Business of the House
Chris Philp Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House provide an update on forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
The business for the week commencing 29 July will include:
Monday 29 July—Second Reading of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill.
Tuesday 30 July—Second Reading of the Budget Responsibility Bill.
The House will rise for the summer recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 30 July and return on Monday 2 September.
The business for the week commencing 2 September will include:
Monday 2 September—General debate. Subject to be confirmed.
Tuesday 3 September—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill.
Wednesday 4 September—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Budget Responsibility Bill.
Thursday 5 September—Second Reading of the Great British Energy Bill.
Friday 6 September—The House will not be sitting.
Chris Philp
Lieutenant Colonel Mark Teeton was brutally stabbed in Gillingham near the Brompton barracks a few days ago. I know that he will be in the thoughts of all Members, and will have our best wishes for a speedy recovery.
I extend my thanks to long-serving Doorkeeper John Tamlyn, who has served this House for 36 years—four times longer than I have been a Member of this House. He has witnessed many memorable scenes over the years, and by my calculation has seen no fewer than 10 Prime Ministers come and go—well, nine come and go, and one arrive, but I am optimistic that between now and next Tuesday he may make it 10 coming and going. I am sure that the whole House will wish John well in his retirement after so many years of distinguished service. Thank you.
We do not have a timetable for the election of Select Committees and other Committees. I know that Select Committees can sometimes be troubling for the Government; during my five years as a Minister I was gently roasted—sometimes violently flambéed—by many Select Committees.
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is, however, important that we have Select Committees in place so that Back Benchers can hold the Government to account. If that is not temptation enough for the Leader of the House, let me say this: if her Back Benchers have Select Committees to serve on, they may have less time to plot rebellions. Will she confirm that all Select Committee Chairmen and members will be elected in September—and if not in September, when?
Many Members have expressed concern about the resumption of UK taxpayer funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. UNRWA stands accused of many appalling acts, including running schools using antisemitic textbooks encouraging violence, the documented involvement of at least 10 UNRWA members in the 7 October massacres, and close links between UNRWA staff and the Hamas terrorist organisation. Will the Leader of the House urgently arrange a debate on this decision in Government time, and can she guarantee that no taxpayer money will support, directly or indirectly, Hamas or any activities that encourage or facilitate terror?
The Government have sent mixed messages about plans to scrap the very reasonable two-child cap on welfare payments. Then, on Tuesday, the Government whipped their MPs to vote against scrapping it. There was a significant Back-Bench rebellion, less than three weeks after the election—not even Theresa May managed a rebellion within three weeks of an election, so it was a bit of a first. At this rate, the Government’s majority will be gone by about Easter of next year. [Interruption.] Look, I am always happy to debate these issues. The Leader of the House and the Government will actually have my support on this issue—she may not want it or welcome it, but she will have it anyway—so can we have that debate, not least so that her own parliamentary party and Back Benchers can properly discuss this important issue?
I understand that next week the Chancellor may make a statement on the public finances. Does the Leader of the House agree with what the Chancellor said during the election: that a party does not need to be in government to open the books because of the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts? Will the Government commit that any statement about public finances made in this House will be accompanied by an OBR forecast, since we can see from next week’s business that the Government are so keen to enshrine OBR forecasts further in law?
It seems clear to me that we may be presented next week with concocted and exaggerated claims about the public finances as a pretext for tax rises, so can the Leader of the House commit that the election promises that Government Members made—that there would be no tax rises beyond those in the Labour manifesto—will be honoured in full?
Finally, the Government recently announced the closure of the Bibby Stockholm barge. Will the Government update the House on where those people will now be accommodated and at what cost? I also notice that the Government have rebranded illegal immigration as “irregular”, and have said that they merely want to control it. I say to them that entering this country by small boat is illegal; it may help them to refer to section 74 of the Immigration Act 1971, as amended, if they are in any doubt. The Government’s objective should be to stop illegal immigration completely, not merely to control it, so will the Leader of the House organise a debate in Government time on that?
That debate could cover what the Government plan to do in place of the Rwanda scheme that they have just scrapped. The first flight had been due to take off yesterday, 24 July, but the Government chose to cancel it. The deterrent effect that that flight would have had would have led to a cessation of channel crossings, as all the precedents in Australia and elsewhere have demonstrated. We saw it here with the Albanian cohort last year as well. The Government needlessly cancelled what would have been an effective deterrent measure. Will the Government allow a vote on that policy?
Lucy Powell
I thank the shadow Leader of the House and join him in paying our respects to those affected by the brutal attack in Kent this week.
In our last business questions before the summer recess, Mr Speaker, I want to put on record my thanks to you, House staff, security staff and others for all your hard work in recent weeks, and I wish you all some kind of holiday over that recess. I also congratulate our new Deputy Speakers; they are breaking more glass ceilings with an all-female line-up that is the most diverse in our history. On the same theme, I also send congratulations to Baroness Eluned Morgan, who is set to become Wales’s first female First Minister—that is a lot of firsts.
Finally, I put on record my thanks to the wonderful John Tamlyn, one of our fantastic Doorkeepers, who is retiring after 36 years of service. The shadow Leader of the House mentioned the number of Prime Ministers under which John served, but I think most of those came in the last few years of his time. As he said to me earlier, the last few years go a lot faster than the early ones.
I also want to address the truly shocking footage we have seen of an incident at Manchester airport. It was right of the Greater Manchester police force to refer itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, given the widespread concern about the incident.
This week we have heard many maiden speeches. There has been a lot of demand, shall we say, but it has been good to see the enthusiasm of many colleagues from across these Benches. Those speeches have told the stories of our nation, of people and places striving to get on, and looking after and looking out for each other; but I am not sure that I can agree that every other constituency is the best in the country, because of course we all know that the best is actually Manchester Central.
This has been a special week for us on the Government side of the House. After long years in opposition, we have finally been able to win some votes in support of our ambitious, bold, fully costed King’s Speech programme. It is one to be proud of. It is the opportunity and responsibility of government made real.
The shadow Leader of the House asks about the election of Select Committee Chairs. He will know that negotiations are ongoing between the usual channels about how those Chairs will be allocated. Once those are completed, we hope to have the elections as soon as possible.
As we end our third week in government, it is clearer than ever before that the Conservatives failed in their responsibility and left the country in state beyond our worst fears. They do not like to hear it, but they failed to take the tough and right choices. It is as if they knew that they were going to lose the election and left the really difficult decisions for us. They do not like it, but history will show it. That is not just my view. The National Audit Office found that the NHS has been left in an “unprecedented” crisis. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that we face
“some of the toughest choices in generations”.
The previous Government’s own Justice Secretary admitted that they ignored prisons running at 99% capacity because it would cost them votes to take action, so I am afraid that I will not be taking the shadow Leader of the House’s advice on the issues that he raises.
The shadow Leader of the House talks about redefining illegal migration. I remember the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), redefining the backlog under the last Government as a “queue.” Far from being stopped, boats have been coming over in record numbers over the past year, so the Conservatives’ plan just was not working. That is why we have already reallocated resources and started returning illegal migrants, which his Government failed to do.
The shadow Leader of the House will know that, yes, we are taking action to ensure that all fiscal statements have Office for Budget Responsibility oversight. I am not sure whether his party will support that next week. The Conservatives had their chance to govern, and they left the country in a much worse state than they found it. They did not fix the roof while the sun was shining; in fact, their whole house was built on sand. We have been left the job of rebuilding from the bottom up, on shaky foundations, with most of the materials gone and the workforce depleted and demoralised, but we are getting on with the job, and there is more to come in coming days.
Manifesto commitments realised today will turn the page on an era of sleaze and scandal. Our first Bills, to be considered next week, will bring our railways back into public ownership—putting passengers first, not profit—and will protect our economy and family finances from Conservative Trussonomics, of which the shadow Leader of the House was an author. We will legislate for Great British Energy when Parliament returns, delivering energy security and lower bills. What a contrast with the dying days of the last Government. If he will forgive me, I will not be taking his advice; I will continue realising the change that the country is crying out for.
Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee
Chris Philp Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to address you by your new title, Madam Deputy Speaker. You and I were first elected in 2015, and it is a real pleasure to see the first of the 2015 intake assuming the Chair to preside over our proceedings. I am delighted to be at the Dispatch Box for your first appearance in the Chair—the first of many over the coming years and, I hope, the coming decades—and I congratulate you on your well-deserved election.
As the Leader of the House said at the beginning of her eloquent and detailed speech, standards and integrity are critical to this House of Commons. We are the crucible of our nation’s democracy. Our constituents have sent us here to represent them, and they are entitled to expect the very highest standards of behaviour from us as Members of Parliament. We are fortunate that our standards in public life are higher than those in many other countries, but there is no room for complacency and we should strive constantly to improve and perfect the standards met in this House. That is a duty we owe the public.
I broadly welcome the initiative taken by the Leader of the House, but I want to make a couple of general points before turning to some of the specific matters before us. First, it is very important that these reforms, or indeed any reforms, command public confidence and are seen to be conducted for the best of reasons. It is important for us to proceed on a cross-party basis, because that will show that the measures are being taken not for party-political reasons but for the best of reasons—as I am sure they are—and will ensure that they stick. If there is a broad cross-party consensus, whatever reforms are made will endure and survive beyond any change of Government in the future—hopefully the near future from my point of view, but not, I suspect, from the point of view of the Leader of the House.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
With that in mind, and given the need to involve all parties—we are talking not just about this Parliament, but potentially about Parliaments for decades to come—does my right hon. Friend agree that amendment (b), in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, is entirely reasonable and, indeed, addresses some of the issues that have been raised by the minor parties, because it would potentially bring them into scope?
Chris Philp
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, based on his long experience of the House. Amendment (b) does indeed address some of the points made in earlier interventions.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Leader of the House for the consultations we have had in the past three weeks following our appointments. She has been collegiate and constructive in our conversations, and I look forward to those conversations continuing in that spirit. But I might be permitted one very small grumble: the motion we are debating today was laid relatively late on Tuesday evening. Under the rules, it could have been laid later, so I appreciate that it was laid a little in advance, but we did not have a lot of time to discuss potential amendments between the two of us, or indeed with other parties.
I will make a request for the future. If we are considering motions that touch on these issues and seeking a cross-party approach, it would be really helpful to have some more time so as to be able to hold discussions between the Leader of the House, me and other parties to see whether we can improve the motions. I know that we have discussed this in general terms, but it is only when we see the detail of the motion in black and white—for example, the one on the Modernisation Committee—that we can discuss it in proper detail. I would appreciate having a bit more time in future, so that we can discuss that between us. That might avoid the need to table amendments, and it would enshrine the consensual approach that I hope she will take.
Let me turn to motion 4, which is listed on page 7 of today’s Order Paper under “Business of the Day”. As the Leader of the House has said, the motion removes two exemptions that exist in paragraph 2 of chapter 4 of the guide to the rules, which means that Members will not be able to be paid for providing advice on public policy or current affairs, or general advice about how Parliament works. That is a broadly reasonable proposition that we are happy to support.
I have two questions asking for clarification, which perhaps she will address in her summing up. First, if a Member is pursuing a paid activity that is not specifically to do with offering advice of the kind mentioned—for example, they might be a lawyer or doing work with a trade union on a paid basis—and the thrust of the work is not to do with that sort of activity, but they briefly undertake activity that might fall into the definition, how would the Leader of the House view that? Is there an absolute and complete prohibition, or is there some sort of materiality test that she would expect the Standards Commissioner to apply? It would be useful if she could provide clarification from the Dispatch Box.
My second question was raised by a colleague. On occasion, Members may be paid for a party political position or a trade union position, in the course of which they might give advice. To give a specific example, it has been the case in the past that the chairman of the Conservative Party has been paid not as a Minister, but by the Conservative party. Would the new rule preclude that person, or indeed someone being paid by a trade union—probably on the Labour side—from offering the Conservative party or a trade union advice on public policy matters? I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could shed some light on how she envisages that working. Broadly, however, we support the changes and will not be opposing them—in the new spirit of cross-party working, which we are nervously embracing.
For complete clarity, it is worth mentioning that there is a third exemption in the rules that the Leader of the House did not refer to: limb (c) of the relevant provision, which is contained in paragraph 2 of chapter 4. Limb (c) allows Members of Parliament to be paid for making media appearances, journalism, writing books, and delivering public lectures and speeches. For the sake of complete clarity, it is worth saying that the motion before us does not make any changes to that third limb—the Leader of the House will tell me if I have got this wrong—so Members will continue to be able to be paid for those activities. She might just confirm that, but it seems a fairly clear consequence of the fact that only limbs (a) and (b) are being deleted, and not limb (c).
I will now move on to motion 5, on the Modernisation Committee, which appears on page 7 of the Order Paper. In principle, the Opposition will work constructively with the Leader of the House and her colleagues to achieve some of the objectives that she set out in her speech—we have no objection to the principle of the new Committee. Of course, we want to ensure that whatever proposals it brings forward are carefully scrutinised.
On holding the Government to account, there are lots of things about the way this House operates that are very important for Opposition parties big and small, but also for Back Benchers, including Government Back Benchers. I am sure that Labour Members have heard a bit about private Members’ Bills, which provide a really good opportunity for Back Benchers on both sides of the House to bring forward what are typically quite specific Bills to bring about a change that the Government might not have time to legislate for. Back Benchers can bring forward a Bill to do something that is important to them, and I think we all want to ensure that is protected.
Similarly, the Backbench Business Committee sets out the business for Thursdays. Government and Opposition Back Benchers can go before the Committee and organise a debate on a particular topic, which I did as a Back Bencher a few years ago. It is a really good way of making sure that an issue that matters to Back Benchers gets aired not in Westminster Hall or on the Committee corridor, but right here in the Chamber. I remember organising a debate on the persecution of Christians around the world, which would not necessarily have been debated on the Floor of the House; using that mechanism, it was debated.
Westminster Hall also provides a great opportunity to raise issues of concern to a Member or their constituency. Opposition day debates are very important as well, because they offer Opposition Members a chance to hold the Government to account. There are a whole load of areas that we want to ensure are protected for Government and Opposition Back Benchers, and for Opposition parties big and small. I am sure that it is not the Leader of the House’s intention to undermine the effectiveness of the existing mechanisms, but if they are considered by the Modernisation Committee, we will collectively need to ensure that the rights of Back-Bench Members of Parliament and Opposition parties are properly protected.
I want to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and those of my right hon. Friends, and I hope that the Leader of the House can offer some assurances that go beyond those she has given already. If she is able to offer such assurances, I will not move the amendments, but if her assurances are insufficiently robust, I will move the amendments and we will vote on them. I should tell Members that, typically, business of the House like this is not whipped. We will not be whipping Conservative Members, who are free to vote according to their conscience. I hope the Government are adopting the same approach and allowing Government Back Benchers to exercise their conscience. It is a long-standing tradition that the business of the House, which this is, is not whipped. We are each voting on the motion as individual Members of Parliament and not, I hope, according to a party political direction handed out by the Whips Office. That is the approach we are taking, and I hope it is the approach the Government are taking as well.
To be clear, the purpose of the amendments is not to impede or frustrate in any way the objectives that the Leader of the House set out in her speech, which we accept. In principle, we support them and will work constructively with her and her colleagues, but some concerns have been raised by my colleagues—some of whom may speak later—who have previously served on some of the Committees, such as the Committee on Standards. In the last Parliament, the Committee on Standards was chaired by the former Member for Peckham, Harriet Harman. She was the Mother of the House, and a very distinguished and highly respected Member for many years. The Committee has done a lot of work in this area, and it is quite complicated. The way that the standards regime operates is not straightforward, and the questions are complicated. When Harriet Harman chaired the Committee, she spent a lot of time thinking about this issue and published the report to which the Leader of the House referred.
Various existing Committees are relevant here, particularly the Procedure Committee, the Privileges Committee, the Standards Committee and the Administration Committee. They are all important Committees of the House and have all done important work in this area. They are all elected by the House, and at least one of them, the Standards Committee, has external members—I think one of them is a retired chief constable. The Committees have an element of independence, and I am concerned that the establishment of the Modernisation Committee might replace, cut across or in some way supersede or impede the work of the other House Committees, which are highly independent.
With the amendments, I have tried to make a couple of things clear, so I am looking for explicit assurances from the Leader of the House on the following points. The first assurance that I am looking for is that if the Modernisation Committee is going to consider a particular matter, it will consider all the previous work done by the four Committees that I have mentioned—the Procedure, Privileges, Standards and Administration Committees—and will commission the relevant underlying Committee to do a fresh report on the matter in hand and report up to the Modernisation Committee. I think that is what the Leader of the House has in mind, and it is what she said to me privately, if I understood her correctly, but I would be grateful if she could be explicit and make it clear on the record that that is how she intends it to work.
The second important assurance is that the views of the Speaker will always be sought and fully taken into account on matters that are relevant to the work of the Committee. The Speaker is elected by all of us— unanimously, as it happened—and his views and the views of the Deputy Speakers are important.
The third assurance is that matters that would ordinarily fall to the House of Commons Commission will not be usurped, as it were, by the Committee. The Leader of the House said to me previously that the functions of the House of Commons Commission are not defined, but they are in the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978.
In amendments (b) and (c), I propose that the Chairs of the Procedure, Privileges, Standards and Administration Committees be added to the Committee so that it has 18 members rather than 14. That would make sure that there is an opportunity for a smaller party to serve in that capacity and that the expertise of those Chairs comes directly to the Committee.
In addition, I propose that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards attends the Committee. They would not be a member, because they would have to be a Member of Parliament to be a member of a Select Committee, but an attendee or an observer, so that the commissioner could offer his or her opinion on the matters before the Committee, receive papers, and give other assistance as required.
All those amendments are designed to ensure that the existing Committees are properly taken into account and involved, and that their voice is heard, because they are important Committees with a lot of experience. If someone looks at some of these issues at first blush, such as second jobs, they might think that they are quite straightforward, but often they are not. There are all kinds of questions about people who have family businesses or a farm, or people who practise medicine or are doctors, that require careful thought. I do not want the work that has been done previously and that will be done in future to be lost.
I am asking the Leader of the House to give explicit assurances. In her opening speech, she gave general assurances that those Committees have a vital role, and that the Modernisation Committee would draw heavily on their work and not duplicate what they do, but I am asking for the specific assurances that I have just set out. If she can give all those assurances, or a substantial amount of them, I will not move the amendments, because I want to proceed in a spirit of cross-party harmony if at all possible. The Opposition stand ready to work constructively on these issues to ensure that Parliament’s reputation remains the highest of any Parliament anywhere in the world.
Chris Philp
Congratulations on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulated one of your colleagues at the beginning, so let me add my congratulations to you on your election to the Chair.
Let me start by saying a huge congratulations and well done to the Members on both sides making some very impressive maiden speeches today. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott)—I am struggling to see him in the Chamber—listed all the premier league grounds he intends to visit now that his team are in the premier league. He did not mention Selhurst Park, the home of Crystal Palace in the borough I represent in Parliament—an accidental omission, I am sure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) made an excellent maiden speech. I wish him good luck with the upcoming house move. He very wisely observed that he does not plan to place any political bets anytime soon. The hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) gave an excellent speech. He clearly brings to the House experience as a former chair of the Local Government Association. There is certainly no need for him to experience any imposter syndrome.
We heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), who spoke extremely eloquently about his constituency and the Edinburgh festival. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) about his support for the modernisation of Parliament and his commitment to public service here. We heard from the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis), who made an excellent and very eloquent speech. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) will clearly bring to bear her experience as a former deputy headteacher. The hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) has possibly one of the narrowest majorities in Parliament, which he will no doubt be valiantly defending. We also heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee).
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) paid fulsome tribute to the work of her predecessor, Andrew Stunell. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer) has already assumed ministerial office. In fact, I can see his red ministerial folder on his knees— a meteoric ascent. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) is apparently going to be the new Ed Sheeran of Parliament—that is what I took from his speech, anyway—and his mum is with us today. I did speak to a Labour Member whose mum was also here during her maiden speech a few days ago. Apparently, her mum fell asleep during the preceding speeches. You can take that how you will. [Laughter.]
Having congratulated new Members on their really brilliant maiden speeches, let me turn back to the substance before us. My hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) spoke eloquently about the importance of ensuring that we take on board the long expertise of the existing House Committees, in particular the Standards Committee, which the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) also referred to at the beginning from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. The Standards Committee is elected by the House, not appointed by Whips, as the new Committee will be, and has seven lay members who bring in external experience, including, as I said earlier, a retired chief constable and others who bring genuine independence and expertise. It is vital that we continue to draw on the independence and experience of the Standards Committee.
These are complicated issues. We heard from the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), winding up for the Liberal Democrats just a moment ago, how experience of practising medicine can help to enrich debates and inform the proceedings of the House, as Dan Poulter did when he was both a Member of Parliament and a practising doctor. Such considerations need to be carefully considered.
I am very much hoping—I might even go so far as to say “expecting”—that the Leader of the House will give the House some assurances in her winding-up speech. In particular, I seek assurances that the Procedure Committee, the Committee on Standards, the Committee of Privileges and the Administration Committee will always be invited to report to the Modernisation Committee on matters that it is due to consider; that the Speaker will always be consulted; that the work of the Modernisation Committee will not cut across what the House of Commons Commission does; and that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards will be invited to make submissions and give evidence where appropriate or necessary. If the Leader of the House can give strong enough such assurances about how the Committee will function, as well as an assurance that she will chair it on the basis of cross-party consensus, I am prepared not to move my amendments. I therefore wait with trembling and eager anticipation to hear what she says.
I am sure I speak for us all when I say that it is critical that we maintain standards at the very highest level here, to ensure that the public—our constituents—can have confidence in the work we do.
Lucy Powell
May I congratulate you on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on having already made good use of the parliamentary hairdressers? I hope that you will maintain that tradition.
I thank so many Members of this House for taking part in this debate. We have heard some excellent maiden speeches. My hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), for Telford (Shaun Davies), for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis), for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer), for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) and for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) all made excellent contributions. There is always a competition about who represents the very best constituency, but of course we all know that it is actually me.
Trust and dedication to constituencies, constituents and public service have been a common theme today. Substantive points have also been raised about the modernisation agenda, for which I am really grateful. The shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), raised several issues. I welcome his engagement, which I have sought over recent days; I discussed our proposals with him well in advance of tabling them.
The size of the Modernisation Committee, which is the subject of Opposition amendment (c), has been part of the conversation about representation across the House. The current proposal is to have 14 members; under the current algorithm, which is based on the make-up of the House, that will give nine places to the Government, three to the official Opposition and two to the third party. Expanding the Committee to 18 members would give 12 places to the Government party and three to the third party, but the official Opposition would still have three. I looked at all the numbers and I felt that having 14 members would give the fairest distribution among Government and Opposition parties. Going bigger still would not bring the smaller parties into the mix, which is why I have made a very firm commitment to have ongoing dialogue and meaningful engagement with them. If the numbers included Chairs of other Committees, the shadow Leader of the House might actually lose his place on the Committee, because the other Committee Chairs would take up the official Opposition places, so I ask him to think about the numbering.
The shadow Leader of the House asked about the Modernisation Committee’s relationship to other Committees. It is essential to be clear about this. I have been very clear that it will be a strategic, overarching Committee. It will not seek to duplicate any of the work of other Committees, which would be a waste of everybody’s time. Instead, it will work closely with those Committees, commission their work, seek their views, ask for their reports and their input and carefully consider their recommendations on all matters.
I see this as a sort of clearing house, a “task and finish” group that can more quickly bring recommendations from some of those Committees to the Floor of the House and take a strategic overview of how the different issues interrelate. The Standards Committee itself recommended that in its most recent report, in which it described the siloed and disjointed context in which we operate.
Chris Philp
The right hon. Lady’s comments are extremely welcome, but, for absolute clarity, can she confirm that when the new Modernisation Committee intends to consider a matter, it will first invite the relevant other Committee of the House to prepare a report and come back to the Modernisation Committee with it?
Lucy Powell
On the whole, yes; that is the intention and the hope. Some of those Committees do not yet have Chairs, but that is certainly the modus operandi for which we are hoping. We do not expect to be doing that work ourselves, or duplicating it.
The Standards Committee, which was raised earlier, has a completely distinct and different role because of the relationship with the lay members and with the Standards Commissioner. As I have said to the Leader of the House privately—I am sorry; I mean the shadow Leader of the House. [Laughter.] I am still getting used to this gig. As I have said to the shadow Leader, I sought the advice of the Standards Commissioner when considering how we would tighten the rules on paid advocacy, and I have followed his advice to the letter, because I think this is critical. The Standards Commissioner would not want to sit on the Committee because it would conflict with his role, but I see his role as being central to the drawing up of any further advice, because he has to police it—that is his job. I hope that satisfies the shadow Leader of the House.
The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and I have worked closely together, and I greatly value her input on these issues. I think that we largely agree on most of them. We do need to take forward the recommendations on the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme review, and that would be a first task for the Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) made an erudite speech, as usual, about trust and cleaning up politics, and I thank him for his contribution. That is very much what we are seeking to do. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) has done invaluable work on this matter in the past in his role as a member of the Standards Committee. As I have said, I am very conscious of the work that the lay members do and the need for that to play a separate role in this context, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the landscape review pointed clearly to the need for a more strategic, joined-up approach to some of these issues. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), as a newbie, presented some welcome ideas. She reflects the enthusiasm of many other newbies and, I think, the frustration of many of them as well.
I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) from outside the Chamber. I really do value her contribution to this debate, and I look forward to working with her. I would love to have her on the Committee, but I am hopeful that we can find a way for that ongoing relationship to be meaningful and regular, and that she will be able to contribute some of the ideas that she mentioned today in a more formal manner. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), in a very short space of time, gave some very good advice about the implications for safety and human resources on the estate, and she was right to do so. We did not hear many comments on second jobs, but I think we all agree that we need to take action in that regard, and I am glad to see the extent of the cross-party support for such action.
I hope we will not divide the House on these issues, because I think it important for us to stand together today. We have seen plenty of enthusiasm and support, and I hope that Members will now support the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, with effect from 25 October 2024, paragraph 2 of Chapter 4 of the Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members be amended to leave out:
“a) advice on public policy and current affairs;
b) advice in general terms about how Parliament works; and”.
Chris Philp
On the basis of the assurances given by the Leader of the House, I will not move the amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker
As amendment (b) has not been moved, I will not call amendments (c) and (d), but I will call amendment (e).
Chris Philp
On the basis of the Leader of the House’s assurances, I will not move the amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Business of the House
Chris Philp Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House update us on forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
The business for the remainder of the week will include:
Friday 19 July—Subject to the House agreeing the motion on today’s Order Paper, continuation of the debate on the King’s Speech on planning, greenbelt and rural affairs.
The business for the week commencing 22 July will include:
Monday 22 July—Continuation of the debate on the King’s Speech on the economy, welfare and public services.
Tuesday 23 July—Conclusion of the debate on the King’s Speech on immigration and home affairs.
Wednesday 24 July—Motion to approve the Global Combat Air Programme International Government Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2024, followed by a general debate on education and opportunity, followed by, at 7 pm, the House will be asked to agree estimates.
Thursday 25 July—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill, followed by a motion to approve the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods) Order 2024, followed by a debate on motions on second jobs for Members of Parliament and to establish a House of Commons modernisation committee.
Friday 26 July—General debate on making Britain a clean energy superpower.
The provisional business for the week commencing 29 July includes:
Monday 29 July—Second Reading of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill.
Tuesday 30 July—Second Reading of the Budget Responsibility Bill.
The House will rise for the summer recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 30 July and return on Monday 2 September. Subject to the progress of business, the House will then rise for the conference recess on Thursday 12 September and return on Monday 7 October.
Chris Philp
First, I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your unanimous re-election to the Chair and your triumphant victory in Chorley with 75% of the vote. Clearly we can all learn a great deal from you about how to win elections. I look forward to working with you and, I hope, learning from your very long experience of this House. Congratulations to all colleagues elected on 4 July, including those Opposition Members who had to work so hard to survive what was an electoral tsunami of biblical proportions. I especially congratulate those on both sides of the House who were elected for the first time. It is a huge honour to serve in this House.
My particular congratulations go to the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) on her appointment as Leader of the House. I hope that she has had the opportunity to practise wielding a sword for several hours and wearing an embroidered cape with panache; her predecessor, Penny Mordaunt, was an expert at doing both things. When looking at the Hansard of previous exchanges, I noticed that in the final business questions of the last Parliament, the shadow Leader of the House, as she was then, paid tribute to Penny’s renowned, formidable blow-dried haircut. I can only apologise to the House for my own short back and sides being nothing in comparison. I know colleagues on both sides of the House will miss Penny, wish her well and hope she returns here before too long. I thank the House staff and Clerks for their work welcoming new Members, and the Leader of the House for the collegiate approach she has taken in our private discussions so far.
However, of course these exchanges are an opportunity to raise questions about House business and the associated conduct of Government. Although the new Government are less than two weeks old, there are already some questions I would like to raise.
First, the Government have announced, with no reference at all to Parliament, that the Rwanda scheme—enabled by Bills that this House passed—has been scrapped. The scheme had been due to start next week, and would have provided a deterrent to illegal immigration across the channel. We have seen deterrents of that kind work elsewhere. Since this Government came into office, more than 1,000 people have illegally and dangerously crossed the channel, with four tragically dying. These crossings are unnecessary, France being safe. When will the Government come to the House to explain the change of policy, and will there be any votes on it?
Moving on, according to press reports the Energy Secretary decided last week to cancel all new applications for oil and gas licences in the North sea. If true, that will increase energy prices and make us more dependent on potentially unreliable foreign gas imports. Why did the Government not first come to the House to explain the new policy, and will there be a vote on it?
The Chancellor gave a speech last week on housing and planning, during which the Housing Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister simply sat and listened in rather uncharacteristic silence. The Chancellor announced that green-belt protections will be scrapped—or, as she euphemistically put it, the green belt will be rebranded as the grey belt. Renaming whole swathes of green belt as grey belt is a piece of shameless spin that would make even Peter Mandelson blush. When will the Government come to the House to explain their plans for the removal of green-belt protections?
The Chancellor also made some outlandish claims about the economy and public finances. The economy is in fact in fantastic condition. Inflation—[Interruption.] Yes, it is—Members should listen! Inflation is down to 2%, lower than in the eurozone and the United States. Wage growth, in contrast, is much higher at 6%. Unemployment is low, at half the level left behind by the previous Labour Government, and the UK’s economic growth so far this year is the highest in the G7.
I understand that the Chancellor might make a statement at some point to the House on these topics. Will the Leader of the House confirm that any claims about public finance made in this House will be accompanied by a full Office for Budget Responsibility forecast, so we can be sure that any such claims are not simply being concocted by the Chancellor as a pretext for tax rises?
Mr Speaker, I have listed several major policy announcements made in the past 10 days with no reference to Parliament at all. You quite rightly said to the previous Government on many occasions that major policy announcements should be made when Parliament is sitting and first to the House. I would welcome your assistance in ensuring that the new Government adhere to those principles. Finally, then, I ask the Leader of the House to make a commitment now that all major policy announcements will be made only when the House is sitting, as the Speaker previously requested, and first to this House of Commons, where elected Members from all parties can ask questions, including the 250 or so newly elected Labour Members, who I am sure want to ask questions as well. I would be very grateful if she would confirm that.
Mr Speaker
Order. I think the problem is that people’s comments ought to reflect their previous jobs as well. Maybe that comment is from knowledge about making statements outside the House. I do not know; I do not make any judgment. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that when the House is not sitting, of course statements will be made by the Government, but when the House is sitting, I expect them to be made in the House. That has been a very clear message and the Leader of the House and I are both working to ensure that statements are heard here first. I certainly take the point on board, but I do not want to be drawn into what we should or should not be doing in the future. I welcome the ability to clarify the position.
European Union (Withdrawal)
Chris Philp Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
For three long years, we have talked about, debated and voted repeatedly on Brexit in this House, and yet here we stand after three years not having reached any firm resolution. In supporting the motion before the House this evening, we would simply prolong even further the uncertainty that our country and our businesses are experiencing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) described in his excellent speech. We have a responsibility, having been elected in 2017 on manifestos to respect the referendum result, to do so, to stop prevaricating, to stop kicking the can down the road and, one way or another, to reach a definitive conclusion. The motion before the House does not do that. It simply prevaricates even further.
Some Opposition Members have been very clear about what they want, and I respect that. My neighbour, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) have both been clear previously and this evening that they would rather remain in the European Union and that they certainly do not want a no-deal exit. I disagree with that view, but at least they have clarity in expressing it. They also say that they do not want to leave with no deal, but those who adopt that view have only two choices: either to accept any deal that is offered up, no matter how bad, or to remain, and I do not think either of those options is acceptable. Remaining, when the country voted to leave and the main two parties were elected on manifestos to leave, is wholly unacceptable. There is only one sensible option, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst eloquently pointed out—
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question put accordingly.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)
Chris Philp Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House finds Ministers in contempt for their failure to comply with the requirements of the motion for return passed on 13 November 2018, to publish the final and full legal advice provided by the Attorney General to the Cabinet concerning the EU Withdrawal Agreement and the framework for the future relationship, and orders its immediate publication.
I move this motion in my name and in the names of the relevant spokespeople for the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats, the Democratic Unionist party, Plaid Cymru and the Green party.
The issue before the House on this motion is very simple: have the Government complied with the order made by this House on 13 November this year to publish the final and full legal advice by the Attorney General to the Cabinet concerning the EU withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship, yes or no? That order was binding. Mr Speaker, on 13 November I sought your advice on that issue and you ruled in the following terms:
“The ruling I give is simply that the motion is effective—I have been advised thus. It is not just an expression of the opinion of the House; it is an expression of the will of the House that certain documents should be provided to it.”—[Official Report, 13 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 236.]
Yesterday, the Government published a reasoned position paper. That was not legal advice. It simply described the deal: it was a synopsis; it was in the nature of an explainer—an explainer having already been published when the deal was published. It was a long way from legal advice. The Attorney General made a statement to the House and then answered questions, but the Government did not publish the full and final advice by the Attorney General to the Cabinet. That is the long and short of it. The Government are wilfully refusing to comply with a binding order of this House, and that is contempt.
Yesterday, the Attorney General as good as admitted it when he said:
“I wish that I could comply with the request of this House but if I did, I sincerely believe that it would not be in all of our interests.”
And slightly later he said:
“although the House says that I should disclose, I believe that the public interest compels me not to. I am sorry.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 534 and 564.]
That is a plea of mitigation; it is not a defence.
I make three points about the Government’s position. First, as the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) made clear yesterday, for the Attorney General to say that in his view it is not in the national interest is not good enough. The hon. Member for North East Somerset went on to say:
“When the Government lose a vote, they must follow the will of this House under an Humble Address, according to all precedent. It is no longer a matter for the Government to judge; it has been decided by this House, which is a higher authority.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 563.]
My second point is this: if the Attorney General feels so strongly about this matter that he is prepared now to put the Government in contempt of Parliament for refusing to comply with a binding order, why on earth did he not vote against the order in the first place, or anybody else on the Government Benches? That was not an oversight: the Government knew very well what was being asked for. The Attorney General must have known what was being debated and voted on. Yet it appears from answers given by the Attorney General yesterday that he was not asked before that vote for his view on the wisdom of not voting against the order, nor did he offer any advice, directly or indirectly.
Again I quote the Attorney General:
“I had no discussions with the Chief Whip on this subject. None was sought.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 569.]
I do not doubt the Attorney General’s word for a minute, but really—before that vote nobody asked the Attorney General’s views on the consequence of not opposing the order?
The truth is that the decision not to oppose the order was a political decision, taken by the Government because they feared they would lose the vote. They did not want the short-term humiliation of losing a vote, and the price of that was higher than voting against the order—and none of them did that. That is not the first time that has happened.
Keir Starmer
I will in a moment.
For months the Government have ignored Opposition day motions, and now their tactic has got them into very deep water indeed. The Government cannot now come to this House and say, “We took a political decision not to oppose the making of the order to publish the full and final legal advice by the Attorney General and then we took a decision not to comply with that order, but somehow we are not in contempt of Parliament.”
My third point is about the Government’s amendment in the name of the Leader of the House asking this House to refer the matter of whether the Government’s response fulfils the motion to the Privileges Committee. The short point is this: there is nothing to refer. A binding order was made and the Government are refusing to comply with it. The reality is that, yet again, by their amendment the Government are simply playing for time in the hope that this ends up in the long grass until the crucial vote is long gone.
So this motion is extremely important. It has huge constitutional and political significance. Bringing the motion is not something I have done lightly. [Interruption.] On the contrary—[Interruption.] On the contrary—[Interruption.] On the contrary—[Interruption.] On the contrary—[Interruption.]
Andrea Leadsom
I will not give way for a while.
The consequences of not following the principles of transparency on the one hand and safeguarding public interest on the other are obvious. The House could request, by way of a Humble Address, information that could compromise national security. It would mean releasing information with no method for the House itself to review or assess the information in question, before its full release into the public domain. It would not be possible under the Humble Address procedure to weigh up any potential consequences of such a disclosure. It is simply an irresponsible thing to do.
I turn to the present case concerning Law Officers’ advice. As the House is aware, this is the subject of very long standing conventions which are enshrined in the ministerial code, and recognised in “Erskine May”. First, without the authorisation of the Law Officers, the fact that—or indeed whether—their advice has been provided to Government should not be disclosed. Secondly, such advice must not be provided to those outside of Government without the Law Officers’ express authorisation.
The purpose of the conventions is to provide the best possible guarantee that Government business is conducted in the light of full and frank legal advice. This is a fundamental principle of the rule of law. If Government knew that they might be forced to disclose the advice that they had received, it could seriously compromise the sorts of request for advice that would be made, and totally impede the ability of the Law Officers and Government lawyers to provide it. In turn, that would seriously compromise good government.
The motion we are debating today would undermine these vital conventions, and it would do so through the blunt instrument of the Humble Address, an arcane parliamentary procedure which, until very recently, was last used in this way in the 19th century. Moreover, there is real doubt about the ambit of the procedure: as I said earlier, it contains no mechanism by which information can be reviewed to ensure that its disclosure would not seriously harm the public interest. In considering today’s motion, hon. Members must reflect carefully on this—and on the potential consequences not just for this Government, but for all future Governments.
As this House knows, the Government have worked extremely hard to comply with Humble Addresses that have been passed previously. We have also sought to do so in response to the case we are debating today, while at the same time, taking steps to protect the national interest. The conventions that I have spoken about stand and endure because they respect the proper balance between the Government and Parliament—and the principle that Ministers should be as open with Parliament as it is possible to be, provided that disclosure of information does not compromise the wider public interest. We chip away at them at our peril; today’s motion is not in the interests of Members and it is definitely not in the national interest. What we break now may be very difficult to fix later.
Chris Philp
The Leader of the House has been commenting on the use of the Humble Address mechanism to compel the disclosure of information. We were told by the Attorney General yesterday that this information would be prejudicial to the national interest. Is it not impossible to debate openly in this House whether that information should be disclosed without knowing what the information is? Would it not be more appropriate to make the decision in a confidential tribunal about what may and may not be disclosed, analogous to a judge making such a decision when a matter of disclosure arises in a court of law?
Andrea Leadsom
Again, my hon. Friend points out the problem, which is that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras’s motion seeks that all the information be placed in the public domain without anyone on either side of the House having the ability to consider whether it is in the national interest to do so.
I want to turn now to the contempt motion itself. We recognise that concerns have been raised as to whether the Government’s response meets the terms and spirit of the motion agreed on 13 November. We consider that the spirit and intent of that motion have been fully complied with. As I said earlier, the Government have now provided a 48-page paper setting out the legal effect of the withdrawal agreement, and the Attorney General came to the House yesterday. Anyone present in the Chamber for his statement and his subsequent responses to questions can be in absolutely no doubt that the Attorney General gave a full—[Interruption.]
Chris Bryant
I do not want to go back to 1340, as the hon. Gentleman did, and I am not going to. I prefer to cross my bridges one at a time. I am hopeful for all the good reasons that he himself adduced that, if the House for a second time decides to insist on its will, the Government will then comply. To be honest, if that were not to be the case, I hope other hon. Members who today are dubious about this procedure would want to stand in favour of more robust measures. The anxiety is of course that there is a time factor. We cannot let this roll on until after next Tuesday because then the Government would have completely defied the will of the House beyond the time necessary.
Chris Philp
A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman referred to having to implement the will of the House. Does he believe that there should be any limitation on the House’s ability to impose its will, for example, if it came into conflict with an individual’s personal or civil liberties?
Chris Bryant
In the debate that would transpire, I do not think that hon. Members would vote for such a motion. The hon. Gentleman asks me a hypothetical question, and we have been dealing with lots of hypotheticals. I have tried to search through history for a moment when the Government refused to abide by the will of the House when there was a Humble Address and I simply cannot find one. We should therefore deal with the actuality rather than the hypothetical. I say to Conservative Members that it is all very well when sitting on the Government Benches to say that the Government should have their way, but that does not normally serve the long-term interests of the nation, and in our current system, the Government have phenomenal power.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
At the heart of our debate today is a question of Parliament’s powers and prerogatives. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) laid out a simple and clear case at the beginning of the debate. He said that the House passed a motion on 13 November compelling the Government to do something and that the Government have not done it. He said that it proceeds simply from those two facts that Ministers are therefore in contempt. I say that that analysis is too simplistic and is lacking in nuance, and that it presupposes that Parliament’s power, generally, is unqualified and unconstrained.
Indeed, two Members have made that point explicitly in this debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) described Parliament’s power as untrammelled, and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is at the Bar of the House, also suggested that Parliament’s power is entirely without limitation. Without wishing to open up an enormous debate on those two points, I would suggest that those two assertions cannot be taken at face value as self-evidently the case.
For example, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights impose limitations on Acts of Parliament. Any Act of Parliament we pass must conform with human rights legislation and with the European convention on human rights, so there are limitations on what Parliament may do.
When I asked the hon. Member for Rhondda whether Parliament really has the right, for example, to trample on somebody’s personal liberty, he replied that Members of Parliament could be relied upon not to trample on people’s liberty in that way. Yet when one reads the great tracts on personal liberty, and particularly John Stuart Mill’s essay “On Liberty,” one sees that Mill urges that we should seek to protect individuals from what he describes as the “tyranny of the majority.” We need more than simply a reliance on good will to protect, for example, individual liberty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who is not in his place, also referred to the limitations on parliamentary authority by highlighting the distinction in the powers exercised by the Executive versus those exercised by Parliament as a legislature. There are all kinds of areas where the Government act with prerogative power and Parliament does not seek to usurp that power by essentially becoming the Government or becoming the Executive.
There are all kinds of areas where the limitations of parliamentary authority can, at the very least, properly be debated. The assertion that parliamentary authority is unlimited is not something one can take immediately at face value, attractive though it is to us as parliamentarians.
Of course, in no way do I wish to fetter Parliament’s ability to make its will felt. For example, our Select Committee colleagues were entirely within their rights to summon Mark Zuckerberg, and it is deplorable that the chief executive of such an influential company contemptuously refused to appear before a parliamentary Select Committee. I urge the Chairman of that Select Committee to use his good offices to compel Mark Zuckerberg to appear.
A question has repeatedly been posed by Opposition Members: “Why didn’t the Government oppose this motion when it was first put on 13 November?” I would suggest that the reason is that, in order to properly debate what parts of the legal advice might or might not be disclosed, the Government would have had to disclose the legal advice. We would have had to examine what the legal advice says before deciding what could or could not be disclosed. The very act of debating it would cause its disclosure, which is why when matters of disclosure arise in a court of law, they are decided by a judge in chambers, not in open court. The judge then decides what can be disclosed and what cannot be disclosed. No equivalent provision existed when the House debated this matter on 13 November; it would have been a case of disclosing everything and debating it openly, or disclosing nothing.
There is clearly a tension between Parliament’s desire to get disclosure and the desire of the Executive to protect the public interest. The question is: how do we balance those two competing considerations? A number of right hon. and hon. Members today have suggested that there are various appropriate forums in which that might occur, one of which, evidently, is the Privileges Committee or indeed some other Committee of the House. Such a Committee might, behind closed doors, look at the legal advice—
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Gentleman is talking complete nonsense with the idea that in order to vote against the motion on 13 November the Government would have had to disclose the evidence in that debate. Is it not a fact that the reason why they did not oppose that vote is that they would have lost it?
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman is engaging in speculation. The fact is that when matters of public disclosure are considered in other environments, for example, a court of law, an independent person, in this case a judge, in chambers, in private, decides what might publicly—
Chris Philp
I must conclude, because Mr Speaker wishes to move on with the business. That independent person decides what gets publicly disclosed. No such device or mechanism was available to this House on 13 November and it strikes me that the Privileges Committee is a suitable forum in which the balance between the desire for disclosure and the public interest can be struck, and it is appropriate that that balance is struck in private. I will therefore be supporting the amendment. I know that you wish to move on, Mr Speaker, so I will conclude my remarks there.
Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions
Chris Philp Excerpts(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who was unusually succinct.
I will concentrate my comments on the question of money resolutions, which is the topic of this Standing Order No. 24 debate. I must say that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) put this very well. The nub of this question is whether the right to initiate public expenditure should sit with the House as a whole or with the Government. By requiring Government consent before a money resolution is tabled, we are in effect saying that it is the prerogative of the Government to initiate public expenditure, not the prerogative of the House as the whole. It is the role of the House as a whole to consent to expenditure, but not to initiate it.
The reason for that is twofold. The first reason why it is important to do it that way is that the Government, in their general duties, have to balance the demands of spending and raising taxes. If the House as a whole seeks to introduce measures that require significant expenditure without at the same time raising the revenue to do so, we quite quickly head towards national bankruptcy. That is why we have a Budget each year in which the Government, with an even hand, balance those things. If we simply allowed the House as a whole to initiate unfunded expenditure, we would rapidly go bust.
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman makes a very compelling case for voting against a money resolution, but does he understand that that is not an argument for not tabling a money resolution?
Chris Philp
Perhaps I should elaborate further on the distinction I was drawing about the power to initiate expenditure. The Government rightly have the power to initiate debates and votes on expenditure. In this case, the Government are choosing—this may change, but at the moment they are choosing—not to do so.
The second reason why it is reasonable for the Government rather than the House as a whole to have the power to initiate significant expenditure is that if the House as a whole took that power on itself, the House as a whole would in effect become the Government or the Executive, and rather than having a system of Cabinet Government, the whole House would in effect become the Cabinet and the established system of Government would fundamentally cease to exist. Although this seems like quite an arcane point, there is in fact a profound constitutional principle underpinning it. The whole role of Parliament would fundamentally alter if we took the step being contemplated.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman is in effect saying that a Member who is successful in the private Members’ Bills ballot should go to the Government to see whether they will give it their approval before progressing with the Bill. Is that what we should do?
Chris Philp
No, that is not what we should do. I am specifically referring to the expenditure of significant amounts of money that requires budgetary balance—a discipline Labour Members may well want to reflect on.
The right hon. Member for North Durham listed a number of private Members’ Bills over the years, some of which have been very significant, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean pointed out in an intervention, almost all—in fact, all—of the private Members’ Bills that were listed did not require significant expenditure. The distinction I draw is about initiating expenditure and the balance between the Executive and the legislature.
Mr Kevan Jones
That is fine, but will we then get a situation in which, when someone initiates a private Member’s Bill, we get into a debate not about whether it needs a money resolution, but whether it needs what is deemed to be a significant amount of expenditure? As we all know, what is significant in the eyes of one person is different from what is significant in the eyes of others.
Chris Philp
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the expenditure in this case—I think it is some £13 million—is insignificant; that money would pay for 300 nurses. If Labour Members are seeking to advance the argument that £13 million of our constituents’ money is insignificant, I think they are sorely mistaken. If that is their attitude, it perhaps explains why the deficit they bequeathed us in 2010 was quite so large.
To move on to the process, the Government are taking quite a sensible view by saying that they will wait and see when it comes to the money resolution for this private Member’s Bill, because we have an active process that is currently running and on which considerable time and money have already been expended. There will be a report to the Government and also to the House in a matter of three or four months, and to have two separate processes cutting across and indeed contradicting each other before the House has reached a decision on the first process strikes me as duplicative and wasteful. It is therefore quite reasonable to wait for three or four months—it is not very long: a matter of a few weeks—before deciding how to proceed.
The House itself will reach a decision about the proposed boundaries with 600 constituencies in the month of October, and having waited seven or eight years we can quite comfortably wait until then. At that point, we will of course have a debate about the Boundary Commission proposals, and the fact that the Government are prepared to wait and see with regard to this private Member’s Bill until then hints at some degree of open-mindedness about the outcome of whether we are equalising at 600 or 650 constituencies. That open-mindedness actually shows respect for the House because the Government are saying that they will listen to the House’s opinion in a few months’ time. There are of course good arguments on both sides—in favour of 600 and in favour of 650. The arguments in favour of 600, of course, relate to reducing the cost of and having a more manageable House, but there are clearly good arguments in favour of 650, not least—
Chris Philp
I want to conclude, as other Members want to speak.
Not least among the arguments for 650 is the fact that we in this House will have more work to do when powers return from the European Parliament, where they are currently exercised. We will have that debate in due course.
The Government are being pragmatic and sensible by keeping the door open for this private Member’s Bill until the House makes its decision known. On the fundamental constitutional principle of who initiates expenditure and whether this House acts as a legislature or as an Executive, I think the Government and the Leader of the House are quite right and she enjoys my enthusiastic and unqualified support.