English Votes for English Laws
Angela Eagle Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
I am happy to do that. We have already indicated previous Bills that would have been affected by this measure, and we continue to work on that. The certification process that will exist in future has not existed in the past, and there is a fundamental difference between territorial extent as indicated in a past Bill that, for example, might refer to England and Wales as a single jurisdiction but be applicable to England only. I am happy to ensure that what my right hon. Friend asks for happens. In the current Session, I am aware of only one Bill that is likely to be entirely English-only, which is the proposed buses Bill. Many other Bills will be partly English—or English and Welsh—only. I remind the House that, notwithstanding any future certification by the Speaker, every Member of Parliament will vote on every Bill that passes through this place, and no one will be excluded.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his clarification about voting after what will be the next day’s debate on the 22 pages of changes to the Standing Orders that the Government propose. Last week in the emergency debate, I asked whether the Government would propose to allow not only amendments to be tabled but more than one or two votes to be taken, so that the will of the House could be tested on them. Under the old process that was originally suggested that would have been in doubt. Will the right hon. Gentleman be a bit clearer about which procedure we will use when we debate the Standing Orders?
Chris Grayling
First, I never intended to have a debate where amendments were excluded; that was never suggested or proposed by the Government. The number of votes that are called by the Speaker or Deputy Speaker is a matter for them, and it is not for me to limit the number of votes. We intend to allow amendments to be tabled to this measure, as in any other debate of this kind.
Chris Grayling
I will make a little bit of progress, and then I will give way a few more times.
I have already made the point that we will provide a business motion to ensure that there will be a full opportunity for any amendment selected to be debated and voted on. The Deputy Leader of the House and I are consulting and will continue to consult colleagues from across the House to answer questions of detail. My door is open to hear their views. I think that I have now had meetings with all the different political groups in the House, and I will continue to be available to talk to them.
I have had a number of conversations with the Chair of the Procedure Committee about our proposals. I talked to him back in May, before the new Committee was formed, to ensure that he was aware of what I was thinking. We now have a Committee and I intend to write to it to set out the process and ask whether it will keep track of how the new rules work in practice to review their operation once Bills have reached Royal Assent under them. I know that members of the Committee will contribute to debate and discussion about these matters over the coming months; but in addition, I have been invited to address the Committee and give evidence at the start of the September sitting, which I will happily do. I will be very happy in due course to talk to the other Committees involved.
Ms Angela Eagle
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again; it is gracious of him. He mentioned that day two of our proceedings on this matter will be sometime in September and he has not announced when. It is clearly quite important for Members of Parliament that, when we come back for the September sitting, there is a little bit of time between the evidence he gives to the Procedure Committee, and perhaps other Committees, and our consideration of the proposals. Will he give us some reassurance that there will be enough time and that the debate will not happen very quickly as soon as the House returns?
Chris Grayling
I am cognisant of the hon. Lady’s point. She would not expect me to announce the business in advance, but I take note of what she says. I can assure her that we will have a sensible process, and of course I will be available to hear comments from Members while the House is sitting and when it returns.
The other point raised with me, apart from the question of timetabling, was Members’ ability to vote on legislation that might have implications for the block grant, the so-called Barnett consequentials. There has been some discussion about how the House makes decisions on the block grant and how the Barnett consequentials work. This House approves the Government’s spending requirements each year through the estimates process, and we did that last night. The Government publish our spending plans, broken down by Department. The cash grants to the devolved consolidated funds that in turn fund the spending of the devolved Administrations are included in the relevant estimate: Scotland Office, Wales Office or Northern Ireland Office. Some of the individual departmental estimates are debated each year. The choice of these debates is a matter for the House through the Liaison Committee.
The decisions on the estimates are given statutory effect in a Bill each summer. The whole House will continue to vote on these supply and appropriation Bills. Through those means, decisions on the block grant funding to the devolved Administrations are taken. The block grant total each year is based upon a number of factors, including the calculation of Barnett consequentials, or the impact of individual spending decisions in different parts of the UK.
There are no readily calculable Barnett consequentials arising from individual Bills, because there is no direct relationship between any one piece of legislation and the overall block grant, even when the Bill results in extra spending or savings. An education Bill for England does not change the Department for Education’s budget outside the estimates process.
The two processes are separate. Decisions relating to departmental spending, including the block grant and the outcome reported to the House, are taken first in spending reviews and then in the annual estimates process. It is up to Departments to operate within the limits of the Budget allocation agreed. Any costs associated with legislation they take through Parliament must be borne within a Department’s overall budget.
We have listened to Members’ concerns and I understand the need to clarify the position relating to expenditure, so I want to be crystal clear. In order to assist today’s debate, I have republished the changes we propose to make to the Standing Orders of this House, with some small but important clarifications. They make it absolutely plain that Members from across the entire House—all Members—will approve departmental spending, which, as I have said, sets out the levels of spending for the devolved Administrations, reflecting Barnett consequentials. All MPs will vote on the legislation that confirms those decisions.
In addition, we have clarified that where legislation involves an increase in a Department’s expenditure, as voted on by the whole House in the estimates process, all MPs will continue to vote on that specific decision. All aspects of public spending will continue to be voted on by the whole House.
Chris Grayling
In my view, there is no issue with any Member chairing any Committee, since by convention a casting vote is cast in favour of the status quo. In my view, that would not change, and I see no reason to exclude any Member from either side of the House from chairing any Committee.
A question was raised about England-only Bills. We are not talking simply about England-only Bills, but about Bills that are substantially or in part applicable only to constituents of one group of Members—either English-only or Welsh-only Members. That will be a part of the process. It is not purely a question of having one England-only Bill in this Session. A number of measures will be coming before the House that apply entirely and exclusively to the United Kingdom—local government devolution is a case in point.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
We accept the Leader of the House’s point about the Chair of a Committee, but what if there were a Front Bencher on either side who was Scottish or Welsh who would not be allowed to vote in the Bill Committee?
Chris Grayling
We intend that only very few Committees will be England-only; almost all will remain United Kingdom Committees, as now, as will almost all the statutory instrument Committees. It will be a matter for individual political parties whom they assign to Committees.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I rise to contribute to what has now thankfully become a general debate on the Government’s proposals for what they like to call “English votes for English laws”. I am pleased that they have at least seen a bit of sense in retreating from their original intention of making us vote on those complex and controversial proposals today.
Let me begin by emphasising, for the avoidance of any doubt, that the official Opposition recognise that, in the light of the ongoing deepening of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it is important for us to evolve a mechanism for ensuring that the views of English Members of Parliament are heard clearly on English matters. Believing in that simple aim, however, does not mean that we can support the proposals that have been put before us today, because, as currently written, they are deeply flawed. We do not think that the Government’s proposals are either wise or viable. Indeed, they are likely to put the Union at risk by creating an English veto rather than a voice, possible gridlock in Parliament, and two classes of MP.
Sir William Cash
I think I heard the hon. Lady say that English Members should have the right to have their views heard. I did not hear anything about decisions. What is her answer to that?
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a major constitutional issue, and that what is therefore required is a non-partisan, non party-biased approach, which, sadly, is lacking?
Chris Grayling
I am still waiting for an explanation of why, when my predecessor invited the hon. Lady’s party to take part in the Committee’s discussions, it did not respond.
Alex Salmond
The hon. Lady is right in saying that these are not the McKay commission proposals, and that the Government dismissed those proposals. Has she had a chance to look at the diagram that the Leader of the House has so helpfully distributed? In box 3, in a circle that is half orange and half green, there is a letter P, which apparently refers to
“Further Ping Pong, if required”.
Has the hon. Lady any idea how many of the Bills that the Leader of the House is presenting will be subjected to the ping-pong procedure under his proposals?
Ms Eagle
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the diagram. It looks more like a plate of spaghetti than a way of legislating sensibly. As for his question, how often that “ping pong to the power squared” would actually happen would depend on how much disagreement there was between the other place and this place. I think that we in the House of Commons must think very carefully about quite how complex some of these legislative processes become if there is contention.
Graham Stuart
Does the hon. Lady accept that, notwithstanding her valiant efforts, those of members of her party, and those of the 56 nationalist MPs who are here to discuss an English-voting subject—[Interruption]—it is simply an issue of consent? English MPs, or English and Welsh MPs, give consent. It may have to be written into many pages of Standing Orders, but it is as simple as consent. The hon. Lady knows that that is true.
Ms Eagle
I think it is a lot more complicated than that, and I think the hon. Gentleman should be a bit more wary about waving his red rag at the bull, because he is causing dissension rather than trying to achieve consensus. That is not the best way to behave when we are dealing with the Standing Orders of the House, although the hon. Gentleman appears to be enjoying himself.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
On the subject of ping pong, am I right in thinking that an all-England Committee would send the Bill to the other place, where Members from all nations and regions would change it, and it would then come back to the entire House of Commons to be voted on. If so, what exactly would we have achieved?
Ms Eagle
I may have to be corrected, but my understanding of the process is that if it is an England-only ping-pong, the English will have a veto on it. So there could be a majority in both the Lords and the Commons in favour of something being in a Bill, but it could be vetoed by a minority.
Mr Hanson
On that point, I wonder whether my hon. Friend can help me: Lord Thomas of Gresford in Wrexham, who has never won an election in his life in north-east Wales, will vote on these matters in another place, while I, who have won elections on six occasions in north-east Wales, will not be able to do so.
Ms Eagle
My right hon. Friend, who has the unique distinction of missing out by one vote from being selected in Wallasey before I was, is a very experienced winner of elections and the point he makes is absolutely spot-on.
What the Government are suggesting is all in direct defiance of the advice given by the McKay commission, which the Government appointed and whose advice they have inexplicably ignored for reasons they have not chosen to share with us.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Does the right hon. Lady accept that, given the nature of the devolution settlement, the fact that these matters were not dealt with in the last 20 years and the fact that there is going to be a further Wales and Scotland Act, now is the time to look at English votes for English laws?
Ms Eagle
I thank the hon. Lady for inexplicably promoting me to the Privy Council; perhaps she could have a word with her friend the Prime Minister and see whether she can make that happen, because she is probably very influential. What I am trying to argue is if we are going to do this to give an English voice, it has to be done in a cross-party way with consensus, not in a partisan way that is clearly designed to assist only one party in this House.
Ms Eagle
I am going to make a bit of progress; I will give way later, but I am only on page 2 of my speech. [Interruption.] It might get longer if hon. Gentlemen provoke me.
Labour Members consider that this issue should have been properly dealt with as part of a much wider process involving a constitutional convention to examine a range of issues in a more holistic way. A genuine attempt should have been made to come to a cross-party agreement between the parties represented in this place, and with wider civil society. Proceeding in this consensual way, rather than in the blatantly partisan way the Government have chosen, would have hugely increased their chances of introducing a successful and sustainable change. No such attempt has been made. The Leader of the House has already attempted to suggest that it has, but I do not mean a cobbled-together Cabinet Sub-Committee established months before a general election that failed to come to any consensus even between the governing coalition parties; I mean a genuine attempt to reach cross-party consensus, in which all points of view are heard and properly tested and a mutually agreed way forward is pursued.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I am not unsympathetic to the hon. Lady’s desire to look at this issue in the round, but it seems to me that it is incumbent on the Labour Opposition to explain their position, because some of us have been banging on about the unworkability of the devolution settlements ever since they first went through this House. The problems we are facing today were inherent in the failure to address that at the outset. Is it not also the case that the problem we now face requires goodwill, and while I do think I accept the hon. Lady’s goodwill, I am afraid I do not entirely accept any goodwill from SNP Members, who do not seem to me to actually desire to resolve this issue, rather than use it as an instrument to—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think the hon. Lady has got the point.
Ms Eagle
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for accepting my goodwill, at least. We are in a more complex position than we needed to be in because of the way in which the Government have chosen to proceed on this difficult issue. In my view, cross-party consensus leads to more sustainable and long-lasting solutions.
Ms Eagle
No; let me finish the point I am making.
I would also say in passing that the Union has always been asymmetrical and there have always been anomalies. The issue of English votes for English laws came to the fore when Harold Wilson was Prime Minister and the nationalisation of the steel industry was scuppered by Northern Irish MPs voting against nationalisation, even though there were no steel plants in Northern Ireland. That is what first led to Harold Wilson worrying about the issue. A certain amount of asymmetrical anomaly will be inherent in any Union when 85% of it is English. We must bear that in mind constantly.
Mr Graham Allen
Would my hon. Friend consider seizing this agenda by convening all the parties and all the people in civic society who want a constitutional convention, and would she consider doing it now rather than waiting until the next Labour Government are in office?
Ms Eagle
There is great merit in my hon. Friend’s arguments. I might be able to consider doing that after the deputy leadership contest is over and I have a bit more spare time. The argument in favour of a constitutional convention, whether convened by the Government or not, becomes greater by the day.
What we have witnessed here is an unseemly headlong dash by the Government to try to rush these complex and partisan changes through the House before the summer recess. Their aim has now, thankfully, been foiled by a mixture of outrage on both sides of the House and a brewing rebellion on the Government’s Back Benches. Last week’s emergency Standing Order No. 24 debate demonstrated that the unease at the Government’s behaviour was widespread. Indeed, they ended up in the absurd position of having to abstain on a vote supporting their own chosen process. The Leader of the House himself beat a hasty retreat, fleeing the Chamber before his Whips abandoned any pretence of trying to win the vote.
So, thankfully, today’s debate has turned into a general one, and we have been issued with new draft changes to the Standing Orders to consider. Even they were late arriving, however. They were not published on Monday, as the Leader of the House promised at business questions last week; they were actually made available at lunchtime on Tuesday. I can assume only that the delay was caused by Government disarray, because the changes that have been made are minimal, and they certainly do not address the points about accounting appropriately for Barnett consequentials that were worrying some Conservative Members. Nor do the Government appear to have considered changing or reconsidering any part of their plans in the face of reasonable doubts and questions. Instead, they have turned up the volume by provoking a huge row over their proposals to wreck the Hunting Act 2004, which the Leader of the House so extraordinarily withdrew by means of a point of order yesterday.
The Leader of the House was in such a shambolic state yesterday that he could not work out whether the Government’s proposals on hunting were anything to do with EVEL. Let me help him with that. The Government have a small majority, and their attempt to change the Hunting Act failed yesterday because some Tory Back Benchers agreed with us and the public that the killing of animals for pleasure had no place in a civilised society.
Tom Pursglove
I note what the hon. Lady said about red rags and bulls. In that spirit, does she agree that it might not have been the best idea to use terms such as “semi-secretive”? That was not exactly constructive talk, by any measure.
Ms Eagle
I found out about the nature of the Government’s proposals at quarter past six the night before the Leader of the House made his statement to the House. That was three and a half hours after I was originally meant to see him to be confronted with the proposals. If there had been a real attempt to reach cross-party consensus and to move forward on the basis of agreement, we would not be where we are now.
Jonathan Lord
It is one thing to ask the Government about detail, but we have failed to hear any detail at all from the Labour Opposition. Labour had 13 years in government to consider this matter and has had five years in opposition, but after 18 years Labour has provided no detail at all, even on the suggestion that it might get to its fabled constitutional convention.
Ms Eagle
There is the constitutional convention and a lot of the issues of powers also—[Interruption.] Because the hon. Gentleman represents the Government, and it is for them to put forward legislation in this place and for the Opposition then to deal with it. I do not know whether he knows his constitution, but that is how it is meant to be. If we had been the Government, we would be dealing with this. His party is the Government and therefore we are dealing with their proposals. That is what I am trying to do.
Mr Bone
The hon. Lady is making a reasoned case, but she should think again about things being secretive. The Leader of the House has listened, we are going until 10 o’clock tonight, we are having all the summer and then we are coming back again, so what she says is unfair. On the constitutional convention, would she have said that we should not have proceeded with the Scotland Bill and should have looked at things as a whole?
Ms Eagle
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Scotland Bill is the result of an all-party agreement made in the middle of the independence referendum by party leaders. It was called the “vow” at the time and it was led by the Prime Minister, with whom I know the hon. Gentleman has a love-hate relationship. A vow was made to the public of Scotland that that had to be delivered, so it is a bit difficult to say that we were not going to deliver it until after a constitutional convention. But evolving devolution and the settlements evolving at the moment surely make the case for us to have a more holistic look at how we deal with a range of issues, including the fact that the other place is now 900 strong. We read today that the Prime Minister has tried to get another 100 peers appointed to the other place, while we are trying to see the size of this place shrink. A constitutional convention should be taking a serious look at a range of issues so that we can balance our governance arrangements once more.
Wayne David
Does my hon. Friend agree that, to be fair to them, the last Government did begin a process of consultation, establishing the McKay commission to look into the whole issue? It took a great deal of evidence, and produced an interesting and, in many ways, sound report, but this Government have chosen to put that in the bin and make a set of half-baked, partisan proposals.
Ms Eagle
That is part of the problem: we have never had an explanation from the Government as to why the very sensible, well-debated, well-researched views of the McKay commission have been completely disregarded.
We appear to have a Government in a hurry to offend and to govern by provoking grievance and division, which is no doubt why they laughably refer to themselves—
Ms Eagle
I have already given way once to the hon. Gentleman and it is important that I now get on to make the rest of my speech, so that other people can contribute to our debate.
The proposals before us risk exacerbating strains on the Union. They are shoddy, and conceived in a highly partisan fashion, and therefore they are deeply flawed. They are much more aggressive in their handing over of powers to English MPs than the McKay commission decided was wise, yet the Leader of the House has not explained why he has chosen to ignore the advice and the warnings coming from a commission that the Government appointed. Wherever they have had to exercise a judgment, the Government have opted for more powerful and less nuanced powers for English MPs. They have fallen short of advocating an English Parliament, perhaps because England forms 85% of the whole Union and any English First Minister would probably be more powerful than a UK Prime Minister, but they are certainly incubating a proto-English Parliament within this supposedly Union Parliament.
Mr Grieve
I am interested to hear that comment. I agree with the hon. Lady that creating an English Parliament would be unworkable, and yet the message from Scottish National party members is that we should create an English Parliament. If there is already one area of meeting of minds, the Labour party must be starting to work towards a solution, because I think that she is beginning to accept that something must be done about English votes for English laws.
Ms Eagle
In all three statements or speeches that I have made in the past three weeks, I have begun by conceding exactly that point. I have done it not for show but because it is what we believe.
The proposals mean that, if a Government do not command a majority in England, it is doubtful that they could actually govern. The complete lack of effective consultation with any other party outside of Government on some of the controversial aspects of these proposals makes them partisan and divisive when they should have been accomplished on a cross-party basis. When it comes to making changes of such constitutional importance and technical complexity, it is only right that they should be scrutinised effectively.
The Government’s proposals fundamentally alter the constitution and the operations of this House, as well as impacting on the other place. In those circumstances, it is appropriate to set up a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the proposals in greater depth. I call on the Leader of the House to do so.
Joint Committees of both Houses have a strong tradition of effective cross-party scrutiny of complex issues of constitutional importance, both legislative and non-legislative. For example, the highly regarded Cunningham Committee looked at the non-legislative issue of conventions between both Houses. The report was noted with approval in both Houses in 2007, and has stood the test of time and sets a clear precedent on which the Government should now proceed.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is being most generous, especially as she did not intend to be—to me in particular. She is focusing entirely on process, and process is an important part of this matter, but she has not given the slightest hint of a suggestion of what the Labour party thinks should be done about it, even though it was the author of the original mess many, many years ago. She needs to give us more than just process; otherwise we will doubt her goodwill
Ms Eagle
The hon. Gentleman uses his usual charm. He can take it now that I will not be giving way to him again for the rest of my speech. Part of coming to cross-party agreement is that one does not have a completely developed plan that one wishes to force on everybody else—it is called compromise. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman does not understand how that works, but that is not a surprising given his antics in the debate today.
Ms Eagle
No.
There was particular concern expressed during last week’s emergency debate that the so-called Barnett consequentials had not been properly taken into account in the very prescriptive definition of what an “English only” Bill, or part of a Bill, actually is. It is not clear to me whether the changes to the draft Standing Orders adequately address that problem. The Government have not seen fit to address the point about cross-border effects short of Barnett consequentials made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) in last week’s debate.
There are some dangers inherent in the Government’s proposals, which they would have been wise to avoid. Badly designed proposals on English votes for English laws risk not only legislative gridlock but making England, or the UK, ungovernable in some circumstances. As the proposals are currently drafted, there are three areas that give particular cause for concern, and I wish to deal with each of them in turn.
First, the proposals create an English veto, not just a voice, with all of the complications for our constitution that that entails. Secondly, the proposals apply not only to English laws but, much more problematically, to parts of Bills, statutory instruments, regulations, commencement orders and ministerial administrative actions, which, in our current system, are often achieved by statutory instruments. Thirdly, even more controversially and entirely without any consultation outside of the Government, these proposals have been widened so that they apply to Finance Bills.
The McKay commission ruled out a veto for English MPs. The Government have gone far beyond the proposals set out by McKay and have instead created a veto rather than strengthening the English voice. Not only do the proposals grant a veto on the UK Government in the Commons, but English MPs would be able to veto Lords amendments on English matters, curtailing the Lords’ ability to revise legislation.
The McKay commission recommended that the views of English MPs needed to be strengthened. In particular, it recommended the adoption of a principle that
“decisions at the United Kingdom level with a separate and distinct effect for England (or for England-and-Wales) should normally be taken only with the consent of a majority of MPs for constituencies in England (or England-and-Wales).”
That convention, along with the approach that the Opposition have suggested of considering an English Committee stage for English matters, is a much more proportionate response to the West Lothian question, and it would strengthen the voice of England.
Why, apart from to advance their own perceived partisan interests, have the Government chosen to go so much further? The proposed system for legislation is much more complex than our current system, as has already been pointed out, and it could quickly gum up the parliamentary works for a Government who lacked an English majority. It would also weaken considerably the accountability of any Government to the electorate for the delivery of their manifesto and their overall administrative record. It means that a majority of English MPs could stop a Government Bill in its tracks. The Government would then have to negotiate with them if they wanted to get the legislation through.
Secondly, the scope of the Government’s proposed English veto is very much wider than that envisaged by McKay. It appears to extend to secondary legislation of all kinds, including commencement orders, regulations and regular administrative actions such as the distribution of the English local government grant—an example that the Government have themselves chosen to highlight. The difficulty with that arrangement is that it would allow English MPs to exercise the powers of the Executive without being at all responsible for the consequences. If the Government’s proposed local government grant allocation is not passed, no money at all can be distributed. This could create an opportunity for English MPs to initiate a local government shutdown of the kind that intermittently strikes the US Executive, or to demand changes in the distribution that satisfy them at the expense of other areas.
Alex Salmond
I wonder whether there is another possibility. I am not saying that this Bill would be referred for the proposed procedure, but let us just imagine that Heathrow was being considered. If the Government had a larger majority among English MPs, it would take a bigger rebellion on Heathrow to affect the Government’s decision making. I wonder whether part of the reason why Government Front Benchers are so keen on this dog’s breakfast is that it would protect them from rebellions on their own Back Benches.
Ms Eagle
The Government, as currently constituted, have a majority of 12, or effectively closer to 16. With only English Members of Parliament they have a majority of 105. The partisan reasons for indulging in this are clear, but I think that the British constitution is more important than any partisan proceedings of one Government that happened to exist at one point in time.
The proposals on statutory instruments effectively bring into existence a new defacto English Executive, who appear to consist of the UK Government, but directed on some of their responsibilities by a subset of English MPs who are not meant to be in Government because they are from a party in opposition. That will create a chaotic and unprecedented situation that is hardly conducive to good or democratically accountable governance.
That position is repeated with Finance Bills. McKay was not asked to consider Finance Bills, and it is clear that the Government’s proposals are not thought through. In our system, a Government who cannot get their Budget though the House are essentially no Government at all. However, if these draft Standing Order changes are made, any Government who lacked an English majority could not govern. The Scotland Bill devolves certain substantial aspects of income tax. Budgets allow income tax to be collected, and that order has to be renewed annually. Under these proposals, it appears that English MPs, if they so choose, could block the collection of income tax, which is 25% of the Government’s revenue altogether. Thus the English MPs would have absolute control over English income tax, not the UK Government. Putting aside the potential for chaos that would cause, it seems to me that it is in danger of handing certain MPs power without responsibility.
To summarise, the Government’s plans are much more aggressive and wider in scope than is wise or proper. They are clearly conceived for partisan political reasons. Manifesto commitments to consult the Procedure Committee have been broken so far and are likely to be fulfilled only with days to go. The proposals, as currently written, create the potential for gridlock and chaos hitherto unknown in our constitutional arrangements. They create two classes of MP, and they are reckless with the future of the Union. I hope that the Government will not proceed with such haste but will, even at this late stage, think again and return with something more workable and less indifferent to the problems that this will inevitably cause.
Ms Eagle
If the distribution of English local government grants is not voted for, no money can be distributed. The Government’s proposals will allow an English minority, who may be in opposition, to prevent a Government from distributing money to local government. How is that a recipe for anything other than gridlock?
Dr Coffey
We believe that it is a fair response to say that when the matter is providing finances for English councils, the majority of English MPs should agree to how that is done. I recognise that the hon. Lady may not like that, but when she was in government, it so happened that her party had a majority of English MPs.
Turning to Speaker certification, a lot of people have mentioned the burden—
Oral Answers to Questions
Angela Eagle Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
I think that is the third or fourth representation I have had so far to locate Parliament in an hon. Member’s constituency. I suspect—
Chris Grayling
I hear Wallasey from the Opposition Front Bench. I suspect there are 650 different views on where Parliament might be temporarily located. I am sure the Committee will note the fact that those views exist.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(8 years, 10 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 13 July—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Tuesday 14 July—Conclusion of the Budget debate. At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Wednesday 15 July—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to hunting, followed by a general debate on English votes for English laws—the first of a two-day debate on that subject.
Thursday 16 July—Matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.
Friday 17 July—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 20 July will include:
Monday 20 July—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Tuesday 21 July—Second Reading of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill.
If I may briefly explain to the House, on Monday I will, having listened to comments from hon. Members, publish a modified set of draft Standing Orders on English votes for English laws. We will debate those on Wednesday. Subsequent to that debate, I will table a final set of Standing Orders, which we will debate at an early opportunity once the House returns.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business, which has clearly been subject to last-minute, sudden change.
This week, the Government’s reckless and shoddy plans for what they like to call English votes for English laws have descended into chaos. On Tuesday, the Leader of the House had to be dragged to this Chamber kicking and screaming to account for his complex and controversial plans, but it was clear from that debate that he did not even have the support of his own side. We then had the sorry spectacle of the Government abstaining on their own process while he fled the Chamber in embarrassment. He published 22 pages of draft changes to our Standing Orders, which he was proposing to ram through the House with minimal votes and debate next Wednesday. Now I am told that he is frantically re-drafting them in a desperate bid to regain the support of his own Back Benchers, which I assume is why they have not been laid.
This morning I hear the Leader of the House was summoned to the Prime Minister’s office to account for his role in creating this mess. As we have heard, the outcome of that meeting appears to be two days’ debate, rather than one, but we have still not seen these draft Standing Orders. The Leader of the House said he would publish them on Monday. Will he now give us an undertaking that when we have the debate with votes on EVEL, he will allow all amendments to be taken?
The original point that I raised in the debate on Tuesday was that the process by which he had decided to institute these controversial changes did not allow for a proper examination—an amendment process—of very complex changes to Standing Orders. Will he now give us an assurance at the Dispatch Box that whenever we get to vote on these changes—he has not announced when that will be—it will be done in a way that allows all appropriate amendments to be taken and voted on? Will he also say whether the Procedure Committee will get to look at the changes that he tables on Monday prior to this House voting on them, as he promised in his English manifesto?
Last night we learned from reports in the media that the Government intend to stage a sudden vote to wreck the Hunting Act 2004, which, in the muddle and confusion, they have now moved from Thursday to Wednesday. Why were MPs inundated with emails from pro-hunting groups who clearly knew about the timing of this vote before the Government had even announced it to Parliament? When will the statutory instrument be tabled? Can the Leader of the House confirm that it will remove the existing limit on the number of hounds that can flush a fox to guns, thereby effectively wrecking the Hunting Act? Does he agree with his own Sports Minister, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who said that the underhand way in which the Government are behaving amounts to relaxing
“fox-hunting legislation via the backdoor”?
Why will the Leader of the House not allow more than 90 minutes for the debate? Will he confirm that it is indeed the Government’s intention to wreck the Hunting Act using this back-door device because they do not have the majority to repeal the Act itself or the guts to try?
Yesterday the Chancellor’s second Budget in four months rebranded parsimony as largesse and stole Labour policies in an attempt to disguise a savage attack on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. He gave with one hand and hoped no one would notice just how much he took with the other. His so-called living wage con has already unravelled. The Living Wage Foundation has confirmed that it is not a living wage at all, and that in fact his plans amount to a cut in what the living wage is worth today. He said that
“Britain deserves a pay rise”—[Official Report, 8 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 337.]
Despite that, the poorest working families will be massively worse off because he has slashed £4.5 billion from tax credits. With his sleight of hand he has impoverished millions of low-paid workers, disabled people and children just weeks after the Government conveniently redefined child poverty—and Conservative Members cheered him to the rafters for doing it.
This Budget could not hide the fact that growth has slowed, exports have stalled, and the economic recovery is still fragile. There was nothing in the Budget to challenge the Chancellor’s woeful record on productivity, which the Office for Budget Responsibility has revised down for next year, and the year after, and the year after that. The Chancellor ducked all the big decisions on infrastructure, putting the northern powerhouse at risk. That is hardly surprising, as this week the Minister responsible for the northern powerhouse revealed that the Government have not yet actually worked out where the north is. I see that the Government’s plan for infrastructure and productivity will be published tomorrow —a day when the House is not even sitting. Will the Leader of the House explain why that was not done in a ministerial statement today?
The Conservatives have suddenly started claiming that they are the workers’ party, and I am beginning to worry that they have taken it a bit too far. We have five-year plans, we have shameless propaganda on wages that bears little resemblance to the truth, and now we have a two-child policy. Whatever next—a portrait of the dear leader adorning Parliament Square?
Chris Grayling
I have listened to what the hon. Lady has said. Of course, she, from her time in government, would not understand the logic of this process. You table a draft, you listen to the people who read it, you make some modifications, you have a debate, and you then have a vote. It is called consultation. Labour Members never did that when they were in office; they just published their proposals and voted them through with a large majority. In a shock development, we have actually listened to hon. Members’ comments. Labour Members ask for more time. The surprising thing is that the Labour Chief Whip spent the past few days going round Conservative Back Benchers saying, “Please, please vote for more time”, yet if she had just come and asked me for more time I would have given it to her—and now I have. But that is the way they operate.
Labour is now essentially an English and Welsh party, so the question for Labour Members is whether they are going to vote for extra rights for English and Welsh MPs on matters that affect only their constituencies. Is Labour going to back our proposals or vote against them? If it is going to vote against them, I look forward to debating that on the doorsteps of this country, because I know where the voters of England and Wales stand; the question is whether Labour Members stand alongside them.
On the hunting issue—[Interruption.]
English Votes on English Laws
Angela Eagle Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
That is absolutely right. Indeed, my hon. and learned Friend might like to know that those with long experience of the workings of this House, including Members of the other place who have worked in positions of authority in this one, are all united in the view that changing Standings Orders is the right way to proceed. As I made very clear in my statement last week, hon. Members may form a different view over the next 12 months. When we review these matters in 12 months’ time, I shall be very open to such views. I am very clear, however, that changing Standing Orders is the starting point.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I have the document with the proposed changes to the Standing Orders, which were suddenly presented last week. There are 22 pages of new Standing Orders. My understanding of the procedure in the debate next week is that unless the Government table a motion that allows amendments to be made to them, we will have only one chance to amend them at the end of the debate. Given that there are 22 pages of Standing Orders introducing a range of very complex things, will the Leader of the House use this opportunity to confirm that he will table a motion for next week’s debate that will allow the draft Standing Orders to be amended appropriately, rather than to allow them to be amended just once at the moment of interruption, which would be a farce?
Chris Grayling
One of the reasons for publishing the Standing Orders two weeks in advance was to give Members the opportunity to raise precisely that sort of question. I am very happy to discuss that with the hon. Lady. She has not come to my office to ask me to do so, but if she wants to I shall be happy to discuss with her after this sitting how we are going to handle that debate.
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that Standing Orders are not some “obscure mechanism”, as one newspaper called them, but the means by which the House is governed on a day-to-day basis. They determine all the ways in which we operate in this House, so we are using the conventional mechanism by which the House operates. There is nothing strange about that. The question is whether we should do something different, and I am saying that we can discuss that as part of the review in 12 months’ time.
Ms Angela Eagle
I rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman my question again, because I did not get an answer. I do not understand why he cannot give an assurance now that he will table a motion that will allow us to amend different parts of the 22 pages of draft Standing Orders, rather than have to deal with them in only one amendment. I see that he has received a note from the Box, and I hope that he can give me an answer.
Chris Grayling
As I said, I want to be as helpful to the House as possible. There will be an opportunity to debate and vote on more than one amendment to Standing Orders. It is of course up to the Speaker whether to select an amendment, but I expect amendments to be tabled and to be debated. If the hon. Lady wants to sit down with me afterwards to work out how best to handle that debate, I will be very happy to do so.
Ms Eagle
I am sorry to persist, but my understanding of the way we work is that unless the Government table a motion allowing votes on more than one of the changes to the Standing Orders at the moment of interruption, we will not have time to take other amendments. Will he undertake now, at the Dispatch Box, to table an appropriate motion so that we can amend—or, at least, attempt to amend—some of the 22 pages of changes to Standing Orders and have a vote on them at the end of the debate next week?
Chris Grayling
As I have just said, there will be an opportunity to debate and vote on more than one amendment to the Standing Orders. I give the hon. Lady that undertaking. There is absolutely no intention of limiting the debate.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I rise to support the motion tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), and I congratulate him on his successful application for this debate. Debates under Standing Order No. 24 are relatively rare and take place only in exceptional circumstances when you permit, Mr Speaker. That we are having this debate at all speaks volumes about the reckless and shoddy way that the Government have chosen to pursue their proposals on what they like to call English votes for English laws. Their partisan, self-serving solution to this question is highly controversial and divisive, and their method of introducing it is a constitutional outrage. I hope that even at this late stage they will see sense and think again.
To avoid any scintilla of doubt, the official Opposition accept that with the prospect of greater devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the voice of English MPs must be heard on matters that relate purely to England. That could be achieved in any number of ways, but we believe strongly that such changes would best be achieved by the widest consideration and proper consultation with all political parties and wider civil society. Cross-party support would also be desirable, and it is regrettable in the extreme that the Government have made no meaningful efforts to facilitate that. Instead, they have played narrow party politics when they should have been putting the national interest and the Union first.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
All those potential flaws were debated in this House at the time of devolution to Scotland and Wales. The settlement was asymmetrical, and the Labour party failed to institute a constitutional convention at that stage.
Clive Efford
Further to the intervention by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), if we had known at the time that through a simple change to the Standing Orders, the issues that were devolved to the Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament would be handed down to some makeshift English assembly or Parliament, would that have had an effect on our debates on those devolved matters? It could have resulted in a completely different outcome.
Ms Eagle
In a minute. I am trying to respond to the point that has been put to me. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me a sentence or two, I promise I will give way. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) is right: devolution is a desirable process but it must be done properly if it is not to create resentment. I give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman who is eager, as always.
Sir Oliver Heald
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that rather pleasant tribute. Does she agree that this matter was raised during debates on the Scotland Bill? I spoke from the Dispatch Box where she now stands, and the issue of English votes for English laws was put forward at the time. Labour ignored it.
Ms Eagle
The devolution settlements for Wales and Scotland took time to develop and evolve, and—as I was in the middle of saying—there are clearly issues for England that we now need to consider. We consider that that issue should be properly dealt with as part of a constitutional convention that should be charged with examining how the United Kingdom is governed, in a much more profound and holistic way than the reckless and partisan fiasco with which we are currently presented. Instead, we have a Prime Minister who chose to exploit the bitterness and division created after the Scottish referendum for his own narrow electoral advantage, rather than attempt to heal the wounds that had opened up. We now have a Government who seem more interested in pursuing a partisan procedural fix than in showing any intention of keeping our Union together.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
Does the hon. Lady recognise that devolution has not worked in Northern Ireland? We have different forms of devolution everywhere, and it is not working; Scotland is wanting more and more. We do not have a mechanism for looking at a long-term strategy for how we should go forward. Should we have a Committee of the House of Lords or the Commons that will look for a long-term strategy so that we get a much better way forward?
Ms Eagle
We are in a complex position, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that Northern Ireland has its own particular issues that are mixed up with the peace process. We think that we need a constitutional convention to consider where we are in the round and across the piece—including the ever-expanding House of Lords, which grows larger and larger every year, even as the Government want to cut the number of elected Members of Parliament. All that suggests that time is right for us to consider a constitutional convention.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is right: we need to separate out the serious issue of how our whole constitution works together alongside devolved Assemblies and Parliaments in the United Kingdom. Is the real point that we need to discuss how the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and city regions that will get increased devolution, fit into that model?
Ms Eagle
I am in the middle of a sentence. Let me just finish answering my hon. Friend, then I will be more than happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Before I was so graciously interrupted, I was saying that it feels right this time—there has been so much change and so many more demands for devolution—to consider the issue as a whole and involve civil society. We should have a proper debate on that, and we certainly do not want to be involved with these procedural fixes.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her graciousness in giving way, and I apologise for intervening on her mid-sentence. Does she accept that her party bears a heavy burden of responsibility for the trials and tribulations that we face today? The Labour party was desperate to appease Scottish nationalism in 1999 and failed to address the West Lothian question posed by her former hon. Friend, Tam Dalyell, the one-time Member for West Lothian. Had Labour addressed the issue at the time, we would not be in this position today. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is proposing a simple remedy that addresses a long-standing sense of grievance in England.
Ms Eagle
I do not think the proposed remedy is simple; I think it is an abuse of process. These changes are controversial and complex and have profound implications for our constitution and for the Union. As such, they ought to be subject to proper scrutiny and consultation, but instead the Government hope to sneak them into place just before the summer recess, in one single debate and in only one Chamber of our Parliament.
They have chosen to use a procedural fix in an attempt to bring about profound constitutional change. Next week, they will seek to amend the Standing Orders of the Commons to introduce their partisan version of what they have chosen to call English votes for English laws, virtually without any parliamentary oversight and completely without the possibility of any judicial oversight.
We are due to debate the details of the proposals on 15 July, but from the earlier confusion it is unclear quite how many of the draft Standing Orders the procedures of the House will allow us to address in that debate.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Why did the Labour party ignore the needs and voices of England when it first created lopsided devolution, and why has it come up with absolutely no ideas to meet the requirements and needs of England in 18 years of lopsided and unfair devolution?
Mr Bone
The shadow Leader of the House makes her case in her usual strong way. On timing, a debate is scheduled for Wednesday next week. Has she approached the Leader of the House and asked for a suspension of Standing Orders so that we can speak through the night on all the issues? He has given confirmation that he will allow amendments and votes on the proposals, but has the shadow Leader of the House asked for that time?
Ms Eagle
I have not, but I might consider it. The hon. Gentleman has taken the assurances, or non-assurances, I got from my earlier question a bit too much to heart. Twenty-two pages of changes to Standing Orders will be up for consideration. Our normal procedures allow a vote on only one or two amendments. If the Government were to move a motion that allowed many, many more amendments to be voted on at the moment of interruption at the end of the debate, we might be in a position to have more of an effect. Currently, it is a fait accompli.
Mr Bone
I assume that that is exactly what the Leader of the House will do—move that motion—but even if that happened, and even if we had votes at the moment of interruption, we will surely not have enough time to debate 22 pages of Standing Orders. Surely we should go through the night.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I am minded to agree with the points the shadow Leader of the House has made. Does she agree that the logical extension of what the Leader of the House has said on double voting implies that, in future, if any of the nations of this kingdom wish to exit by way of referendums, all the peoples of this kingdom should have a say in those plebiscites?
Ms Eagle
The hon. Gentleman pursues his Northern Irish interests in his usual way. Many such issues need to be looked at very carefully, which is why we advocate a constitutional convention, so that we can look at the thing in the round and in balance, and so that we can make proper decisions that weigh and balance with one another, rather than changing something not realising that there are unintended consequences.
Sir William Cash
To follow up on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), it might be of interest to the shadow Leader of the House that, back in 1997, I tabled an amendment to deal with the result of the Scotland Act 1998 through amendments to Standing Orders. Of course, the Government at that time disregarded the matter.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The shadow Leader of the House will be aware that the McKay commission studied the issues in some detail a couple of years ago, and came to the conclusion that any proposals
“must be widely regarded as fair…and respect the prerogatives of all MPs.”
Why does she believe the Government have rejected the McKay proposals?
Ms Gisela Stuart
Does my hon. Friend know whether the Leader of the House has consulted the Procedure Committee? My understanding is that the Conservative party manifesto proposal involved consulting that Committee before putting it to the House.
Ms Eagle
I have no knowledge of whether that is the case. However, I am sure we will hear from the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). He can give us any answers, because he was there at the time.
Today’s debate is about process rather than content, so I will confine myself to observations of the process the Government have chosen to use. I note in passing that the Government have gone much further on English votes for English laws than the McKay commission suggested would be wise. They have not explained why they have chosen to do so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) has just observed.
The McKay report contained serious warnings about the effect of creating an English veto, a double majority and two classes of MPs. The Government’s proposals ride roughshod over those warnings and instigate all three. They also extend the application of the rules to Finance Bills and create the extraordinary probability that a measure passed by a majority in both Houses can be vetoed by a minority. It is possible to concoct a procedural fix to introduce major constitutional change, as the Government have done, but my contention is that it is not wise to do so. In fact, it is a constitutional outrage.
Mr Rees-Mogg
On that aspect, the hon. Lady is missing the point. If there were a majority in both Houses for a specific piece of legislation, there would be a majority in the House to suspend Standing Orders. That is crucial in ensuring that a Government that is dependent on non-English votes can get its business through.
Ms Eagle
The proposals for a double majority, as far as I understand them, are extremely worrying. They are likely to act as a dampener on the activities of the House of Lords as a revising Chamber. That is part of the debate we must have next week. Today I want to talk about the process—how the Government have decided to make the change.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The issue of Standing Orders is absolutely at the heart of the matter. The proposals make no suggestion of entrenchment of Standing Orders and no requirement of a special majority to suspend them. The House regularly suspends Standing Orders in particular circumstances—to speed up the passing of a Bill, to change the sitting hours or whatever it may be. The flexibility of Standing Orders ought to be a reassurance to the Labour party. If a future Labour Government are dependent on Scottish votes, they will be able to get their business through the House because they can suspend Standing Orders.
Ms Eagle
It is terribly kind of the hon. Gentleman to give us that assurance, but we need to base changes to our constitution on more than that.
The process the Government have chosen to use to create EVEL goes against every precedent. Substantial constitutional changes should be implemented by Acts of Parliament and examined in both Houses. They should not be rushed through in changes to Standing Orders. Changes to Commons Standing Orders cannot be challenged in the courts because of article 9 of the Bill of Rights, nor can they be subject to proper, open scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament. They are clearly not suitable for introducing a de facto English Parliament within the existing Union Parliament, as the Government have proposed.
All major constitutional changes, from the supremacy of the Commons in the Parliament Acts through to our membership of the European Union and the devolution process, have been introduced by Acts of Parliament—the Parliament Act 1911, the Parliament Act 1949, the European Communities Act 1972, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 1998, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Each of those Acts was properly scrutinised over a period of time, with days of debates in both Houses and the proper consideration of amendments. Many were preceded by Green Papers, White Papers and a thorough debate in the country. Some could only be commenced after a referendum had been won. All those measures are subject to interpretation in the courts. Under the Government’s proposals, the introduction of English votes for English laws would not be.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The hon. Lady is of course right in reading that list, but I say to her gently that the point we are at today is the logical consequence of the way in which devolution was carried out. The logical consequence at its end is that, if we wish to reform the structures of this House in the way she wants, we need a written constitution and a completely different basis on which we are to operate. That was one of the things that those on the Labour Front Bench at the time said persistently they did not wish to see happen. Bringing forward measures to change these matters by Standing Orders is the only way to honour the commitment made by those on the Labour Treasury Bench at the time.
Ms Eagle
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has perhaps not read the manifesto on which Labour fought the election, but it said we wanted a constitutional convention. The time is right to have a much closer and more holistic look at what is happening in the House of Lords and in the devolved Parliaments to see where we have ended up. That is our current policy.
No previous changes to Standing Orders have contained such substantial constitutional change. I have already dealt with why this is a lamentable precedent.
Ms Eagle
I have already given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I want to get on, because many people wish to speak.
Previous changes to Standing Orders, which were nowhere near as radical as these, were introduced initially on a temporary basis, often at the suggestion of the Procedure Committee, and tested out before either being abandoned or made permanent. Many innovative changes to Standing Orders have been introduced on a temporary basis initially. For example, the changes introduced by the previous Labour Government allowing for debates in Westminster Hall were temporary and subject to renewal. So too were the changes introducing the programming of legislation and deferred Divisions. Yet the Government have not even asked the Procedure Committee to report on the changes it has sprung on the House. They have merely suggested that it should have a review into the new arrangements, but only after they have already been implemented.
It is usual for changes to procedures of the House to be approved by free votes, as they are House business not Government business. This was the case with House of Lords Reform; changes to the legislative process, including the introduction of public evidence for Committees; the programming of Bills; and the election of the Speaker. The EVEL proposals, however, are Government business and they are especially partisan because of their explicit inclusion in the Conservative manifesto.
Chris Grayling
Will the hon. Lady confirm that Labour will be having a free vote on this next week?
Ms Eagle
I am arguing that this is the wrong way to do this kind of change. The procedures and Standing Orders of the House should be House business. They should not be infected by Conservative or Labour Whips. It is the Government who have chosen to make these changes in this way. The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself.
We are now to believe that the Government should mandate changes to the Standing Orders of the Commons as set out in their manifesto and force them through using a whipped vote. This is a very, very sad day. The Government’s changes will turn their slim majority of 12 into over three figures if both Scottish and Welsh MPs are to be prevented from voting. I believe this is the real driver behind the changes, and it makes the outrageous procedural fix, of using Standing Orders rather than legislation to produce the change, even more unacceptable. I hope that even at this late hour the Government will think again. The unintended consequences of what they are doing could be very large indeed and the precedents they are setting are dire.
Alex Salmond
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We all heard the Leader of the House indicate that tuition fees in England might be a measure subject to the procedure that he is outlining, anticipating not just the changes to Standing Orders but your certification if the change to Standing Orders take place. I know the Leader of the House does not understand the Barnett formula, but I know you do, Sir. Would that not therefore put you in a position of having to certify and disallow the votes of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Members of Parliament despite the clear direct and indirect effects that that would have on their rights to vote and on their constituents? Would that not be not just an invidious position, but greater than the shoulders any one man could bear—if I remember the quote correctly, when just such a measure was rejected in the 19th century?
Ms Angela Eagle
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have today seen the Government abstain from voting on the process of introducing English votes for English laws because they knew they had lost the argument. What more can we do to prevent the Government from railroading these controversial changes through the House in one single day of debate? They have not even bothered to vote to support the process that they decided to implement.
English Votes on English Laws
Angela Eagle Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for giving me, earlier this morning, advance sight of his statement and the draft procedural amendments he proposes.
The Leader of the House has announced in his statement the Government’s intention to rush ahead with controversial and complex changes to the procedures of this House, in an effort to ensure provision of what he likes to call English votes for English laws. The Official Opposition recognise that, in the light of the ongoing deepening of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it is important for the views of English MPs to be expressed clearly on English matters, but we believe such changes would best be achieved by proper consultation and an attempt to reach cross-party agreement.
I am disappointed but not surprised that the Government have made no such attempt, and that they intend to rush the procedural changes through the House in the next two weeks, in a time-limited debate to change our Standing Orders. That is no way to make profound constitutional change. It is an outrage that the Government believe it is. The Opposition consider that the issue should have been properly dealt with as part of a constitutional convention to examine how our country is governed in a much more profound and holistic way than the rushed and partisan changes the right hon. Gentleman has cobbled together and put before us today. The proposals are complex and much more time will be needed to interrogate their effects, and the effect they will have in practice on our procedures in the House. An initial impression points to plenty of opportunities for procedural chaos, and I have some early observations, questions and profound worries.
The Leader of the House appears to have gone out of his way to ignore both the warnings and the recommendations of the McKay report, which his Government commissioned. Why has he done that? The creation of a veto rather than a voice for English MPs on England-only Bills, and on parts of other Bills, statements and statutory instruments, appears to go much further than the McKay commission envisaged in its 2013 report. Again, why has he decided to do that?
The decision to include an unprecedented double majority requirement for some Lords amendments—English MPs will get two votes and other MPs will get one—goes much further than the McKay report, which suggested a double count but no English veto. Is it not ironic that, just as the Labour party moves to one person, one vote for its leadership election, the Tory party decides to force the House to adopt multiple votes, but only for some MPs? Perhaps the Leader of the House is much more worried than he is letting on about losing important votes in the Lords.
Will the Leader of the House explain how his proposals avoid creating two classes of MPs in the House, which McKay cautioned strongly against? How does that square with the report’s recommendation that
“after due provision has been made for”
England-only
“views…to be heard and taken into account, the UK majority should prevail, not least…to retain the UK Government’s accountability at election time for decision-making during its time in office”?
Can the Leader of the House explain how his plans fulfil the very strong view expressed in the McKay report that we need to address feelings in England without provoking an adverse reaction outside England? Judging by the reaction in the Chamber today, he has certainly failed that test.
The proposals risk the Union rather than save it. As a self-proclaimed Unionist, why is the Leader of the House in such a rush to enact this partisan proposal that he has not even bothered to consult on, not least with the Procedure Committee? The Leader of the House is playing with fire. Why is he being so reckless? It is hard not to conclude that the proposals are not an attempt to address the West Lothian question, but rather a cynical attempt by a Government with an overall majority of just 12 to use procedural trickery to manufacture themselves a very much larger one.
Chris Grayling
The hon. Lady talks about rushing ahead. The West Lothian question has existed for 20 years. In 13 years of government, Labour did nothing to address it. This is something we worked on carefully in Opposition. It was a pledge in our manifesto. Last year, the former Leader of the House, William Hague, wrote to the acting leader of the Labour party inviting her to take part in cross-party talks on this very issue. Labour did not respond to that invitation, so I will take no lessons from Labour about an absence of cross-party discussion. The Labour party did not want to be involved, so we have gone ahead on righting this wrong without it.
We need to move ahead now, alongside devolution. We are delivering more powers to Scotland. We will deliver more powers to Wales. It is right that we now address the issue of fairness for England too. The hon. Lady talked about the time needed to assess to the effects. That is precisely why I have written the Chairman of the Procedure Committee asking him to review this in action over the next 12 months and why I have said we will review its operation in 12 months’ time.
The hon. Lady said she expected a voice not a veto, but what is a voice? Surely this is a simple premise. It is not right that a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish MP should be able to decide what happens on education in my constituency, whereas I have no say whatever the other way around. I say to the Scottish nationalists and the Labour party that I think most of their constituents would judge that simple proposition to be fair as well. Matters relating to schools and education in Scotland are decided in Holyrood in the Scottish Parliament. Why is it wrong for English Members of Parliament to have the ultimate say in what happens to schools in their constituency?
The hon. Lady talked about English MPs having two votes. This is not going to work like that. Everyone will walk through that same Division Lobby side by side. It is simply that an electronic system will enable us to establish in this House whether a vote is carried by both the whole House and by a majority of the MPs affected when the territorial extent of a measure is limited to either England, or to England and Wales. Again, why is that the wrong thing to do?
The hon. Lady talks about two classes of MP. The West Lothian question created two classes of MP. We are trying to restore fairness to the system. There is a central question for the Labour party. The Labour party is now a party of England and Wales. It is not a party of Scotland. Against all expectations, it has been wiped out in Scotland. In fact, the Conservatives came within 300 votes of being a larger Scottish party in this Parliament than Labour. Labour Members will have to explain to their constituents—if, as it appears, Labour is going to oppose these measures—why it is that they oppose fairness for England when it is okay to argue that powers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be extended. I support the extension of powers to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. We are doing the right thing. It is also surely right to ensure that we can give a fair deal to the English too. That is what these measures are about.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(8 years, 10 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)
Next week’s business will be as follows.
Monday 6 July—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill.
Tuesday 7 July—Opposition day (5th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion; subject to be announced.
Wednesday 8 July—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement.
Thursday 9 July—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Friday 10 July—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 13 July will include the following.
Monday 13 July—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Tuesday 14 July—Conclusion of the Budget debate; at 7pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Wednesday 15 July—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, followed by a debate on Standing Order changes relating to English votes for English laws.
Thursday 16 July—Matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
Friday 17 July—The House will not be sitting.
Let me also inform the House that, in accordance with the Prime Minister’s announcement on Monday, a minute’s silence will be held throughout the parliamentary estate at midday tomorrow for Members and staff who wish to pay their respects following the dreadful events in Tunisia.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business.
I commiserate with the England women’s football team, who lost their World cup semi-final in the cruellest fashion last night after an heroic campaign. Does the Leader of the House agree that they did the country proud and that they have proved the worth of women’s sport, which should finally be getting more resources and coverage? I also congratulate all hon. and right hon. Members who have been elected to Select Committees. They do an important job in the House scrutinising the actions of the Government and I look forward to them commencing this crucial work soon.
Next week the House will hear the Chancellor’s second Budget in four months as he attempts to clear up the mess he inherited—from himself. After failing to deliver his promise to eliminate the deficit in the last Parliament, he now plans extreme spending cuts that will hit the poorest third of families hardest. According to experts, his planned cuts to social security will lead to a sharp rise in child poverty, so the Work and Pensions Secretary has decided to help him out by announcing that child poverty will no longer be defined by this Government as having too little money, and to avoid any potential for further embarrassment the Child Poverty Act 2010 is to be repealed just as the cuts bite. So may we have a debate in Government time on what on earth the Prime Minister might have meant when he led Tory MPs into the Lobby to support the Child Poverty Act before the 2010 election?
This week the TransPennine Express revealed that, as well mobile phones, umbrellas, and even a bag of haggis, a 6-foot inflatable dinosaur was left on one of its trains. When it comes to the TransPennine Express, it seems the inflatable dinosaur is not the only thing that is full of hot air. In their manifesto the Tories promised to rebalance the economy and build what they called a “northern powerhouse”. The Chancellor and the Transport Secretary then donned the highest of high-vis jackets and hard hats as they did a national photo-op tour of every project they claimed would benefit from their largesse. For good measure the Chancellor then posted a scaremongering tweet claiming Labour would cancel them. But just two months on, his northern powerhouse has become a northern power cut. He has pulled the plug himself, scrapping £2 billion of improvements on rail routes to the north that he had been posing in front of just weeks before. They have also paused the midland main line upgrade and their pledge to electrify the TransPennine route, potentially wasting hundreds of millions of pounds in the process. In fact, the only line that is now being electrified as far as I can see is the one that runs past the Prime Minister’s house. Can the Leader of the House tell us why the Government cynically waited until after the election to reveal that their plans had been derailed, and may we have a debate on the fiasco of this Government’s northern powerhouse project, which seems to be experiencing a Tory power cut?
Yesterday saw the publication of the Davies commission’s report on airport expansion. The Prime Minister responded with his usual decisiveness; he dithered. He set up the airports commission to report back after the general election to hold his last Government together; now he is apparently allowing Tory MPs a free vote to keep this one together. After spending £20 million on this independent, expert advice, can the Leader of the House explain why even after the report’s publication the Prime Minister still cannot decide? Is it because before 2010 he told a public meeting in Richmond, “No ifs, no buts, no third runway at Heathrow”?
If to govern is to choose, it is pretty clear that this Prime Minister is not governing: on airport expansion, we have a Prime Minister who is more concerned to put his party interest above the economic interests of the country; when it comes to negotiating in Europe, we see a Prime Minister pushed about by his Eurosceptic Back Benchers rather than acting in the best interests of his country; and when it comes to devolution and the important issue of English votes for English laws, this Prime Minister thinks only about how to manufacture a much larger majority for himself than the 12 he managed at the recent general election.
Finally, I can update the House on one of the Prime Minister’s other key interests—something I gather he has not declared to the House. Before the 2010 election, in a moment of green enthusiasm, the Prime Minister bought a plot of land on the proposed site of the third runway and planted a tree on it. I can update the House that, just like his promise to lead the greenest Government ever, it has now withered and died.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(8 years, 10 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)
Before I do, it may be appropriate—I hope this view is shared by Members in all parts of the House—for us to express our solidarity with and good will towards the Parliament in Kabul, after the dreadful terrorist attack there this week. We express all our sympathies for those affected. It is a matter of great dismay to me when a democratically elected Parliament is a target in this way.
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 29 June—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (day 2).
Tuesday 30 June—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (day 3).
Wednesday 1 July—Opposition day (4th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 2 July—General debate on Britain and international security.
Friday 3 July—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 6 July will include:
Monday 6 July—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill.
Tuesday 7 July—Opposition day (5th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Wednesday 8 July—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement.
Thursday 9 July—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Friday 10 July—The House will not be sitting.
Ms Eagle
May I associate myself with the Leader of the House’s commiserations and good thoughts for those caught up in the awful events in the Parliament in Kabul?
There is just over a year and a half until the BBC’s charter runs out, but the Government still have not set out a timetable or plan for its renewal. After the Prime Minister’s election threat to close down the BBC, and given that the last charter renewal process began three years before the charter expired, could the Leader of the House say when and how the House will be kept informed of progress on this important issue?
On Tuesday, the Equality and Human Rights Commission revealed that a staggering 88% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people had experienced some form of hate crime, and 35,000 such cases go unreported every year. As I dust off my pink Stetson, ready to join the LGBT community at Pride, does the Leader of the House agree that we need to redouble our efforts to root out prejudice and discrimination at home and abroad? Does he agree that the Foreign Secretary’s decision to ban the Pride flag from being flown at UK embassies around the world sends exactly the wrong signal?
Later today, EU leaders will meet in Brussels. The Prime Minister has briefed that the meeting is all about his renegotiation, but I read this morning that one senior EU diplomat has said that discussion on the subject would be “cursory”, so I thought I would take a look at the agenda. I can see items on migration, terrorism, jobs, growth and competitiveness. Squeezed in just before the end, above the adoption of the minutes of the last meeting, is our Prime Minister. His Back Benchers have got him on the run, and his tour of European capitals has been an object lesson in how to lose friends and alienate people. One Slovak official said:
“He is not the brightest spark in terms of getting what he wants…His approach is making him irrelevant”.
But not to worry: the Prime Minister has come up with a cunning plan. Instead of successful renegotiation, he has apparently decided to rebrand our membership of the EU by calling us associate members. Given that the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) has indicated that Eurosceptics, such as the Leader of the House, will resign before the referendum, perhaps the Prime Minister should consider offering his Cabinet associate membership to hold his Government together.
This Government really do say one thing and do another. Just last year, they promised more disabled people would be in work. Now we know that fewer than one in 10 disabled people on the Work programme have actually found a job. Before the election, the Government claimed they had exceeded their target for selling off Government land for house building, but now we know that they were counting land sold off from 1997. On Monday, the Prime Minister claimed he had saved £1.2 billion through the troubled families programme, but within minutes the National Institute of Economic and Social Research had dismissed his comments as “pure, unadulterated fiction”, so may we have a debate in Government time on the Tory parallel universe where a person can say something and do the complete opposite, and hope nobody will notice?
It is three months since the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) ceased being Chief Whip. I would be missing him, if he had ever bothered turning up, so I thought I would take a look at what he has been up to in the Ministry of Justice. After a period of uncharacteristic silence, he has suddenly sprung to life and issued a detailed guide on grammar for his civil servants. His rules include never using the word “impact” and avoiding “anything too pompous”. I wonder who on earth he has in mind, Mr Speaker. Over at his old Department, I notice that the Secretary of State for Education has also been tackling the big issues. She has appointed a new low level bad behaviour tsar, presumably to help deal with Tory Eurosceptics.
Finally, I feel compelled to mention the developing drama in the Liberal Democrat leadership race. Only the Liberal Democrats could manage to have a split when they have eight MPs. This week the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) had to apologise after his activists were caught discrediting his rival by calling round the party’s entire membership, which cannot have taken very long, although he earned the endorsement of boxer Frank Bruno, which means that at least he has one big hitter.
Chris Grayling
The hon. Lady began with a question about the BBC. The next 18 months will be an important period in deciding how the future of the BBC will be shaped. We have a new Secretary of State—a very welcome appointment—who has been in post only a few weeks. He has already started work on this important issue and the House will be updated in due course about progress on that front.
On hate crime, I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. It is not simply a matter of those in the LGBT community; in other parts of society hate crime is wholly unacceptable in whatever form—in relation to sex, colour, creed or whatever. All of us in the House should deprecate it and we should always seek to ensure that our authorities deal with it in the appropriate way. I hear the hon. Lady’s comments about flags. She will no doubt raise that question also with the Foreign Secretary. There are many countries around the world which need to change their approach to gay rights and I very much hope they will do so.
On Europe, let us be clear. What I hope and believe will come out of the European summit is a historic agreement with our European partners to renegotiate our membership of the European Union. That is a major step forward. I listen with interest to the Labour party, which seems to waver in the wind on this issue. It opposed a referendum; now it supports a referendum. It seems to support some form of renegotiation, but it does not appear to believe that any change is necessary to our relationship with the European Union. When Labour Members have a clear policy and a clear view on what our relationship should be, perhaps we will start to listen to them and take them seriously, but right now, we will not do so.
On the employment front, I am sorry to tell the hon. Lady that the Work programme has been a great success. It has led to a massive drop in the number of long-term unemployed in this country. This Government have, and the coalition Government as well had, a fantastic record on employment. We have seen a huge increase in the number of people in work to record levels. We have seen a massive drop in unemployment and a very welcome increase in the number of disabled people in work.
The hon. Lady mentioned guidelines issued by Ministers —in this case, on grammar. I would rather have a former Education Secretary issuing guidance to his correspondence team on how best to phrase letters from his Department than a Chief Secretary to the Treasury issuing instructions to his civil servants about how to make his coffee.
Finally, it would be wrong to end without a quick glimpse at the Labour leadership contest this week. I have, as usual, taken a look to see what has been happening. I had a look at the website of the Wallasey Labour party—where else to get an insight into what is going on? There, on the front page, I found an article about the Labour leadership candidates with the headline “The candidates are awful”. Enough said.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(8 years, 10 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)
Before I do so, may I echo Mr Speaker’s words of congratulations to all those elected as Select Committee Chairs, offer my commiserations to those who were unsuccessful, and echo Mr Speaker’s words of thanks to all those, particularly the Officers of the House, who were involved in conducting the election process?
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 22 June—Second Reading of the Education and Adoption Bill.
Tuesday 23 June—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the European Union (Finance) Bill, followed by a motion relating to the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill.
Wednesday 24 June—Opposition day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 25 June—General debate on reports into investigatory powers.
Friday 26 June—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 29 June will include:
Monday 29 June—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (day 2).
Tuesday 30 June—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (day 3).
Wednesday 1 July—Opposition day (4th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 2 July—General debate: subject to be announced.
Friday 3 July—The House will not be sitting.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business, which includes, in particular, the Adjournment debate we will have next Monday on stone theft. After the events of the past few months, we on the Labour Benches have been wondering where our election stone has got to.
I, too, offer my congratulations to all those colleagues who have just been elected to chair Select Committees. They do an extremely important job in this House. I add my commiserations to those who were unsuccessful. Given that my own nomination process is over now as well, I can safely say that MPs are now free to roam the Corridors completely undisturbed.
Later today the report on options for the restoration and renewal of Parliament will be published, and I understand that the recommendations will all have significant and expensive implications. Will the Leader of the House tell us how he will ensure that the whole House has a chance to discuss and debate the way forward?
I note that once again there is no reference to English votes for English laws in the future business, but rumours continue to abound that we will be discussing Government plans as early as next week, so can the Leader of the House assure me that we will have adequate time to discuss and debate these important proposals, and will he tell us when that is likely to be?
The Greek debt crisis poses a serious threat to Europe’s economy, including that of the UK. With the Greek central bank now warning of a “painful” road ahead and no sign of a solution, what contingency plans exist to protect the UK economy from the effects of a Greek exit from the eurozone? Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Chancellor to come to the House and report on the outcome of the meeting of EU Finance Ministers in Luxembourg today?
After last week’s breathtaking U-turn in the Bavarian Alps , the Prime Minister is now in full retreat on the European Union Referendum Bill. We have had complete confusion over the referendum date. First, the Prime Minister said it could coincide with next year’s elections, but this week he was forced to back down at the last minute because he knew he had lost his majority. We still do not know whether Eurosceptic Cabinet Ministers will be able to campaign for an out vote—something I believe the Leader of the House will want an answer to, at least some time soon.
Finally, on Tuesday, after frantic whipping and a desperate letter from the Minister for Europe begging them not to rebel, no fewer than 27 Back Benchers, including five former Cabinet Ministers, voted against the Government. After that sorry spectacle, will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government have already conceded our amendments on today’s amendment paper? May we have a debate on the complete chaos that has characterised the Government’s flagship Bill? I was thinking about watching the new film “Jurassic World”, but if I want to see a bunch of dinosaurs tear each other apart I might as well stay and watch his Back Benchers.
This week we marked 800 years since the signing of Magna Carta and the origin of the rights we enjoy today. Although some of its clauses, such as those on the return of Welsh hostages and the removal of fishing weirs from England, have been somewhat overtaken by events, this country’s commitment to basic rights and freedoms remains a proud part of our heritage and crucial to our future. As the nation celebrated at Runnymede, will the Leader of the House tell us why the Prime Minister chose to mark the anniversary by reaffirming his intention to scrap the Human Rights Act? Will he tell us why the Prime Minister has rejected the advice of his previous Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who said that scrapping the Act will undermine human rights across Europe?
I know that the Prime Minister could not tell us what Magna Carta actually meant when he appeared on “Letterman” three years ago, but he would be wise to pay attention to the lessons of history now. Magna Carta came about because the King fell foul of pushy, rebellious barons who would not accept his authority. After it was signed, the King ignored it and kept going back on his word. It took his death from a surfeit of peaches and the accession of a new young King to finally quieten the rebels. After the Chancellor’s impressive debut at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, if I was the Prime Minister I would be worried, and I would certainly stay well away from any peaches.
Chris Grayling
The hon. Lady mentioned stone theft. It is a matter of great concern to all of us when parts of our national heritage are endangered, and I was particularly concerned by the idea that the Labour party might take an object of great symbolic importance, break it into tiny pieces and sell them, as happened to the Berlin wall. Perhaps she can give us an assurance that that will not happen.
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments on the Select Committee Chairs. Of course, she is wrong to say that the election process is over, because we will now have Members campaigning to join the Committees. It has certainly been a great exercise in democracy across the House. The Tea Room will probably be much quieter for at least the next 48 hours.
On the restoration of the Palace of Westminster, hon. Members will be aware that today we will see the independently commissioned report on the nature of this building and the challenges that await us in ensuring that it has a strong future. Officials will brief Members of Parliament later today. We will then approach the issue immensely carefully. We will set up a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the report and the options it lays out. We will then decide on the best approach, but that provisional decision will be subject to extensive discussions over the months ahead and to a vote in both Houses. My clear view, as I said last week, is that this building is an important part of our national heritage and our democracy and must remain as such. I am not warm to the idea that we should look to move elsewhere. None the less, we have to face the challenges of ensuring that the building is fit for the 21st century, and that discussion will involve all Members of the House.
The hon. Lady asked about English votes for English laws. I know that she is eager to see our proposals, but she will have to wait a few days longer. I have given a commitment that the proposals will shortly be laid before this House, discussed and then voted upon.
The hon. Lady asked about the situation in Greece. It is an immensely important matter, and the Government are thinking very carefully about how we would respond if the situation deteriorates. If there are developments, clearly the Chancellor will feel a duty to inform the House. Let us hope that the situation can be resolved without the kind of economic turmoil that it could lead to in Greece and elsewhere in Europe.
The hon. Lady mentioned party unity. I have been impressed this week by the breakout of unity on the Labour Benches as Members from all sides of their party united behind the great hope for the future of their leadership—the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). As I looked at the hon. Lady’s background and the nature of the people who have been supporting her campaign—I congratulate her on having made the next round of the contest—I wondered whether she and the hon. Gentleman might make a dream ticket together.
The hon. Lady mentioned anniversaries occurring this week. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you are aware that this week also marks the 200th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, with the re-enactment of that great battle taking place today. What you might not have known is that Napoleon’s armies marched to Waterloo under the banner of an eagle. The eagle was defeated, it was captured, and it is now in the hands of the Scots.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(8 years, 11 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 15 June—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 16 June—Consideration in Committee of the European Union Referendum Bill (day 1), followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to landfill tax.
Wednesday 17 June—Opposition day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate on Opposition motions, including on productivity.
Thursday 18 June—Consideration in Committee of the European Union Referendum Bill (day 2).
Friday 19 June—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 22 June will include:
Monday 22 June—Second Reading of the Education and Adoption Bill.
Tuesday 23 June—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the European Union (Finance) Bill followed by motion relating to the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill.
Wednesday 24 June—Opposition day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 25 June—General debate: subject to be announced. In future, this day will be allocated to the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 26 June—The House will not be sitting.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. I read in The Times this morning, rather than hearing in his future business, that the Government plan to rush through their controversial plans for English votes for English laws as early as next week. We have had no detail on those proposals, and no debate is scheduled. Apparently, the Government plan to change Standing Orders and avoid having to legislate. As this is a matter of serious constitutional significance, may I ask the Leader of the House to confirm what his plans are, when he intends to bring them before this House, and how he intends to ensure that all Members have a proper chance to have a say in any change?
At his Mansion House speech last night, the Chancellor pledged to pass a law to ensure that he keeps his own promises. It is easy to see why he needs one, given his abysmal economic record in the previous Parliament. He missed his own deficit reduction target, leaving himself a deficit of £75 billion, and he borrowed £200 billion more than he said he would five years ago. It is no wonder that he needs an emergency Budget to clear up the mess he left himself in. He sprayed around £25 billion of unfunded election spending commitments, and he has no idea where he will find his £12 billion of social security cuts. Is the British Chambers of Commerce not right to say that the Chancellor is just as likely to miss his latest deficit target as he was to miss all the rest?
Last night, the Governor of the Bank of England declared in the City that the age of irresponsibility was over, and he called for tougher rules to drive out continuing major market abuse. Instead of political trickery to distract us from the Chancellor’s record, may we have a debate in Government time on the fair and effective markets review, and a statement from the Chancellor on the legislative action he plans to take better to control ethical drift in the City?
At the weekend, I actually thought the Prime Minister had broken the habit of a lifetime and done something prime ministerial by putting the interests of the country ahead of those of his party. At the G7, he briefed the press that his Ministers would have to back his position on the EU or else. He even dispatched the ever dutiful hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) to warn on the “Today” programme that Ministers who do not agree with the Prime Minister would have to quit the Government. But a few hours later, he was in full retreat. By Monday lunchtime, the Bavarian hills were alive with the sound of U-turns. I know that before the election he admitted that he cries at “The Sound of Music”, but it is not “Edelweiss” that gets him now; it is “How do you solve a problem like Back Benchers?”—talk about the Con Trapps!
Last week, I highlighted the Leader of the House’s poor record on answering written questions, and I am beginning to worry that his old habits are returning. I have now asked him this question twice but have had no answer. Given that the Prime Minister has pre-resigned, and the UK Independence party leader has unresigned, will the Leader of the House, who is a notable Eurosceptic, tell us whether he will have to resign to fight for a no vote in the looming referendum?
It has not been a good week for the smaller parties. UKIP launched an attack on Sainsbury’s supermarket because it mistakenly thought a supermarket chain was funding the EU referendum yes campaign; it has attacked the LGBT community as “bigots” after being banned from London Pride, the irony apparently being completely lost on it; and last night its former chief of staff went on TV and said that UKIP is full of
“rag-tag, unprofessional, embarrassing people”
and revealed that it had had to lock certain doors because the people behind those doors were too embarrassing to be seen.
And what about the Scottish National party? The vaingloriously self-styled Scottish 56 have now been in Parliament for nearly a month. They promised to make the Scottish lion roar at Westminster—
Ms Eagle
But, as we hear, so far it has been more of a whimper. As of Friday, of the 1,300 oral questions asked of Government, as far as I can see they have barely managed one each. They tabled what they thought was a reasoned amendment to the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill, but it was so badly drafted that it was ruled out of scope and not selected, so they could not even vote on it. They tried to amend the European Union Referendum Bill, but forgot to put their leader’s name on the amendment. I am sure it was just a coincidence that the name of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) appeared at the top instead.
To cap it all, one of the SNP’s most senior Members, who has been here since 2005—
Chris Grayling
Let me start with English votes for English laws, which the hon. Lady raised at the start of her remarks. I urge her not always to believe everything she reads in the papers. We will shortly make proposals on this front and we will discuss them in the House. There will be time for hon. Members on both sides to give them consideration and there will be a full and proper debate on them. We will naturally ensure that the House gets the opportunity to give them full consideration, as all parties would expect, and I will, of course, discuss them with her and with the other parties when we are ready to do so.
On the Mansion House speech last night and the Chancellor’s plans, the hon. Lady should take a look in the mirror when she talks about those who should be taking note of the need for better management of our economy. I remind her that this Government and our predecessor the coalition have over the past five years brought down step by step the largest peacetime deficit in this country’s history. Why did we have to do that? Because of the actions of the Labour party in government, by its own admission and that of many of its leading lights. I have been reading with great interest in The Times this week the post-mortem of Labour’s election defeat. What comes through most strongly is that the party never got to grips with the fact that it messed up the economy. If we need good practices in this country in future, it is to make sure that Labour does not wreck things again.
The hon. Lady also referred to the comments made by the Governor of the Bank of England. If she wants a debate on the fair and effective markets review, as I said earlier there are two Opposition days coming up shortly. The Opposition are, of course, free to have that debate. If it is a question of ensuring good practice in the City of London and in our banking sector, I ask her to remember who it was who knighted Fred Goodwin. This party has nothing to be ashamed of in our work to sort out a massive problem that we inherited. Labour Members should be embarrassed about how they changed regulation, knighted the people who messed things up for us and now pretend that none of that ever happened.
The hon. Lady asked me about resignation. I am rather enjoying our Thursday exchanges, but I reassure her that the first person to leave our discussions at the Dispatch Box will not be me. When she becomes deputy leader of the Labour party, as I am sure she will, she will be moving on to a new job in the very near future and I will be facing a new person across the Dispatch Box.
I am not only a little concerned by the fact that the hon. Lady has had only one new declaration this week; I am worried that I may be a jinx on Labour contests embarked upon by people who shadow me. Only this week I discovered that the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who was my shadow in the previous Parliament and who is standing to be the Labour candidate for Mayor of London, has not even got the support of his own constituency party—it is voting for Tessa Jowell. May I seek the hon. Lady’s reassurance that her constituency party is supporting her for the deputy leadership of the Labour party?
Finally, this week has seen one of the great sporting events of this country in my constituency, and I have to boast about it. It is of course the Epsom derby, a magnificent event, attended by large numbers of people, a great race, a fine finish, a worthy winner in Frankie Detorri. I offer my congratulations to everybody involved in making it such a successful event. But the attention of the bookies is turning this week to a different race, a race that is taking place rather closer to this Chamber. Each morning at around 7 o’clock a queue of Labour Members of Parliament forms, a queue of Scottish National party Members of Parliament forms, and when the door opens there is an unseemly race for the seats. Given that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is involved in that race, I am concerned for his welfare, and I wonder whether we should order a health and safety investigation to make sure that no one is injured in this daily fracas.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(8 years, 11 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)
During our short debate last night I had the opportunity to extend my congratulations to the Chairman of Ways and Means on his re-election. May I add my congratulations to the other two Deputy Speakers on their election?
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 8 June—Second Reading of the Scotland Bill.
Tuesday 9 June—Second Reading of the European Union Referendum Bill.
Wednesday 10 June—Opposition day (1st allotted day). Subject to be announced by the Opposition in due course. I also expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a statement following the G7 summit.
Last week the shadow Leader of the House was eager—indeed, over-enthusiastic—about Thursday’s business. She was keen to find out what was happening, and I can now tell her that it is indeed this:
Thursday 11 June—Second Reading of the European Union (Finance) Bill.
Friday 12 June—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 15 June will be:
Monday 15 June—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 16 June—Consideration in Committee of the European Union Referendum Bill (day 1).
Wednesday 17 June—Opposition day (2nd allotted day). Subject to be announced in due course.
Thursday 18 June—Consideration in Committee of the European Union Referendum Bill (day 2).
Friday 19 June—The House will not be sitting.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business.
I would like to start by associating myself with the many tributes paid yesterday to Charles Kennedy, who has died far too young. He was known for his wit, once quipping:
“Paddy Ashdown is the only party leader who’s a trained killer. Although, to be fair, Mrs Thatcher was self-taught.”
We will all mourn his passing.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr Hoyle), my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on their election and re-election as Deputy Speakers of this House. Members across the House will be relieved that their enthusiastic campaigning for support will now cease—although I will make no such promise to my Labour colleagues.
I am concerned that the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill has been introduced first in the other place despite its significant constitutional implications. This is against usual practice. While we support greater devolution, we have real concerns about the impact of this on effective scrutiny of this Bill. Will the Leader of the House set out why this decision was taken, and will he assure me that he will guarantee that there is adequate time to scrutinise the Bill properly when it finally comes to the Commons?
Yesterday the government published the 2014 league table for Ministers’ replies to questions from MPs, and I am beginning to wonder whether it might help to explain the reshuffle. The Communities and Local Government Secretary was the worst offender, and the former Justice Secretary—the Leader of the House—replied to just under two thirds of letters sent to him on time. Will the Leader of the House therefore set out what guidance he will be giving to himself on how he can improve his performance? May I also suggest that Members use the opportunity that business questions affords, because they are unlikely to get a written answer from him any time soon?
It is less than a month since the election, and the façade of Tory unity is already beginning to crack. This week alone, the Defence Secretary has publicly warned the Treasury that he does not see the need for any more cuts to his Department. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is reportedly infuriated at the Prime Minister’s lack of clarity on child benefit cuts—an emotion we all shared after yesterday’s evasive performance at Prime Minister’s questions—and we have had complete chaos on human rights and on Europe, including a predictable call from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood)for an end to collective Cabinet responsibility. And we have only been here two weeks!
We will debate the European Union Referendum Bill next week, so I wonder whether the Leader of the House would answer some straightforward questions. The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that he has a list of demands for Europe, but he will not tell us what they are. Will the Leader of the House set out when he will publish that list, and will treaty change feature on it? The Tories are split down the middle on whether to vote yes or no in the referendum, so are Cabinet Ministers going to be allowed to campaign to come out of the European Union and stay in their jobs?
Last week, the Foreign Secretary said that leaving the European convention on human rights was not “on the table”. Last October, the Leader of the House said the UK should be prepared to withdraw and yesterday the Prime Minister said he would “rule nothing out”. Will the Leader of the House tell us who is right: the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or him?
This week saw the welcome departure of Sepp Blatter from FIFA: a leader past his best, who had just won an election but decided to quit—it is easy to see why the Prime Minister used to be such a fan. Jack Warner, a former member of FIFA’s ethics committee—which must compete with “compassionate conservatism” for oxymoron of the year—said:
“Mr Cameron is a knowledgeable man…I certainly trust his knowledge of football.”
That is news to me, because I did not think that the Prime Minister knew his West Hams from his Aston Villas.
This week we learned of a serious security breach at the heart of Government. Staff at No. 10 were alarmed as an unwanted visitor was seen roaming the corridors—and no, it was not the former Deputy Prime Minister trying to get back in; I am told it was a heron. Perhaps it was fishing for a salmon, or a sturgeon or even a grayling. The incident gave rise to an interesting poll on the Daily Mirror website, which asked readers who they would rather lived at Number 10—a heron or the Prime Minister? The last time I checked, the heron was winning by 94% to 6%.
Chris Grayling
The hon. Lady started by referring to her own deputy leadership campaign. This week it has been a relief to learn, for her sake, that her sister, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), is supporting her campaign. As the shadow Leader of the House knows, Labour leadership contests and siblings do not always go together well, so it is a pleasure to know that Sunday lunches in the Eagle household can continue harmoniously.
This week we have also seen the surprise entry into the Labour leadership contest of the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who I am sorry not to see in his place. One of my colleagues suggested to me that perhaps that opened up an opportunity for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner)—I am pleased to see him in his place—to stand in the deputy leadership contest, as part of a joint ticket.
There has been an interesting new development on the Labour leadership front today, with the news that the former Foreign Secretary is set to make a return to this country this autumn, when he will make a keynote speech at the conference of the Institute of Directors. As somebody once said, “I wonder what he meant by that.”
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) asked why the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill had been introduced in the other place. I regard the other place as an extremely important part of our democratic process. It is important that it plays a prominent role in debating the key issues of this nation. It is entirely right and proper that it is scrutinising a Bill of this importance. There is no shortage of crucial business in this House for the next two months. I am absolutely satisfied that it is the right thing to do, and I assure her that when the time comes there will be plenty of opportunity for this House to debate what is an extremely important measure and something that this Government are proud of.
On letters and parliamentary questions, I remind the hon. Lady that when I was first elected to this House in 2001, there was no five-day target and Members could wait weeks and weeks before getting a reply from Labour Ministers, so I will take no lessons from them about their record in government on responding to Members of this House.
The hon. Lady talked about Conservative party unity. Last night, every single Conservative Member of Parliament who was eligible to do so voted in the first Division of this Parliament. However, there were 15 Labour MPs missing. Where were they? On the subject of divisions, you might have noticed, Mr Speaker, the rather interesting body language in the healthcare debate on Tuesday between two of the candidates for the Labour leadership. They were trying very hard not to look at each other.
The Opposition talk about divisions on the EU, but it is the Labour party that is all over the place on EU policy; we are united. We fought the general election on the platform of a referendum and we will hold that referendum. We also fought the election on a platform of scrapping the Human Rights Act and we will scrap the Human Rights Act.
I will conclude by going back to where I started—with the hon. Lady’s deputy leadership campaign. She has produced a video to support her campaign and the soundtrack is that great Liverpudlian song, “All Together Now” by The Farm, which contains a particularly moving verse that might be deemed apposite:
“The same old story again
All those tears shed in vain
Nothing learnt and nothing gained
Only hope remains”.
That is the Labour party today.