European Union (Withdrawal)
Antoinette Sandbach Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I put it to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) that the very question that he wants to put to the British people again is the question that was on the ballot paper in the 2016 referendum. The then Prime Minister made it clear in debates on television that if the country voted to leave, that decision would be implemented: article 50 would be invoked and after two years we would be out—out of the single market and out of the customs union. That is what he said, so I do not see any need to run the thing again.
I merely rise on the occasion of this debate to observe that what some people, including you, Mr Speaker, call a “constitutional outrage”—it is a little novel for the Speaker to enter into the debate quite so openly, but there we are; that is another novelty taking place in our constitution—other people refer to as a perfectly normal decision.
In truth it is neither, but this controversy reflects the evolving and changing nature of the relationship between Parliament, Government and people. That is a permanent evolution in our constitution, and two measures in particular have led to a substantial sea change in the relationship between Parliament and the Government. The first is the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which was sold to a perhaps rather unsuspecting House as a means of limiting Executive power, but in the event of a statutory no-confidence vote the Act is silent on what happens afterwards, except for the 14-day period. The Prime Minister may no longer be able to call a general election, but he is no longer obliged to resign either—at least not for 14 days. That has the effect of strengthening the incumbency of a sitting Prime Minister. Of course, that is exactly what it was intended to do—it was intended to cement the coalition in place—but it has left the House with the option to wound rather than kill Governments. I do not think that that has improved the accountability of Governments to Parliament in any way at all.
The second thing that has happened to cause this sea change is the increase in the frequency of the use of referendums. That has consequences too, as many warned, not for the sovereignty of Parliament but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said, for legitimacy, because we now have competing legitimacies in our constitution. What we are hearing is a bitter dispute about whether the representative nature of our democracy is a superior legitimacy to the direct—
Antoinette Sandbach
Does my hon. Friend recall that the Vote Leave campaign said that MPs in this Parliament would decide which Brexit model—Norway, Switzerland or so on—would apply and that that was part of taking back control? The 17.4 million people were not speaking with a single voice, because they believed that there was a menu of options.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I think there was also a menu of options available to those who voted remain, and I know many people who voted remain who wish that we would now just get on and leave. I do not think the hon. Lady makes a valid point or, indeed, undermines the fundamental point that we now have a constitution in which there are competing legitimacies. Some people are resting the authority of their argument on the representative mandate and some—the Government in particular—on the popular vote.
It is at least as much a constitutional outrage that we are still in the European Union three years after the referendum, and that tomorrow’s potential Bill should propose to hand the question of how we leave not back to this House, but to the European Union to decide—[Interruption.] It is absolutely true, because that is exactly what clause 3(2) of the draft Bill says.
The bitterness of tonight’s exchanges reflects the breakdown of our shared understanding about which mandate is legitimate: the representative or the direct. We now have a constitution containing competing ideas of legitimacy, and unless we are to abandon referendums this House should be ready to implement popular decisions that it does not like, but it has shown some reluctance to do so. If we refuse to do so, I again agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset that that will have consequences for the credibility of Parliament in the eyes of our electors. We will see the revival of alternative political parties, and I fear that this House is taking politics in that direction. The sovereignty of Parliament is not at risk, but our democratic legitimacy certainly is.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
This Parliament is at the very heart of our national story and our shared history, and it is what the Prime Minister’s great idol, Winston Churchill, called the “cockpit of the nation.” To seek to bar the door to that cockpit as the nation flies into one of the biggest constitutional storms in its history is an unsettling thing for a Government to do. It may not be illegal or unconstitutional, but it is not how a strong, responsible Government would conduct themselves.
Europhobic conspiracy theorists occasionally claim that the EU wants to reduce the House of Commons to a mere council chamber. I am afraid that if the Government achieve their aims this week, they will have gone further and reduced us from a proud sovereign Parliament to a mere debating club to be dismissed when it becomes inconvenient.
If the Government succeed this week, what is to stop the Prime Minister doing it again in the future? What is to stop the Leader of the Opposition, should he come to power, and I hope that never comes to pass? Precedent matters, and so does motive. The Government’s claim that Prorogation is to enable them to put forward new domestic legislation is clearly nonsense—a fig leaf to hide their attempt to evade accountability.
This House has stood as the defender of our liberties for centuries. The historian Robert Saunders put it best:
“the UK government shines with borrowed light: a light that comes *solely* from the consent of our elected representatives. Shut that down, and our democracy is plunged into darkness.”
It has indeed been plunged into darkness. We are in darkness.
It is claimed that this Prorogation is a normal Prorogation, but it is not. This Parliament would have expected the Leader of the House to table a recess motion, which would have asked us to agree to the party conference recess. That motion has never been put to us. As Members of Parliament, we have never been asked to agree to the recess, and it is highly likely that we would not have done so given the scale of the crisis that faces our country.
The Leader of the House claims to speak for 17.4 million people. Well, I want to tell him about a constituent of mine. I was on the train, going back to my constituency, when a constituent approached me and said, “You’re my MP. I voted for leave, because I wanted to give David Cameron a kicking. I did not really think it would go through. Please, now, do something to change that.”
I have voted three times for the withdrawal agreement. Three times I have seen Members from my party vote that agreement down, even though their Conservative Prime Minister told them that it complied with our manifesto commitment to an orderly exit. A constituent has written to me this evening to say, “The Leader of the House has rebelled against a Conservative-led Government more than 100 times and he has been rewarded with a place on the Front Bench.” Yet my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke), who has never voted against the Government, is going to be expelled from the party. What times we live in. I will be voting for this motion.
Business of the House
Antoinette Sandbach Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir William Cash
I could not disagree more, because the manner in which this is being done involves legislating in circumstances that will mean, as I said yesterday on a point of order, Mr Speaker, that all these arrangements are rammed through. There will be no practical opportunity today to make amendments and to get them tabled, discussed and voted on, because of the grouping system that we have under our procedures.
I say to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) that the fact is that this is a shambolic Bill. A number of things have to be changed in it. There are references to Acts of Parliament that do not exist and it is alleged that sections are in force when they are not. This Bill is a most unbelievable shambles, and the reality is that there is no excuse for it. Hon. Members have had the previous No. 4 Bill for some time, and they suddenly decided to accelerate this procedure to try to get some kind of political advantage, undermining the decision of the House in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—that is, the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, which is related in turn to exit day. That exit day has been moved back by a statutory instrument. I personally think that it is unlawful, but that is a separate question, not for today. The repeal of the 1972 Act, on which everything depends—including that it is the anchor of the referendum itself—has to go in lockstep with exit day. Moving exit day does not prevent the repeal of the 1972 Act. All I can say is that that has fundamental relevance to what is going on today.
Turning to my next point, the real question is this: who governs this country? That is what Standing Order No. 14 is all about. I notice my hon. Friend the Member for Sandbach having a bit of a laugh there—
Sir William Cash
Just one moment—if I may, I will finish my initial response. I have to say that there are some difficulties arising on that question. Actually, the Government’s business taking precedence under Standing Order No. 14 gives this right to the British people, in line with a majority that does exist.
Mr Speaker
For the avoidance of doubt, I think I am right in stating to the House that Sandbach is a place and indeed, that it is not all that far from where the hon. Lady represents, but she is of course Antoinette Sandbach, the hon. Member for Eddisbury.
Antoinette Sandbach
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for allowing the intervention, because I had always thought that it was a principle that Parliament has ultimate sovereignty in the UK.
Sir William Cash
That is absolutely the fundamental doctrine. All I am saying to my hon. Friend—I have said it to the House many times—is that when, by a solemn Act of a sovereign Parliament, we transfer a decision to the British people by six to one in this House, that is an act of transferring sovereignty to them so that they can make the decision. It is as simple as that.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I oppose this business motion. The idea of speed legislating is dangerous and wrong on this occasion, although I fully accept that there are times when legislating at pace can make sense. If the House has a consensus and the matters are not contentious, of course there is no need to waste the House’s time on pointless debates in which Members try to think of something to say. Were there a great national emergency and most people in the House thought that the Government should take emergency powers to deal with a catastrophe, that would have to go through at pace. However, there is no national emergency that can justify this, and there is certainly no consensus in this House.
We cannot be sure how the vote will go this evening. It may be that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) has enough Conservative rebels to tip it over the line—I think that that is the modern phrase—for himself, or it may be that enough Conservatives respond to the Government’s whipping and carry the day with our DUP partners. Either way, I think we can be sure that a large and significant minority of Members of Parliament who have lost will be in no way part of any consensus. On my side of the argument, there would be a minority who in no way think that such legislation should be rushed through at pace. We feel that we have every right to table amendments and to discuss them in the normal way.
Antoinette Sandbach
My right hon. Friend ought to be a little careful, because a number of us voted for the Prime Minister’s deal, which would have got us out of Europe on 29 March. As someone who voted for the deal, the suggestion that this proposal is somehow about losers’ bad faith does not accurately reflect my actions.
John Redwood
I think my hon. Friend misheard me. I made no such allegation about her or my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. I was paying them all due civility in saying that they may win, but nobody can claim that there is a big consensus in this House or a large potential majority on either side, so we need more time than is being offered in this business motion. Lightning legislation is bad legislation.
As we have already heard, this potential legislation poses fundamental questions about the nature of government, how government is conducted and the powers of Government, which go to the heart of our very processes, and seeks to overturn conventions and Standing Orders that have been in place and accepted by Governments of both persuasions for a long time. That should happen only after due consideration. I am not one to think that there should be no constitutional change or experiment. I have often been against my own Government and have understood the need to use the available procedures to get them to change their mind. However, we should not enter into a radical transformation on the basis of just a few hours’ debate, which is what we are being offered in this business motion.
Business of the House
Antoinette Sandbach Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
I am slightly disappointed at the hon. Gentleman for helpfully mansplaining my job to me. I am perfectly able to carry out my job, and I have already answered the question put by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) by saying that the Prime Minister will, of course, abide by the terms of the Grieve amendment.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
May I ask the Leader of the House to consider giving legislative time for the introduction of a housing ombudsman? I and a number of other Members are having problems with cowboy builders, particularly a building firm called Southworth Construction in my constituency, which is building substandard homes. A number of companies headed up by similar directorships have folded, and the situation is causing great concern to not only my constituents, but those of other Members.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is a great champion for her constituency, and I am aware that many Members are concerned about the quality of house building. She will be aware that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is looking carefully at this issue and what more can be done, but I absolutely applaud her for raising the matter in the Chamber. I encourage her to perhaps seek a Westminster Hall debate so that other hon. Members can join in with the conversation about what more needs to be done.
Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)
Antoinette Sandbach Excerpts(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The question before us is whether there is additional information that was in the legal advice that is relevant and pertinent to the crucial question that we must ask ourselves in voting on the withdrawal agreement. Against that, the Government have suggested that there are security and national interest matters to defend. The motion says that Ministers should provide
“the final and full legal advice provided by the Attorney General to the Cabinet concerning the EU Withdrawal Agreement and the framework”.
That does not imply that every email and every jot and tittle is required. In terms of national security and the national interest, that means that there is not a great risk.
The question is whether there is a reason to believe that critical legal advice has been withheld. I suggest that there is such a reason. Yesterday, I put it to the Attorney General, following advice from counsel in two chambers, that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 gives the Prime Minister the right to submit article 50 based on an advisory referendum, but if that referendum has been found to be conducted illegally and subject to cheating and lying, then the advice is flawed and so the notice should be withdrawn—and we have heard from the advocate general that in all probability it can be withdrawn. Was this advice tendered to the Government or discussed with them by the Attorney General? He did not mention it at all, and yet it is advice that is available. That suggests to me that the advice that has been given to this House is incomplete for us to draw our conclusions.
I turn to the argument that the Government should now revoke article 50 on the basis that the advisory referendum was flawed. First, we already know that the leave campaign misled the country during the referendum, deliberately or not. Secondly, multiple investigations by the Electoral Commission have found that the leave campaign broke campaign finance law. Thirdly, had those offences committed by the leave campaign been committed in a general or a local election, the result would have been legally void. Fourthly, the Government have a legal duty to take all relevant considerations into account when making a decision. Therefore, the fact that in any other election the referendum result would have been void due to one side’s illegal conduct is a relevant consideration when deciding whether to give effect to the result—that is, in ratifying the withdrawal agreement that would give Brexit effect.
In essence, then, the advice on the withdrawal agreement that the Attorney General should have considered would be whether the Government were failing in their duty by promoting an agreement when the animating factor of the agreement—the referendum—was so fundamentally compromised. Therefore, the Government are acting illegally by moving forward with Brexit without giving proper consideration to these facts. This whole debate and discussion was not included. Whether or not one agrees with it, this discussion would presumably have occurred within the ambit of the Attorney General, but we do not know that. That is a key reason to believe that the advice being given has been doctored for party political reasons. We need the full and latest advice.
As we have heard, the advocate general is saying that article 50 may be revocable. What was the view of the Attorney General given in the legal advice to the Government? We have not been told. The Attorney General must be aware of these points of law but has not listed them, and so we must conclude that he is withholding from the House relevant issues not for the national and public interest but for party political reasons, and is therefore in contempt of this House.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has just made very serious allegations. Does he not recognise the importance of the legal professional privilege that attaches between a lawyer, as an adviser, and their client?
Geraint Davies
Of course I do. The whole point is that this House is entitled to the full legal advice. The Government are hiding behind this cloak of saying, “Oh, the national interest; oh, negotiations; oh, security.” That has nothing to do with it.
What I am illustrating with these legal arguments is that there are alternative views that need to be fully discussed so that we can take the right decision on the withdrawal agreement in full knowledge of the facts. We have had a doctored version that is politically spun in the interests of the Government getting their objectives through. They are protecting themselves by saying, “Oh, there might be issues of national security, MI5, the public interest, etc.” I have great support, I must say, for the Father of the House’s suggestion that if there were such problems with national security and so on, those parts could be redacted and we could see the full legal advice.
This motion focuses clearly on the legal advice provided by the Attorney General on the EU withdrawal agreement. Implicit in that, in my interpretation, is that we obviously do not need lots of details about MI5, national security, the negotiating position and so on. What we want to know is the legal position in respect of article 50 and of the illegalities during the advisory referendum that made it flawed, thereby undermining the power that the Prime Minister has under the EU (Withdrawal) Act based on the advisory referendum that we now find is flawed. None of this was brought before the House. Why? Either because the Attorney General and his colleagues are incompetent or because they are withholding that information.
Business of the House
Antoinette Sandbach Excerpts(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises a really important point, and I would like to spend a moment explaining exactly where we are on this. We expect there to be between 800 and 1,000 Brexit statutory instruments, but the figure will probably be at the lower end of that estimate—somewhere in the region of just over 800. About half of those will be required either for no deal or for all eventualities. The other half are subject to negotiation. That number is perfectly manageable and in line with other parliamentary Sessions. It is not an extraordinary number of SIs at all, and we are confident that it can be managed within the normal parliamentary timings and the normal management of the business of the House, so I do not think that hon. Members should be concerned that the amount of secondary legislation will require any changes to recesses or to the normal sitting hours. The hon. Lady will also be aware that the business managers will make every effort to manage the business such that the flow is perfectly regular and normal, so that we do not end up with big peaks.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for indicating that 9 October will be a Back-Bench business day, and I am delighted that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is here, because that will be Baby Loss Awareness Week, and I know that an application will be made to the Committee immediately to try to ensure that we can debate that important matter at that time.
Secondly, on High Speed 2, it is regrettable that only 31% of need to sell applicants in Eddisbury are successful. When people are facing their homes and livelihoods being blighted as a result of HS2, it is important that this matter should be debated in the Chamber. I ask the Leader of the House for time for a debate on the need to sell scheme and its application to those affected by HS2.
Andrea Leadsom
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has taken this opportunity to lobby the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee. I am sure you would agree that that is entirely appropriate, Mr Speaker. She has also raised a really important point about HS2. She will be aware that there have also been concerns in my constituency about how compensation has been assessed for people under the need to sell scheme. I encourage her to make contact with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), who is involved in the compensation and mitigation forum, which meets regularly to look at issues relating to compensation. Equally, she might wish to seek an Adjournment debate in order to raise her particular issues.
Business of the House
Antoinette Sandbach Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an incredibly serious point, as she often does, about the rise in certain types of crime, particularly knife crime. As I have said, I am talking with other business managers about whether we can find time for a debate, and there is a lot of sympathy towards that. The legislative agenda is busy, but she is absolutely right to raise the issue, which is of great concern, and we will seek to provide that time.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
My constituent Sharon Hollman went through the devastating consequences of the suicide of her teenage son. It appears that safeguarding procedures were not followed by Kent County Council, so may I call for a debate about the safeguarding procedures that schools should have in place to ensure that children suffering from mental health difficulties get the support they need?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. Everyone in the House is worried about young people’s mental health and the action being taken to support young people. My hon. Friend will be aware of the Government’s Green Paper on mental health in schools. We are bringing forward measures to improve support and training for schoolteachers, peer support, and child and adolescent mental health services, to try to address this appalling problem.
Business of the House
Antoinette Sandbach Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
I am fully aware of the difficulty of hospital car park charges and of the concerns that many constituents have about them. I encourage my hon. Friend to seek a debate on the topic. He will be aware of the challenges of reducing that source of revenue, but there is always a balance to be struck. It is right that we continue to debate the matter.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House schedule some time for a debate on the need-to-sell scheme in relation to High Speed 2? An analysis of applications in my constituency has shown an unusually high refusal rate. For example, where eight houses of a group of 10 have been sold, HS2 Ltd is for some inexplicable reason refusing to buy the last two, showing that it clearly has not learned the lessons from phase 1.
Government Policy on the Proceedings of the House
Antoinette Sandbach Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Quin
He has the better of me. I was genuinely being respectful to the hon. Gentleman, whom I know thinks and speaks passionately about the conventions of this place. I am a relatively new Member, but I regard its role in our national life as very important.
I would not have sought to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, had I not looked carefully into the underlying principles of the application made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). First and critically, as he made clear in his application and as was reiterated by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), Opposition day motions, if carried, are not and never have been binding de jure on the Government. The precedents are clear. Between 1918 and 2015, there were 120 defeats of Governments, most of them on substantive legislative matters on which the Chamber was exercising its core constitutional role of creating and amending the law of the land.
On those occasions, however, when the Government lost a vote on a Supply day, the constitutional position was equally clear. I greatly enjoyed reading one such occasion—the debate on the devaluation of the green pound held on 23 January 1978. I was especially delighted to hear the two contributions, made from a sedentary position, by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), who I am sorry is not in his place. One was:
“Leave the Common Market. That is the answer.”
The other one was:
“Get out of the Common Market. That is the answer.”—[Official Report, 23 January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 1071-73.]
He is nothing if not a beacon of consistency. The Labour Government having lost the vote, there was no suggestion in the closing remarks of either the Opposition spokesman or the Minister that the decision would be binding on the Government.
This to me is core to the issue. Clearly, the House can amend primary legislation, including, critically, money Bills, and pray against secondary legislation, debating such matters either in Government time or on Opposition days. What we are discussing here, however, is not an attempt by the Opposition to amend legislation, but the manner outside legislation whereby the Opposition examine and challenge Government policy. This, too, appears well established. The 1981 Select Committee on Procedure quoted, approvingly, an earlier Select Committee of 1966:
“The real nature of Supply Days was the opportunity provided to the Opposition to examine Government activities of their own choice”.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there are Backbench Business debates in the House that change policy, such as the baby loss debate, the subject of which we are in theory due to debate later today—but which we might not debate because of this debate? Is it not right that policy can be changed without a vote? There is no requirement for a vote to change policy.
Jeremy Quin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I will be brief so that we can get to that very important debate, which I know matters to many of our constituents. She is absolutely right that examining and challenging Government policy can lead, rightly, to a change in that policy. That is mirrored by the people who turn up to these debates. On the two Opposition days that particularly irked the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, two Secretaries of State, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a Minister of State came to the Dispatch Box, and the speakers were matched one for one on either side. I attended part of both debates and can confirm that the Opposition were certainly doing their best to challenge and examine Government policy, as is their right.
There are good reasons why those debates ended as they did, as was illustrated by my two right hon. Friends for forests, my right hon. Friends the Members for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), in their interventions. To imply that the whole process was fruitless because there was no physical Division at the end—a vote that we know would have been non-binding—belittles not only that debate but potentially the Backbench Business Committee debates, those in Westminster Hall and, to a lesser extent, the work done in Select Committees, where good contributions are made to the workings of the House and policy examined without Divisions being required.
Business of the House
Antoinette Sandbach Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
I am delighted to congratulate Huddersfield. That sounds like a bit of a hat trick. Carry on!
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
May I echo the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for a general debate on housing, to deal with the issue of leasehold reform? There are substantial abuses of leaseholders in my constituency and many other constituencies. If that bid fails, I would request that the regeneration of town centres—particularly the town centre of Winsford—be included for debate.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a point that constituents raise with a number of MPs. It is very important, and I certainly share her desire to see its resolution. I encourage her to seek the opportunity for a debate on it.
Business of the House
Antoinette Sandbach Excerpts(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
May I say that I am genuinely delighted that among the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, as among mine, there are school council members who are taking an active interest in politics? Whatever views we hold, we should welcome that. My answer to Charlie, through the hon. Gentleman, is that the Government have put in place transitional arrangements, costing taxpayers £1 billion, to cushion the impact of the change in the state pension age for women. To reverse the Pensions Act 2011 would cost more than £30 billion, which cannot be justified.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Pupils in my constituency, including those from the community high school in Winsford who are visiting this place today, are deeply concerned about the impending cuts to school funding. May we timetable a debate in Government time to cover the changes to the formula after the consultation has closed on 22 March?
Mr Lidington
I stress that the consultation on the proposed new funding formula has not yet closed. When the results are in, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will want to consider them before deciding on the way forward.