Oral Answers to Questions
David Heath Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
2. What progress he has made on the implementation of the Wright proposals on House of Commons reform in the last 12 months.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
This Government have successfully implemented recommendations to introduce elections to Select Committee membership, established a Backbench Business Committee and, within the last 12 months, introduced an e-petition system to achieve a greater degree of public participation. The majority of the remaining recommendations of the Wright Committee are a matter for the House rather than the Government.
Paul Flynn
Can we improve the choreography of the parliamentary week by doing what the Wright proposals suggested—moving Prime Minister’s Question Time to Thursdays, allowing Wednesdays to be used for the increasingly important Back-Bench business debates?
Mr Heath
As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the Procedure Committee is now completing and in the very late stages of production of a report on the parliamentary calendar. We would prefer to wait and see what suggestions the Procedure Committee makes rather than taking a unilateral view on what is best for the House.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
What is the Government’s analysis of the effect of adopting the recommendations in the Wright Committee report? I understand that the creation of the Backbench Business Committee was blocked by the previous Government.
Mr Heath
It was indeed; there was no progress whatever under the previous Government on this matter. I am very proud of the fact that we moved quickly to establish the Backbench Business Committee. Speaking personally, I think it has been a great success. It is something that the House should have done some time ago. I look forward to building on it in the years to come, and I look forward to the review of the Backbench Business Committee’s work, which will give us an indication of how the House views its performance more widely.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Wright proposals are about increasing ministerial accountability to this House, but there have been too many examples recently of Ministers preferring to do anything other than appear at the Dispatch Box to make statements on their own responsibilities or face departmental questions. This is a huge discourtesy not only to you, Mr Speaker, but to Parliament. To tackle this, might the Leader of the House consider introducing a penalty points system—or, with a reshuffle on the way, a “three strikes and you’re out” rule?
Mr Heath
That was what might be considered a bold attempt to transfer the answer for Question 1 that the hon. Lady had prepared to Question 2. I do not think that the Wright Committee was in any way concerned with the subject to which she referred. As she has raised the issue, however, let me remind her that the present Government have, on average, made more statements than their predecessors. We made 191 in the last Session, an average of 0.7 per sitting day, which compares favourably with the last Administration’s average of 0.4 per sitting day during the 2009-10 Session. We did almost twice as well as they did.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
3. What progress he has made on implementing the recommendations of the Procedure Committee on debates on e-petitions.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
Following the Procedure Committee’s report, we have updated and improved the e-petitions website. We have improved, for instance, the wording of the site and the search and submission functions, making the process easier and clearer for the more than 3 million people who have signed an e-petition since August last year.
James Morris
Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that one solution to the problem of debating e-petitions would be for the Government to table a motion allowing Westminster Hall sittings on Monday afternoons during which e-petition topics could be debated?
Mr Heath
We are very sympathetic to that view. In fact, we said in our response to the Procedure Committee’s report that we supported its proposals for a pilot. It is for the Procedure Committee to present such proposals in Back-Bench time, but we are working well with the Committee to enable the House to reach what I hope will be a swift decision.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I think that the Deputy Leader of the House will accept that our old friend Tony Wright, who was responsible for the recommendations of the Public Administration Committee, would want the House continually to evaluate the way in which their implementation is working. There is no doubt about the success of the Backbench Business Committee, but e-petitions seem to have been taken over by elements of the popular press such as The Sun and the Daily Mail. How are we going to react to that? It is not the way in which the system was intended to work.
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. This was never intended to be simply a cut-out-and-send-back element in a tabloid newspaper’s campaign, but there is no evidence that all e-petitions are of that type: in many cases, they constitute a genuine expression of public sentiment on a subject. Besides, we have the filter of the Backbench Business Committee, which considers whether the House has already debated the issue in question, or will have an opportunity to do so in the near future. When the Committee considers it right for a debate to take place, it will stage one, and I think that it is doing a very good job in that regard. However, we are constantly evaluating what has happened, and we are keen to learn from the experience in order to make the arrangement even better.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
4. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on scheduling of business to achieve the Government's legislative programme.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House regularly meets colleagues in Government to discuss the legislative programme in order to ensure that Parliament has an opportunity to debate Government legislation fully.
John Mann
There is no problem with debating Government legislation fully, because the Government have hardly any legislation to introduce in this increasingly part-time Parliament. Given that they have no ideas to present, will the Leader of the House make better provision for Back Benchers, including me, who have a whole raft of Bills to introduce which the public would like to see implemented? Will he give us time in which to introduce them, or not?
Mr Heath
We are seeing an interesting juxtaposition. Our Department is so often criticised for providing insufficient time for Members to consider legislation properly, and now the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is too much time for them to do so. I remind him that, only a few weeks after the Queen’s Speech, 11 Bills are already before Parliament. I entirely reject his criticism that there is any deficit in terms of the legislation that is before the House.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
I understand that during the last Parliament there was criticism of the amount of time given over to scrutiny of legislation. This Government are remedying that. Can the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that this Government will always give appropriate time for scrutiny of legislation on Report?
Mr Heath
That is absolutely right, and I was one of those who led the criticism of the previous Government, as so often we found that the time for scrutiny was constrained. One of the key areas is Report stage. We have been very careful to allocate more time for that—very often more than one day—to enable Back-Bench Members to have their say. There is a quid pro quo, however: when we do provide more time, it is important that the House uses that time in a sensible way and makes sure that matters that need to be discussed are discussed in a timely fashion.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
5. Whether he has any plans to bring forward proposals to reform the scrutiny of private Members’ Bills.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I understand that the Procedure Committee has today announced that it will be conducting an inquiry into the procedures for consideration of private Members’ Bills and that it will put out a call for written evidence soon. I look forward to learning of its considerations and any recommendations it may put to the House.
Mr Hamilton
Will the Deputy Leader of the House address the fact that we currently have an archaic system, and will he give due consideration to the private Members’ Bills issue? If we change our hours, such Bills could be introduced on a Tuesday or Wednesday night, with votes at the end of the debate. We must get rid of our current archaic system, whereby the awkward squad on the Government Back Benches can talk out very good Bills introduced by Members on both sides of the House.
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman has probably given the subject headings for the submissions he will put to the Procedure Committee. It is not for me to determine the outcome of this inquiry, but I look forward to hearing what the Committee has to say, because all of us have felt for some time that the matter is worth looking into.
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Is the Deputy Leader of the House aware that the Procedure Committee would be delighted if the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) were to come along and give evidence to us? He is hereby invited to do so.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
6. What progress he has made on introducing a House business committee.
Sittings of the House (21 June)
David Heath Excerpts(11 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 the sitting on Thursday 21 June—
(1) the House shall meet at 9.30 am, and will first proceed with any private business, petitions, and motions for unopposed returns;
(2) Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) shall apply to the sitting on that day with—
(a) the omission of paragraph (1) and of the proviso to paragraph (7); and
(b) the insertion of references to 2.30 pm as the moment of interruption;
(3) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business), no opposed business shall be taken after the moment of interruption;
(4) no questions shall be taken, save as provided in paragraph (5) below;
(5) at 11.00 am the Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit questions to be asked which are in his opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers, or personal explanations to be made by Members;
(6) if the House is in committee at 11.00 am, and the Speaker’s intention to permit such questions, statements or explanations has been made known, the occupant of the chair shall leave the chair without putting any question, and report that the committee has made progress and ask leave to sit again;
(7) the proviso to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of general committees) shall not apply;
(8) no general committees shall meet after 2.30 pm;
(9) when a substantive motion for the adjournment of the House has been made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall put the question forthwith; and
(10) there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall.
It seems only yesterday that I last had the opportunity to address the House on a procedural motion as a result of an objection from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), but of course I am delighted to do so again. I am just saddened that he does not seem to have joined us.
The motion is simple. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the noble Lady the Lord Speaker have invited that remarkable lady, Aung San Suu Kyi, to address Members of both Houses in Westminster Hall on Thursday 21 June. The motion simply adjusts the hours of the House on that day as if it were a Friday sitting to accommodate that visit and to allow Members to hear her. The House will therefore sit at 9.30 am. I hope this will be for the convenience of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I commend the motion to the House.
Backbench Business Committee
David Heath Excerpts(11 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 am grateful to the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for introducing the motion on behalf of the Committee of Selection. As he rightly said, the sole purpose of the motion is to bring into effect the results of the ballots held in the respective parties to provide for the constitution of the Backbench Business Committee. One might imagine that that was a fairly straightforward process. One might imagine that having elected Members to the Committee, the House would wish for the Committee to undertake its work at the earliest opportunity.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The concern of some Members tonight is why it has taken so long to bring the motion forward. The House has been sitting for a number of weeks since the elections. People are concerned about why the Government have delayed the Backbench Business Committee in coming forward.
Mr Heath
Uncharacteristically, the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong to say that there has been any delay. At the very first opportunity following the elections in the various party groups, the matter was put before the Committee of Selection, and the Committee of Selection took the very first opportunity to put it on the Order Paper. There was an objection, so we could not form the Committee. That is why we are debating the matter—again, at the very first opportunity that the House has had—to bring it into effect.
There has been absolutely no delay. Matters have proceeded as quickly as possible. That is why I was a little flabbergasted to find that we would have to have a debate. As I said, I would have thought that the House would have wanted the Committee to be constituted as quickly as possible. Of course, there are legitimate reasons why hon. Members might wish have wished to have a debate. They might have felt that there had been procedural irregularities in the elections. However, I have heard no arguments of that kind. Indeed, quite the reverse: I have heard Members congratulating the hon. Members who have been elected. I am glad that they seem to have the acclamation of the whole House.
Mr Nuttall
On the constitution of the Backbench Business Committee, does my hon. Friend think that it is rather demeaning that the minor parties have only observer status, rather than full membership?
Mr Heath
No, I do not think that it is remotely demeaning. It is the result of what the House decided just before the close of the last Session. The House has debated that matter and I do not intend to repeat the arguments.
Now, would the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) like to intervene?
Dr Lewis
I thank the Deputy Leader of the House, as always, for giving way graciously. Given that we have the opportunity of this debate, would he care to use it to reassure Back-Benchers that the Government have no intention whatsoever of trying to prevent votable motions from being debated on days other than Thursdays?
Mr Heath
Whether the Government have any mechanism to do that is in the hands of the Backbench Business Committee, which was set up by this Government. Incidentally, it was not set up by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who was so concerned about the progress towards a House business committee that her Government would not allow a Backbench Business Committee of any kind. We set it up and are very proud of its progress over the past year. I am pleased that it has managed to do the work that it has done, and I look forward to it doing its work in the years ahead.
Charlie Elphicke
I have a very brief point. Sometimes, the Leader of the House is given a hard time about how things are with the Backbench Business Committee. However, is it not right to say that it was very much his brainchild to make it happen and to implement it? Should not the House recognise that he has fostered this major improvement in our parliamentary machinery, which the previous Government did nothing about?
Mr Heath
I am perfectly happy to take credit on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for implementing what was clearly set out in the Wright Committee report. I thought it was a great shame that the report was not implemented by the previous Government, but it has been and will be by this Government. I commend the Wright Committee’s report to everybody who wants to see the way forward on some of the relevant issues.
Mr Heath
Again, I commend the Wright Committee report to the hon. Gentleman. He will find that he was simply wrong in some of the points that he made earlier about the Committee’s suggested structure for determining House business.
I move on to the last substantive point that needs to be made. The hon. Gentleman seemed to take exception to the fact that the Government had attempted to facilitate the Backbench Business Committee’s procedures for this week.
Mr Heath
No, not for the moment. Let me explain what the Government have been attempting to do.
It seems that there is some objection to the fact that the Government have tried to help the Backbench Business Committee by providing the debate that it would normally have scheduled this Thursday. We are committed to the Backbench Business Committee having time for Back-Bench debates at an average of once a week, although not necessarily every week consecutively, and we have kept up that average.
We felt it imperative that we reserved time this week for a Backbench Business Committee debate. Did we pluck a subject out of the air for that debate? No, of course we did not. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House asked the Chair-elect of the Committee, who of course was its previous Chair and so has some experience, what she felt would be an appropriate subject for debate this Thursday prior to the Committee being formally instituted. She undertook to consult the new Committee’s members-elect to see whether they had views, and she took into account the requests that had come forward. She suggested that we might provisionally propose that there be a motion on mental health, tabled by Back-Bench Members and in the name of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan).
The Government are now being criticised for providing at the earliest opportunity what members of the Backbench Business Committee wanted. We are told that we are wrong to have done that. I reject that criticism, which I think is frankly rather stupid. All that we have done throughout the process has been to say that we will do whatever we can to help the Committee in its work. Had the Committee been set up last night, it would have met today and agreed the subject for debate on Thursday. I have every confidence that the subject it would have chosen was the one that its members asked for. If the Government are to be criticised for helping the Committee and facilitating its setting-up at the earliest opportunity, I fail to understand what more we can do to assist Back-Bench Members. I believe that we have acted entirely properly.
Whitsun Recess
David Heath Excerpts(12 years 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)
Yet again, we have seen the value of these free Adjournment debates. I was very disappointed that we did not have one before the Easter recess and I am particularly pleased to have secured this one. I greatly welcome the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) to the Backbench Business Committee and even though he has not quite joined yet, he allowed the Committee to take the credit for this debate. Actually we put it on, because the Committee has not yet started its work this Session and I am glad that we have given Members this opportunity to raise important issues about their constituencies or more widely.
I want to correct what seems to be a widespread misapprehension among colleagues on both sides of the House about the Olympic torch. They seem to think that the highlight of its journey will be its visit to their constituency whereas the highlight has already passed, this Tuesday, when it went to my constituency. It entered and went around Somerton—I was there—and then left my constituency. That was a highlight. But then the Olympic torch relay organisers realised that my constituency was too good to leave and the torch came back into Frome later on the same day, so we had another marvellous occasion. I know that all Members will welcome the event when it happens in their constituency.
Let me quickly go through hon. Members’ various contributions. I know that I cannot do justice to all the speeches and answer all the questions that have been raised, but I will make sure that hon. Members have a proper reply from the relevant Department to any questions that I cannot answer.
We started with the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), and I agree with the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) that he made a moving and valuable contribution to the debate. We should recognise the huge contribution that Alan Turing made to our country’s future and our security during the war. The centenary of his birth is an appropriate time at which to do that. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, a posthumous pardon was considered in 2009, and as a result the then Prime Minister made an unequivocal apology for the treatment that Mr Turing had received, which the then Prime Minister accepted was horrifying and utterly unfair. I think we all believe that those successful prosecutions and convictions for what should not have been a crime would have been cruel and deeply inappropriate for anyone, but particularly for someone who had served the country so well.
The hon. Gentleman knows that there are difficulties with providing a posthumous pardon and Lord Sharkey has raised this issue in the context of legislation in another place. We know that those particular offences are now to be disregarded for those who were convicted and are still alive, but there is currently no mechanism for doing that for others. However, discussions continue and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join Home Office Ministers in looking at whether there is a way of achieving that objective.
The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) raised a number of issues. I thought he might have expressed a little more pleasure about the fact that a brand-new £1.6 billion contract had just gone to BAE Systems. I would have thought that that was worth celebrating, but it seems not. He also raised other matters that are properly for the local authorities in his area. One of the things the Government are keen on is to make sure that responsibility lies where it should—with locally elected members for the decisions they take. I have no idea whether Lancashire county council is fulfilling its responsibilities, but if not those elected to the authority are answerable to their electors. That is the right way of doing things.
I was a little surprised by what the hon. Gentleman said about early years investment. The Government have actually invested a lot more money in early years. We have built on the previous provision and I am pleased about that.
The one thing I cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with is his comment about rural broadband. He chose the wrong Minister when he said that rural broadband did not matter, and that it was just faster internet shopping for millionaires. I am sorry, but it is not. If we do not invest properly to allow every member of every community in the country to have access to broadband, we shall have failed. The hon. Gentleman is deeply mistaken on this subject.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) talked about development on the green belt in her constituency. She knows the Government’s position; it is clearly set out in the national planning policy framework. It might be useful for her to have a conversation with the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). He is the Minister for decentralisation, so he can explain exactly what Government policy is and perhaps communicate that to local authorities in her area. I will happily arrange that meeting if I possibly can.
The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) raised a number of human rights issues—in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan, Burma and Syria. She was joined by the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), who talked about Sri Lanka, and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who spoke about Bangladesh. We must never forget the importance of human rights or the influence that Britain can and should bring to bear in countries around the world. That is very much an emphasis both for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development in everything we do in those countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) talked about the beauty of his constituency and pointed out that it attracts a lot of tourists. At one point, it sounded as though he was listing all the songs that have extolled the beauty of places in his constituency. He made the very valuable point that many Government policies are supportive of small businesses, and he is absolutely right about that. I would also refer to tourism.
My hon. Friend raised what he saw as the difficulties in correcting the anomalies in relation to static caravans. He knows that the Government have extended the consultation period, and that in due course they will come forward with a view based on the consultation. There is nothing wrong with correcting anomalies, but as we all know, sometimes when we correct them we introduce new ones. We have to take all the evidence and then come to a decision.
The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) talked about breast cancer, and I agree with the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge that she did so movingly. It is pleasing that survival rates are now better, and if we can reduce the level of mortality from all cancers, and certainly from breast cancer, it will be a significant step in the right direction. One of the keys to that is early diagnosis. The hon. Lady talked about the extent to which early diagnosis in the borough of Newham lags behind that in some other parts of the country, and that worries me. One of the benefits of the new legislation is that it brings local authorities who know their area well into the issue of public health and they may be more responsive to the needs of local inhabitants than the health authorities, which were rather more remote. I hope that will improve provision in her area. I also accept what she said about the new, less-invasive therapies that are available. That is something the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence must take on board; that is why we have that independent advice for medics on the most appropriate types of treatment.
We heard a very moving contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who talked about her constituents, Mr and Mrs Burns. I am sure that all Members of the House will want to extend their sympathy to them and to Isabella for the tragic loss of Charlie. Let us be clear that deaths from epilepsy are not common. With unexpected deaths, one of the problems is that it is often very hard to understand what signs and symptoms people should be looking for. Public awareness is critical, so I was pleased by what she said about the charity that is working to extend public awareness of sudden death from epilepsy and the fact that nocturnal seizures are one of the signs that people should look for. I think that she did a marvellous job in raising the issue today and hope that people will hear what she has to say. I know that the Department of Health will do everything it can to back that up with information.
The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) talked about the custody suite in Harrow police station, and I understand his point about the loss of custody suites. One of the knock-on effects is that we lose the police officers, who are arresting officers, who must then transport people somewhere else and so cannot police the streets. He talked about the proposal for an airport in the Thames estuary. We await the consultation on the aviation industry and the consequences of that. I know that many people are not persuaded of the virtues of such an airport.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about something very close to my heart: London Welsh. I played against London Welsh a few times when I was with Saracens and always enjoyed my visits to Old Deer park. I understand why they would be miffed at the idea that, if they beat the Cornish Pirates—it is not necessarily the case that they will—they cannot then progress. The rules are a matter for the Rugby Football Union, but it is important that, literally, there is a level playing field between those in the premiership and those who aspire to be. I will draw his comments to the attention of the Minister for Sport.
Appropriately, we then moved on to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), who talked about graduated driver licensing. I am pleased that he recognises that the introduction of the drug-driving legislation will be an advance. He knows that he is yet to persuade the Department for Transport of his case, but I know that he will be persistent. What we need is an evidence-based approach to whether graduated driver licensing would succeed in reducing injuries and accidents, particularly for young drivers, which is something the whole House wishes to see.
The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) talked about steel, and I recognise and understand much of what he said. I just wish that he had not then lapsed into caricaturing the positions of members of the Government on that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is made in Yorkshire and knows perfectly well what heavy industry is about. The right hon. Gentleman might have mentioned the fact that the blast furnace at Redcar steelworks, which was closed under the previous Administration, has been reignited under this Government. That might have made his contribution a little more balanced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) talked about Israel and Palestine, a cause he has been so committed to for so long. He knows that the Government’s position is to support a two-state solution in which both Israel and Palestine can live in security and peace. That is what we need to achieve, and it is not assisted by illegal settlements or some of the activities he mentioned.
The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) seemed to advocate a very exciting scheme, and I hope that the business case stacks up, because a modal shift from road to rail for freight is extremely important. I do not know why he singled out Scotch whisky as its main cargo, as there are probably other uses, but it was a useful contribution.
The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), with the breadth of his contribution, gave his usual bravura display on such occasions, from the art of happiness to the cultural centre of Essex, which I am advised is certainly not an oxymoron under any circumstances. He ranged over online publications and the pay of chief executives in the public sector, and he knows that the Government are very much bearing down on the salaries that are within our control, but the same should apply in particular to local authorities, where there is concern.
The hon. Gentleman talked also about his local police authority’s lack of engagement with him, which as a former chairman of a police authority I found very surprising. He also referred to clamping, on which he knows we have introduced new legislation that will take effect this autumn.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Vioxx, a matter that is still before the courts, and he talked about his constituent Mrs Stephanie Lister and the drugs, such as Ritalin, that are used on young children. He will know that the Deputy Prime Minister has launched a significant initiative to improve mental health facilities for young people and to find better therapies for them.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Maldives, and his constituent Stephanie Migliorini and the award that she won. As always, he covered a great deal of ground.
The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) talked about changes to private sector pensions and came up with a scheme that would save the Government, he told us, millions and millions of pounds. Anything that saves the Government millions and millions of pounds is something that we want to consider very carefully, and although I do not feel qualified to give an opinion, I shall ensure that somebody who knows the subject much better than I do gives him a reasoned response.
The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) talked about the Olympics, which must be a matter of huge excitement in his constituency, and the need for further Thames crossings. As someone who has always lived in east London when in London, I recognise what he said.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the sensitive issue of animal slaughter, and we need to look further at it. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is doing that to see how it can sensitively reconcile animal welfare with religious practices.
The hon. Gentleman talked about leaseholder rights. He also talked about rabies—and thank goodness it has not been a problem in this country for so long. If there are ways of reducing its incidence abroad so that we maintain the safety of not just our citizens but others, that would be worth while.
The hon. Gentleman also discussed housing benefits, and I understand his point. It is a concern that has been expressed on both sides of the House, and we must get it right, so that we do not give huge amounts of money—well beyond what a household on normal earnings can possibly achieve—to people. Nevertheless we understand that when we are talking about families, we are talking about people.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) talked about Immingham, and we learned a little about its early history, but he talked about its development plans, too. I had not really appreciated that Immingham and Grimsby are, as a complex, the largest port in the UK, and that is a declaration of ignorance on my part, but I did know that the area has enormous economic and strategic importance, so the way in which we maintain its infrastructure—whether its development plans, road connections, broadband or all the things that he mentioned—is enormously important.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) talked about manufacturing and engineering and pointed out that they are not just oily-rag trades nowadays. It is so important to our future economic success that we attract the brightest and best to engineering and manufacturing, because of not just the initial product, but the supply chains that he mentioned, which affect my constituency as well in terms of aerospace, in particular, and avionics. He welcomed the energy Bill and the things that we are doing to try to attract young people to the world of industry and bring them into it through the apprenticeships scheme and similar measures.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman talked about school governance, and I look forward to hearing more from him on this subject. We put an enormous amount of work the way of governors, who have an enormous responsibility on their shoulders. All the help that we can give them represents money well spent in enabling them to do their job in the best way possible as that is so crucial to our schools and colleges across the country.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) tried to upset me by suggesting that people travel through my constituency only to get to his. Of course, the better class of people do not—they stop in Somerset, as he well knows. I know where he comes from, and so I know where his heart really lies, but I understand that he has to say these things because he is now in foreign parts in Devon. He talked about the importance of agriculture and about agri-tourism. We used to dig for victory and then forgot how to, but we now have to remember again because food security is so desperately important.
I was fascinated by the community cafés mentioned by the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) and by his injured soldiers holiday appeal. He raised two rather more negative matters regarding his constituents’ inability to get satisfaction in claims on failed investments and on blight by HS2. I will contact the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Transport and hope that we can resolve those outstanding issues for him.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) talked about the regimental system and its importance to esprit de corps. I have always been very attached to the idea of cap badge loyalty. I have some experience of this, not in the armed forces but in the police, where I always felt that it was important to be able to identify with the body in which one served. In Somerset, we regret the fact that the Somerset Light Infantry is no longer a regular Army regiment. I think the fact that we have no Army footprint in my county has been detrimental to recruitment. The hon. Gentleman drew on his own experience and his distinguished record, and I know that he will be heard by Defence Ministers, who have not yet reached their conclusions about the final structure and deployment of the Army but are working on that at the moment.
Last but not least, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) talked about the importance of the Commonwealth. I entirely agree. It is wonderful that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are currently mounting guard on Horse Guards parade; it is the first time that a non-military unit from another Commonwealth country has done so. It is not in my gift to arrange a debate on Commonwealth day each year; that is in the hands of the Backbench Business Committee. However, if he applies to the Committee and it thinks it a good idea, the Leader of the House and I will do everything we can to assist.
We have had an excellent debate in which Members have managed to cover a huge range of subjects. I will make sure that those whom I have not answered properly get replies from the Departments involved. I hope that Members are able to use this short Whitsun recess effectively in their constituencies, but also to celebrate, as several of them said, the jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen. I have seen people’s enthusiasm for the Olympic torch, and the amount of red, white and blue bunting around our constituencies at the moment is terrific. It makes for a jollier place, and I welcome it. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all the staff of the House a pleasant short break, after which very brief period we will resume business as usual.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I wish all Members and staff a superb diamond jubilee. It is an historic, once-in-a-lifetime occasion to celebrate the glorious 60 years of Her Majesty’s reign.
Sittings of the House (1 May)
David Heath Excerpts(12 years 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 the sitting on Tuesday 1 May—
(1) the House shall sit at 1.30 pm;
(2) there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall; and
(3) the Speaker shall not adjourn the House, if a Message from the Lords Commissioners is expected, until that Message has been received.
All good things must eventually come to an end, and this extraordinarily productive Session of Parliament is no exception to the rule. The motion before us is quite usual in the run-up to Prorogation to facilitate the meeting of the House as it comes to the end of the Session. The first part of the motion sets out the time that the House shall sit tomorrow. Of course the House would normally sit at 2.30 pm on a Tuesday, but it is quite usual when the House is meeting to prorogue that it meets earlier than usual. Perhaps the proposed time is slightly later than would be normal in these circumstances. The reason for that is that the other place is debating the Joint Committee report on House of Lords reform on Tuesday morning and, as Parliament prorogues as a whole, the proposed time at which we are sitting reflects the negotiations in the other place to conclude the debate on the subject which began there today.
It is also in accordance with the past practice of arrangements for Prorogation to cancel the sitting in Westminster Hall, and paragraph (2) of the motion achieves that aim. It is unfortunate for Members who were successful in the ballots that their debates will not take place. Also, it is quite usual at the end of the Session that some scheduled business has to fall, once the House sets the time for Prorogation. I hope those hon. Members will be successful in securing debates early in the next Session.
By the time of Prorogation, we will have sat for a total of 290 days in this Session.
Mr Heath
As the hon. Gentleman says, as always from a sedentary position, it is the longest ever. This stems from the move to spring-to-spring Sessions, which moves the start of the Session to the spring from the autumn. It is the longest Session that I can remember, and it is right that we now bring it to an end with the final piece of legislation in the Government’s planned programme.
The business managers have aimed to balance the needs of the House this Session, providing adequate time for scrutiny of legislation, including the provision of multiple days on Report for nine Bills. Members should also be aware that 18 Public Bill Committees finished their work early. As well as introducing 40 Bills implementing a wide range of coalition policy, we provided 58 days for the Backbench Business Committee, with more than 40 of those enabling debate on the Floor of the House. I know that Members around the House will welcome this inclusion in the balance of time available to the House. I look forward to the outcome of the Procedure Committee report on the work of the Backbench Business Committee, as the House continues to improve it in the future. In addition, extra time was provided both for private Members’ Bills and for Opposition time, in recognition of the unusual length of the Session. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Parliamentary Privilege
David Heath Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
The Leader of the House of Commons and I are today publishing a Green Paper including illustrative draft clauses, to begin a consultation on parliamentary privilege.
The Programme for Government announced our intention to
“prevent the possible misuse of parliamentary privilege by MPs accused of serious wrongdoing”.
I informed the House on 19 December 2011 that the Government intended to publish a Green Paper before the end of this parliamentary session, to consult on the desirability of certain changes that could be made to the operation of parliamentary privilege, and seek views on whether legislation is appropriate in this area.
In line with the commitment in the coalition agreement, the Government have considered whether there are potential obstacles that ought to be removed to the prosecution of Members of either House for ordinary criminal acts. This is notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling in R v Chaytor and others, which established that parliamentary privilege could not form part of a defence in cases relating to claims for allowances, as these were not proceedings in Parliament under article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, and did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the two Houses. The paper consults on whether the protection of privilege should be disapplied in cases of alleged criminality, to enable the use of proceedings in Parliament as evidence in criminal proceedings. The paper also contains draft clauses which illustrate how this change could be implemented.
The Green Paper also discusses, among other questions:
whether a legislative definition of proceedings in Parliament is needed;
whether legislation is desirable to establish that the principle of exclusive cognisance applies only to activities directly and closely related to proceedings in Parliament;
whether legislation is necessary or desirable to ensure that the powers of Select Committees can be satisfactorily enforced; and
whether there should be changes to the law on reporting of parliamentary proceedings in the media.
In producing the paper, the Government have been mindful of the views previously expressed by a number of Select Committees, including the 1998-99 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, the Committee on Standards and Privileges, the 2009-10 Select Committee on the Issue of Privilege, the Joint Committees on Privacy and Injunctions and on the draft Corruption, Bribery and Defamation Bills, the Procedure Committee and the Justice Committee.
The Green Paper poses questions as to how each of the issues identified should be addressed. The Government have no wish to make any changes without thorough consultation, and the intention of this paper is to facilitate a wide-ranging and open debate on parliamentary privilege. We hope as many people as possible will contribute their thoughts and we look forward to considering the implications of further relevant work by the House of Commons Liaison and Culture, Media and Sport Committees.
Ultimately, these are Parliament’s privileges, and it is for Parliament to decide on their future. The Government therefore believe it would be appropriate for these issues to be scrutinised by a Joint Committee, and as previously indicated will be holding early discussions in both Houses about the establishment of and timetable for such a committee.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Heath Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
1. What plans he has for consultation with hon. Members on the Government’s proposal for a draft Bill on parliamentary privilege.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
It is our intention to publish a Green Paper containing draft measures on parliamentary privilege before the end of the Session.
Mark Lancaster
Which particular aspect of the current system of privilege does the Minister feel is in most need of reform and why?
Mr Heath
I am going to have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he will need to read the paper that we are producing, because it will, I hope, be a comprehensive survey of everything that relates to privilege and ask some pertinent questions about whether reform is necessary and whether it would be helpful to Members of this House in going about their business. He will have to be patient and wait for the paper, which we hope to publish before the end of the Session.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I hope that whatever the Government produce will indeed be a “green” paper, because there is one key issue that has to be resolved before we move any further, and that is: should we be putting anything about parliamentary privilege into statute? The danger is that the courts would then choose to interpret our actions and proceedings in this House, which would rather undermine the Glorious Revolution.
Mr Heath
For once, I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Green Paper will ask the specific question whether the case has been made for legislation. We have approached this issue with an open mind, and we want to seek the views of both Houses on whether legislating further on parliamentary privilege is either necessary or desirable.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
2. What criteria were used to determine the Government’s legislative programme for the next Session of Parliament.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
The Government intend to introduce a legislative programme in the next Session to deliver deficit reduction, boost growth, support aspiration, reform public services and implement the priorities in the coalition agreement.
Duncan Hames
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. That same coalition agreement described the introduction of a groceries code adjudicator as a “first step” in protecting the interests of consumers and farmers, not least those in the hard-pressed dairy industry. I do not know of any Member who represents as many dairy farmers as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), so will he use his influence with the business managers to ensure that a Bill to introduce a groceries code adjudicator makes its way into the next Session?
Mr Heath
Obviously I cannot pre-empt what will be announced on 9 May, but the Government remain committed to introducing the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill. I am pleased that the draft Bill has received pre-legislative scrutiny and that it has been warmly received across the House. As my hon. Friend rightly says, I have a clear constituency interest in the progress of that particular piece of legislation.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Will the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that the Committee stage of the House of Lords (Amendment) Bill will be taken on the Floor of the House? Will he also ensure that the Government will not ram the legislation through the Commons, as they did with the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, and that there will be sufficient time for debate?
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
May I propose a change for the Government when they are considering their legislative programme for the next Session? Will they bear it in mind, just for a change, that they are in coalition with the Conservative party?
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
3. What progress he has made on establishing a public reading stage for Government Bills.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
The Government conducted an experiment with a public reading stage on the Protection of Freedoms Bill. Following an evaluation of the experiment, we intend to conduct trials in the second Session to determine the best ways for members of the public to comment on specific details of legislation. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I will update the House on our detailed plans early in the next Session.
Stephen Metcalfe
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he tell the House from whom he will seek advice on how best to push this measure forward?
Mr Heath
It is very important that, before we undertake further pilots of public reading stages, we have an opportunity to reflect on any improvements that could be made to the technology and the processes involved. That will involve talking to many people. Hon. Members may have seen the recent announcement that Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has agreed to advise the Government on improving open government, and we will want that work to influence how we proceed with public reading stages.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I welcome what my hon. Friend says about improving public engagement, particularly with regard to public reading stages. Does he agree that we need to make it easier for the public to follow Committee stages of Bills, too, once the public reading stage is over? Will he have discussions with Jimmy Wales and others, particularly those involved in social media and online engagement, on how we can demystify the legislative process in this country, so that more members of the public can contribute their views?
Mr Heath
My hon. Friend highlights the purpose of what we are trying to do, and she rightly says that we are trying to demystify the process. The more that members of the public can interact with the House and understand how we go about our business and how they can influence the progress of legislation, the better. I can certainly give her a commitment that we will be looking at that. We will be looking at a variety of innovative ways to help the public to understand the process of legislation and the legislation itself, when it is presented to the House and to the public.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
4. What steps he is taking to improve the effectiveness of scrutiny of legislation.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
9. What steps he is taking to improve the effectiveness of scrutiny of legislation.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
The Government recognise the value of parliamentary scrutiny of legislation. We have ensured that Bills have adequate time for proper scrutiny in the House. The Government are also committed to publishing more legislation in draft to enable pre-legislative scrutiny.
Brandon Lewis
For how many Bills have the Government allowed two days on Report ?
Mr Heath
In this Session, five Bills have had a Report stage taken over two days. Indeed, both the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill and the Finance (No. 3) Bill were considered over three days. This is more than in any Session of the previous Parliament, when there were none whatever in the first and last Sessions.
Mark Menzies
How many Bills had pre-legislative scrutiny in the last Session, and how did that compare with this Session? Will the Deputy Leader of the House make a statement on plans for the future?
Mr Heath
The Government have published nine draft measures this Session, and are committed to publishing more measures in draft in the next Session, with a view to pre-legislative scrutiny. Further specific announcements will be made at the start of the new Session. In the last Session under the previous Government, two Bills—just two—were published in draft.
Andrew Stephenson
Will the Deputy Leader of the House say more about the Government’s plans for post-legislative scrutiny?
Mr Heath
Like their predecessor, the Government are committed to reviewing every Act of Parliament three to five years after it has passed. Government Departments publish Command Papers, allowing Commons Committees to decide whether or not to conduct further post-legislative scrutiny of each Act, when it is appropriate to do so. Forty-four of these memorandums have been published since this system was introduced in 2008. We welcome the work undertaken so far by Select Committees to examine such memorandums, but it is up to the Select Committees to decide whether they wish to do more.
Henry Smith
I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee which receives a thick bundle of policies and proposals from the European Union each week. What measures can be taken to ensure that more of these can go before departmental Select Committees, as they cover the whole vast area of UK national policy?
Mr Heath
Of course I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. The Government are keen to explore possible ways further to improve the effectiveness with which this House deals with European legislation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe is in discussions with Select Committees and others about possible changes.
Graham Evans
The effectiveness of scrutiny of legislation is important, and so is the cost of the effectiveness of such scrutiny. One mechanism that arguably assists with that scrutiny is that of early-day motions. I congratulate the Government on reducing the annual cost of early-day motions by 38% since 2010, but I hope my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the Procedure Committee’s announcement that it will carry out a fresh review of early-day motions in the near future.
Mr Heath
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and the fact that he recognises that the House of Commons Commission is looking across the House to establish where savings can be made. The interest of Members in the hon. Gentleman’s recent Adjournment debate, to which I responded, highlighted the variety of views on this issue. It is quite right that, if there is a swell of opinion for further reform in this area, it would be appropriate for the Procedure Committee to consider the issue of early-day motions.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Further to the question put by the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), will the Leader of the House look again at establishing permanent membership of European Standing Committees? The ad hoc approach, frankly, does not work.
Mr Heath
Again, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. The Government are continuing to explore ways to improve scrutiny, and there remain areas that we need to explore. One issue to bear in mind is whether hon. Members would be willing to serve on such a Committee. If that is the case and if we can make satisfactory arrangements, we will of course bring them to the House.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
If there is a new look at early-day motions, will the Deputy Leader of the House ensure that Members will not be deprived of one of the rare opportunities to criticise parliamentary answers? A recent EDM suggested that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), gave a parliamentary answer that reached a new low “in evasiveness and vacuity”, and recommends that in future Ministers should read the question before answering parliamentary questions.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure we are talking about these matters with reference to the scrutiny of legislation.
Mr Heath
Yes, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s question was about the scrutiny of legislation. I have already set out our position on EDMs. We recognise that they have value, but sometimes some can, shall we say, come close to an abuse of the House in terms of their cost compared with their benefit. On the subject of questions to Ministers, the hon. Gentleman knows that if there are deficiencies in the responses Members receive, I and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House are always happy to take that up with the Departments and Ministers concerned.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab)
What plans does the hon. Gentleman have to extend the time available for the consideration of Bills on Second Reading? It has become traditional for Second Reading debates to be considered on a single day. May we extend the time available, as many Members, especially Back Benchers, want to contribute on Second Reading?
Mr Heath
First, let me make the important point that the scrutiny of legislation is an essential part of the business of this House. People often talk about Government time as if it were unrelated to the business of the House when, in fact, it is Parliament’s time in order to scrutinise legislation. I merely make the observation that the more time that is eroded from so-called Government time by consideration of other matters that are no doubt of enormous importance—such as urgent questions and emergency debates—the less time is available to the House to scrutinise legislation properly.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
5. Whether he plans to submit evidence to the commission on the consequences of devolution for the House of Commons.
Points of Order
David Heath Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Two written ministerial statements have been issued in the past two hours. One is the Government’s announcement on proposals for the reform of our competition regime, and it was sent to the Vote Office at 10.10 am, 20 minutes before Business, Innovation and Skills questions. The other relates to a consultation on no-fault dismissal, which the Vote Office received at 10.30 am, when Business questions started. Clearly, those are both matters of huge national importance.
First, the deadline for applying to you for an urgent question is 9.30 am, Mr Speaker, so the timing of the publication and appearance of the statements meant that we were not able to make such an application on those statements. Secondly, we were not given any time to prepare in a way that would have enabled us to raise during Business questions any issues to which the statements related.
Were you, Sir, given any notice of the statements in advance? Have you—[Interruption.] Have you been given any notification that we can expect oral statements on those matters of national importance—
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
This is outrageous.
Localism Act 2011
David Heath Excerpts(12 years, 2 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—
(1) The following new Standing Order be made—
‘Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders
(1) The Regulatory Reform Committee shall examine and report on—
(i) every draft order laid before the House under or by virtue of section 7 of the Localism Act 2011 or section 5E of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;
(ii) every draft order laid before the House under section 19 of the Localism Act 2011.
(2) In the case of every draft order referred to in paragraph (1)(i) the committee shall consider the Minister’s recommendation under section 15(1) of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (‘the 2006 Act’) as to the procedure which should apply to it and shall report to the House any recommendation under that Act that a different procedure should apply.
(3) In its consideration of a draft order referred to in paragraph (1)(i) the committee shall include, in addition to such other matters as it deems appropriate, whether provision in the draft order—
(a) appears to make an inappropriate use of delegated legislation;
(b) has an effect which is proportionate to the policy objective intended to be secured;
(c) strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it;
(d) does not remove any necessary protection;
(e) does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise;
(f) is not of constitutional significance;
(g) has been the subject of, and takes appropriate account of, adequate consultation;
(h) gives rise to an issue under such criteria for consideration of statutory instruments laid down in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) as are relevant.
(4) In its consideration of a draft order referred to in paragraph (1)(ii) the committee shall include, in addition to such other matters as it deems appropriate, whether provision in the draft order—
(a) appears to make an inappropriate use of delegated legislation;
(b) gives rise to an issue under such criteria for consideration of statutory instruments laid down in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) as are relevant.
(5) In relation to every draft order laid under section 7(2) of the Localism Act 2011 or section 5E(2) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 subject to the negative or affirmative procedure under section 16 or 17 of the 2006 Act, the committee shall report its recommendation whether the draft order should be made (in the case of the negative procedure) or approved (in the case of the affirmative procedure), indicating in the case of the latter whether the recommendation was agreed without a division. (6) In relation to every draft order laid under section 7(2) of the Localism Act 2011 or section 5E(2) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 subject to the super-affirmative procedure under section 18 of the 2006 Act, the committee shall report its recommendation as to whether—
(a) the draft order should be proceeded with unamended under section 18(3) of the 2006 Act; or
(b) a revised draft order should be laid under section 18(7) of the 2006 Act; or
(c) no statement under section 18(3) of the 2006 Act or revised draft order under section 18(7) of the 2006 Act should be laid.
(7) In relation to every draft order or revised draft order referred to in paragraph (1)(i) of this order that is subject to the super-affirmative procedure and is being proceeded with under section 18(3) or 18(7) of the 2006 Act, the committee shall report its recommendation whether the draft order or revised draft order should be approved, indicating in the case of draft orders which it recommends should be approved whether its recommendation was agreed without a division; and in respect of such draft orders or revised draft orders the committee shall consider in each case all such matters set out in paragraph (3) of this order as are relevant and the extent to which the Minister concerned has had regard to any resolution or report of the committee or to any other representations made during the period for parliamentary consideration.
(8) It shall be an instruction to the committee considering draft orders referred to in paragraph (1)(i) of this order and being proceeded with under section 18(3) or 18(7) of the 2006 Act that it report not more than fifteen sitting days (in the case of an order under section 18(3) of the 2006 Act) or twenty-five sitting days (in the case of an order under section 18(7) of the 2006 Act) after the relevant statement is laid.
(9) In relation to every draft order or revised draft order referred to in paragraph 1(i) of this order, the committee shall report any recommendation under section 16(4) of the 2006 Act that the draft order be not made, or under section 17(3), 18(5) or 18(9) of the 2006 Act that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.
(10) In relation to every draft order laid under section 19 of the Localism Act 2011, the committee shall report its recommendation as to whether—
(a) the draft order should be proceeded with unamended under section 19(3) of that Act; or
(b) a revised draft order should be laid under section 19(7) of that Act; or
(c) no statement under section 19(3) of that Act or revised draft order under section 19(7) of that Act should be laid.
(11) In relation to every draft order or revised draft order being proceeded with under section 19(3) or 19(7) of the Localism Act 2011, the committee shall report its recommendation whether the draft order or revised draft order should be approved, indicating in the case of draft orders which it recommends should be approved whether its recommendation was agreed without a division; and in respect of such draft orders or revised draft orders the committee shall consider in each case all such matters set out in paragraph (4) of this order as are relevant and the extent to which the Minister concerned has had regard to any resolution or report of the committee or to any other representations made during the period for parliamentary consideration.
(12) It shall be an instruction to the committee considering draft orders being proceeded with under section 19(3) or 19(7) of the Localism Act 2011 that it report not more than fifteen sitting days (in the case of an order under section 19(3) of that Act) or twenty-five sitting days (in the case of an order under section 19(7) of that Act) after the relevant statement is laid.
(13) In relation to every draft order or revised draft order referred to in paragraph 1(ii) of this order, the committee shall report any recommendation under section 19(5) or 19(9) of the Localism Act 2011 that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.’.
(2) Standing Order No. 141 (Regulatory Reform Committee) be amended as follows—
(a) in line 5, at end, insert ‘, other than one laid under section 18 of the Act as applied by section 7 of the Localism Act 2011 or by section 5E of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004’;
(b) line 12, at end, insert ‘; and to carry out its functions under Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders)’;
(c) in line 78, at end, insert ‘referred to in paragraph (1)(i) of this order that is’;
(d) in line 79, after ‘procedure’, insert ‘and is’;
(e) in line 92, after ‘orders’, insert ‘referred to in paragraph (1)(i) of this order and’;
(f) in line 97, after second ‘order’ insert ‘referred to in paragraph (1)(i) of this order’;
(g) in line 134, at end, insert ‘or within paragraph (1) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders)’; and
(h) in line 148, at end, add ‘or under section 19 of the Localism Act 2011’.
(3) Standing Order No. 18 be amended as follows—
(a) leave out from ‘under’ in line 2 to ‘should’ in line 6 and insert ‘paragraph
(4) of Standing Order No. 141 (Regulatory Reform Committee) or paragraph (5) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) that a draft order subject to the affirmative procedure should be approved, or has recommended under paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 141 or paragraph (7) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) that a draft order’;
(b) leave out from ‘under’ in line 14 to ‘be’ in line 16 and insert ‘paragraph
(4) of Standing Order No. 141 or paragraph (5) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) that a draft order subject to the affirmative procedure be not approved, or has recommended under paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 141 or paragraph (7) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) that a draft order’;
(c) in line 25, after ‘141’, insert ‘or paragraph (5) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders)’;
(d) in line 28, leave out ‘Act’, and insert ‘Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006’; and
(e) in the title, at end, insert ‘etc.’.
(4) Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) be amended, in line 21, after ‘2006’, by inserting the words ‘any draft order laid before the House under or by virtue of section 7 or 19 of the Localism Act 2011 or section 5E of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004’.
The motion may be rather long and complex—at one point in its gestation it was even longer and more complex—but it should not be controversial. Essentially, it provides for certain draft orders which are akin to draft orders under part 1 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 to be subject to Commons scrutiny in the same way as the draft orders under the 2006 Act. This will involve detailed consideration by the Regulatory Reform Committee followed by proceedings on the Floor of the House, with the nature of those proceedings reflecting the views of the Committee. The proposals follow consultation with the Liaison Committee, the Procedure Committee and the official Opposition. No objections have been voiced to the proposed method of proceeding. I have also spoken to the Chair of the Regulatory Reform Committee, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms), who has confirmed that he is content with the proposed approach.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
What we now have is rather longer and more comprehensive but I think it does the job and I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has done.
Mr Heath
I am most grateful for that endorsement.
I shall confine my remarks to two matters—the drafting of the Standing Orders and an account of how the procedures will work. As I have already admitted, the proposals before us are complex, but the complexity flows from the complexity of the current provisions in Standing Order No. 141. An earlier version of the motion on which I consulted was even more complex and I was asked to describe this version of the motion as the “simplified” one. Although I am confident that this motion will work, and its provisions are explained in further detail in an explanatory memorandum, I am not convinced that it is as simple as the House would wish. The Procedure Committee has indicated a willingness to consider the overall approach enshrined in Standing Order No. 141 and in the new Standing Order, and I know the Regulatory Reform Committee will also have an interest in the matter. If those Committees were to propose a simpler approach that delivered the same outcome, I believe it would be welcomed by the House.
The nature of the order-making powers covered by the motion is described in the explanatory memorandum, so I shall not describe them now. Because the powers are broad and can involve change to primary legislation, the Localism Act 2011 provides for enhanced scrutiny arrangements, including a so-called super-affirmative procedure, by direct application of or by analogy with the scrutiny arrangements under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. Commons Standing Orders currently assign the additional scrutiny powers under the 2006 Act to the Regulatory Reform Committee and we propose that the Committee should have the same role in respect of the new orders.
The Committee’s powers are extensive. It considers the merits of each order and the appropriateness of the proposed method of proceeding. It can conclude that a particular measure should not be proceeded with or should be subject to different proceedings. Its conclusions help to determine the procedures that are then followed on the Floor of the House. The motion enables the House to consider the new orders in the same way as orders under the 2006 Act. The proposals are complex and we have an open mind on their being simplified in due course. For the immediate future, to enable proper scrutiny to take place, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr Heath
With the leave of the House, I will say a few more words. I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) for her comments. I assure her that if a new and better procedure is developed we will of course put it before the House. Alternatively, if there are major difficulties with what we propose, we will wish to look at it again. In the meantime, I hope that the House will agree to the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Traveller Sites (Dorset)
David Heath Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thomas Docherty
How many councillors will that £50,000 provide training for?
Andrew Stunell
My hon. Friend helpfully says “Lots.” I would be quite happy to provide further information, but it will provide councillors with day-long seminars at local authority level.
I have already mentioned that we have included in the Localism Act a duty on local councils to co-operate. That will require them to engage constructively in the planning process. We have included Traveller sites in the new homes bonus, to reward councils that deliver additional sites. That will mean that councils get financial benefits for building authorised Traveller sites where they are needed.
I have mentioned that we have allocated £60 million of Traveller pitch funding to help councils and other registered providers to build new sites. So far I have signed off bids totalling £47 million, which were announced in January and will lead to the setting up of more than 750 new and refurbished pitches for Travellers. Hon. Members may be interested to know that Dorset county council was a successful bidder for £1.75 million of support.
It is important to rise above the simple planning context, which is what we have mostly concentrated on, and recognise that the Gypsy and Traveller community suffers a very high level of discrimination and deprivation. It has some of the poorest social outcomes in education, health, access to financial services and of course housing.
Mr Syms
I thank the Minister for responding to this debate. He deserves time off for good behaviour. I am sure that any points that he has not covered can be dealt with later by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill).
Andrew Stunell
Yes, it has been suggested that I mention that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) will be only too delighted to visit the constituency of each Member who has spoken. If it is thought appropriate, I will give that commitment on his behalf.
We have discussed matters of real significance and importance to the constituents of the Members who have spoken. I do not seek to trivialise that at all. They have generously said that if there are points that I have failed to cover appropriately, they will give my hon. Friend the Minister another chance. On that basis, I hope that the House will be satisfied with my responses and that in due course the matter can be drawn to a full conclusion.
Question put and agreed to.