Business of the House
Debate between David Heath and Chris Leslie(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Debate between David Heath and Chris Leslie(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Heath
No, not for the moment because I have just said that I want to set out some of the reasons I have difficulties with the new clause.
One point worried me slightly, and I have to say that the hon. Member for Broxbourne and I may have an honest disagreement about it. He appeared to be advocating a complete separation of powers.
Business of the House
Debate between David Heath and Chris Leslie(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman has been a doughty supporter of Equitable Life policyholders over the years, as have I and many hon. Members on both sides of the House. It does not really help if he now uses the terms that he has for this Government, who are trying to deal with the issue after year after year of prevarication from the previous Government. They set up Sir John Chadwick’s review. He has not yet completed it. He is now talking about reporting in mid-July, so we have to await the end of the review. There is no question about that.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said that legislation will be introduced at an early opportunity, and it will be.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Deputy Leader of the House consider his reply to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) about the redundancies announced by the insurance arm of Lloyds Banking Group. Lloyds is, of course, largely owned by the Treasury. Of those posts, 198 are going from Nottingham. What can be done to help with retraining and redeployment of those made redundant? Many of our constituents in Nottingham are very concerned about this matter.
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman may want to raise that in the context of the Opposition day debate, because it is clearly relevant to that. I perfectly understand the concerns that he expresses on behalf of his constituents. We want to make sure that every possible assistance is given by the Government to the individuals made redundant. We bandy around percentages, but someone who loses their job is 100% unemployed until they find another job. That is the human tragedy that we always have to have in mind.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use that opportunity. If he feels that there is more that can be done, I hope that he will seek a debate on the issue either in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment. Such issues are very important. I leave the hon. Gentleman with one parting shot. He is right: this is a bank in which the UK Government have a significant holding. I wish that the previous Government had applied some effective constraints on the way banks operated when they took that equity in the banks.