Speaker’s Statement

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Before you reflect on this, I acknowledge that we have known each other for over 30 years—in many ways our personal political lives seem to have gone off in very different directions in the course of that time—and I acknowledge the kind remarks you made to me on another occasion outside this House last week, but I am one of the Members who have formally recorded my anxiety about your partiality in the Chair, and I think the right way to do that is to do it formally.

Having done that, like my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), and having noted the narrow terms in which you gave your ruling today, I think those terms in your coming to your judgment are reasonable. However, would our knowing what the response is to the letter imposed on the Government by this House to request an extension be a sufficient change of circumstances for you to reconsider the conclusions you have come to today?

[Mr Speaker]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, repetition is not a novel phenomenon in the House of Commons, including when perpetrated by me. I have made the point often—forgive me, but I make it again—that I tend to subscribe to the dictum of the late Lord Whitelaw in these matters. He famously used to say, “Personally, I think it is better to cross bridges only when I come to them”. It is a hypothetical question, and I would have to reflect on it and make a judgment in the circumstances of the time.

I do not want to fall out with the hon. Gentleman, and I appreciate his courteous opening remarks. He will not be surprised to know that, although I absolutely defend his right to his opinion, I do not accept his characterisation of my speakership. I have tried to do the right thing by Parliament. Sometimes people like it when it goes their way and sometimes they do not when it does not, but that is my honest approach. If he disapproves of it, I am sorry about that, because I have known him a long time, but I will live with that. I do not mean that in any discourteous or patronising way, but I will live with that. It is one verdict, and there will be others. However, I have made the judgment I have made, and let us wait and see how events develop.

European Union (Withdrawal)

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt]

If my right hon. Friend recalls, the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on no deal two weeks before we gave notice under article 50, which was unanimously agreed across a Committee wholly split on the merits of the issue, concluded that the damage that would be done by the failure to get an agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union would be greater for the European Union in material terms, but greater for the United Kingdom in proportionate terms. However, the absolute damage being represented on the other side is at stake, so his negotiation—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is very selfish if an intervention is so long as to prevent other people from getting in.

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Blunt, having heard you—it was rather unwelcome—from your seat, perhaps we can now hear you on your feet.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I rather suspect that given all the enthusiasm that Brenda of Bristol had for the last general election, the prospect of an extension of this debate for several months will be received with dismay by the country. However, underneath that dismay is massive uncertainty. There is a real price for extending this debate, and I urge my right hon. Friend to stick to her guns and make sure that there is a choice between her deal and leaving to World Trade Organisation terms. That is the choice that the European Union faces, which hopefully will bring it to end the backstop, and that is the choice that the Labour party should face as well.

Points of Order

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for what she has said. I do not know whether there is any precedent for such advice having been issued, but my understanding is that it has not previously been issued. I said what I did in response to an earlier point of order on the basis, once more, of clerkly advice. I know that the Clerk would concur with that view, as I do.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This year will be 30 years since we first met in the final of the competition to be selected for Bristol South, and both of us have been on something of a journey since then. When you were elected as Speaker, you said you would serve for nine years. There has been the controversy of the recommendations of the Dame Laura Cox inquiry into the House of Commons, and you have been defended, particularly by two right hon. Opposition Members, on the importance of your being sustained in position beyond the nine years in order to oversee the discussions and denouement of the Brexit issue.

The uncomfortable conclusion, Mr Speaker, given the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and the implications of the precedent that you have set with this ruling today, is that many of us will now have an unshakeable conviction that the referee of our affairs, not least because you made public your opinion and your vote on the issue of Brexit, is no longer neutral. I just invite you to reflect on the conclusion that many of us inevitably will have come to.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of view. He is quite right that we met, I think, in the anteroom of the Bristol Conservative Association headquarters at 5 Westfield Park, Redland, Bristol in July 1989, so we have known each other for a long time and I take in a perfectly good spirit what the hon. Gentleman has said.

I have explained in response to previous points of order and adduced evidence in support of my argument, including that proffered by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), that I have always done my conscientious best to champion the rights of Members wishing to push their particular point of view on a range of issues and, perhaps most strikingly, on this issue. That is what the record shows. I have always been scrupulously fair to Brexiteers and remainers alike, as I have always been to people of different opinions on a miscellany of other issues. That has been the case, it is the case and it will continue to be the case.

As for the other point that the hon. Gentleman made, he will know that I was re-elected unanimously by this House on, I think, 13 June 2017, for the Parliament. If I have a statement on that matter to make, I would of course make it to the House first. I think that most people would accept that that is entirely reasonable.

Pairing

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Monday 23rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Well, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) does not exactly look heart-warmed by the prospect that redemption awaits him.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

It would be frightfully good for him.

[Mr Speaker]

Good for him? Well, that’s a divisible proposition.

LGBT Action Plan

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Some of us have come quite a long way since 1997, and that also applies to the position of my party, of which I am now inordinately proud because of the 75 recommendations in the action plan and because of the way in which the survey has thrown up the prevalence of the trans issue. The number of trans people who took part in the survey clearly makes it entirely appropriate for us to make this issue a priority. Mr Speaker, I know that as president of the Kaleidoscope Trust you will be delighted with the balance of resources going into the Commonwealth and internationally from my right hon. Friend’s Department to enable our missions to directly support the groups and the very brave people who are fighting for the changes in their society that have been achieved over the past five or six decades here.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman understands me well, and I thank him for that gratuitous reference.

Yemen

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Monday 11th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Along with the rest of the UN Security Council, we are unanimously on the side of the Saudi-led coalition, which is trying to bring order to Yemen in the face of the Houthi rebellion. As we have heard from the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Yemen, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the port accounts for 70% to 80% of the imports into Yemen. Surely, our policy should be to aid the coalition we are supporting to take control of the port and the access into Yemen.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are short of time, and I have tried to make the point that if people asked short questions and got short answers, we would get through everybody.

Heathrow

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind the House that there is another urgent question to follow. After that we have the business question and then two moderately well-subscribed Backbench Business Committee debates, so there is a premium on brevity. What I am looking for is not preambles, but single sentence—preferably short sentence—inquiries, to be exhibited in the first instance by the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt).

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend the Minister as astonished as I am that as distinguished a lawyer as the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), could advance an argument that is so utterly threadbare in respect of the rather limited defence this agreement gives to Heathrow airport and its private investor supporters if the Government change their policy?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

No, no. No further point is required. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Let me say to the House this: I have been advised by the Secretary of State for Transport, who beetled up to the Chair to catch a word with me during Prime Minister’s questions, that the statement is commercially sensitive. I have no reason to seek to gainsay the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether it is, but no doubt it has such an element. It is regrettable if there is not very substantial notice for the Opposition. [Interruption.] Order. I am dealing with the matter. I do not need any help from the Secretary of State. I am advised that the Opposition did in the end have approximately half an hour’s notice of this statement, and I am happy to hear from the Secretary of State if he wants to respond to the point of order.

On the point about the making of Government statements on Opposition days, this is by no means unprecedented, including under previous Governments. However, if I may say so—and I will—it is highly undesirable for there to be statements on very substantial public policy matters, in which the House will doubtless be interested, on an Opposition day. One looks to people traditionally with responsibility for safeguarding the rights of the House, of whom the Chair is one, but not the only one, to take these matters very seriously. This is an undesirable state of affairs, and if it were to happen on further occasions, a great many hon. and right hon. Members, not to mention interested parties in the Opposition day debates outside the Chamber, would view it, frankly, as an abuse. I hope that that message is heard loudly and clearly on the Government Front Bench, at the highest level, by the people in particular by whom it needs to be heard. If I have to make the point again on future occasions, and to use the powers of the Chair to facilitate the rights of this House in other ways, no matter what flak emanates from the Executive, I will do so in the future, as I have always done over the past nine years, and no one and nothing will stop me doing my duty by the House of Commons.

If the Secretary of State wants to respond to the point of order, he is very welcome to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

Very well. I will indulge the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt).

[Crispin Blunt]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Seven minutes ago, The Guardian’s “Politics live” with Andrew Sparrow said:

“East coast rail franchise to be brought back under public control.”

It appears that someone has broken an embargo, or something has gone wrong, because I guess that that is what the Secretary of State’s statement is to be about. Will you put investigations in place to find out why that statement has been made before we have had the opportunity to listen to it from the Secretary of State?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I respect his sincerity, but it is not for me to initiate inquiries on this matter. I say two things to the hon. Gentleman whose point I otherwise take very seriously. First, let us see what is in the statement, and whether in fact there has been a leak. Secondly, were it to transpire that there had been, that would be a matter to be laid squarely at the door of the Department whose statement it is, and it would be incumbent on the Secretary of State in those circumstances to initiate any such inquiry. At this point, we should hear the statement. I thank the Secretary of State for approaching the Dispatch Box to deliver it.

Military Action Overseas: Parliamentary Approval

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

In making my contribution towards the end of this debate, I want to reflect particularly on the speeches that were made from the Government Benches at the beginning. My hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) and for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) brought us back to the fundamentals of parliamentary accountability. Parliament controls the laws, supply and confidence over the Executive. Through those mechanisms, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset made clear, we have the ability to hold the Government firmly to account.

The history of the Armed Forces Act 2006 and, underneath that, the evolution of convention regarding Governments coming to Parliament and our flexible constitution have brought us to the place where we now have the expected accountability of Governments coming to Parliament in order to seek authorisation for specific military actions. But this is merely convention. If we examine the occasions on which the Government have come to this House to seek parliamentary authority in order to reinforce their prerogative powers, we find that they have happened because of the political situation and the Government’s assessment of what they need to reinforce their authority. In 2003, the then Labour Government and Tony Blair had a minority of support from their Back Benchers for the proposed action in Iraq. That made it necessary for the then Government to seek parliamentary authority to reinforce their political position.

Regarding the authorisation that Parliament gave to the Government of the day, I sat on the Opposition Benches during that debate, listening to the then Prime Minister make his argument, thinking that it was a bizarre state of affairs. My former colleagues in the armed forces were on the start line, in the final stages of their battle procedure before they conducted the invasion of Iraq, in which the British armed forces were responsible for about a third of the frontline with our American allies. It struck me as extraordinary that we were having a two-day debate in Parliament that was ending at about 10 o’clock or midnight, about six hours before that operation was due to commence, and that Parliament was going to say yes or no to that operation. On those grounds alone, I thought that it would be irresponsible to my former colleagues for us to suddenly say, “No, you’ve got to stop guys. We have decided that it’s the wrong thing to do.”

As we now know from history, it probably would have been better had we said no. But we should have been saying no infinitely earlier than the immediate military commencement of a major strategic operation like that. We know that Tony Blair gave his commitment to President Bush in April 2002. We know that our military were being instructed to make plans for the invasion of Iraq and to be part of that operation from the summer of 2002. This is where Parliament and the conventions that we have appeared to have established collide with military and operational reality.

I am in total agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) about the circumstances under which one seeks parliamentary approval for operations of the kind that we saw last week. He and I jointly authored a pamphlet, which every colleague in the House received in July last year, on how Britain should respond to chemical weapons attacks in Syria. Our answer to the parliamentary problem that the Government faced was some kind of pre-authorisation motion, so we would have had a debate about the circumstances that the Government faced last week and they would have then been able to act within authority that had been given by Parliament for the kind of action involved. Indeed, that parliamentary approval itself might have acted as a form of deterrent, with the Syrian Government then knowing that they would face action involving the British armed forces in response to the kind of situation that the Americans had already reacted to before.

All this involves the development of a convention about the Government coming to this House. I do not think that a war powers Act is the appropriate answer. As my hon. Friends have made clear, this House does have the essential elements of control over the Executive—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will call the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on condition that he sits down at 3.53 pm—the start thereof, no later. Is that agreed? It is agreed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Would there be an answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question on the industrial estate if any new prison fully incorporated the work of ONE3ONE Solutions, which was designed more than six years ago to increase the productive and commercial output of prisoners? The numbers given by the Justice Secretary just now suggest that we have not made much progress in the number of prisoners who are working. Will any new prison include ONE3ONE Solutions, and how are we getting on with prisoners working overall?

[Mr Speaker]

Particularly if any prospect of their working is in Port Talbot, upon which the question is focused.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

May I take my right hon. Friend back to the question from the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire)? Quite apart from commending the quality of the BBC programme she mentioned, may I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that global policy on drugs prohibition is beginning to change, in the face of the evidential failure of the policy since the 1961 UN single convention on narcotic drugs? Will she look at the evidence that will emerge from the United States and Canada on the legalisation and regulation of cannabis markets there, as well as decriminalisation in Portugal and elsewhere—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have heard the gravamen of the hon. Gentleman’s inquiry. We are a little clearer now and are immensely grateful.

[Crispin Blunt]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That was quite enough. We are very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Single sentence questions are really what is required.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Earlier, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) referred to evidence that Lord Hague gave to the House of Lords EU External Affairs Sub-Committee about the European defence arrangements after Brexit. He said that the best proposal was a paper written by the former Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Has my right hon. Friend seen that paper or would he like to?

Airport Capacity and Airspace Policy

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I thought that one Member who was seeking to catch my eye had exited the Chamber at one point during the statement, but it might be that I was experiencing an optical illusion.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), I should like to point out that the lethal combination of the new technology, the much more precise flight paths and the Government’s current policy of concentration rather than dispersal will lead to a disaster for the people who are right underneath those routes. It should be possible to use the new technology to create an artificial degree of dispersal, as happened before under the analogue systems. Will my right hon. Friend advance on this consultation with the knowledge that this is a very important issue to address for many of our constituents?

The Government's Plan for Brexit

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I am fascinated by the focus on the plan and the amount of work that the hon. and learned Gentleman will invite the OBR to do. He does understand, surely, that no plan survives engagement with the enemy. [Interruption.] That is a military metaphor from assaults. Our negotiating hand is clear, and it is clear that it is not compatible with the position taken by our 27 partners. This will all change in the course of the negotiations, and we will have to leave it to the Government to make those decisions.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is an illustrious Member of the House as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but even so the intervention was too long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Crispin Blunt]

My right hon. and learned Friend is, of course, absolutely right. We have to try to take the temperature down, which is why people should not exploit it when I may have said something inadvertently and I was actually saying something totally different. We are talking about our allies—most of them allies within NATO—and, in the words of the Foreign Secretary, we need to be a “flying buttress” to the future of the European Union from the outside. One reason I supported Brexit is my belief that the UK will have a much happier relationship with the nations of the EU by being outside and having engaged their support, rather than by having to fight battles as our interests diverge from those of the states that had the currency. We could see that that was going to happen over the decades. Our country has taken this decision in its medium and long-term interests, and it should be seen in that guise. It is on the other side of the table that the principal negotiating challenge sits, as the 27 nations have to reconcile all this. My right hon. and learned Friend may say that the interpretation of positions from here is difficult, but Mr Barnier and Chancellor Merkel made a mistake in rejecting the reciprocal arrangement to try to address the situation of EU citizens here and UK citizens there, and in saying that nothing must be agreed until everything is agreed. That has played into the British position, which is helpful, as we have very much to offer the EU and it needs—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

Counter-Daesh Campaign: Iraq and Syria

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is an extremely important and sensitive matter, but may I just point out to the House that there are several Members on both sides of the House who entered the Chamber after the Foreign Secretary began his statement, but who apparently, in defiance of all convention, expect to be called, which they should not? Although this is incredibly important, we have important further business to which to proceed, so I appeal to Members to please ask brief, single-sentence supplementary questions without preamble no matter how elevated their status in the House. I call Mr Crispin Blunt.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Is the Foreign Secretary satisfied that he has resources in the stabilisation unit in the United Kingdom and the stabilisation forces in the United Nations that are adequate to the task in Mosul? Will he give us his assessment of what is going on between Turkey and Iraq—the war of words between those leaders and the massing of Turkish armour on the borders of, and indeed in, Iraq?

Standing Orders and Select Committees

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

The Leader of the House has just told us that we have been without Select Committees to oversee international trade and Brexit. As Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, I take some mild exception to that remark, because the Foreign Affairs Committee, along with a number of other Select Committees, has been working on Brexit. Indeed, on 26 April, we produced a unanimous report on the implications of whether the United Kingdom chose to stay or leave the European Union. With a Committee split down the middle, that was a remarkable piece of work, and I hope that it served to give Members a definitively unbiased account to present to their constituents before the referendum. Subsequent to the referendum, we produced a further report, in which we were particularly critical of the Government’s failure—indeed, their instruction to Departments to do no contingency planning at all in the event that the country voted to leave the EU.

I wrote to the Government Chief Whip on 30 August and copied the letter to the Leader of the House, the Clerk of the House and the Clerk of Committees to make clear my unease about the discussion then going on about the formation of a Select Committee to oversee the Department for Exiting the European Union. I would like to take this opportunity to put my concerns on the record, as I suspect that such a Committee is likely to be set up, given the arrangements that have been made. I want what I might call the gypsy’s warning about how the Committee might work to be on the record.

Our departure from the EU will generate unprecedented constitutional, political and economic challenges that will affect every Department and almost all aspects of Government policy. Effective scrutiny of this process and the new Department tasked with managing it should require a made-to-measure response from the House. That response should have been to prioritise flexibility, adaptability and cost-effectiveness. I believe that what we are presented with this evening is a mistake in setting up a classic departmental Select Committee to oversee what is in a sense a project that is being organised through a Department of State but that is in the end a time-limited project that will almost certainly come to a conclusion by the end of March 2019.

The Department for Exiting the European Union is unlike any other Department. It will not originate or develop any discrete domestic policy area, and as I said, its task is time-limited. Overseeing it with a discrete Select Committee will ensure that the House is probably about six months behind the Department. No doubt, the Committee will produce reports on the Department after it has ceased to exist. The Department’s website says that it will be

“responsible for policy work to support United Kingdom negotiations”,

but in practice, existing Departments will have key roles in setting policy aims for when we leave the EU and be involved in the planning of how we achieve them.

The role of the Department for Exiting the European Union will be to oversee those negotiations and to ensure consistency and coherence across the Government. We already have existing Select Committees that have the understanding and expertise needed to hold Departments to account for their progress in preparing for Brexit. Several Committees have already launched Brexit-based inquiries, building on work conducted in advance of the referendum. Scrutiny of the Department’s oversight and cross-Government co-ordination role would in these circumstances fall rather more naturally to the Liaison Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Select Committees could also, of course, work alongside one another, pooling resources and expertise.

There are also the resources available through the European Scrutiny Committee, which could adapt its role to go beyond simply examining European Union documents, but the House will badly need its expertise when examining the future regulatory framework beyond Brexit; that will present significant opportunities for Parliament, given the inevitable lack of clarity on what will apply in advance of the negotiations.

The Foreign Affairs Committee already oversees the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and its budget and programme, but given the very close relationship between the FCO and the people staffing the Department for Exiting the European Union, there is no reason why the Foreign Affairs Committee could not also oversee that Department’s budget and resources. Indeed, it is almost certain that when the Department for Exiting the European Union ends, most of its people will be reunited with the Department that they came from: the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Given the likely impact, in the short and long term, on the FCO, it would make perfect sense for the Foreign Affairs Committee to take this work.

Of course, prior to the referendum, my Committee proved itself to be balanced in its assessment of the United Kingdom’s options. Any new Committee that we set up is likely to be highly partisan on the subject of Brexit, and whether this will lend itself to effective scrutiny, rather than conflict with the Government’s stated policy on Brexit, is frankly open to doubt. Setting up a special Select Committee with 21 members, rather than the normal 11, with the costs that involves, in terms of staff and member time, also disturbs the balance in the allocation of Committee chairmanships between the parties. I am aware that the resources available to my Committee are likely to be significantly reduced in order to service this new Select Committee.

The fundamental question that the House ought to address is whether the new Committee will improve our scrutiny, or instead duplicate the work of existing Committees, as was suggested by a senior figure at the Institute for Government. The new Committee will impose an extra layer of demands on the already hard-pressed Ministers in the Department for Exiting the European Union and their officials. My view, shared by the European Union Committee in the other place in its first report of this Session, is that the existing structures of the House would serve us best.

As I acknowledged at the beginning of my remarks, I suspect that I am in a significant minority, so I do not intend to press this matter, unless I suddenly find that my arguments have surprisingly convinced a majority of those present. I invite my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to explain to me and the House why the concerns that I have expressed will not come to pass, and how we can ensure that this new Select Committee, despite my concerns, will be able to work in a way that does not bring it into automatic conflict with the Government, rather than being an exercise of oversight, or into conflict with existing Select Committees of the House.

[Mr Speaker]

We are debating this motion separately. If the Leader of the House wants to respond briefly to the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), he is of course welcome to do so.

Points of Order

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I would prefer to save the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) as a specialist delicacy of the House. We will come to him in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady has made the best case she can, and I thank her for that.

[Crispin Blunt]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is pursuant to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) yesterday. There has been a further development, increasing the seriousness of it, which you acknowledged yesterday. On Monday, The Guardian reported the central recommendation of a draft report being put to the Committees on Arms Export Controls. The meeting to consider this was held yesterday in private. On Tuesday, “Newsnight” produced exerts of the text of the draft report, and that was the excepts subject of the hon. Gentleman’s point of order.

Yesterday, the Committees met and resolved to report the matter to the Liaison Committee. As I understand our procedures, the Liaison Committee will have to consider the matter and decide whether it should be referred to the Privileges Committee, which would then have to decide whether and how to pursue this matter. Subsequently, last night, “Newsnight” reported extracts of the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) and me, which can only have come from the consolidated list of amendments circulated to members of the Committees on Tuesday.

Separately, Patrick Wintour in The Guardian today—this was put online at 00.01—reported the number of amendments we had tabled to the report, a fact which was not reported on “Newsnight”. “Newsnight” chose to contextualise the amendments tabled by the right hon. Gentleman and me in the light of our previous membership of the all-party group on Saudi Arabia, work I did in the middle east 12 years ago and the right hon. Gentleman’s record of supporting employment provided by the British defence industry. “Newsnight” emphasised that none of this was improper,

“but it gives you a sense of where people stand”.

In parallel, members of the Committees received between 1,500 and 2,000 emails on Tuesday and overnight, which appear to have been organised on someone’s behalf by Avaaz, a self-styled global citizens movement, which was aware that the Committees were meeting to consider this issue. The right hon. Gentleman believes one of them was from a constituent, but my office did not identify any constituents before it called the organisation to invite it to desist.

Mr Speaker, this amounts to a prima facie case of a deliberate campaign to influence a Select Committee, relying on in-confidence information provided by a Member of this House or their staff. Conceivably, the information could have come from Committee staff, but I think you would agree that that is highly unlikely. I cannot recall an example of such deliberate and repeated leaking of information in our time in the House.

Will you confirm, Mr Speaker, that it would not be open to the Privileges Committee, if this is referred to it, to call in the police, as this is not a criminal matter, but that it would be able to call on the services of private investigators? They would have the capacity to interrogate the electronic records, including deleted emails, relating to potential sources for this confidential and private consideration by Committees of matters, in this instance, of the greatest seriousness, involving life and death issues and the employment of tens of thousands of our fellow citizens. Will you encourage the Liaison Committee to consider this as a matter of urgency, and confirm your view of the seriousness of this attempt to undermine the work of Select Committees?

EU Council

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree with the unanimous view of the Foreign Affairs Committee that the construction of article 50 means that it is perfectly likely that there will be no agreement on the other side of the negotiations, which will require qualified majority voting, or agreement in the European Parliament at the end of the two years? As such, we would still have access to the single market but would be subject to World Trade Organisation most-favoured-nation terms. Since that would mean no free movement of people and no payments into the budget, that would represent a perfectly sound bottom line for the United Kingdom in the negotiations. It is likely that other advances will be made on that before we arrive at a deeper, comprehensive free trade agreement.

Will the Prime Minister also tell us about the fate of the British presidency next year? We will still be a full member, so are we going to take up our responsibilities?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman must practice. We will be hearing from him regularly given the illustrious position that he holds, but I am afraid he must be briefer than that.

Junior Doctors’ Contract Negotiations

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Monday 8th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that nobody who toddled into the Chamber after the urgent question started would expect to be called. That would be quite out of keeping with our parliamentary traditions. I think I need say no more.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I wonder whether the Minister can help me. The messaging I have heard from the BMA is that the dispute is nothing to do with pay. We have heard the issue described as a “nut” by the shadow Secretary of State, yet it has led to a national strike for the first time in 40 years and we face industrial action again. What is going on here?

Business of the House

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Thursday 17th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

May we have a debate in Government time on the airport commission’s report, particularly in the light of the shambolic performance last week with the non-decision and the manner of its non-announcement to this House, to discuss the unanimous conclusions of the five commissioners that Heathrow was the right site for a new runway? Can the terms of that debate be set widely enough to include consideration of the extraordinary proposition from Gatwick that it can put five times as many passengers up the Brighton main line, particularly in the light of Southern Rail’s performance in the past week?

Let me repeat a tweet from my constituent Jonathan Freeman, managing director of a Prince of Wales charity, who was travelling to work. He wrote:

“Really @SouthernRailUK?!Again?!Are you on some sort of sponsored screw up?”

We realise how desperate the situation is, when he says:

“CrispinBluntMP-you are our only hope!”

[Mr Speaker]

The situation was clearly deeply wretched. I think we are in danger of getting into the detail of the policy. As reference was made earlier to the fact that there was no statement on the day in question—on the Thursday—I should just say that it was a very regrettable state of affairs. The Secretary of State did deliver a statement on the Monday, and there can be no doubt that a Minister was going to have to appear at that Dispatch Box either to deliver a statement or to respond to an urgent question, as the Leader of the House knows. In future, rather than delivering the statement belatedly when it was going to have to be delivered, it should be delivered on time, as courtesy to the House of Commons requires.

Points of Order

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, of which I have given notice to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who, on 3 November, following publication of the second report by the Foreign Affairs Committee, tweeted:

“Read the FAC report on UK involvement in Syria: role of ctte is to scrutinise current government policy—not set conditions on any future policy.”

Standing Order No. 152 says that Select Committees are

“appointed to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of…government departments”.

How they do that is up to them. The Liaison Committee said in its second report of the Session 2012-13 on Select Committee effectiveness that

“select committees should influence policy and have an impact on Government departments”.

It also said:

“The extent of this influence and impact is the primary measure of the effectiveness of select committees.”

Furthermore, on 5 November the Minister answered an urgent question on human rights in Egypt and expressed the hope that I was speaking as an individual and not as the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Chairs are plainly unable to secure the opinion of their Committee in response to an urgent question, but they do have a mandate, as a Chair elected by the whole House, and it seemed at least a discourtesy to that mandate for a Minister to try to diminish that authority. Through the Foreign Secretary’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, I drew the Minister’s attention to Standing Order No. 152 and sought a private assurance from him that he now understood the position of Select Committees and their Chairs. Despite repeated requests to receive that private assurance, it has not been forthcoming, and I regret that I now need to seek your clarification that my understanding of Standing Orders and the appropriate courtesy for the Minister in the Chamber is indeed correct.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of this point of order. First, I can confirm that it is entirely a matter for Select Committees to interpret the terms of reference set by the House and to decide for themselves what subjects of inquiry to pursue. I would suggest that it is both inappropriate and unwise for Ministers to comment on such matters. To put it bluntly, they should stick to their last. They have responsibilities, and it is to the execution of those responsibilities that they should dedicate themselves. They need not, and should not, stray beyond that.

Secondly, I can confirm that the Liaison Committee has recommended that Select Committees should seek to influence Government policy, and indeed the House has endorsed that recommendation. I would go further and say that it is a matter of some concern if there are Ministers who are unaware of that important fact. I hope that from now on they will not be.

Thirdly, I can confirm that the Chairs of departmental Select Committees, including, obviously, the hon. Gentleman, have been directly elected by the House, and that gives them a particular status and authority. Of course, on many occasions they will want to speak in a personal capacity and not in that role. Once again, we do not need Ministers telling Select Committee Chairmen what they should or should not be doing. In terms of what is orderly conduct in the House, Ministers, like everybody else, can leave that to the Chair.

May I take this opportunity to thank the hon. Gentleman for the valuable contribution that his Committee and its report on the extension of offensive British military operations to Syria have made to discussions in the House in the past few weeks? I believe, and I hope I can say this without fear of contradiction, that Members in all parts of the House, whatever their views on that matter, have found the Committee’s exposition of the issues very helpful indeed.

G7

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Wednesday 10th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Richard Graham. [Interruption.] Have I already called Mr Graham? Yes, I have. How could I have forgotten the pearls of wisdom with which he just favoured the House? It was very remiss of me and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I call Mr Crispin Blunt.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Islamic State is an enemy of civilisation, which is why it finds a coalition of 60 countries ranged against it. It requires military defeat, and the sooner that task is undertaken, the easier it will be. However, it is not going to happen if the regional powers are not co-ordinating their policies. What discussion was there at the G7 about getting Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia, at the very least, to co-ordinate their policies towards Islamic State?

Trident Renewal

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt]

It was a political commitment made by the leaders of NATO at a summit hosted by the United Kingdom, so I believe we have made that commitment. The Government have not made it explicit and the Prime Minister will not do so before the general election, because we have to address serious budget issues and he is, rightly, giving himself room for manoeuvre. Everyone present knows that defence expenditure is already at historically low levels in terms of its share of national wealth. We are making economies in defence and in my view our defence posture is, frankly, incoherent, because we can no longer afford a coherent defence policy for the United Kingdom owing to the amount of resources we are devoting to it.

That is an issue for another debate, but it illustrates the point about the cost of acquiring this system. In the 1980s it cost between 2.5% and 3% of the total defence budget. The cost of renewing the system will be at about the same level of real expenditure, which means that it will cost about 6% of the defence budget. In private conversations with colleagues who share the same background as me, when I ask them whether they would rather have that money spent on the field army or on acquiring this weapons system, their answer is clear: they would rather have it spent on actual deployable defence—soldiers, sailors, airmen and the equipment deployed with them on operations—or even on the deterrence that a decent set of conventional armed forces provides. The names of some of the distinguished former Chiefs of the Defence Staff or those in other roles who have questioned the value for money of taking such a sum out of the defence budget have already been paraded.

I would argue very strongly to the Defence Secretary that if we are committed to this system, we should understand that it is a political weapons system, and that it is of very doubtful military utility. I do not entirely buy the deterrence argument, but that is a qualified position, because all these things are matters of judgment. If we do buy the argument, however, that should not come at the expense of a coherent defence programme. If we need 2% of GDP to provide a coherent conventional defence programme, we should buy this political weapons system not out of that budget, but from a separate source of funding.

In an intervention on the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), I asked just how much he would spend on acquiring this weapons system. He represents Barrow, where the submarines will be made, so I understand that his view of their value is rather different from that of other Members. However, we must answer this question, which we have not properly addressed: at what point does the expense become unaffordable for the United Kingdom?

I am perfectly content to continue to shelter under the American nuclear umbrella. I accept that the decision matrix would be profoundly different if the United States of America was not a rock-solid ally, the Atlantic alliance was not extremely important to the Americans or we could not place the same degree of reliability on their support as we now do. If we had good reason to believe that the United States was not going to be intimately tied into the defence of ourselves and Europe, the decision would be different. I happen to believe, however, that our interests are so closely intertwined, as they have been in all sorts of ways, that we can continue to rely on that alliance.

Frankly, I am not sure that the Americans place very much value on a separate source of nuclear deterrence decision making in London. I think that they would prefer us to bring such resources to the table in the form of deployable conventional forces. The United States Government will not of course take a public view that embarrasses the UK Government, but if we scratched them, we would find that they would rather we had more effective conventional forces.

I do not buy the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex that we would lose the money from the defence budget altogether and not be able to spend it on anything else. However, even if the money was lost, it would have value: £100 billion off the debt or spent on other parts of the public service would be valuable.

I therefore ask: what are we buying with the system? There should be a debate about whether we are buying security or, given the laws of unintended consequences, insecurity. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire said that he thought we were buying status for our leaders so that they can parade themselves appropriately at conferences. I do not buy that argument—our leaders are perfectly capable of thinking in hard terms about what hard security is affordable—but I am concerned about the political background to this discussion, and about whether we can have a sensible debate on the cost-benefit analysis of acquiring this system.

The problem is the inheritance of the politics of the 1980s. When the decision was made to acquire the Vanguard and Trident system, the then Labour Opposition came out against it in 1983 as part of the “longest suicide note in history” that they presented to the United Kingdom electorate. I think that that policy was wrong and that at the time, because of the cold war, it was right to renew the deterrent. The people of the United Kingdom took the same view in the general election, as they did about the rest of the basket of promises that Michael Foot and his colleagues presented to the country, and they gave that policy, very properly, an extremely large raspberry and possibly the biggest Conservative majority in the history of Parliament—I am sure I will be corrected if that is wrong.

The scarring effect of that event, and the fact that there might be some proper debate, particularly on the Opposition Benches, means that dissent is suppressed. I am proud to stand here as a Conservative and question the efficacy of the decision under discussion, particularly in terms of its opportunity cost. It may be that I have discounted my future career prospects to such an extent that I feel free to make these points, but for the benefit of the Government Whip who is making a note, I say that this is where my judgment lies currently, but it would not prevent me from exercising collective responsibility to support the decision as part of any future Administration. [Laughter.] We should be able to have this debate and ask questions. How much money would we be prepared to spend on this system if its cost was not going to be 6% of the defence budget? What about if it was 10% or 20% of the defence budget? At what point does it cease to be sensible to invest in this system?

Many Members support deterrence in principle, or at least are not against the possession of weapons of this destructive power in principle—that is a perfectly proper position to take, although I do not share it because to a degree I buy the arguments that I grew up with in the 1970s and 1980s about the principle of a defence. I agree that during the cold war these weapons ensured that the world did not elide into direct hot war engagements that had the ability to escalate into catastrophe. The potential for catastrophe at the root of deterrence in a cold war, bipolar world kept us safe, but we are now in a different world and different calculations must be made.

My view is that for the United Kingdom, 6% of the defence budget is not justifiable, and that also relates to my view of Britain’s place in the world. Unlike most of my colleagues, I would be prepared to put our permanent seat on the Security Council up for negotiation and debate in a reform of the UN Security Council, to try to make that institution more effective. I think it is difficult to justify a British veto on the UN Security Council, and because it is so difficult to justify, the veto is hardly ever used by the United Kingdom. We must also think about Britain’s role in the world, and I do not think that we have properly had the debate about exactly what we can bring to the councils of the world, and what Britain’s position in the world should be.

We will be much better equipped to defend our interests if we are a wealthy, successful, entrepreneurial and trading nation that looks out to the entire world, and I am not sure that landing us with a weapons system that we are never going to use is a sensible use of resources, and it therefore might become a burden—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He is making an extremely interesting speech, which is being listened to with respect. He said that the debate needed to happen and I just want, very politely, to make the point that six other hon. Members, who will have a lot less time than the hon. Gentleman, are waiting to speak. Therefore, I feel confident in predicting that his last sentence is coming.

[Crispin Blunt]

I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. I looked around to see who was standing and got to a different number, so I am immensely grateful and will conclude my arguments.

I had taken the view of the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) that there should be an alternative way of buying this kind of deterrence, or at least some kind of deterrence, in a cheaper way. I now accept that the alternatives review has answered that question, and has at least made the decision matrix around this much clearer. I do not think it is now possible, on the basis of that work, for us to buy a deterrent in a different way.

However, I gently point out to those who think that by renewing these weapons we are buying an invulnerable system, that I do not think we are. I think the nature of surveillance under the sea will make the future generation of submarines much more discoverable than present science suggests, and the question of Scottish independence will come around again in the lifetime of this weapons system. Had we had to move this weapons system from an independent Scotland, the cost of making a base for it in Plymouth or elsewhere would have been eye-watering. All those uncertainties need to be factored in. On that basis, and on the opportunity cost, I will with deep regret be voting against most of my colleagues this evening.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am taking a relaxed attitude, the House should know, because there is protected time for subsequent business and I cannot bear to see colleagues disappointed unnecessarily.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

How much has been spent on advertising to support the current reserve recruitment, and how much is budgeted to be spent on advertising in future?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

This fiscal consolidation plan will be heavily influenced by the dramatic liberalisation of pensions announced in the Budget, which will be significantly influenced by the success or otherwise of the guidance guarantee that is now being legislated for. Does the Chief Secretary agree with Ros Altmann that the Financial Conduct Authority should ensure that people who do not receive or take the guidance in this new environment are at least asked proper questions about their circumstances, such as about their partner and their health?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A question can be wide, at a stretch, but it should not also be over-long.

Palestine and Israel

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

A manuscript amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and others has been tabled this morning—copies are available in the Vote Office—and I have selected it. In a moment, I shall call Mr Grahame M. Morris to move the motion. It might be for the convenience of the House for Members to be told that no fewer than 52 right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, in consequence of which I am sorry to have to say that there will need to be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. I understand that at some point, probably around the middle of the debate, the Minister and the shadow Minister wish to contribute. They are not, of course, so constrained, but I am sure that they will want sensitively to tailor their speeches, taking account of the level of interest of their Back-Bench colleagues. Similarly, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) is not subject to the five-minute limit, but I know that he will aspire to retain or to gain the warm regard of his colleagues and will therefore not seek to detain the House beyond 15 minutes, and preferably not beyond 10.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

If the hon. Gentleman must.

[Crispin Blunt]

It is pertinent to the issue of amendments. An amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) has been tabled, and I have been given two accounts as to whether it has been withdrawn or not selected. I would be grateful if you could illuminate the House, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very happy to illuminate the House. That amendment has not been selected; the amendment selected is that in the name of the right hon. Member for Blackburn. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the point.

Points of Order

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Lady warmly for what she has said and she will know that I concur with those sentiments.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In the generally successful history of the British Army, some of the most celebrated actions from Corunna to Gallipoli to Dunkirk have involved evacuations from hopeless positions. May I congratulate you on successful disengagement from the opposition forces you have run across? To complete a successful evacuation of your position, I urge you to remember that there are very many of us who do not take the same view as the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), and that to cover the evacuation it will not be necessary for there to be an unnecessary reorganisation of the affairs of the House. I look forward to your taking views on this matter during the course of the process.

[Mr Speaker]

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said and the good humour with which it has been said. I first met him, if memory serves me correctly, 25 years and two months ago in Bristol and I have the greatest respect for him. Yes, of course I am aware that there are different views. My responsibility is to hear and seek to heed them. That is what I propose to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think the reaction tells its own story to the hon. Gentleman.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate)]

Our military are increasingly subject to a legal regime that is increasingly costly, both financially and operationally. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Defence Committee’s recommendation that the next strategic defence and security review must examine the legal framework within which they operate and have less regard to human rights law and more regard to the law of armed conflict?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Minister.

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

The Government’s proposals for the reform of probation offer the prospect for probation officers to be able to deliver rehabilitation in a much more effective, creative and positive way. However, they will be working for a multitude of different organisations, which will mean that all the things that bind the probation service together will have to be strengthened. What proposals does the Minister have in mind for that, if he can say anything before he announces the response to the consultation?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

My hon. Friend is right. We inherited a serious administrative problem in that the capacity of the offender management system was being overwhelmed by the number of people with indeterminate sentences—[Interruption.] It is absolutely not the judge’s fault; it is the fault of the previous Administration, who failed to put in place the resources to deal with the sentences that they then passed in the House. That is one of the many problems that we are having to address. IPPs are a classic example of the shambles that we have—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister should calm himself. The shadow Justice Secretary is a man of very great distinction. He would not behave like that in court; he would probably be turfed out or struck off. I cannot imagine it—very out of character.

[Mr Blunt]

The sense of my outrage on behalf of the system and the officials at the mess that we have had to clear up is perfectly clear to the House, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are examining how we can make the transition from custody into the community much more effective for drug-addicted offenders. We want drug workers in the community to reach into prisons and link in the—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are grateful to the Minister. I do not wish to be unkind, but the answers are simply too long. Progress is too slow and it needs to be speeded up.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The double-dip recession created by the Government has made it much harder for young people in general and young offenders in particular to find work. What conversations is the Minister having with his colleagues to encourage growth in the economy and to solve the problem of youth unemployment in general and young offenders in particular?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I understand that 179 organisations in Warwickshire benefited from community payback last year. Not only is there an opportunity to link with members of the public through the ability to nominate community payback schemes, but these nominations are now running at more than 1,000 a month.

[Mr Speaker]

Whether we have time or not, we will hear from Mr Simon Hughes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

It might be churlish to interrupt the hon. Lady, so on this occasion I did not, but a blue pencil would be of benefit.

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind remarks about my visit to Shepton Mallet prison, and I would agree about the quality of the performance of all the staff in that prison. I have to say, however, that medals are probably above my pay grade.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

Of course our condolences go out to the families in question. However, I understand that this is the first time such a thing has happened on the under-18s estate since 2007, and the fact that there have been two tragic incidents in close succession does not mean that we should not recognise the good record that has been maintained in the intervening years. Every effort will be made to learn all the lessons from what has happened during the four different types of inquiry that will take place into each of the deaths.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Michael Connarty. He is not here, so I call Dave Watts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Again, I rather suspect—I am not a lawyer, and I say that as a matter of some very considerable pride, but as far as I am aware—the question is likely to be sub judice. I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman, but I exhort the Minister to be characteristically cautious in his response.

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. The case has been referred to several times in the course of today’s questions, and I do not have anything more to add to the answer that I have given. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am seeing the chairman and the chief executive of the Youth Justice Board later on today, and the case will of course be on the agenda for our discussions.

Points of Order

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman should take his compliments when they come to him. It was.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the course of oral questions earlier, there were a number of questions about the deaths of Alex Kelly and Jake Hardy in youth custody, and in my replies I said that there had not been a death in custody of such a kind since 2007. Of course, that overlooked the case of Ryan Clark, who died in April 2011 and for whom an inquest verdict is still awaited. I should like to take this opportunity to correct the record.

[Mr Speaker]

I am most grateful to the Minister for doing so, and for doing so as promptly as he has. It will be noted and appreciated by the House.

Bills Presented

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Relocation to Bristol) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Mann presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to relocate the headquarters of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to Bristol; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 279).

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Relocation to Sheffield) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Mann presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to relocate the headquarters of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to Sheffield; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 280).

Department for Transport (Relocation to Birmingham) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Mann presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to relocate the headquarters of the Department for Transport to Birmingham; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 281).

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Relocation to Manchester) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Mann presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to relocate the headquarters of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to Manchester; and for connected purposes,

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 282).

Department for Education (Relocation to Nottingham) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Mann presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to relocate the headquarters of the Department for Education to Nottingham; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 283).

Department for International Development (Relocation to Newcastle) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Mann presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to relocate the headquarters of the Department for International Development to Newcastle; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 284).

Department for Work and Pensions (Relocation to Leeds) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Mann presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to relocate the headquarters of the Department for Work and Pensions to Leeds; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 285).

Department for Communities and Local Government (Relocation to Liverpool) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Mann presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to relocate the headquarters of the Department for Communities and Local Government to Liverpool; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 286).

English Police Forces Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Mann presented a Bill to reduce the number of police forces in England to ten; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 287).

Local Government (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Mann presented a Bill to amend the Local Government Act 1992 to allow for the establishment of unitary authorities throughout England; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 288).

Armed Forces (Germany) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Mann presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to repatriate to the United Kingdom before the end of 2015 all British military personnel serving on British military bases in Germany; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 289).

Child Benefit (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Mann presented a Bill to amend the Child Benefit Act 2005 to disqualify nationals of European Union member states other than the United Kingdom who are resident in the United Kingdom with children living overseas from eligibility for child benefit payments; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 290).

Parliament (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Mann presented a Bill to make provision to limit the membership of the House of Lords to 300 unpaid members; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 291).

Local Government Finance (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Mann presented a Bill to amend the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to provide for an additional council tax band applicable to second homes; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 292).

Local Government Finance (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Mann presented a Bill to amend the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to provide for three additional council tax bands applicable to homes valued at over £500,000, £1 million and £1.5 million respectively; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 293).

Public Sector Salaries Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Mann presented a Bill to stipulate a maximum salary for public sector employees; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 294).

Public Sector Bonuses Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Mann presented a Bill to prohibit the payment of bonus payments to higher rate taxpayers working in the public sector; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 295).

Corporate Tax Reductions Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Mann presented a Bill to require the authorisation by Parliament of corporate tax reductions by amounts exceeding £100,000 by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 296).

Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Mann presented a Bill to abolish the payment of grants to persons ceasing to hold Ministerial and other offices; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 297).

Parliamentary Standards (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Mann presented a Bill to provide that Ministerial salaries shall not exceed the basic salary paid to Members of Parliament by more than 25 per cent.; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 298).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

Yes, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, there was exemplary brevity on both counts.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 24—Power to increase certain other fines on conviction by magistrates’ court.

Government new clause 25—Power to amend standard scale of fines for summary offences.

[Mr Blunt]

The new clauses are designed to remove the upper limits on the fines that can currently be imposed in magistrates courts. Raising the upper limits on fines gives sentencers greater flexibility to identify the most effective punishment appropriate to the offences and offenders before them, particularly when combined with other disposals such as suspended sentences when offenders are close to the custodial threshold.

The Government believe that financial penalties, as long as they are set at the right level, can be just as effective as community payback or curfews in punishing offenders and deterring them from further offending. Fines hit offenders where it hurts: in their pockets. They also have the advantage of not affecting opportunities for employment or having an impact on family responsibilities, and hence can prevent further acceleration into a criminal lifestyle. Moreover, they do not impose a further burden on the already hard-pressed taxpayer or on society as a whole. Not only are fines punitive; they provide reparation for society, and serve as part of offenders’ restoration to all of us.

That is why courts already have flexibility to impose fines in cases that have passed the community sentence threshold. It is entirely right for them to be able to consider the circumstances of the offences and of the offenders before them, and, having weighed up the various purposes of sentencing, to decide that a fine will provide an appropriate level of punishment and deterrence without needing to consider a community order. Courts already have wide discretion to make use of fines in appropriate cases, and the Government want to support and encourage that.

We particularly wish to ensure that magistrates, who issue the vast majority of fines, have the powers that they need to set fines at levels that are proportionate to the most serious offences that come before them for trial. These clauses therefore make two key changes to the way that fines operate in the magistrates courts. The first is to replace all upper limits of £5,000 or more for fines available on summary conviction. At the moment, where an offence is triable on summary conviction only, magistrates do not have the option of committing the case to the Crown court for sentence and are constrained in their ability to fine by the statutory maximum fines. For the most serious offences tried by magistrates, that is generally £5,000, although for certain offences where the financial gain from offending is substantial—for example, in some environmental offences—the maximum fine can be as high as £50,000.

For less serious offences, we believe that it is right to retain the differentials between the punishments. However, we wish to give Government and Parliament more flexibility to amend these maxima as the need arises.

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims (Amendment) Bill

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Friday 21st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

My first duty is to congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David). I think this is the first time that we have met across the Dispatch Box following the reshuffle on the Opposition Benches, so I welcome him to his place. I congratulate him on the crisp way in which he presented Her Majesty’s Opposition’s support for the Bill, following through on the support that his hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) gave it in Committee.

I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on steering the Bill through the House to this stage. This very worthwhile measure would provide increased protection for children and vulnerable adults who are at risk of serious physical harm from members of their own household, and it is a prime example of my hon. Friend’s unstinting efforts to protect vulnerable people, especially children, from harm.

I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) about what makes an effective parliamentarian. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, who is my parliamentary neighbour, has had an outstanding wider political career, first as leader of a London local authority, for which he was properly recognised by Her Majesty, then in this place, starting on the Back Benches and then as a Minister with responsibility for local government, and after that, both in opposition and now, as an absolutely unstinting champion of children at risk. Mr Speaker, I know that you, along with the rest of us, have a special place for my hon. Friend for the work that he has done. You will recognise, as we all do, that when Members take up a cause and drive forward on a narrow agenda, it is remarkable how much progress they can make and how much influence they can bring to bear. The Bill—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister’s encomium to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) will be appreciated by the hon. Gentleman and by many Members of the House. Of course it is perfectly proper for the Minister to spend some time focusing on the contents of the Bill, which doubtless he will do, but it would be very regrettable if the impression were to gain ground that he or others on the Treasury Bench were in any way reluctant to get on to the matters in the Bill to be promoted by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and I am sure that no such consideration is in the Minister’s mind.

[Mr Blunt]

You are of course entirely right, Mr Speaker. No such thought had crossed my mind; indeed, I have taken rather a limited interest in today’s remaining business because this is the only item on which I have focused my attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley is also my parliamentary neighbour, so I hope you will be kind enough to allow me the enthusiasm with which I am able to present the Government’s support for the measure, and allow me to record my appreciation and that of the Government for the work that he has done in this regard. However, bearing in mind your advice, Mr Speaker, I am happy to turn to the Third Reading of the Bill before us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Payment by results is gathering pace. We are piloting a number of different approaches to see what works best. Two prison pilots have been put in place at Her Majesty’s prisons Peterborough and Doncaster.

Pilots also will begin in public sector prisons next year. Six justice reinvestment pilots have been put in place through memorandums of understanding with either local authority chief executives or local police chiefs in Manchester and London.

In 2012 two community pilots will commence to rehabilitate offenders while serving sentences in the community, in addition to one or more provider-led innovation pilots. We are also working with the Department for Work and Pensions through the Work programme and with the Department of Health on drug and alcohol recovery to look more widely at payment by results mechanisms which fully—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I advise the Minister, for next month the answers should be a bit shorter. They are just a bit too long.

[Ben Gummer]

I thank the Minister for that careful reply. He will be aware of the Justice Committee’s recommendation that contracts should follow the offender through the criminal justice system, rather than attach themselves to the various institutions through which he or she might pass. What progress has the Department made in considering those proposals?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I thank him for his energetic chairmanship of the all-party group on human trafficking, and for continuing to bring the issues to my attention. Trafficking drugs and people are both extremely serious offences, and when people are caught—obviously, we want to make sure that they are, on every conceivable occasion—they should serve an appropriately serious tariff.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Minister both for his succinctness and his control of his breathing, which was impressive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

I know that my hon. Friend agrees that what we want is what works, and we want to ensure that there are fewer victims of crime in future. When our policies deliver rehabilitation far more effectively than those of the previous Administration, we will have protected the future victims of crime, and I know that he will—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the Minister, but we must move on. I am afraid that these answers are rather long and they need to get a bit shorter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but on several occasions I have had to say to the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) that questions must be about the policy of this Government, not a previous Government. I think we will leave it there. I call Lorraine Fullbrook.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

When those sentences were introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and implemented in 2005, the then Government estimated that there would be 900 such prisoners; there are now more than 6,000, and more than 3,000 of them are beyond tariff. [Interruption.] I can understand why the shadow Justice Secretary is ashamed of the record in that area. That is why there has been an increase in the size of the Parole Board; and that is why we are consulting on proposals to raise the tariff to a 10-year determinate sentence before an IPP can be enforced, and to examine the Parole Board test. Those are the proposals in the Green Paper on which we are consulting.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Minister.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

18. How much was paid to convicted criminals by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in (a) 2008-09 and (b) 2009-10.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

Yes.

[Mr Speaker]

A marvellous answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

Yes.

[Mr Speaker]

John Cryer. Not here.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

T4. The plight and vulnerability of many of the UK’s sex workers and prostitutes was highlighted for the people of Suffolk by the tragic events surrounding the Ipswich prostitute murders. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital that we have in place a proper strategy to help the rehabilitation of sex workers when they are released from prison, particularly to break the cycles of abuse and drug and alcohol dependency, and to support those people with mental health problems? Will he also visit my—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but his first question was perfectly good enough. One will do.

[Mr Blunt]

My hon. Friend is right. These are extremely important issues, and the successfully piloted sex workers custody and community training course will be rolled out across the women’s prison estate with the aim of enabling staff to support the resettlement needs of women engaged in street-based sex work. Working in partnership with sex workers to support projects, it aims to assist women by breaking down barriers that may prevent them from accessing support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

I am not sure that I recognise that as a basic human right, but it is certainly operationally sensible. Providing support for prisoners when they are incarcerated away from their families is an important part of assisting their rehabilitation into society. However, speculation about which prisons might or might not close in future is not appropriate at this stage. We will conduct a review of prison capacity in the light of the Green Paper and the responses to it, and only at that stage—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that we have the drift of the Minister’s answer. We are grateful.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Surely the reoffending rate is a critical factor affecting the number of prison places that are required. Restorative justice programmes such as that of the Sycamore Tree foundation, which operates at Haverigg prison in Cumbria, are both inexpensive and highly effective in reducing reoffending. What steps is the Minister taking to increase the number of restorative justice programmes in Britain’s prisons?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, it is a delight to offer a tribute to the greatest parliamentarian of the 20th century. Right hon. and hon. Members should note that today is precisely the 100th anniversary of one of the great speeches on prison reform, given by Winston Churchill while he was in his Liberal phase. I am delighted that I will mark that anniversary by speaking to the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you will allow me to use the final phrase of that speech 100 years ago, when Churchill said:

“an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man—these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it.”—[Official Report, 20 July 1910; Vol. 19, c. 1354.]

Those are measures that we will live up to.

[Mr Speaker]

We are very grateful, but I think that it sounded a bit better from Churchill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and John Bercow

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. On the probation service, Minister.

[Mr Blunt]

I can guarantee that the probation service will not be led by the Ministry of Justice on any further refurbishments. I think that we have had enough refurbishments inside the Department for the time being and that we have an office that is perfectly fit for purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

Plainly, this issue is not new, and there have already been reviews of how drugs get into prisons. We are going to examine this matter and, as I have said, it will be a priority of mine. I am minded to try to ensure that prisoners have the opportunity to get on to abstinence-based programmes successfully and safely, within the prison estate, and to ensure that they do not get knocked off course by the availability of illegal drugs in our prisons—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt. It is understandable that Ministers should look backwards at those questioning them, but they must face the House.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

Seventeen-year-old Ashleigh Hall, who lived in my constituency, was murdered last year by Peter Chapman, who is now serving a life sentence. While in prison, Mr Chapman has been writing to Ashleigh Hall’s parents and family. Does the Minister think that that is acceptable?