficult for Members to ensure that their question is pertinent to topical questions and is one to which Ministers can respond.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I support calls for topical questions for Northern Ireland but also a review of topical questions in general and, in particular—despite the great skills of Mr Speaker—the almost impossibility of fitting in all the topical questions to the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Tom Brake]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the time set aside for topical questions to the Deputy Prime Minister was extended owing to demand. The issue is that we have a limited amount of time in this House available for questions and extending questions in one area inevitably means cutting them in another.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of September sittings of the House.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

The House performs its functions effectively in September just as it does in other months of the year.

[Kevin Brennan]

Before anyone gets too excited, may I just make it clear that I am not suggesting that we have fewer sitting days? September sittings were introduced early in the 2000s but ignore the facts of the party conference season, which was originally at the end of September and into October because of the availability of cheap rooms in seaside resorts. That is no longer an issue for parties. Have there been any discussions about bringing party conferences forward in September so that we can avoid this very expensive two-week period when the House is brought back to life?

[Tom Brake]

The Deputy Leader of the House is responsible for a limited number of things and party conferences is certainly not one of them. Members would agree that the September sittings that we have just had were essential. We debated some essential matters and there might well have had to be a recall of Parliament had we not had those sittings. I was pleased to note that on Friday 5 September there was the largest turnout of Labour MPs ever—subject to my being corrected by the Labour Whips—on a private Member’s Bill. I was pleased to note that the hon. Gentleman’s name followed mine in the list in Hansard of those who voted.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

Has the institution of September sittings made any difference at all to the total number of days per year on which the House sits? What does my right hon. Friend calculate the cost to be in terms of the interruption of maintenance works and the inconvenience to all people on the Parliamentary Estate when certain facilities are not available at that time?

[Tom Brake]

The number of days has not changed as a result of September sittings. Were we to abolish them, if that is something for which Members are pressing, we would simply have to make that time available elsewhere. The additional costs are marginal; I understand them to be of the order of £200,000 for that period.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Whatever the arrangements are for possibly changing the times of conferences, is the Deputy Leader of the House aware that it would be totally unacceptable to return to a situation where the House did not meet for nine or 10 consecutive weeks? In the past many of us urged that that should be discontinued and I am pleased that it has been.

[Tom Brake]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman and I often see eye to eye on matters in this House but on that point I am in total agreement with him. The public and indeed Members of Parliament would consider it strange that for a very extended period during the summer we are not sitting and there were not opportunities to raise important matters in this place.

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

Is not the real problem that the two Houses are now completely out of sync with each other, with the House of Lords sitting until the end of July and not now coming back until mid-October? Will the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House speak to their counterparts about trying to realign the two Houses, thus not only saving money but improving parliamentary scrutiny?

[Tom Brake]

That is a valid point and I am certainly happy to follow it up. Often the Houses are not synchronised in terms of the progress of Bills in any case, but the hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. It is certainly worth seeing whether the timetables could be synchronised if that had a significant impact in reducing the costs of running Parliament.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

9. What plans he has to improve the system of e-petitions.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

Following a resolution of the House on 8 May, my office has been working with the Procedure Committee on a collaborative e-petition system. Details of what the new system will look like and how it will operate are still being discussed and developed. However, I can assure Members that before the end of this Parliament a set of proposals for a new e-petition system will be brought before the House for debate and decision.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. My constituent John Clough has sponsored a petition on the change.org website calling for a stalkers register that so far has attracted over 120,000 signatures. Could well-supported online petitions such as Mr Clough’s hosted on sites other than the official e-petition website play a role in influencing the debates here in Parliament?

[Tom Brake]

Clearly the petition of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent John Clough can indeed play a role in influencing Parliament, in that the hon. Gentleman has a number of opportunities to raise it, such as through Adjournment debates, and the Backbench Business Committee remains an option to raise petitions not just on the e-petition site, but any other site.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Government are planning to change the threshold of 100,000 signatures in relation to e-petitions to ensure that they get more of an airing in the House of Commons?

[Tom Brake]

The Government intend to set up a petitions committee, whose purpose will be to allow a greater airing of petitions and to give advice to people seeking to table petitions. The committee will be able to consider petitions of any size, so the threshold will be completely flexible.



Royal assent

[Mr Speaker]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Measure:

Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure 2014.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

2. What recent guidance he has given to his ministerial colleagues about providing timely answers to written questions.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

Both I and the Leader of the House regularly remind ministerial colleagues of their obligation to give accurate, timely and truthful information to Parliament, as set out further in the ministerial code and included in the guidance issued by the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons.

[Mr Hanson]

Two weeks ago I raised with the Leader of the House a series of parliamentary questions on the important issue of passports to which I had not had answers. He helpfully wrote to the said Department, and I have had a nice letter back, but I have still not had answers to the parliamentary questions. The questions were tabled on 4 June, and they were on pertinent matters to do with passports. Can a timetable be set for when answers should be given to Members?

[Tom Brake]

I was aware that the right hon. Gentleman had raised those questions with my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary. As I am sure the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) is aware, the Home Office, like other large Departments, receives a very large number of complex questions, and it takes time to produce a thorough response. Home Office Ministers take their responsibilities seriously, and indeed I had occasion yesterday to remind them of those responsibilities.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

3. What recent guidance he has given to his ministerial colleagues about providing substantive answers to written questions.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

The Office of the Leader of the House of Commons provides guidance to all Departments on the practice of answering parliamentary questions. The guidance advises Departments that Members should receive a substantive response to named day questions on the date specified and that Departments should endeavour to answer ordinary written questions within a working week of their being tabled.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

In a recent TheyWorkForYou survey, it was found that less than half of parliamentary questions receive a satisfactory response. Does the Deputy Leader of the House think that is acceptable?

[Tom Brake]

I am aware of that report. The only thing I will say is that people’s judgment of whether a response is satisfactory is down to them.

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

What changes does the Deputy Leader of the House consider necessary to improve the quality of ministerial replies to written questions about the performance of agencies and non-departmental public bodies, because Ministers sometimes appear to be acting as no more than mailboxes?

[Tom Brake]

If there are individual cases that the hon. Gentleman would like to raise with me, I am happy to pursue them with the appropriate Departments and bodies. Of course, he has the opportunity to refer any concerns to the Procedure Committee.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On 6 December 2010, the Home Secretary replied to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), stating:

“We are also taking steps to ensure that the database will, for the first time, hold the profiles of all serving prisoners and all those previously convicted of serious crimes”—[Official Report, 6 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 99W.]

A few weeks ago I asked

“how many DNA profiles of current prisoners have not been added to the DNA database”

but was told:

“The information requested is not held.”—[Official Report, 2 July 2014; Vol. 583, c. 645W.]

How on earth can Ministers say that something will definitely happen and then, at a later date, say that they have no mechanism for judging whether or not it is taking place?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Clearly it is a complex matter that he has serious concerns about. If he would like to write to me with the specifics, I am happy to follow it up with the Home Secretary.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

The failure to implement universal credit and personal independence payments has left the Department for Work and Pensions in complete chaos, so is the Deputy Leader of the House surprised that two out of every three of its answers to written questions are judged by the public not to have answered the question? What does he intend to do to get DWP to improve that sorry state of affairs?

[Tom Brake]

I do not recognise what the hon. Lady says about universal credit, which I think will be a success. As I understand it, it is something that she and her party support. With regard to concerns about whether questions are accurate and satisfactory, I suspect that many of the respondents will have got a perfectly factual response, but perhaps not the one they wanted to hear.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

In May I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer a named day question about Treasury research on the number of jobs in the UK that are dependent on Europe. What I received back from one of the Ministers was complete waffle, and it was late. A couple of weeks ago the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was able to confirm that 3.3 million jobs in the UK are dependent on Europe. What can the Deputy Leader of the House do to correct that quality of answer?

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend, who I think has corrected the quality of the answer by pointing out that 3.3 million jobs in the UK are dependent on our trade with Europe.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

The reasons for not bringing forward proposals for a House business committee were set out in full last December when the Government responded to the relevant inquiry of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee.

[Mr Hollobone]

Allowing the House of Commons to timetable its own programme while allowing for sufficient time for the Government of the day to get their legislation through is a really good idea and was perhaps the best feature of the coalition agreement. Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that this key part of the coalition agreement has been dropped?

[Tom Brake]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be as aware as I am that, in trying to identify a consensus around which the House could coalesce in relation to the House business committee and the need for it to be able to take into account the successful establishment of the Backbench Business Committee and what is happening in the House of Lords, it was in fact impossible to come forward with a proposal that would satisfy all Members.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

7. What recent guidance he has given to his ministerial colleagues about providing substantive responses to Select Committee reports.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

Written guidance produced by the Cabinet Office, commonly referred to as the Osmotherly rules, specifies that Departments should aim to provide the considered Government response to both Commons and Lords Select Committee reports within two months of their publication.

[Paul Flynn]

The “revolving door” is the pernicious system whereby senior Ministers, military people and civil servants can prostitute their insider knowledge for private gain in their retirement years. The system for controlling this, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, was criticised by a Select Committee and reforms were suggested. That did not have an answer in two months; it has not had an answer in 22 months.

[Tom Brake]

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has an interest in the pre-appointment hearings issue, and I understand that the Minister for the Cabinet Office was questioned recently by the Public Administration Select Committee about the matter. I am pleased to report that the Cabinet Office has now submitted its response to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

Diolch—thank you. Members can use Welsh in the proceedings of the House in short extracts, but a translation for the benefit of non-Welsh speakers should be provided. The House agreed in 2001 to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure that witnesses before Select Committees should be able to give evidence in Welsh.

[Glyn Davies]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. On the civil service, Welsh-language legislation applies to every aspect of the work of the House, so will he reassure me that every Department is committed to working in a way that fully recognises its legal obligations in compliance with the Welsh Language Act 1993?

[Tom Brake]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for the work he does in promoting the Welsh language. I know that he recently held an important Westminster Hall debate on Welsh identity and, of course, the language played an important part in that debate. The Government are indeed committed to the Welsh language and are fully committed to providing Government services in the Welsh language where there is demand for them.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The use of the Welsh language is still treated as though it is secondary to that of English, inevitably. Sensible arrangements can be made. Other Parliaments deal with half a dozen languages. Should we not look to the Welsh parliamentary party to do the same work it did brilliantly 18 years ago and suggest practical arrangements of reasonable value that will allow anyone who wishes to make a speech in the Welsh language in this Chamber or elsewhere when Welsh business is being discussed to do so?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I have set out ways in which Welsh is provided for in Select Committees. The impact assessment for the Wales Bill was also translated into Welsh, so action is being taken where it can be.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr iawn. I support the comments of the hon. Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies). About half of those who took part in yesterday’s Welsh Grand Committee debate on the Budget were fluent, first-language Welsh speakers. Surely the sittings of the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Welsh Grand Committee should be held bilingually, thereby making Welsh an official language of this Parliament, the same as English and Norman French.

[Tom Brake]

I certainly welcome opportunities for debates on the subject of Wales and, of course, the Wales Bill has provided such an opportunity. I am also very pleased that in the past the Backbench Business Committee has been able to provide time to debate Welsh matters, and I hope that will continue.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

5. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on the time taken by that Department to answer written parliamentary questions.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

The Leader of the House often reminds ministerial colleagues of their obligations in regard to parliamentary scrutiny.

[Graham Jones]

On 10 March, I submitted to the Ministry of Justice a named day parliamentary question for written answer that—nine weeks later—is yet to be answered. On 26 March, some two weeks after the answer was due, I submitted a chase-up question to inquire when the original question would be answered. To date, neither of those questions has been answered. What is worse, my assistant in Westminster has telephoned the Department weekly, and each and every time he has been told that an answer is being finalised. I am concerned about the time taken for such questions to be answered. It makes it impossible for Members to hold the Executive to account, and it is a discourtesy to my constituents if Ministers simply do not answer these questions.

[Tom Brake]

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s question. Like other large Departments, the Ministry of Justice receives a very large number of questions, and given the complex nature of its business a thorough response can take time. However, I agree that in the case of his particular question, it is simply not good enough: there needs to be a response. I know that the Secretary of State for Justice will want to take on board the hon. Gentleman’s complaint, and that he will in future ensure that Members receive timely answers setting out the information they need.

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

I am very disappointed that the Deputy Leader of the House is not prepared to take up this case, and I hope that he will now promise to do so. The Procedure Committee’s report on the Government’s answering of written questions makes for very uncomfortable reading for many of his colleagues. Only the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had a greater deterioration in performance than the Ministry of Justice during the last Session. Further to the previous exchange, will he clarify whether the Ministry of Justice is covering up information or is just completely incompetent?

[Tom Brake]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the answer that I gave to the last question. We have taken up the issue and I have indicated strongly that the Secretary of State for Justice needs to ensure that there is a response. The Secretary of State for Justice does not have the worst performing Department. I am sure that it is a matter of the Department ensuring that a detailed response to the question is provided, rather than the cover-up that the hon. Gentleman implies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

6. If he will ensure that Ministers place documents in the Library in accordance with their answers to parliamentary questions.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

This is a matter for individual Departments. However, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Office of the Leader of the House provides best practice guidance on answering parliamentary questions to all Departments, which states that if reference is made to documents in response to a parliamentary question, copies of the documents must be placed in the Library.

[Philip Davies]

On a number of occasions, I have received answers to parliamentary questions that say that information has been placed in the Library, only to find that it has not been placed there and that it does not arrive until quite a while later. Before we get into naming and shaming Ministers and Departments, will the Deputy Leader of the House take steps to ensure that that poor practice does not happen again?

[Tom Brake]

I agree that if an answer to a parliamentary question refers to information being deposited in the Library, that should happen in a timely manner. I would be happy to remind Departments of the requirements and to take up any cases on behalf of the hon. Gentleman, should he wish to give me the details. We tried to identify the question to which he was referring. If he provides that information, we will follow it up.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Much as I hate agreeing with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), he is absolutely right on this occasion. The worst of it is that the Leader of the House is about—I have a sneaking suspicion—to let all Ministers off the hook, because the moment he prorogues early, all the questions lapse and no Minister has to do anything. I urge him not to prorogue until the day before the Queen’s Speech, so that Ministers have plenty of time to get all their answers in order.

[Tom Brake]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am certain that all Departments will do everything they can to ensure that questions are responded to before Prorogation.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Priti Patel. Not here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What scope there is for local authorities to initiate legislation in Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

Under the rules of the House, local authorities may initiate legislation by way of private Bills, which may make specific provision for their local authority area only, as opposed to amending the general law of the land. There have been six such private Bills before Parliament this Session.

[Andy Sawford]

Given the great initiatives of the 19th century to reform towns and cities around the country and recent initiatives such as Liverpool’s push for smoke-free public places and Canterbury’s action on street traders, and as we have a zombie Parliament, in which the coalition can agree no business, will the Leader of the House invite local areas to come forward with initiatives for their communities?

[Tom Brake]

First, of course we do not have a zombie Parliament: we are about to have a Queen’s Speech that will set out a detailed programme of government. The Government do not have any plans to review the procedure that the hon. Gentleman mentioned for private Bills, but we would be open to considering other ways in which such business could be transacted.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

2. What recent assessment he has made of Government Departments’ performance in answering written parliamentary questions on time.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

My office collates departmental performance information for ordinary and named day parliamentary questions for each Session, which are submitted to the Procedure Committee. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House provided data relating to the last Session to that Committee in July 2013, and those data are available on the parliamentary website.

[Nic Dakin]

In January, the Procedure Committee published a report which demonstrated that five Departments are deteriorating in their performance of answering named day questions. What is the Deputy Leader of the House doing about that?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. Clearly, the Government want to ensure that best practice is spread to ensure that all Departments are performing at a very high level. If five Departments are deteriorating, a greater number are improving, and we know that even big Departments such as the Department of Health are able to achieve a fantastic score of responding to 99% of ordinary questions within an appropriate time.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Which is the best performing Department, which is the worst performing, and would the Deputy Leader of the House consider drawing the attention of the Prime Minister to the worst performing Department on a quarterly basis?

[Tom Brake]

Indeed, I am happy to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to Departments that are not up to scratch. It may impress the hon. Gentleman if I tell him that the Department for the Leader of the House of Commons performs the best.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

3. What steps he is taking to encourage his ministerial colleagues to make Government amendments to legislation in the House rather than in the House of Lords.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to encourage his ministerial colleagues to make Government amendments to legislation in the House of Commons rather than in the House of Lords.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

All will be well—[Interruption.] There are so many questions. [Interruption.] Inspiration is to hand; I thank the Leader of the House. It illustrates just how well we work together.

It is usual practice for the Government to make amendments, where possible, in the House of introduction. However, the Government are rightly expected to listen and respond to debates on Bills in both Houses of Parliament, and it is, of course, the core strength of our Parliament that any amendments made to Bills in the House of Lords must also be agreed by this House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Nic Dakin—sorry, I mean Debbie Abrahams. We remember his pearls of wisdom.

[Debbie Abrahams]

That is a disappointing response from the Minister. The Government are increasingly bypassing this Chamber by introducing Bills in skeleton form and then pushing them through the House of Lords. The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill left this Chamber 29 pages long, and ended up with more than 200 pages in the Lords. Other examples include the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, and so on. Will the Leader of the House commit to ensuring that that does not happen to future legislation?

[Tom Brake]

I am disappointed with what the hon. Lady has to say. Clearly it is appropriate to ensure that Bills that start in the House of Commons are appropriately considered, and that those which start in the House of Lords are appropriately considered. It may be of interest to the hon. Lady to know that the number of amendments passed in each House is roughly of the same order.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The Agricultural Wages Board was abolished last year by an amendment added to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill at the last minute in the House of Lords. The Bill was then scheduled so that there was no time to debate the move in the Commons. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Government are deliberately weakening the ability of the House of Commons to scrutinise the Executive, especially on an issue such as this, which undermines workers’ terms and conditions at one fell swoop?

[Tom Brake]

I do not agree. One of the biggest changes the Government have made is to provide much more time, for instance on Report, to ensure that Bills are appropriately considered. If the hon. Gentleman goes through the history books, he will find that he has to go back a very long time under the previous Government to identify when this level of scrutiny was given on Report.

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

I commend the Government on that and draw attention to the increasing use of draft legislation, on which this Government have done so much better than the last one. Opposition Members should remember the 2005 to 2010 Parliament; by comparison, this Government have been a paragon of virtue.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful comment. Clearly, this Government have put great emphasis on pre-legislative scrutiny, another area where we have performed outstandingly well in comparison with our predecessors.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does the Deputy Leader of the House recall, as I do, the Opposition’s many attempts in the House of Lords to muzzle time and again our tradition of a free press, for example in the Crime and Courts Bill? Does he agree that people who sit in glass houses should not necessarily throw stones?

[Tom Brake]

I am very happy to support what the hon. Gentleman says. I am very proud of our record of ensuring that the right level of scrutiny is available for Bills and ensuring that the right number of Bills are going through the House. The Opposition often criticise the Government for what they allege is a light programme. We have a programme that is delivering the goods.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

This morning’s written ministerial statement on drafting guidance for Government Bills represents a missed opportunity to address the Government’s dismal record on drafting legislation. Will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us how he and the Leader of the House plan to ensure that their Government’s Bills are more thoroughly drafted and scrutinised, especially by this House?

[Tom Brake]

I do not know, frankly, what the hon. Lady is referring to. This Government have put great emphasis on ensuring that Bills are effectively drafted. For example, we support the good law initiative, which ensures that Bills are clearer. We have done a considerable amount on explanatory notes to ensure that Members have a better understanding of Government amendments. I would appreciate it if the Opposition joined in that process, for example on the Deregulation Bill, to ensure that there is clarity on what their amendments are suggesting.

[Mr Speaker]

The exchanges are very protracted at the moment. I want to get through some more.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

5. What steps the Government have taken to improve opportunities for scrutiny of legislative proposals.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

The Government have improved opportunities for scrutiny by publishing more draft legislative proposals in each Session than the last Administration did. We have also piloted public readings in respect of two Bills, and have frequently allocated more than one day for remaining stages: that includes seven Bills in the current Session alone.

[David Rutley]

What steps are the Government taking to make legislation clearer, more straightforward and easier for the public as well as parliamentarians to understand, in order to facilitate better scrutiny?

[Tom Brake]

As part of the good law initiative, the Government are taking a number of steps to promote law that is clear, necessary, coherent, effective and accessible. For instance, we are considering how we can improve the drafting and presentation of Bills and supporting documents such as explanatory notes, as well as access to and navigation of existing legislation online.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to improve opportunities for the scrutiny of draft statutory instruments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of Departments' performance in answering written parliamentary questions.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

My office collates departmental performance information for ordinary and named day parliamentary questions for each Session, which are submitted to the Procedure Committee. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons provided data relating to the last Session to that Committee in July 2013. Those data are available on the parliamentary website.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I have received particularly poor responses to recent written questions to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister on whether they would raise human rights issues during business trips abroad. For example, the Prime Minister took more than two weeks to reply to named day questions, with no holding answer. Does the Deputy Leader of the House think that it is wrong of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, in particular, to show such contempt for Members who are simply seeking to find out what they do when they go abroad at public expense?

[Tom Brake]

I certainly agree that it is possible to achieve a very high quality of response. For instance, the Department of Health achieves a 99% response rate. If the hon. Lady would like to send me the details of the questions she refers to, I would be happy to look into the matter.

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

As a member of the Procedure Committee, perhaps I can help the Deputy Leader of the House. Will he use this opportunity to remind right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House that if they are unhappy with a reply to a written question, because of a delay or the content, they can submit it to the Committee and we will look into and chase up those questions?

[Tom Brake]

Indeed; I am very happy to encourage Members to do that. The Procedure Committee looks at this matter in detail. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, if there are specific concerns about how Departments handle their replies, they are required to explain to the Procedure Committee why they have been unable to respond promptly.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House look particularly at the performance of the Department for Communities and Local Government, and will he deprecate the consistent attempt to reveal as little information as possible in answers to parliamentary questions? I will gladly furnish him with some recent questions that I have had “answered” in a fashion.

[Tom Brake]

I am happy to convey the hon. Gentleman’s concerns to the Department. He might want to know that one of our responsibilities in the Leader of the House’s office is to ensure that best practice in responding to questions is circulated. For instance, we have encouraged Departments not to respond to questions by providing links to websites. We are requiring them to provide the hard figures to make it easier for Members to assess the response.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that we would have fewer parliamentary questions if we had more time to debate important issues, such as the Immigration Bill? One great thing that the coalition Government promised was a business of the House committee, so when will we get it?

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is slightly off the mark, in relation to handling responses to written parliamentary questions, but I am sure that his concern will have been noted in the appropriate places.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

If it is to do its job of scrutinising the Executive efficiently, Parliament must be able to rely on timely answers from Government Departments. After the Procedure Committee highlighted last year’s atrocious performance, the Leader of the House committed the Government to establishing a new electronic system for Departments across Whitehall to improve responses. Can the Deputy Leader of the House tell us whether that is now in place and whether we can expect to see an improvement in response times when the Procedure Committee publishes an update next week? Will he set out what he will do if there are Departments that have failed to improve their performance and if some have deteriorated?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question. She might not be aware that over the past Session there has been an improvement: more Departments have been improving their responses than have been deteriorating. I certainly agree that the electronic system will ensure that Members get a better response and that there will be much less dependence on paperwork circulating throughout the system. I have just seen the progress that has been made in that system and am confident that when it is implemented Members will be very pleased with it and that it will save substantial sums of money.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

The Government met nearly 50 organisations to discuss the provisions of the Act before it received Royal Assent. Those discussions led to a number of changes being made to the then Bill to reduce the burden on smaller third parties who campaign at elections, to ease the transition to the new regime, and to clarify the rules.

[Mr Bain]

Notwithstanding the unseemly haste to rush this legislation to Royal Assent last week, many voluntary sector organisations have deep misgivings about the effect it will have on the way that they operate. Will the Minister show equal haste in committing to post-legislative scrutiny of the legislation so that the House can assess the damaging impact that it will have on our charities?

[Tom Brake]

We have surely now reached the time when the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members should accept that the Act does not do what he has claimed. He may not be aware that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations recently said:

“We are grateful that the government has listened to the concerns charities have raised in recent months…The”

Act

“provides a much more sensible balance…between creating accountability and transparency in elections while still allowing for charities and others to speak up on issues of concern.”

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

7. What plans he has to increase the use of pre-legislative scrutiny.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

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

1. For what reasons he proposed a recess in November 2014.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. The recesses proposed for next year, including the one in November, reflect the need to balance the requirements of Government and Back-Bench business with the reasonable expectations of Members regarding constituency business and spending time with their families.

[Diana Johnson]

The rationale for having a few days in November was to prepare for the Queen’s Speech. Now that that has been moved to earlier in the year, and given that there are no school holidays in November, will the Deputy Leader of the House think again? A lot of people perceive that that time could be better used for pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills that come before the House that are not well drafted, and to ensure that the Prime Minister is here on a Wednesday to answer Prime Minister’s questions.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question. I am sure she is aware that the recess dates are proposed by the Government after extensive discussion, and are agreed by the House. I did not notice any opposition to the November recess when the House agreed the recesses, although I do not know whether she raised concerns at the time with her own party managers. She will be pleased to know that the Prime Minister is in the House more frequently, particularly for oral statements, than was his predecessor.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

For how many days will the House sit in 2014, and how does that compare with other national Parliaments?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. The House will sit for roughly 150 days, which the Procedure Committee believes is appropriate. I cannot give an exact figure because we cannot predict whether there will be the opportunity or need to recall Parliament.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Instead of having a November recess, why not get rid of the ludicrous September recall, bring the party conferences forward to earlier in September, and have a straight run through to Christmas? Would that not save a lot of money and make a lot more sense?

[Tom Brake]

I am sure Members of the House would like to consider that proposal, but the introduction of the September sitting was to avoid the long gap between the end of July and October when the House returns. Members, I hope, will agree it is useful to have that opportunity for the House to meet, because there may be important matters that we want to discuss in September.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

May I endorse what the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) has just said? Would it make sense to start planning now not for next year but for the year after, so that if we considered a change in date parties would be able to change their conference arrangements?

[Tom Brake]

That is perhaps a matter for the parties and not within my remit. If they want to change the dates of their conferences, I suspect there would need to be all-party agreement, which might be difficult to achieve.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

The transparency Bill completed its Committee stage in the House of Lords yesterday. In recent weeks, Ministers have met nearly 50 organisations to discuss how the non-party campaigning provisions might affect them, while exchanging correspondence with many more. We are grateful to all those groups who have made a valuable contribution to the Government’s consideration of this issue. The Bill will return to the House at some point in the new year, following the Report stage and Third Reading in the Lords.

[Pat Glass]

This is the latest pause brought about by huge public unrest over a controversial Bill. Does the Deputy Leader of the House accept that he made a mistake in not providing for pre-legislative scrutiny before pushing this controversial Bill through the House?

[Tom Brake]

The Government reorganised the debate in the Lords to enable discussion of part 2, on non-party campaigning, to take place later, thereby providing an opportunity to engage fully with organisations. I hope the hon. Lady agrees that the fact that the Government recently met 50 organisations to discuss the matter and previously, when the Bill was in the House of Commons, engaged extensively with organisations shows that there has been comprehensive consultation.

[Mr Bain]

This Bill will impede dramatically the ability of charities and many other voluntary groups to comment and campaign on issues relating to Government policy. What further opportunities will the Government allow in the other place and in this House for further scrutiny before flawed legislation causes great damage to our democracy?

[Tom Brake]

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman perpetuates the myth that the Bill will affect the ability of charities to campaign on policy issues. Clearly, it will not.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give further detail on any representations he has received under part 3 of the Bill on trade unions?

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid we have not received any representations. Of course, the Government gave Labour that opportunity, and given that its leader expressed an interest in dealing with the issue of Labour and funding, I am disappointed that he did not take up that opportunity.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I would like to ask the Deputy Leader of the House a simple question, to which I would like a simple answer: will he set out what changes the Government plan to make as a result of the pause and consultation?

[Tom Brake]

I do not know whether the hon. Lady has been following the debate in the House of Lords, but having listened to organisations the Government clearly indicated they would respond to the issue of registration thresholds, which was of concern to smaller organisations and charities, and there might be other things, too, such as a review of the Bill after implementation and measures we could take to assist organisations worried about the reporting requirements.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

3. What his policy is on extending pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

The Government are committed, wherever possible, to publishing draft legislation for pre-legislative scrutiny. We published 17 draft Bills or sets of draft measures in the last Session, which is more than any other Government in any Session.

[Chi Onwurah]

Following last week’s announcement of a pause in proceedings on the reviled gagging Bill and the previous pause in the equally reviled Health and Social Care Bill, can the Leader of the House confirm whether this form of legislative coitus interruptus is becoming his preferred form of parliamentary planned parenthood?

[Tom Brake]

Clearly it is not. As I have stated, we have a very good track record with the largest number of Bills in pre-legislative scrutiny of any Government in any Session. In relation to what has happened in the Lords, they wanted more time and that is exactly what the Government have provided.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that pre-legislative scrutiny allows consultation while legislation is more easily amended, and allows politicians and stakeholders to give their opinions? Will he commend the work of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, a joint Committee with the House of Lords, on the Deregulation Bill, which I have the honour to serve on?

[Tom Brake]

I will certainly do that. Pre-legislative scrutiny is a very positive opportunity for stakeholders to contribute. As I stated, the Government have been very positive in providing those opportunities to a large number of stakeholders in no fewer than 17 draft Bills.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

In the light of the completely unconvincing answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) by the Deputy Leader of the House, will he explain exactly how he plans to make use of this wonderful new parliamentary invention, the pause stage, to respond to widespread concerns about the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny of the provisions in the gagging Bill?

[Tom Brake]

I am not quite sure what the hon. Lady means by “the gagging Bill”. If she is referring to the transparency Bill, she will be aware that the lobbying aspect did have pre-legislative scrutiny, and she should be aware that the Government have responded, for instance, to Select Committee reports on this subject and engaged with a very large number of organisations that have a strong interest in this Bill.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

4. What assessment he has made of options for the reform of Private Members’ Bill procedure.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

The Government are considering the recommendations contained in the report published by the Procedure Committee on 2 September and will respond shortly.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Procedure Committee on an excellent report and consider implementing its recommendations for the timetabling of private Members’ Bills so that Back Benchers voices will be properly heard in this place?

[Tom Brake]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on pursuing these matters as vigorously as he does in relation to private Members’ Bills. I am afraid that I am not in a position today to tell him that the Government have responded, but I can tell him that we will respond very shortly to the Procedure Committee’s report, and indeed it contains some sound and strong recommendations that I am sure we will want to consider carefully.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Is it not the case that if 100 MPs turn up for a closure motion on a Friday they can ensure the progress of any Bill, which is not a great number out of 650 if it has such widespread support? Hon. Members should not expect to turn up with some well-meaning claptrap and expect it to be nodded through just because it is a Friday.

[Tom Brake]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right that the use of a closure motion and, indeed, timetabling is possible for private Members’ Bills, but it is also worth pointing out that the Procedure Committee has said in its report that it is not its intention to facilitate the passage of Bills into law, and that it should not be easy to see a private Member’s Bill become law.

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

Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that regardless of the procedures used to deal with private Members’ Bills, such a Bill is extremely unlikely to reach the statute book unless it has the express or at least tacit approval of the Government?

[Tom Brake]

I can assure my hon. Friend that there have been examples in the past—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House secured a private Member’s Bill in opposition—so there are opportunities even for Opposition Members to push private Members’ Bills through, although clearly having the support of the Government is helpful.

[Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

5. When the Government plan to respond to the e-petition created by the hon. Member for Bolton North East on grass-roots football.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

The delay in response to the hon. Gentleman’s query was unacceptable, as has been acknowledged. However, I can confirm that a response has now been published on the Government e-petitions site. Petitions that reach the 10,000 signature threshold should receive a response from the Government within 30 days.

[Mr Crausby]

I did indeed receive a response to my petition just after midnight on Tuesday morning, within hours of this oral question being published—two facts that I am sure are not remotely connected.

On a serious point, given the billions of pounds available from football on television, will the Government put pressure on the Football Association to spend more of that money on grass-roots football, especially for children, as opposed to even more outrageous wages for top professional footballers?

[Tom Brake]

I am not sure that that is a question for a Deputy Leader of the House, but I will ensure that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is aware of the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I would certainly echo his suggestion, however, that we need strong investment in grass-roots football. He might be aware that the Premier League will be investing about £168 million in grass-roots football over the next three years, which is something that hon. Members on both sides of the House would want to encourage it to do.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—