Business of the House

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. In recent years, adult education was belittled and let down by the previous Government, and local government funding was cut to the bone. That is why so much adult education provision is being lost from our communities. This Government will try to ensure that education, including adult education, is once again at the forefront of national life. I am sure that she will want to raise this matter with the Secretary of State at Education questions next week.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Is the Leader of the House concerned that those who will suffer as a result of the Government’s decision to cut the winter fuel allowance live in remote, rural locations, in homes that often are difficult to insulate and off-grid? Could we have a debate in Government time on how the Government’s early priorities will disproportionally impact those people living in the countryside in remote and rural locations?

[Lucy Powell]

Like many, I am furious that this Government have had to take these difficult decisions, because the Government the right hon. Gentleman supported over many years left a huge gaping hole in the public finances. Had we not dealt with that, it would have affected his constituents and left those living in poverty and in homes that are difficult to heat much worse off. He should reflect on that. Under the Conservative Government, the home insulation schemes previously in existence were largely scrapped, and they failed to take action to insulate new homes and improve building regulations, so we will not take lectures from them. We have a hugely ambitious home insulation plan. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the basic state pension is increasing in real value over the course of this Parliament. Living standards for everybody fell under his Government for the first time in our history. We will ensure that they go up for people right across this country.

Business of the House

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Government are deeply concerned by the violence in recent days in Bangladesh. The loss of life is unacceptable, and the right to protest must be protected and restored. I will ensure that the Foreign Secretary has heard her question and is able to update her and the House at the first opportunity.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Can we have a debate early in this Parliament on trust in politics and politicians? Newly minted Ministers are already hopping on and off the Airbus A321: the same plane that was condemned in 2022 by the then Opposition as “obscene”, “brazen” and “disgusting”. In that debate, will the Government be able to explain how that jaw-dropping show of double standards and hypocrisy is compatible with restoring trust?

[Lucy Powell]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman raised that point, because this afternoon we will have a debate on restoring trust in politicians and politics as the Government bring forward their manifesto commitment to take action on the sleaze, scandal and cronyism that we saw in the last Parliament. We want to turn the page on that decisively, as we are beginning to do today. He will know that the Prime Minister’s travel arrangements are security matters, and I am sure that he will respect that.

Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to address you by your new title, Madam Deputy Speaker. You and I were first elected in 2015, and it is a real pleasure to see the first of the 2015 intake assuming the Chair to preside over our proceedings. I am delighted to be at the Dispatch Box for your first appearance in the Chair—the first of many over the coming years and, I hope, the coming decades—and I congratulate you on your well-deserved election.

As the Leader of the House said at the beginning of her eloquent and detailed speech, standards and integrity are critical to this House of Commons. We are the crucible of our nation’s democracy. Our constituents have sent us here to represent them, and they are entitled to expect the very highest standards of behaviour from us as Members of Parliament. We are fortunate that our standards in public life are higher than those in many other countries, but there is no room for complacency and we should strive constantly to improve and perfect the standards met in this House. That is a duty we owe the public.

I broadly welcome the initiative taken by the Leader of the House, but I want to make a couple of general points before turning to some of the specific matters before us. First, it is very important that these reforms, or indeed any reforms, command public confidence and are seen to be conducted for the best of reasons. It is important for us to proceed on a cross-party basis, because that will show that the measures are being taken not for party-political reasons but for the best of reasons—as I am sure they are—and will ensure that they stick. If there is a broad cross-party consensus, whatever reforms are made will endure and survive beyond any change of Government in the future—hopefully the near future from my point of view, but not, I suspect, from the point of view of the Leader of the House.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

With that in mind, and given the need to involve all parties—we are talking not just about this Parliament, but potentially about Parliaments for decades to come—does my right hon. Friend agree that amendment (b), in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, is entirely reasonable and, indeed, addresses some of the issues that have been raised by the minor parties, because it would potentially bring them into scope?

[Chris Philp]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, based on his long experience of the House. Amendment (b) does indeed address some of the points made in earlier interventions.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Leader of the House for the consultations we have had in the past three weeks following our appointments. She has been collegiate and constructive in our conversations, and I look forward to those conversations continuing in that spirit. But I might be permitted one very small grumble: the motion we are debating today was laid relatively late on Tuesday evening. Under the rules, it could have been laid later, so I appreciate that it was laid a little in advance, but we did not have a lot of time to discuss potential amendments between the two of us, or indeed with other parties.

I will make a request for the future. If we are considering motions that touch on these issues and seeking a cross-party approach, it would be really helpful to have some more time so as to be able to hold discussions between the Leader of the House, me and other parties to see whether we can improve the motions. I know that we have discussed this in general terms, but it is only when we see the detail of the motion in black and white—for example, the one on the Modernisation Committee—that we can discuss it in proper detail. I would appreciate having a bit more time in future, so that we can discuss that between us. That might avoid the need to table amendments, and it would enshrine the consensual approach that I hope she will take.

Let me turn to motion 4, which is listed on page 7 of today’s Order Paper under “Business of the Day”. As the Leader of the House has said, the motion removes two exemptions that exist in paragraph 2 of chapter 4 of the guide to the rules, which means that Members will not be able to be paid for providing advice on public policy or current affairs, or general advice about how Parliament works. That is a broadly reasonable proposition that we are happy to support.

I have two questions asking for clarification, which perhaps she will address in her summing up. First, if a Member is pursuing a paid activity that is not specifically to do with offering advice of the kind mentioned—for example, they might be a lawyer or doing work with a trade union on a paid basis—and the thrust of the work is not to do with that sort of activity, but they briefly undertake activity that might fall into the definition, how would the Leader of the House view that? Is there an absolute and complete prohibition, or is there some sort of materiality test that she would expect the Standards Commissioner to apply? It would be useful if she could provide clarification from the Dispatch Box.

My second question was raised by a colleague. On occasion, Members may be paid for a party political position or a trade union position, in the course of which they might give advice. To give a specific example, it has been the case in the past that the chairman of the Conservative Party has been paid not as a Minister, but by the Conservative party. Would the new rule preclude that person, or indeed someone being paid by a trade union—probably on the Labour side—from offering the Conservative party or a trade union advice on public policy matters? I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could shed some light on how she envisages that working. Broadly, however, we support the changes and will not be opposing them—in the new spirit of cross-party working, which we are nervously embracing.

For complete clarity, it is worth mentioning that there is a third exemption in the rules that the Leader of the House did not refer to: limb (c) of the relevant provision, which is contained in paragraph 2 of chapter 4. Limb (c) allows Members of Parliament to be paid for making media appearances, journalism, writing books, and delivering public lectures and speeches. For the sake of complete clarity, it is worth saying that the motion before us does not make any changes to that third limb—the Leader of the House will tell me if I have got this wrong—so Members will continue to be able to be paid for those activities. She might just confirm that, but it seems a fairly clear consequence of the fact that only limbs (a) and (b) are being deleted, and not limb (c).

I will now move on to motion 5, on the Modernisation Committee, which appears on page 7 of the Order Paper. In principle, the Opposition will work constructively with the Leader of the House and her colleagues to achieve some of the objectives that she set out in her speech—we have no objection to the principle of the new Committee. Of course, we want to ensure that whatever proposals it brings forward are carefully scrutinised.

On holding the Government to account, there are lots of things about the way this House operates that are very important for Opposition parties big and small, but also for Back Benchers, including Government Back Benchers. I am sure that Labour Members have heard a bit about private Members’ Bills, which provide a really good opportunity for Back Benchers on both sides of the House to bring forward what are typically quite specific Bills to bring about a change that the Government might not have time to legislate for. Back Benchers can bring forward a Bill to do something that is important to them, and I think we all want to ensure that is protected.

Similarly, the Backbench Business Committee sets out the business for Thursdays. Government and Opposition Back Benchers can go before the Committee and organise a debate on a particular topic, which I did as a Back Bencher a few years ago. It is a really good way of making sure that an issue that matters to Back Benchers gets aired not in Westminster Hall or on the Committee corridor, but right here in the Chamber. I remember organising a debate on the persecution of Christians around the world, which would not necessarily have been debated on the Floor of the House; using that mechanism, it was debated.

Westminster Hall also provides a great opportunity to raise issues of concern to a Member or their constituency. Opposition day debates are very important as well, because they offer Opposition Members a chance to hold the Government to account. There are a whole load of areas that we want to ensure are protected for Government and Opposition Back Benchers, and for Opposition parties big and small. I am sure that it is not the Leader of the House’s intention to undermine the effectiveness of the existing mechanisms, but if they are considered by the Modernisation Committee, we will collectively need to ensure that the rights of Back-Bench Members of Parliament and Opposition parties are properly protected.

I want to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and those of my right hon. Friends, and I hope that the Leader of the House can offer some assurances that go beyond those she has given already. If she is able to offer such assurances, I will not move the amendments, but if her assurances are insufficiently robust, I will move the amendments and we will vote on them. I should tell Members that, typically, business of the House like this is not whipped. We will not be whipping Conservative Members, who are free to vote according to their conscience. I hope the Government are adopting the same approach and allowing Government Back Benchers to exercise their conscience. It is a long-standing tradition that the business of the House, which this is, is not whipped. We are each voting on the motion as individual Members of Parliament and not, I hope, according to a party political direction handed out by the Whips Office. That is the approach we are taking, and I hope it is the approach the Government are taking as well.

To be clear, the purpose of the amendments is not to impede or frustrate in any way the objectives that the Leader of the House set out in her speech, which we accept. In principle, we support them and will work constructively with her and her colleagues, but some concerns have been raised by my colleagues—some of whom may speak later—who have previously served on some of the Committees, such as the Committee on Standards. In the last Parliament, the Committee on Standards was chaired by the former Member for Peckham, Harriet Harman. She was the Mother of the House, and a very distinguished and highly respected Member for many years. The Committee has done a lot of work in this area, and it is quite complicated. The way that the standards regime operates is not straightforward, and the questions are complicated. When Harriet Harman chaired the Committee, she spent a lot of time thinking about this issue and published the report to which the Leader of the House referred.

Various existing Committees are relevant here, particularly the Procedure Committee, the Privileges Committee, the Standards Committee and the Administration Committee. They are all important Committees of the House and have all done important work in this area. They are all elected by the House, and at least one of them, the Standards Committee, has external members—I think one of them is a retired chief constable. The Committees have an element of independence, and I am concerned that the establishment of the Modernisation Committee might replace, cut across or in some way supersede or impede the work of the other House Committees, which are highly independent.

With the amendments, I have tried to make a couple of things clear, so I am looking for explicit assurances from the Leader of the House on the following points. The first assurance that I am looking for is that if the Modernisation Committee is going to consider a particular matter, it will consider all the previous work done by the four Committees that I have mentioned—the Procedure, Privileges, Standards and Administration Committees—and will commission the relevant underlying Committee to do a fresh report on the matter in hand and report up to the Modernisation Committee. I think that is what the Leader of the House has in mind, and it is what she said to me privately, if I understood her correctly, but I would be grateful if she could be explicit and make it clear on the record that that is how she intends it to work.

The second important assurance is that the views of the Speaker will always be sought and fully taken into account on matters that are relevant to the work of the Committee. The Speaker is elected by all of us— unanimously, as it happened—and his views and the views of the Deputy Speakers are important.

The third assurance is that matters that would ordinarily fall to the House of Commons Commission will not be usurped, as it were, by the Committee. The Leader of the House said to me previously that the functions of the House of Commons Commission are not defined, but they are in the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978.

In amendments (b) and (c), I propose that the Chairs of the Procedure, Privileges, Standards and Administration Committees be added to the Committee so that it has 18 members rather than 14. That would make sure that there is an opportunity for a smaller party to serve in that capacity and that the expertise of those Chairs comes directly to the Committee.

In addition, I propose that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards attends the Committee. They would not be a member, because they would have to be a Member of Parliament to be a member of a Select Committee, but an attendee or an observer, so that the commissioner could offer his or her opinion on the matters before the Committee, receive papers, and give other assistance as required.

All those amendments are designed to ensure that the existing Committees are properly taken into account and involved, and that their voice is heard, because they are important Committees with a lot of experience. If someone looks at some of these issues at first blush, such as second jobs, they might think that they are quite straightforward, but often they are not. There are all kinds of questions about people who have family businesses or a farm, or people who practise medicine or are doctors, that require careful thought. I do not want the work that has been done previously and that will be done in future to be lost.

I am asking the Leader of the House to give explicit assurances. In her opening speech, she gave general assurances that those Committees have a vital role, and that the Modernisation Committee would draw heavily on their work and not duplicate what they do, but I am asking for the specific assurances that I have just set out. If she can give all those assurances, or a substantial amount of them, I will not move the amendments, because I want to proceed in a spirit of cross-party harmony if at all possible. The Opposition stand ready to work constructively on these issues to ensure that Parliament’s reputation remains the highest of any Parliament anywhere in the world.

Business of the House

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

Clearly there are planning regulations in place, and I do not know whether they apply to long-term scaffolding. Her constituent, Mr Walker, clearly has concerns about the building, and I will pass on the hon. Lady’s comments to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to make sure he is aware of her concerns. She is right to highlight the building today.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Independent Expert Panel report published on Tuesday shames all of us who were prepared to put up with the behaviour contained in its pages for so long. Does the Leader of the House agree that serial bullying and serial lying have no place in this mother of Parliaments, and that we must have a parliamentary outing at the soonest opportunity so that those who were prepared to eulogise the former Speaker so royally upon his departure have an opportunity to refresh the House on their position?

[Mark Spencer]

Of course I agree that bullying and harassment have no place in this House or on the parliamentary estate. The Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme report to which he refers makes it clear that, no matter a person’s position—however high their status—they will be held to account by the system we have in place if they are guilty of harassment and bullying. That should give victims huge confidence to come forward and make a complaint.

Business of the House

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman brings me back to the business of the House motion, because it is traditional in these circumstances for people who are speaking to say they would like to make some progress and I certainly have not made very much yet. My view is that this is not about the precise number of votes cast for one motion or another, or indeed against one motion or another. It is about whether, when we look at the results as a whole and when we act in the way that I think politicians across the parties acting in the national interest can act, which is to seek a consensus, we get enough data to enable us to have sensible conversations about where we can go next. That is what I think would constitute a success here. I do not know any way to do that other than to have the kind of process we are going through, which is why I suggested we should go through it and so did others.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the last time we went through something remotely like this was in 2009 in relation to Jack Straw’s well-meaning but ultimately doomed attempt to get a sense of where we should be going with House of Lords reform? I fear that today’s proceedings will end up very much in the same place.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

But my hon. Friend needs to attend to the point that those of us who are proposing this have exactly recognised that precedent. What went wrong on that occasion above all was that it was a single point in time, it did not produce a single answer and therefore it was declared a failure. We are not seeking a single point in time here; we are seeking a process. We are using the first stage of that process as an act of discovery. We are then having a number of days in which politicians can talk to one another and try to achieve a consensus. That can be reflected in a further vote or set of votes. That is a very different process. I think that had that process been applied in the case of the House of Lords we might by now have had a sensibly restructured House of Lords, which alas we do not. But that is another piece of history that I am sure I must not deal with.

Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Because the Government have tabled an amendment that I feel I can support—[Interruption.] We are not in pantomime season quite yet. [Hon. Members: “Oh yes we are!”] All right, I give in on that one. I am defeated on that particular point, but not on the substantive one.

I am happy to support the Government’s amendment, because I think it is right that a Committee of this House look at the issue in broad terms. It may be right that the House wishes to take a self-denying ordinance on the extent of Humble Addresses. It may be that we would like to say specifically that they would be deemed disorderly, and therefore not tabled, if they related to matters concerning the security services or other types of information where there would be a broad consensus that those matters should not be brought forward. The ability to demand papers could require—dare I say it?—that the tax returns of Opposition Members be brought to the House—[Interruption.] Mine would be of so little interest that I cannot imagine it happening. That would be a clear abuse of the precedents that we have. So it may well be right that the Privileges Committee should consider broadly how Humble Addresses should be used to ensure that they are effective, because currently they ought to be effective and the Government ought to abide by them.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am following my hon. Friend’s remarks with a great deal of interest. He will know, since he is an expert on “Erskine May”, that it says very clearly on page 168, from memory, that the Humble Address should not normally be used on matters that touch directly on Bills before Parliament, as this clearly does. So was the Humble Address being used correctly, in his view, or incorrectly?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend is not quite right. There is not a Bill before Parliament on this issue—there is a motion before Parliament on this issue. Those two things are clearly separate matters that are not to be confused. I have no doubt, Mr Speaker, that had a Humble Address been brought forward on a Bill before Parliament, it would have been ruled disorderly and therefore would not have been a subject for debate. For the benefit of the Hansard reporters, Mr Speaker is nodding, and I therefore hope that this can go into the record as an authoritative reply.

I have one concern about the reference to the Privileges Committee, and that is of course that the Attorney General is himself a member of that Committee, though a non-voting member who does not affect the quorum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

Yes, that is precisely right. What the House wants is the complete legal arguments on either side of the debate on the EU withdrawal agreement. These are difficult issues; we all accept that, and we are all grown up. They might say, “Well, there are all these things about national interest, negotiation and security,” but people are not interested in that. We want the full facts. I have made some simple legal points that show the full debate has not occurred.

[Dr Murrison]

Is the hon. Gentleman interested, like I am, in legal advice given to the European Commission and its negotiators by its lawyers, which presumably the European Commission would like to be privileged in the same way as advice to the Cabinet is? Has he interested himself at all in that side of this negotiating process?

[Geraint Davies]

Yes, I am sure we would all be interested in that if it were available, but the issue on the table is whether the Government are in contempt, and there is reason to believe they are in contempt, because a lot of the legal arguments are simply being taken out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

A number of interesting things have come out during this debate about our general procedures and our way of handling matters of the sort we have been discussing—in relation to procedures and privileges, and the nature of the Humble Address and whether it is an appropriate vehicle for advancing Labour’s essentially political aims. I think there is one thing on which we can agree: we need to find a sensible way forward, and it seems to me that the Government’s amendment, although not perfect, is a sensible way through this particular conundrum. The Government are clearly not in principle averse to being as transparent as possible, but they have to safeguard the national interest. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) made a sensible suggestion, as one would expect, on the use of Privy Councillors to examine this matter. Of course, we have the Privileges Committee, which is up and running already. As a number of right hon. and hon. Members have said, although it is imperfect for the purposes of examining this issue, it is at least there and we could at least support that in determining whether the very serious charges of contempt are reasonable or not.

We have to understand that some serious allegations have been made. Lawyers and legislators understand full well what contempt is. The general public probably think that it means something rather different, and they can be forgiven for that. Contempt is a very harsh term. If it is associated with individuals—I am not suggesting that the Attorney General has necessarily been associated with this, but Ministers have been—and it sticks, that is very serious, even if we have not decided yet what the penalty might be. Of course, when this language was being got up hundreds of years ago, the penalties may have been very severe indeed. Mercifully today, that is not the case, but we have yet to determine what happens if individuals are found to be in contempt. That is left uncertain, but one thing that we can agree on is that this is a very serious allegation to make and the consequences are potentially significant, so we have to get this right. Simply to use an arcane measure such as the Humble Address to make this determination, untrammelled, seems unfair to me.

If we accept that this is a rather archaic vehicle, which is more traditionally used not for legislation or things that might lead to legislation, but for providing gifts to Commonwealth countries, as suggested in “Erskine May”—which I cited in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)— we must also accept the possibility of using a measure that is not ideal for determining this issue, and that, in my view, means the Privileges Committee.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what has upset Members on both sides is the fact that the Government several times now have ignored the will of the House? That has antagonised a lot of Members.

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The difficulty is that a court of law has available to it a judge who can determine what may be disclosed. The Freedom of Information Act, passed fairly recently, put significant constraints on what may be disclosed and gave powers to the Information Commissioner to use their discretion to permit, or otherwise, information to enter the public domain. We do not have that here.

The Government are mindful not only of potentially setting a precedent, but of the very real possibility that in the advice given—in this case, by the Attorney General—there might be something that is embarrassing to this country internationally or which has security implications. It is irresponsible of the House not to recognise that dilemma, which the Government now face. They are trying to reconcile their duty to be as candid as possible with their duty to safeguard the public interest, and specifically the interests of individuals who might be adversely and directly affected by such a disclosure.

On contempt, it is appropriate to dwell for one moment on the nature of the advice the Attorney General gave to the House yesterday. Nobody in this place could fail to have been impressed by his candour, and it seems wholly inappropriate to associate the word “contempt” with anything he said.

I have grave reservations, as a former Minister in the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office, about the impact that this could have on the disclosure of sensitive information. I am worried about that, knowing what I do about the nature of some of the material that the Government would like to keep unto themselves. It has nothing to do with the precedent in 2005 cited today in relation to the Iraq war, where it came two years after the event and dealt with whether the Government had behaved lawfully. That is not a question facing the House today—clearly the Government are behaving lawfully—so the two cannot be compared or contrasted in any way. The Government amendment is a sensible and pragmatic way forward that reconciles the House’s desire for openness and transparency with their legitimate desire to ensure that they put nothing in the public domain that might harm individuals or set a dangerous precedent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Courts]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, as always, makes an excellent contribution. It is normally the case that the client has the ability to waive legal advice if they wish, but, in the case of Government Law Officers, there clearly is another layer to that, and their position is of enormous importance.

The Government’s amendment is the correct, cool, calm way to look at this matter. We are in uncharted territory. The very fact that we are all discussing constitutional and historical precedents today means that we all ought to avail ourselves of more time in which to study those in detail so that the Privileges Committee can consider the real constitutional and historical ramifications of any decision we take.

To be honest, there are a number of questions to which I do not know the answer. Does a Humble Address trump privilege? It would be helpful if somebody were to look into that and consider it. I do not think there is a straightforward answer because I do not think it has ever been tested—I may be wrong. My point is that a period of cool, calm reflection on such points would be of benefit to everybody in the House. Further, where does the line fall in terms of disclosure? Is there a question of redacting elements of advice? If so, where does the line fall?

Many Members will be clear that the line falls when we are talking about national security—that is relatively straightforward perhaps—but what about the national interest? It is not so easy to define, but it is something that we ought to consider carefully before rushing into what are extremely serious matters, not just of party politics—although of course there is a big element of that in this—but of constitutional and legal theory and practice that could have profound consequences for any Government. The Opposition ought to be aware that at some stage—I hope not for a long time—they might be sitting on these Government Benches and should consider the position they would wish to take.

[Dr Murrison]

Is my hon. Friend interested, as I am, in the position of the European Commission? A number of right hon. and hon. Members would be interested in the advice given to the European Commission by its legal service. I suspect that it would take a very dim view of any request that might prejudice the position taken by the Commission’s negotiators.

[Robert Courts]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In the middle of a negotiation, in any discussion that by necessity is high profile and tense, any disclosure of advice that might undermine a negotiator is clearly to be regretted. The Commission will have its legal advice, and we might like to see it, but there is a good reason why we cannot see it and why the Commission should not be able to see ours.

The Government are approaching this matter in a better way than the Opposition’s motion because, as hon. Members have mentioned, they have used an archaic procedure. It was not designed to deal with this situation. [Interruption.] I hear an hon. Member say the whole House is archaic. The whole House is old and historic and flexible, but this procedure has not been used for many years and is not designed for a matter of such sensitivity. It is designed for the production of documents, not legal advice

Business of the House

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I should like to start by agreeing with the hon. Lady about Baroness Hollis, who has passed away—she will be much missed. The House owes her a great debt of gratitude for her campaigning on behalf of the poor and vulnerable in our society.

The hon. Lady asked about Monday’s business on the Offensive Weapons Bill. As was explained at the time, a group of important amendments was tabled, but a knife had already been agreed for 7 pm, which would have allowed less than half an hour to debate those amendments. It was felt better to reschedule the debate and, as she will have noticed, I have indeed rescheduled it for next week.

The hon. Lady mentioned the Easter recess. I am pleased to hear that she is happy about the February recess, but I am not surprised to hear that she has something else to complain about. That is par for the course for her, I am sorry to say.

I completely echo the hon. Lady’s welcome for the members of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. We look forward to hearing what they have to say, and we all celebrate the co-operation between the British and Irish groups.

The hon. Lady highlighted the importance of Anti-slavery Day, and she is absolutely right to say that it is an opportunity to raise awareness of the scale of modern slavery in the United Kingdom and abroad. There are an estimated 40 million victims worldwide, which shows that these crimes are far from having been consigned to the history books. As she will know, the Government have made tackling modern slavery a top domestic and foreign policy priority, including by introducing the first Modern Slavery Act in 2015, which was introduced by the Prime Minister when she was Home Secretary. This is an important priority for the Government.

The hon. Lady mentioned Black History Month. She might be delighted, as I was, to read in the press that more is being done to ensure that more of the history of black races in the world is being brought into our history books. That is incredibly important, as the history books have been far too white-focused, and it will be interesting to see how that imbalance is addressed.

The hon. Lady asked about debating statutory instruments on the Floor of the House. She knows that it is a matter of parliamentary convention that when the Opposition make a reasonable request for a debate on an SI on the Floor of the House, time is allowed for such a debate. I think the Government have demonstrated in this Session that we have been willing to provide such time. In fact, we have agreed to more such requests from the Opposition than at any time since 1997.

The hon. Lady mentioned Northamptonshire County Council. She will be aware that that is my own local county council, and this is an issue that I am incredibly concerned about. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has brought in commissioners to deal with the specific issues of Northamptonshire County Council, and the local councillors are making proposals on how to ensure that my constituents and all other Northamptonshire residents get the best value for money as well as good services.

The hon. Lady asked specifically about the statutory instruments relating to the Brexit process. I had a very good informal meeting with the sifting Committee yesterday, and I was able to assure its members that we will be giving them as much information as possible on the flow of statutory instruments relating to Brexit, and that, having changed the process for monitoring the flow and quality of SIs, I am confident that this will be manageable, that it is in line with other parliamentary Sessions, and that all those SIs will be brought forward in good time for exit day.

Finally, the hon. Lady asked about the meaningful vote. The letter that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union wrote to the Procedure Committee on 10 October was in response to a letter from the Committee to the Prime Minister asking for views on the meaningful vote. The House will be aware that the question of whether such debates should be organised through a business of the House motion, and the form of any such motion, will be in the hands of the House itself, which has the power to amend, approve or reject such a motion. It is also important to recognise the need for the House to consider the question that will in reality be before the United Kingdom, which is whether or not to accept the deal that the Government have negotiated with the European Union. I encourage all hon. Members to look at the incoming letter from the Procedure Committee dated 17 September and the response from the Secretary of State, as well as, importantly, the appendix that sets out the legal position.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The news of Wednesday’s business is most welcome, but will the Leader of the House say why it is necessary to conclude all stages of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill in one day? The matter to which it relates now dates from January 2017, and it is vital to get things right.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Bill will address certain pressing matters, so a swift process has been considered necessary, but there will be an opportunity to debate that next Wednesday.

Bullying and Harassment: Cox Report

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I have listened carefully to what has been said by other Members. I will give it serious consideration. The hon. Gentleman, and indeed all Members, will appreciate that there are limited options for kicking the process off if it involves no elected Member—that does make it tricky—but I will give the matter some thought and see what can be done.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Dame Laura makes it clear that heads must roll, and she identifies some candidates, but can we ensure that this does not become a witch hunt? The House managed the expenses scandal appallingly and needs to take early action in this instance, but can we ensure that appropriate action is taken, including, where necessary, the re-education of Members in how to behave, how to manage staff and how to manage their own anger?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One of the targets of our complaints work was to set up a significant offer of training for use as part of the sanctioning process. For example, someone who was bullying someone else might receive training in what constitutes bullying and harassment. Someone who was guilty of unconscious bias, or perhaps some sort of unmeant discrimination, might be sanctioned by being forced to undertake relevant training. Also available is a wide range of optional, voluntary training in how to carry out appraisals, how to lead an office and so on.

My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that the training offer needs to be there. We cannot expect people to learn these things through osmosis. Hon. Members have said that we need to do more to communicate with each other about the offer and encourage its take-up. We have a good employer standard, which will be on offer to those who have taken up the training. As we see greater understanding throughout this place—not only among Members of Parliament, but among chiefs of staff in their offices who may employ interns or junior researchers—it will be important for us to take steps to professionalise the House so that everyone knows what is expected of them.

Business of the House

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important issue. She will be aware that Work and Pensions questions will take place on Monday 15 October, and there will be an Opposition day debate on universal credit on Wednesday. She will also be aware that the Government are spending more than £50 billion a year on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions. That is a record high, and up more than £9 billion in real terms since 2010. However, we all have constituency cases on these issues and we seek to raise them directly with the Department, which is always responsive. I encourage her to raise particular issues directly with Ministers.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that Northern Ireland has been without proper government since January 2017. News of a Northern Ireland Bill that will give the Secretary of State significant new powers is very welcome, but can she say when it will be published, and what timetable she envisages to ensure that it is given proper scrutiny in this place?

[Andrea Leadsom]

As my hon. Friend knows, our absolute priority is to secure a basis for political talks and to re-establish at the earliest possible opportunity a locally elected, democratically accountable devolved Government who work for everyone in Northern Ireland. As he says, a Bill to facilitate certain decision making in Northern Ireland is under consideration. It will be published shortly, and there will of course be ample opportunity for the House to consider it.

Business of the House

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Formally, summer will depend upon the weather, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the decision will come shortly. We have taken time over the decision because, rightly, Members of the House and on the Opposition Front Bench—[Interruption.] We hear them chirruping yet again. They have asked us to take immense care over the issue of air pollution in the United Kingdom, so we have been careful to consider the impact of nitrous oxide emissions around Heathrow to ensure that we get the final decision between the two choices right.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 were dealt with under the negative resolution procedure. Despite the statutory instrument’s provenance, much of it is commendable and will help in the fight against tobacco-related disease. However, may we have a debate on the paragraphs relating to e-cigarettes and vaping? ASH, Cancer Research UK, the Faculty of Public Health and the Royal College of Physicians are concerned that the paragraphs will be unhelpful in reducing the toll that tobacco takes.