Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Heath and Philip Davies

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

The House of Lords (Amendment) Bill is a constitutional Bill, and it is normal that the Committee stages of such Bills are taken on the Floor of the House. I have no reason to suppose that this Bill will be an exception. We will of course provide adequate time for debate.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I propose a change for the Government when they are considering their legislative programme for the next Session? Will they bear it in mind, just for a change, that they are in coalition with the Conservative party?

[Mr Heath]

I doubt that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ever forgets that fact.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between David Heath and Philip Davies

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I said that it was undesirable, and I believe that it is undesirable. I said that in the last Parliament. I called for Secretaries of State in another place to be brought before this House for questioning, because I think it is wrong for Members of the House of Commons not to have access to those who lead Departments. That remains my position, and I am not going to change it.

[Philip Davies]

I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Is he saying that the new clause means that any Secretary of State could not be in the House of Commons, and would have to be in the House of Lords? I see nothing in the new clause that would force a Secretary of State to be in the House of Lords.

[Mr Heath]

I am not suggesting that that would be the case. I am picking up on points made during the debate, which I think is part of the job of a Minister responding to a debate. The hon. Member for Foyle expressed the hope that a reduction in the number of Ministers in the House of Commons would not result in an increase in the number of Ministers in the House of Lords. I suggested that I agreed with his view. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex does not agree with it. So be it. That is the nature of debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

As I shall go on to describe, what the previous Government did when they reached the buffers of the current restrictions was simply to create all sorts of fantastical posts that were not described as “Ministers” but were, nevertheless, an extension of patronage. We know what the Labour party did when in government and I think we can do better.

[Philip Davies]

The Minister seems to be saying that these things should be judged on the ministerial work load, as opposed to numbers. I do not know whether this is the case for him and his constituency, but the work load of MPs has increased rapidly in recent years. The Government are proposing to reduce the number of MPs by 50, so this Bill clearly has nothing to do with work load, yet he is giving the distinct impression that this is a simple case of turkeys not wanting to vote for Christmas.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Heath and Philip Davies

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

The right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that he does recognise the word “fiasco”, but the only fiasco I have come across in the course of our debates is the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) speaking for 50 minutes without mentioning his amendments. That may have been part of the problem of timing in relation to the Bill.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

2. What plans he has to increase the opportunities available for debate of Select Committee reports on the Floor of the House.

Use of the Chamber (United Kingdom Youth Parliament)

Debate between David Heath and Philip Davies

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House welcomes the work of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament in providing young people with an opportunity to engage with the political process; notes that the House agreed on 16 March 2009 to allow the Youth Parliament to meet once in the Chamber; recalls that this meeting took place on 30 October 2009; and accordingly resolves that the UK Youth Parliament should be allowed to meet once a year in the Chamber of this House for the duration of this Parliament.

I am glad that it is now past 10 o’clock.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm that a Division on the motion would be deferred, but that if the closure were moved tonight, a Division on it would take place here and now? Many people watching these proceedings would think it quite strange that we would have a Division on a closure motion, but that there would be no Division on the substantive motion. Will you confirm that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I have just said that the Government are facilitating a process. This is not Government policy: it is for the House to determine. I see no reason why we should not debate this issue tonight. We have plenty of time to debate it tonight—possibly as much time as any Member could reasonably expect to debate an important issue such as this. It is important that we take a decision, for the obvious reason that if we could not decide, we could not allow the UK Youth Parliament to make use of the facilities at the time when we would invite them to do so if this motion were passed. It would therefore seem to be entirely sensible, even within the constraints of procedure in this place, to table a motion to agree to invite the Youth Parliament to use the facilities and, if that is agreed, for it then to do so—rather than the other way round.

[Philip Davies]

The Deputy Leader of the House claims to be facilitating a debate and says that he believes there is no reason why a debate should not take place. If that is the case, can he explain why yesterday the Government tried to get this motion through on the nod at the end of the day, without any debate? If the Government were so keen on facilitating a debate, why did he not schedule a debate in the first place?

[Mr Heath]

May I let the hon. Gentleman into a secret? If the House agrees on an issue, we do not need to take up debating time. If the House agreed on a matter, it would be sensible not to schedule a debate on the Order Paper, because we could use the time for more important things, such as those statements that hon. Members have said they want to hear in the Chamber. We could ensure that Ministers come here to explain their policies, and have more time for legislation, rather than debating matters on which the whole House agrees. But it would appear that there are some in the House who do not agree, which is why we are happy to provide time for the debate this evening.

Last time we debated this matter, I was on the Opposition Benches and supporting the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley)—no, it was not her; it was the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments, because they are well founded and speak for the experience that many of us have had in speaking to young people who were involved that day. Let us remember that the debate took place at a time when Parliament’s reputation was severely damaged, and when young people were increasingly disaffected with politics and society. I do not think that any hon. Member would argue that either of those problems has gone away, but I believe that we are making progress. In 2005 the turnout for 18 to 24-year-olds was estimated at 37%. Five years later, turnout is believed to have risen to about 44%. It is only by continuing and increasing young people’s engagement with politics that we can continue to see those numbers grow.

For those who either watched it or were present, last year’s debate showed us young people from across the country discussing the issues that they felt were most important—youth crime, cheaper transport, free university education, job opportunities for young people, and lowering the voting age to 16. Without trespassing on the territory of the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), may I say that if those suggestions were put to her Committee, they would not be out of order as matters of vital importance to the House.

[Philip Davies]

Was I hearing the Minister correctly when he tried to claim that the increased turnout among young people at the last election from 38% to 44% was due to young people having a debate in the Chamber last year? Is that really what he is claiming? I thought that his party was claiming beforehand that it was the televised debates with all the leaders that were encouraging young people to turn out. Has he changed his mind, or is he just coming out with a load of guff and a spurious argument?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman was correct neither in the figures he quoted me as saying nor in the causal connection, which I did not seek to make. So the simple answer is: no, he is not correct.

I shall deal with some of the objections that might come up during the debate, because they came up at length last year. Last year’s debate by the UK Youth Parliament was the very first time that anyone other than Members of Parliament had sat on these green Benches.

[Philip Davies]

Outrageous.

[Mr Heath]

I hear the word “outrageous” from a sedentary position behind me. The fact that last year’s debate was the first time that anyone other than a Member of Parliament had sat on these green Benches seemed to be the issue for some hon. Members. They held the view—and obviously still do—that to sit on these Benches is a privilege that can be exercised only by Members who have been elected to this House. In my view, that is to confuse the institution of Parliament, which is an enormously important institution to this country, and the fabric of the building. The two are not identical. Were it to sit in another chamber, this Parliament would still be the Parliament of the United Kingdom, just as much as it is when it sits in this Chamber. This Chamber in itself does not constitute the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point for which I have a lot of sympathy. If Ministers are so enthusiastic about the Youth Parliament sitting here, I am sure that they will have no objection to volunteering their time to respond to its debate in the way that he suggests. I am sure that that would be a worthwhile innovation. He is known for his ingenuity and his innovations, and I am sure that that one might catch on. He is certainly right that we could learn a great deal from our friends in the Province who often have more sensible views on things.

[Mr Heath]

Just in case the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is genuinely suggesting an unusual innovation, let me tell him that the acting Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I were all present for the entire day at the last meeting of the UK Youth Parliament and that the acting Leader of the Opposition spoke in the debate. I would certainly think it a privilege to attend this year if it is the will of the House that its meeting should take place in the Chamber.

[Philip Davies]

It is a red letter day for the Youth Parliament, because not only do we seem to be on the verge of allowing its members to use the Chamber again, but the Deputy Leader of the House has offered to play a full part in their proceedings. I am sure that that promise will have been bagged by them and that they will look forward to that with excitement.

The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said that he was concerned about the quality of my speech, but my generosity in dealing with interventions has meant that I have not yet started. However, I intend to do so now.

Business of the House

Debate between David Heath and Philip Davies

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the clarification he wants simply because I do not know and there is no point in pretending that I do. I recognise the circumstances of Hillsborough—the tragedy that it was—and the continuing effect that it must have on a large part of the population, not least his constituents. It is extremely important that we provide as much succour and comfort as possible to those people. I will certainly take the matter he raises back to the responsible Ministers and note the force with which he makes his case.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the Government’s new sentencing policy so that we can point out to the Secretary of State for Justice that the apparent premise that people who commit minor offences are frogmarched to a court and sent immediately to prison is a false one? What happens in the real world is that the police tear their hair out over arresting the same people time after time only to find that the magistrates courts do nothing but give them a slap on the wrist. The people who eventually end up in prison do so only after all the community service and drug treatment orders have been tried and tried again but have failed.

[Mr Heath]

First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election to the Backbench Business Committee, on which he will have some responsibility for ensuring that these very important matters are debated in full. What I heard the Secretary of State for Justice say was that he wanted a justice system that worked, and that disposals for people who are convicted ought to be the most effective disposals that will reduce the likelihood of their offending again. He said that many of the recurrent offenders whom the hon. Gentleman mentions—those whom the police pick up time and again—serve short sentences in prison and then go on to reoffend. Surely it cannot be right to continue with policies that fail.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Heath and Philip Davies

Monday 21st June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

6. What his policy is on the use of programme motions to regulate proceedings on legislation; and if he will make a statement.

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

The Government intend to provide adequate time for consideration of Bills on Report, when the most serious problems occurred in the last Parliament.

[Philip Davies]

The Minister and I regularly used to vote against the previous Government’s routine use of programme motions in the last Parliament. What will be different about this Government, so that we do not have the situation where people in opposition complain about programme motions, but in government routinely use them?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman remembers well what happened in the last Parliament, when very often huge parts of Bills were not considered by the House, which was a disgrace. What will be different is that there will be fewer Bills, better drafted Bills and an end to the automatic guillotine of the Report stage. However, that depends on all parts of the House having a grown-up attitude to how we consider business. [Interruption.] I hear the grown-up attitude evinced by Opposition Members.

Dissolution of Parliament

Debate between David Heath and Philip Davies

Tuesday 25th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

Let me respectfully suggest that that is the situation at the moment. I am quite prepared to argue on the details of the new legislation, but what I am not prepared to do is argue about the present constitutional position, which is that it is unprecedented for a Prime Minister who has lost a vote of no confidence to fail to resign. We must be absolutely clear that creating constitutional difficulties, which are inherent in our present unwritten constitution, is not a sensible way of debating the new position.

Let us deal with the 55% threshold, because I am not so foolish as not to understand that this is the difficulty that many right hon. and hon. Members have. The Prime Minister has set out the Government’s position clearly—it is there in black and white in the coalition document. We believe that 55% is the right threshold, but it is perfectly open to hon. Members to argue that a different threshold is appropriate.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

We will do.

[Mr Heath]

So be it—that is the point of parliamentary debate. However, there is no point whatever in having legislation on fixed-term Parliaments if there is no constitutional lock. Otherwise it will become a meaningless piece of legislation. I know of no legislation in any country that provides for fixed-term Parliaments that does not provide some form of constitutional lock—some form of entrenchment—in order to ensure that the legislation is not cast aside at the whim of the Executive.

That would seem to return to the position in which the Executive had the power and Parliament was deprived of it.