Business of the House

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Mark Harper

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

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

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

[Andrea Leadsom]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Harper]

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

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill: Committee Stage

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Mark Harper

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will come on to procedure, but the hon. Gentleman simply is not right. The Government are not killing this private Member’s Bill; we are saying that, until the boundary commissions have completed their work, which will be in a matter of a few weeks—the House voted for the review to take place—the Government will not take further action on a money resolution.

For the clarification of all hon. Members, this is not without precedent. During the 2014-15 Session, the coalition Government did not table money resolutions on two private Members’ Bills. At the time, the then Leader of the House said:

“it is unusual but not unprecedented for the Government not to move a money resolution. There have been previous instances of that under Governments of different parties.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 417.]

[Mr Harper]

On procedure, there is a wider point than just the money. The boundary commissions, as part of their review, have carried out a very democratic process. They have listened to thousands of responses, not just from Members of this House and political parties but from thousands of members of the public. Would it not be an abuse just to throw all that away and start all over again?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. That is the whole point. The Government are saying we will not table a money resolution until we have had a chance to consider the review, which is currently under way and due to report soon. However, this debate is not about the merits of the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill, and it is not even about the merits of the Government tabling a money resolution on the Bill. This debate is about whether a Committee may have leave to disregard the rules and conventions of this House. This motion seeks to undermine a fundamental principle that is a cornerstone of our constitutional settlement.

The financial initiative of the Crown is a long-standing constitutional principle that allows the Government of the day to initiate financial resolutions. Chapter 32 of “Erskine May” explains:

“It was a central factor in the historical development of parliamentary influence and power that the Sovereign was obliged to obtain the consent of Parliament…to the levying of taxes to meet the expenditure of the State. But the role of Parliament in respect of…expenditure and taxation has never been one of initiation… The development of responsible government and the assumption by the Government of the day of the traditional role and powers of the Crown in relation to public finance have not altered this basic constitutional principle”.

Either the Government of the day have the right to initiate financial proceedings or they do not. The Crown initiative is a binary issue, and this motion seeks to overturn it.

Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Mark Harper

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

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

[Mr Harper]

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

Business of the House

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Mark Harper

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am very fond of the hon. Lady, but that was quite an ungenerous response to a three-and-a-quarter-hour marathon. Let us be clear: in a statement, there is a personal reply to every single question, which does not happen in a debate, so that was actually commendable of the Prime Minister.

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

I listened carefully to what the Leader of the House said. The Prime Minister set out in her statement, and in her replies to the questions from Members, the very clear reasons why she did not recall Parliament last week for a debate and a vote before the decision for military action was taken. I accept her decisions for doing so, but I do think that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) has a point when he says that the precedent set in 2011 for a statement by the Prime Minister followed by a debate is a good one. Having listened to every question in today’s statement, my judgment is that a full day’s debate tomorrow, opened by the Prime Minister and followed by the Leader of the Opposition, would lead to a very clear judgment by this House that would strengthen, not weaken, the Government’s position.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Again, I feel like I am on shaky ground here, because as you will be aware, Mr Speaker, the Government did offer a debate for tomorrow, but I think that you already had applications for Standing Order No. 24 debates for tomorrow.

Treatment of House of Commons Staff

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Mark Harper

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

As I have already mentioned, I certainly agree with the hon. Lady. It was the aspiration of the working group to cover all staff working in Parliament, including staff of the House, in our independent complaints procedure from day one, and I share her concern that we should now take steps to ensure that it does as soon as the independent policy is up and running, which we intend to be the case within three months from now.

The hon. Lady will recall that the working group has made it clear that we will deal with historical allegations, and it will be for the detailed policies and procedures of the new working group to establish how exactly that can be done. The Clerk of the House of Commons has made it clear today that he will look to reassure House staff that any historical allegations will be properly dealt with.

The hon. Lady mentioned that sanctions must be independent. That has been a core part of the work of the working group. We are now looking carefully at how that impacts on the work of the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Standards Committee itself, on which there are both parliamentary and lay members, and that work is ongoing. In fact, I am looking forward to meeting the Standards Committee later today to start those discussions.

The hon. Lady mentions consent training. The working group was very clear that all people, not only those who employ staff in this place but those who come into contact with others, should be very clear about what constitutes consent and precisely what does not. I can assure her that I am very keen to provide the carrot to ensure that people want to take up that training, but, as the working group agreed, we did not have the levers at that time to make it compulsory. Finally, I totally share her desire to see all staff here treated with the dignity and respect that everybody in this place deserves.

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

May I welcome what the Leader of the House said about her short inquiry? It seems to me that a good test for her to adopt would be to see that the House does what all organisations should do, which is make sure that everybody who works here, whether for Members of Parliament or the House, have the same processes and can expect to be treated according to the same high standards. I urge her to bring in that measure as soon as she can.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I can assure him and all hon. Members that that is the working group’s aspiration and my personal goal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Mark Harper

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

2. What steps she is taking to prevent abuse of article 8 of the European convention on human rights in respect of the removal of foreign criminals.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

Last July, we changed the immigration rules to ensure that, under article 8, the rights of society are properly balanced against the individual rights of foreign national offenders. The rules received the unanimous support of this House. Unfortunately, some judges are not applying the rules as Parliament intended, and our Immigration Bill will give the full force of primary legislation to them.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer. What more can he do to try to ensure that judges strike the proper balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of society, which are sometimes under threat from them? Can he persuade judges to listen to the will of Parliament?

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. Of course this House thought that that is exactly what it had done, as it sent a very clear message to judges about the balance that this House, on behalf of society, had struck to put the rights of the innocent first. Judges have not got the message, which is why we will legislate to make sure that it is reflected in the law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Mark Harper

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

I refer my hon. Friends to the written ministerial statement I issued on 8 September. We plan to make further details, including the terms of reference and the time scale for the commission, available to the House in the very near future.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Does my hon. Friend accept that many people in England feel that at this time of economic difficulty fairness is more important than ever, and does he further accept that many hold the view that English-only issues should be more in the hands of English MPs and less in the hands of MPs representing devolved parts of the UK?

[Mr Harper]

I very much agree. Many people who live in England express concern about this potential unfairness, which is why we are going to set up the commission to look carefully at how the procedures in this House can ensure that that situation is fairer as we pass legislation. I hope my hon. Friend will welcome that detailed announcement when it is made in due course.

Prisoners’ Right to Vote

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Mark Harper

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

So the right hon. Gentleman must know that they are not in any way connected. We could do as he suggests only if Britain were to abrogate its signature to the European convention on human rights. Is that really what he wants us to do?

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend please explain, for the edification of the House, what would happen if the Government refused to accept the findings of the European Court of Human Rights, and what would happen if we accepted the findings but refused to make any compensatory payments?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend will know that 60 years ago Britain signed up to the European convention. [Interruption.] The shadow Justice Secretary is yelling again; he clearly needs telling again, so I will tell him again. Because Britain signed up to the European convention 60 years ago, it binds us legally. The Government must act in accordance with the law, as the previous Government accepted. The danger is that compensation payments will be awarded against us to prisoners. As I said earlier, the only thing worse than giving prisoners the vote would be giving them the vote and then having to give them compensation on top of that.