Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Grayling Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

3. If he will bring forward proposals for Prime Minister’s questions to take place on Tuesdays and Thursdays in each week.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)]

I sense a new campaign from my hon. Friend, but I am afraid there are no plans to change the current arrangements.

[Mr Bone]

I take that as a nod and a wink to start a campaign—I appreciate the Leader of the House’s subtlety. We should go back to having two sessions of Prime Minister’s questions. This week, PMQs was lost, quite rightly, but if we had two sessions, the Prime Minister would at least have been here once, and he is the servant of the House, not a President. Will he encourage me a bit more to start that campaign?

[Chris Grayling]

I fear not. The practical problem is that, if Prime Minister’s questions take place on a Tuesday and Thursday, it would be difficult for the Prime Minister to represent Britain internationally. On the whole, I think that the full session on a Wednesday strikes the right balance. I regard yesterday’s decision to postpone questions for the week as something that would happen only in exceptional circumstances. In my view, we should stick with the current arrangements.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to consider my suggestion to limit to 10 minutes the exchange between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, with no limit on the number of questions that could be asked in that time. Recently, that exchange has been taking up almost half the time available for PMQs—so that we can hear from Mary from Manchester or Olivia from Oldham. Will he look at this proposal and see whether we can get more Back Benchers in?

[Chris Grayling]

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, but I fear it is for the Chair to decide when to accelerate proceedings.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

4. For what reason it is his policy for the House to retain a November recess.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)]

We give careful consideration to how we manage the recesses across the year, but ultimately it is a decision for the House. My colleague the Chief Whip and I are always happy to consider the calendar across the year. We have a November recess because it was originally the time of the Queen’s Speech, and there were always two or three days either side for Members to spend time in their constituencies.

[Diana Johnson]

I appreciate that, but that is the point: it was previously the date of the Queen’s Speech, but that now takes place in May. I am still confused, therefore, as to why the Government feel that November is an appropriate time for this recess, especially given that it does not fit with school half terms—if that is what the Leader of the House was thinking: that people could spend time with their families.

[Chris Grayling]

The November recess is not particularly designed to be family time; it is for Members to spend time on important constituency work. Those who seek to take part in the important business that sometimes takes place here on a Friday will know that it is not always easy to find weekdays to spend in the constituency. It is sensible, therefore, to set aside a few days across the year primarily for constituency work.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House explain why the Government have not yet given the dates for the Easter recess, and can he guarantee that they will co-ordinate it with the school holiday and not make the same mistake they did with the November recess? Announcing the date would enable Committees to organise their hearings and MPs would be able to plan their time in their constituencies?

[Chris Grayling]

We will always do our best to give as much notice as possible, but our prime responsibility, as business managers, has to be to ensure that the Government’s business can be delivered across the Session. We will seek to strike the right balance and provide that information as soon as we practically can.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

5. If he will ensure that debate time for Back-Bench business is safeguarded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of whether oral questions to the Leader of the House is an effective use of parliamentary time.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)]

The oral questions rota is regularly reviewed to ensure that the Government and other answering bodies can be adequately scrutinised, reflecting any machinery of government changes and the quantitative evidence of Members questioning.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s answer, but there are many important issues that need to be raised. Will he consider whether oral questions to the Leader of the House are the best use of time?

[Chris Grayling]

I am very tempted by the idea of merging questions to the Leader of the House with business questions, as we seem to cover a lot of the same ground. There are areas of activity where there is a case for allowing more time for scrutiny in the House. I intend to give careful consideration to the matter in the coming weeks. There may well be a case for change.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

Has the Leader of the House made any assessment of whether we ought to have more time to put questions to him, given that today, for example, not all Members’ questions on the Order Paper will be reached.

[Chris Grayling]

I am very much in favour of all Members having the opportunity. It is a matter of ensuring that we make the best use of parliamentary time and have adequate time for scrutiny. If one listens to the topics covered in this short session today, it is not entirely clear to me why we could not take those as part of business questions and make this 15-minute slot available for another topic, such as Scotland or International Development, where there might be a case for an extended session.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

8. What steps he has taken to assist the work of the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster (Restoration and Renewal).

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)]

As a member of both the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster and the House of Commons Commission, I have been working closely with fellow members of those Committees to ensure that colleagues in both Houses will be able to consider the recommendations of the Joint Committee in the new year.

[Martin Vickers]

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Committee does all it can to contain the costs, while ensuring that the House continues to meet within the confines of the Palace?

[Chris Grayling]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have a duty to ensure that we deliver an effective home for our democracy, protect a world heritage site and do that at a cost that is right for the taxpayer. My aim is to avoid a period of change which creates disruption for our colleagues and high cost for the taxpayer, so we are working to find the best balanced solution for all Members.

The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

10. What progress the Government are making on reforming the estimates process.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)]

This matter is currently being considered by the Procedure Committee, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to communicate his views to its members.

[Patrick Grady]

We were told during the debates on English votes for English laws that there would be opportunities to debate and amend provisions relating to Barnett consequentials during the estimates process. Given that the Chancellor has cut the Scottish Government’s revenue budget by 5.7% over the next four years, when in the estimates process will we have an opportunity to debate, amend and vote on that?

[Chris Grayling]

The House can of course vote on the estimates each year. However, if the hon. Gentleman is looking to have an extended debate, it is within the gift of this House to change its procedures in order to ensure that he has the ability to contribute and vote in the way he wishes.