Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
The Government will ensure that their commitments under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the order of 4 December are met.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has chosen to give an emergency business statement merely about tomorrow’s business, when we know that there are sequential changes to Thursday’s business as well. She has not made it quite clear to the House—I hope she will be able to do so this evening—that should we vote to take no deal off the agenda in the vote on the motion tomorrow, there will be a change to the legislation, which is obviously not superseded by a motion passed by the House. We would have to change the legislation that contains the 29 March leaving date. Will she take this opportunity to reassure us all by getting to the Dispatch Box and telling us that if we vote to take no deal off the table tomorrow, she will immediately facilitate a change to legislation to ensure that that happens?
Andrea Leadsom
What I can say to the hon. Lady is that if the House declines to approve leaving without a deal on 29 March, the Government will, following that vote, bring forward a motion on Thursday on whether Parliament wants to seek an extension to article 50.
Mr Speaker
I appreciate that that is not the answer the hon. Lady wants, but it is the answer she is getting tonight. I understand entirely where she is coming from, but these matters can all be explored in the days ahead, and I am absolutely certain that they will be.
Points of Order
Angela Eagle Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I can answer him very simply. No, I have no intention of trying to change the Standing Orders of the House. With the very greatest of respect to the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for a long time and for whose intelligence I have very high regard, that is not a power of the Speaker. The House is in charge of its Standing Orders, but in so far as he—[Interruption.] No, I am not debating this with him. He raised the point and I am furnishing him with an answer, upon which he can reflect. The later parts of his point of order were frankly hypothetical, and I cannot be expected to treat of hypothetical questions. He asked a specific point in the first part of his inquiry, and I have given him a specific reply. We will leave it there.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do you agree that the way in which the rules of this House have evolved, and the way in which the current Government have taken to ignoring Opposition motions and not even deigning to vote on them—coupled with the difficult circumstances in which we in the House of Commons now find ourselves in the aftermath of yesterday’s crushing defeat of the Brexit deal—demonstrate that our Standing Orders are probably in need of some evolution, even though I understand that you cannot change them? Will you perhaps think about bringing the Procedure Committee into play at some stage, so that we can take back some control from a dysfunctional Government and make certain that the will of this House can be properly put into effect?
Mr Speaker
It is not for me to bring the Procedure Committee into play. However, I am in the hands of the House, and the House can take a view on these matters and may well choose to do so. More widely, I think it is fair to say that quite a number of Members of Parliament on both sides of the House—particularly some very senior and experienced Members—have relayed to me over the last several months their disappointment, concern and in some cases I would go so far as to say distress that what they previously regarded as givens seem no longer to apply. I simply make the point factually that a number of senior Members on the Government Benches have told me that, whatever they think of a particular vote—for example, a vote on an Opposition motion—it should be honoured, because they are putting their commitment to Parliament in front of their commitment to party. So I put that out there. These matters will be aired in this Chamber, and ultimately decided upon in this Chamber, if Members want that to happen. The idea that that can be blocked—I am not saying that that is what is intended—by Executive fiat, for example, is for the birds.
Points of Order
Angela Eagle Excerpts(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Let me say this to the hon. Gentleman. So far as his last remark was concerned, I think I can cope with that. Government Whips going about their business in their own way is something to which the Chair is very well and long accustomed. The notion that a Government Whip might now and again do things that are unhelpful to the Chair is not entirely novel. I have broad shoulders and I am not going to lose any sleep over that—never have done, am not doing so and never will.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic courtesy and his sense of fairness. He recalls the record accurately: I did indeed select an additional amendment to the Humble Address, if memory services me correctly, in 2013, and that was in the name of Mr John Baron. That amendment was on the subject of a referendum on British membership of the European Union, so what the hon. Gentleman says is true.
The fact is that there is a responsibility on the Chair to do their best to stand up for the rights of the House of Commons, including the views of dissenters on the Government Benches—that is to say, independent-minded souls who do not always go with the Whip—and to defend the rights of Opposition parties and very small parties, as well. I have always sought to do that, and on the Brexit issue, as on every issue, what the record shows, if I may say so—and I will—is that this Chair, on a very, very, very big scale, calls Members from across the House with a very large variety of opinions. Ordinarily, as colleagues will acknowledge, when statements are made to the House, my practice, almost invariably, is to call each and every Member, whether the Government like it or not. That is not because I am setting myself up against the Government, but because I am championing the rights of the House of Commons.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do you agree that over the past few years we have seen a big evolution in the way the Government treat motions in this House? That was partly brought about by the Wright reforms, but we have seen the widespread ignoring of motions passed in this House, and the beginning of a practice of not voting on motions—especially Opposition motions—that the Government feel are somehow awkward for them. Do you agree, Mr Speaker, that this has taken away from the importance of the decisions that this House of Commons makes? Do you therefore also agree that allowing this House of Commons to vote on more issues, in a context in which those votes have to be taken and put into effect, empowers this House of Commons and demonstrates that it is taking back control? As Speaker, you have an absolute duty to ensure that this House of Commons is taken seriously, which is why I commend you for the decision you have taken today.
Mr Speaker
Rather than deal in detail with what the hon. Lady has said, I will say that I agree with her assessment of recent events, and of course I thank her for agreeing with me.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend will recall that the Attorney General answered significant questions and wrote a large document setting out the whole legal position on the withdrawal agreement. Should there be significant changes, I think that the Attorney General would certainly set out the legal position on those changes but, in direct response to my hon. Friend, he will appreciate that the terms of the Humble Address he refers to were met with the production of the Attorney General’s advice.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Leader of the House was extremely coy in her answers to the questions from the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) about whether the amendment to the motion that we were discussing—before the Government decided to pull it today—which was passed ahead of the debate and which replaced the neutral and unamendable motion that the Government were planning to put to this House, would be replaced with one that was amendable. She has been asked twice now, and she has been very coy and not forthcoming in her responses. Will she now confirm—and not just read out the phrase she has read out twice already—that when we resume this debate, the Government’s motion will not be neutral and will be amendable, and that the Government will accept the spirit of the vote we had before we began the debate?
Andrea Leadsom
I repeat to the hon. Lady that any business of the House motion brought forward will be amendable.
Nomination of Members to Committees
Angela Eagle Excerpts(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
Our working majority will allow us to carry out the legislative agenda as set out in Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech. As all Members will be aware, a working majority can be achieved in three ways: first, through an overall numerical majority; secondly, through a coalition, like in 2010; and, thirdly, through a confidence and supply agreement, which is the current arrangement between the Conservatives and the Democratic Unionist party. This gives the Government a working majority of 13, and it is what allowed the Gracious Speech to be passed by 323 to 309 votes. If the Government have a working majority to pass legislation on the Floor of the House, the Government should also be able to make progress with legislation in Committees.
On the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), I again say that the motion is simply to ensure that the Government’s working majority on the Floor of the House is reflected in Committees, which will allow legislation to be dealt with in an orderly fashion.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Leader of the House is saying “working majority” an awful lot in her speech so far, but her working majority—done through the deal with the DUP—does not entitle this Government, to make life easier for them, to gerrymander the Select and Standing Committees. This was the woman who said that Parliament had to be given back control, but the only control she seems to be interested in is the Government’s control of this House, which is a constitutional outrage.
Andrea Leadsom
Scrutiny by the House is of vital importance—the hon. Lady makes a very good point—and it has long been established that the Opposition must have time to scrutinise Government business, but it is also well understood that the Government of the day must have a realistic opportunity of making progress with getting their business through the House. The motion that the House is being asked to agree guarantees that the party with a working majority is able to do exactly that.
Valerie Vaz
There is no end to the hon. Gentleman’s talents, because he has asked the question that I was just about to answer.
What are the Government relying on? Is it precedent? In 1974, the minority Labour Administration had a Government majority on the Committee of Selection, but it appointed Standing Committees with no overall majority. That is, there were Committees with equal numbers. In October 1974, there was a Government majority and that was reflected in the Committees. In April 1976, when the Government lost their overall majority, a motion was passed that stated that the Committee of Selection would appoint Committees with a Government majority only when the Government had an overall majority. That was the Harrison motion. From that point, the Committee of Selection nominated Standing Committees of equal numbers. That was a Labour Government being honourable.
In 1995, there was a Conservative Government and the Whip was withdrawn from the Maastricht rebels. Some hon. Members might be too young to remember the Major Government, but the former Prime Minister had a name for some of those people and it began with B.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
I can well imagine what an irritation this is for my hon. Friend’s constituents. I would certainly not be happy with an acknowledgment and then the pledge of a proper reply within two weeks. Many public sector organisations respond very quickly to requests from Members of Parliament, and I hope that Highways England will have heard his remarks and will give him a very quick answer.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Last week, rumours circulated in Wallasey that Kingsway Academy, which is in Leasowe in my constituency, was going to close. We have now managed to establish that there are plans to close it, perhaps by the end of July. This will throw our whole education system in Wallasey into disarray, and there are 400 pupils whose future is currently completely obscure. We do not know where they are going to be, and parents of new pupils do not know whether they should buy uniforms for the school. The school is part of a multi-academy trust that has not communicated any of this at all. May we have a debate on public accountability among multi-academy trusts? If this had been a local authority school, there would have been a two-year consultation period instead of this chaos.
Andrea Leadsom
I am quite sure that the hon. Lady will have raised this very loudly in her own area, and it is absolutely right that she should. In order to bring forward the question very quickly, I suggest that she seeks an Adjournment debate.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
The usual discussions are under way between the usual channels about the handling of business that is currently before Parliament. On the assumption that the motion is carried by the House tomorrow, those discussions will intensify. I hope that I will be able to provide the clarity that my hon. Friend seeks as soon as possible.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has given us an image of the Prime Minister being dragged, kicking and screaming, into calling a general election when she did not want one. Can we find time in what is left of this Parliament to have a debate about why she decided to trigger article 50 and then throw the entire planning into doubt by then calling a general election, which will waste at least three months of the precious, short time we have left to get the best deal for Britain?
Mr Lidington
Far from throwing things into doubt, the Prime Minister’s decision has, assuming that the people return this Government—it will be a choice for the people to take—ensured that there will be the clarity of a mandate behind her and her Government to deliver a successful negotiation, and to implement it over the course of a five-year term.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
As hon. Members will see when they have studied the Bill, it is a short Bill which empowers the Prime Minister formally to trigger article 50 and commence the negotiation. That is all that the Bill is about.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Since this Government came into office they have sought to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of their plans to leave the EU and to achieve their aims by resorting to the use of the royal prerogative, bypassing this Parliament. First, they lost in the High Court, then they lost in the Supreme Court, and now, finally, they have had to concede that Parliament is sovereign by publishing a Bill and a White Paper. But I was astonished at the amount of time that the Leader of the House has given this House to debate the Bill, and he is being very coy about whether the White Paper will be published before the Committee stage of the Bill. Can he give us more time and tell us that he is going to publish the White Paper before next week?
Mr Lidington
If we consider that this is a two clause Bill, of which the second clause deals only with the extent of the Bill in respect of the United Kingdom, there is plenty of time, including two full days on Second Reading, for all opinions to be fully expressed.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)
The business for next week will be as follows.
Monday 14 September—Second Reading of the Trade Union Bill.
Tuesday 15 September—Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to tax credits, followed by a motion relating to the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill.
Wednesday 16 September—Remaining stages of the Education and Adoption Bill.
Thursday 17 September—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 18 September—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 12 October will include the following:
Monday 12 October—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will be aware that the new arrangements involving the Petitions Committee and the allocation of time for matters raised in petitions begin from now. I therefore wish to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 14 September and 12 October will be as follows:
Monday 14 September—Debate on an e-petition relating to contracts and conditions in the NHS.
Monday 12 October—Debate on an e-petition relating to making the production, sale and use of cannabis legal.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. May I first warmly add my voice to the tributes paid yesterday to Her Majesty the Queen for her exemplary 63 years and 216 days of service to this country, which is ongoing?
Following the Prime Minister’s revelation on Monday that he authorised a lethal drone strike against a British citizen and ISIL terrorist in Syria, we welcome the establishment of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which will now rightly be able to scrutinise the Government’s actions in this case. The Defence Secretary has stated that there may be similar drone strikes in future, and the media have speculated about the existence of a “hit list” of targets. It is clearly not possible or desirable to discuss individual cases across the Floor of the House, but can the Leader of the House assure me that the Government will publish the criteria that they are using to justify such operations, and will he set time aside so that Parliament can debate them?
Yesterday, in his evidence to the Procedure Committee, the Leader of the House confirmed that he would bring his plans for so-called English votes for English laws back to the House in October. These partisan and unworkable proposals have been criticised throughout the House and in the other place, which has passed a motion calling for a Joint Committee of both Houses to examine the issue. Will the Leader of the House tell us if and when the Government intend to respond to that motion? I welcome the work that the Procedure Committee is doing in considering the implications of the Government’s plans, and look forward to the publication of its report, but does the Leader of the House not recognise the widespread controversy that his divisive proposals have created? Instead of rushing ahead in a partisan manner, will he now reconsider, and agree to pilot them first?
Next Tuesday, for just 90 minutes, the House will debate a statutory instrument on working tax credits which will make 3 million families at least £1,000 a year worse off. Single parents in work will be hardest hit, and 5 million of Britain’s poorest children will be pushed further into poverty. Even the right hon. Gentleman’s own Back Benchers are waking up to the scale of this huge attack on working people, and the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) has described the cuts as “eye-wateringly painful”. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that 90 minutes is just not long enough to debate a change which will have such a detrimental effect on so many working people, and will he grant more time for the debate? Given that increases in the minimum wage and a cynical rebranding exercise will not nearly compensate for the loss of working tax credit, can he explain how on earth these changes fulfil the Government’s promise to “make work pay”?
Next week’s business completely exposes the Tories’ ludicrous claim to be some kind of workers’ party. Their Trade Union Bill is designed to undermine basic rights at work and prevent effective collective action for better pay and conditions, while their fees for employment tribunals have made legal protections at work practically unenforceable. Meanwhile, Liberty and Amnesty International have condemned the Government’s plans to force trade unionists to register with the police and share social media comments in advance as
“a major attack on civil liberties”.
Can the Leader of the House confirm that there are now serious concerns that the Government’s proposals on workers’ rights violate this country’s legal obligations as a member of the International Labour Organisation?
While the summer recess has been a calm and uneventful time for the Labour party, the Government are facing troubles of their own. We have had the ongoing farce of the Prime Minister’s renegotiations and negotiations over Europe—that is negotiations with his own MPs. He has also already given in on collective Cabinet responsibility during the referendum campaign—much to the Leader of the House’s relief, I am sure. He has also given in on the date, and on Monday no fewer than 37 of his MPs, including five former Cabinet Ministers, joined us in the Division Lobby because they just did not trust their own Government not to misbehave on purdah. It makes our leadership election process look orderly and smooth by comparison.
Despite my party’s sterling attempt to banish silly season entirely this summer, it seems that it still exists on the Conservative Benches. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr Holloway) has uncovered a new angle on the refugee crisis. He claimed he could not get his hair cut because his barber had gone home to Iraq. I can reveal to the House that his barber was actually on holiday in Great Yarmouth.
It has emerged through Labour’s extensive and unrivalled vetting process that Baroness Altmann has in fact been a member of the Labour party since 2014. Apparently, she renewed her membership just before the election, and was actually a member of all three major parties.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
She is not a member of the Scottish National party.
Chris Grayling
May I start with some words about the shadow Leader of the House? As she highlights, over the next three days some changes are afoot in the Labour party. We have followed quite closely the campaign for her party’s deputy leadership; I think she has fought a very decent campaign and I wish her all the very best for the outcome. If it transpires that this is her last day at the Dispatch Box for business questions, may I say that, although we have sparred with each other for only a few weeks, I have very much enjoyed working with her, and I hope that it is not the last time we work together? I wish her all the very best in the changes over the next few days.
I echo the hon. Lady’s remarks about Her Majesty the Queen. I have the honour of having served first as Lord Chancellor and now as Lord President of the Council. In those two roles I have had dealings directly with Her Majesty and that has been one of the greatest—if not the greatest—honours of my career. I continue to regard her as a fantastic monarch for this country and I think yesterday’s tributes from this House were absolutely right and proper and appropriate.
The hon. Lady made reference to the drone strike. The Prime Minister has been very clear that he will discuss how to bring the details to the scrutiny of the ISC when the new Chair of that Committee is appointed. No Prime Minister would ever take a decision such as that lightly. Ultimately, surely, the first job of the Prime Minister of this nation is to protect its safety and security and that of its citizens, and I am absolutely certain that that is at the front of our Prime Minister’s mind as he deals with these very difficult, sensitive and challenging issues.
The hon. Lady mentioned English votes for English laws. I listened to the evidence that she gave yesterday to the Procedure Committee, in which she described how our proposals departed massively from those of the McKay commission. That is nonsense. Our proposals are consistent with the recommendations and principles set out in the McKay commission report. They are measured and sensible, and they provide a balance to our devolution settlement. I think they are the right thing to do, and we will bring them back before the House shortly. The hon. Lady asked about a pilot. I have committed to reviewing the process after 12 months. Over that period, we can take input from the Procedure Committee and other Committees on how the process is working. I look forward to seeing the Procedure Committee’s recommendations shortly.
The hon. Lady referred to next week’s debate on tax credits. We have had to make some tough decisions in the interests of this country, both in this Parliament and in the last one, to get our economy back on the straight and narrow. I make no apology for that, and I remind her that one of the reasons we are sitting on the Government Benches and Labour Members are on the Opposition Benches is that the people of this country recognised that it was right and necessary to take those tough decisions to ensure that future generations can live in a country that is founded on strong economic foundations. She talked about the time allocated for that debate. This issue was extensively discussed in the days of debate that followed the summer Budget. Next week’s debate will provide an opportunity to confirm the statutory instrument necessary to bring the measures into effect, and I am confident that Members will give it their support.
I am also confident that the House will support the Trade Union Bill when it comes before the House next week. The hon. Lady talks about looking after the interests of working people. I would like to look after the interests of people who find their working lives disrupted on the days when our transport system is massively interrupted by a minority of workers. We are on their side, which is why the Bill is necessary.
The hon. Lady mentioned the issue of Labour membership. I suspect she will find that a number of people who have voted in the leadership contest reflect a broader membership than any of the parties represented in this House, and that that might have something to do with the likely outcome. Mr Speaker, you might not know that this week marks the 30th anniversary of the release of that great movie “Back to the Future”. You might think that we are about to see a new sequel to that film this weekend, but I think we are going to see a new version of the “Tom and Jerry” show.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 20 July—Second Reading of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill.
Tuesday 21 July—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
The business for the week commencing 7 September will be:
Monday 7 September—Remaining stages of the European Union Referendum Bill.
Tuesday 8 September—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
Wednesday 9 September—Opposition day (6th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 10 September—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 11 September—Private Members’ Bills.
I want to inform the House of two other matters. First, it might be helpful to right hon. and hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), to know that you, Mr Speaker, have authorised a trial during the September sittings in which the alphabetical groupings in the Division Lobbies will be changed. We will not be consigning the Mc’s to the outer darkness, but the letter G will move to the A to F desk. That is to try to address the issue, raised by several Members, of long queues at the current G to M desk. The trial will run for two weeks to establish whether the new arrangements improve the situation.
Finally, as is customary, I want to thank all the staff of the House for their hard work, particularly in supporting Members at the start of this Parliament following the general election. I hope that they enjoy a well-deserved break. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will also have a well-deserved break as well as spending a lot of time on constituency work—it is not all holidays, of course—before the House returns in September.
Ms Eagle
Let me begin by seconding the Leader of the House’s thanks to all the staff and employees of the House for the support they have given us since the general election. As he is trialling the moving of the letter G from one desk in the Division Lobbies to another, perhaps he will explain why we cannot trial his plans for English votes for English laws, because they seem more important.
Yesterday’s general debate on the Government’s rushed and partisan proposals to introduce an English veto into our Standing Orders demonstrated that there is no support for it outside the Government. The Leader of the House has not announced when in September he intends to force votes to introduce his reckless plan. Will he tell us now on what date he is thinking of bringing the matter back to the House? Will he confirm that, despite the huge doubts expressed yesterday, he intends to force it through with no further concessions?
This week we learned that the Government’s plan to pack the House of Lords with 100 extra, mainly Tory, peers has been blocked by the Cabinet Secretary—at least for now. Does the Leader of the House agree that the upper House is already bursting at the seams and that, even without these extra peers, it now has the dubious distinction of being the second largest legislature in the world, beaten only by the Chinese People’s Congress? Given that every peer costs £117,000 a year, can we have a debate about how on earth these plans fulfil the Prime Minister’s pledge to cut the cost of politics? Why does this Prime Minister think it is acceptable to slash the number of elected Members in this House while allowing the unelected House to expand seemingly indefinitely in his own party’s interests?
The summer recess is nearly upon us, and I bet nobody will be more relieved than the Leader of the House. He is just two months into his new job and the Government’s business has already descended into chaos. We have had the Prime Minister’s doomed attempt to enforce collective Cabinet responsibility over his own EU referendum, which he hurriedly abandoned at the first whiff of grapeshot. In the last week we have learned of the Government’s new “dodgems” strategy to pilot their business through the House. Their headlong rush to impose a shoddy and partisan “English votes for English laws” fix was replaced with yesterday’s general debate without a vote to manage unease on their own Back Benches. Then we had the absolute farce of their botched attempt to wreck the Hunting Act 2004. The first vote was meant to be today, then it was moved to yesterday to be rushed through in 90 minutes, and then, as most of us learned on Twitter well before the Leader of the House came to the House to announce the change using a point of order, the Government pulled the vote because they knew they would lose. Will the Leader of the House tell us what other chaos he is planning for September?
This week the Government’s farcical attempt to reincarnate themselves as some kind of workers’ party has been exposed as a sham. Before the election, the Tories had vowed to “transform policy and practice” to help more disabled people into work. After the election, they scrapped the independent living fund, and we now hear that the Prime Minister is considering forcing workers to save up for their own sick pay. The Chancellor’s so-called national living wage has been exposed as just a rebrand of the minimum wage, and with his huge cuts to tax credits, millions will be thousands of pounds a year worse off. The Mayor of London has let the cat out of the bag, acknowledging that these changes will not deliver “enough to live on”.
Yesterday the Government revealed their real nature with the most vindictive attack on trade unions for 30 years. Despite the Government’s spin, this is an attack on the basic freedom to organise in the workplace that any Latin American dictator would have been proud of. If they really were the workers’ party, they would be supporting trade unions, not attacking them.
Today we will hear the result of the Liberal Democrats’ leadership election. I would like to send my commiserations to whichever candidate is unfortunate enough to win. Since the Prime Minister’s pre-resignation, there have been interesting developments in the Conservative party leadership election. Yesterday the Home Secretary poured cold water on the Mayor of London’s plans for water cannon. He has sprayed around public money, buying second-hand German cannons that it transpires he cannot even use. The Home Secretary rejected his business case because it was not watertight. I just hope he bought them on a sale-or-return basis. The Chancellor has also been on manoeuvres. The Treasury sent out an email to lobby journalists that mysteriously read, “Blah, blah, blah.” That is the most sensible thing the Chancellor has said in five years.
We have all been entranced this week by the news that a NASA space probe has made it to Pluto: a cold, desolate, lifeless place, light years away from civilisation. It sounds just like the Tory Back Benches. No doubt we are about to discover that it is a plutocracy run by old Plutonians—a bit like this place.
Chris Grayling
I have a high regard for the hon. Lady as a parliamentarian, but as a stand-up comedian, I would not go there. [Interruption.] I think hon. Members laughed in exasperation at how bad, not how good, the jokes were.
The hon. Lady asked about English votes for English laws and, indeed, the trial of the new Division Lobby arrangements. I assure her that the English votes for English laws procedure will last longer than two weeks when we put it into place. It is not customary to announce business further in advance than is normal in the business statement. When we return in September, I will as normal set out the business for the coming weeks.
The hon. Lady made a point about the House of Lords. May I once again suggest that it really is not a good idea to believe everything she reads in the papers? That story was simply not true, and it has rightly been described by Downing Street as “nonsense”. [Interruption.] I take it that the Labour party will therefore not nominate any peers in future. I take it that the hon. Lady is giving a self-denying ordinance that there will be no more Labour nominations to the House of Lords.
The hon. Lady talked about reducing the size of this House. I simply remind her, as I keep doing on English votes for English laws, that we believe in keeping to our manifesto commitments.
There was, however, one point on which we agreed—offering our good wishes to the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, who will be announced this afternoon. As the hon. Lady rightly says, he faces a very big and uphill task. We now have a collection of fine Members of Parliament on the Government Benches who will be excellent representatives of their constituencies and will I am afraid freeze out the Liberal Democrats for the foreseeable future.
The hon. Lady talked about chaos. Let me give a simple explanation of chaos. Chaos is a party that claims to represent working people, but votes against a national living wage. Chaos is a party that claims to represent working people and not support benefit-dependency, but increasingly opposes our reform of welfare, as we see in Labour Members’ mounting rebellion at their leadership’s attempt to claim that they support our reforms. Chaos is a party that claims to support an extra voice for the English, but says it will vote against a sensible package of reforms that will do the right thing for the English. Chaos is a party that ends up with its leadership candidates fighting over whether it is good idea for a party leader to be a parent. Chaos is a party that cannot even condemn the strikes that left millions of people unable to make their normal journeys to work last week.
The hon. Lady talks about supporting trade unions. May I ask her, as one of two preferred deputy leadership candidates backed by a militant boss who says it is okay to break the law, whether that is really what she means by supporting the trade unions? She talks about places that are light years away from civilisation. There is one place close to here where that is definitely the case—in the Labour party.