Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

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

1. If he will make it his policy to encourage his ministerial colleagues to table Government amendments to Bills whenever possible in the House of Commons rather than the House of Lords; and if he will make a statement.

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

It is usual practice for 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 other place must also be agreed by this House.

[Simon Hughes]

Obviously, all Governments try to introduce perfect legislation the first time around, but very few succeed. I hope that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues understand that it is really important that the democratic House has the opportunity to look at any changes that are found to be necessary as a result of the work of Select Committees and others. I hope that this Government will try very hard to ensure that we see amendments first and that they are not left as a sort of teaser at the other end of the building late in the day.

[Tom Brake]

I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is very important that this House is given an opportunity to consider amendments but, as I said in my earlier response, it is inevitable that matters will be raised in the other House that will need to be addressed there. I understand what my right hon. Friend is saying and I will ensure, as far as I can, that what he seeks actually happens.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

Clearly, the Government will not withdraw the Bill. It has been made very clear over the past couple of days that the Government will bring forward an amendment on Report to address the significant issue that charities have raised with us. We hope to come to a conclusion that they think is satisfactory.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that a more important reform with regard to amendments would be to allow Members on both sides a free vote in Committee and to not subject them to whipping? Would that not produce better legislation?

[Tom Brake]

That is an interesting point. I suspect that allowing free votes on amendments in this place would lead to chaos.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

3. What recent discussions he has had on private Members’ Bills.

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

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has had a range of recent discussions on private Members’ Bills and has given evidence to the Procedure Committee as part of its inquiry.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does the Minister agree that the conduct of some Members of this place with regard to private Members’ Bills undermines Parliament and weakens the power and the voice of Back Benchers, and that the timetable ought to be reformed to give the House greater strength and a greater say?

[Tom Brake]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Procedure Committee has been considering the issue of private Members’ Bills because he gave evidence to that inquiry. The Committee will come forward with a wide range of recommendations that might address the points that he has made. I am sure that the House will have the opportunity to debate and resolve those issues in the near future.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister may not be aware that I recently served on the private Members’ Bill Committee of the European Union (Referendum) Bill, which reported yesterday. If he cares so much about private Members’ Bills, does he realise what a sham that Bill is, in the sense that everybody knew it was not a genuine private Members’ Bill, but a Government Bill once removed? Is that good for Members who introduce private Member’s Bills?

[Tom Brake]

Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has strong views on that particular private Members’ Bill but, as I stated, it is important that we consider these matters in the round. The Procedure Committee has rightly devoted a substantial amount of time to considering this matter and the House should look at its proposals—for example, on the process of balloting Members—so that it can come to a sensible decision.

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

Does the Deputy Leader of the House not agree that whatever procedures are adopted, it is essential that no private Members’ Bill should be allowed to pass through the House without receiving the fullest and most detailed scrutiny, and certainly not less than that given to Government Bills?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. He may be aware that the Procedure Committee’s report states that it is not its intention to facilitate the passage of Bills into law through the private Members’ Bill route, and that it should not be easy to do so. Its position is that it does not want a simple process that allows private Members’ Bills to be rushed through.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Unusually, I was here last Friday for the consideration of private Members’ Bills—I had the joy of having secured the Adjournment debate. I have to say that it reminded me just how dreadful the process is. Any member of the public would be appalled at the behaviour of the House in these matters and the way that Bills are talked out. Last Friday, I actually saw a Minister participating in that process to ensure that a later Bill did not receive proper consideration. Surely we need urgent reform.

[Tom Brake]

All I can say is that there are cases where private Members’ Bills do not make the progress that Members who promote and sponsor them would like. However, there are examples of Members—they include the Leader of the House and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young)—who have, when in opposition, successfully passed private Members’ Bills. It is possible for Members to make progress.

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

The Government are committed, wherever possible, to publishing legislation in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny. We have a good record. We published 17 draft Bills or sets of draft measures in the last Session, which is more than the previous Government did in any Session. I am sure the hon. Lady would be aware that, before the summer recess, the Government published substantive draft Bills on deregulation and consumer rights and will publish further measures as the Session progresses.

[Diana Johnson]

I am disappointed that the Leader of the House did not respond to that question because of his experience with the NHS Bill, which did not have pre-legislative scrutiny and had quite a torrid time in Parliament. Has any thought been given to why the lobbying Bill did not receive pre-legislative scrutiny, particularly considering that the Government’s legislative timetable is so light?

[Tom Brake]

Clearly, the Government’s legislative programme is not light, as the hon. Lady suggests it is; in fact, it is very full. As for the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, there was pre-legislative scrutiny in respect of the lobbying proposals, although it is correct that such scrutiny was not possible for the other aspects of the Bill. As I have stated—[Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Lady would like to hear that we published 15 Bills in draft in the 2012-13 Session—more than in any previous Session by any Government.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

Has the Deputy Leader of the House given consideration to one of the largest Bills this House has ever seen, which is due to hit it in December? I refer to the at least 50,000 pages that will accompany the High Speed 2 Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in pressing the Department for Transport to allow us not only to look at some of these papers in advance, but to have pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill, which is going to be gargantuan?

[Tom Brake]

I do not know whether the right hon. Lady was able to ask that question earlier in Transport questions. Having previously been a Transport spokesman and having been involved in a number of Transport Bills, such as the Crossrail Bill, I am absolutely certain that there will be extensive opportunities for people to debate these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

3. What steps he plans to take to promote the transparency of hon. Members’ membership of all-party parliamentary groups.

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

Rules relating to APPGs are a matter for the House. The hon. Lady might be aware that the Standards Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into APPGs. Its terms of reference include the transparency of the House’s regulatory system.

[Diana Johnson]

Given the public concern about APPGs and lobbyists, might it be possible, as a very small measure, to list next to each Member’s entry on the parliamentary website all the APPGs to which they belong?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Lady for that suggestion, which is one that the Standards Committee might like to consider. Indeed, the House might want to look at that in future. I am sure that we will work to support the initiative.

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

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will take no steps in this matter until he has heard the evidence and read the report from the Standards Committee, to which the Administration Committee has submitted its own evidence?

[Tom Brake]

Yes, I would like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is the case, and we await the Committee’s report with great interest. Incidentally, Members still have an opportunity to contribute to that process. I am sure that we will then want to allow the House the opportunity to consider the matter in great detail.

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

I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in thanking you, Mr Speaker, for the leadership you have shown in recent weeks in helping to restore public confidence in Parliament after the public’s concerns about lobbyists and APPGs. The Administration Committee, which is so ably chaired by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), has recommended, as part of a range of measures, the scrapping of APPG passes. Will the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that the Government will not oppose those recommendations? On the broader concern about the transparency of APPGs and lobbyists, does he not now accept that all lobbyists must be covered by a register and a code of conduct?

[Tom Brake]

The Administration Committee makes sensible proposals, and I look forward to the House being able to come to a decision on them in due course. On lobbyists, the hon. Gentleman will have heard the debate that took place just a couple of days ago. The Government have made our position very clear: we will come forward with a third-party register of lobbyists.

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

Does the Deputy Leader of the House not agree that the real problem with APPGs is that there are simply far too many of them and that the House would benefit from the imposition of a moratorium on the creation of any new ones and a programme of amalgamation and mergers across the whole system?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. We all have our different views on whether there are too many APPGs. The Standards Committee might want to consider that proposal. If it comes forward with proposals to limit numbers, that is a matter that I am sure the House would want to consider.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

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

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

The coalition Government are keen to build on the success of the alignment project in simplifying Government financial reporting. We intend to do this by working with Select Committees to support better scrutiny of Government expenditure and to promote greater efficiency and improved value for money in all Departments.

[Andrew Bridgen]

What assessment has the Deputy Leader of the House made of estimates day debates in scrutinising Government expenditure? Could they be a useful tool to monitor the ever-escalating costs of projects such as HS2?

[Tom Brake]

The three estimates day debates each Session present a valuable opportunity for Select Committees to hold Departments to account, but too often the debates are focused on specific Committee reports rather than departmental expenditure as such. We are keen to explore with Select Committees any ways in which we can enable these debates to focus on a wider range of financial and performance-related documentation. I am sure, for instance, that as part of that process the Transport Committee would want to pick up on the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised in relation to HS2.

[Dr Huppert]

The public believe that Parliament scrutinises Government expenditure. When I talk to people they are surprised that in fact we have a few debates about very specific items on estimates days and do not even look at the entirety of one Department’s expenditure. Will my right hon. Friend look urgently at options to reassure the public that Parliament does look at expenditure in these areas, whether through debates in this place, Westminster Hall or Select Committees? We have to hold the Government to account.

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Some Select Committees do provide the level of scrutiny that he wants. For instance, the Health Committee and the Transport Committee look at the estimates carefully. I am pleased to say that at least one of the estimates day debates, on 3 July, is a broad one that will look at public expenditure on health and care services.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

As we drive forward the necessarily tough reforms and efficiency savings in the public sector, I urge the Government to keep their foot on the pedal in driving that revolution through the internal mechanics of Government. What steps can this House take better to scrutinise Government expenditure and, indeed, expenditure in the House, so that we can show the public that we are putting our own house in order?

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. As I have stated, more effective use could be made of estimates day debates. We have a range of Select Committees that look at financial matters. I think most people would agree that they are effective in doing that.

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Simon Hughes. Not here.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

3. Whether he plans to review the arrangements for scrutiny of statutory instruments; and if he will make a statement.

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

The Government have no current plans to review the arrangements for scrutiny of statutory instruments.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am particularly disappointed by that reply. The House prides itself on scrutiny of legislation, but the weakness of the system is scrutiny of statutory instruments, whether to implement primary legislation or, more especially, to transpose EU directives into UK law. Will the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House please look carefully at allowing Members of Parliament not just to vote for or against a statutory instrument but to amend the very text of those instruments?

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know this is a matter that she has been pursuing vigorously. The issue with her proposal for statutory instruments is that the two Houses could end up amending a statutory instrument in different ways. There would then need to be a reconciliation process, very similar to a Bill handling process, so there are concerns about what she suggests. If she has not already done so, she may want to raise the matter with the Chair of the Procedure Committee.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

The Cabinet Office used to give us the direct numbers of private ministerial offices. This year, we were given only the number of the main departmental switchboards. This week I had a very unhelpful experience when I tried to get some information about the progress of a regulation from a particular Department. Can—

[Ann Coffey]

Yes, the regulation was one that I was attempting to scrutinise the progress of, but I could not do so because of that unhelpful experience. Will the Deputy Leader of the House look into why we are no longer given the numbers of private ministerial offices, so that Members of Parliament such as me can do our jobs in scrutinising not only the regulations that are laid, but those that are about to be laid?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which she related ingeniously to the issue of statutory instruments. I have heard her concerns and will ensure she gets a written response to her question.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What steps he is taking to ensure that the House of Commons facilitates the highest level of support to enable hon. Members to represent their constituents effectively.

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

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House continues to work closely with colleagues on the House of Commons Commission to ensure that Members are fully supported by excellent staff and have the necessary facilities to carry out their duties effectively. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, responsibility for day-to-day pay and allowances, including pay for MPs’ staff, is now a matter for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

[Mr Sheerman]

I have raised this matter here before with the Leader of the House. The fact is that there is something deeply wrong with the way in which the House of Commons is being run at the moment. Many Members are dissatisfied with the withdrawal of many services across the piece, in Portcullis House and elsewhere. We also know that the good staff who serve us in our daily work and who do such a good job are totally disillusioned with the way in which this place is being managed. There is a management ethos that this place should be run as a business, but it is not a business. Because of the sittings and the hours, it can never be run as a business, so let us get back to its being run by dedicated staff who should be well treated and well looked after. We must ensure that we look after them because it is essential that we should be able to do our job for our constituents and for our country.

[Tom Brake]

I certainly agree that the House has excellent staff, and we should do everything we can to ensure that they continue to work effectively on our behalf. If the hon. Gentleman has concerns about a specific aspect of staffing, he might find it appropriate to raise the matter with the House of Commons Commission, from which I am sure he will get a suitably informed response.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), may I draw to the Deputy Leader of the House’s attention the fact that the service desk in Portcullis House is no longer staffed? At whatever time of day one goes there for advice or to find out the location of a meeting room, there is no one there to help. I have consulted the police in Portcullis House several times, and they have been extremely helpful, but they do not always have the necessary information. I have therefore been seriously inconvenienced in the pursuit of my constituents’ interests, and I am not alone in that. Will the hon. Gentleman take action now to restore the staffing of the service desk in Portcullis House?

[Tom Brake]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but I must point out that that is not a ministerial responsibility. It is a matter for the House of Commons Commission, and I am sure that its representatives will be listening carefully to this exchange and that they will want to take suitable action.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

The McKay commission reported on 25 March on how the House of Commons might deal with legislation that affects only part of the UK. This is a very important issue, which is why the Government asked this expert commission to look at it. The report makes a helpful contribution, and we will give it very serious consideration before responding substantively.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I look forward to that response. I would like to know whether the Leader of the House intends to act on those proposals in the next Session of Parliament.

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know that she has pursued this matter vigorously in recent months. Clearly, the McKay commission has produced a serious report. It continues a menu of options and the Government will want to consider the recommendations very carefully before coming to any firm conclusions.

[Mr Speaker]

Time is against us, but I am determined to find time for the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon).

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

3. If he will introduce a procedure to inform all hon. Members when written ministerial statements deemed to be too commercially sensitive to be listed in the Order Paper are published.

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

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that all written ministerial statements issued to the House are listed on the Order Paper.

[Kevin Brennan]

That is not quite true, is it? A few weeks ago, a written ministerial statement about the extension of the First Great Western rail franchise was not listed in the Order Paper because it was deemed to be too market sensitive. I had an exchange with the Leader of the House about that matter at business questions. Should not some sort of guidelines be brought in to ensure that, when that occurs, Departments inform Members directly as soon as that information becomes available rather than our having to learn about it through the press or through the superior knowledge of the Leader of the House?

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is incorrect. I have in front of me the Order Paper for the day to which he refers and that written ministerial statement is listed.

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

The Government have form on not keeping the House fully informed and in an electronic age, surely it is not beyond the wit of even this Government to find a way of ensuring that Members’ rights and the rights of this House are fully recognised.

[Tom Brake]

Clearly, the Government are keen to make use of technology and would be very open to the idea of using it to provide written ministerial statements as early as possible. We would be very interested in pursuing that.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

This is an outrageous slur from the Opposition. This Government make everyone aware as soon as possible: we need only buy the newspapers or put on the television and we know in advance. Is this not an outrageous slur?

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has regularly reminded Ministers, including members of the Cabinet, that it is important that they come to the House to make ministerial statements here first.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

8. What his policy is on the time available for private Members’ Bills.

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

The time available for private Members’ Bills is set out in the Standing Orders at 13 Fridays in each Session.

[Hugh Bayley]

I have been a Member of the House for nearly 21 years, but my name has never been drawn in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, and those whose names are drawn rarely get their legislation through the House. Will the Deputy Leader of the House look at amending the Standing Orders to give more Back-Bench Members the opportunity to get legislation on the statute book?

[Tom Brake]

Whether to change the Standing Orders would, of course, be a matter for the House, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) and his predecessor have both been successful in securing private Members’ Bills while in opposition. Indeed, in the previous Session four private Members’ Bills made it to the statute book, and they were not hand-out Bills, and in this Session three private Members’ Bills have been secured in legislation, and we expect a further three to do so.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that it is essential that all legislation, whether it stems from the Government or private Members, should be properly scrutinised and that we should not go down the route, as some people would have us do, of simply nodding through well-meaning legislation without proper or effective scrutiny?

[Tom Brake]

It is clear that the Government have put a heavy emphasis on the scrutiny of Bills, for example through pre-legislative scrutiny and the other mechanisms we are using with pilots to ensure that legislation in this House gets the appropriate consideration.

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

2. When he expects to receive a report from the Commission on the consequences of devolution for the House of Commons.

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

A report from the McKay commission is expected by the end of the current Session of Parliament.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I am delighted to hear that we will get the report in this Session of Parliament. Does the Deputy Leader of the House share my aspiration that by the end of this Parliament we will ensure that English-only legislation is voted on with a majority of English MPs?

[Tom Brake]

I am aware that my hon. Friend is pursuing this matter vigorously—indeed, she made her own submission—but it is right that we wait until we have carefully considered the arguments and options in the report before taking a view. I am sure the House will want to do the same.

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

Before we make any further changes, the House will know that we already have two classes of Members of Parliament—those who take their seats and are properly accountable in parliamentary terms for their expenses, and those who do not take their seats and can spend representative money on party political campaigning, with no accountability. When will the Government address that issue?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. It is slightly outside the scope of the McKay commission, but he has put his concerns on the record again. I am sure it is a matter that the House will wish to consider in the future.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Following the question from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), will the Deputy Leader of the House ensure that Members of Parliament such as me, who represent constituencies in Wales but have constituents who work in England, receive health services in England and use transport in England, also have an opportunity to vote on those matters as Members of Parliament?

[Tom Brake]

Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. It is appropriate, as I said earlier, that we should wait until the report has been published. Clearly, a wide range of options is available, such as the status quo, federalism and many different approaches that many Members would want to advocate.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

4. Whether he plans to give evidence to the Procedure Committee inquiry on programming.

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

We have received confirmation of the Procedure Committee’s decision to undertake an inquiry into programming together with a request to set out the Government’s views. We will submit our views shortly.

[Ann McKechin]

Given how light the Government’s legislative programme is, does the right hon. Gentleman think that now is the time to consider whether we can debate private Members’ Bills not only on Fridays but on other days of the week, rather than having the countless pointless debates that we currently have to endure?

[Tom Brake]

I am surprised that the hon. Lady considers that the Government have a light programme; that is certainly not the view on the Government Benches. The House has expressed a view on private Members’ Bills. It has thought it appropriate to leave them where they are.

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

When the Leader of the House and his deputy prepare their evidence, will they consider holding the Committee stage of the Bill on equal marriage on the Floor of the House?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question about a matter that has been raised before. The Government want to allow suitable scrutiny of the Bill and I am sure that the Government will provide it.

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

6. What recent consideration he has given to the procedure for private Members’ Bills; and if he will make a statement.

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

Hon. Members will be aware that the Procedure Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the procedure for private Members’ Bills. My hon. Friend gave evidence to the Committee yesterday and raised a number of issues relating to the timing procedures and motivation for private Members’ Bills. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will give evidence on behalf of the Government in due course.

[Charlie Elphicke]

As a tool for prompting dialogue and discussion or for the furtherance of a parliamentary campaign, private Members’ Bills are really useful, but many Members think that the way in which Friday sittings work is little short of a farce. Should programming and the tools used for Government legislation be applied to private Members’ legislation, to enable votes to take place and more legislation to be passed?

[Tom Brake]

Many Members have experienced some frustrations regarding the private Members’ Bill process. I know that the hon. Gentleman has made a suggestion to the Procedure Committee along the lines of his question, but he will be aware that existing procedures of the House allow for a closure to be sought on debates and to impose time limits on speeches. He will be aware that sometimes when a Member presents a private Member’s Bill there will be other ways of ensuring that it is reflected in Government legislation, in the way that his proposed measures on children and families will be reflected in that Bill.

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

7. Whether he has considered guaranteeing a minimum amount of time for the consideration of Government Bills at Report stage.

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

This Government recognise the value of parliamentary scrutiny of legislation. We have provided more days than the previous Administration for Report stages and, where necessary, we will provide more than one day for Report stage.

[Simon Hughes]

I recognise the Government’s commitment to better scrutiny of legislation, but one of the perennial frustrations, under all Governments, is that we get to Report stage and the allocated time is used up by urgent questions or statements and we end up with almost no time to do the job of the House. Will Ministers look at changing that so that we have injury time for any time lost because of earlier business?

[Tom Brake]

I understand my right hon. Friend’s point. The Government have sought to address his concerns by providing more time on Report, but he might want to consider making a submission to the Procedure Committee, which is looking at programming. I am sure that the Government will want to consider his submission, along with others, when the report is published.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of new sitting hours on managing the business of the House.

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

No assessment has been made of the effect of the new sitting hours on managing the business of the House.

[Kevin Brennan]

I think the Deputy Leader of the House should make an assessment but should not listen to those who are calling for private Members’ Bills to brought into the middle of the week. Would it not be a ludicrous outcome if those who argued for our hours to move to earlier in the evening were then to vote for private Members’ Bills to be discussed after 7 o’clock so that the hours were extended from 11.30 am to 10 pm instead of running from 2.30 pm to 10 pm, which is what applied before?

[Tom Brake]

Clearly, the House has made a decision in relation to sitting hours, but the Procedure Committee is looking at the matter, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns will be taken on board as part of that process.

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

The Minister for Europe is engaged in discussions with the relevant Committees in both Houses on arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of European issues. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has had discussions with the Minister on the subject in recent weeks.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful for that reply, and also for the work of the previous Leader of the House, who is present.

Would there be any merit in allowing Select Committees such as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to scrutinise some of the more technical statutory instruments implementing environmental or agricultural regulations from Brussels?

[Tom Brake]

I agree that Select Committees could play an important role in scrutinising many more of the matters that come out of Europe. I am pleased that the Minister for Europe has been consulting widely, and I am sure that he will present some very sensible proposals for the enhancement of our European scrutiny.

[Mr Speaker]

Patience rewarded: Mr Lindsay Roy.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

9. Whether the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists will require any changes to the Standing Orders of the House.

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

That will depend on proposals that will be published and scrutinised by the House in due course.

[Lindsay Roy]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House explain why progress in establishing a statutory register seems to have been so slow?

[Tom Brake]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, this is a complex issue on which the Government have been consulting. We are committed to building a system that provides transparency without hindering legitimate lobbying by those with an interest in Government policy. We will publish revised proposals later in the Session.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

The Secretary of State and I are actively considering that matter at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) will understand that we are talking about cutting-edge technology, as there is no such scheme already in this country, so we have to be very careful in our assessment of the proposal, but we hope to make a decision very shortly.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

12. What steps her Department has taken to publicise the consultation on the combined Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

The Thameslink consultation was published on 24 May 2012 on the Department’s website. On the same day, I wrote to the relevant MPs and a press notice was issued. On 13 June, Department for Transport officials wrote to MPs and local councils, further publicising the consultation document and details of the upcoming consultation events.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the Minister for her response. May I encourage her, the bidders, Network Rail, London TravelWatch and Passenger Focus to redouble their efforts to raise awareness of the franchise renewal process and, in particular, the implications for Sutton residents, who may find that the through-trains from which they have benefited for many years stop short of Blackfriars, cutting their access to north London and Crossrail?

[Mrs Villiers]

My right hon. Friend will appreciate that extensive advertising budgets are a thing of the past in the age of austerity, but we will do our very best to make sure that people are aware of the consultation. We are aware of his concerns about the Wimbledon loop; my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) barely gives me a moment’s rest on the issue. Network Rail has concerns about operational issues at Blackfriars, but those are not impossible to surmount. No final decisions have been made. We will consider all the representations on the Wimbledon loop and on all relevant matters in response to the consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

It is people stepping up to the plate and seeing what they can do to help their local community. We are very good at doing that in times of crisis, particularly in places such as London, but I think that we should be doing it every day of the week. That is what it is about.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

T7. Helicopter flights cause significant noise disturbance for people living under flight paths and they also benefit from reduced fuel taxes. Will the Minister look at schemes such as those adopted in Paris and Los Angeles to tackle helicopter noise and also look at the unfair tax advantage that helicopter operators have?

[Mrs Villiers]

My right hon. Friend will appreciate that fuel duty is a matter for the Chancellor. We do appreciate the irritation that helicopter noise can cause—anyone who works in this building gets irritated by them buzzing overhead so often—and will consider it as part of our consultation on a sustainable framework for UK aviation.

Cycling

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I apologise, Mr Bayley, for missing the opening speech of this debate. I had a long-standing commitment to meet a school party, but I am sure that I would have agreed with every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) said. I am pleased to have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) that she fell in love on a tandem. The only time I have been on a tandem was with Mark Oaten, and I assure my hon. Friend that I did not fall in love. In fact, I think I nearly died, because riding a tandem is not quite as easy as it looks, as Mark Oaten found out.

Liberal Democrats are often accused of being fanatics, usually Eurofanatics, but I am proud and happy to confess to being a cycle fanatic. My addiction to cycling started in my early 20s when I spent six months on a bike, cycling around Europe and on the other side of the iron curtain. It was a fascinating journey, and one that I would like to experience again in the near future. If any colleagues are keen to take part in the Blenheim palace triathlon in June, I encourage them to join me, because I will be taking part, and cycling is an important component. I am looking for partners for that, but it will not involve a tandem.

I welcome The Times campaign. I have attended a number of debates on cycling, and this is the most crowded that I have ever attended. Clearly, when The Times and The Independent swing behind such a national campaign, it attracts attention, which is very welcome. It also reflects the fact that cycling is becoming not a minority interest, but one in which people see the potential for significant health and economic benefits, as well as benefits for tackling congestion. One statistic that I have retained from our briefings today is the fact that 56% of short journeys of less than 2 miles take place by car. That is a telling statistic that we should address.

It is not impossible to reverse the trend. In recent decades there has been a trend away from cycling, but during the past couple of years there has been a positive movement towards cycling. As a result of investment from Transport for London, the Smarter Travel Sutton initiative in my London constituency saw a 75% increase in cycling in just three years. That was achieved not by building expensive infrastructure, but by going out to people and reminding them about the facilities available locally—for example, telling someone who perhaps had not been on their bike for 30 years that at the end of their road there was a cycle track that they could use to go to work and back safely. The increase was achieved just by behavioural change and talking to people, and with a significant increase in cycle proficiency training for 2,400 children. That clearly required investment, but not huge sums of money.

I hope that the Minister will respond specifically to The Times manifesto and its eight points. Perhaps he will confirm which of those he believes are achievable and over what sort of time scale he thinks they can be achieved. Points 4, 5, 6 7 and 8 are all eminently achievable because they either do not require significant sums of money, or they require only a transfer of funding within a Department.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I agree with my right hon. Friend that we should support The Times manifesto. Does he agree that it is important to put the matter into context and emphasise the health benefits, and the relative risk of cycling, which is still a relatively safe activity? Cyclenation has calculated that the health benefits outweigh the risks by about 20:1, and that it is still safer and healthier to cycle than not to cycle.

[Tom Brake]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Clearly there are risks associated with cycling, but they are relatively small, and the undue focus on accidents is not helpful. Newspaper coverage of deaths in accidents involving vehicles is not as extensive as that given to accidents involving cyclists. There are definite health benefits, and we should take them on board. The health benefits for those who continue to cycle or take up cycling later in life are long lasting.

There is an issue for cycle manufacturers. I do not know what the experience of hon. Members with children is when they try to find bikes for their children, but manufacturers’ undue emphasis on producing mountain bikes is not helpful. They are quite heavy for a girl or boy who may not be confident on a bike. Manufacturers should provide more flexibility and choice in the market.

My final point concerns cycle training, and the figures from Sutton where there was a 75% increase in cycling in just three years. A key issue that was identified in achieving that was that cycle training for adults should be targeted and specific. That is not spelled out in detail in The Times manifesto, but I hope that the Minister will pick up on it because if we are serious about getting adults back on to their bikes 20 or 30 years after they last did so, specific and targeted training is needed to convince them that it is a safe, healthy and fast way of getting around.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Is the Minister aware that according to the findings of research conducted by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, published in The Independent yesterday, 80% of young disabled people do not believe that the police will act on their concerns about disability hate crime? Will she undertake to talk to the Home Secretary about the matter, to ensure that police authorities and, soon, elected police and crime commissioners take the matter seriously?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right: that is an excellent piece of research. We are focusing on helping voluntary sector partners, including Radar to do more to enable disabled people to report to third sector organisations so that they can gain the access to justice that they need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, because I agree that the use of such inflammatory language is not acceptable, and the Government will not use it at all. We believe strongly that it is the system that has trapped disabled people in a spiral of welfare dependency, and that is why the overhaul of the benefits system is such a priority. I hope that we can rely on her support for our work in that area.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

May I ask the Minister to examine MAMA—“Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks”—which is a new system for reporting hate crime against Muslims, to see whether its use would be appropriate in relation to the reporting of hate crimes against people with disabilities as well?

[Maria Miller]

I am sure that we can learn a great deal from many different areas about how to improve the recording of hate crime, which is still a work in progress. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the work that we are doing with organisations such as Radar to increase third-party reporting of hate crime, but I will certainly take up his suggestion.