Draft Parliamentary Privilege Bill

David Heath Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

The Leader of the House of Lords and I are today setting out the next steps in the Government’s preparation of a draft Bill on parliamentary privilege.

The Programme for Government announced our intention to

“prevent the possible misuse of parliamentary privilege by MPs accused of serious wrongdoing”.

Following this, the Queen’s Speech set out that we would publish a draft Bill during this Session on parliamentary privilege. I can now announce that the Government intend to publish a Green Paper alongside the draft Bill. The Green Paper and draft Bill will be published before the end of this parliamentary Session.

In the Green Paper, the Government will consult on the desirability of certain changes that could be made to the operation of parliamentary privilege. In that Green Paper, we intend to set out the Government’s thinking on each of the principal areas where it has previously been suggested that reform is necessary or desirable. Where we believe there is a case to be made for legislative change, this thinking will be supported by clauses in the draft Bill.

In line with the commitment in the coalition agreement, the Government are considering 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 the criminal courts did have jurisdiction over dishonest 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 Green Paper will also discuss, among other questions:

whether legislation is necessary or desirable to ensure that the powers of Select Committees can be satisfactorily enforced;

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 a statutory definition of proceedings in Parliament is needed; and

whether there should be changes to the law on reporting of parliamentary proceedings in the media.

The Government will not be proposing to constrain by legislation the ability of hon. Members to name in proceedings in Parliament individuals who are the subject of anonymity injunctions made by the courts. It will be for each House to consider whether to make changes to their internal procedures to address this issue.

In setting out their views, the Government will be 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 the draft Corruption, Bribery and Defamation Bills, the House of Commons Procedure Committee, the Justice Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. The Government also wish to take into account any proposals from the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions that impinge on parliamentary privilege.

Following correspondence earlier this year with the chairs of the Liaison Committees in both Houses, the Government believe it would be appropriate for the Green Paper to be considered, and for the draft Bill to be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, by a Joint Committee, and 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

Thursday 15th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[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 received no representations other than in the course of the Westminster Hall debate on the Bill of Rights, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), to which I responded. As I said then, although Members’ correspondence may be subject to qualified privilege for the purposes of the law of defamation, the House has never sought to assert that such correspondence is a proceeding in Parliament. Therefore it is not protected under article 9 of the Bill of Rights.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware of the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the draft Defamation Bill that correspondence between Members and their constituents should clearly be the subject of qualified privilege. It is critical that our constituents can correspond with us freely and frankly. I hope, therefore, that he can assure the House that the Government will bring forward legislation in that regard.

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. The Government will examine that recommendation in making their response to the Joint Committee, of which he was a distinguished Member. I hope to update the House shortly on our related work on the draft parliamentary privilege Bill.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I rather agree with the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) about parliamentary privilege and Members’ correspondence. In the wider context, the concept of parliamentary privilege is in a bit of a mess. We are relying on rather antiquated concepts at the moment. In the light of what has happened this year, when I believe that many witnesses, in giving evidence to two Select Committee, have lied to Parliament, I suggest that we now need a criminal offence of parliamentary perjury for when people lie to Parliament.

[Mr Heath]

The courts have always recognised the right of each House of Parliament to regulate its own affairs. I accept that there are legitimate questions about the House’s enforcement powers and the punishments available to it. It is right to look afresh at whether the powers of each House are appropriate. That is part of the work that we are doing to bring forward a draft Bill on parliamentary privilege. If the hon. Gentleman is a little patient, he will see shortly that we are considering that matter.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Further to an answer that I received in September, in which the House of Commons Commission said that it costs the public purse a further £1.5 million for us to come back for the two-week September sitting, is it not time that we looked carefully at the programme of sittings of the House so that we are not constrained—

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

3. How many hours of business he plans to allocate to (a) general debates on subjects determined by the Government and (b) Back-Bench or private Members’ business in January and February 2012.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will announce the business for January and February 2012 in the usual way, during business questions on a Thursday.

[John Mann]

It is obvious to all of us that this coalition has run out of steam when it comes to legislation and everything else. Given that many Back Benchers on both sides of the House have good and sensible proposals for legislation, why does the Leader of the House, instead of bed blocking debating time, not give us the opportunity in January and February to bring forward that legislation?

[Mr Heath]

What a load of nonsense. I am afraid that I do not agree. Over the past two weeks, the House has had the opportunity to debate important and topical issues, including the economy, Europe and immigration. This afternoon, thanks to the Government’s establishment of the Backbench Business Committee, the House will debate financial education in schools, an issue that has received more than 100,000 signatures on the Government’s e-petition website. I believe that this Government have placed Parliament back at the centre of our national life.

[Mr Speaker]

Second time lucky, Anne Main.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker. Again, September sittings will cost £1.5 million. Is it not time that the House moved its sittings so as not to cost the public purse an extra £1.5 million?

[Mr Heath]

There is a slight sense of déjà vu about that question. This is matter that the hon. Lady ought to put to the Procedure Committee, which is currently looking at the calendar of the House of Commons. She will be able to present her case to that Committee, and we look forward to its report in due course.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Despite this being the longest Session in post-war history, the Government’s legislative programme is a shambles. While we twiddle our thumbs in the Commons, the Lords are taking apart the Government’s ill-conceived, badly drafted and mean-spirited welfare reforms. Just yesterday, the Government’s policy of imposing a bedroom tax was defeated by an all-party alliance that included a former Conservative Secretary of State for Social Security. Is it not time that this Government listened to reason, dropped the more punitive parts of the Welfare Reform Bill and instead built a genuine consensus to make real progress on welfare reform?

[Mr Heath]

I make no apology for Bills receiving proper scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament, and we are committed to that. When legislation is receiving that scrutiny in the other place, it is right for us to wait until it has finished its deliberations, listen to what it has to say and then, in due course, address it in debate in the normal way.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

4. What plans he has for future pre-legislative scrutiny of Government bills.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

The Government recognise the value that pre-legislative scrutiny can add and are committed to seeing more measures published in draft. This week the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), published for pre-legislative scrutiny draft measures on the recall of MPs. In addition, so far this Session we have published draft measures on Lords reform, financial services, defamation, the detention of terrorist suspects, individual electoral registration and electoral administration, civil aviation and a groceries code adjudicator. The Government expect to publish further measures in draft this Session, including on parliamentary privilege.

[Diana Johnson]

As my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and for Bassetlaw (John Mann) have indicated, the Government’s legislative programme has ground to a halt. Would it not be sensible for us to spend some time scrutinising the draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extensions) Bills now, rather than wait and debate them in a hurry when we are faced with an emergency?

[Mr Heath]

We will be bringing forward further measures, and if the hon. Lady is patient—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

When?

[Mr Heath]

And even if the hon. Gentleman could be just a little patient, they may find that they hear news to their advantage later today.

[Mr Speaker]

Expecting patience from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) might be a triumph of optimism over reality, but I leave that question for the House to consider.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

7. Whether he has considered bringing forward proposals for the Third Reading of a Bill in the House of Commons to be taken after its consideration by the House of Lords.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

Any Bill first published in this House must currently pass through all its stages, including Third Reading, before it is sent to the House of Lords. We are aware of the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), but the Government have no plans at present to bring forward proposals to change the current arrangements.

[Dr Huppert]

Currently, Members in this House are forced to decide on a Bill when it is not in its final form, and in many cases Government amendments have been promised that we have yet to see. Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that the primacy of this House would be strengthened if our Third Readings always happened last, and will he consider how that could be brought about?

[Mr Heath]

I understand the principle behind my hon. Friend’s question. No Bill can become law until this House has agreed to all its provisions, including any amendments proposed by the House of Lords to a Bill first published in this House. I am not sure that I immediately see the value that would be added by a further general debate on a Bill, but I advise my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark that if they wish to pursue the matter, it should perhaps be considered by the Procedure Committee and by the other House.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

8. What progress he has made on implementing the coalition agreement commitments on parliamentary reform.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

Since taking office, this Government have made substantial progress on implementing the coalition’s commitments on parliamentary reform, which have helped to make the House more effective, transparent and accountable. Measures have included establishing the Backbench Business Committee, launching the e-petitions system and transferring responsibility for Members’ pay and pensions out of our hands and into those of the independent regulator.

Working with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), we have also piloted a public reading stage for the Protection of Freedoms Bill, published proposals to allow the recall of Members of Parliament and started work to establish a commission on the West Lothian question. We will also shortly bring forward proposals on how we will proceed with the draft parliamentary privilege Bill.

[Harriett Baldwin]

There certainly has been a great deal of parliamentary reform. One commitment in the coalition agreement was to establish the West Lothian commission. A written ministerial statement on 8 September said that that would happen in the weeks following October, but certainly by the end of the year, so exactly when will we get that commission?

[Mr Heath]

I should first congratulate the hon. Lady, who since her election has demonstrated her commitment to this issue, not least during the passage of her private Member’s Bill, the Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill. As she correctly says, the coalition programme for government set out our commitment to establishing a commission to consider the West Lothian question, and my hon. Friend the Minister who has responsibility for political and constitutional reform updated the House in a written statement in September. The Government intend to publish the make-up and terms of reference of the commission shortly.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Deputy Leader of the House obviously could not list all the Government’s parliamentary reform achievements because that would take up a great deal of parliamentary time. One that he missed was the commitment to introduce a Business of the House Committee. When will that happen, and what process will the House undertake to scrutinise it? Will he define “shortly” if he uses that word in his response?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Time simply does not permit us to set out all the important reforms that this Government have introduced to the House, and there is much still to be done. One of those things is the establishment of the House Business Committee. We are clearly committed to doing that during the third year of this Parliament, and are happy to ensure that that is the case. We are looking forward to introducing proposals after we have listened to those on both sides of the House who have an interest in the matter.

Business of the House

David Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

I beg to move,

That—

1. Standing Order No. 80A (Carry-over of bills) shall be amended as follows—

(a) in line 7, after the word ‘motion’, insert the words ‘(other than a motion relating to a bill brought in upon a ways and means resolution)’, and

(b) in line 23, at end, insert the words ‘(other than a bill brought in upon a ways and means resolution)’; and

2. the following new Standing Order be made—

‘(1) The Speaker shall put any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on a carry-over motion of which a Minister of the Crown has given notice under Standing Order No. 80A (Carry-over of bills) relating to a bill brought in upon a ways and means resolution—

(a) forthwith if the motion is made on any day before the bill is read a second time, or on the day the bill is read a second time; or

(b) not more than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion if the motion is made at any other time.

(2) The following paragraphs of this order shall apply to any bill ordered to be carried over to the next Session of Parliament in pursuance of a carry-over motion to which paragraph (1) applies.

(3) If proceedings in committee on the bill are begun but not completed before the end of the first Session, the chair shall report the bill to the House as so far amended and the bill and any evidence received by the committee shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.

(4) In any other case, proceedings on the bill shall be suspended at the conclusion of the Session in which the bill was first introduced.

(5) In the next Session of Parliament, a Minister of the Crown may, after notice, present a bill in the same terms as the bill reported to the House under paragraph (3) of this order or as it stood when proceedings were suspended under paragraph (4) of this order; the bill shall be read the first time without question put and shall be ordered to be printed; and paragraphs (6) to (13) shall apply to the bill.

(6) In respect of all proceedings on the bill, any resolution which the bill was brought in upon in the first Session shall be treated as if it were such a resolution of the House in the next Session and any reference in any resolution upon which the bill was brought in to a Bill or Act of the present Session shall be treated in the next Session as a reference to a Bill or Act of that Session.

(7) In respect of all proceedings on the bill, the bill shall be treated as a bill brought in upon ways and means resolutions.

(8) If the bill was read a second time in the first Session, it shall be read a second time without question put.

(9) If the bill was not set down for consideration at any time in the first Session, any committal order in respect of the bill shall apply to proceedings on the Bill in the next Session (subject to paragraphs (10) and (11)).

(10) If the bill was reported from a public bill committee under paragraph (3), it shall stand committed to a public bill committee in respect of those clauses and schedules which were committed to a public bill committee in the first Session and not ordered to stand part of the bill in that Session.

(11) If the bill was reported from a committee of the whole House under paragraph (3), it shall stand committed to a committee of the whole House in respect of those clauses and schedules which were committed to a committee of the whole House in the first Session and not ordered to stand part of the bill in that Session.

(12) If the bill was read a second time in the first Session and was not set down for consideration at any time in that Session, any order of the House giving leave for a committee on the bill to sit twice on the first day on which it meets in the first Session shall apply to the first day on which the committee meets in the next Session.

(13) If the bill was set down for consideration at any time in the first Session, the bill shall be set down as an order of the day for (as the case may be) consideration, further consideration or third reading.

(14) Notices of amendments, new clauses and new schedules given in respect of parts of the bill not disposed of in the first Session shall be reprinted as notices in respect of the bill as presented and proceeded with under paragraph (5).’.

[Mr Speaker]

With this we will consider the following:

Motion 3—Third Reading (Bills Brought in upon a Ways and Means Resolution)—

That Standing Order No. 77 (Third reading) be amended by adding at the end—

‘(2) The third reading of a bill brought in upon a ways and means resolution may be taken at the same sitting of the House as its consideration on report.’.

Motion 4—Sessionality (Supply)—

That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the legislative authorisation of (a) appropriation of expenditure and (b) maximum numbers for defence services, legislative authorisation of appropriation of Votes on Account and maximum numbers for defence services may take place on a day not later than 5 August in the Session following that in which the founding resolutions for the forthcoming financial year were agreed to by the House.

Motion 5—Consideration of Estimates—

That—

(1) Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates) shall apply for the remainder of this Session as if, for the word ‘Three’ in line 1, there were substituted the word ‘Five’;

(2) Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates) shall be amended in accordance with paragraphs (3) to (7) of this order;

(3) in line 1, leave out ‘before 5 August,’;

(4) in line 13, at end, insert ‘Provided that the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall not apply on any day on which time has been allocated pursuant to paragraph (2)(b) of Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates).’;

(5) leave out lines 25 to 34 and insert—

‘Provided that on days on which time has been allocated pursuant to paragraph (2)(b) of Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) or the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down opposed private business under paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), proceedings under this sub-paragraph shall not be entered upon until the business in question has been disposed of and may then be proceeded with for three hours, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House).’;

(6) in line 38, leave out ‘hour prescribed under paragraph (5)’ and insert ‘day and hour prescribed under paragraph (6)’;

(7) in line 40, leave out paragraph (5) and add—

‘(5) Any estimates on which questions have been deferred to another day in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (4) and (6) of this order, together with any questions so deferred, and all other estimates appointed for consideration on any previous day or half day allotted under this order shall be set down for consideration on the day to which the questions have been deferred.

(6) On the day to which the provisions of paragraph (2) or (4) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) apply which falls after or on any day or half-day allotted under this order, the Speaker shall, at the time prescribed in paragraph (1) of that order, put, successively, any questions deferred under paragraph (4) of this order on any previous day or half day allotted under this order, any questions deferred under paragraph (4) of this order on the day and any questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on all other estimates appointed for consideration on any day or half day allotted under this order.’;

(8) Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall be amended, in line 41, by leaving out ‘(5)’ and inserting ‘(6)’; and

(9) Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall be amended, in line 23, by leaving out ‘(5)’ and inserting ‘(6)’.

Motion 6—Questions on Voting of Estimates, &c.—

That Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall—

(1) apply for the remainder of this Session with the following amendments—

(a) in line 1, leave out ‘paragraphs (2), (3) or (4)’ and insert ‘paragraph (2) or (4)’;

(b) in line 2, leave out ‘the Speaker shall at the moment of interruption’ and insert ‘, at the moment of interruption or as soon thereafter as proceedings under the proviso to paragraph (3)(b) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates) have been disposed of, the Speaker shall (after putting any questions required to be put under paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 54)’;

(c) in line 9, leave out ‘6 February’ and insert ‘18 March’;

(d) in line 14, at end, insert—

‘(c) votes relating to numbers for defence services;

(d) excess votes, provided that the Committee of Public Accounts has reported that it sees no objection to the amounts and modifications to limits on appropriations in aid necessary being authorised by excess vote.’;

(e) in line 15, leave out paragraph (3); and

(f) in line 33, leave out ‘paragraphs (2), (3) or (4)’ and insert ‘paragraph (2) or (4)’.

(2) be amended with effect from the start of next Session as follows—

(a) in line 1, leave out ‘paragraphs (2), (3) or (4)’ and insert ‘paragraph (2) or (4)’;

(b) in line 2, leave out ‘the Speaker shall at the moment of interruption’ and insert ‘, at the moment of interruption or as soon thereafter as proceedings under the proviso to paragraph (3)(b) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates) have been disposed of, the Speaker shall (after putting any questions required to be put under paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 54)’;

(c) in line 6, leave out the words ‘and limits on appropriations in aid,’;

(d) in line 9, leave out ‘6 February’ and insert ‘18 March’;

(e) in line 14, at end, insert—

‘(c) votes relating to numbers for defence services;

(d) excess votes, provided that the Committee of Public Accounts has reported that it sees no objection to the amounts necessary being authorised by excess vote.’;

(f) in line 15, leave out paragraph (3);

(g) in line 29, leave out ‘, and limits on appropriations in aid,’; and

(h) in line 33, leave out ‘paragraphs (2), (3) or (4)’ and insert ‘paragraph (2) or (4)’.

[Mr Heath]

For the convenience of the House, it may be helpful if I say that it is not my intention later to move motion 7. There are two reasons for that: first, there is a deficiency in the printed version of the motion on the Order Paper; also, not moving it will allow further discussions with the Chair of the Liaison Committee and others on the consequences of the changes that we are proposing.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s willingness to use this unexpected interlude to ensure that, at the end of the day, Select Committees can be confident that they will have the opportunity to debate and report on the abolition of public bodies before such matters come to the Floor of the House or a Delegated Legislation Committee.

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, with whom I have been in correspondence on these matters. I am keen to ensure that we have a system that fits the needs of the House in dealing with such important issues.

The first motion and the other four motions that we are debating with it arise from three considerations. First, they arise from the need to adapt the House’s procedures to spring-to-spring Sessions. Secondly, they arise from the alignment project, which was initiated by the last Administration and has been taken forward by this Government. Thirdly, it is proposed to take this opportunity to undertake some minor tidying-up of the relevant Standing Orders. Some of the changes before the House are quite technical, not to say rather long. The House will be pleased to know that I do not intend to go through them individually; rather, I shall explain their purposes. The provisions are explained in detail in an explanatory memorandum that has been placed in the Vote Office.

On 13 September last year, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced the Government’s intention to move the usual date of Prorogation and state opening from November to the spring, to create a fixed-term Parliament of five equal, 12-month Sessions. That decision has some consequences for financial business. The first motion before us today would adapt the House’s existing procedures for carry-over to enable the Finance Bill to be carried over from one Session to the next. The House has already passed legislation, in last year’s Finance Bill, to ensure that resolutions under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 have continued legal effect from one Session to the next. The motion makes matching provision in the House’s procedures. My right hon. Friend consulted the Procedure Committee on the proposal in February. The Chair replied on 9 March indicating that the Committee was content with the proposal.

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

May I say on behalf of the Procedure Committee that we are grateful that we were consulted on this matter? Is the Deputy Leader of the House aware that we concluded that if the Government wish to continue to have the Budget statement in March—I can understand why they would—then carry-over seems the simplest way of proceeding? We concluded, with cross-party agreement, that this would not lead to any loss of scrutiny.

[Mr Heath]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend on several levels: first, for the work that he and his Committee do on such matters; and secondly, for the nature of his response to the proposal that we are discussing. It is important that a Committee of the House has been able to consider whether any loss of scrutiny would be involved; it is also important for the House to ensure that no such loss would be involved. He and his colleagues have concluded just that, and I am pleased that they were able to do so on an all-party basis.

The first motion modifies the general provisions for carry-over in existing Standing Orders in two main ways. First, it allows carry-over without separate debate before Second Reading. The House will have already debated the substance of the provisions in question during the Budget debate, and there may be cases where Prorogation falls before Second Reading. Secondly, the motion ensures that both the specific character of Bills brought in on Ways and Means resolutions and the practices of the House in considering such Bills are reflected in Standing Orders.

The second motion falls into the category of a tidying-up measure. Because it is seen as the practice of the House that there should be an interval between each stage of the Finance Bill, the House is asked to agree a motion for each such Bill, allowing Third Reading to take place on the same day as Report. Such motions to vary the so-called practice of the House have now been tabled for 100 years, since the chancellorship of David Lloyd George. The House has not failed to pass such a motion since 1972, and has not debated Third Reading on a day subsequent to Report since 1991. Even for the House, I submit that 100 years of settled practice is enough to overturn the presumption that the practice is otherwise.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It’s too early to say.

[Mr Heath]

I think we may have reached a settled view by this stage. The second motion therefore changes Standing Orders to allow Third Reading to follow Report on the same day without a separate motion in each case.

The remaining motions relate to Supply, which some would say is one of the more obscure aspects of the House’s procedure. Indeed, Supply might be thought to be the House’s equivalent of the Schleswig-Holstein question. I am glad to say that there are at least a few more people who understand the business of Supply, and I believe they are alive and of sound mind—allegedly. I understand that among their number is Sir Stephen Laws, first parliamentary counsel—there is no question but that he is of sound mind—who is about to retire, and for whose services to successive Governments and, indirectly, to this House the Government are very grateful. The changes to be made are not easy to follow, and are explained in detail in the explanatory memorandum, so I will endeavour to describe what lies behind them.

The first factor is the move to spring-to-spring Sessions. The current practice of the House requires that once Supply has been provisionally authorised, an Appropriation Act following on from that provisional authorisation needs to be passed in the same Session. At present, the first stages of authorisation of the votes on account and the limits on numbers for defence services take place in early spring, with final authorisation incorporated in the Appropriation Act, passed in June or July. The retention of that timing makes sense but, given the move to spring-to-spring Sessions, it will involve final authorisation being given in the following Session. The third motion enables this common-sense practice to continue. We are also making provision for five estimates days during the current, extended Session, following discussion with the Liaison Committee. Indeed, this responds to a request from the Liaison Committee.

The second factor is the alignment project, which was an initiative of the last Administration, but which is bearing fruit in the new Parliament. The project’s aim is to achieve better alignment between Budgets, estimates and accounts, and to simplify and streamline the Government’s financial reporting documents, thereby improving Parliament’s ability to scrutinise planning and actual public expenditure. Select Committees were closely involved at various stages in the development of the proposals, which were endorsed by the House in the last Parliament through the passage of part 5 of what became the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and, in the present Parliament, through the resolution approving the proposals for the project that was passed following a debate on 5 July 2010. During that debate, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), speaking for the Opposition, welcomed

“this further opportunity to confirm support for the sensible changes that the last Government created under the alignment project”.—[Official Report, 5 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 93.]

The changes are being implemented with effect from the estimates for the financial year 2011-12. As a result of the changes already endorsed by the House, the estimates documents requiring formal authorisation are to be published only during two periods each year—between January and February, and between April and May.

Implementation of the project means that there will be two rather than three estimates events during a normal-length Session. There will be no winter supplementary estimates and no December estimates day or votes on outstanding estimates at that time. The motions before us reflect the move to two estimates windows each Session, when estimates day debates will take place and outstanding estimates will be voted on.

As a result of these changes, there will be two estimates days close together, usually in the early spring. The fourth motion thus provides that votable motions on such days will be deferred until the House votes on all outstanding estimates, usually at the end of the second such day. This builds upon the existing practice whereby votes are deferred on estimates days until the moment of interruption.

I hope that that is sufficient to explain the thinking behind these proposals, and I commend the motions to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I am always tempted to see the worst in this Government, but on this occasion I think it is probably a genuine oversight. They did not think things through and realise that, if the Procedure Committee simply had an informal session on this issue, it would not be able to share the wisdom of its thoughts. The Deputy Leader of the House shakes his head; perhaps there was some Machiavellian motive that he wishes to outline to the Committee. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, but apparently it was a deliberate attempt not to have to reveal something.

[Mr Heath]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the procedures of, and publication of documents by, Select Committees are matters for them, not for Government. It would quite improper for the Government even to begin to suggest how a Select Committee should do its business.

[Thomas Docherty]

I can assure the Deputy Leader of the House that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee would not respond favourably to such a suggestion, such is his independence of thought. However, why have the Government made it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) that they do not believe it appropriate to pause slightly, so that the Committee can carry out a public, transparent and short inquiry in the new year? Perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House’s diary is so busy in the new year that he cannot do that.

The Government seem to be assuming that we will prorogue in the spring, and I look to the Treasury Bench for some clarity on that. My understanding is that all their Bills are currently jammed up in the House of Lords and there is absolutely no sign of their making any substantive progress on clearing the backlog. That is why, with the greatest of respect, we are having a series of Opposition debates and one-line Whips—because the Government have no business in the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to the debate. I am most grateful to the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this brief debate. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) for his comments. He is right to say that there are wider questions and more far-reaching changes to the way the House scrutinises spending plans which we need to discuss at some point, but I think that those wider reforms would be best debated in the context of proposals from the Liaison Committee, rather than from Government. It may well be that there are better ways of organising our business. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), who is not in his place—

[Mr Gray]

I am here.

[Mr Heath]

I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon; he is not sitting where I expected to find him. He made an important point about the advent in due course of a House business committee. We are looking at that, as we said we would, but even under existing arrangements it is open to any Select Committee, through the Backbench Business Committee, to seek time on the Floor of the House to debate a motion relating to departmental spending plans. The great advantage of that method is that the time constraints and procedural limitations arising from estimates procedure are absent.

The hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) asked why, during estimates day debates, we talk about Select Committee reports on matters that are either at some distance from or fairly peripheral to the essential element, which is scrutiny of Government accounts. Although that is a good question, it is one for another day, as it does not fall within the narrow confines of the motion.

I am grateful to the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), for his assistance. The idea that this is somehow a rushed process, when we put the proposals before that Committee for its consideration back in February and it is now, let me remind the House, December, or that we did not think of these things in advance, when we passed the proposals for consideration before the announcement of the change to the sessional timetable, is something of a nonsense. These are matters on which we needed the advice of the House; we have received that advice through the Procedure Committee, and that is why the motion has been brought before the House.

[Mr Bone]

Were the usual channels consulted and is there agreement? If there is agreement between the usual channels, I have some concerns.

[Mr Heath]

I of course have no idea what goes on in the usual channels, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that it is far more important that a Select Committee of this House has had the opportunity to comment on proposals that affect the scrutiny of Government business by the House. Not only was the Procedure Committee consulted, but it agreed unanimously that the change would assist scrutiny by the House and would in no way diminish the opportunities for Members to have their say on Government business.

[Chris Leslie]

We have indeed heard that the Procedure Committee looked at the proposals, but it did so in private, informal session and there was no sharing of many of the proposals with other hon. Members until the business appeared on the Order Paper a few days ago, I think. Will the Deputy Leader of the House confirm the day on which it appeared? I saw it only recently and no one approached me to discuss it. To dismiss as nonsense the concern we have expressed about haste is a little overblown.

[Mr Heath]

I think the hon. Gentleman is making a valiant effort to bring some substance to his objections to the proposals, but he is not succeeding. At various times he accused me of being nonchalant. I hope that I am not nonchalant. Simply that something is technical does not imply nonchalance. Flying a jet liner is a technical business, but one should certainly not be nonchalant about doing so. As I said, we have thought through the consequences.

The hon. Gentleman said that we are massively increasing carry-over, but we are not. We are specifically and precisely dealing with the consequences for Finance Bills of the change to sessional periods. He said—at least, I think I heard him say—that having longer to scrutinise a Finance Bill made it more difficult to scrutinise it effectively. I am not sure that that is always the position of Her Majesty’s Opposition.

To deal specifically with his questions, the hon. Gentleman asked why should not the Finance Bill start in the new Session. The answer is: for the very obvious reason that if it did, the time available to the House to debate and scrutinise the Bill would be reduced. That cannot be right. He asked whether paragraphs (3) and (4) of Standing Order No. 80A apply to Finance Bills. Had he read the explanatory memorandum, he would have seen stated therein that those paragraphs will apply to Finance Bills.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the provisions of paragraphs (12) to (14) of Standing Order No. 80A apply. Yes, the Standing Order will prevent a Finance Bill from being carried over more than once, as is stated in the explanatory memorandum. However, I have to say that if we had a Government whose Finance Bill was carried over between three Sessions, they would no longer be a Government, because they would not be a functioning Government. They would be a dead Government if they were unable to get their Finance Bill through in three Sessions of Parliament. I think we can safely assume that those circumstances will not apply.

On supply, the hon. Gentleman asked why the cut-off of 5 August under Standing Order No. 54 is being removed without being replaced. The timetable requirements for estimates procedures do continue and are set out in Standing Order No. 55. He asked why the first cut-off for supply is changing from a date in February to a date in March. That change does not affect the spring deadline. The February date was the cut-off for the winter supplementary estimates, which will no longer be published.

Despite the hon. Gentleman’s valiant efforts to try to find a cause on which he could unite his party against these very modest and sensible proposals, he has failed to establish any case for doing so. I commend the orders to the House and I hope that the House will be able to agree them without opposition.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

Ministerial Statements

David Heath Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I had thought that the hon. Gentleman would say that, but I must confess that when I was a Minister, I was never in charge of anything that was interesting enough for anyone to make any announcements about it. I suspect that even if I had wanted to make an announcement, I should have been in difficulty.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

The hon. Gentleman was Minister for Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Heath Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

2. How many e-petitions he expects to have attracted 100,000 signatures on the Government's e-petition website by the end of July 2012.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

Since the launch of the site in July, five petitions have reached the threshold of 100,000 signatures, and three out of those five have already been allocated time for a debate. I am not able to predict precisely how many more petitions will reach the threshold by July next year, but the current rate demonstrates the significant interest and support that e-petitions have created.

[Duncan Hames]

There is, indeed, a significant interest. I am glad that the Backbench Business Committee has been able to schedule a debate on the FairFuelUK campaign’s petition later this month, and I look forward to a debate now that our campaign for financial education in schools has reached 100,000 signatures on the e-petitions site. Given that petitioners will naturally expect to secure a debate once they reach that threshold, will my hon. Friend keep under review the amount of time that is allotted to the Committee this year?

[Mr Heath]

We have already made it clear that, in the light of the extended first Session of Parliament, the intention is to provide extra days for the Backbench Business Committee, which is doing a very good job of reflecting interests outside. The threshold is one of eligibility—making a petition eligible for debate. It is then for a Member of the House to take that forward, and for the Backbench Business Committee to decide whether it is a matter that has not been debated in some other form.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The substantive point is that when people outside the House are asked to sign a petition they expect it to be debated on the Floor of the House.

[Mr Heath]

indicated dissent.

[Gavin Shuker]

The Deputy Leader of the House says no, but many of my constituents believe that to be the case. If that is so, and it is the Government’s intention, will they make available such business in Government time, rather than relying on my colleagues on the Backbench Business Committee?

[Mr Heath]

That was never our intention for the petition site. It is a mechanism for allowing members of the public to express an interest in a matter, and it is for the Backbench Business Committee, which has the time available, to consider that. If we find that there is a huge oversubscription, of course we will have to look at it, and I think the Procedure Committee will want to do that in due course. It makes sense to do so. However, we must not lose the capacity for the House properly to consider legislative business as it should, or to consider matters raised by hon. Members, which is also important.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

3. What steps he has taken in support of the Parliament week initiative; and if he will make a statement.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

5. What steps he has taken in support of the Parliament week initiative; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

I pay tribute to all hon. Members and staff of the House who are contributing to the excellent array of events in Parliament week. As part of that, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will meet members of the UK Youth Parliament, and will speak at the beginning of its debate in this place tomorrow.

[Jo Swinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and associate myself with his remarks about congratulating all the staff involved in making the events possible. Parliament week is a fantastic initiative, with events around the UK, the BBC’s “Question Time” in Westminster Hall, and the excellent UK Youth Parliament debate here tomorrow. What does my hon. Friend think can be done to extend the spirit of Parliament week in promoting democratic engagement to the other 51 weeks of the year?

[Mr Heath]

I commend my hon. Friend for her contribution; I understand that she took part in a young people’s “Question Time” event on Monday evening before an audience of more than 200. That was excellent. Engagement with the public, particularly with young people, is extremely important. The programme takes place not just in this place in Westminster; the whole point is to take that engagement out to the country, using a variety of methods. My hon. Friend makes a very good point that it should not be just for one week a year. We must make sure that the general public understand what the House is for, and how they can engage with it. We are determined to make that a reality every week of the year.

[Christopher Pincher]

Following on from what the Deputy Leader of the House has said, as part of Parliament week I gave a tour of Parliament for sixth-formers from Landeau Forte college this week, and next week I will see students from Rawlett college. What can the Government do every week of the year to make sure that students learn more in schools about our Parliament and its history, so that they are more engaged with Parliament and the democratic process?

[Mr Heath]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his involvement with young people. As I said, we must build on the extremely good work being done by the Department for Education, the education services in the House and others to make that a reality. A variety of things are happening that may engage the interest of young people. For example, there is even a parliamentary week app for tablets. I have downloaded it, and it is very good. The only drawback is that for some obscure reason, it has a 12-plus rating on the grounds of mild or occasional sexual content, nudity, fantasy violence, alcohol and drug abuse, profanities and crude humour—all of which are far from the normal life of hon. Members.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

I took the opportunity to write to all the schools in my constituency to inform them about Parliament week and the excellent resources that were available to them. As a result, I was at a school last Friday and I will be visiting another school tomorrow. Does the Deputy Leader of the House know how many hon. Members have actively taken part in promoting and attending Parliament week events? How will he encourage those who have not participated on this occasion, to make sure that they do so next year?

[Mr Heath]

The honest answer is that I do not know how many hon. Members have taken part, but from speaking to colleagues around the House, it seems that a significant number have done so. Those who have not done so have missed an opportunity, and let us hope that they will do so at different stages, not only during Parliament week next year but throughout the year, as the hon. Lady suggests.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The promotion of Parliament is of course a noble cause. However, does the Leader of the House agree that the continuation of allowing Members who do not take their seats in this place to claim expenses from this place, to claim offices in this place, and to claim salaries from this place is a scar on Parliament? When is he going to bring a comprehensive statement to this House—

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

4. What plans he has for future pre-legislative scrutiny of Government 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 recognise the value that pre-legislative scrutiny can add and we are committed to seeing more measures published in draft. So far this Session, we have published draft measures on Lords reform, financial services, defamation, detention of terrorist suspects, individual electoral registration and electoral administration, and a groceries code adjudicator. The Government expect to publish further measures in draft this Session, including on parliamentary privilege.

[Simon Hughes]

I am seriously grateful to my hon. Friend and to the business managers for arranging more pre-legislative scrutiny, which is very important. Can he assure us that, as the plans are laid for the next parliamentary year, starting next May, all Departments understand the benefit of, and the priority for, pre-legislative scrutiny and the disbenefit of introducing Government changes to Government Bills after they have been published?

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. That is exactly the point that we repeatedly make to Departments: it is in everyone’s interests including theirs that we have proper scrutiny, because better legislation has an easier passage through the House. Increasingly, we have dealt with measures rather than whole Bills, because when a measure is ready for publication it makes sense for the House to have an opportunity to scrutinise and improve it prior to the publication of a Bill.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Can the Deputy Leader of the House therefore give a guarantee that in future all Bills will have had pre-legislative scrutiny before they get on to the Floor of the House, so that we do not have the debacle that we had over the Health and Social Care Bill?

[Mr Heath]

I cannot give that guarantee any more than the previous Government, of whom the hon. Lady was a supporter, could give it. There will, for instance, be Bills that start in the Lords, where there is a different procedure, which means that they would not be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny in this House. However, it is our intention, wherever possible, to ensure that it happens. Inevitably, there is a slightly different position with an incoming Administration, when it is in no one’s interests for the House to do absolutely nothing for six months while we await Bills for pre-legislative scrutiny.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to improve access for hon. Members to Government Ministers and officials.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

The Government are committed to hon. Members having access to Ministers and, where appropriate, Government officials. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has recently taken up a number of cases with his ministerial colleagues where it was felt that meetings with Ministers were not forthcoming. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific concerns, my right hon. Friend and I will be happy to take them up on his behalf.

[Hugh Bayley]

I am grateful for that reply. I have never been admitted to a Government Department—at least, not since I was a Minister—without having a prior appointment, showing my parliamentary pass, and being accompanied by a pass-holding civil servant. How was Adam Werritty able to avoid those restrictions? Will the Government regularly publish details of all official meetings between Ministers and other people to reassure Parliament that access to Ministers is transparent and not partisan, and based on need and Government policy?

[Mr Heath]

The report from the Cabinet Secretary has been published, and changes in the ministerial code have been put in place. Clearly things happened in this instance that have been regretted and have resulted in changes, but I do not think we should have free access to Departments. It is very clear that that is also the Prime Minister’s view.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The Leader of the House is aware of my interest in having access to Ministers taking decisions in Europe, and particularly in Back Benchers having the power to amend draft regulations. Rather than being able to amend a motion to hold Ministers to account, may we please have the power to amend the actual implementing regulations?

[Mr Heath]

I think we have strayed a little far from the original question, which was on access to Ministers, but—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) says more from a sedentary position than he does standing up, and that is saying a lot. [Interruption.] He is carrying on doing it now. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the Deputy Leader of the House.

[Mr Heath]

I am so glad somebody does.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) raises an important point. She may like to approach the Procedure Committee, because it is really a question of procedure, rather than one of access to Ministers, on which I might reasonably be expected to have some impact.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

7. If he will establish a regular day of the week in sitting time for Back-Bench business.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

This issue could be considered as part of the review of the operation of the Backbench Business Committee. The hon. Lady knows, because we have had discussions, that we hope that will be undertaken fairly soon.

[Natascha Engel]

I thank the Deputy Leader of the House, but what reasons can he give for not having a regular slot? Would it not just be much, much easier?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady will recall that she sat on the Wright Committee. I did not, but she did and so did my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and we were committed to putting into effect the recommendations of the Wright Committee. She will recall that the Committee stated, in paragraph 214 of its report, that

“it could be left open to a process of regular discussion and negotiation as to which day of each week would be devoted to backbench business. This would avoid the rigidities referred to above.”

We have simply taken that recommendation—she may or may not have agreed with it, because I know she did not agree with all of what the Wright Committee recommended—and put it into effect. I have to say, there are advantages to having that flexibility.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What plans he has to bring forward proposals for a Select Committee on Civil Society; and what representations he has received on the remit of any such committee.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

In light of the recommendations of the Wright Committee that the House should reduce the number of Committees and end overlapping or duplicate remits, we have no plans to do so.

[Alun Michael]

It is very interesting that the Cabinet Office website, which announced with great passion that that Committee would be provided, does not record the withdrawal of that offer. Why has the Government’s decision been reversed, and why is it being kept secret?

[Mr Heath]

The establishment of Committees is a decision for the House, not the Government, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware. The Cabinet Office is scrutinised by the Public Administration Committee, which is currently undertaking an inquiry into civil society entitled “Smaller Government: Bigger Society?” I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and his Committee for their work on that matter and on other issues that are important to the Government. The matter is being looked at by a parliamentary Select Committee.

[Mr Speaker]

From that hon. Member we can now hear; I call Mr Bernard Jenkin.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I thank my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House for that answer?

[Mr Heath]

Yes, he may.

Business of the House

David Heath Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

Shall I say it again, then?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

It is a repeat.

[Ms Eagle]

Indeed. Perhaps I should repeat it.

Is it not clear that the Prime Minister’s plans backfired spectacularly, with half his own Back Benchers defying him? Today we learnt that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has threatened to leave the Cabinet if he is ever forced to vote against his Eurosceptic instincts again, and now we learn that the Justice Secretary has been suddenly pulled out of today’s debate on the Council of Europe, just in case he says something nice about the EU and further alienates the Tory rebels. What has it come to in today’s Tory party when Eurosceptics are bullied and pro-Europeans are gagged?

Given that last night’s welcome agreement in Brussels brings the prospect of a treaty change much closer, can the Leader of the House tell us what the Government’s policy on Europe is now, and may we have a debate about it? While he was getting the Whips to bully them, the Prime Minister was trying to appease his mutinous Back Benchers by promising them reform tomorrow. The next day, his deputy vetoed it. The Prime Minister wants to repatriate powers, whereas the Deputy Prime Minister says that that “won’t work” and is “condemned to failure”. Which is it?

Speaking of the Deputy Prime Minister, his reward for rubbing salt in Eurosceptic wounds this week is being allowed to blow an extra half a million pounds a year on seven new Liberal Democrat special advisers. That is apparently intended to “bolster” Liberal Democrat influence in Whitehall. Perhaps, in the light of all this confusion and contradiction between the Prime Minister and his deputy, we should have a debate about what plans the Government have to repatriate powers from the Liberal Democrats. Is it not the case that the past few days have exposed a weak Prime Minister leading a divided Government, too busy fighting internal battles to fight for Britain’s interests?

Public Bodies Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

David Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

I beg to move,

That the Order of 12 July 2011 (Public Bodies Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows—

1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.

3. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister said yesterday that if there were any treaty change to shore up the euro, we should press for the repatriation of social and employment policy. Given that he has just been completely contradicted by his Europe Minister, could you advise us how we might clarify Government policy in that important area?

[Mr Speaker]

I have known the hon. Gentleman since long before his election to this House last year—indeed, for the best part of two decades—and I know of no one who surpasses him in ingenuity. I trust that he will deploy his ingenuity through the use of the Order Paper and other mechanisms in order further to convey his own views and to highlight his concerns. I think the Deputy Leader of the House may now continue with his oration.

[Mr Heath]

I am most grateful, Mr Speaker. I think I can safely assume that that point of order was not related to the programme motion in respect of the Public Bodies Bill.

It is important that I first pay tribute to both the Chairs of the Public Bill Committee, the hon. Members for Southend West (Mr Amess) and for Glasgow North West (John Robertson), and my fellow members of the Committee. It scrutinised the Bill rigorously, but with good humour and professionalism that meant we were able to conclude consideration a full day ahead of schedule. It was a joy to serve on the Committee.

I also remind the House, because it is relevant to the programme motion, that the Bill is paving legislation. Although it is right and proper that we consider the inclusion of specific bodies in the Bill, as we did in Committee, there will be a further chance for the House to scrutinise its effect on particular bodies when the necessary orders are taken through the House, after the Bill has, as I hope, received Royal Assent.

The motion has been tabled to allow the debate to take place with schedules grouped alongside their associated clauses, as was the case in Committee. Following discussions with the usual channels, the use of a knife at 7.45 pm was agreed to, to facilitate debate on clauses and schedules of significant interest. There is a further change from our discussions in Committee, in that we are happily joined by some of our colleague Ministers from relevant Departments, who will be able to explain in far better detail than I could muster the consequences of the Bill’s proposals on their Departments.

I hope that the House will be able to come quickly to a decision on the motion and proceed with the Report stage of this important Bill. I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) tried very hard to persuade the House that this was an outrageous proposal from the Government on the grounds of lack of opportunity to consult, but written into the Bill at every stage is a statutory duty to consult on proposals before they become substantive, so consultation is not an issue.

The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) were concerned about matters that had not been selected for debate. It is not the Government who select amendments for debate; we can only table programme motions relating to the selection that is before us.

I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) presented the important case relating to Sianel Pedwar Cymru in Committee, and I hope that we shall have yet another opportunity to discuss those matters today. As the hon. Gentleman said, and as I think most right-minded people will recognise, progress has been made during our consideration of the Bill, and we are keen to ensure that the outcome is right for S4C.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised an important point about TUPE. Let me say, in case his amendments are not reached, that I will ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd)—who gave him all the assurances that could be given—to place his letter in the Library, so that it is on the record and there can be no doubt that those assurances were given.

I believe that we have an opportunity to engage in substantive debates this afternoon on an important Bill which, despite being paving legislation, opens up the possibility of further debate at a later stage, and I think that we should not delay progress any further.

Question put and agreed to.

Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund

David Heath Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

I thank the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) for what she said in support of the motion. She set out the Opposition’s position clearly and we are grateful for her comments.

The hon. Lady is right. We ought to emphasise very clearly, first, that MPs’ pay, remuneration and pensions should be determined independently—we should not vote on the money we get. I agree with her and with the principles of the legislation, the final part of which we are putting in place today. Secondly, we should say explicitly—this is the crux of the debate—that on pensions MPs should not be in a different position from others in the public sector. We should be treated no better or worse than those whose interests we will be considering and have considered in the past. The public will take a very dim view indeed if, as a parting shot, we try to claim that we are a special case, although there have been some indications, however well wrapped up, that some feel we are a special case.

Intrinsic to that is something that we need to understand across the public sector, which is that these prospective changes do not change accrued benefits: they are not retrospective. In the case of the Members’ pension scheme, they cannot be retrospective by statute.

I must pick up one point made by the hon. Lady, which was echoed elsewhere in the Chamber. She said that Members have a relatively limited period of employment in the House, about 15 years, which is reflected in pension contributions. We should recognise that that is slightly longer than the average length of service in the civil service, which is 13.5 years, so our tenure is not below average across the working population. However precarious we might think our position is, there are precarious positions out there as well.

The main argument that we have had this evening is on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and supported by the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and partially by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), who expressed some sympathy but felt he would support the motion.

The key point is that they do not wish us to express an opinion on the form in which the independent scheme will be worked out. They feel that that should be left alone entirely and that for the House to express an opinion on the matter pre-empts the decision. I do not think that it pre-empts the decision. I think that it is perfectly proper for the House to take a view. We are statutory consultees on the final schemes that will be independently worked out by IPSA if the motion is passed. Although I think that it is important that we have an opinion, that opinion, which must have some value, will not dictate the final result. I repeat that I do not believe that we should be in a different position from other people in the public sector. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blaydon nods in support of that contention.

Others fear that we are arguing for exceptionalism. The general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, today commented on the amendment:

“We’re not all in this together… While they bay for cuts to public sector pensions, they act to feather their own nests. This will appal ordinary people”.

I do not propose to base everything I say on the opinions of Len McCluskey, but I think that many people who do not take an extreme view would nevertheless be very concerned if it appeared that MPs, of their own volition, are to be treated differently from those in other public sector schemes. That is why I am particularly grateful for the support of the shadow Leader of the House for the basic contention.

[Mr Chope]

Does the Minister trust IPSA? If so, why does he find it necessary to add other words to the motion?

[Mr Heath]

I trust IPSA to carry out its statutory functions and give an independent assessment, but I think that there is no harm whatsoever in inviting the House to agree that we should not claim an exception for MPs. We claim no such thing and therefore expect IPSA to have regard to Lord Hutton’s review and the policy consequences that flow from it.

[Mr Anderson]

Will the Minister make it very clear for the House, the public and, in particular, Len McCluskey that no Member has argued that MPs should be a special case? Everyone has argued that all public sector workers should be treated equally—that they should also be treated properly.

[Mr Heath]

I hope that no hon. Member believes that they are a special case and that, if the House divides this evening, they will bear that in mind when casting their votes. I am simply talking about the perceptions that those outside the Chamber might have. I am very clear about what the perceptions would be if Members supported the amendment, which is why I hope it will not be pressed to a Division. That would only divide the House on something on which we ought to be united.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

The House seems pretty much united behind the principle of the motion, but a little concerned about the wording. That leads to the following question: if IPSA were significantly to improve the benefits to Members, would the Government step in to prevent that?

[Mr Heath]

We would have no power to do so. It is an independent process. If there was any notion that should be done, it would require changes to primary legislation, which would be a matter for the House, not the Government. We can be assured that that is the case.

I wish to put on the record my appreciation of the work that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe), who chairs the trustees of the parliamentary pension scheme, and his colleagues have done. We are particularly grateful to the hon. Members for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) and for Watford (Richard Harrington) for stepping down in order to facilitate the transfer. I know that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire takes an active interest and has been engaged in discussions throughout the process. I am particularly grateful for his letter, rather than his comments today, in which he stated: “Overall the trustees are of the view that the transfer of powers to IPSA will give the trustees the opportunity to contribute to the review of your pension scheme that we all know is inevitable in a constructive way.” Hear, hear to that. Everyone needs to take account of the caveats he offered, but I do not think that that obstructs the thrust of the motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) will not agree with that point, because he does not like IPSA, he does not like all its works and he does not believe that he can trust it. I understand his position, but I invite him to look back at the legislation, which we passed, and accept it.

[Mr Donohoe]

One very important question has not been answered: when will the order be signed transferring to IPSA the powers to undertake the pension scheme?

[Mr Heath]

First, we have to accept the result of any vote this evening, but if the motion goes through the order will be made shortly, and the hon. Gentleman should know that that really does mean shortly; it will be not one of those that lasts several months.

I reconfirm for the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) that the Government propose to increase contributions to the ministerial scheme, with staged increases being applied from 1 April 2012, and that we will consult on the proposal, as required by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. For the avoidance of doubt, I should point out that I do not receive a ministerial salary or pension, so I will not be affected—[Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Wallasey says, I do the job for nothing—for my love of the job. I am glad that that is appreciated—[Interruption.] She does, too.

On that note of happy consensus, I hope the House will agree the motion and pass the matter to the independent body with the very clear indication that, no, we do not expect to be treated differently simply because we are Members of this House and have the opportunity to express our opinions here in the Chamber.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Does Mr Chope wish to move his amendment?

Procedure Committee Reports

David Heath Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

High-speed debates sound like a very good idea, Mr Deputy Speaker.

As I did not get to warmly welcome the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) to her new responsibilities in our cameo appearances last night, may I do so now? I echo what she said about her predecessor, the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), with whom I always enjoyed debating. I wish her well in her new responsibilities.

I congratulate the Chairman of the Procedure Committee on securing this debate on his Committee’s proposals. The one area in which I disagree with him is on whether this debate should be held in Backbench Business Committee time. The Government have implemented the Wright Committee’s report, which was explicit on this matter. We hold to the position that the House should follow what the Wright Committee said on this matter. It is therefore the responsibility of the Backbench Business Committee.

I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on the motions, which I will take in order. The first motion on electronic devices is very much a House of Commons matter. Perhaps I should indicate that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I will support the motion, although some ministerial colleagues may hold other views.

Changes in technology have been swift and the Procedure Committee has taken a sensible approach in seeking to update the 2007 resolution in a way that might not need constant updating as technologies change. The Committee helpfully demonstrates how its proposed change is in line with trends in other legislatures. The concept of not impairing decorum that has been adopted by the US House of Representatives is helpful. I am sure that Mr Speaker will decide, with characteristic wisdom, how this resolution will be interpreted in practice, just as he has provided general guidance about appropriate conduct in the Chamber.

I support the comparable changes for Committees, although I have one reservation in that respect, to which the Procedure Committee has referred. Tweeting about an ongoing evidence session would be discourteous and disclosing deliberations in that way could be a breach of privilege. That is an important reservation to enter at this point.

There is no Government position on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) and others, although enforcement of the resolution, if amended in that way, might pose significant challenges for the occupant of the Chair.

I noticed that in opposing the amendment the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) asked why Members should not receive facts while they are preparing to speak. The explanation, perhaps, is that facts would entirely demolish the speeches of some hon. Members. Of course, just because a Member has received a fact does not mean that they have to take any notice of it.

The second motion, on Select Committee amendments, is where the Government part company with the Procedure Committee, because we do not believe that the case for the change has been made. We are continuing the position of the previous Government, which I believe is still that of the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge and the Opposition. Interestingly, that position was expressed at the time by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I am not sure whether he still takes that view.

Currently, amendments are tabled in the name of a Member of the House—it does not matter whether they are tabled by the Government, the official Opposition or anybody else. The Procedure Committee argues that if an amendment appears simply in the names of members of a Select Committee, other Members may not realise its status, but I am not convinced by that.

The Government have taken a number of steps to strengthen the Select Committee system—arguably more than any Government since that of 1979, under whom departmental Select Committees were established. We have enabled the House to take the bold step of electing Select Committee Chairs, and the profile of the Select Committee system continues to increase. I believe that an amendment in the name of members of a Select Committee will almost invariably be recognised as such by the House without the need for additional steps.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I am very surprised to find myself in disagreement with my hon. Friend on a House matter, because we very rarely disagree on them. However, a Select Committee amendment would have had to be approved unanimously by it. Is his real fear not that of the Whips Office—that on just one or two more occasions an amendment that was not moved by a Minister might be selected by the Chair and be debated in the House? Is he not simply echoing the traditional Front-Bench view that anything that allows Back Benchers to get anywhere near getting amendments selected is far too dangerous to be permitted?

[Mr Heath]

It is extremely rare that I disagree with my right hon. Friend, but I do on this matter. The selection of amendments is, of course, a matter for the Chair, and if the Chair feels that a Select Committee’s members are proposing an amendment that needs to be debated, it will be selected. However, it is a serious concern that under the Procedure Committee’s proposal three members of a Select Committee, who would form a quorum, could obtain a Committee’s imprimatur for an amendment. That amendment would attribute to all members of the Committee a position that was held only by those present at a meeting. I do not think that that does the House a service.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I want to make a further correction, because I do not want to delay the debate any further by making a speech—I want the rail debate to go ahead.

My hon. Friend must recognise that any member of a Committee who felt dissatisfied with an amendment tabled in the name of their Committee, their having been notified of a meeting but not gone to it, would make that abundantly clear. Indeed, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) made it clear at the beginning of the debate that he did not support the motion moved by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight).

[Mr Heath]

I am sure an hon. Member in that position would make their dissatisfaction abundantly clear, but equally it does not seem beyond the bound of reason that a Chair of a Select Committee could make it abundantly clear that he or she was presenting an amendment in the name of the Committee. The same arguments apply, and I am not persuaded by my right hon. Friend, which is why my ministerial colleagues and I will vote against the motion.

I turn to the third motion, on explanatory statements on amendments, and the remarks of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). The crux of what she said was that the Government were being unreasonably obstructive and unhelpful in their approach. However, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is quoted in the Committee’s report as having said:

“I would certainly not oppose the continuation of explanatory statements”.

The report also quotes my comment:

“I am certainly happy, as far as the Government are concerned, for that experiment to proceed.”—[Official Report, 3 February 2011; Vol. 522, c. 384WH.]

It might be said that the barriers that we have sought to erect to prevent it from happening are rather low indeed. I repeat today the Government’s position that we will support the recommendation. However, it is important that we express caveats for the benefit of the House.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman said that the agreement was on the voluntary introduction of explanatory statements, but we are driving towards something mandatory. In his response to the Committee’s report, words such as “significant burden”, “lukewarm support”, “inconclusive” and “disappointing” strongly suggest that the Government are not firmly behind our proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

The lukewarm response was not from the Government—this Government and previous Governments have been happy to table explanatory amendments—but from other Members who showed not the slightest inclination to do so. That is the concern.

Let us go back to the origins. The experiment with explanatory statements on amendments was first proposed by the Modernisation Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), in its 2006 report on the legislative process. The Committee envisaged that the main benefit would be helping Ministers and civil servants to understand the intention behind Back-Bench and Opposition amendments, so that the Minister was prepared to address the issues that the Member wanted to debate and to respond to the queries or concerns being raised. They were envisaged as a vehicle for Back Benchers to explain their amendments, rather than for the Government to explain their amendments, for which there are many other mechanisms. Despite that, and although the Government have participated fully in each pilot, the take-up by Back Benchers has been low and has declined since the first pilot.

We have to acknowledge the resource implications. The Procedure Committee was told in the previous Parliament that the general application of explanatory notes to all Committee papers would cost the House services alone more than £100,000, and the costs would be greater still if applied on Report. That takes no account of the staff resource implications for the House services and the Government. The Government agreed to provide explanatory notes to all amendments in previous pilot schemes, and the Procedure Committee envisaged a mandatory requirement for Government amendments on Report. At the same time, however, the Committee rejected imposing such a requirement on others. I take it from what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said that she would like that to apply mandatorily to others. There is some justification for that, but there is little justification for the current asymmetrical approach.

If the motion is agreed to, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will write to the Procedure Committee with proposals for the pilot. This is the last chance to show that the voluntary approach for everyone other than the Government could work as originally envisaged by the Modernisation Committee. We will want the experiment to demonstrate clear value-for-money benefits to the House, and if it does not, we might decline to support any further proposals along the same lines.

I support the final motion on written parliamentary questions. Again, the proposal is for a pilot scheme involving an earlier cut-off point for electronically tabled questions and a daily quota of five written questions that could be so tabled for an experimental period of three months. The right to table questions belongs to hon. Members and hon. Members alone. If the experiment encourages Members to take a closer interest in questions prepared by their staff, that would surely be a good thing. The average cost to the taxpayer of tabling a question is £239. Although overall quotas are not proposed, I am sure that hon. Members will wish to be mindful of the costs of what they do. We are keen to ensure that all written questions receive timely, substantive answers. If the pilot leads to “fewer, better questions”, as the Procedure Committee hopes, I would hope also to see quicker, better answers. We will provide the statistics on the timeliness of answers in the current Session on the timetable requested by the Procedure Committee.

To end where I began—on the theme of technological change—I can confirm that the Government are keen to work closely with the House authorities to take forward proposals for the electronic distribution of answers, which would benefit all Members.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Business of the House (17 October)

David Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

I beg to move,

That, at the sitting on Monday 17 October, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14(3A) (Arrangement of public business), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the Motion in the name of Sir George Young relating to the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund not later than two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion; and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved.

I do not want to detain the House any longer than necessary on this issue. The motion provides for two hours of debate on the Government motion on pensions on Monday. It provides certainty for the House, and it is necessary as the day is being shared with a debate scheduled by the Backbench Business Committee on the Hillsborough disaster. That is the first debate in this Chamber that has resulted from the new e-petition system introduced by the Government.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Would it not be better to protect the Hillsborough debate by stating that there should be a minimum of three hours for it, so that it could go beyond the moment of interruption? Otherwise, if there are statements or urgent questions on Monday, the Hillsborough debate could be squeezed to one and a half hours.

[Mr Heath]

I have to say that I believe the programme motion does provide the required protection. It is a sensible procedural motion, and it is my great regret that we have to debate it at any length this evening. The mood of the House was apparent last night during the various points of order on this matter. The debate on the Hillsborough disaster was supported by nearly 100 Members of the House when presented to the Backbench Business Committee. It also has the support of more than 139,000 members of the public who signed the e-petition supporting the debate. Members of the House have been liaising with the many hundreds of people who intend to travel to London on Monday to listen to the debate, many of whom will be bereaved families of those who lost their lives in the tragedy.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) asked a question of the Prime Minister earlier today. He said:

“Does he understand that the perception out there in the real world is that some MPs would rather talk about their own pensions than discuss a 22-year-old injustice and the deaths of 96 men, women and children?”

I have to say that if the House were unable to agree to this motion this evening, that is exactly the impression that would be given. I want to avoid that, which is why I commend the motion to the House.