Procedure of the House
David Heath Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I take more points of order, let me explain that I would like to call a couple more colleagues in the very short time available and that I hope colleagues will be considerate of each other.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Further to the point of order, Mr Speaker. There is, of course, another way. The Leader of the House could withdraw the motion—[Hon. Members: “Withdraw, withdraw.”] I have to say that although I would always support a secret ballot, I very much dislike the way in which this matter has been brought before the House today.
Valedictory Debate
David Heath Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I always said that I would leave this place before I lost the buzz of having the privilege of speaking in this Chamber. I am very happy to say that after 18 years I am doing that.
There are many people who did not think I would last 18 years. The late Lord Rees-Mogg wrote an article every time I stood for election, saying that on the basis of an extensive poll of his friends and family, I was going to lose the next election. It did not quite happen. I was elected for the first time with a majority of 130. I followed it up at the following two elections still with three-figure majorities. I increased my majority each time, but by nothing so vulgar as four figures, until last time. Had I done it four times in a row, I think I would have established a more recent record for any parliamentarian, having four three-figure majorities, but I blew it by getting a larger majority at the last election.
I made up for it by being the first Liberal Minister to speak from the Dispatch Box since 1945, the previous one being Sir Archibald Sinclair. That will be my little footnote in history. I hugely enjoyed my time in government, both in the job of Deputy Leader of the House and as Agriculture Minister, although I was faced with an almost endless succession of acts of God, it seemed to me when I carried out the latter role, so much so that I felt I was the Minister for the apocalypse. It was pestilence, plague, floods, death and destruction on an almost daily basis.
I want to say that I was very proud to be a part of the Government. I particularly thank those in my two private offices who made my life bearable and supported me so well during that time. The principal role, of course, is to represent one’s constituency. I sometimes feel that I have become a bit of a Somerset cliché. I have brought matters to the House such as thatching, cider making, cheese making and carnivals—things that make people think, “Oh, for heaven’s sake—he’s doing his west country thing again!” My answer to that is that if I did not say those things, who on earth else would represent my constituents?
I like to think that I have also made progress on some really important issues—the A303 finally being done after all these years, the Great Western railway, what I hope will be successful responses to the flooding in my constituency, and maybe even broadband for some of my rural areas. When I was first elected, I did not imagine that Frome would ever be listed as one of the coolest places in Britain, but it has been repeatedly in recent years, along with Bruton, another town in my constituency. Even more importantly, I did not imagine, back in the ’80s when unemployment in Frome was 17%, that it would now be less than 1%—statistically, that is full employment. That is a great virtue and I am very pleased about it.
The House needs to address some issues. There needs to be further reform, as I do not believe we have completed the job. I have a huge amount of time for my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and I think we significantly reformed the House, but things were left undone—such as the establishment of a House Committee, on which we were, if I may say so, thwarted. I hope that future Governments will set one up.
We need to get a better balance between the constituency responsibilities of Members of Parliament and their responsibilities in this House. When I was first elected, I went on to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Other members of the Committee thought I was ineffably quaint because I insisted on going back at weekends to do surgeries. Some 99.9% of Members now do advice surgeries most weekends, but that may be at the expense of the scrutiny of legislation, and that worries me.
We obviously need to carry on working on the relationship between constituents and MP, aided and abetted of course by reports in the press. I do not mind occasionally being called names by the press. I remember once being called “a Tajik with toothache”; another time I was described as a cross between David Lloyd George and Father Christmas. That we can deal with, but we should not put up with the constant, relentless, drip, drip, drip of negativity towards MPs.
Lastly, I could not have done my job without the support of my staff: Georgina and previously Jack in London, and Claire, Chris and Teresa at my office in Frome. I could not have done it without my family, particularly my wife Caz and my children Bethany and Tom. I am very proud of having served the 900 square miles, 135 villages and 82,000 happy, smiling, tolerant, independent, bloody-minded, cantankerous Somerset people—and I am proud to be one of them.
Recall of MPs Bill
David Heath Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
We welcome and support these Lords amendments. On Report, it was a Labour amendment that added a third recall condition of conviction for an offence under section 10 of the 2009 Act, so we particularly welcome these amendments from the other place. As the Minister said, they are minor and technical amendments, but they ensure the Bill will work by making this third recall condition fully operational.
The group also contains helpful amendments concerning the second recall condition. For example, when an MP is suspended from the House, the report of the Committee on Standards which precedes the House of Commons’ order for a suspension must relate specifically to that MP, not to general behaviour. As the Minister said, the House of Lords has also tidied up certain elements of the Bill. Amendment 7 ensures that a recall petition can be brought for offences committed before the day on which the Act comes into force, so long as the conviction and sentencing took place after that date.
Amendment 10 ensures that the third recall condition—on conviction for an offence and sentencing—would begin once all relevant appeals had been determined. That is a sensible but important provision. Other amendments make welcome technical changes to tidy up the proposed legislation. Amendments 23 to 25 would remove the power of the Speaker to appoint a person to exercise the Speaker’s functions under the Bill in his or her absence, and instead allow the elected Chairman of Ways and Means or Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means to do so if the Speaker is unable to perform them. As the Minister explained, these are technical and consequential amendments, and the Opposition are happy to give them our support.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I rise to support the amendments, such as they are, from the House of Lords. They clearly strengthen the Bill in a minor way. Members may recall that we expended a fair amount of time and effort trying to strengthen the Bill in a more concrete way when it was before this House by giving access to a non-parliamentary route for recall. I am sad that we did not find a solution acceptable to both Houses to enable that to happen. Having said that, I do not agree with the argument that it would be better not to have a Bill at all. This Bill is a substantial step forward. It does not go as far as I would like, but I recognise that if we have it in place and it receives Royal Assent, as I assume it will, there is a substrate on which we can build—not me, but successor Parliaments—in order to provide a more acceptable position for the future.
As the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) mentioned an amendment in the next group, I hope you will afford me the latitude of saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, that amendments 23 to 25 were ones that I tabled originally in this House. I am very pleased to see that the Government have accepted them in the Lords, so I will not need to say anything about them when we get to the next group.
Mr Gyimah
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say, as I said in my opening remarks, that these amendments are sensible modifications, ensuring that the Bill works effectively. I hope the House will support them, I am grateful for the Opposition spokesman’s comments on them and I commend them to the House.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 17 agreed to.
Clause 7
Where and from when the recall petition may be signed
Business of the House
David Heath Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
This is an important report on an important issue and the hon. Gentleman and I have often discussed it. Indeed, as Foreign Secretary I set up the new feasibility study. A very extensive and detailed report has now been produced, and my ministerial colleagues in the Foreign Office are considering it in detail. It will also need to be considered across the whole of Government. I am sure it is better to look at it in great detail than to rush to decisions about it, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a timetable for any announcement, but I will tell my colleagues that he is asking about it and that there is interest in it in Parliament. We will consider it within Government as rapidly as possible.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Despite the fact that I have made it plain that I am standing down at the next election, inexplicably I am getting a lot of e-mails asking me to commit to opposing things in the next Parliament, particularly the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which, strangely enough, I have not seen the details of because nobody else has—it has not been negotiated yet. For the avoidance of doubt, yet again, will the Leader of the House arrange for a Government statement—he may care to make it right now—making it clear that TTIP has nothing whatsoever to do with any risk to the future of the NHS?
Mr Hague
It is absolutely clear that it is for local NHS commissioners to take decisions on which providers should deliver health care services in the best interests of their patients. TTIP will not change that in any respect. I can give my hon. Friend not only a Government statement, but the statement of the EU Trade Commissioner, who said on 13 September:
“Public services are always exempted—there is no problem about exemption. The argument is abused in your country for political reasons but it has no grounds.”
That should be reassuring to people around the country who might think there is some merit in the arguments put by trade unions and the Labour party, which are designed to scare people not to arrive at a good trade deal for this country.
Business of the House
David Heath Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
The right hon. Gentleman is assiduous in pursuing matters relating to Yemen, and as he says, as Foreign Secretary I was heavily involved in events there and visited that country. We have temporarily suspended embassy operations in Sana’a, and withdrawn diplomatic staff until the security situation becomes clearer—as the House will appreciate, that is a consequence of recent events. It is good that the Backbench Business Committee has chosen that topic, and important that my Foreign Office colleagues keep the House up to date on Yemen and developments throughout the Gulf. I will tell them of the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and remind them of the need to have regular updates in the House.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
We had a rather unedifying debate in this House on tax evasion, but there has also been enormous public concern about the issue. May we have a debate on the role of audit? Large accountancy firms are being paid enormous amounts of money for external audit, yet they do not seem to notice what is happening in the banks and they do not seem to notice the tax arrangements of their corporate customers. I wonder whether they are actually fulfilling their statutory duties in terms of regularity. Should the House not ask the accountancy companies exactly what they are doing for that money?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend makes his point very powerfully. A good case can be made for a debate. After today, we have only 22 sitting days before Dissolution, so I am not in a position freely to distribute debates on various topics, but he is able to pursue this matter at various question times and through the Backbench Business Committee.
Business of the House
David Heath Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
There is always a good case for debating further education and other educational issues in this country, but I do not know that there will be time to do so in the remaining six weeks before the Dissolution of Parliament. That will be a common answer for me to give to Members who raise many important issues. After today, there are only 26 sitting days left for the House of Commons before the general election, so we have to bear that in mind. However, I think that the hon. Lady could make a good case to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on that subject.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
The Leader of the House represents a north Yorkshire constituency, so he will be familiar with the F40 campaign for fair funding for those chronically underfunded education authorities, in which I was first involved when I was chair of education in Somerset back in 1996. To their credit, the Government have recognised the injustice and have done something to mitigate the effects next year, but what we need is a basic change of formula. Will the Secretary of State for Education make a statement to the House on that issue, or if not, may we have a debate?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is right: as a north Yorkshire Member of Parliament who represents a very rural constituency, I am conscious of that campaign. He is also right to give credit to the Government for what we have done. In the coming financial year, we will distribute an additional £390 million to 69 of the least fairly funded education authorities. That is the biggest step towards fairer funding for at least a decade and, as he will know, we have committed to moving to a fully fair and transparent funding system by introducing a national funding formula in the next Parliament. For the reasons I gave earlier, I cannot offer additional debates, but this is a very important commitment for the future.
Business of the House
David Heath Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
May we have a debate on the responsibilities of householders for contaminated land since the removal of contaminated land grants? An elderly couple in Langport in my constituency are facing crippling bills for the removal of contamination from the land on which their house stands—contamination for which they were not responsible, and which they had no idea was there when they bought the property. The local authority has to require the removal of the contamination and cannot provide any grant aid. This is a gross injustice. May we please debate it?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend has just now done a very good job of raising the matter in the House. Questions to the Department for Communities and Local Government Ministers are next Monday, and this is an obvious subject for an Adjournment debate, so while there is not a debate scheduled on these matters in the coming weeks, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to find other opportunities to pursue this important issue.
House of Commons Governance
David Heath Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
Of course, but nevertheless the situation could theoretically arise. It could even be the case that none of the Members elected to serve on the Commission wished to chair either of the Committees. It would then be the first task of the other members of the new Commission to allocate the responsibilities, which would be an invidious task in such circumstances. It is therefore my preference—and that of many others, including the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle)—that these two important internal Committees should be chaired by Members who have relevant experience and who are actively seeking to undertake those particular roles. I believe that will better ensure that the House has the right people in those roles and that the decision does not rest solely with the members of the Commission.
Although we fully support the outcome the Committee seeks to achieve—four Back-Bench Members, two Chairs of the internal House Committees and two others with clearly defined portfolio responsibilities—the motion proposes a slightly different way of reaching it. I hope the House will agree that it is a small but beneficial adjustment and one that will ensure that the Commission retains a party balance in the way envisaged by the Committee.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I do not think that the Leader of the House’s suggestion fundamentally changes the Committee’s view of the Commission’s structure. However, as has been said, it is extremely important that there is no delay in putting in place the two House Committee Chairs. That cannot wait until the long process of negotiation relating to the election of Select Committee Chairs. Will the Leader of the House assure us that he will bequeath to his successor a view that those two Chairs should, if possible, be in place immediately after the election of the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, so that the Commission is in place at the earliest possible opportunity in the new Parliament?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. It will be very important for the Commission to be able to begin its work very early—earlier than has sometimes been the case—in the new Parliament. As the final weeks of this Parliament go by, I will be increasingly happy to bequeath many views to my successor, particularly on things that are difficult to achieve, but I hope this will not be too difficult to achieve. The election of those Chairs should not be left to be the tail end of the whole process of the election of Committee Chairs. They are vital to the working of this House. Given that we will need to keep up the momentum of implementing the Governance Committee’s recommendations, a new Commission will need to be up and running pretty quickly in the new Parliament. My hon. Friend makes a good point and I will certainly bequeath that view, as he put it.
From the Government’s point of view, the report fully addresses the issues that were set out by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House in the 10 September debate on the Committee’s establishment and on which I enlarged when I gave evidence to it. Notably, the proposals will provide the House with a Clerk whose independence and authority are unquestioned, and they should also provide a first-rate administrator with the visibility and authority to manage the services delivered to Members, staff and the public.
The right hon. Member for Blackburn has given examples of areas where improvement is needed. I am sure that the gym is a valid example, but I do think that, if, as he said, he spent two hours in the gym, a cold shower might have been recommended anyway and, indeed, appreciated by all of us.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) will be pleased to know that he is not in a minority of one when it comes to the gym. I am not altogether certain where it is located, and I cannot confess that I have much interest, but I recognise that it serves a very good purpose for many Members and, indeed, staff, which is the important point. The hon. Gentleman and I are not likely to agree over wigs and costumes, however; if only we would all recognise we are now in the 21st century.
I commend the report and the work that has been put into it. A great deal has rightly been said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and his colleagues. They have undoubtedly produced a report on which, so far at least, there has been unanimous agreement, and I am not going to voice dissension.
The point is made in the report that we do not seek to be elected because of a wish to run the House. Indeed, at election time that is about the last thing on our minds. When the next campaign begins in a few weeks, running the House of Commons will not be one of the issues that we will raise with constituents. It is not likely that anyone wishes to come here to be Speaker or Deputy Speaker or to chair internal Committees. Nevertheless, the place could not function without Members being willing to take on such responsibilities. While we have the privilege—it is always a privilege—of being Members here, we have a collective overall responsibility, albeit fortunately not a day-to-day one, for the building, for appointments and for the functioning of this place. That is not an overall responsibility that we can give to Officers.
Of course we would not be debating this issue at all—there would have been no Committee in the first place—if the previous procedure for appointing a Clerk had been adopted. A proposal, which I shall not go into, caused a great deal of controversy. A motion was tabled and debated, and then the Committee was appointed—and all of that arose entirely because of the original suggestion that was made.
In paragraph 59 of the report mention is made of how in 2006 two names were put before the then Speaker by the retiring Clerk, from which a choice was made, and I recall that the current Speaker made a statement to the House on 30 June 2011 in which he told us that—from a panel of five, so it was not as in 2006—an appointment had been duly made. He made that announcement to the House and we cheered accordingly. I do not in any way question the way in which those two Clerks carried out their duties, and it is quite likely that under the new recommended appointment proposals those two individuals would have been appointed, so I am not questioning their credibility or the manner in which they carried out their jobs. The important point is the manner in which they were appointed, which was surely unacceptable then, and even more so now. I very much welcome the more complex and thorough method now being recommended for appointing the Clerk, which I am sure will be adopted.
Although the new appointment process will rightly be more thorough and complex, I would like—I hope this is not too daring a suggestion—Members generally to have a say. Would it be totally out of the question to have hustings? That happened last time for those who wanted to be Speaker, and it would have been unthinkable before. Moreover, why not have a pre-confirmation hearing before the Public Administration Committee for the successful applicant for the post of Clerk of the House of Commons? The recommendation would be made, and the person recommended would go before that Committee. In my view, there is a case to be made for that approach, although the report does not uphold that view, which is perhaps unfortunate.
If it is considered inappropriate for the person to be appointed Clerk to go before a pre-confirmation hearing—as I say, I see no reason why it should be—what about the new director general of the House of Commons? Is there a particular reason why that should not be done?
Mr Heath
I think there is a reason why that should not be done: that would then be substituting the judgment of one set of Members for another set. In both cases, they would be Members of this House and there is no obvious reason why the Public Administration Committee should have a better view of who should be appointed than the appointing Committee.
Mr Winnick
That point was made to me informally when I raised the issue with a Member who has some responsibility in this regard. I am not altogether convinced that it is written in holy scripture that, because one Committee has made a recommendation, it cannot be looked at by another Committee. However, as I said, the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn did not take up the suggestion.
In my view, it is sensible that, although the two posts will involve equal—if very different—responsibilities, the Clerk should be the more senior of the two. So much must depend on the way in which the two individuals—the Clerk of the House and the director general of the House of Commons—will be able to function, day by day. The last thing we want is a turf war: disputes about who should be responsible for a, b and c, and who for x, y and z. That would take us back to square one, or indeed worse. So it is absolutely essential that, when the appointments are made, there is a clear understanding that these are two individuals who can get on together, recognise their different functions and serve the House of Commons as it should be served.
During the last debate on this subject, I was one of those who argued that being Clerk of the House of Commons, with all the authority and understanding of its procedures that that involves, and handling the day-to-day administration are completely different functions. I am very pleased that the view is shared by a number of Members on both sides of the House, and was clearly upheld by the Committee, that these are different functions that should be performed by two different individuals.
Finally, I turn to the restoration and renewal of the building, which a number of Members have mentioned. It is absolutely essential—indeed, there is no more important issue for the new Parliament elected in May to get to grips with as soon as possible. In November 2012, we had a general debate on House of Commons facilities, at which I took the opportunity to refer to a report that mentioned such problems as widespread water penetration—more evidence of which we have seen just outside the Chamber today—and asbestos all over the building. The report also stated that the mechanical and electrical services were defective, and it should be a matter of even greater concern that it identified a high fire risk.
When the necessary overhaul work has been agreed to, there will no doubt be complaints because it is costing a very large sum of money. People will write in to ask whether the money could not have been spent on more important things, but we will have to make the point that vast sums are already being spent every year to try to keep the building in a condition in which it can function on a daily basis. This is not a matter of a few minor defects. The building is not fit for the 21st century, and it is dangerous in its present condition.
I hope that, when the new Parliament is elected, it will get down and do the necessary planning work. I agree that a new delivery service will be required, and I cannot see that being undertaken by the new Clerk and the new director general of the House of Commons. I do not believe that that should be their job; rather, as has been suggested, there should be a structure similar to the one that helped to put on the Olympics so successfully. I have no doubt that the report will be accepted; there does not seem to be any dissension. Once the two main appointments have been made, the first priority of the new Parliament regarding internal matters must be to decide how and when the work is to be carried out, as it will undoubtedly involve the evacuation of this building for a few years at least.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I am the last member of the Committee in the Chamber to have the opportunity to speak. I must say that, as is so typical of this place, subjects that arrive in a great flurry of indignation and excitement end up as matters of general consensus. Like the proverbial month of March, they roar in like a lion and go out like a lamb. This is such a case, and I would like to think that that has something to do with the work of the Committee.
As many Members have said, the Committee was certainly Stakhanovite in its work: we did a lot of work in a very short time. It reported very quickly. I have to say that in a race with Sir John Chilcot, I know who would be the winner. I would like to think that our views and recommendations were informed by a great deal of careful consideration of what we were told by Members of the House, those outside it who have expertise to share and members of staff. What we decided was based not on personalities or on a critique of the running of this place, but on where there was potential dysfunction in the governance structures and how that could be improved. I hope that that positive hope shines through in the report.
It was by no means a foregone conclusion that we would reach consensus in our deliberations. The House was clearly divided on key issues. There were two camps in respect of where the responsibility should lie, which might be described as the chief executive-ites and the Clerk-ites. There was a sense, to carry the arguments to the absurd, that some were concerned primarily about the running of this place as a building or organisation. To use the words of the old Victoria and Albert Museum slogan, “An ace caff with quite a nice museum attached”, those people saw this place as an ace tourist attraction with quite a nice legislature attached. The risk was that there was no recognition of the essential role of the Clerk of the House, protected by letters patent, in maintaining the legislative integrity of the House and our ability to carry out our core function.
The risk on the other side of the fence was of saying that the Clerk must retain all the current responsibilities of Clerk and chief executive, and that the ancillary issues do not matter very much as long as we are able to perform our legislative and scrutiny functions properly. Effectively, the idea was that everything else was a subsidiary matter that could be done by gifted amateurs, rather than by people with skills in the relevant areas.
I do not think that the Committee accepted either view. By careful synthesis, I hope that what we have come up with achieves the best of both worlds. The fact that, at the end of the day, one of our most difficult decisions was what name to give to the new entity of director general—we swayed from names that seemed excessively corporate to those that were seen to be excessively European, to the rococo, as was mentioned earlier—perhaps shows that the main thrust of what we decided had validity.
As I said, I want to deal with the outcome in respect of governance. It was clear to us that there were dysfunctionalities in the way that this place operated. That was partly because of the executive management. We were investing too wide a range of responsibilities in a single individual. Sometimes, I have to say, those were carried out with great success and aplomb by an individual. That was undoubtedly the case with Sir Robert Rogers. Nevertheless, we were unnecessarily limiting the pool from which we could draw such an individual. That was a clear issue that we had to address.
Secondly, there was vagueness about the relative responsibilities of the House of Commons Commission and the Management Board. There were severe disjunctures between various bodies. For instance, the Commission and the Management Board did not appear to share agendas, and there were no clear reports back on the implementation of Commission decisions on strategy. There was the extraordinary position of the external, non-executive members contributing to what should have been an executive role, rather than those at the strategic tier, which is the Commission. The same issue was replicated in the communications between the two Houses. Many of us found it extraordinary that the House of Commons Commission and the House Committee in another place did not have regular meetings to discuss how we could run the Palace of Westminster in the most effective way.
Then there is the role of the House of Commons Commissioners. I do not have any particular criticisms of the current Commission, although I have voiced criticisms on many occasions in the past of that shadowy body and some of the decisions that were made on our behalf in previous Parliaments. Those decisions contributed in large part to some of the reputational difficulties that the House has had in recent years. I am still appalled when I read in the newspapers that “MPs have decided” something. I think to myself, “No I haven’t. As a Member of Parliament, I haven’t decided anything of the sort.” The Commission may have taken the decision, but it has not yet been reported to me, and there is no clear mechanism for reporting it to me unless I happen to find it out by talking to a Doorkeeper or somebody else. Nor is there a clear mechanism for raising it with my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) or somebody else on the Floor of the House. There is an issue of accountability and visibility there.
Effective evidence was given to us that the Commons Commissioners having clear portfolio roles would be a good thing. My right hon. Friend assisted us greatly in our thinking on that, and I am convinced that it is the case. I look forward to each of the four Commissioners being available when we have Question Time in the House, so that they can answer for their portfolio responsibilities. They must also recognise that Members will stop them outside the House and ask them about their responsibilities. That is the right way of doing things. When I have a difficulty, too often I lumber the poor old Serjeant at Arms with my concerns, because he is there, he is visible and I know I will get an answer. That should not be how things work.
I hope that the Commissioners will be visible and that not only will we have regular reports and a clear strategy, implemented by a strong executive board focused on the role that we have given it, but we will close some of the gaps that are currently filled, for want of anything better, by the Speaker taking decisions. That is not to criticise the decisions that Mr Speaker takes, but simply to criticise the vagueness that leads to too many decisions in the House relying on the quiddities of the incumbent rather than on any clear strategy, procedure or policy. I hope that what we have suggested, if it finds favour today—it sounds as though it will—will strengthen each of the areas that I have mentioned.
I close with two points, the first of which is about the relationship with the other place. I have been told on countless occasions over the years that we have to be careful about how we approach the House of Lords on the subject of shared services, because the Lords are jealous with their services and will shout us down if we try to do anything. Of course they will shout us down if we appear simply to say, “We know best, and we want to take over what the House of Lords does”, and if we do not have proper regard for the fact that it is a separate legislative Chamber with its own procedures. However, I was hugely impressed by the openness and readiness of the Members of the House of Lords to whom we spoke to entertain much greater co-operation. Of course, we already have a fair amount, as the comments of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) showed, but we can take it much further.
I make it plain that it will not be me who does that, because I will be gone. I am bequeathing my opinions to my successors, in the same way as I invited the Leader of the House to do. However, it seems to me that the ways of working that will be necessary to achieve restoration and renewal may well lead to the view that we need, more than anything else other than our legislative function, a common Palace of Westminster service that does much of what we do at the moment but in a more effective and efficient way, answerable to both Houses equally but with combined executive responsibilities.
Finally, I am afraid I must voice a difference of opinion from my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young). As he and I know, we never part company—the only time I can remember us disagreeing was when discussing the voting system in the Lobby. I thought that the middle stream ought to be speeded up, possibly at the expense of people whose names begin with Y who currently have a much quicker passage through the Lobby, but he did not agree—I cannot think why. I always hoped that the Leader of the House might share my view on the issue.
I disagree slightly with my right hon. Friend about the way that business reaches the House. I know it is heresy to disagree with the Wright Committee on any particular, but I do not think it quite got things right. It looked forward to having a proper business of the House committee that incorporated the Executive and the Back Benches, but we do not have that. That is not a criticism of the Government because they have only legislative time available, but the issue needs to be addressed. At the moment, I do not think it is fully understood how little time the Government control, what the demands on the Backbench Business Committee are, and how often it is possible for business of the House to be squeezed out of the process and not given the prompt attention it requires. I would like the Procedure Committee to consider that issue, as suggested.
We have produced an interlocking series of suggestions that the House will be able to implement quickly. I am encouraged by what the Leader of the House said about the speed with which he proposes to address the issues raised, and I repeat what I said in an intervention: when the new Parliament sits, it is essential that it elects a Speaker and Deputy Speakers, and that the next thing it does is elect a House of Commons Commission. We must get the director general’s post in place and make the other necessary reforms to ensure that the system works effectively for Members and staff of the House, and those who wish to visit it. They are all important parts of the equation.
Select Committee on Governance of the House
David Heath Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I am trying to understand the precise process, particularly in the light of what the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), has just said. Did the panel agree before the interview process the job description it judged against, or was that presented as a fait accompli?
Business of the House
David Heath Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I do not know what the hon. Gentleman asserts to be the case. The National Crime Agency, legislated for by this Government and now operating successfully, includes among its objectives tackling economic crime and major fraud. The evidence is that the NCA is making a substantial improvement on past arrangements to tackle serious and organised crime.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
On a number of occasions I have raised failures of child protection services, including, sadly, in my own county of Somerset. However, the proposals in the consultation paper for the part-privatisation of the service are not the answer. I do not know whether this is another of Dominic Cummings’s brilliant wheezes, but will the Secretary of State for Education come to the House and say clearly that that will not happen under a coalition Government?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will be aware that the consultation on plans relating to children’s social care functions has just recently finished. It is not a proposal for privatisation, but a means by which local authorities have the discretion—not a requirement, but a discretion—to delegate additional functions to third parties, including child protection. That will, of course, give rise to opportunities for mutual organisations and charities to bring innovation. We have seen in recent years, in many aspects of public service, that that can be very beneficial.