EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice
David Lidington Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)
May I first genuinely express my appreciation to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) for the courteous and constructive way in which he has presented his case? As will become apparent to the House, I take issue with some of his arguments, but I hope that we can continue this debate in such a tone. As he said, we are dealing with issues of the most fundamental, political, constitutional and legal importance—not just to us, but more importantly to the people who send us here and whom we are here to represent.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledged, the proposed withdrawal agreement—as it is referred to in today’s motion—has not been finalised. There is a live negotiation still ongoing in Brussels and the Government have consistently said that we will not provide a running commentary on our negotiating position. It is a cardinal principle of our system of government that Ministers and officials need to be able to prepare the British negotiating position in private. After all, the European Commission does not show its hand in negotiations—nor does it publish the legal advice underpinning its position on live negotiating issues—and I do not believe the Government of the United Kingdom should be expected to do so either.
I want to make it clear that I welcome the acknowledgement by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that what he seems to be seeking through this motion is perhaps not quite as all-embracing as a literal reading of the motion would lead the House to conclude. I did have some preliminary analysis done yesterday after we got sight of the Opposition’s motion. The first conclusion we came to is that if we took the wording of the motion literally, then, at a conservative estimate, we could be looking at upwards of 5,000 different pieces of documentation going back over the two years since the referendum and covering, of course, matters deriving not just from the Law Officers’ Department but from legal advisers in every Government Department in Whitehall.
However, I completely understand the concern that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed, which is, I think, felt in all parts of the House by hon. Members of all political parties, that if and when—I hope when—a withdrawal agreement comes forward for debate in Parliament, right hon. and hon. Members should have access not only to an economic and political analysis of what we are being asked to approve or disapprove, but to detailed legal analysis of the meaning and the implications of the agreement.
Of course, one option is that the House or one of its Committees should itself commission its own independent legal advice separate from the Government’s, but I accept that it is a perfectly fair request to be made of Government that we set out the legal implications, as we see it, of the agreement, should we successfully conclude these negotiations. To avoid any risk of misunderstanding, I want to make it clear that when I talk about the agreement, I also refer to any protocols that might be attached to such an agreement.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for the tone that he is using in this debate. In his penultimate paragraph, it seemed that he came quite close to accepting the spirit of what the Opposition are saying. I am no lawyer, but the House is about to vote on this agreement, with Members carefully considering what may be one of the most important votes that we take in our political lifetime, in the light of what is in the best interests of their constituents and their country. Would it not assist the Government in securing the support of the House if, exceptionally and in a spirit of good will on this frankly unprecedented occasion, they released the Attorney General’s advice?
Mr Lidington
I will come on to the specific issue of formal advice from the Law Officers in due course slightly later in my speech, but I first want to conclude the point I was making about the Government’s approach. I hope that, as my right hon. Friend suggested, what I say will be read as an attempt to find some common ground across the House, even if there is not complete agreement.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Can I ask the Minister something before he moves on? He referred earlier to the importance of providing not only some legal advice but economic analysis. Can he confirm that that economic analysis will include the merits or otherwise of our staying in the European Union?
Mr Lidington
If I may, I will answer the right hon. Gentleman while also responding to something that was said by the Opposition spokesman when he referred to the commitment that, yes, is there in the White Paper that the Government published earlier this year to provide Parliament with information and analysis ahead of the meaningful vote. I want to agree and accept on behalf of the Government that that information and analysis should include not only such things as impact assessments, which the Opposition spokesman mentioned, but a legal analysis as well.
In specific response to the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), we certainly do intend to provide an economic analysis. The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), will have heard what he has proposed one of the options should be.
Chris Bryant
I am glad that the Minister recognises, I think, that no Opposition Member is trying to drive a coach and horses through the fundamental principle that the Government should be able to take confidential legal opinion and advice during a live negotiation. None of us is seeking to transform that. However, we need to be able to understand in full all the parameters of why the Government, when they come forward with a deal, believe that it is going to be legally watertight and practicable.
Let me give just one example. The Government are saying at the moment that it is impossible to implement the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 until such time as we finish the transition period—in other words, not for another two years. Why on earth is that the Government’s legal position? When every other Government in Europe is able to implement their own sanctions, why cannot we do our own now? We would like to see the legal advice behind that.
Mr Lidington
That particular point is a matter to be followed up with the Ministers in charge of that particular legislation. However, I recall from my time at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office discussions with other European Governments about sanctions policy, and it was very clear that, I am afraid, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, a number of EU countries have, while remaining members of the European Union, given up the right to set their own policies on sanctions and rely on European Union instruments in order to give effect to those policies.
Chris Bryant
Unfortunately, though, when the Minister was a Minister in the Foreign Office, he himself, quite rightly, introduced sanctions on Iran that were not being implemented by the European Union, so we are perfectly free to introduce our own sanctions, and if they should be against Russia, we should do so now.
Mr Lidington
In the case of the United Kingdom, we have some sanctions, while members of the European Union, that are applied by virtue of European Union instruments, and there are others additional to those that we have had the freedom to apply on our own. It would probably be unwise of me to try to supplant Ministers in the Department for International Trade and get into the detail about this, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will be only too delighted to listen in detail to the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.
I want to return to the main point that the shadow Secretary of State put to me.
Mr Lidington
All right. Then, if the House will forgive me, I will try to make some progress, because there are some really important points that I want to respond to.
Owen Smith
In the light of the Minister’s very welcome admission that the Government are to publish economic analysis on the withdrawal agreement, and in the light of his failure to deny on Radio 4 this morning that Britain may well be worse off as a result of leaving the European Union, could he confirm that that analysis will measure whether we will be worse off leaving versus remaining in the European Union?
Mr Lidington
There will be considerable economic analysis. I do not know quite how great the hon. Gentleman’s appetite for the detail will be, but I am sure that in addition to what is provided by the Government, there will be multifarious pieces of advice and analysis from outside organisations.
I want to make it clear that the Government fully understand the historic nature of the decision that Parliament will be asked to take. Frankly, as someone who feels sometimes as if I have been living through these issues for a considerable number of years, I think that nothing would be served by coming out of the debates that we will have on the meaningful vote and then, if approved, the implementation Bill with people feeling that they were not in full possession of the arguments and the evidence in order to take a decision. When we come through this particular period in our history, we have—all of us, from our different political perspectives—to find a way of moving on, to establish this country’s new relationship with our neighbours, friends and allies in the EU27 and to get on with the debates and the work on domestic policy issues, which I certainly find are what people raise first on the doorstep, rather than the detail of article 50 procedures.
I want to give a commitment to the Opposition and the House. We will make available to all Members of the House, following the conclusion of negotiations and ahead of the meaningful vote, a full reasoned position statement laying out the Government’s political and legal position on the proposed withdrawal agreement, including any protocols that might be attached to it.
In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has authorised me to confirm to the House this afternoon that he is ready to assist further by making an oral statement to the House and to take questions from Members in the normal way. I think that that would go a lot further than the Libya precedent cited by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras.
Ministers are also very willing to engage in further discussions with colleagues of all political parties, including the Opposition spokesmen, about how best, in terms of both substance and timing, we can provide analysis in the form that Members will want and need in order to make an informed decision when that is presented to them.
Mr Lidington
I will just refer to the hon. Lady before I give way. I thought it was perfectly reasonable of her to ask for the analysis to include the impact that a possible Northern Ireland protocol might have on Belfast agreement commitments. I would certainly see that as the kind of thing that Ministers should be discussing with her and other colleagues from Northern Ireland, to ensure that we include everything they want.
Lady Hermon
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. Can he be absolutely clear in what he is saying to the people of Northern Ireland and confirm today that the people of Northern Ireland will not be kept in the dark by the British Government as to the exact legal consequences for the Belfast/Good Friday agreement of any negotiated deal by the British Government in good time, before we have to vote on this deal?
Mr Lidington
I am happy to give that assurance, and to say further that the relevant Ministers will be happy to talk to the hon. Lady and other Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies about exactly what form of analysis should be presented to the House, so that people in Northern Ireland can understand clearly both what is being proposed in any potential withdrawal agreement and what the legal, constitutional and practical implications of that might be.
Mr Grieve
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I was very pleased to hear the assurances he just gave as to how the Government would proceed and how the Attorney General would play a part. Might my right hon. Friend also take on board the fact that, if we come to debate this matter on the Floor of the House, it has been a custom—although one that may have fallen by the wayside—for there to be a Law Officer sitting on the Treasury Bench during the debate who is able to respond to any queries of a legal nature that might arise?
Mr Lidington
My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General tells me that he looks forward to being there. It is not really for me to speak for the Law Officers, but I know that both the Solicitor General and the Attorney General are utterly committed to their parliamentary and governmental responsibilities.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for the commitment he just gave, but it sounded very similar to the compromise amendment that stands in my name on the Order Paper but has not been selected. Will he clarify that it is a full reasoned position statement laying out the Government’s political and legal position?
Mr Speaker
That was a cheeky endeavour on the part of the hon. Gentleman. We cannot debate the terms of an amendment that has not been selected, and the House will know that reasons are not given for non-selection; I had to make a judgment about how best the debate was served. It is rather cheeky, but I am sure that the Minister can deal with it dexterously.
Mr Lidington
I have been here long enough to know that one should accept rulings from the Chair, but I can say to my hon. Friend that our intention in Government is to provide the kind of analysis that I believe he has been seeking, but which also meets the requests and calls of Members of all shades of opinion on the European issue, not just in my party but in all parts of the House.
I want to put on the record that there have already been discussions through the usual channels on a cross-party basis about how the Government can facilitate the briefing of Members in every party represented in this House. I can give the House a further commitment that those contacts and conversations will continue.
Kevin Hollinrake
What my right hon. Friend is setting out seems to be more or less what the shadow Secretary of State was asking for. Can he confirm that, if we were called to vote on this motion, we would be voting on something entirely different, which would be to produce all legal advice in connection with this matter?
Mr Lidington
I always try to build bridges. I hope that what I have said is of some assurance to colleagues in all parts of the House. As I said earlier, I think that the motion as worded goes wider than what the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, in all fairness to him, was clear about in his introductory speech.
Neil O'Brien
I am incredibly thankful to my right hon. Friend for his thoughtful tone in this debate and for the important reassurances he has given to the House, but could he give me one more reassurance, which is that he opposes in principle the thin end of the wedge on the Order Paper? I worked with brilliant civil servants for five years, and if they had to give any legal advice in full, written as if it were for publication every single time, their jobs would simply be impossible.
Mr Lidington
I want to come on to that point now. Where I part company with the Opposition motion is over the proposed disclosure of Law Officers’ formal advice. Everyone in the House will know that there is a strong long-lasting constitutional convention, followed by Governments of all political parties, that the opinions of the Law Officers remain confidential. That is reflected in the words of the ministerial code, which seeks to balance the Government’s twin duties of accountability to Parliament and maintaining confidentiality where necessary and appropriate. The code explicitly provides that
“Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public,”
but also expressly notes that the advice of Law Officers and even the fact that such advice has been sought or obtained
“must not be disclosed outside Government without their authority”—
that is, the authority of the Law Officers themselves.
Furthermore, “Erskine May” on page 447 specifically states that
“the opinions of the law officers of the Crown, being confidential, are not usually laid before Parliament, cited in debate or provided in evidence before a select committee, and their production has frequently been refused”.
“Erskine May” goes on to explain that
“The purpose of this convention is to enable the Government to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence.”
Successive Governments have upheld that principle because the work of Government—Governments past, present and future, of different political persuasions—benefits from receiving such frank, confidential advice. The convention exists for very fundamental constitutional reasons, and to uphold the rule of law.
The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras referred to the entrenched tradition of privileged legal advice: in this country, we operate on the basis that advice given by a lawyer to his or her client, whether an individual, a corporation, the Government or a political party, should be treated as confidential. Although he cited exceptions to that, those exceptions were about litigation in court, rather than about the circumstances we are deciding here.
Sir Oliver Heald
Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in giving advice, the Law Officers are often looking at questions of a very sensitive nature with an international content, that it is not always about a case that is going to come before a court in the UK, and that often it would be very difficult for our country if all the advice and various options and what the Law Officers’ are saying about them had to be laid out?
Mr Lidington
My right hon. and learned Friend is spot on. The Law Officers’ advice goes beyond other forms of legal advice in its particular complexity, sensitivity and constitutional importance. For that reason, there is a high premium—higher even than that in respect of other forms of legal advice—on protecting that advice.
The Law Officers convention is also a facet of the important constitutional convention of collective Cabinet responsibility. Again, the ministerial code is clear on this. It says that all members of the Cabinet must publicly support collective decisions, but are able within Cabinet to debate and raise concerns privately, and the Law Officers’ contributions to those Cabinet discussions and decisions should similarly be protected, just as the contributions of other Cabinet Ministers or the minutes of Cabinet meetings themselves are protected. That ensures that the public debate is about the Government’s collective decision and the Government’s accountability to this House, rather than about internal processes.
Where the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras was correct was to say that, in the case of the Iraq war and Lord Goldsmith’s advice, an exception was made to this general rule. It is certainly the only one of that nature in modern times that I have been able to find so far. However, it was done some years—two years—after the event, following the appearance in the media of selected verbatim extracts from the advice. However, the key difference between that case and what we are debating this afternoon is that, in the Iraq case, the point at issue was not the legal implications of particular policy options, but whether the Government’s entire action in Iraq was or was not lawful. That was the point at issue then, which is why the then Government decided that it was right for them to make an exception to what is normally a very firm convention.
I believe that, if this convention were to be set aside, there would be an adverse impact on the quality of discussions within Government and of the Government’s collective decision making, which would not be in the interests of any Government of any political party. Whether by means of resolutions of the House or otherwise, if Law Officer advice is made public, future advice is likely to be less frank and candid than at present and less likely to be written down. That is not going to make for good government.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Is there not another aspect to this? A number of the Minister’s Cabinet colleagues have said that they did not properly understand the legal implications of what was agreed to last December. That is of course what has led to the dilemma in which the Government now find themselves about the backstop. If the Cabinet were not able to understand the legal advice last December, surely that means they will not understand it this time round and it is important that this House, which will take the ultimate decision, fully understands the legal implications of what is about to be agreed to, if indeed there is going to be an agreement.
Mr Lidington
I go along with the hon. and learned Lady this far: I have set out how the Government intend to discharge the commitment that we have given to making sure that Members in all parts of the House are fully informed and do understand the nature of the legal, as well as the economic and political, implications of the decision that we are facing. However, at no time in our Parliament’s history has any Government operated in an environment where legal advice is prepared for Ministers one week and then made public the next.
I have to be clear that this motion does go against the Law Officers convention, which Governments of all colours have defended. I hope, therefore, that, during this debate, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras and his colleagues will reflect on the assurances I have sought to give to the House this afternoon; will take them in the spirit in which I, on behalf of the Government, certainly intend them; and will, having reflected on these matters, decide not to press their motion to a Division, but to go forward in a spirit of cross-party consensus, so that we can work out together how to present to the entire House the information and analysis that Members on all sides rightly expect to have available in order to make an informed decision on a political issue of this historic importance.
Cabinet Committees and Implementation Task Forces
David Lidington Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)
Today I am publishing the updated list of Cabinet Committees and implementation task forces (ITFs).
The updated list includes a new National Security Council (Cross-Government Funds) Sub-Committee, which will provide strategic direction to the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund and the Prosperity Fund.
Copies of the associated documents will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-cabinet-committees-system-and-list-of-cabinet-committees
[HCWS1035]
Infected Blood Inquiry
David Lidington Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)
On 24 September, I attended the commemoration that preceded the preliminary hearings of the infected blood inquiry, and watched the moving and powerful testimony from those infected and affected by the infected blood scandal. The commemoration brought home the terrible human cost of this tragedy, and emphasised to me the importance of this inquiry, to get to the truth of what happened, and provide the answers that the people infected and affected so desperately need.
When the public inquiry was launched in July this year, I deferred making a decision on whether to appoint a panel to sit with Sir Brian until he was able to take the view of core participants. Sir Brian Langstaff wrote to me this week following the preliminary hearings, and has advised me that he has now done so, and there has been no demand for a panel. In the place of single experts, sitting as panellists, Sir Brian is establishing expert groups to provide openness and transparency across a range of truly expert opinion. He recommended that I should not appoint co-determining panel members. I accept his recommendation.
In his letter Sir Brian also called for action in relation to financial and psychological support for the affected and infected. The Government will consider those comments and Sir Brian’s recommendations carefully and will respond as soon as possible.
The Cabinet Office takes seriously its role as sponsor to the infected blood inquiry and is determined to do all it can to support the inquiry with its work. Regrettably, an administrative error earlier this year has come to light, which had delayed the circulation of an instruction to Government Departments about the retention of records. I can reassure the public that this has resulted in no actual harm, but it is an error for which I apologise to the inquiry, and most importantly, to the people infected and affected.
The facts are these: Cabinet Office officials circulated a Government-wide notice on 3 April this year, instructing Departments to preserve all information relevant to the infected blood inquiry. A further, more comprehensive message was issued to Departments by the Cabinet Office on 11 June.
However, following a query from the inquiry about the notice, Cabinet Office officials discovered that the 3 April email containing the retention notice did not reach its recipients, due to the failure of the collective IT address used. My officials have provided a detailed explanation to the inquiry which will be published on the inquiry’s website.
Since the error was discovered, all relevant Departments and relevant areas within Departments have worked urgently to confirm that they have not destroyed any documents relevant to the inquiry during the period between 3 April and 11 June. Because of their size and the complexity of some of the records they hold, HM Courts and Tribunals Service and the Legal Aid Agency are continuing to work to provide this assurance and have committed to doing so as urgently as possible.
The Department of Health and Social Care put in place a moratorium on the destruction of historical records as soon as the inquiry was announced in July 2017. No material damage has resulted from this administrative error, but I am very sorry it occurred, and I would like to reassure the public that the Cabinet Office will learn the lessons from this to avoid such an error occurring in future.
[HCWS1021]
Race Disparity Audit
David Lidington Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)
At the publication of the race disparity audit a year ago, the Government committed to “explain or change” the issues highlighted on the audit’s website Ethnicity Facts and Figures.
Since October 2017 we have taken action in education, employment, health, criminal justice and:
Provided targeted employment supporting in 20 areas across the UK. The gap between employment rates of working age people in ethnic minority groups and in the whole population is now at a record low.
Taken action on the recommendations of the Lammy review including to increase diversity of prison officer intake; funded development of an education programme to prepare lawyers from a range of backgrounds to apply for judicial office; and extended the range of justice data we provide broken down by ethnicity.
Announced £90 million of funding from dormant bank accounts to support young people facing barriers to employment into work. Applications for the first allocation of this funding are open today to support grass roots organisations in Bradford, Birmingham and Barking and Dagenham.
Started work to tackle disparities in the rate of exclusions in schools and the application of the Mental Health Act.
The audit’s website Ethnicity Facts and Figures has been continually updated and extended to allow the public to see if outcomes are getting better or worse across over 160 topics. We have taken a co-ordinated and strategic approach, led by the race disparity unit in Cabinet Office, which I oversee as chair of the inter-ministerial group.
Today, the Government are announcing further action to see employers adopting fair employment practices which ensure all staff, particularly those from an ethnic minority background, do as well as they are able in terms of recruitment and progression.
Specifically the Government are:
Inviting employers to sign up to a Race at Work Charter, which sets out effective practices that support fairness at work;
Setting new ambitions in key public services to increase the proportion of senior leaders who come from an ethnic minority background;
Taking action through public procurement to encourage Government suppliers to adopt fair employment practices; and
Consulting on how mandatory ethnicity pay reporting can best drive action without placing undue burdens on business.
Select Committees were notified of the publication of the consultation on ethnicity pay reporting and the update on the progress tackling racial disparity in the criminal justice system, and copies of relevant documents have been placed in the Library of the House.
[HCWS996]
Senior Public Sector Pay Awards
David Lidington Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)
I am today announcing the Government’s decision on pay for the senior civil service, senior military and police and crime commissioners.
The Government received the Senior Salary Review Body’s (SSRB) report on 2018 pay for the senior civil service, senior military and police and crime commissioners on 4 July 2018.
The Government are committed to world-class public services and ensuring that public sector workers are fairly paid for the vitally important work they do. We ended the 1% pay policy in September 2017 because we recognised more flexibility is now required to deliver world-class public services—with higher awards in return for improvements to public sector productivity.
It is vital that we consider all pay awards in the light of wider pressures on public spending. Public sector pay needs to be fair both for public sector workers and the taxpayer. In reaching a final decision on all 2018-19 public sector pay awards, we have balanced a need to recognise the value and dedication of our hard-working public servants with ensuring that our public services remain affordable in the long term, to contribute to our objective of reducing public sector debt. We have also sought to ensure that pay awards are fair and consistent across public sector workforces, reflect existing pay and benefit packages, as well as recruitment and retention levels.
The Government value the independent expertise and insight of the SSRB and take on board the valuable advice, principles outlined, and constructive challenge to the Government’s recommendations outlined in the report. Within the current context there remains a need to take into account affordability when making decisions on senior pay, as well as fairness in the approach for senior and junior grades.
Senior civil servants
The Government’s evidence to the SSRB in December 2017 set out a vision for a future SCS pay framework which—in line with the civil service workforce plan—will help us attract, retain and develop the very best senior talent for government.
This new pay system will aid us in achieving our vision for a future SCS which is more diverse, experienced and professionalised, with a better mix of specialist and generalist leaders.
We are pleased that the SSRB welcome the direction of travel laid out in our vision for the future SCS and look forward to engaging with SSRB to further articulate our strategic plan to reach this vision.
Over the next year, and among other commitments set out in our response to the SSRB’s recommendations below, we will be articulating plans to:
move to a set of consistent pay ranges by professional grouping over time.
provide greater reward for high performers and those who develop capability by remaining in role.
explore options for reforming the SCS performance management system.
Taken together, this will start tackling some of the biggest issues identified with the current pay system as well as ensuring that the civil service is able to attract and retain key, scarce skills from the external market and balancing incentives in the current system.
The Government value the independent expertise and insight of the SSRB and take on board the valuable advice, principles outlined, and constructive challenge to the Government’s recommendations outlined in the report.
Within the current context there remains a need to take into account affordability when making decisions on senior pay, as well as fairness in the approach for senior and junior grades.
Senior civil service recommendations and response for 2018-19
This year the SSRB made six recommendations for the senior civil service (SCS):
all SCS members should receive a 1% consolidated basic pay increase.
0.25% of the pay bill should be used to increase the pay band minima for all pay bands to £68,000, £90,500, and £111,500 respectively.
the pay range maxima are reduced for new recruits and those currently paid below the new maxima, to £102,000, £136,000, and £167,500 respectively.
1.25% should be allocated and distributed to address pay anomalies.
The Cabinet Office should provide evidence to demonstrate the application of the award to specific target groups of staff.
the introduction of a corporate recognition scheme with awards of around £1,000.
The Government accept the recommendation of an overall 1% figure for consolidated increases but will continue to give Departments flexibility to target that overall 1% award at the individual level. This aligns to SSRB’s principle of targeting reward to higher performers and those lowest in the pay range and is consistent with the approach taken for delegated grades.
The Government accept the recommendation to increase the minima for all pay bands to the figures suggested by SSRB. The Government also agree that the 1% pay award should be applied after any increases from the raising of the minima.
The Government agree in principle to the recommendation to reduce the maxima for SCS in non-market facing or niche roles. This will not be achievable for this year’s pay round as further consultation is needed to understand the makeup and workability of professional groupings before pay ranges are set.
The Government accept the recommendation to set aside further money to address pay anomalies, and agree to provide clear criteria for use. However to put aside the 1.25% suggested would move significantly away from coherence between the approach for SCS and delegated grades and risks affordability issues. Efficiencies found from controlling movement around the system will be put aside to cover anomalies and increases to the minima, and we anticipate this to be 0.25% rather than the 1.25% SSRB proposed.
The Government accept the recommendation to monitor the use of the aforementioned pay anomalies money, as well as the recommendation to extend in-year non-consolidated performance related awards to 20% of the eligible population and introduce a new recognition scheme for corporate contribution.
The Government note the SSRB’s additional comments outside of the formal recommendations and commit to:
providing a clear articulation of the desired application of the SCS pay system, be that centralised management of the workforce, delegation to departments or a specified balance between the two.
review the SCS performance management system as a priority.
outlining clear guidance and principles to ensure the workability and fair application for the movement to pay ranges based on professional groupings.
exploring options for a credible capability-based salary progression model.
providing a clear proposal on the future of the SCS 1A grade.
The Government would like to work proactively with SSRB to help develop our proposals further and invites the review body to contribute towards the further review of the senior civil service pay framework including the commitments made above.
Senior military officers
The Government have accepted the spirit of the recommendation of a 2.5% increase to senior military salaries with effect from 1 April 2018 with a 2% increase to pay and a 0.5% non-consolidated one-off payment. This decision is made to be consistent with the main armed forces’ pay award and in consideration of long-term affordability. The Government have also accepted the recommendation that there is no change to the current pay differentials for senior medical and dental officers.
Police and crime commissioners
The Government have accepted in part the SSRB’s recommendation to increase the bottom four PCC salary bands. With effect from 1 May 2018, these pay bands will be increased by 2%. PCCs taking on responsibility for the governance of fire and rescue services will also receive an additional consolidated allowance of £3,000.
The Government have accepted the SSRB’s recommendation that PCC pay should be reviewed again in 2020-21 to enable a full assessment of the role, particularly in the light of the additional responsibilities for fire and rescue services; thereafter, full reviews should be conducted on a four-yearly basis. However, future reviews should be aligned to the PCC electoral cycle. A further review should therefore take place to set PCC pay ahead of the 2024 elections.
The SSRB also recommended that from May 2019, PCC salaries should be increased by 2% in line with the pay award for local authority staff and that this link should continue annually until the next formal review of PCC pay. The Government have not accepted this recommendation. The role of PCCs continues to evolve and the Government are of the view that automatic pay increases are not appropriate while change is ongoing. The Government also seek to avoid creating a disparity between PCCs and police officers whose pay increases are not automatic.
The SSRB recommended that a review of the pay structures for PCCs should be conducted in advance of the next formal review of PCC pay. The Government have not accepted this recommendation. PCC pay structures are currently aligned to those of chief police officers, and their pay is under review as part of sector-led reforms to deliver a new pay and reward framework. PCC pay structures will be reviewed following the completion of the ongoing review of chief officer pay.
The SSRB recommended that PCCs who lose their seat at election should be entitled to a loss of office payment. The Government will further consider the issue.
[HCWS967]
Oral Answers to Questions
David Lidington Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)
The Cabinet Office has developed contingency plans for exit-related policy areas that are within our remit, such as public procurement, and we also work with other Government Departments on their plans. These preparations are a sensible precaution in case of the unlikely event that the UK should leave the European Union with no deal.
Mr Clarke
I thank the Minister for that answer. If our country is not ready for a no-deal scenario, we are simply not in a position to credibly negotiate with the EU, so will he ensure that colleagues across Government work as hard as they can to maximise the completeness and credibility of their plans?
Mr Lidington
Yes. A no-deal scenario is not what we expect, and it would certainly be an unwelcome outcome. It is not what we want, but it is right that we should take these sensible precautions. All Ministers around the Cabinet table and their teams are working hard to ensure that those plans are developed and ready.
Jeremy Lefroy
As the chief executive of Jaguar Land Rover has said, a deal is vital for west midlands, and indeed UK, manufacturing. What plans do the Government have to ensure that the funding currently provided by the European Investment Bank to UK manufacturing businesses and infrastructure projects will continue after we leave the EU?
Mr Lidington
We are looking at various proposals, including the creation of a UK prosperity fund, to replace those funds that are currently disbursed via the European Union. My hon. Friend reminds us of the importance, in our negotiations, of seeking to achieve frictionless trade so that the just-in-time delivery systems that cross national frontiers can be sustained to the benefit of business here and in the EU.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the contingency planning that the right hon. Gentleman’s Department is doing include warning Departments what they would need to do if Parliament were to vote for a final say on the deal?
Mr Lidington
I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, in voting for the referendum Bill and supporting the article 50 process, the great majority of Members of this House accepted that the decision of the British people in 2016 should be final. However we campaigned, I think that that remains the case.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the Minister agree that the difficulties of contingency planning should not be added to by this obsession with a mythical hard border, which no one wants, cannot be implemented and could be circumvented with ease by everybody in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic?
Mr Lidington
As the Prime Minister has repeatedly said, ensuring that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland is a fundamental principle of this Government’s negotiating strategy, along with ensuring that there is no customs barrier between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what work has been undertaken to ensure that UK-wide frameworks are ready in the event of no deal?
Mr Lidington
We are continuing intense discussions at official level with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland civil service. It is in the interests of every part of the United Kingdom that those frameworks are ready, so that the benefits of the UK single market can continue to be felt by consumers and businesses in Scotland and everywhere else in our country.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Following on from that question, what are the implications for the proposed common frameworks of not having a deal on exiting the European Union? No matter how complicated and chaotic the discussions become, will the Minister give an assurance that they will not be used as an excuse to force through arrangements without the consent of the devolved Administrations?
Mr Lidington
On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, it remains our intention to do everything that we can to work with the agreement of the devolved Administrations and not to have to use the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 unless necessary. However, whether there is a deal or no deal, there will still be a need for UK-wide frameworks to ensure that the UK single market is preserved when powers have returned to this country from Brussels.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
With just weeks to go until the negotiating deadline, it is clear that the Government are putting more and more focus and effort into planning for a no-deal scenario. Will the Minister therefore tell the House when the Government plan to put the interests of the country ahead of the interests of the Brexit extremists in the European Research Group?
Mr Lidington
Anyone who has worked with this Prime Minister knows that what motivates her every single working day is the interests of the people of every part of the United Kingdom. In publishing the technical notices and the guidance to business on a no-deal scenario, we are doing exactly what the European Commission and other EU Governments have done. It is the responsible course of action to take.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)
Over the recess, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who is Minister for the constitution, announced that the Government have been able to save the taxpayer more than £300 million since 2016 through the national fraud initiative—a record amount. This clampdown on fraud and error in the public sector has helped us to divert more money to frontline public services.
Patrick Grady
Will the Minister join me in welcoming the Scottish Government’s proposed electoral franchise Bill, which will protect the voting rights of EU citizens and refugees for Holyrood and local government? Does he agree that we should protect people’s rights and extend the Westminster franchise for EU citizens and refugees?
Mr Lidington
The Government have put forward a package of measures that give enhanced rights to EU citizens lawfully resident in the United Kingdom. We believe that that is a fair and generous offer, and it is currently the subject of negotiations.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Mr Lidington
There was a people’s vote in 2016 that, at the time, both the hon. Lady’s party and mine said would be the decisive moment. It is perfectly right that the civil contingencies secretariat in the Cabinet Office takes an active part in contingency planning for all eventualities.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Mr Lidington
The Government have required all public bodies and large private sector employers to make public their gender pay gap, so that action can then be taken to ensure that that gap is reduced and closed. We are determined that the public sector will set an example.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Mr Lidington
I am pleased to confirm that the Government and the local trust have reached agreement that the Midland Metropolitan Hospital will be completed by 2022. It will be equipped with state-of-the-art diagnostic equipment, 15 operating theatres and at least 669 new beds. That is a further demonstration of the Government’s commitment to investment in our national health service.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Since 2010, the central civil service has been cut by 20%, which has severely reduced overall effectiveness and specialist knowledge. In the light of the demands placed on Departments by Brexit, do the Government agree that they are paying the price for that short-sightedness?
Boundary Commissions
David Lidington Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)
I have today laid before each House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, copies of the reports setting out recommendations for new constituency boundaries by the Boundary Commission for England and the Boundary Commission for Wales.
Under the same provisions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has today laid before each House a copy of the report by the Boundary Commission for Scotland, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has today laid before each House a copy of the report by the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland.
In 2016, the Boundary Commissions for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland began the boundary review. The independent and impartial Boundary Commissions have been conducting the boundary review as laid out in legislation passed by Parliament which provides for more equal seats and reduces the number of constituencies from 650 to 600, with equally sized constituencies based on up to date demographic data.
My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Wales and I have written today to all Members of this House representing existing constituencies in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, advising them on the laying of the reports. The reports will be published on www.gov.uk. The Boundary Commissions will also be publishing their reports on their websites.
In accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, the adoption of the reports will require approval of both Houses.
[HCWS947]
Cabinet Office
David Lidington Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend. May I also say how important it is for my constituents and the families of those who have been impacted by this that the inquiry is conducted in a speedy fashion, with answers and conclusions available as soon as possible? Can he confirm that the lessons learned from the experience of the Scottish inquiry will be fully taken on board by Sir Brian?
Mr Lidington
Yes, I can give that assurance. Indeed, when Sir Brian was consulting survivors’ groups and campaigners prior to sending me his proposed terms of reference, he took note from what was said by, among other groups, the Scottish Haemophilia Society and the Scottish Infected Blood Forum about what had gone wrong in respect of the Penrose model. Sir Brian is very keen to avoid those problems occurring in this new inquiry now. [Official Report, 2 July 2018, Vol. 644, c. 72.]
Letter of correction from Mr Lidington:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr).
The correct response should have been:
Mr Lidington
Yes, I can give that assurance. Indeed, when Sir Brian was consulting survivors’ groups and campaigners prior to sending me his proposed terms of reference, he took note from what was said by, among other groups, Haemophilia Scotland and the Scottish Infected Blood Forum about what had gone wrong in respect of the Penrose model. Sir Brian is very keen to avoid those problems occurring in this new inquiry now.
Engaging the Devolved Administrations
David Lidington Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)
I wish to update the House on recent and ongoing engagement between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations and my intentions for maintaining and strengthening intergovernmental relations moving forward.
The UK Government are committed to strong and effective relations with the devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom. As we leave the EU, and in the years ahead, we must continue to strengthen the bonds that unite us, because ours is the world’s most successful union.
It is imperative that, as the United Kingdom prepares to leave the EU, the needs and interests of each nation are considered and that the UK Government and devolved Administrations benefit from a unified approach wherever possible. That is only possible through the strength of our relationships and continued constructive engagement through a number of fora at ministerial and official level.
As chair of the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU negotiations (JMC(EN)), I seek to provide through these meetings the opportunity for meaningful engagement at the right time, to focus discussion on the most pertinent issues, understand where positions between the Administrations differ and find and build on common ground. JMC(EN) has met on five occasions so far this year, to discuss the progress of EU negotiations as well as domestic issues arising from the UK’s departure from the European Union. It is my intention to convene another meeting in September and that the Committee should continue to meet regularly as we approach exit day.
Meetings of JMC(EN) have allowed for considerable progress in a number of shared priority areas, including agreement on a set of principles for establishing common UK frameworks for certain powers as they return from the EU. They also enabled an agreement with the Welsh Government on amendments to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill and the establishment of a new ministerial forum on EU negotiations (MF(EN)) and official-level technical working group sessions to enhance engagement with the devolved Administrations on the UK’s negotiating position. This forum has met on two occasions—in Edinburgh and London—since it was set up in May. The next meeting is due to take place in Cardiff on 1 August and the forum will continue to meet regularly, while remaining flexible to the emerging rhythm of negotiations.
Meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe (JMC(E)) also continue to be held in advance of each European Council meeting, providing a forum to discuss the UK Government position on issues being discussed at the European Council that are of an interest to the devolved Administrations.
Officials from all Administrations continue to work together to take forward EU-exit related programmes of work including on frameworks. Recent frameworks engagement has included a number of substantive multilateral discussions on areas where legislative frameworks are envisaged, in whole or in part. We will continue to discuss these areas with the devolved Administrations over the summer.
UK Government officials worked closely with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to develop the provisions that are now in the EU (Withdrawal) Act. While we were able to reach agreement with the Welsh Government, it is disappointing we were not able to reach that same agreement with the Scottish Government. The Northern Ireland civil service has been kept fully informed of the progress of discussions, but it would be for an incoming Northern Ireland Executive to engage with this agreement. This agreement is without prejudice to the re-establishment of a Northern Ireland Executive and the intergovernmental agreement remains open to incoming Ministers in a future Northern Ireland Executive. The Government remain committed to the full restoration of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, as the Prime Minister clearly set out to the people of Northern Ireland and the political parties, during her visit of 19-20 July.
The UK Government will continue to seek legislative consent for Bills according to the established practices and conventions, listen to and take account of the views of devolved Administrations, and work with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and Northern Ireland officials on future legislation, just as we always have.
The UK Government and devolved Administrations are also working together to amend laws that would not work appropriately when we leave the EU to ensure we have a fully functioning statute book.
The Cabinet Office works closely with the Scotland Office, the Wales Office and the Northern Ireland Office in overseeing intergovernmental relations and the devolution settlements, as well as in ensuring the UK Government advance the interests of each nation within a stronger United Kingdom. The territorial Secretaries of State engage not only with the devolved Administrations but with stakeholders across the devolved nations, ensuring that the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are fully and effectively represented in the UK Government.
The UK Government also recognise the need to ensure our intergovernmental structures continue to work effectively. The Prime Minister led a discussion on the issue at the plenary meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on 14 March, attended by the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales. Ministers agreed that officials should take forward a review of the existing inter- governmental structures and the underpinning memorandum of understanding and report their findings to the Committee in due course. This work is now under way, with UK Government officials working closely with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations.
My Cabinet colleagues of course continue to engage with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations on a regular basis on a wide range of policy matters relating to EU exit and ongoing Government business.
[HCWS905]
Pairing
David Lidington Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury if he will make a statement in relation to Government policy and practice with regard to pairing arrangements, especially as they relate to Members on maternity, paternity or adoption leave.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)
I want to start by reiterating without reserve the apology for the error that was made last week in respect of pairing with the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). Both the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith)—the Government Chief Whip—and the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), have apologised publicly, and I acknowledge that that apology was accepted by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) during questions to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House last week.
The Government’s policy on pairing remains that these are long-standing informal arrangements between business managers in different political parties in this House, co-ordinated through the usual channels. That has been the position of successive Governments of different political compositions, and this Government have no plans to change those underlying arrangements. Indeed, it is worth noting that almost 2,000 pairs have been agreed since the general election in June last year. Of those, the overwhelming majority have worked as intended, with the Government actually having a better record of upholding pairing arrangements than most other parties.
During the passage of the Trade Bill last week, seven of the eight pairs remained in place, including two other pairs provided for two Members on maternity leave. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in response to the urgent question last week, there are clearly questions and different opinions in the House on whether and, if so, how changes should be made to our current voting arrangements.
The Government have therefore confirmed that there will be a general debate on proxy voting in September, following the debate’s cancellation earlier this month for an urgent statement on the Amesbury incident. That will give Members the opportunity to consider the various questions arising from the recent report of the Procedure Committee into proxy voting. In particular, as came through from the exchanges following the Leader of the House’s business statement last week, I know that Members have questions about whether such arrangements should be extended beyond maternity, paternity and adoption leave to those who, for example, have been bereaved or who have caring responsibilities for close relatives. It is important that the House be given time to debate those questions as, from my experience, such changes are made most effectively when they command consensus across the House.
The Government remain committed to providing a pairing system with Opposition parties, and I reassure the House again that the errors of last week will not be repeated. I hope the House will look forward to the debate in September as a chance to discuss in greater detail what changes might be made to ensure that Members on both sides of the House are supported through periods of absence.
Mr Carmichael
Thank you for allowing this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answer. I mean no disrespect to him, but I am disappointed that he is at the Dispatch Box today and not the Chief Whip.
There are serious questions still outstanding about the events of last Tuesday evening, and the only person who knows the truth about them is the Chief Whip himself. There is a serious lack of confidence today in the system by which we run our business, and the only person who can restore that confidence is the Chief Whip.
I understand the convention that the Chief Whip does not normally speak in this Chamber except to move a by-election writ. Under normal circumstances I would see that as a sensible protection for the office of Chief Whip, but the House should not lose sight that there is an important distinction to be drawn between a protection for the office and a protection for the holder of that office.
When I was first made aware of the presence of the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) in the Division Lobby last week, I was quite relaxed about it. We all know these things happen from time to time and, in a system that relies on the best of faith, these things should not be the source of excitement. My view started to change, however, when I learned that any mistake was made not by the right hon. Gentleman but by the Chief Whip himself. It may have been a mistake to cancel the pair, but it was not an inadvertence; it was a deliberate act. We now understand that the instruction to the right hon. Gentleman that he should vote came from the Chief Whip himself. The explanation from the Chief Whip that he did not know this was, as he terms it, a “pregnancy pair” neither clarifies nor excuses what is a prima facie act of bad faith. A pair is a pair, whatever its purpose. If the system is to work, it should be honoured and not broken at the 11th hour.
The House should be aware that I gave the Minister advance notice of these questions. When was the decision made to cancel the pairing arrangements for the votes on new clauses 17 and 18, and when was the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth informed of this? Did the Chief Whip inform either the Liberal Democrat or official Opposition Whips Office that the pairs would be broken? My information is that neither office was informed. Was the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth aware that he was paired with my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire for the day’s votes? Was the decision made to cancel pairs taken in consultation with the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House? When were the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House informed that the pairing arrangements would be broken? Crucially, was the Prime Minister informed of the Chief Whip’s decision to instruct Conservative MPs to break pairing arrangements before she told the House at Prime Minister’s questions that it was an honest mistake? Do these repeated references to an “honest mistake” refer to the decision to break the pairing across the board or specifically to the decision to break pairing with a maternity/paternity leave MP? If it is the latter, is it now Government policy that the breaking of pairing arrangements at the insistence of the Chief Whip for non-pregnancy-related pairs is acceptable?
There is an old truism that there is no smoke without fire. In fairness to the Chief Whip, we see no flames today—[Interruption.]
Mr Carmichael
I had said, “In fairness to the Chief Whip”, so perhaps that was what got them excited, Mr Speaker. In fairness to the Chief Whip, there is no flame apparent today, but there is surely enough smoke to fill the sky.
Mr Lidington
First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, as the Minister without Portfolio, is a member of my ministerial team in the Cabinet Office, so I think it is perfectly appropriate that I should be answering the urgent question from the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions. First, let me say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth was not at any point aware that he was paired with the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire. Indeed, that is the normal state of affairs when a colleague is paired: they do not know with which particular Opposition Member they happen to be paired. That is a matter dealt with by the usual channels, through the respective Whips Offices. My right hon. Friend was asked to vote shortly before the Divisions that have caused this particular controversy. As has been said both by him and by my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, he should not have been asked to vote. An error was made within the Government Whips Office, for which my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip has taken responsibility, hence his public apology to the right hon. Gentleman, as Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, and to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire. Every other pair that evening was honoured, so the error meant that the right hon. Gentleman was not notified beforehand, because there was not some sort of deep-laid plot to deny the pairing arrangement. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the House were consulted about the matter. The Government policy remains, as I said earlier, that pairing is an informal and voluntary arrangement between the political parties. We do take the issue of pregnancy pairing particularly seriously, for the very reasons that have led both the business Committee and then the Procedure Committee to highlight this as something that the House ought to address. That is why we will be taking forward the debate on proxy voting in September.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the broken pair did not alter the result of the vote and the Government would have still won the vote? Will he confirm that when these things happen the House has to learn lessons from them, but it must be wary of trying to scrap the whole system, as that would mean that Select Committees in this House would not be able to work and a lot of the work that takes place outside the confines of the Chamber would be impossible to continue?
Mr Lidington
My right hon. Friend speaks with considerable experience. It is true that what happened last Tuesday did not actually affect the outcome of the vote. It is worth pointing out that, of the 66 pairs that have been broken since the general election, 14 were broken by the Government and 52 by the Opposition.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on successfully bringing another Cabinet Minister to the Chamber to answer a question about breaking a pair. It clearly shows the seriousness of the political situation facing the Government Chief Whip that the deputy Prime Minister has to come to answer the urgent question, to try to avoid another damaging Cabinet exit. Clearly, the Government Chief Whip decided to phone a friend, and it was not the Leader of the House.
The deputy Prime Minister said that the Government had a better record on pairing. Could he explain what that means because a pair is twice—you have two pairs? The issue is simple: it comes down to the integrity of the word of a member of Her Majesty’s Government, the Government Chief Whip. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that a former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, demanded a rerun of a vote—and got it—from a Labour Government.
The answers in the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House on 18 July confirmed that the Government Chief Whip was less than candid with his fellow Ministers, including the Prime Minister, by not declaring that he actively instructed Conservative MPs to break pairing arrangements. It is clear that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House have unwittingly misled the House by characterising the Government Chief Whip’s action as an “honest mistake”. This is a serious breach of the ministerial code.
Does the Minister for the Cabinet Office believe that the Government Chief Whip’s integrity is above reproach? We are asked to believe that the breaking of the pair for the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) was an “honest mistake”, while he admits that he ordered others to knowingly break their pairs. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case? Can he confirm that the Government Chief Whip rang those who refused to break their pairs to demand an explanation as to why? If that was the case, that in itself is a clear breach of a number of the Nolan principles, such as integrity and honesty, that form the basis of the ministerial code.
In her foreword to the latest version of the ministerial code, the Prime Minister states that it
“sets out the standards of behaviour expected from all those who serve in Government…In abiding by this Code, we will show that Government can be a force for good and that people can trust us”.
I reiterate our offer on Wednesday, following the previous urgent question, to discuss implementing a system of baby leave today without the need for a vote. How do the Government think that the business of the House—including Select Committee visits, international delegations, important ministerial negotiations, and even having a baby—can proceed when they admit that, under this Government Chief Whip, no one can or should trust them?
Mr Lidington
I have to say that when the hon. Lady complained about my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip not being here, I glanced across at the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and wondered why he was not at the Dispatch Box instead of her. I suspect that, when he whispers in her ear afterwards, he might suggest to her that trying to apply the Nolan principles to the inner workings of any Whips Office over recent decades would raise a number of difficult challenges.
I will address the serious points made by the hon. Lady. First, only one pair was broken last Tuesday. That was done because of a genuine error in the Government Whips Office, for which the Chief Whip has publicly apologised. Despite that breach having taken place—it ought not to have taken place—the outcome had no effect on the decision that was taken by the House in the particular votes on which the controversy centres. Had that breach not taken place, the Government would still have lost the first vote and would still have won the second vote last Tuesday evening.
We are more than willing to talk to Opposition parties and indeed to Back-Bench Members across the House about how to forge a consensus on the way forward on parental and perhaps other forms of absence but, as I said earlier, exchanges in the House already have indicated that this is not necessarily a straightforward matter. Finally, I have full confidence in the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The key is that this is an informal arrangement and it will always remain so. Mistakes will be made on both sides of the House—that is what happens. I was not allowed to have a pair for my father-in-law’s funeral. My duty was to be here to vote and I stayed here, notwithstanding the fact that I would have liked to have been at his funeral. A lot of nonsense is being talked at the moment. May I also say that the Chief Whip is doing an excellent job?
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The whole issue of this pairing arrangement stinks to high heaven, and we still have not had an acceptable explanation as to why the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) observed some whipping arrangements but not others on much more critical votes. The Chief Whip needs to come to this House to explain himself fully because, with all due respect to the Minister, all we are hearing from him is what the Chief Whip has told him. After all of this, surely the Chief Whip should be considering his position today.
We in the Scottish National party are just so grateful that we have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this broken pairing arrangement. The more we learn about the insidious workings of this broken arrangement, the more pleased we are that we have nothing to do with it. Members of the public are watching with increasing alarm and horror as this House is being dragged into the gutter and into disrepute once again. What we need is a total review of all our broken voting arrangements in this House. Will the right hon. Gentleman commit himself to that today, to make sure that we can conduct ourselves fairly and equitably and end this nonsense in this House?
Mr Lidington
The hon. Gentleman seems to be working himself into a lather of indignation about an informal practice that he says that he and his party have no intention of participating in. I suspect that that question was an intentional distraction from the recent publicity on the dismal attendance and voting record of SNP Members in this House.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
This is, of course, more about Parliament versus Government than anything else. I absolutely accept the assurance of the Chief Whip and the chairman of my party that they made a mistake. The problem is that, until I came to the Chamber today, I had no idea that there had been 2,000 pairs since the general election. The arrangements are made behind closed doors and in secret. If this pairing system was public, and if, each day, the people who were paired were listed or perhaps even removed from the possibility of voting, this would never occur again. What we need is transparency, and I hope that the deputy Prime Minister will look into this matter.
Mr Lidington
I understand the case that my hon. Friend makes and the arguments for greater transparency, but I ask him also to reflect on this point. In my experience in this House, Whips Offices in all political parties exercise a very important pastoral role. As in any large workplace, there are often Members who are going through periods of ill health or great family and personal stress, and in those circumstances it is not always right for the pairing arrangements to be made public in a way that might draw attention to the predicament of those Members. I do think, despite what he says, that it is best for these matters to be left to informal agreement between the usual channels.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
We know things are bad for the Government when they send out their wisest head and safest pair of hands, but unfortunately the Minister for the Cabinet Office has been sent out to defend the indefensible. In addition to the very serious questions that still surround the pairing arrangements for the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), it is clear from comments made by Conservative MPs to national newspapers that the Chief Whip ordered them to break their pairs. It is only because of their honour and integrity—and the Chief Whip’s misjudgement and inability to orchestrate a proper stitch-up—that that did not happen. Does the Minister for the Cabinet Office understand the damage that this has done not just to our confidence in the pairing system and with its impact on Members’ welfare, but to the integrity and public perception of this place? What are the Government going to do to repair the reputation of Parliament and to accept that, because they did not win a majority at the last general election, they have to win votes by argument rather than by stitching things up behind closed doors?
Mr Lidington
At the risk of repeating myself, the breach of pairing that took place last Tuesday did not make any difference to the outcome of either of the Divisions in question. My right hon. Friend the Chief Whip has undertaken to use the summer recess to carry out a review of the internal arrangements within the Government Whips Office to try to make certain that this type of error, which should not have occurred, can be prevented in the future. I would just say to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps I am getting somewhat cynical over the years, but I do tend to take with a pinch of salt reports in the newspapers about what my colleagues are alleged to have said.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I feel that I must fess up. I am a pair breaker. I have done it once—by accident. I was told off by the Whips very quickly. The event that I was due to attend had been cancelled and I simply forgot, so honest mistakes do happen. But this whole incident proves two things: first, that this is a process issue that interests the Westminster bubble, but certainly does not interest my constituents; and secondly, that this system, which has existed for a very long time, generally works. I urge my right hon. Friend to be very careful in changing a system that, despite the odd breakdown here and there—most of which have been committed by the Opposition in recent times—generally works. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The very fact that we are talking about 66 pairs having been broken for one reason or another since the general election, out of a total of around 2,000 agreed pairs, tells its own story.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
Allegations have been made and it is clear that there was a
“misunderstanding about the pairing and voting arrangements”—[Official Report, 22 June 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1361.]
Those words were uttered in 1976 from the Government Dispatch Box by the then Prime Minister, James Callaghan, during a similar controversy. He and the then Leader of the Opposition agreed that the only way to resolve matters was for the Chief Whips to meet and the vote to be rerun. Precedent has been set. When will the Government show the integrity that I know the Minister for the Cabinet Office and many Government colleagues possess in abundance?
Mr Lidington
The difference between the incident in the 1970s that the hon. Gentleman cites and what happened last week is that the majorities—both against and for the Government—in the two Divisions were completely unaffected by what happened over pairing.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I have probably not always been the blue-eyed boy of the Whips Office, but I have found that this Chief Whip and his predecessors have always behaved with the utmost honesty and integrity. Confected anger and attacking my right hon. Friend does not help the House—in fact, it does not help anybody—because this system generally works. We should be very cautious about moving towards proxy voting because, had I taken the paternity leave due to me, I can think of no one I would have less liked to have held my vote than the Chief Whip.
Mr Lidington
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although I have to give him this warning: those who start out not being the blue-eyed boys of the Whips Office usually end up being recruited into it.
Mr Speaker
Well, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) does not exactly look heart-warmed by the prospect that redemption awaits him.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister says that we should not believe the press reports that we have seen, so can he settle this matter once and for all? Did the Chief Whip also call other MPs and ask them to break the pair alongside the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis)? Because if he did, that is not a mistake, it is a policy.
I say to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) that this does matter, because if the public cannot trust the Government to organise themselves, how can they trust them to organise a country?
Mr Lidington
Every pair other than that with the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire was honoured last Tuesday.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
As you will know, Mr Speaker, if I think that someone in government should lose their job, I am not afraid to say so. As you might imagine, I, like my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), have had my fair share of run-ins with the Chief Whip. However, I have always found him, even when we have fundamentally disagreed, to be a man of complete honour, of his word and of integrity. That also goes for the other members of the Whips Office with whom I have had fundamental disagreements. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Chief Whip’s integrity should not be questioned in any shape or form, and that anybody who knows him as well as we do would know that to be the case? Is this not really an attempt by the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip to avoid the embarrassment of the fact that he could not get the leader of his own party, or his immediate predecessor, to vote in a Division last Monday that the Government won by only three?
Mr Lidington
I do not know whether that was an eloquent bid to be the beneficiary of future pairing arrangements, but my hon. Friend makes an important point. I think it is true that Conservative Members right across the spectrum, from left to right of my party, have always found the Chief Whip to be someone with whom they can do business and whose integrity and honesty they can completely trust.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
With four Members of the House on maternity leave at the moment, this issue is particularly poignant, and I fear that many of those people will have lost faith in the system as it currently exists. When I was on maternity leave with my first child, the campaigning group 38 Degrees contacted my constituents criticising me for not attending a vote, but at least I knew that I was paired and that it was cancelled out. The right hon. Gentleman says that we will be discussing proxy voting in greater detail in the autumn, and that is welcome. However, when does he expect reform to take place to allow proxy voting, as recommended by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), so that it actually happens and we are not reliant on this informal system?
Mr Lidington
I think that after the general debate on the matter there will need to be, at some stage in the not too distant future, a substantive motion on which the House can take a view. Important questions were raised in the Procedure Committee report—for example, about the exclusion from a general proposal for proxy voting while on maternity, paternity or adoption leave of particular categories of Division in the House. The Committee discussed various approaches to how a proxy vote might operate in practice. The House needs to consider those things, as well as the points about the potential for bereavement leave or carer’s leave that other hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
We know that the system actually works pretty well. The Minister has given the figures that show that occasionally, for a variety of reasons, pairs get broken. In those cases, an apology is required, very quickly, and we had an apology from the two individuals in question that should settle the matter. The reality, though, is that this is the worst system except for all the alternatives.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I do worry about what happened last week and about the explanations that have subsequently been given. It is certainly true that, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) suggested, sometimes people do, inadvertently, accidentally and without any malice aforethought, break the Whip—[Interruption.] I am sorry—break the pair. People frequently break the Whip—that is a common feature on all sides these days. Sometimes people break the pair, and then they are always told off by the Whips for doing so, because it is the Whips’ own honour that is then in question—that is the point. The difference in this case is that the Chief Whip deliberately—not as an error but deliberately—sought to get somebody he knew to be paired to break that pair. That is a fundamental difference.
I say to the Minister that we need to get this sorted before the autumn, not just have a debate about it. The temperature in politics this year and in this Parliament—as well as the physical temperature—has already been very high, and we really do need to get it sorted. Otherwise we will be putting temptation in the Chief Whip’s way every single day of the week, all the way through to 29 March next year.
Mr Lidington
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in business questions last Thursday, she is willing and indeed keen to engage with right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to see whether we can agree, as consensually as possible, a way of addressing these matters in the future.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I declare an interest: I have always had considerable time for the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), not least since we served together as senior Whips in the Government Whips Office during the days of the coalition Government. As he will recall from those halcyon days, occasionally—incredible though it might sound—things in the Whips Office went wrong, and it was usually the result not of a conspiracy but of a mistake. I submit to him and the House that that is what has happened here, and it would be a great mistake on our part to change our well-established procedures because of an unfortunate incident for which both of those responsible have profusely apologised.
Mr Lidington
It is a good principle that hard cases make bad law, and I think my right hon. Friend is right.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
What matters for present purposes is that two senior members of the Government conspired to break the rules to win a vote they thought they might lose. If I am wrong about that, can the Minister explain why? If I am right, why are they still in their posts?
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
This looks to have been a genuine error, for which a sincere apology has been given. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that this type of error has happened not just on the Government side but on both sides of the House, so I find the level of faux outrage in some quarters very strange. The system generally works well, and I would encourage him not to throw the baby out with the bathwater but to work with his counterparts, particularly in the Whips Offices of other parties, to make sure that the system can be looked at and improved on to avoid these types of errors, which are clearly happening on the Government side and in other parties.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend gives good advice that I am sure my colleagues in the Whips Office will wish to follow.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
If the Government are prepared to take advantage of pregnant women and women who have recently had babies, surely we can have very little trust in their integrity. Would a good way to restore integrity not be to circulate something before the recess so that we can have a votable motion when we come back in September to allow baby leave and proxy voting to go ahead?
Mr Lidington
As I have repeatedly said, what happened last week was a genuine error. It ought not to have happened. The Whips Office is taking steps through its internal procedures to try to prevent a repetition, and the Leader of the House is eager to talk to Members from all parties in the House about the way forward to address the points the hon. Lady refers to.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), I served for four years in the coalition Whips Office, including for two years with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), and he and I will remember all kinds of cock-ups, for want of a better term: people inadvertently paired twice, people who thought their pair was transferable, and so on. All these things can and do happen. In my view, this is much more likely to have been a genuine mistake, so does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a poor decision to base long-term practice on this one case, however high-profile?
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Consciously telling an MP to break a pair is not an error; it is cheating. Was the Chief Whip offered the opportunity by the Government to come to the House today to explain his error?
Mr Lidington
For the reasons I explained earlier, I am responding on behalf of the Government. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept what his right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland accepted last week, which was the public apologies given by the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, and the Chief Whip.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
With 2,000 pairs granted, does my right hon. Friend agree that mistakes, while rare, are far from unknown? They are even not unknown to the Liberal Democrats.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend is correct. Of the 52 pairs broken by Opposition parties, seven were broken by Liberal Democrats. Indeed, four Liberal Democrat MPs have broken pairs, or roughly a third of the party’s Members of Parliament.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
So the Government’s defence is that this very rare occurrence where a pair is broken happened by accident, but it just so happened that it was on a vote that the Government feared they might lose. Outside the House, that might be described in unparliamentary terms. MPs from the Conservative side have been reported in the press saying that they were rung by the Chief Whip and told to break their pair, but refused to do so. Is the Minister saying those people misinformed the media?
Mr Lidington
All other pairs were duly honoured last Tuesday. The error that took place in respect of the pair with the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire had no impact on the result of either Division.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
We obviously work in a not very family-friendly workplace. It is incredibly difficult for new mums and dads to combine that role with voting in the House. I certainly would not expect maternity leave to last up until the age of my youngest child, who is 19, but does the Minister not agree that the Government give an incredibly generous offer with maternity pairs? Unlike the workplace, there is no time limit for new mums to take advantage of the system, within reason. Does he not agree that the system should be welcomed and should continue?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend is right, and I am grateful to her for acknowledging that while mothers who are Members are rightly at the forefront of our concern, we also have paternity leave. That is one area where I had some fellow feeling with what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said last week. I can remember being in the delivery suite with my wife for the birth of one of our sons and being interrupted through the night at 90-minute intervals by the Government Whips Office asking when I was going to be available to come into Westminster.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I am sorry, but what most people out there are asking is simple: is there any rule that a Minister in this Government cannot get away with breaking?
Mr Lidington
The arrangements on pairing are not rules set out in Standing Orders. They are informal conventions, and it is right that they should remain such.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
It is clear how easy it is for mistakes to be made in this area, and my right hon. Friend has confirmed that all parties have made mistakes. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) made a mistake and put his own party leader in the news a few days ago. The system works to support colleagues across the House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the system should be maintained?
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that pairing is one of the things that makes this place work? We should keep last week’s events in their full context and recognise that, by and large, the system works and should be maintained.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
This seems to be an honest mistake, for which the Chief Whip has apologised. Of the seven pairs broken by the Liberal Democrats since the general election, is my right hon. Friend aware how many times they have apologised for breaking those pairs?
Mr Lidington
I think that is a question for the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, rather than for me.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The informal ways of working in this place can be both a strength and a weakness. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is quite important every now and again to reflect on the fact that the composition of the House has changed, the world outside has changed and technology has moved on, and we need periodically to look at those informal processes and see whether some of them need formalising?
Mr Lidington
It is certainly right that we review things in the light of changing technology and changing circumstances, and that is what the Leader of the House wishes to do.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
May I ask my right hon. Friend to be cautious about allowing this matter to take the House down the route of proxy voting, which has huge downsides? Quite often, we are asked to consider serious matters in this House, where the debate affects the way people vote because it changes their mind. The solution is surely to improve the pairing system, rather than to ditch it completely.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend’s question illustrates why it is important that we have the general debate and seek to obtain as wide a consensus as possible.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
This is a serious matter, but does my right hon. Friend agree that an error was made and has been admitted, an apology has been issued and accepted, and we should now move on? I have full faith in the integrity of our Chief Whip, but I have less faith in the true motives of the Liberal Democrats in bringing this forward, because it seems to be an attempt to cover up their own woeful record in this department.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend’s description of what happened last week and the course of action he now recommends are spot-on.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend given any thought to publishing the pairing performance data that he has mentioned? In that way, people in the country could make up their own minds about the various trends across all parties in the House since the general election.
Mr Lidington
Precisely because these are informal arrangements, I do not think we should be looking for regular statistical bulletins on this matter. The figures I read out earlier in the exchanges make the point that, for the most part, the pairing system works very well.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Having spent more time than I wished with the Chief Whip going through matters that I found very difficult indeed, I can attest to the fact that not only is he a stickler for the rules, but he is very kind and compassionate when it comes to domestic matters. I hope that will be taken into account by Members on both sides of the House when I say that I favour some form of reform. If mistakes can occur, it is important that we as a House look at how to come up with a better system in which mistakes do not occur.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I benefited from pairing arrangements on a number of occasions last year. I do not have a clue which Opposition Members I was paired with, or whether any of those pairs were broken. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the pairing system generally works very well for many people who need a pair—whether because of serious illness, parental leave or bereavement leave—and most of our constituents, once they know the facts, do actually understand why some of us may miss votes for a period?
Mr Lidington
We all remember when my hon. Friend was seriously unwell and had to be absent from the House for a time. He, like many others in all political parties over the years, has benefited from the informal arrangements that the Whips Offices of the different parties have negotiated on pairing. In the furore over events last week, it is important that we do not lose sight of the important tool that the pairing system offers in relation to effective pastoral care for right hon. and hon. Members.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we hold a unique position of privilege, that on matters of such importance as Brexit legislation our constituents therefore expect us to vote in person on their behalf whenever possible, and that just one high-profile error should not change the system we have in place?
Mr Lidington
The Procedure Committee report on proxy voting and parental absence suggested a number of exceptions that, in its view, should be made to its general recommendation to allow proxy voting, so my hon. Friend makes an important point.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I speak with great authority and experience, having been refused every single pair that I have ever applied for. Be that as it may, will my right hon. Friend adopt the principle of Chesterton’s fence, namely that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is properly understood?
Mr Lidington
These are exactly the arguments that we will have the opportunity to debate in September.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker; last but I certainly hope not least. I served on your diversity and inclusion panel, and we looked at this hugely complex issue in great detail. It is clear to me that what is proposed as a response to pairing is not a panacea. It is hugely complex and posed as many questions as it provided answers to, so can I ask my right hon. Friend not to rush but to tread very carefully, so that we as a House get this right?
Mr Lidington
I think that rushed procedural changes often leave the House repenting at leisure. I also think that a procedural change to voting such as is now proposed should command as wide a consensus in the House across political parties as it is possible to obtain.