Points of Order
Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Angela Eagle(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance about a trend that seems to be becoming more and more prevalent? When reading newspapers and listening to the reporting in anticipation of the motion that we will be discussing today in the forthcoming debate and all the amendments, I have come across a phrase, which has clearly come from the Government, being used a lot, which is that this motion is “non-binding” on the Government. When I came into this House, it was a point of honour and the unwritten rule that if the Government lost motions and motions were passed through this House, they would then respect those motions. We now suddenly see this distinction being made by Government spokespeople, not always named, who say that some motions are more equal than others. I seek your guidance on the appearance of a distinction that I deplore and that certainly was never present when I first came into the House.
House of Commons Governance
Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Angela Eagle(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Eagle
I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that anyone who wishes to apply for the post will read the Committee’s report, as well as all the fascinating evidence people gave in such a short time, so that they are well aware of the nature of the job and the authority that we intend should go with it.
Mr Jenkin
I agree with everything that has been said, but what is so vital in the arrangement is that there should be complete trust and understanding between the Clerk of the House and the director general. The sequencing of the appointments, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House mentioned, is therefore very important. The Clerk must feel that he or she has had a say over the director general’s job description and how the job is advertised, otherwise the arrangement will not work. We will be setting it up to fail if anybody feels that premature decisions have been foisted on them. That must be borne in mind.
House of Commons Business
Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Angela Eagle(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Eagle
I suspect that will not do, because of the history of how parliamentary privilege has developed. The Joint Committee did think about looking at a review of previous Acts of Parliament so that we could deal with this point and concluded that it would actually cause more trouble and anomalies than it would solve.
Mr Jenkin
I support the hon. Lady’s response to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) because he has just made the classic error of thinking that privilege refers solely to freedom of speech in Parliament, and it does not, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said. The term “privilege” is a technical one that applies in many spheres of life; we talk about legal privilege for solicitors and the privilege of the courts, and we should not try to redefine the term, as we would be tempting the courts to start to adjudicate on the very thing we do not want to tempt them to adjudicate on. That shows the importance of her explicit endorsement of these two paragraphs of our report.
Ms Eagle
The hon. Gentleman is right. It is a knotty and a thorny issue. I suspect that we need a translation of the term, so that lay people who are not technically proficient in constitutional law can understand that it is a good thing rather than something that gives Members of Parliament, or others who may be giving evidence in the House, a significant advantage.
Finances of the House of Commons
Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Angela Eagle(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have been here to listen to the vast majority of this extremely important debate. I am glad the House of Commons Commission decided that having annual debates on this topic on the Floor of the House would be a good use of time, and I am delighted that the Backbench Business Committee agreed, because that has allowed us to have a very enlightening debate. I also want to thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for opening the debate and for summing up the issues that the House’s various administration Committees—particularly, in my case, the House of Commons Commission—have been wrestling with.
The savings programme that the House has been working towards since 2010 has been managed efficiently, as has been demonstrated, and I should like to add my voice to those Members who have commended the work done to find the £16.1 million of savings needed in the coming year. It is right that we have a savings programme, and that we not only play our part but are seen to play our part in the general belt-tightening that has to go on across the country. However, it is vital when finding savings and efficiencies that we are constantly mindful of the knock-on effects on Parliament and its role. These savings must not impact on the House’s ability to scrutinise the Executive—a theme of today’s contributions —or on Members’ ability to represent and serve their constituents.
While this House is cutting its budget by 17% over five years, the other place has no formal savings programme. I am told that it has achieved savings of 15%, which is wholly welcome, but its having a formal process that could be held to account, in the way we are doing here, would have been desirable. We must ensure that the standing of the House of Commons in relation to the other place is not weakened because of our savings programme, and that we maintain an appropriate balance between the two Houses.
When a large savings programme is put into effect, it often tends to be done at the expense of the lower-paid members of that organisation. That is the lazy way of conducting efficiency and savings programmes, and I am delighted that we have taken steps to avoid falling into that trap. We must ensure that we are seen not to fall into it, which is why I welcome the assurances the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was able to give us on zero-hours contracts and the London living wage. I welcome the lead that you have taken, Mr Speaker, on the latter, and the ambition that has been shown and set out in our discussions today. I hope that by Christmas the House will be accredited as a living wage employer for our directly employed staff, and by next April for our contractors. If we can achieve that—from what the hon. Gentleman said, it sounds as though we are on track—we will all be rightly proud, and it will demonstrate to others who have savings to make that they do not have to make them at the expense of their lowest-paid workers.
As you know, Mr Speaker, I have been explicitly and particularly exercised to ensure that we do not use zero-hours contracts as part of our employment terms. I therefore welcome the tantalising early look the hon. Gentleman gave us at the advice which will be coming to the Commission on Monday, which allows flexibility but ensures mutuality of expectations. I warmly welcome the commitments we heard from him today and I hope we will have minimum hours guaranteed, and not have to resort to the easy and unfair expedient of zero-hours contracts. I look forward to considering the advice he hinted at in his opening remarks when the Commission meets on Monday.
I also want to take this opportunity to recognise the great work and expertise of the staff in this place—a constant theme of all who have contributed to this debate, and one I warmly endorse. Often, we are the people who are seen, talked about and given credit when we achieve good things, but this House could not operate without the fantastic work of the staff who keep us going, whatever their level or grade. I always find them enormously helpful.
I also want to address the potential for further savings and efficiencies, and suggest something that could be done to deal with the important points that the Select Committee Chairs who have contributed to today’s debate have made about their own resources. It is time we explored the potential for further savings and efficiencies by merging the administration of this House and the other place. There is no reason why, in the 21st century, we should have separate administrative bodies for each House. For example, Parliamentary Information and Communications Technology, known as PICT, which has operated as a bicameral service since 2001, provides Members with an excellent service. Perhaps its advantage is that it was created in 2001 and not 1801. Moreover, security, visitor services, estate management, outreach, broadcasting and other such services are run on a joint basis. Procurement will also be run jointly.
Mr Jenkin
Of course we must be ready to explore anything in these times of austerity, but I honestly believe that the hon. Lady will find that some of the lessons of those joint services are not comfortable ones. Running a single organisation with dual governance is difficult. An example is running Committee staffs when there are already complicated personnel issues, such as trying to support them with flexible staffing arrangements. There is good exchange between the two Houses and Clerks Departments, and it would be absolute madness to consider merging the Clerks Departments of both Houses.
Ms Eagle
I think we need to look at how we can run this place, with two legislatures that are not the same but coexist in the same building, in a far more effective and efficient way. That does not mean making them completely co-operative in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests, but it does mean that we should see what efficiencies and savings we can get from running joint services. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot make large administrative savings from doing so.
House of Lords Reform Bill
Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Angela Eagle(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jenkin
Programme motions are, in fact, a modern convention. Constitutional measures used to go through the House without any timetable motions, or even guillotines, at all, and with any major constitutional measure on which the Government are determined to deny any referendum, a proper discussion of the relevant Bill is the only check and balance that this House has on change in our constitution.
Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)
Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Angela Eagle(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
We have had an important debate about ministerial conduct and how we protect the rights of this House in holding Ministers to account. We heard powerful speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). On the Government Benches, we heard from the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) and from the hon. Members for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), all of whom said that there are questions to answer, particularly to do with who should be allowed to initiate investigations into ministerial conduct.
This is a debate that Labour Members should not have had to initiate. In that regard, I have sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex. There is already a perfectly good system to make sure that Ministers abide by the rules in their conduct of Government business and in ensuring that Parliament is told the truth, and it is called the ministerial code, an updated version of which is produced at the beginning of every new Parliament. An independent adviser on the code is available to offer advice to Ministers on their interests and to investigate any alleged breaches. It is for the Prime Minister to be the guardian of the code and to refer any alleged breaches to the independent adviser for investigation.
It is a clear and simple process, but what has happened in this case? I have read the ministerial code carefully, and I cannot find a clause that says, “This code applies to all members of the Government but the Prime Minister’s chums.” Will the Government be bringing out a new version to reflect this reality? Writing in the foreword of the most recent edition of the code, the Prime Minister said:
“Our new government has a particular and historic responsibility: to rebuild confidence in our political system…People have lost faith in politics and politicians. It is our duty to restore their trust. It is not enough simply to make a difference. We must be different.”
The Prime Minister talks the talk but he does not walk the walk.
Mr Jenkin
Following the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), my Liberal Democrat colleague on the Public Administration Committee, will the hon. Lady commit her party to supporting our recommendation that the independent adviser should be able to instigate his own investigations?
Ms Eagle
The hon. Gentleman’s Committee has done this House a great service in publishing the report that is tagged with this debate. I think that situations have evolved since decisions were taken in the past. I certainly think that the suggestion that the independent adviser should be allowed to initiate investigations needs a fresh look in the light of the circumstances that have arisen. I, for one, have an open mind on that. He raises a very important subject that the House should debate. The Committee’s work on this is invaluable in the changing circumstances, and I look forward to its continuing.
The Prime Minister’s decision not to ask the independent adviser on ministerial interests to investigate the Culture Secretary totally contradicts the commitment that he gave in his own foreword to his own code. It also totally disregards clear, prima facie evidence that the code has been breached and that there are good grounds for an investigation. That prima facie case was set out very powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and hinted at in slightly shyer terms by the right hon. Member for Bath.
It took the Prime Minister 20 minutes from the conclusion of the Culture Secretary’s oral evidence to the Leveson inquiry to announce that there was no case to answer, but the Prime Minister was not considering the evidence, he was not interested in protecting the integrity of his Government, and he disregarded the need for Ministers to be straight with Parliament. That is a very important matter for the House. All he wanted to do was to protect his chum.
To their credit, the Liberal Democrats have decided that they cannot go along with the Prime Minister’s cynical charade. Good for them, but I struggle to see why they should not join us in the Lobby for the vote. They should be in the Lobby with us, upholding the integrity of the ministerial code and supporting our call for the Culture Secretary to be referred to the independent adviser. It is not too late. The right hon. Member for Bath said there were still questions for the Minister to answer, but he did not go into detail on what they were. Liberal Democrat Members have said that they believe a referral to the independent adviser is in order, and I hope that even at this late hour they will reconsider their position and decide to join us in the Division Lobby to send a powerful message to the Prime Minister that the House will not stand by and tolerate being lied to and the ministerial code being an optional extra.
The integrity of the Government’s relations with Parliament is at stake. We have an independent adviser on the ministerial code who was appointed on a not inconsiderable retainer of £20,000 per annum. He has been in place since November 2011 but the Prime Minister seems extraordinarily reluctant to call on his services. The Prime Minister blocked Sir Alex’s predecessor from investigating the former Defence Secretary. He now blocks Sir Alex from investigating the Culture Secretary.
Ministers have recently taken to telling the country that we all need to be working harder, but we have a ministerial adviser champing at the bit to launch an investigation, and the Prime Minister keeping him locked in a cupboard. What are we paying the independent adviser for? This something-for-nothing culture needs to end. Let the independent adviser do his job. What does the Prime Minister have to fear?
We heard today from right hon. and hon. Members how even a perfunctory look at the facts demonstrates that the Culture Secretary has a case to answer. Paragraph 1.2c of the ministerial code requires Ministers to
“give accurate and truthful information to Parliament”.
The Secretary of State told the House on 25 April:
“I made absolutely no interventions seeking to influence a quasi-judicial decision that was at that time the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Business”—[Official Report, 25 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 973.]
Yet it turns out that the Culture Secretary was firing off memos to the Prime Minister backing the bid, and wanted a meeting with the Business Secretary to lobby him. I do not know what the Culture Secretary’s definition of “intervention” is, but it is not one that would be found in any English dictionary.
In his parliamentary statement in April the Secretary of State told the House that
“the contact that I had with Fred Michel was only at official meetings that were minuted with other people present”.—[Official Report, 25 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 961]—
and that he had—I quote exactly—“zero” conversations with Michel. Yet it has now been revealed that he texted Michel directly when he had responsibility for overseeing the bid. In the Culture Secretary's “dictionary of convenient definitions” it appears that neither “contact” nor “conversations” mean text messages.
The Secretary of State assured Parliament on 3 March 2011 that he had published
“all the documents relating to all the meetings—all the consultation documents, all the submissions we received, all the exchanges between my Department and News Corporation.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 526.]
He had published all the documents, all the meetings, all the contacts except the 191 phone calls with News Corporation, the 158 e-mails with News Corporation, and the 799 text messages with News Corporation. What on earth does the Culture Secretary think “all” means?
We know that the Secretary of State is a keen dancer. Indeed, we have one of his Cabinet colleagues to thank for telling us that he has installed a sprung floor in his home, so that he can practise his “Strictly Come Dancing” routines. However, it is dancing on the head of a pin to claim that he did not intervene, that he was not in contact and that he had published all the evidence.
Parliament deserves better than this. It is crystal clear that the Secretary of State’s former special adviser effectively opened an improper back channel of direct communication with News Corporation. If the special adviser had gone rogue, one would have thought that on uncovering his activities the Culture Secretary would have fired him immediately. But no, the Culture Secretary first told his special adviser that he had done nothing wrong. The next day—I suspect after looking at the front pages—he told his special adviser,
“Everyone here thinks you need to go”,
before apparently adding that “everyone” did not necessarily include him.
Why has Adam Smith resigned when the Secretary of State feels that he himself has no case to answer? Is he expecting us to believe that he had no idea what his special adviser was up to in such a key area of policy, in which he had shown such prior interest? Paragraph 3.3 of the code makes it clear that Ministers must take responsibility for the actions of their special advisers. The Secretary of State must accept his responsibility.
We have a Cabinet Minister who told Parliament that he had not intervened when he had. We have a Cabinet Minister who told Parliament that he had had no contact with News Corporation lobbyists when he had. We have a Cabinet Minister who told Parliament that he had published all the documents when he had not. The Prime Minister knows all that, but he says that there is nothing for the adviser on the ministerial code to investigate. Who is he kidding? He cannot even persuade the Deputy Prime Minister of that fact.
Today, the House has an opportunity to make it clear that the ministerial code matters, that Ministers are accountable to this House and that the public can expect the highest standards from Ministers. The motion calls merely for Sir Alex Allan to investigate and for the existing system of ministerial accountability to this House to be used, rather than abused. I commend it to the House.