Business of the House

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

[The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)]

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 24 November—Remaining stages of the Recall of MPs Bill.

Tuesday 25 November—Remaining stages of the Pension Schemes Bill, followed by a motion to approve resolutions relating to the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Bill, the Local Government (Review of Decisions) Bill, the Health and Social Care (Safety and Quality) Bill and the Control of Horses Bill.

Wednesday 26 November—Opposition day (10th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism.

Thursday 27 November—Debate on a motion relating to inequality, followed by a general debate on progress of the historical child sex abuse inquiry. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 28 November—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 1 December will include:

Monday 1 December—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 27 November and 4 December will be:

Thursday 27 November—Debate on the second report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on food security, followed by a debate on the 11th report from the Environmental Audit Committee on plastic bags.

Thursday 4 December—General debate on small business Saturday.

It may assist the House to be made aware that the calendar confirming the dates agreed by this House until the dissolution of Parliament next year is now available from the Vote Office.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. A week on Monday we will debate the Government’s defeats on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill on their plans to curtail severely the use of judicial review. With their cuts to legal aid and their gag on charities and campaigners, is it not now obvious that this Government started off promising a big society but have ended up stifling civil society? Does the Leader of the House plan to allow the modest amendments from the other place to remain in the Bill?

I am getting a bit worried about the Tory Chief Whip. The first thing he did when he got his job was get stuck in the toilet, and I am afraid to say it has all gone down the pan since then. He has misplaced two MPs, he keeps losing votes, and this week he presided over the first-ever Commons defeat for this Government on their own legislation. This was the fourth time that the House has voted to introduce a statutory code to end unfair beer ties. The Leader of the House has some relationship with beer and he used to tell us about it a lot, so will he confirm that he will now finally accept the clearly expressed will of the House and not try to reverse this decision? Is it not obvious now that the Chief Whip cannot even organise a vote in a brewery?

Light was shed yesterday on the Tory Chief Whip’s mysterious absence from this place every Thursday morning. I note that once again he is not here. Apparently he has written to Tory MPs to tell them that this Government are so out of ideas that they are no longer required to be in Parliament on a Thursday. I am glad to see that so many are disobeying him, but 40 years ago a previous Tory Government introduced the three-day week. Only this nostalgia-obsessed former Education Secretary could possibly think of bringing it back. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether we can now expect to be holding our debates by candlelight? Does he support the reintroduction of the three-day week? It seems that this zombie Government are grinding to a halt. Their legislative programme is threadbare, the House sits for less and less time, they have lost and then ignored a record number of votes, and now the Chief Whip has told Tory MPs that they do not need to show up at all.

Is it not the case that the Government treat this place with contempt? Just look at what happened with the European arrest warrant. The Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and promised the House that we would have a vote on the European arrest warrant before today. The Government botched the drafting so badly that the regulation was rejected by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. They brought a motion to the House which masqueraded as a vote on the European arrest warrant when it was no such thing. This caused outrage on all sides. The Home Secretary was left filibustering while frantic junior Whips rang round Government Back Benchers to bring them back from their lobster dinners, and although the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor were forced to rush back from their white tie banquet with their City friends, the Chief Whip was nowhere to be seen.

The following day’s newspapers were full of a vicious blame game between the Home Office and the Tory Whips, and later in the week we learned that the unelected Chamber was going to be granted a say on the European arrest warrant when the Commons had been denied one. It took yesterday’s Labour Opposition day to give this House the debate on the European arrest warrant which the Prime Minister promised us four weeks ago. After witnessing this farce, I have a suggestion for the Leader of the House. He likes outsourcing, so why does he not just give up and let the Opposition handle the rest of the legislative programme in this Parliament? There is no question but that we would make a better job of it.

There are only two other men in the Government who came close to the Chief Whip for having a bad week. One was the Prime Minister, who has been savaged by Dominic Cummings for having “no political priorities whatsoever” and being unable to

“manage his way out of a paper bag”.

Cummings revealed a real truth when he went on to say:

“There is no long-term priority. There is no long-term plan.”

And what about the Chancellor? This week we learned from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that they have gone from drinking whisky together in those early heady days to the Chancellor putting a padlock on the Treasury fridge filled with treats and milk. What would Mrs Thatcher say if she knew that it was the Liberal Democrats who are now the milk-snatchers?

[Mr Hague]

She would have believed anything about Liberal Democrats. Unlike me—I am very fond of my Liberal Democrat colleagues.

The hon. Lady asked about judicial review. As we come to the debate on Lords amendments a week on Monday, the Government will set out what we propose to do about the amendments in the other House. On the question of civic society and volunteering, the hon. Lady ought to have mentioned that the number of people now volunteering in the big society in this country has gone up to 74%, from 66% five years ago. That is the change that has taken place over the past few years.

On the vote on pubs—and I yield to no one in my expertise on pubs in Yorkshire in particular—the Business Secretary set out the position just a few moments ago at Business questions, because he congratulated the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and told him he had won, and that can be taken as an official statement of Government policy. Let us hope that some of the feared consequences of that do not come to pass, but we will see.

The hon. Lady asked whether we were now on a three-day week. I have to tell her that if we sit the days that are indicated on the calendar now in the Vote Office, this Parliament will have sat for more days than any of the three Parliaments of the last Government, so we need no lectures on that. On the question of turning up, she asked about the issues of judicial review in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. I seem to remember that when that was first debated in this House only three Opposition Members took part, and one of those was a Whip who was sent to the Back Benches in order to speak, so we do not need any lectures about turning up.

On the votes on the European arrest warrant, the result of this week’s vote was remarkably similar to the result of the vote on Monday last week, because the House was voting on essentially the same issue. But it is quite right that the Opposition provided time, because it was their motion to move the previous question that denied the House the opportunity to have a debate a week last Monday. Either way, that has now been resolved.

The hon. Lady said that the Prime Minister had been savaged. It is not a very good week for Opposition Members to talk about leaders of parties being savaged after what happened to the Leader of the Opposition the other night. This is a week where the Prime Minister stood up to President Putin and the Leader of the Opposition could not stand up to the other guests on an evening television show. If we are going to trade comments about leadership styles and behaviour, we should remember that barely a day goes by without, in this case, a senior Labour MP stating that

“this is not one or two backbenchers—there’s an angst across the Labour party. We are desperate.”

Another senior figure is quoted as saying that

“there are two deficits—the deficit he ignores and the deficit of economic competence.”

That is very true.

Once again, the real gap in the demand for debates from the Opposition is on economic questions. Since our last business questions, newly published figures have shown more people in work than ever before in the history of the country, youth unemployment at its lowest since the 1970s, redundancies at a record low, the UK new car market enjoying its longest period of continuous growth, and the difference—I am surprised the hon. Lady did not raise this—between the average earnings of men and women in the UK narrowing to its smallest gap since records began in 1997. When the gender pay gap widens she wants to ask about it, but when it narrows there is not a mention of it from the Opposition, and that is the result of a long-term economic plan that we will continue to pursue.