Progression of Bills through Parliament
Debate between Alan Campbell and Ellie Chowns(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Alan Campbell
No, I do not, although who is to say whether in future the Government—or a Government—will decide to make the issue part of their manifesto, bring it forward and deal with it differently in that way? It is rather unfair for the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) to expect this Government to pick up this Bill—or his Bill, if he picked it up and it failed. The hon. Gentleman has been through this before: he had a private Member’s Bill, which had quite a lot of public support. It got through its Second Reading and to Committee, and he got through clause 1. The reason why it did not get any further was that the Government of whom he was part—the coalition Government—stopped it. I have to say, in this well-tempered debate, that it is a bit rich for him to talk about Governments picking up Bills and running with them when he knows full well that it is much more complicated than that.
Dr Chowns
Would the Leader of the House agree that there may be a way to respect both the principle of the primacy of the Commons and the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, including full scrutiny in the Lords, by coming to the point of a vote? That would not be the Government taking forward the Bill, but him, in his role as Leader of the House—the role of representing the Commons to the Government—reintroducing this Bill in the Commons so that it could be sent directly to the Lords to complete the process of parliamentary scrutiny: to the point of a vote in the Lords. That would fulfil the fundamental democratic principles that have been argued for on both sides of the debate today.
Sir Alan Campbell
Hang on. As we have already said, we have just been through the private Members’ Bill ballot again. We will have to wait and see. With respect, the hon. Lady does not know whether somebody is going to pick up the Bill and run with it in future.
Sir Alan Campbell
Hang on. I would want to see what happened here. We talk about private Members’ Bills changing the law on matters of profound conscience and social policy, such as, for example, abortion or capital punishment; I was not around at the time, but I doubt that those got through at the first go. I do understand that many people rightly regard this issue as a matter of life and death, but there were many people at the time who regarded abortion or capital punishment as matters of life and death. We have to be slightly patient and see what progress any future private Member’s Bill, if that is the route taken, might make.
Dr Chowns
I thank the Leader of the House for allowing me to clarify my point. My point is not about the specific content of the Bill; it is about the constitutional crisis caused its blockage. Is it really okay that the only way out of that is to wait for another private Member’s Bill? Is there a role in ensuring that it comes through the Commons?
Business of the House
Debate between Alan Campbell and Ellie Chowns(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in recognising the work of the Susan Vickers Foundation, Rethink Mental Illness and everyone involved in the Hub at Wolverhampton station. Last week was Mental Health Awareness Week, and this year’s theme was action. Charities and community organisations play a huge role in supporting those struggling with mental illness, and I thank everyone involved for their commitment and service.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Earlier this month, I was delighted to at last receive a response from the Department for Work and Pensions to a letter I wrote on 25 November last year, raising a constituent’s case. That is more than a five-month delay; the original acknowledgment said that it aimed to respond within 15 days. Such a delay is unacceptable, and this is by no means an isolated case; I have had multi-month delays in several other cases. What are the Government doing to improve departmental complaint processing times, so that constituents and MPs get a response within a reasonable timeframe?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady will know that I am keen for Departments to respond in time and fully to MPs, because that is part of their job. Of course, some Departments will find it more difficult to respond, not just because of the complexity of the issues involved, but because of the number of letters and parliamentary questions that they get. However, I will draw her remarks to the attention of not just that Department but other Departments. We constantly remind them of the need to maintain a standard.
Business of the House
Debate between Alan Campbell and Ellie Chowns(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear of the case that my hon. Friend raises. The Government are committed to helping working people balance their jobs with their personal lives, including by managing their health conditions. I will ensure that the relevant Minister is made aware of this concerning case, but my hon. Friend may also want to take an opportunity to make those points during the debate on the King’s Speech, as this is an important part of ensuring that people can fully contribute to the economy, and to the economic growth that the country is looking for.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is clear that the tired old first-past-the-post voting system is utterly unfit for purpose. This winner-takes-all system means that a party can secure a huge majority of seats on a minority of votes, which poses a major democratic risk. It is long past time we had proportional representation is this country, so that every vote is represented equally and seats match votes. Will the Government finally take the opportunity to legislate for proportional representation in the Representation of the People Bill, which is set to return to this House, so we can have a fair voting system in which every voter’s voice is heard and given equal weight?
Sir Alan Campbell
This is the second time this morning that proportional representation has been raised, and it is a good illustration of how, when the Lib Dems and Greens agree on an issue, they are invariably wrong. It will be possible for the hon. Lady’s party to raise and vote on the issue during the debate on the King’s Speech, and as she points out, there are Bills being considered that will allow her to raise the matter as well. However, I fear that when the House gives its verdict, it will not be the result that she is looking for.
Business of the House
Debate between Alan Campbell and Ellie Chowns(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
I understand, and to a large extent share, the frustration of my hon. Friend and many Members across the House, because the position of this House on the Bill was made very clear. The Government’s position has not changed: it is not a Government Bill, and the Lords have every right to scrutinise. But I again ask them to do so responsibly, because this House made its position very clear.
I hope that progress can be made. Once that has happened, I will find time in this place, if necessary, to debate those amendments, because the will of the House was very clear. Perhaps after that has been decided and the Bill has been dealt with—whatever the outcome—we need to reflect on some of the procedures that get us into this situation.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The 2024 Labour general election manifesto promised
“Immediate reform of the House of Lords”,
noted that
“reform is long over-due and essential”,
and said,
“Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber”.
Given the Mandelson scandal and the unacceptable spectacle of a tiny number of unelected peers blocking the will of the majority of elected Members in this House, may we have an urgent debate in this Session and in Government time on how the Government will bring forward and realise their promises of fundamental Lords reform so that we can begin to rebuild trust in our country’s democracy?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are committed to wider reform of the House of Lords and the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill is the first step in that process. We remain committed to that. However, I gently say to the hon. Lady that, to some extent, this is more complex than many people think. There are many priorities for this Government, not least tackling the cost of living and the terrible situation that we found our public services in when we came into office. To spend a great deal of time, at this juncture, talking about House of Lords reform is timely, costly and an extraordinarily difficult thing to achieve—I know that from experience. That does not mean that the Government will not address what we promised in our manifesto and bring about House of Lords reform at some point in the future.
Business of the House
Debate between Alan Campbell and Ellie Chowns(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important issue. Our thoughts are with Naomi and many others who find themselves in that terrible situation. We have introduced measures to tackle stalking. We are currently undertaking a review of stalking legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose, and our violence against women and girls strategy will also cover online and offline stalking. If my hon. Friend seeks a meeting with a Minister to look into this further, I am sure that he will be successful in getting one.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The UK is coming under intense scrutiny at COP30 for saying one thing in public but doing the opposite in private, by apparently blocking progress on the Belém action mechanism to secure fossil-free jobs, workers’ rights, communities and our planet, despite the Prime Minister saying in his statement to COP
“that the UK is all in”
on embracing opportunities. Can we please have an urgent debate on how a shift in the backroom position of the UK could unlock negotiations, rebuild trust and align the Government’s actions with their public commitments?
Sir Alan Campbell
There is absolutely no difference between what the Government are committed to and have said publicly, and what we are saying in private. Of course, some issues require a great deal of diplomacy. The Prime Minister himself went to COP30 with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. When the Secretary of State returns, I would expect one of them to make a statement on COP30, so the hon. Lady will be able to put those points to them directly.