Oral Answers to Questions
David Heath Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
2. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the early-day motions procedure.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
The procedure for early-day motions is a matter for the House. Despite their variable quality, the opportunity provided by EDMs to raise any issue in the House is valued by many hon. Members. I understand that the House authorities are considering measures to reduce the associated costs.
Mark Menzies
I thank the Minister for his response. I and many colleagues are increasingly concerned that the EDM procedure is being abused by outside interests and lobbyists, at considerable cost to the taxpayer and to Members’ time. What steps is he taking to ensure that that does not continue?
Mr Heath
I know that a number of hon. Members share the hon. Gentleman’s view. Ironically, perhaps, the concerns about early-day motions are expressed in early-day motion 432, which sets out a similar view to his. The problem is that many of our constituents are led to believe by campaigning organisations that EDMs have an efficacy well beyond what we in the House know to be the case. The matter will have to be considered by the House authorities and Committees, but he makes an important point.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Early-day motions are an important way for the House, and particularly Back Benchers, to show interest, concern and dedication to a particular cause. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to make it more difficult for Members to sign early-day motions—I know that there are difficulties deciding which to sign and which not to sign—but to make it easier. Currently, we can table a question online, but we cannot add our name to an early-day motion online. Surely that facility could be introduced.
Mr Heath
In the past financial year, a total of 2,531 EDMs were tabled, with 120,158 names added. Clearly, the obstacles are not insuperable, but the hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which he has raised with me previously and which I have taken up with the House authorities. I hope that we will soon make progress on the matter.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Had it not been for the availability of the EDM procedure, I would not have been able quickly to gather 249 signatures for an EDM that helped in considerable part to change the law so that the mad decision of three judges that our home addresses should be revealed to anyone who asked for them could be stultified and reversed. May I suggest gently to my hon. Friends and other hon. Members that if they are so shy about saying no when asked to sign an EDM, they have the option of simply informing the Table Office that they do not sign any EDMs, and informing their constituents of the same? Those of us who want to make use of the procedure can then continue to do so.
Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
5. What steps he plans to take to provide for pre-legislative scrutiny of proposed Government legislation.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
The Government will continue to publish Bills in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny as opportunities arise. We have already announced that three Bills—on parliamentary privilege, House of Lords reform and defamation—will be published in draft.
Diana R. Johnson
During last Thursday’s business questions, the Leader of the House told me that pre-legislative scrutiny was “not possible” for all constitutional Bills in the first term of a Parliament. Has the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to read the words of Professor Robert Blackburn, Professor Robert Hazell and Peter Riddell, who say that there is no justification for rushing through without pre-legislative scrutiny the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill when we return in September, other than the political expediency of the two coalition partners?
Mr Heath
Well, that is their opinion. It is perfectly clear that it is not possible for Bills to be produced in time to allow full pre-legislative scrutiny in the first 10 weeks of a new Government when those Bills are to be debated in the very near future; I would have thought that that was obvious to any Member of this House. We are clearly committed to using pre-legislative scrutiny whenever possible, but I repeat that it is clear that, with a new Government and a new House of Commons, there will be new Bills that cannot go through that procedure.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
The Deputy Leader of the House will be aware that in the previous Parliament many Bills were almost totally rewritten during their passage through the House. In due course, after the Government have had time to write their Bills, will the Deputy Leader of the House be able to say that pre-legislative scrutiny will be the norm, and not the exception, for a Bill in this Parliament?
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that what is most important is that Bills are written correctly and are made right first time, rather than having them rewritten, as was so often the case under the previous Administration. [Interruption.] We hear protestations from Opposition Members, but may I remind them that in the 2009-10 Session only five Bills were submitted for pre-legislative scrutiny and in the 2008-09 Session there were only four, whereas we have already announced three.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
The Deputy Leader of the House referred to someone’s opinion about pre-legislative scrutiny. What does he think of the opinion that all Bills should be given 12 weeks of pre-legislative scrutiny? That was the opinion of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, writing to the Liaison Committee last week. Is it not a travesty of the processes of this House that my Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform has only been able to squeeze in a maximum of three sessions to look at two very important Bills? Will the Deputy Leader of the House not cite past precedent, but try to set future precedent to do this job properly?
Mr Heath
I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s Committee will do an excellent job in looking at those Bills as they are taken forward. The critical period is between Second Reading and Committee, when Members consider amendments that they may wish to table. I hope that his Committee will take full advantage of that period by having as many sittings as he requires in order to do that work.
Use of the Chamber (United Kingdom Youth Parliament)
David Heath Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the work of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament in providing young people with an opportunity to engage with the political process; notes that the House agreed on 16 March 2009 to allow the Youth Parliament to meet once in the Chamber; recalls that this meeting took place on 30 October 2009; and accordingly resolves that the UK Youth Parliament should be allowed to meet once a year in the Chamber of this House for the duration of this Parliament.
I am glad that it is now past 10 o’clock.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm that a Division on the motion would be deferred, but that if the closure were moved tonight, a Division on it would take place here and now? Many people watching these proceedings would think it quite strange that we would have a Division on a closure motion, but that there would be no Division on the substantive motion. Will you confirm that?
Mr Speaker
There are requisite numbers for these matters, but I tend to take the view of the late Lord Whitelaw that it is advisable to cross a bridge only when one comes to it. Rather than speculate on the hypothetical, we will address that matter when we get there. The hon. Gentleman need not allow his brow to furrow or make himself anxious. He is too big a man for that.
Mr Heath
It is splendid that there is so much careful consideration of the procedure that accompanies this motion.
The motion would allow for the UK Youth Parliament to sit in this place for its annual meeting this year, and annually for the rest of this Parliament, repeating the successful exercise of last October. It is probably not in order for me to say at this stage how much I appreciated the debate that we have just had under the auspices of the Business Committee, but the Government would now expect debates of this nature to be scheduled by that Committee. However, because of the time constraints on the House agreeing this motion and the availability of time before the summer recess, the Government have decided to facilitate the House in reaching a decision by providing time after the moment of interruption.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Can the Deputy Leader of the House explain why we need to do this before the summer recess? If he knew a week ago that we needed to do it before the summer recess, why was it not put on the Order Paper below the line so that we had advance notice of the Government’s intention?
Mr Heath
I have just said that the Government are facilitating a process. This is not Government policy: it is for the House to determine. I see no reason why we should not debate this issue tonight. We have plenty of time to debate it tonight—possibly as much time as any Member could reasonably expect to debate an important issue such as this. It is important that we take a decision, for the obvious reason that if we could not decide, we could not allow the UK Youth Parliament to make use of the facilities at the time when we would invite them to do so if this motion were passed. It would therefore seem to be entirely sensible, even within the constraints of procedure in this place, to table a motion to agree to invite the Youth Parliament to use the facilities and, if that is agreed, for it then to do so—rather than the other way round.
Philip Davies
The Deputy Leader of the House claims to be facilitating a debate and says that he believes there is no reason why a debate should not take place. If that is the case, can he explain why yesterday the Government tried to get this motion through on the nod at the end of the day, without any debate? If the Government were so keen on facilitating a debate, why did he not schedule a debate in the first place?
Mr Heath
May I let the hon. Gentleman into a secret? If the House agrees on an issue, we do not need to take up debating time. If the House agreed on a matter, it would be sensible not to schedule a debate on the Order Paper, because we could use the time for more important things, such as those statements that hon. Members have said they want to hear in the Chamber. We could ensure that Ministers come here to explain their policies, and have more time for legislation, rather than debating matters on which the whole House agrees. But it would appear that there are some in the House who do not agree, which is why we are happy to provide time for the debate this evening.
Last time we debated this matter, I was on the Opposition Benches and supporting the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley)—no, it was not her; it was the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).
Mr Heath
I beg the hon. Lady’s pardon. It was her who put forward the motion. I said then that if we were to decide in the future that the first occasion had been a great success in building confidence in democracy, and an understanding of democracy, among the young in this country, we might repeat the experience. I hope that hon. Members who were in the House during the previous Parliament and who actually saw the debate—I attended the whole of it—would agree that those tests were met, and that the experience should be repeated. I hope that new Members in the House, who worked hard to ensure they could take their seats, will feel it right to encourage young people to express themselves and take part in the process of politics, and I can think of no better way of doing so than this particular suggestion.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
May I help my hon. Friend, and colleagues on both sides of the House who were positive about the experiment last time, by saying that the feedback from the young people who participated, particularly some brilliant young women, and brilliant black young women, was that it had transformed their lives and that they had left this place reinvigorated to argue for British democracy in a way that I honestly do not think any of us envisaged? So I hope that there will be no backwoods objection to that fantastic innovation made only a few months ago.
Mr Heath
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments, because they are well founded and speak for the experience that many of us have had in speaking to young people who were involved that day. Let us remember that the debate took place at a time when Parliament’s reputation was severely damaged, and when young people were increasingly disaffected with politics and society. I do not think that any hon. Member would argue that either of those problems has gone away, but I believe that we are making progress. In 2005 the turnout for 18 to 24-year-olds was estimated at 37%. Five years later, turnout is believed to have risen to about 44%. It is only by continuing and increasing young people’s engagement with politics that we can continue to see those numbers grow.
For those who either watched it or were present, last year’s debate showed us young people from across the country discussing the issues that they felt were most important—youth crime, cheaper transport, free university education, job opportunities for young people, and lowering the voting age to 16. Without trespassing on the territory of the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), may I say that if those suggestions were put to her Committee, they would not be out of order as matters of vital importance to the House.
Philip Davies
Was I hearing the Minister correctly when he tried to claim that the increased turnout among young people at the last election from 38% to 44% was due to young people having a debate in the Chamber last year? Is that really what he is claiming? I thought that his party was claiming beforehand that it was the televised debates with all the leaders that were encouraging young people to turn out. Has he changed his mind, or is he just coming out with a load of guff and a spurious argument?
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman was correct neither in the figures he quoted me as saying nor in the causal connection, which I did not seek to make. So the simple answer is: no, he is not correct.
I shall deal with some of the objections that might come up during the debate, because they came up at length last year. Last year’s debate by the UK Youth Parliament was the very first time that anyone other than Members of Parliament had sat on these green Benches.
Mr Heath
I hear the word “outrageous” from a sedentary position behind me. The fact that last year’s debate was the first time that anyone other than a Member of Parliament had sat on these green Benches seemed to be the issue for some hon. Members. They held the view—and obviously still do—that to sit on these Benches is a privilege that can be exercised only by Members who have been elected to this House. In my view, that is to confuse the institution of Parliament, which is an enormously important institution to this country, and the fabric of the building. The two are not identical. Were it to sit in another chamber, this Parliament would still be the Parliament of the United Kingdom, just as much as it is when it sits in this Chamber. This Chamber in itself does not constitute the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Would my hon. Friend also allow this Chamber to be used by the pensioners’ parliament, the Muslim parliament or any other body, and basically be rented out?
Mr Heath
I am glad that the hon. Lady has raised that issue, because it was the next objection that I thought might be raised. Her argument is what I would characterise as the slippery slope argument: that because we have allowed the UK Youth Parliament to sit in this Chamber once, and because we now propose that the experiment might be worth repeating, there is no way that we can prevent any Tom, Dick or Harry, from anywhere in the country, from coming in here and, by precedent, using this Chamber. However, that is patently not the case, because the decision is taken by this Parliament.
However, there is another reason, which is this. The UK Youth Parliament fulfils two criteria that no other organisation in this country can fulfil. First, its members are elected democratically; secondly, it comprises citizens of this country who, by statute, cannot seek election to this House. Therefore, I believe that the UK Youth Parliament has a unique position, and we have a clear function in encouraging young people to take an interest in politics and become involved in the political process.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Should we not celebrate the fact that young people are interested in sitting on these Benches, rather than having a go at them, in a cheap fashion, from the Back Benches?
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
May I briefly congratulate Oliver Warne, MYP, on his re-election to the Youth Parliament? Does my hon. Friend agree that he and the other youth MPs conducted the debates in this place last year with enormous dignity, good sense and restraint, which is something from which some Members of this House could perhaps learn?
Mr Heath
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the other objections raised is that if we allowed members of the UK Youth Parliament in here they would be swinging the Mace round their heads, swinging from the chandeliers and causing mayhem—after all, they are youth; some of them probably wear hoodies. I have to say that, in all honesty, that was not the experience last time—not by a long way.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for so generously giving way again. I recall one of the Tory backwoodsmen with whom he is in such happy coalition these days saying that those young people would come in here and put chewing gum on the seats and use penknives to carve them up. Could he report back to the House on how many such incidents occurred?
Mr Heath
Of course no incidents of that kind occurred at all. Indeed, the behaviour of the young people in the Youth Parliament was impeccable in every sense. Indeed, there were staff and Officers of the House who confided in me after the event that they had had real reservations about the invitation being issued. They had been worried about what would happen, but they were astonished at the maturity, good sense, good manners and proper behaviour of those young people—young people who engaged in debate that was often of a higher quality than what we hear in this Chamber on a normal working day. That is a testament to the maturity and good sense of those young people.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
It seems to me that we have effectively formed a Backbench Business Committee this evening, but I wonder whether in future it would be better if this sort of issue were brought forward by the Backbench Business Committee rather than in Government time. There were great results from what took place here, which I do not think many of us would deny, but this is not really prime Government business. Would it not be better dealt with by the Backbench Business Committee?
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend recall that in the previous Parliament, it was somewhat embarrassing that the House of Lords allowed the UK Youth Parliament to sit on their red Benches, which is what shamed us into allowing it to sit on our green Benches? This House made rather a spectacle of itself in the last Parliament and we made ourselves very unpopular. We are in grave danger of doing exactly the same thing again, and looking increasingly out of touch.
Mr Heath
I think it is always a matter of concern when the House of Lords looks comparatively youthful, progressive and forward thinking in comparison with the elected House, so I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
Let us deal with some of the apparently very important logistical questions raised in last year’s debate. They were clarified then, but it is worth repeating them for the avoidance of any doubt. The rules of order that the UK Youth Parliament will follow in this Chamber will be the same as our own. As I suggested earlier in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), there are strong arguments for us to follow its lead in how we interpret procedure rather than it following ours.
The Mace will not be in its place and the Speaker’s Chair will not be occupied by anyone other than Mr Speaker or the Deputy Speakers. As for broadcasting, the rights will remain with us. I believe that the parliamentary broadcasting unit should be encouraged to film the proceedings, and I am sure that the broadcasters will need no encouragement to show it.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I should declare that I am a trustee of the Youth Parliament. I would like some clarification from my hon. Friend as to whether the transmission of proceedings will be live or, as I have heard in some reports, there will be a delay. Given that so many have noted that the Youth Parliament was exceptional in its proceedings, it should not be required to have a delay in its live broadcasting.
Mr Heath
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has played a large part in championing the role of the UK Youth Parliament in this House and elsewhere. I cannot answer her question because it is not within the gift of the Deputy Leader of the House—despite my manifest powers of persuasion. I will inquire and write back to my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that I do not know the answer without making further inquiries of the parliamentary broadcasting unit.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I entirely support the use of the Chamber for the Youth Parliament, but I am puzzled by one piece of logic. Why is the hon. Gentleman content for the Prime Minister’s Chair to be used by the UK Youth Parliament, while the Speaker’s Chair is somehow regarded as sacrosanct? Why should that Chair not be used equally by the Youth Parliament?
Mr Heath
For the very simple reason that this appeared to be a bone of contention last time we debated it, and rather than have yet another argument with colleagues who felt otherwise, it was felt appropriate for the Speaker’s Chair not to be occupied by anyone other than Mr Speaker or the Deputy Speakers. We will keep to that protocol, because there is no objection on the part of the UK Youth Parliament to it. Indeed, how could it object, when it is here at our invitation? There is no reason for changing the protocol.
At the end of last year’s debate, Rhys George, a Member of the Youth Parliament for the South East, rose on a point of order to say:
“I would like to say thank you to all the MPs who voted overwhelmingly for us to be debating here today for the first time. Without them, we would not be here and the people of Britain would not be able to see what we mean and what we are trying to do to benefit young people.”
Mr Speaker was in the Chair at the time, and he rather deftly avoided noting that this was not, in fact, a point of order or a matter for the Chair. I am not sure that he would have been quite so tolerant had it been raised in our normal business.
I believe that this is a matter for the whole House. We must decide whether we want to continue to encourage young people to be involved in politics. We must decide whether we want to give them an opportunity that will be theirs perhaps once in a lifetime, and which I think will make a lasting impression not just on them personally but on the people whom they represent and the people to whom they report back—the people who know that they have had that opportunity. I hope that Members will join me in supporting the motion and welcoming the UK Youth Parliament back to this place to continue its excellent work.
Philip Davies
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point for which I have a lot of sympathy. If Ministers are so enthusiastic about the Youth Parliament sitting here, I am sure that they will have no objection to volunteering their time to respond to its debate in the way that he suggests. I am sure that that would be a worthwhile innovation. He is known for his ingenuity and his innovations, and I am sure that that one might catch on. He is certainly right that we could learn a great deal from our friends in the Province who often have more sensible views on things.
Mr Heath
Just in case the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is genuinely suggesting an unusual innovation, let me tell him that the acting Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I were all present for the entire day at the last meeting of the UK Youth Parliament and that the acting Leader of the Opposition spoke in the debate. I would certainly think it a privilege to attend this year if it is the will of the House that its meeting should take place in the Chamber.
Philip Davies
It is a red letter day for the Youth Parliament, because not only do we seem to be on the verge of allowing its members to use the Chamber again, but the Deputy Leader of the House has offered to play a full part in their proceedings. I am sure that that promise will have been bagged by them and that they will look forward to that with excitement.
The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said that he was concerned about the quality of my speech, but my generosity in dealing with interventions has meant that I have not yet started. However, I intend to do so now.
Business of the House
David Heath Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
Will the Deputy Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business for the week.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has given notice to the shadow Leader of the House and to you, Mr Speaker, that he is attending a memorial service this morning. I will therefore be announcing the business and answering questions on his behalf. The business for the week commencing 5 July will include:
Monday 5 July—Motion relating to the Clear Line of Sight project, followed by opposed private business named by the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration.
Tuesday 6 July—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Wednesday 7 July—Opposition day [3rd allotted day]. There will be a full day’s debate on Government support for jobs and the unemployed. This debate will arise on an Opposition motion.
Thursday 8 July—General debate on defendant anonymity.
The provisional business for the week commencing 12 July will include:
Monday 12 July—Proceedings on the Finance Bill (day 1). At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Tuesday 13 July—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill followed by proceedings on the Finance Bill (day 2).
Wednesday 14 July—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to counter-terrorism, followed by motion relating to police grant report, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to the European External Action Service.
Thursday 15 July—Proceedings on the Finance Bill (day 3).
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall will be:
Thursday 8 July—A debate on energy security.
Ms Winterton
I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for the business statement. I think it is in order to welcome him to his first business questions. I know that he has a long record of campaigning for respect for Parliament. Indeed, I was looking through his contributions to the last Parliament and noticed that he said Ministers should remember that
“their first responsibility in terms of information is to the House and nowhere else”.—[Official Report, 3 July 1998; Vol. 315, c. 657.]
I am sure that he was horrified when the Home Secretary was forced to come to the House to apologise for giving the media the statement on the immigration cap, which should have been given here.
Now at least the Home Secretary realised that this had been a step too far, but will the Deputy Leader of the House undertake to tick off the following offenders in respect of whom we would like to set up an early release of information scheme? First, there is the Defence Secretary for briefing on the departure of Sir Jock Stirrup. Secondly, there is the Secretary of State for Education for briefing on plans for schools. Thirdly, there is the Secretary of State for Health for briefing on the NHS operating framework. Then there is the entire Downing street staff for briefing on the whole Queen’s Speech. Then there is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has achieved a hat-trick here for briefing on spending cuts, financial reform and the Budget. Then there is the Secretary of State for Justice for briefing on prison reforms. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House can assure us that he has checked with the Foreign Secretary to ensure that nothing has been said to the media this morning that should have been said to the House first. I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House will seize this opportunity to take up the cause for Parliament, as I know he would hate to be accused of saying one thing in opposition and another thing in government.
Speaking of that, I was leafing through the Conservative-Liberal Democrat programme for government only this morning and came across the section on Government transparency. It is well worth a read, especially the bit that says:
“We will create a new ‘right to data’ so that government-held datasets can be requested and used by the public”.
Can the Deputy Leader of the House tell us whether that right extends to Members of Parliament, particularly when they are asking for figures such as those produced by the Treasury which showed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been warned that measures in the Budget would lead to 1.3 million people losing their jobs?
Given the Prime Minister’s extraordinary performance yesterday, when he refused even to acknowledge that those figures existed, will the Deputy Leader of the House place the Treasury documents in the Library? Will he also ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement to the House telling us when he first saw those documents, and why he did not include them in his Budget statement? In that statement, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer be able to confirm whether there was any contact between Ministers and their Office for Budget Responsibility before the publication of their job forecasts yesterday?
Will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us whether there will be any report to the House on the Cabinet’s visit to Yorkshire? I noted that during that visit the Prime Minister was quizzed on how the Government’s protestations of support for manufacturing tallied with the withdrawal of the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters. Perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House will also explain why the Leader of the House of the House said last week that
“the Deputy Prime Minister is meeting Sheffield Forgemasters tomorrow in his constituency.” —[Official Report, 24 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 433.]
I understand that no such meeting was planned, or took place. I can only imagine that the Leader of the House was misled by the Deputy Prime Minister. I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House will want to clarify exactly what happened, so that Members can be clear about what support is actually being given to important manufacturing companies such as Sheffield Forgemasters.
Can the Deputy Leader of the House also help us out by telling us whether there will be a statement on the future of the Tenant Services Authority? Apparently the Housing Minister has called it “toast”, but the Chief Secretary has said that abolishing it would put the finances of housing associations at risk. It would greatly assist the House, and Opposition Members in particular, to know that there is absolutely no sense of disagreement between Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers. We certainly wish to be assured that the Liberal Democrats are 100% behind all Conservative policy, including putting up VAT, putting people out of work, and the huge cuts that are to be made in public services.
Mr Heath
The shadow Leader of the House has asked me to restate a position that I stated many times in opposition, and I have no hesitation in doing so. It is entirely clear, not only to me but in the ministerial code of conduct, that announcements of substantive changes in policy should be made to the House in the first instance, and I know perfectly well that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House brought that to the attention of the Cabinet yet again only this week. You, Mr Speaker, made it very clear in your statement yesterday, and it is our clear intention that it should be the case. I have to tell the shadow Leader of the House that occasionally there will be mistakes—[Interruption.] Even Government Departments sometimes make mistakes, and that is obviously what happened in the case of the Home Office announcement last week. What happened was that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary came to the House to apologise for that mistake, and that is the right way of dealing with it.
It is important that we make sure that changes of policy are properly represented to the House, but I say gently to Labour Members that there is very little point in raising as points of order or at business questions issues raised by Ministers that are clearly set out in existing policy in the coalition document. I am so pleased that the shadow Leader of the House bothers to read that document. If it is policy set out in the coalition document, it should be no great surprise that Ministers adopt the policy and are prepared to speak about it. Therefore, it is not the case that that is an inappropriate way of addressing political issues.
I shall now deal with the other issues that the right hon. Lady raised. She mentioned an issue relating to housing associations. That is important and I shall take the matter back to the Departments and ask whether it is possible for a clear statement of the position to be given—we will ensure that that is the case.
The right hon. Lady asked about the position on the employment figures and the expectations set out by a variety of economists on what might happen. I have to say that I do not always have great faith in what economists predict; nevertheless this is an important issue. What I do have faith in is the newly established Office for Budget Responsibility, which is independent of Government and has set out the figures. I thought that the Opposition supported it. I thought that they saw it, as we do, as being a gold standard of accurate information presented to the House, but they prefer to bang on about figures that they want to choose instead. There will be an Opposition day debate next week, when the Opposition will choose the matters that we will be debating. So she asks for an opportunity to raise these issues with Ministers and she will have the opportunity to raise them with Ministers. Finally, I have to say to her that the figure that was given—the 1.3 million losses that she cited—was coupled with 2.5 million increases in employment in the very same breath. By my simple arithmetic that makes a 1.2 million increase, and the fact that Labour Members cannot do that simple sum explains to me why this country is in the position it is.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Has my hon. Friend seen early-day motion 328, which describes how Google allegedly mapped every wireless internet connection in Britain, including many millions in private homes?
[That this House is concerned by reports that Google allegedly mapped every single wireless internet connection in Britain, including many millions in private homes, for commercial purposes; is further concerned that the firm may have failed to disclose that it was building a massive database of wi-fi networks across the UK without people's consent; notes the reports that BT and other companies are using software to trawl social networking websites such as Facebook to identify anyone making negative comments about them; and therefore calls on the Coalition Government to balance innovation on the internet against individuals’ right to privacy and the new threat of a surveillance society.]
Is it not time for a debate on the balance of internet innovation, and on the individual’s right to privacy versus the new threat of a surveillance society, given that we have just got rid of the previous Government’s own one?
Mr Heath
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Yes, I have read his early-day motion and it seems to raise a very important point about surveillance. The whole issue of the increasing prevalence of what was called “the surveillance society” is something that the coalition Government are very aware of and want to address. I cannot promise him a debate in the next couple of weeks on this subject, but he may try to ask a question at questions to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on Thursday 8 July. This subject may also be a suitable one for the newly constituted Backbench Business Committee to consider for future business.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
May we have an urgent debate in Government time on the Chancellor’s grossly disproportionate attack on the benefits system, not least on housing benefit, which is causing grave anxiety and disquiet among some of my most vulnerable constituents? These feelings are exacerbated by the Government’s attempt to present all benefit claimants as workshy scroungers. May we have a debate urgently so that this particular calumny can be disproved?
Mr Heath
I invite the hon. Lady to ask questions of the Department for Work and Pensions on 19 July. She also asked for a debate on this matter, and I suggest that she will find opportunities to raise it during our debates on the Finance Bill on Tuesday 6 July, Monday 12 July, Tuesday 13 July and Thursday 15 July.
Mr Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
The shadow Leader of the House—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I apologise, I meant the Deputy Leader of the House. He will be aware of the WWF’s Rivers on the Edge campaign. There has been great concern in the House for some time about the condition of English chalk streams, and the debate on the subject that we had during the last Parliament was over-subscribed. Will he bear this in mind and see whether we can fit in a debate on the chalk rivers of England?
Mr Heath
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have great affection for the World Wide Fund for Nature because I used to work for it and promote its interests. I hasten to add that that is not a declarable interest. There might be an opportunity for him to raise this important issue at Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions on 29 July. It would also be an entirely suitable matter for a Westminster Hall debate or an end-of-day Adjournment debate.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
The next time—or perhaps the first time—the Deputy Leader of the House meets the Backbench Business Committee, will he raise the question of private Members’ Bills being discussed on Wednesday evenings to allow greater participation? Will he also consider doing away with the knives procedure under which such Bills can be talked out, and introduce deferred voting so that everyone can participate in the process?
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman knows that I agree that we need to reform the process for private Members’ legislation. When we discussed this a week or so ago, it was agreed that the Procedure Committee would look into the matter and bring forward proposals. I hope that its members will also speak to the Backbench Business Committee so that we can have the benefit of the views of both Committees. It would certainly be to the benefit of the House if we could improve the way in which we deal with private Members’ business and put an end to the procedural nonsense that we have at the moment.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
When is the motion on the fixed-term Parliament, which was promised by my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House on 25 May, going to be brought forward? He said that it would be put on the Order Paper at the earliest opportunity, and that we would have a debate on it before the summer recess. Is that still the position?
Mr Heath
I think I am right in saying that the Deputy Prime Minister intends to make a statement on that subject in the very near future, so my hon. Friend will have to be patient for a little longer—[Interruption.] It will, of course, be made in Parliament, which is the right place for such statements.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
A debate on police productivity would allow me to question Ministers on how much time police officers spend on the beat. Now that the policing pledge has been scrapped, how are we to guarantee that the police will spend 80 % of their time on the streets?
Mr Heath
The hon. Lady will know that this has been a recurrent theme over many years, since long before she was in the House. Members on both sides have been concerned about the most effective way of deploying police officers and reducing the bureaucracy that often prevents them from doing the job that we want them to do—namely, being out on the streets catching criminals instead of sitting in a back room in a police station filling in forms. I hope that we shall be able to make rapid progress on these issues. As a former chairman of a police authority, I know that this has been a problem for a very long time. The hon. Lady is right to bring the subject up, and it is equally right that we should find time to debate it at some stage.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
May I first declare an interest as a member of Portsmouth city council? That council, like many others, is heavily involved in the Building Schools for the Future programme. There is real anxiety about the delay in getting decisions on whether the plans are going to proceed as expected. The situation needs to be resolved quickly because of the amount of local authority money involved. Does my hon. Friend also agree that a shortage of parliamentary time prevented Labour Ministers from coming to the House to apologise for the number of times they briefed the media before speaking to us?
Mr Heath
I hear what my hon. Friend says on the last matter. I could not possibly comment, but I am sure that some will recognise the issue.
My hon. Friend raises an important issue about Building Schools for the Future. I know that Members on both sides of the House are keen to hear the results of that review. We had hoped that there would be a statement this week and, last week, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he thought that a statement was likely to be made this week. He said that in good faith, but unfortunately it has not been made yet. I understand that it will be made very shortly—within days.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has already explained why some information has been given not to this House but to other people. May I ask him to take up with his colleague the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), the fact that I tabled a number of parliamentary questions on the important issue of housing benefit, asking for simple factual information, and received the response:
“The Department for Work and Pensions undertakes an assessment of the impact on specific groups as part of the policy development process”?—[Official Report, 30 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 548W.]
We know that the Government have that information—they could not have published the Red Book without it—but we are being refused it. Will the Deputy Leader of the House take this matter up?
Mr Heath
Well, I shall also assume that the question has something to do with parliamentary business—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] This is about business for the next two weeks; sometimes colleagues need to be reminded of that.
I do not think that I can guarantee that there will be a statement or a debate on the matter. However, I will mention the hon. Lady’s concerns to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and see whether more information can be obtained.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
May we have a debate on supporting British citizens overseas? The Deputy Leader of the House might recall that last week I raised the case of my constituent, Ken Spooner, whose children have been abducted to Zambia. Unfortunately, the case has taken a turn for the worse and Mr Spooner is now in a Zambian jail, having not been charged. Can we possibly ensure that he gets the support from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that he was promised?
Mr Heath
Obviously, it is always a matter of great concern to hon. Members when their constituents find themselves in difficulties overseas. It is part of the consular duties of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to provide such support as may be provided in country. I shall certainly make sure that these concerns are passed on to members of the ministerial team in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
May we have an urgent debate on pay for our brave servicemen and women, especially in the light of the written answer to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) this morning from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), which announced that 140,000 members of the armed forces will have a pay cut next year? That is in marked contrast to what we did when we were in office, when we honoured in full the recommendations of the independent pay review body for the armed forces.
Mr Heath
I seem to recall that there was a significant increase in the allowances made available to members of our armed forces serving in conflict areas. That seems to me to be a significant development. However, the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to raise these matters in the very near future, because Defence questions are on Monday 5 July.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given the excellent agreement in New Forest East between leading Liberal Democrats and Conservatives that fluoridation should not be imposed on the community against its will, may we have a statement—not in the next two weeks, but perhaps in the next two minutes—from the Deputy Leader of the House, confirming that the fact that the Liberal Democrats have joined the Conservatives in government in no way vitiates the pledge given by shadow Conservative Health Ministers before the election that fluoridation should not and would not be imposed on communities that did not want it?
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman will not have a statement from me on a matter of health policy, but he can quite properly ask hon. and right hon. Friends in the Department of Health to give a response. It seems to me that this is a very important issue—I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s position—and I am sure that his constituents would like some clarity on the issue. However, I also know that the legislative framework under which these proposals are considered is the legislative framework introduced by the previous Government.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
May I press the Deputy Leader of the House on his earlier answer about the future of the Building Schools for the Future programme? First, I was disappointed that there was not a statement this week, following the comments made by the Leader of the House last week to the effect that Members could expect a statement on the programme’s future and the huge uncertainty that it is being caused. Secondly, will the statement give specific details about which schools will be built and which will not be built?
Mr Heath
I cannot possibly pre-empt the statement, but the hon. Lady is right to press us on this. We are very clear that we want a statement to be made at the earliest opportunity. I can only apologise to her through you, Mr Speaker, that we were unable to bring forward the statement this week, which we had certainly intended to do. I can promise yet again that it will be provided shortly.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
The Deputy Leader of the House is aware of the impressive lobby of this place yesterday by the Huntington’s Disease Association. Will he give us time for a debate to consider the challenges facing the 6,700 people diagnosed with Huntington’s disease, particularly those to do with accessing insurance and the adequacy of research into a hitherto incurable disease?
Mr Heath
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I, too, yesterday met constituents who either had Huntington’s disease or who were caring for people with Huntington’s disease. It brought home to all Members of the House who had contact with those people how difficult the disease is to manage. It is a degenerative disease with a genetic component that imposes a great deal of stress both on those who contract it and those who care for them. I know that there are clear issues about future research and the sort of support that can be given at the point of diagnosis and the point of management in GP practices and elsewhere in order to help. I understand that an all-party parliamentary group on Huntington’s disease has been established and that is a welcome step forward. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate in the next two weeks, I am afraid, but he might care to apply for an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate on this important subject.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
May I press the Deputy Leader of the House to get his master, the Leader of the House, to come to the House and give the statement that he promised two weeks ago on progress on setting up the European Scrutiny Committee, and to scotch the rumour that is going about that Ministers intend to vote in the 1922 committee’s election of the Conservative chair of that committee? I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will say that even the gelded Liberals would not stand for the Government’s trying to elect a Back-Bench committee’s chairman.
Mr Heath
Happily, I have no responsibility whatsoever for what happens in the 1922 committee and that is no doubt a situation that will continue. The important issue is the setting up of the Select Committees, including the European Scrutiny Committee, and I understand the urgency of that. I was very pleased that the motion was passed by the House last night to make the small amendments to the number of members on Committees. That means that the Committee of Selection can now proceed in good order to make appointments to Committees. We should have all the Committees of the House up and running as soon as possible.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
May I ask a question in a similar vein to the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) for a debate on how our consulates aid and advise our residents abroad in extreme circumstances? I am thinking in particular about the Calder Valley resident who died last week, Sarah Royle, and her family. She fell off a balcony watching the England match in the World cup. Sarah lost her parents at a very early age and her two remaining sisters, who are of limited means, are being asked to sign an indemnity against the costs of bringing the body home and paying the bills, because the insurance company believes that she might have been drinking at the time.
Mr Speaker
I assume that the hon. Gentleman is seeking either a statement or a debate on the matter.
Mr Heath
Obviously, my condolences go out to the friends and family of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, who died in very tragic circumstances. Rather than securing a debate, the most effective thing I can do is to draw his comments to the attention of Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so that they can, perhaps, give support.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
May we have an urgent statement on the release of the documents on the Hillsborough disaster? The last Government agreed that those files and documents would be released. The Deputy Leader of the House will understand the concerns about the Culture Secretary’s comments. As someone who was at Hillsborough and who has in my constituency families who lost loved ones there, this matter is of great importance to me personally. Rumours are circulating that the Government are thinking about not publishing the files and that there are arguments between Departments about the cost. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the situation or arrange for an urgent statement to be made as soon as possible?
Mr Heath
I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the clarification he wants simply because I do not know and there is no point in pretending that I do. I recognise the circumstances of Hillsborough—the tragedy that it was—and the continuing effect that it must have on a large part of the population, not least his constituents. It is extremely important that we provide as much succour and comfort as possible to those people. I will certainly take the matter he raises back to the responsible Ministers and note the force with which he makes his case.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
May we have a debate on the Government’s new sentencing policy so that we can point out to the Secretary of State for Justice that the apparent premise that people who commit minor offences are frogmarched to a court and sent immediately to prison is a false one? What happens in the real world is that the police tear their hair out over arresting the same people time after time only to find that the magistrates courts do nothing but give them a slap on the wrist. The people who eventually end up in prison do so only after all the community service and drug treatment orders have been tried and tried again but have failed.
Mr Heath
First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election to the Backbench Business Committee, on which he will have some responsibility for ensuring that these very important matters are debated in full. What I heard the Secretary of State for Justice say was that he wanted a justice system that worked, and that disposals for people who are convicted ought to be the most effective disposals that will reduce the likelihood of their offending again. He said that many of the recurrent offenders whom the hon. Gentleman mentions—those whom the police pick up time and again—serve short sentences in prison and then go on to reoffend. Surely it cannot be right to continue with policies that fail.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The Deputy Leader of the House will know that yesterday afternoon the Government suffered an embarrassing defeat by 21 votes to seven on the Welsh Grand Committee, which rejected the proposition on the Budget and the legislative programme as they apply to Wales. May we have another meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee to consider these issues?
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman is making an awful meal of the fact that he engineered a win of a vote in a Committee with 26 Labour members, three Plaid Cymru members, eight Conservatives and three Liberal Democrats. Not even the most incompetent Opposition could lose a vote on a Committee with those numbers.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
Despite Tony Blair’s promise that they would result in a café culture, the late-licensing laws are having a visible impact in towns and cities across the country. In my constituency, in recent weeks, we have had a fatal stabbing of a young man and two brutal beatings, all of which involved late-night drinking establishments and late-night drinking. May we have an urgent debate on the failed late-licensing policy?
Mr Heath
I certainly agree that the change of licensing policy that the last Government introduced has not produced the results that they claimed it would, whereby we would all sit sipping our chianti in perfect peace and serenity in our town centres until late in the evening. That does not seem to accord with the experience of most people in most parts of the country. It might therefore be opportune for the matter to be debated again. I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate in the next couple of weeks, but he could make an application to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on licensing laws, or he could seek a Westminster Hall or an Adjournment debate on the matter.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
May I draw the Deputy Leader of the House’s attention to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) in Hansard on Stockholm syndrome? Can we have a debate on Stockholm syndrome given that it may affect the judgment of leading Liberal Democrat members of the condemned coalition? The evidence base includes their support for regressive VAT increases, thereby displaying irrational emotional feelings and loss of concentration. Those symptoms are associated with this condition, and I think it would be useful and instructive if we could have a debate.
Mr Heath
I was rather hoping that there would be a punch line. There might be a case for a debate on Stockholm syndrome as it applied to those poor benighted souls who supported the Labour Government through 13 years of mismanagement, particularly the candidates for the leadership of the Labour party, who appear not to have agreed with anything they did while in government.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
May we have a debate on the annual report of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, which was presented to the House on Tuesday? The report describes the position of treatment as “encouraging”, which is in stark contrast with the 30th report of the Public Accounts Committee in March, which concluded that £1.2 billion is spent on tackling drug misuse without the Government knowing the overall effect of that approach. Such a debate could focus on the fact that only 4% of addicts become drug-free and on the urgent need for reform of the drug treatment system.
Mr Heath
We have known for a long time that the problems with substance, drug and alcohol abuse have not been sufficiently addressed in Government policy. It now needs to be addressed, and it is explicit within coalition Government plans that that will be the case. I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate or a statement on this subject, but he might want to raise it by other means.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House for an early statement on potential venues for the next £100,000 Cabinet away day? The Cabinet could try Liverpool, which would have the beneficial side effect of enabling the Culture Secretary to explain in person to the people of Liverpool why, 21 years after Liverpool fans were exonerated from causing the Hillsborough stadium disaster, he suggested on live television that it was caused by hooliganism.
Mr Heath
And he then apologised very clearly, which is an important point to note. It really is extraordinary for Labour Members now to complain about regional Cabinet meetings, having introduced them. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady was complaining about the cost of a regional Cabinet meeting, but it was much cheaper under the coalition Government than under the previous Government. She has put in a bid for the next such meeting to be in Liverpool, and I shall pass that on to the Cabinet Office. I have no idea where it intends to hold the next one, but Liverpool is always a splendid place to hold anything.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
May we have a debate on the role of the Environment Agency’s policies on hydropower generation on our rivers? Two Secretaries of State have declined, on the Floor of the House, to comment on this matter, and I think that a debate would be fruitful in securing the resolve of Ministers to address it.
Mr Heath
I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend, because I used to raise this matter very regularly. I have a whole series of micro-hydrogeneration plants on the Rivers Frome and Brue, so I know perfectly well the difficulties that those people have with the EA’s regulations on water abstraction. Of course, the bizarre thing is that no water is abstracted by hydro-turbines, as it is returned to the watercourse. I hope that he secures either a Westminster Hall or an Adjournment debate on this issue, because it would be well worth explaining the difficulties that many people who want to be engaged in micro-hydropower experience on the ground.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
The Deputy Leader of the House will be aware that we are in the middle of Co-operatives fortnight, celebrating the value of community ownership across society. The Baywind project in my constituency has blazed a trail for green energy, being locally owned and providing electricity to local homes. Will the hon. Gentleman agree to a debate on the barriers that such schemes still face when trying to get off the ground, even though communities want them?
Mr Heath
It would be very useful to have a debate on that subject. There is a huge amount to be said for co-operative and mutual organisations. That sort of corporate structure has been in abeyance in recent years, and it is time that it made a reappearance. If the hon. Gentleman applies for a debate, I hope that he is successful in securing one at some stage. I have to point out that the case of Royal Mail offers the prospect of an enormous mutualisation and expansion in the co-operative sector, and I hope that Opposition Members will support that.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
During the last Parliament, I was regularly concerned about the blood pressure of the previous Speaker, as he had to tick Ministers off regularly for leaking information to the press before they were brought to the House to make a statement. I am very concerned that your blood pressure is not affected, Mr Speaker, so will the Deputy Leader of the House ask for a statement from the Leader of the House next week setting out the punishment that can be meted out to Ministers who leak to the press before addressing this House?
Mr Heath
First, may I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election to the Backbench Business Committee? I am not sure that the Leader of the House has any sanctions that he can apply, other than exhortation, but the Prime Minister does. Perhaps this is something that we need to draw to his attention.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
May we have an urgent debate about the timing of reports from the Office for Budget Responsibility? If the OBR is to be regarded as genuinely independent of the coalition collaborators, then not only the content but the timing of reports must be absolutely free from interference.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
May we have a debate on the use of postal votes in our electoral system? It has been proved to be open to corrupt practices, and it is compromising our democratic process.
Mr Heath
Concerns about the integrity of the postal vote process have been expressed for a long time. Postal votes form a useful part of our electoral arrangements, but nevertheless we must make sure that our electoral system has the highest possible integrity. The Government are committed to introducing the individual registration of voters, and that will go a long way towards dealing with some of the potential abuses of the current system. I hope that legislation will be introduced in due course that will enable the hon. Gentleman to make his points very forcefully.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
The deadline for the payment to pleural plaques victims of compensation worth £5,000 has come and gone. On at least two occasions in this House, Ministers have said that the payment would be made by the end of June. Will the Deputy Leader of the House please ensure that the appropriate Minister makes a statement to the House to explain to victims of this dreadful disease in my constituency exactly why they are still having to wait for the much promised and expected £5,000 payment?
Mr Heath
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and also congratulate her on her election to the Backbench Business Committee. She raises an issue that I know is very important to a large number of Members and constituents. I will pass her comments on to the relevant Ministers. Hopefully, there will be statement in the near future, but I cannot promise it.
Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
May I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to award the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) the debate that she sought? We would be able to examine in detail how the cost of the most recent Cabinet meeting in Bradford was one tenth of what was spent by the previous Labour Government on their away days.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer came here last week and declared that he would be the model of transparency. He said:
“I am not going to hide hard choices from the British people or bury them in the small print of the Budget documents.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 167.]
He added that the British public would hear those hard choices straight from him, in that speech.
The Deputy Leader of the House has already brushed aside concerns raised by the shadow Leader of the House about the memo that discloses Treasury predictions of 1.3 million unemployed. The Leader of the Opposition has already raised the matter with the Prime Minister, only to be ignored. Why can we not have full disclosure of this document, and a proper debate in this House? The Deputy Leader of the House is supposed to be a champion of Parliament, and there are clearly differences of view as to the content of the document. Why can we not have a debate on it?
Mr Heath
I thought that I had made it plain that we are having four debates in the next two weeks on that subject. I would have thought that that would be sufficient to satisfy the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps we ought to debate the pre-Budget forecast based on the policies of the March Budget—a Labour Budget—which showed a reduction of around 500,000 public sector jobs by 2014-15. I think that that would be a very worthwhile debate.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Deputy Leader of the House may have heard or read reports of an incident on Tuesday at the Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency. Sadly, there was a fatality and a number of injuries, and I am sure that the whole House would want to send our condolences in respect of the 24-year-old contractor who lost his life. In the immediate aftermath of the incident there are heightened concerns among the local community. Will the Deputy Leader of the House ensure that a statement can be made to the House in the next week or two? The police and the Health and Safety Executive are conducting an inquiry. If it makes recommendations that relate to the Lindsey oil refinery and other refineries, will he arrange for a debate to be held?
Mr Heath
I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman raising this point on behalf of his constituents, and I am sure that the whole House would want to express our condolences to the family and friends of Robert Greenacre, who sadly lost his life in the incident.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the HSE and the Environment Agency have launched an investigation, in conjunction with the police. I think that it would probably be unwise for us to debate the issue in the House until it has been properly investigated but, if there are then lessons that need to be learned that have a more general applicability, I hope that we will either have a statement or that the hon. Gentleman will secure a debate on the Adjournment or in Westminster Hall. That will enable Ministers to consider the questions more widely.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
May we have a debate on the Government’s fairness agenda? Recent announcements on tax increases, benefit cuts, education spending, pensions, capital funding schemes and police funding all seem to be at odds with the fairness agenda. Such a debate would enable the Government to explain why their policies do not have any element of fairness in them.
Mr Heath
I can tell the hon. Gentleman what is fair. He mentioned pensioners, and it is fair finally to give them the triple-lock guarantee that their pensions will go up. That compares with the ridiculous 75p that we remember from the previous Government. Perhaps, therefore, we should have a debate on fairness, and on the inability of the Labour Government to introduce any element of fairness into their fiscal policies.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
May we have a debate on the future of the UK’s financial services industry? That would allow me to highlight the plight of the 535 Chester-based employees of Lloyds Banking Group, who heard yesterday that they had lost their jobs, with the closure of the Premier House call centre in my constituency.
Mr Heath
Obviously, it is a serious matter whenever we hear about job losses of this kind, and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it in the Chamber. I am not sure that I can find an opportunity for a debate on the subject in the next two weeks, but he makes a very good point about the future of regulation in financial services. That is, of course, under active consideration in the relevant Departments.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
May we have an urgent debate on sentencing policy and the construction of new prisons? There is real confusion in north Wales about whether a new prison is to be built. The Secretary of State for Wales says that she wants one, but the Secretary of State for Justice is not telling. I am still waiting for a meeting to ask a straight question. Is not it about time that this House was shown the respect of being given a statement on sentencing policy, as the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) requested?
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
The children’s heart unit at Leeds general infirmary is one of the oldest in the country—it has performed life-saving operations for more than 40 years. May we have an urgent debate on the review of the 11 children’s heart units around the country to ensure that people do not have to travel miles for life-saving heart surgery?
Mr Heath
Paediatric cardiac services are of considerable importance. Health Ministers are reviewing the situation at the moment—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is complaining that the Government are holding reviews. He was around in 1997, but let me remind him that the Labour Government announced 38 reviews between 1 May and 27 June 1997. One former Cabinet Minister said at the time:
“We have hit the ground reviewing.”
We have hit the ground reforming.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I am keen to help the Government to cut waste and extravagance. In that context, does the Deputy Leader of the House have an estimate of the cost to my constituents of the Government’s direction that Birmingham council must now publish all spending details online? Indeed, in these cash-strapped times, should we not have a debate on the cost to local authorities of that new Government imposition?
Mr Heath
I think I hear from the hon. Gentleman that he does not think his constituents ought easily to be able to find out what a large council, which runs many affairs in his area, spends on their behalf. I differ from that view. I do not believe that a debate would be greatly useful, but perhaps he would like to apply for one.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
May we have a debate on how we ought to deal with habitual criminals, given that most of my constituents in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington feel that if there is not enough time during a short prison sentence properly to rehabilitate persistent offenders, rather than not send them to prison, the solution is a longer sentence?
Mr Heath
I say to the hon. Gentleman that we need a penal policy that stops people reoffending and that reduces crime. Sometimes, that will mean not prison sentences, but more appropriate disposals that work better. Sometimes, it will mean prison sentences, because those are necessary either for rehabilitation or for the protection of people in an area. I hope the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to put forward what are quite clearly firmly held views when the Justice Secretary brings forward his review of sentencing policy.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May we have an early debate on the role and responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister? Did the Deputy Leader of the House share with me the feeling of pity for him when he was on the “Today” programme this morning talking about the scourge of grey squirrels? What on earth is going on in his Department?
Mr Heath
I do not find the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman suggests, because I believe that some of the legislation introduced by the previous Government is absurd and unnecessary. Whenever a Minister did not know what to do about a subject, they came to the House and introduced a new criminal offence. The fact that we are going to get rid of some of those criminal offences will be widely welcomed across the country, because we do not want unnecessary offences and regulation. The Deputy Prime Minister is doing an extremely good job of highlighting those issues. If he wants scrutiny, he does not lack it, given that a Select Committee has been formed for that purpose and that there are regular questions to him in the House. I do not think there are any such difficulties.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Will the Deputy Leader of the House agree to a debate on whether the law currently provides sufficient protection for telephone bill payers from being charged for calls made by an external hacker through their switchboard? Jolene Gregory, the practice manager of Pendle View medical centre in my constituency, has a bill for £4,700 for fraudulent calls made between September and December 2009, which to date, the telephone provider, Azzurri Communications, has been unwilling to cancel or reduce.
Mr Heath
Many hon. Members will be shocked by what has happened to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent—it is simply unacceptable. Many of us have found similar things in our constituency casework. Telecommunications companies in particular very often seem to have scant regard for the interests of their consumers. I am pleased that he had the opportunity to raise the matter today on behalf of his constituent, and I will ensure that it is brought to the attention of ministerial colleagues and the regulator. In due course, he may feel it worth while to approach the Backbench Business Committee to ask for a debate on the wider subject of consumer protection, which probably affects a large number of Back-Bench Members.
Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Yesterday, two of my constituents travelled from Hull to lobby me on the important issue of contaminated blood products. When they came through security, they were wearing campaign t-shirts, which they were told either to remove or turn inside out. I know that the Deputy Leader of the House is committed to freedom and civil liberties, so will he make a statement on that particular practice of the House?
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
May we have an urgent justice debate on the devastating impact for local justice in Skipton and rural Craven should Skipton magistrates and county court close as a result of the forthcoming review?
Mr Heath
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have many questions to ask about the circumstances of their local magistrates courts. Far be it from me to use my position to raise the issue of Frome magistrates court—that would be inappropriate—but experience suggests that concern is felt by a large number of hon. Members. There is a genuine consultation on what should happen and legitimate questions need to be asked about court houses that are simply not fit for purpose and that cannot be brought up to the required standard economically. However, the Justice Secretary will welcome views from hon. Members about courts in their constituencies and their circumstances, particularly in relation to rural areas, where access to justice might be an issue. I cannot promise a debate at the moment, but no doubt when the review has reached its completion, there will be an opportunity.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Last week, the Prime Minister said that our troops would be back from Afghanistan within five years, but yesterday he was contradicted by the Secretary of State for Defence. May we have a debate to clear up this mess as soon as possible?
Mr Heath
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed to regular debates on the conflict in Afghanistan and Defence questions are on Monday—there are questions on policy in Afghanistan on the Order Paper, which will give him the opportunity to raise that. It is absolutely clear that there is the intention of withdrawing our forces when the job is done, and we all hope that the job will be done at the earliest possible opportunity. I do not see any difficulty in reconciling that position.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week, when I asked for a Government statement on Equitable Life, the Leader of the House rather breezily told me that there was no need for a statement because there would be a Bill, but there was no mention in today’s business statement of the Bill’s introduction. Given the time it takes for legislation to go through both Houses of Parliament, is not the reality that any legislation is unlikely to be enacted until the end of this year at the earliest, which means that payments will not be made until some time in 2011? May we have not only a statement but a debate on that cruel betrayal of Equitable Life policyholders by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, given the promises they made before the election? That is also a betrayal, incidentally, of Members such as myself, who misguidedly voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on the matter a few weeks before the election.
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman has been a doughty supporter of Equitable Life policyholders over the years, as have I and many hon. Members on both sides of the House. It does not really help if he now uses the terms that he has for this Government, who are trying to deal with the issue after year after year of prevarication from the previous Government. They set up Sir John Chadwick’s review. He has not yet completed it. He is now talking about reporting in mid-July, so we have to await the end of the review. There is no question about that.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said that legislation will be introduced at an early opportunity, and it will be.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Deputy Leader of the House consider his reply to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) about the redundancies announced by the insurance arm of Lloyds Banking Group. Lloyds is, of course, largely owned by the Treasury. Of those posts, 198 are going from Nottingham. What can be done to help with retraining and redeployment of those made redundant? Many of our constituents in Nottingham are very concerned about this matter.
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman may want to raise that in the context of the Opposition day debate, because it is clearly relevant to that. I perfectly understand the concerns that he expresses on behalf of his constituents. We want to make sure that every possible assistance is given by the Government to the individuals made redundant. We bandy around percentages, but someone who loses their job is 100% unemployed until they find another job. That is the human tragedy that we always have to have in mind.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use that opportunity. If he feels that there is more that can be done, I hope that he will seek a debate on the issue either in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment. Such issues are very important. I leave the hon. Gentleman with one parting shot. He is right: this is a bank in which the UK Government have a significant holding. I wish that the previous Government had applied some effective constraints on the way banks operated when they took that equity in the banks.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to colleagues for their co-operation, which has enabled everyone who wanted to contribute to do so.
Select Committees (Membership)
David Heath Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I beg to move,
That the following amendments to Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) shall have effect for the remainder of the present Parliament:—
In the table in paragraph (2), in the final column (Maximum members)
(1) leave out ‘11’ and insert ‘12’, in respect of:—
(a) the Defence Committee,
(b) the Justice Committee and
(c) the Welsh Affairs Committee;
(2) leave out ‘11’ and insert ‘13’ in respect of the Treasury Committee; and
(3) leave out ‘13’ and insert ‘14’ in respect of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
The House will recall that the Government brought forward proposals on 15 June to increase the membership of the Defence, Justice and Treasury Committees from 11 to 16 members and of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee from 13 to 14 members. These proposals were offered in good faith, with the intention of securing proper representation for smaller parties on certain Select Committees. However, they were resisted by the elected Select Committee Chairs, who tabled amendments to remove the increases to 16 and to provide, as an alternative, a power for the Committee of Selection to increase the size of no more than three Committees by no more than two members.
The proposal was also strongly resisted during the debate on the business of the House motion by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) on the ground that it did not provide for Plaid Cymru to be represented on the Welsh Affairs Committee. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) also expressed reservations about the proposed motion.
We therefore undertook not to move the original motion, but to consult further and come back with new proposals. The membership of departmental Select Committees, including the party composition of the Committees, is for the Committee of Selection to propose and for the House as a whole to approve. The purpose of these changes in the maximum membership is to give the Committee greater latitude to accommodate smaller parties on the Committees concerned while still broadly reflecting the composition of the House.
The Government accept the view, expressed by the Wright Committee and the Liaison Committee, that smaller Committees are generally preferable. However, the Wright Committee also acknowledged the desirability of ensuring that smaller parties were properly represented. There is a clear tension between these two objectives, and I hope that the House can agree that these proposals represent a fair compromise between the two.
I especially wish to express my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury for making efforts to secure a swift and satisfactory conclusion to negotiations.
In order to reflect our commitment to the Wright reforms, we propose that the changes should be limited to the current Parliament. No doubt the issue will need to be revisited anyway in the next Parliament, depending on the composition of the House. I hope that the House will be able to agree to the motion this evening so that the Committee of Selection can nominate members and the Committees can get on with their work.
Mr Heath
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) for their comments. I am pleased that we are able to apply a good dollop of common sense to what was required in order to ensure that all parties can play their proper parts in the workings of this House. I commend this motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Business of the House
Ordered,
That, at the sitting Monday 5 July, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business) the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means may be entered upon at any hour, and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business.—(Mr Vara.)
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 14 July, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or an European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Theresa May relating to Police Grant Report not later three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion; proceedings many continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mr Vara.)
Parliamentary Allowances and Short Money
David Heath Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on securing the debate and on the way that he introduced it. We are fully aware of the strong views held on all sides of the argument, but he has expressed his view on behalf of his party extremely well. I am also pleased that he has the support of his colleagues who intervened—the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and for Upper Bann (David Simpson). The matter of allowances for elected Members who do not take their seats has always been controversial. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I cover the same history that he mentioned in his remarks, but it is crucial to our understanding of where we are in relation to allowances.
The matter was first raised by Sinn Fein in 1997 with the then Speaker, now Baroness Boothroyd, who clearly and explicitly upheld the long-standing convention that Members who did not take their seats should not have access to the House’s facilities on the grounds that the House does not permit what she described as “associate membership.” That decision was subsequently upheld by her successor as Speaker, now Lord Martin of Springburn, following the 2001 election.
In December 2001, the House debated and agreed a motion to permit elected Members who had not taken their seats to have access to the House’s facilities, including allowances, to support them in their representative work on behalf of their constituents. On 8 February 2006, a similar decision was taken on representative money, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred and which is analogous to Short money. That resolution provides for the payment of
“expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the employment of staff and related support”
to parties represented by elected Members who choose not to take their seats, and by statutory requirement, political parties whose Members do not take their seats are not eligible to receive policy development grants. As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, Members who do not take their seats cannot have parliamentary duties; none the less, they are the elected representatives of their constituents and have representative duties in which the provision of allowances is intended to support them, on the basis that the House previously agreed.
As we are all aware, there has been a much wider debate on allowances over the past year. The Committee on Standards in Public Life recognised when it reported in November that the decisions on allowances for elected Members who did not take their seats were political, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out. The previous Government promoted the arrangements specifically—it would appear—to support the political process in Northern Ireland and to encourage Sinn Fein to play a greater role in mainstream politics.
The right hon. Gentleman brought up the position adopted by parties in previous debates and before the general election. There are Members who have always opposed the decisions on the grounds that all MPs elected to serve at Westminster should carry out their full duties in representing their constituents, and that includes participating in the business of the House. They have always seen this as primarily a House of Commons issue and agreed with Speaker Boothroyd at the time on “associate membership” of the House. He also said that some Members have always taken the view that the matter should be subject to a free vote—that is, it is for individual Members rather than the parties.
Since the decisions were taken, circumstances in Northern Ireland have changed considerably. We have a new devolutionary settlement, which is at the heart of the peace process. Northern Ireland is now firmly set on the political path, with Sinn Fein Members playing a full role in the Assembly. Though dissident republicans continue to try to undermine those who are committed to the political process, there is no question—I hope and pray—of a return to the troubled decades of violence. As a result, it is time for us to look again at the issue. It is clear that there are real and strongly felt issues of principle under discussion.
The Belfast agreement is clear: Northern Ireland is, and will remain, part of the United Kingdom until or unless a majority of the people of Northern Ireland vote otherwise. Sinn Fein has accepted the consent principle set out in the agreement, and there is therefore no good reason why its Members should not take their seats at Westminster. Whatever arguments were made in 2001 and 2006, they were made in a different political context. Northern Ireland has moved on. The principle for the future must be that all elected Members should take their seats and play as full a role as possible as Members of the House.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Deputy Leader of the House clearly indicated that there would be a change. I am reminded of a book that I studied at school—“Animal Farm”. It said:
“All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
It is time that all the animals on the farm were equal, and Sinn Fein has to be equal to the rest of us. If we are accountable to a process as democrats, Sinn Fein is equally subject to it. Reassurance from the Deputy Leader of the House is good news, but can he give us a time scale on how this will work?
Mr Heath
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I cannot set out a clear timetable, but if he listens to what I have to say in my later comments, I hope that he will be reassured that the Government take the matter very seriously.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister already made his position clear, although not, I suspect, as clear as the right hon. Member for Belfast North would wish. In answering the question from the hon. Member for South Antrim on Wednesday on allowances, he stated:
“My views about this issue are on the record, and they have not changed. I would like to see if we can make the argument. There is not a case for Sinn Fein Members not to take their seats. I think that at the moment we let them off the hook, so I would like to re-examine the argument and see if we can find a new way of doing this.”—[Official Report, 23 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 291.]
In addition to the changes in Northern Ireland, there have also been shifts in the parliamentary landscape that will need to be considered. The creation of IPSA was an essential step in cleaning up politics by bringing to an end the discredited system of self-regulation. Allowances, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, are, of course, now a matter for IPSA, not for the House. However, the right hon. Member for Belfast North is correct in what he said about IPSA’s approach; I understand that it intends to observe the status quo by continuing to pay allowances, but not salaries, to Members who do not take their seats. Last Wednesday, IPSA set out its position as follows:
“a Government motion passed through the House of Commons in 2001 established the position that MPs who do not take the oath may claim expenses related to their Parliamentary business. IPSA regards itself as obliged to follow these motions and intends to do so unless the House decides otherwise.”
A question was raised on how IPSA interprets those decisions in terms of the criteria applied to individual expenses claims. I assume and hope that IPSA will apply exactly the same criteria to a claim from a Sinn Fein Member as it would to any other Member of the House.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I want to ensure that the Deputy Leader of the House is aware that it is not only Members from Northern Ireland who feel strongly about this; many Labour Members voted against the original decisions. I welcome the move that he appears to be making, but we need to do this quickly, because it is just not fair. The new coalition Government were elected on one thing more than any other—fairness.
Mr Heath
I know that there were views across the House that were at variance with the previous Government’s position when the decisions were taken.
Representative money is a matter for the House. Any change to the current position requires a decision of the House and a debate at which Members can again put forward their views.
I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s arguments, and to those of his hon. Friends and others. I will ensure that the arguments raised are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Leader of the House, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister. The Government will listen to all sides of the debate, but we are mindful of the very strong views that have been expressed in the debate today and the real issues of principle at play in relation to financial assistance for those MPs who do not take their seats.
Over the coming months, Ministers will be talking to all Northern Ireland parties to address how to take the issue forward in light of the views and clear issues of principle we discussed today. The right hon. Gentleman has my assurance of that. I congratulate him on securing the debate and on expressing his views clearly and precisely. I will ensure that they are communicated to my right hon. Friends who will deal with the matter in the future.
Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
David Heath Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I beg to move,
That Mr Nicholas Brown, Bob Russell, Laura Sandys, Mr Charles Walker and Ms Rosie Winterton be appointed under Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 as members of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority until the end of the present Parliament.
The motion sets out the nominees for membership of the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, the composition and functions of which are defined in the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. I remind the House that the Committee is a statutory body established under the Act, not a Committee of this House, which is why its members are being nominated by a Government motion.
There are five nominees, who will sit alongside three ex officio members. The first of those ex officio members is the Speaker. The others are my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons and the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee. The nominees are drawn from recommendations from both sides of the House.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend is listing excellent members of the Committee and I am sure that it will be first class, but will the Committee have the opportunity to report to the House? Some Speaker’s Committees have a quarter-hour slot for question time in the House, and it would be most useful if that Committee reported to the House via one of its members. In that way, we could keep updated and ask some questions.
Mr Heath
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. The duties and functions of the Committee are fairly closely defined by the Act. Its only functions are to ratify the nomination of IPSA’s chair and board members before they are put to the House, and to approve the estimate—a very important function—so there are perhaps limited requirements for reporting, but I think he makes a valid point. We have such an arrangement for the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. I shall certainly take his suggestion on board and see whether an arrangement can be made for the Committee to be answerable to this House.
As I said, the nominees are drawn from recommendations from both sides of the House and I very much hope that they will be accepted by both sides. I commend the motion to the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Heath Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
1. What recent discussions he has had on the establishment of a Backbench Business Committee.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House heard the views of hon. Members from all parts of the House in the debate last Tuesday.
Chris Bryant
I am delighted that the Backbench Business Committee has been set up, and pay tribute to the Minister and to his colleague for doing so. Something that can be immensely frustrating for Back Benchers is having to take a ten-minute Bill or a private Member’s Bill through the ludicrous shenanigans of a Friday morning. Will the Minister undertake to make sure that private Members’ Bills are looked at by the Committee, so that we consider them on a Wednesday evening, for the greater convenience of all hon. Members?
Mr Heath
Again, as the hon. Gentleman may know, that was debated last Tuesday. We all share the frustrations of having private Members’ legislation blocked in the extraordinary procedure that we use in the House for such legislation. The Chair of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), suggested that he wished to look at the whole process of private Members’ legislation, and I hope that his Committee can do so as a high priority. We will certainly keep in touch with that Committee and with the Backbench Business Committee in the hope of finding a better way of doing that particular area of business.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
3. What proposals he plans to put to the House for the pattern of sittings of the House for the rest of 2010 and 2011.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
The House has already agreed to a sitting in September this year. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I would welcome Members’ views on how the pattern of sittings should be organised.
Simon Hughes
May I make an early bid for a pattern of fixed and family-friendly sittings that allows colleagues to be away some time for school holidays in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as in England, and that gives us an annual regular cycle, with the wash-up at the end of the Session in September before the conferences, and a fixed date for the start of the parliamentary year every October?
Mr Heath
I recognise the issue of Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish school holidays. Different local education authorities have different term dates, so it would be impossible to align the sittings of the House completely with the school terms, but I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion. There is a case for a more fundamental review of the annual sitting patterns of the House.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman also take into account the extra-curricular activities of MPs of the better kind, such as contributing to VSO overseas? I have reluctantly cancelled a two-week engagement with VSO this summer because of the uncertainty. It is undoubtedly the case that the additional activities that MPs undertake—for example, on promoting workers’ rights overseas—are to be protected. Will the hon. Gentleman take that into account as well, in looking at how we manage our timetable?
Mr Heath
I am not sure that we can guarantee to protect the timetable for all the extra-curricular activities of hon. Members, but the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. We indicated at the earliest opportunity what we would be doing this summer, but hon. Members want a degree of certainty about the parliamentary calendar, so far as that is possible. I hope the hon. Gentleman will contribute to the review that we will set up to look at that.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
4. What steps he plans to take to increase the confidence of the general public in the House of Commons.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
5. If he will assess the merits of providing the House with provisional information on its business for more than two weeks in advance.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal for a second with future engagements, in offering my congratulations to my hon. Friends the Members for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) on their announcement at the weekend of their coalition arrangements.
I can see that there would be advantages to hon. Members in announcing the business further in advance, but decisions about the business for three or four weeks’ time is usually too provisional to be helpful to the House.
Jo Swinson
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words.
Most other workplaces manage to make some plans more than two weeks in advance, albeit on the understanding that sometimes plans have to change. Publishing greater information about future business would help hon. Members to manage their time more effectively and lead to a better functioning of the House. Will he consider experimenting with more advance notice about the business of the House?
Mr Heath
I certainly agree with the principle that my hon. Friend sets out, but this place is not quite like other places in that business on the Floor of the House is subject to many factors, including the progress of business in Committee and in another place, and decision making within Government. It is not always possible to schedule business with any certainty more than two weeks in advance, and there is a risk that providing the House with very provisional information that is subject to change could frustrate rather than inform hon. Members in their diary planning. In addition, we always seek to be topical, and that might be lost if we planned too far ahead. However, I certainly take my hon. Friend’s point.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
6. What his policy is on the use of programme motions to regulate proceedings on legislation; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
The Government intend to provide adequate time for consideration of Bills on Report, when the most serious problems occurred in the last Parliament.
Philip Davies
The Minister and I regularly used to vote against the previous Government’s routine use of programme motions in the last Parliament. What will be different about this Government, so that we do not have the situation where people in opposition complain about programme motions, but in government routinely use them?
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman remembers well what happened in the last Parliament, when very often huge parts of Bills were not considered by the House, which was a disgrace. What will be different is that there will be fewer Bills, better drafted Bills and an end to the automatic guillotine of the Report stage. However, that depends on all parts of the House having a grown-up attitude to how we consider business. [Interruption.] I hear the grown-up attitude evinced by Opposition Members.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Is not the answer to remove timetabling, or at least relax it, so that it no longer strangles debate in the House? For years now, Bills have gone through with very little debate on key parts. The answer is to go back to a time before the Jopling proposals, when we had full and free debate, and when the House could sit as late as was necessary.
Mr Heath
This is the first opportunity that I have had to welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the House. I am very pleased to see him here.
Yes, we want to ensure that the bits of Bills that need longer scrutiny receive that scrutiny, and that we have a sensible dialogue with all Members of the House—the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee will help us in non-legislative areas—to ensure that the House has its say on matters about which it is concerned, and that we do not waste time on areas where no one has a genuine interest. That is what I mean when I talk about a grown-up way of looking at the business of the House. Let us hope we get it.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
7. What recent representations he has received on the process for Ministers making oral statements in the House.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
A number of Members have raised issues surrounding ministerial statements in the House in recent weeks. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I are always happy to continue to take representations on that and other issues.
Mark Tami
When in opposition, the Deputy Leader of the House, like his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, was very concerned about the leaking of statements, the overuse of written statements and the lack of advance notice that was given to shadow Ministers. When will the hon. Gentleman and his colleague practise what they preach?
Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
8. What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the implications for the House of the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference on parliamentary representation.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
The Government wholeheartedly agree that we should take all the steps that we can to increase diversity in Parliament, and that there is a real need to make political parties reflective of the communities that they serve. We are considering the Speaker’s Conference report and recommendations very carefully as we develop policies and agree priorities. As part of our coalition agreement, we have already made an early commitment to introduce extra support for disabled people who want to become MPs, councillors or other elected officials—one recommendation of the Speaker’s Conference.
Diana R. Johnson
Women now make up 22% of the House—notably, the majority are Labour Members. At the start of a new Government, perhaps we ought to look at the issue with fresh eyes, so will the Deputy Leader of the House look again at the over-representation of middle-aged, middle-class white men in the House?
Mr Heath
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I have to say that my party is, very sadly, under-represented in terms of women in the House, and we deeply regret that. The ministerial responsibility for the issue lies with the Minister for Women and Equalities, and I hope that she will make very swift progress on bringing proposals before the House.
Points of Order
David Heath Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. The advice is that on the one hand, there is no provision in the Standing Orders barring any Member from taking part in the proceedings; on the other hand, voting is not compulsory. I am sure that Members will listen to that advice. This is ultimately a matter for individuals to decide for themselves, rather than for the Chair to decide.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It may be helpful to the House to know that the business managers on the part of the Government—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, myself, the Chief Whip and the Deputy Chief Whips—will not take part in that election.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I think the answer has been made clear. It will be interesting reading for other hon. Members to take that advice on board.
Business of the House
David Heath Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I beg to move,
That, at today’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Sir George Young relating to Backbench Business Committee, Election of Backbench Business Committee, Backbench Business (Amendment of Standing Orders), Westminster Hall (Amendment of Standing Orders), Topical Debates (Amendments of Standing Orders), Pay for Chairs of Select Committees, Backbench Business Committee (Review), September Sittings, Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills), Deferred Divisions (Timing), Select Committees (Membership), Select Committees (Machinery of Government Change) and Sittings of the House not later than 9.30 pm; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.
It is important that we facilitate finally reaching decisions on the large number of matters before us in the motions on the Order Paper today. That is the purpose of the motion—to enable us not to defer matters to another day, not to have matters continuing into the future.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are in a position today where we are discussing motions that will effectively exclude Plaid Cymru Members from being a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee and Scottish National party Members from being on the Scottish Affairs Committee. Additionally, there will be no room for those parties’ Back-Bench Members to sit on the Back-Bench business committee. What kind of motions are these? What is the point behind them? I urge the Minister to take them away and think them through, as these motions will not stand the test of time, and the people in Wales and Scotland will be furious when they find out.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank Mr Llwyd for his point of order, which is not a point of order. Sufficient amendments have been selected to allow him to make his points.
Mr Heath
Of course, the sooner we can dispose of the business of the House motion, the sooner we can move on to the important debates on the membership of Select Committees.
I should like to welcome you to the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I do not think I have had the opportunity to do so previously. The point I was making is that the motion will enable us to reach decisions on these matters tonight rather than at some time in the future. It seeks to balance the time we need for debate and the time we need to take decisions on some 14 motions on the Order Paper—and, of course, on the amendments to them that Mr Speaker has selected. It would be foolish of us to take up a great deal of time debating the business of the House motion at the expense of the important debates that I know the House is eager to move on to at the first opportunity.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I should like to make two or three brief points, because I, too, want the business of the House motion to be dealt with quickly.
I served on the Wright Committee with a completely open mind, and I hope that I did an honest job of work. The point was to try to ensure that everybody in the Chamber was properly represented on Committees. I have been a member of one or two Select Committees, and I am a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee. We Plaid Cymru Members are prepared to pull our weight as parliamentarians, but I was alarmed to discover late last night that the likelihood is that if the motion on Select Committee membership is passed unamended, we shall find ourselves not represented on the Welsh Affairs Committee. It is not just that that is offensive; it is more important than that.
The Welsh Affairs Committee plays a central, pivotal role in the legislative process in Wales, because it carries out pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills from the National Assembly for Wales. We are in government in Wales. Are the Government saying that we, as members of a governing party, cannot be represented on the Committee performing that important function? I understand that my friends in the Scottish National party will be excluded in a similar way. It is quite outrageous if that is to happen.
Mr Llwyd
Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene and clarify matters? [Interruption.] I shall speak to my colleagues. If motion 13 is not to be moved, I shall move on to the issue of the Back-Bench business committee. When I was on the Wright Committee, I made the point several times that the minority parties must be represented on the Back-Bench business committee as well, because we play a full part in what goes on in this place. I am in my 19th year here, and if I did not pull my weight, I would not still be here.
Mr Heath
With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to the excellent debate on the business motion.
I shall deal first with the important point made by the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), which touched on the point of order from the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). It is essential that we find a way of allowing the minority parties to play their part properly in the Select Committee system. It may be helpful to the House to indicate that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will not move motion 13 this evening, because we need to talk further about this.
Unfortunately, the proposition and the amendments that have been tabled are not helpful to the hon. Gentleman in securing what he wants. Indeed, the amendment to which he put his name would have prevented the minority parties from having a member on the Select Committees that he wanted. That shows that it is important that we discuss the matter further, and make sure that we get the right result.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Has the hon. Gentleman any explanation whatsoever for how we got ourselves into such a mess?
Mr Heath
No. I think we have heard enough from the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) spoke about our position on programme motions. I say gently to her that there may be a world of difference between a programme motion intended to prevent Members reaching a conclusion or even debating important matters of legislation, and one intended to help the House reach a conclusion on a matter that we have been debating for a very long time. That is a real difference, which she ought to appreciate. I hope that that partially answers the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd).
The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) made an extremely important point—that if we secure the agreement of the House this afternoon to the changes, never again will it be for a Minister to determine these matters. It will be for the Back-Bench business committee to decide its own business, and that is as it should be.
Barbara Keeley
The hon. Gentleman has not yet answered the point about the lack of consultation. The mess that Government Members have got themselves into this afternoon could have been avoided if there had been more consultation with the Opposition and the minority parties.
Mr Heath
I do not accept that there has not been consultation, that the motions were not tabled at an early stage, or that we have not been talking about this subject for months and months and months, nay, years. I note that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Kevan Jones) says that today is not appropriate for discussing the matter, but I note also that the previous Government never found a day when it was right to take a decision on these essential reforms. Today, we are going to put that right. Today, we are actually going to reach some decisions and open up the business of this House to the control of Back Benchers, where it belongs. I hope that we will now proceed with that.
Question put.
Backbench Business Committee
David Heath Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
As this is the first time I have spoken while you have been in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take the opportunity to congratulate you on your new position. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who made a powerful and convincing case in favour of transparency in relation to the Back-Bench business committee, which I wholeheartedly endorse. I endorse also what she said about three former Members: Tony Wright, Evan Harris and Mark Fisher, who did so much to campaign for the committee and to bring it to fruition.
I am somewhat disappointed that we are discussing this today. The reason for my disappointment is that, in the previous Parliament, on 4 March, the House passed a motion saying that it looked forward to the House being offered the opportunity
“to establish, in time for the start of the next Parliament, a backbench business committee”.
We are several weeks into the new Parliament. Unfortunately, that was not done in time for the start of this Parliament. That was despite assurances from the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who said:
“I can assure the House that we will bring forward the Standing Orders, and there will be an opportunity for the House to endorse them before the next election.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 433.]
She also said:
“I am under a duty and a responsibility to ensure that this happens before the next Parliament”.—[Official Report, 18 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 986.]
Unfortunately, that did not happen, which is a great tragedy, but perhaps it should also serve as a salutary lesson for those of us in this House who are keen to see reforms progress in general—I suspect that that is most of the Members present in the Chamber—that there is not always an easy path to reform. It is therefore important that those of us who are reform-minded make sure we continue to campaign, rather than assume that everything will be fine just because the House has agreed to a motion on something or other.
I am, however, absolutely delighted that the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House have introduced these motions so speedily in the new Parliament, and I think that goes some way towards making amends for the House’s inability to get things done before Dissolution. I am especially pleased to see my hon. Friend in his new post; he was made for it, as he has always been a staunch defender of Parliament, and, indeed, of Back Benchers. I know that all of us who are eager for reform to happen take great comfort from knowing that the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House are also very much reform-minded.
In terms of control of the business of the House, the proposals are indeed an historic transfer of power from the Government to Back Benchers. The new Government are passionate about decentralisation, and perhaps that decentralisation is starting at home. My comments will be highly supportive of the Leader and Deputy Leader’s efforts to make progress with reform, but I also want to tease out some issues that could be improved upon still further.
It is clearly excellent that the Back-Bench business committee will now be set up as a result of the motions laid before the House today, but there is still a slight concern about the number of days allocated, as I raised in business questions last week. The Wright report suggested 35 days for Back-Bench business. I understand that the Leader and Deputy Leader’s motivation for splitting the 35 days between this House and Westminster Hall is to enable proper scrutiny of legislation by allocating additional days to the Report stages of Bills. It has been a valid criticism of how Bills have progressed that they have not received proper scrutiny on Report and entire swathes of Bills have been left undiscussed on the Floor of the House. I understand the motivation, therefore, but I very much hope that at least amendment (a) to motion 4, which would insert a reference to 27 days into Standing Order No. 14, will be accepted. That would certainly go some way towards giving reassurance. [Interruption.] I am very pleased that that is the case.
There is another issue I wish to raise, and which I hope my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader will be able to address in his winding-up speech. I appreciate that these measures are about moving towards Wright rather than about the Wright reforms being implemented all in one go, so in respect of this agreement that there will be 27 days of Back-Bench business in the Chamber, will there also be a move towards increasing the number of days from 27 in the future? I hope my hon. Friend will be able to say something positive about that, as that would be very helpful.
Obviously, we are at the very beginning of a new Parliament with a new Government so the legislative programme is heavy, but perhaps as the Parliament continues there might be additional time on the Floor of the House for Back-Bench business. It is also worth looking at the innovative use of time to create room for Back-Bench business. For instance, Tuesday mornings and Wednesday evenings have already been mentioned in reference to private Member business.
The next issue I want to raise in respect of the Back-Bench business committee is to do with permanence. It has been suggested that its members should be re-elected every year, and that there should be a review of its progress and how well it is working in a year’s time. In some ways, that sounds very good. As a democrat, I like elections; and as somebody who likes to learn how we can do things better, a review might sound like a good idea. Taken together, however, these proposals cause a certain amount of concern, and there is a genuine danger that such a review might be used to try to get rid of the Back-Bench business committee, and that if the committee were seen as being too effective, annual elections might be used as an opportunity for the Whips to remove a particularly effective Chair.
One issue of pertinence in that regard is who will vote for the committee members. If the Government in effect have a block vote of more than 100 MPs, it will become very difficult for any candidate who is not supported by the Government to become the Chair of the committee. We recently elected the Chairs of Select Committees and the convention as originally recommended by the Procedure Committee was that Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries of the relevant Department would not vote in the election of the departmental Select Committee Chair. Although this was not made explicit in the Wright report, I wonder whether it may be possible for the Government to take the same self-denying ordinance in voting for members of the Back-Bench business committee and its Chair. It does not seem unreasonable for the Back-Bench business committee, which represents Back Benchers, to be elected by Back Benchers. If that can be done, it might assuage some of the concerns about annual elections.
I also want to press my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader about the same issue on which I intervened on the Leader of the House: motion 3(1)(c). That is not only about the Chair of the Back-Bench business committee; it is about any candidate to become a member of the Committee. It clearly states that of the candidate’s nominations,
“no fewer than ten shall be members of the candidate’s party”.
That would exclude members of the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru, the other minority parties and, indeed, independent candidates.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend as she has, I think, spotted a defect in the proposals, but I have to say that it is not a defect in the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and myself; it is, rather, a defect in the proposals from the Wright Committee, which, unfortunately, was not spotted in the motion drafted by the Committee. I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says about the unfortunate effects of that, and I think we may want to look at it again. I hope, however, that she will accept our defence, which is that here we have religiously stuck to the recommendation and, indeed, the draft motion of the Wright Committee.
Pete Wishart
I am pleased that I gave way again to the hon. Gentleman, because he is spot on. That is what the issue is about. I hope that the House hears tonight that we have a meaningful contribution to make. My modest little amendment (e) is an attempt to address the issue. It aims to make sure that the minority voice is heard, as the hon. Gentleman says. It is about saying, “Let’s see what we can do to get the smaller parties of the House involved and on board.”
As I have said, there is no way that we would ever be considered for a place on the Back-Bench business committee; that is just not going to happen, and I hope that that will be conceded. We do not yet know how its members will be determined. I know that it will be through an election, but there will be some sort of mechanism or procedure to ensure that Labour, Liberal and Conservative Members are on it. That is 100% certain; I bet you any money, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there will be one Member from each of those three parties on the Committee. It is also almost entirely certain—again, I bet you any money—that there will be no Member from the minority parties on it. We have to change that; we have to ensure that that does not come to pass.
My amendment suggests that we increase the number of members of the Back-Bench business committee from eight to 16. Why 16, you ask, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is because that always seems to be the magic number at which we start to come into play.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head; he may want to intervene. Sixteen is always the number at which there is at least a chance that we will be included. That is why I seek in my amendment to increase the number to 16.
It is good to get more Members involved. What is wrong with that? Why restrict the number to eight? I know that the Committee might get more business done that way, but the term “Backbench business committee” suggests that it should be full of Back Benchers. There should be lots of them involved, from Labour, the Liberals, the Conservatives, the DUP and the SNP. What is wrong with having a reasonable-sized Back-Bench business committee? Restricting membership to eight just does not make sense and I cannot see the reason for it. Surely there are loads of Back Benchers who want to be part of what could be a very exciting and promising Committee.
Mr Allen
With good will—and the only reason we are here tonight is because there is good will, and the Government have provided time on the Floor of the House tonight for this debate—we can overcome all those problems and ensure that the Back-Bench business committee works. The prize of making the committee responsible and practical is not just topical and sensible debates in the House, but the next stage, which will mean a fully fledged business committee. If new members can help to achieve that, over the next two to three years, it will be an irreversible step in parliamentary history.
I said that this process might be a little demeaning. When a subject for debate is chosen by the Government—as it always is at present—we do not say that someone must come and explain to us why it has been chosen. We do not, although perhaps we should, get the Chief Whip to the Dispatch Box to explain—
Mr Allen
Yes, but the Leader of the House explains the business on a Thursday. He does not have to get up before every debate and give a little reason or excuse for its subject matter. I accept that I am finding fault in a generally excellent set of proposals, but if I do not do so now, we could be stuck with the proposal that a member of the Back-Bench business committee must give an explanation before every topical debate, general debate and Adjournment debate. That is an onerous task. The Wright Committee expressed the view that every member of the Back-Bench business committee should play a part, so would the most junior member have to stand at the Dispatch Box to give a little trailer of what is to come? Would they be cross-examined by Members about why the committee did not pick an important constituency issue or why it neglected another vital issue? How silly! This is a piece of trivia that we should reject tonight. I hope that the Leader of the House, who has got so much right here, will not hang himself on a vote—whether he wins or loses it—on getting Back-Bench business committee members to explain why a particular subject was chosen, other than at business questions, as he does, where the committee chair would be available, as the Church Commissioner and others are during different question times, to chip in and answer questions, make sensible changes, and respond to requests. We would all like to see that.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
We have had an extremely good debate. We have teased out a lot of the issues that relate to the establishment of the Back-Bench business committee and to the various proposals that we have put forward, which are in line with the Wright Committee proposals. There are some areas where the House will wish to take a view. There are others where there is a clear preponderance of voices, at least in the debate, in favour of what we have proposed.
I want to take a little time to deal with the issues that have been raised because they will repay further consideration. I will deal first with the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton). I am grateful for her general welcome for what we are doing. She asked some specific questions and she deserves specific answers. She asked whether there would be any impact on Opposition days. The answer is categorically no. The Standing Orders that relate to Opposition days are not to be changed, so there is no change to the present position. She asked me to confirm whether there will be substantive business to address in September and pointed out that we have recently had several general debates—which, in fact, I think the House has welcomed. I think it is equally fair to say to her that we are in the immediate aftermath of the Queen’s Speech and it is necessary to get legislation right. One of the commitments we have made as a Government is not to present to the House legislation that is not in a fit state to be considered by it, because we felt that that was one of the failings of the previous Government. Very often there were subsequent amendments at later stages in a Bill’s progress simply because the preparatory work was not done. I repeat again, however, that it is our intention to bring substantive business before the House in September, if the House agrees to meet in September, which is subject to a decision this evening.
The right hon. Lady was intervened on by her party colleague the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton), who made the valuable point that we need to get the entire parliamentary calendar right. In respect of this evening’s motions, we are talking about what we will do in September this year, but I am perfectly well aware that there are Members on both sides of the House who will want not only a degree of certainty about the future calendar of the House, but to express their views and concerns about their family circumstances, such as Scottish school holidays not coinciding with English school holidays. It is right for the House to consider that, and I hope we will be able to consult widely on what ought to be the future shape of the parliamentary calendar and bring back proposals that try as far as possible to accommodate the various different interests of Members of all parties.
The right hon. Lady asked about the costs of bringing the House back in September, and that point was strongly supported by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). He has expertise in this area, and I am grateful to him for his comments because he perfectly sensibly set out possible difficulties with a September sitting. I remember the last time we tried September sittings, and I do not think the arrangements behind the scenes lived up to the expectations of the House. In fact, I would go further and say that there was a suspicion that in some cases the maintenance that took place was planned to cause the maximum disruption to Members during that September sitting, rather than the minimum; that was certainly the way it seemed. I accept, however, that this is a difficult and complex building, and that it has to be maintained properly. We must take careful note of the hon. Gentleman’s quite proper warnings that if we are going to meet regularly in September, we have to organise House maintenance and other works around that, and that we need proper forward planning to achieve that and we need to do so on the basis of proper advice. Those are perfectly sensible points.
On the specific point about the maintenance contracts, the right hon. Lady will recall that Mr Speaker wrote to all the parties following the decisions in February and March indicating that the House may wish to sit in September and saying that the possibility of September sittings would be taken into account in the organisation of contracts. I hope that that will be the case and that any disruption to those contracts will be kept to a minimum.
On the costs of a September sitting, I should point out that of course it costs the same for Members to sit regardless of the time of year. The total number of days that we are sitting is the relevant factor, not the dates on which we sit.
Mr Betts
As the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, cost is an important issue, particularly with regard to maintenance and forward planning. When he looks further into this for future years, will he ensure that the Officers are allowed to produce their advice independently and that it goes to the appropriate Committees, and also that all Members of the House have access to the advice that is given about the costs and the advisability of postponing maintenance programmes and not carrying them out properly as Officers advise that they should be carried out?
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Is the Deputy Leader of the House aware that radical and far-reaching repairs need to take place in the basement of this place, where high pressure steam calorifiers are located right next door to very high voltage electrical cables? That is so much the case that I understand that in the previous Parliament the House of Commons Commission even considered whether there would be a need to move out of this building. Has he taken that into consideration in these proposals?
Mr Heath
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I can say only that the House of Commons Commission is considering this. As I say, I am not a member of that body, but I would not be putting forward this proposal today—I should remind hon. Members that it is one of the things that the Wright Committee asked us to put before the House— if we felt that there were impossible hurdles to cross this year. However, this matter may be something that we need to consider in future years.
I wish now to deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—they were also reflected in the comments made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz)—about the important matter of private Members’ Bills. The hon. Member for Wellingborough rightly drew attention to what I had said on a previous occasion when he tabled a similar amendment. He quoted me, so may I quote myself? That is always an invidious thing to do but as he quoted me, I shall quote myself. He said that I had said that “perhaps there should” be a change in Standing Orders. I stand by that comment—perhaps such a change should be made—because I want us to do a much better job of dealing with private Members’ Bills.
We do not do a good job on these Bills at the moment and the process contains procedural hurdles that are absurd, and are seen as such by our constituents. Far too often, excellent measures that are introduced by individual Members do not make it to the statute book, despite substantial support in the House, simply because of the way the system works. I am therefore delighted that the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), has volunteered that his Committee will examine this as an early matter of priority. It is essential that the Committee does so and I hope that it will make proposals. I also hope that the issue of how many Fridays are made available will become redundant because we will have so improved the way we manage private Members’ legislation that Fridays are not the crucial factor in deciding whether we make progress.
Mr Bone
Given the comments that the Deputy Leader of the House has just made and those made by Opposition Members, I accept that this is not about the number of Fridays, but about the quality of debate on private Members’ Bills and how we put them through this House. Given what the Deputy Leader of the House said, and given this happy frame of mind that we are in tonight, I shall not press my amendment to the vote.
Mr Heath
I am delighted to have satisfied the hon. Gentleman in his quest; we are making progress.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) for her comments. She has made it perfectly clear throughout that she was a member of the Wright Committee who did not agree with all its proposals. She has taken a proper position. She had a minority view, she has expressed it and she has been consistent in her position. She amplified that a little by raising specific issues in tonight’s debate, so I shall deal with them. She asked whether members of the public will be excluded from the meetings of the Back-Bench business committee and indeed whether Members of Parliament who are not members of that committee will be allowed into the meetings to hear the deliberations. The rules that will apply will be the same as those for any Select Committee. I genuinely think that it is not for a Minister of the Crown to tell the Back-Bench business committee how it should undertake its role. However, I hope that it will consider, carefully and early on, how it will manage its business, and in what circumstances it will have open meetings and in what circumstances it will not, in the same way as Select Committees across the House do. She has raised an important issue, and it is a matter that the Back-Bench business committee—if we constitute it—will need to consider.
The hon. Lady asked about the party political make-up of the committee and whether seats would be allocated in the same way as for normal Select Committees or whether the system would be entirely open. As she knows, a formula reflecting the composition of the House is generally used, and it is intended that that formula will be used to determine the make-up of this committee. However, there is an issue of how we accommodate the minority parties in the Select Committee process, and I shall come later to the points made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).
The hon. Lady also asked whether a Chair of another Select Committee could stand for election as chair of the Back-Bench business committee or one of its members. Nothing in the proposed Standing Orders would preclude that, but she raises an important point. It would be extraordinarily bad practice if a Chair of another Select Committee stood for election to the Back-Bench committee because their membership would inevitably raise the suspicion that that Member’s Select Committee had enhanced access to the business of the House. I would hope that that would not happen, so I strenuously urge those hon. Members who were lucky enough to be elected as Select Committee Chairs not to put themselves forward for the Back-Bench business committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) made an excellent contribution to the debate. She emphasised the frustration that we did not get the committee up and running before the general election. The previous Government failed to give us the opportunity to make the necessary changes to the Standing Orders, so I am proud of the fact that, in the first week following the conclusion of the Queen’s Speech debate, the House is determining the matter—that represents excellent progress.
My hon. Friend emphasised the need for a minimum of 27 days’ Back-Bench business in the Chamber and, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, we are happy to accept amendment (a) to motion 4 because that was always our intention. She also asked whether further progress could be made, including on the innovative use of time. I hope that we can find innovative ways of using time more effectively, and of course we firmly intend to move to a House business committee within three years. That will mean that we have a totally different way of managing the House’s business, which will be a good thing.
I think I have already dealt with my hon. Friend’s point about private Members’ Bills. She also said that the Wright Committee had further ideas that she would like to see progressed, such as some about public engagement. I agree that the Committee made further excellent suggestions. We have not lost sight of them and hope to come back to them in the future.
Jo Swinson
Given the assurances about private Members’ Bills that we have heard from my hon. Friend and from the Chair of the Procedure Committee, I will not press amendment (b) to motion 4 to a Division. However, my hon. Friend has not answered my question about whether Ministers will vote on the membership of the Back-Bench business committee, or whether they will follow the self-denying ordinance that applies to elections for Select Committee Chairs.
Mr Heath
My hon. Friend is right that I did not respond to that question. I will take her points back to my colleagues in government because there is clearly an argument that, as she says, it should not be for the Government to elect those who serve on the Back-Bench committee. That issue is not specifically addressed in the motions, but we ought to listen carefully to her point.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) on his election as Chair of the Treasury Committee. He was absolutely right to say that we are lucky to have such an enlightened Leader of the House. He likened the relationship between the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip to that between Esau and Jacob, although I am not quite sure who is in possession of the mess of pottage. He is right to say that the Government’s attitude is to bring forward proposals for modernisation and then to take them forward. It is about not just paying lip service to an idea, but actually making it happen, which is what we are doing this evening.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the representation of minority parties, and of course that was the main thrust of the argument of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire. Wright has something to say on the subject. The Wright Committee report says:
“Members in individual cases can be added to specific committees to accommodate the legitimate demands of the smaller parties.”
I repeat to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I are absolutely determined to find ways to make sure that the minority parties are properly represented in the Select Committee system. I have to say to him that enlarging the Committees beyond the size that Wright recommended and that the Liaison Committee wanted is probably not the way to do it. We have to find an alternative way of accommodating his request, but my door is certainly always open to him and his colleagues, so that we can discuss the matter further and make sure—with, I think, a degree of dispatch—that something happens.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) made the point that the Wright Committee suggested having an added Speaker’s Member on Select Committees. Unfortunately, the Committee did not make that a recommendation; I wish that it had, because it would have made our life a little easier when dealing with this difficult problem.
The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) raised the issue of European business—no surprise there, perhaps—but it is specifically mentioned in the motions as “government business”. Indeed, in the second report of the Wright Committee, the draft Standing Order changes specify that that should be the case. Of course, when we have the House committee, we will be able to enter into the sort of partnership arrangement suggested, and we will be able to make sure that those matters are dealt with properly. I have to say that I was a little put off by the hon. Gentleman accusing me of sophistry in my approach to annual elections; I had not said a word on the subject. I must have given him a sophistical look at some stage. I will deal with the issue of annual elections in just a moment.
Mr Allen
I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks on the committee’s annual nature, given that every other Committee runs for five years. We started off with the possibility of 10 Divisions tonight, but because of the generosity of Members in all parts of the Chamber, and because of the strength of the replies from the Front-Bench team, we are now down to five Divisions, virtually all of which refer to the question: why should the committee not have a life of more than one year? Why is it on probation? If the hon. Gentleman can give us some satisfaction by saying that he will take the issue away and look at it seriously, and not press the proposal tonight, we may all get home a lot quicker than we would if there were five Divisions.
Mr Heath
I was about to say what a huge contribution the hon. Gentleman had made to the debate not just this evening, but over the past few years in which he has pressed the case for reform. That is appreciated. He, among others, has been making sure that we are true to our word on many of these subjects. We have already agreed that we will accept his amendment (a) to motion 4 on the issue of the 27 days. I will go further: having listened to what he and the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) said, we are prepared not to press forward this evening with the proposal for the introductory statement. We hear what they say, and we will accept the relevant amendment on that basis.
As far as the one-year election is concerned, that is a suggestion that puts the Back-Bench business committee into the hands of Back-Bench Members, making it accountable to them. It may be that Members do not want to have the committee in their hands; they may wish to have a one-off election and not review the matter, but it is right that the House has the decision. That is not a matter for the Government and Ministers; it is for the House to decide whether it believes that the proposal is a useful introduction. I am happy for the House to have its say on the matter.
To recap, we will not move motion 13. We will accept amendment (a) on 27 days tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North and the amendments on the introductory statement. Annual election is a matter for the House to decide. On private Members’ Bills, I hope we will make rapid progress in improving the situation. We need to address the representation of minorities as a matter of urgency. September sittings are, again, a matter for the House.
We have not in any way resiled from the spirit of the Wright Committee recommendations, but we cannot treat them as holy writ because, as in so much of holy writ, there are occasionally internal contradictions. There are competing pressures. The House would not thank us if we made sure that there were no end of general debates on the Floor of the House, but we had no time, for instance, for Report stage of important Bills. We have tried to be practical about it, and I hope we have succeeded in that intention.
Mr Tom Clarke
I very much welcome the tone of the Deputy Leader of the House and the progress that we have made tonight on private Members’ Bills, but given that some of the impediments have come not from here but from another place, can we assume that discussions are taking place?
Mr Heath
I am happy to give that assurance. We need to look at the matter in the round.
It has been a frustrating pathway to reform. Sometimes there has seemed to be little movement, but we have an opportunity this evening, and I am particularly pleased that so many new Members will have the opportunity to participate in the decision. Usually, when we talk about historic days in the House of Commons, the expression is overblown, but I genuinely believe that this evening is an opportunity to change the relationship between the Executive and the legislature. If right hon. and hon. Members believe in Parliament and in a strong legislature, if they believe that a strong Parliament leads to stronger government, they will support the proposals on the table this evening. I commend them to the House.
Mr Speaker
I must now put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on motions 2 to 15 and selected amendments which may then be moved. I will go through the motions in the order in which they stand on the Order Paper, dealing first with selected amendments to each such motion.
Amendment proposed to motion 2: (e), in paragraph (2), leave out from “and” to end of line and insert
“fifteen other Members, of whom eight”.—(Pete Wishart.)