NATO Summit

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, they made the commitment in Wales. The question is meeting it, and I think that the President’s intervention has made a difference and that NATO itself will ensure that it monitors that commitment and looks at the timetables to which those allies will work to meet it.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Does the Prime Minister support Nord Stream 2?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, we recognise that there are real concerns about Nord Stream 2. There are concerns about its impact on Ukraine, and we will discuss the matter further with our allies.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill: Committee Stage

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will repeat it if the hon. Gentleman did not hear it, but I just carefully explained that the Government bring forward money resolutions for private Members’ Bill on a case-by-case basis. It is precisely because this House voted for the 2018 boundary review that we must wait until that work is finished before deciding how to progress with this private Member’s Bill.

With one review under way, plus an incomplete review from a previous Parliament, the review proposed by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton would be the third review of boundaries and would push the total cost of reviewing boundaries towards £18 million. The Opposition may not have a problem with unnecessarily spending £18 million of taxpayers’ money, but the Government certainly do. That is our position, and we look forward to seeing the boundary commissions’ recommendations in the coming months.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The Leader of the House seems to be saying that one of the reasons why the Government will not table a money resolution is the amount of money the Bill would cost. I do not know whether she is inadvertently misleading the House, but the reality is that tabling a money resolution does not mean the law will pass. What then happens is that the Bill can be considered in Committee, on Report and by their lordships. The issue here is that the Government are running scared because they know a majority of Members of this House support the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), so they are trying to kill it in Committee. This is not about money; it is about parliamentary procedure being subverted.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will come on to procedure, but the hon. Gentleman simply is not right. The Government are not killing this private Member’s Bill; we are saying that, until the boundary commissions have completed their work, which will be in a matter of a few weeks—the House voted for the review to take place—the Government will not take further action on a money resolution.

For the clarification of all hon. Members, this is not without precedent. During the 2014-15 Session, the coalition Government did not table money resolutions on two private Members’ Bills. At the time, the then Leader of the House said:

“it is unusual but not unprecedented for the Government not to move a money resolution. There have been previous instances of that under Governments of different parties.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 417.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I do not think that I ever made the charge that this Government have an aversion to private Members’ Bills. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to be accusatory, I will accuse the Government of blocking Bills that they do not like. That is what we are getting to here. There are lots of Government-sponsored private Members’ Bills, a couple of which I have personally sponsored and that I want to see progress, so I am not saying that they have an aversion to them. I think that they value them as much as possible, but the system is broken just now. The current way in which we do this business is not satisfactory, and every Member of this House should be concerned about that.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the reasons that the Government, under the current regime, are putting through so many private Members’ Bills is because they skip over the ones that they do not like. In the case of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), his Bill was 13th in the queue. The Government just decided that they did not like it, so they went to the Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Bill of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), which was 92nd in the queue. We cannot have a situation whereby the Government decide just to skip over Bills. The Leader of the House spoke about overriding centuries-old tradition, but the centuries-old tradition is that we go to the next available Bill, so it is the Government who are riding roughshod over the procedures of the House.

[Pete Wishart]

That is right. I am trying to be helpful to the House, as always. You know me, Madam Deputy Speaker; if I can think of a way in which to bring the House together so that we can try to make satisfactory process, I will offer it to the House. I see it as part of my job, obligation and responsibility as a Member of Parliament to see whether we can broker a solution. I suggest to the Leader of the House that the system is not working. I think that she and I would agree on that. She can nod her head if she wants.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), who recited G. K. Chesterton —that is a new one and I might try it tomorrow in the Public Bill Committee. I have the distinct pleasure of leading on this Bill for the Scottish National party. Although I am thoroughly enjoying our standing engagement to meet on a Wednesday morning to discuss a motion to adjourn, I really think it would be better for the Committee to move on to discuss the substance of the Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan).

The House will recall that this Bill was given a Second Reading, unanimously, on 1 December 2017, after the Government’s attempts to defeat the closure motion were voted down by 229 votes to 44. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, will talk about how we have to wait only four sitting weeks, but they do not mention that this Bill passed its Second Reading last year. Frustratingly, it then took some 159 days to establish the Bill Committee, which has met on five or six occasions now. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the job of the Bill Committee is to scrutinise the proposed legislation clause by clause, line by line and, if necessary, to scrutinise any competent amendments.

As I set out on 1 December last year, the SNP broadly supports this Bill. However, it is not a perfect Bill and I am seeking to amend it in one specific regard. We certainly welcome the relaxation of requirements so that the electorate per constituency has to be to within 7.5% of the electoral quota to preserve local representation. However, I am concerned that the Bill contains a provision in clause 1 for a fixed number of MPs for Northern Ireland but not for Scotland. I shall certainly seek to table amendments to that effect in Committee but, of course, I am currently prohibited from doing so because the Government have not granted a money resolution. That is troubling, because when he gave evidence to the Procedure Committee in 2013, the then Leader of the House of Commons, Andrew Lansley, said:

“To my knowledge, Government has provided the money resolutions…whenever we have been asked to do so.”

A 2013 report by the Procedure Committee, of which I am a proud member, concluded:

“Government policy is not to refuse a money or ways and means resolution to a bill which has passed second reading.”

I understand that Conservative party policy is to cut the number of MPs to 600, and I am not questioning the Conservatives’ entitlement to hold that legitimate view, but we all know that there is a parliamentary majority in the House for retaining 650 MPs while committing to review what I accept are old boundaries. The current boundaries came into force when I was 11 years old and I am now 28. I do not think any of us contest the need to look at the boundaries again, but we do contest the concept of reducing the number of MPs from 650 to 600.

Trying to kill the Bill in Committee by grinding Members into submission or holding up the parliamentary process is not clever, and nor do I believe that it will actually work.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government are not trying to kill the Bill? As the Leader of the House set out clearly in her speech, we are waiting for the boundary commissions to come back in four short weeks. Thereafter, we will consider the Bill’s position. We are not trying to kill the Bill; we are waiting.

[David Linden]

No, the Government have essentially treated the Bill like the bins: they have put it outside and are waiting for it to fester. We all believe that Parliament is taking back control—that we are leaving the European Union and this is going to be a sovereign Parliament. On 1 December last year, Parliament gave the Bill its Second Reading and the House resolved that it should go into Committee. That is the issue. It is not for the Government to decide that they are just going to leave it there in some sort of political purgatory. That is the fundamental point.

[Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

I serve on the Procedure Committee with the hon. Gentleman and am always interested in what he has to say. He is making an interesting case, but is he against the idea of reducing the House’s size from 650 to 600 MPs? That is one of the two issues that really ought to be considered today.

[David Linden]

I fundamentally object to the number of MPs being cut from 650 to 600. My view is that we could cut 59 MPs from this Chamber by Scotland being independent, but until such a time as the people of Scotland vote for that in a democratic referendum, I believe that this House, which is taking back lots of powers from the European Union, should have MPs who are able to scrutinise the Government.

I am mindful that the terms of the motion do not allow for a rehash of last year’s Second Reading debate, and nor is it about the general principles of the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill. The motion before us seeks the leave of the House to permit the Bill Committee to move from parliamentary purgatory to legislative scrutiny. Arguably, the motion is perhaps not the sexiest that the House has ever considered, although perhaps I think it is: right hon. and hon. Members will see that it is largely procedural. I must confess that when I saw the motion on the Order Paper, my initial reaction was to lament how disappointing it is that rarely allocated Opposition slots are being taken up to unblock the logjam of Back-Bench Bills, but the reality is that the Government have caused this problem.

Now, more than ever, Westminster has become a place of limited democracy, as perhaps best exemplified by the utterly broken private Member’s Bill system. On a point of principle, I fundamentally disagree with the notion that the main way for Back-Bench MPs to introduce Bills is via a lottery or a ballot. I have more chance of winning a raffle at the Garrowhill Primary School fair than I do of being able to introduce a private Member’s Bill through the route available.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The hon. Gentleman could always do what I did and queue up for the chance to introduce a presentation Bill. He would then have the opportunity to get his own Bill on the statute, as well. Many Members from different parties have followed the procedure.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman is right, but the presentation Bill that he queued to introduce under Standing Order No. 57 was defeated—it was objected to —so there was not actually a way to get it on the statute book.

I do not agree with some of the tactics deployed, when it suits them, by what some in this place have dubbed “the awkward squad”. Over the weekend, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) rightly found himself the centre of what I can only presume was much wanted public attention, after he objected to necessary English legislation introduced by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) that would stop perverts taking photos up ladies’ skirts. The hon. Member for Christchurch appears to have a long-standing, albeit selective, view that private Members’ Bills should not receive parliamentary approval. I must confess that I was somewhat surprised when the House considered the Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). During exceptionally short proceedings, the hon. Member for Christchurch did not object to the money resolution that evening, and I see that the Bill, which was 92nd in the queue for this Session, has now reached Report stage.

Perversely, Bills that have passed Second Reading on sitting Fridays but do not have the support of the Government have been kicked into the parliamentary purgatory that is Public Bill Committees. Indeed, some have not even got that far. The UK Government have failed to heed calls for reforms of the private Member’s Bill process, and now they break their own conventions and ignore the will of Parliament. The Procedure Committee issued reports calling for major changes to the process in September 2013, March 2014, September 2015, April 2016 and October 2016. I certainly hope that the Procedure Committee will hold another inquiry very soon. Their changes have largely been ignored by the Government. They have noted that the procedures

“disenfranchise Members who may wish to support a bill being promoted by a colleague and are misleading to the public and to the interest groups who seek to use it to advance legislative change”.

The problem is that this is a Government who are still acting as though they have a parliamentary majority. They do not appear to engage properly in Opposition day debates, and they certainly do not vote in the vast majority of them. If the House divides this evening, I will be very interested to see whether the Government take part. They have stuffed the Standing Committees of this House with a majority of their Members, even though they are a minority Government. They have done their level best to ensure that the Democratic Unionist party has been given £1 billion to ensure that some of their legislation gets through; and they have dealt with private Members’ Bills in a way that is exactly consistent with that approach.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman and I enjoy our sparring on Wednesday mornings, and I look forward to doing so again tomorrow. I have just a couple of points to make. First, the Democratic Unionist party has not been given a single penny. That money is for the people of Northern Ireland, and it is important to make that point. Secondly, the House decided the composition of Public Bill Committees, not the Government.

[David Linden]

We all remember the photographs of the former Government Chief Whip, the Prime Minister and the leader of the Democratic Unionist party. I don’t know; maybe it was a coincidence that it was announced that £1 billion was going to Northern Ireland on the same day that the confidence and supply agreement was signed. I am no expert.

The way in which the Government continue to deal with private Members’ Bills makes a mockery of this place. In essence, the Government are treating the House with sheer contempt. The Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill is, I am afraid, probably just the tip of the ice berg. The Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is also still awaiting a money resolution. Indeed, it has not even gone into Committee. His Bill has not even got to the pleasurable stage of meeting on a Wednesday morning to consider a motion to adjourn, yet my hon. Friend has cross-party support. I think that the reason why the Government are stonewalling that Bill is that, again, they realise that there is a majority for it in the House of Commons.

I am mindful of time, and I will close by saying that the Government are playing fast and loose with the procedures of this House. They might think they are being big and clever, but they must remember that one day—perhaps sooner rather than later—they will be on the Opposition Benches and they could be subject to the same type of behaviour. The Government risk setting a precedent that may just one day come back to bite them on the bottom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

And nor are the Government. The key point, as I have just said, is that the other place is now smaller than when the Prime Minister took office. That is as a result of a policy of restraint, which she is showing in appointments, and of the Government policy, which the hon. Gentleman invites me to set out. I will take just a minute on it, Mr Speaker.

[David Linden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chloe Smith]

I am just in the middle of setting out the Government’s policy, which I have been asked to do.

We do not believe that reform of the House of Lords is the correct priority at this moment. There are many other things that the two Houses are being asked to consider. The House of Lords itself has set out a number of ways to reform without the need for primary legislation. We seek to support it in that.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She talks about reform of the House of Lords and cutting the number of MPs in this House. The Bill received a Second Reading on Friday 1 December 2017. Since then, how many new Conservative peers have been put into the House of Lords?

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman will remember from our debate only yesterday that the number of the most recent appointments made is 13. Let me repeat one more time, should it be needed, that the number of Lords has reduced since the Prime Minister came into office. In part, that is due to a culture and a new policy of retirement, which I welcome and which we did go into in some detail yesterday, so I will leave that there.

I want to respond to a couple of points that were made about the policy of individual electoral registration. I welcome the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) to his relatively new position on the Front Bench—it has already been very good to serve with him on Bill and statutory instrument Committees—but I am afraid that he is wrong in his remarks about IER. He spoke about a drop in the register that he thinks occurred after it was introduced. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean explained, what we saw after the introduction of IER was that both accuracy and completeness were maintained. The crucial point is this: we expect the accuracy of the register to be able to be maintained at a higher level with the introduction of IER, because it encourages individuals to register themselves, individually—the clue is in the name. It is about accuracy.

The hon. Member for City of Chester conflated it with a second, separate issue, which is whether more have joined the register since. That is indeed the case. As the register currently stands, it is larger than it was in December 2015. That is a good thing. That is because our reforms to open up online registration, for example, and the occurrence of several major elections have encouraged many people to register. That is an unmitigated good thing. This Government are committed to helping more people to register to vote. That is what I stand for as the Minister responsible for electoral registration and other matters. I want to see it done with the security and integrity of the register foremost in mind. We have had debates in this place and elsewhere that suggest that the Labour party is not quite so committed to those principles. That is what we saw in some of the desperate slurs that have been made this afternoon. We have heard words such as “gerrymandering” and about the “manipulation” of the register from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood. I think that is outrageous. I said so early on in the debate and I say it again: it is an outrageous calumny to say that the Government are gerrymandering or trying to manipulate the register. I am not. The Government are not—does he think we are, really?

House of Lords: Abolition

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interesting point, but I am describing the existing situation, which nobody would create. We had hereditary peers in the House of Lords right up until the ’90s. The first level of reform went through under Tony Blair, but nothing was really put in its place. We are in that halfway house at the moment.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I would not want the hon. Gentleman inadvertently to mislead the House. Perhaps he will put on the record the fact that there are still 92 hereditary peers.

[Paul Scully]

Forgive me. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I will come to that point later in my speech. I was talking about when there were solely hereditary peers. I thank him very much for allowing me to correct the record.

The House of Lords clearly needs to do more, however it is composed, to ensure it is representative of the country, not just by reflecting public political opinion, expressed in general election results, but by having more women and people from ethnic backgrounds. It is interesting to note, however, that both leaders of the two main parties in the Lords are female, and that all three leaders of the main parties are younger than their counterparts in this place. Funnily enough, the House of Lords has done its bit for gender equality by electing its first male Lord Speaker, Lord Fowler. It has a good record of supporting women in the most senior positions, but clearly there is more it can do.

The work of the Lords is not just the legislation debated in the Chamber, but its Committee work. Its Select Committees are formed differently from ours: while ours tend to reflect Departments, its Committees tend to be more cross-cutting. The Science and Technology Committee, for example, makes the most of the House of Lords’ expertise. Essentially, the House of Lords does things that the House of Commons does less of because the time available, and our different political imperatives and priorities, drive us in different ways. However, it should not go beyond its remit, as it clearly has on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

A lot of checks have been introduced over the past 100 years. The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 prevent the House of Lords from blocking legislation and money resolutions. It can hold up Bills for up to a year, but the Government can reintroduce them without seeking the House of Lords’ consent at the beginning of the next parliamentary session. Having some tension is no bad thing, but there have to be limits, and the House of Lords has overstepped the limits in this instance.

The Salisbury convention would normally kick in for a measure such as the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, because, like our pledge to leave the customs union and the single market, it was clearly in our 2017 manifesto. However, that only prevents the Bill from becoming law in this parliamentary Session. There is obviously a timescale issue with the EU withdrawal Bill, because we will leave the EU at the end of March next year, so we have to get the Bill through in plenty of time to ensure we leave in an orderly way. If it is held up for too long or changed beyond recognition, that will affect our negotiating position now and our capacity to leave the EU in an orderly way next March.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I was not aware of that. In the past, some people have had issues to do with their involvement in making donations to political parties or with paying their taxes. It is absolutely right that someone resident in this country and taking part in the democratic process should be subject to the same rules as every other citizen.

We are told that expertise and knowledge is in such abundance among Members of the other place that radical reform would pose a risk to the ability of Parliament to scrutinise legislation. The truth, however, is that out of the 13 most recent nominations, seven were former Members of Parliament, one a former general secretary of the Labour party and one a former deputy chairman of the Conservative party. Indeed, since the Life Peerages Act 1958, a third of the 1,452 peers created have been former MPs who were therefore relieved of the bothersome inconvenience of having to obtain the consent of the electorate before being allowed to continue in public life. Many more nominees were councillors, party donors or staff. Of the Members appointed since May 2010, half are either former MPs or former local councillors, and a further fifth are former special advisers or party employees.

It appears that there is very little difference between the qualifications and types of people in the two Houses. In response to the argument about expertise, what is it about earning the legitimacy of the popular vote that precludes a person from having expertise on a particular subject? The House of Commons has plenty of experts from all walks of life. The fact that they have to face elections does not seem to prevent them from coming here in the first place.

[David Linden]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, because I think of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who was a breast surgeon for 33 years. She makes an enormous contribution to the House of Commons in health questions and in health legislation, but she still had to go to the electorate of Central Ayrshire on two occasions. I back the hon. Gentleman’s argument that we have people here from various professional backgrounds, but there is no reason why the House of Lords cannot be subject to elections like the rest of us.

[Justin Madders]

I share a brief with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr. Whitford); I think Members from all sides of the House recognise and value her expertise. Indeed, there are a number of medical professionals in the House who continue to practise, with up-to-date, relevant experience, which is really important.

I am not claiming that there are no valuable elements of the current House of Lords; there are many talented Members who demonstrate very high levels of integrity, expertise and independence. However, we make a mistake if we assume that these characteristics are naturally imbued in the upper Chamber because of the way in which the Members are appointed. That argument will always fail if we watch for opportunities for indolence, as opposed to every decision that we do not agree with.

Appointment does not guarantee effective independence and expertise any more than an election would preclude those qualities. Crucially, all the positive qualities of the other place are fatally compromised by the lack of democratic accountability. We are saying to the public, “We trust you to decide our future relationship with Europe; we trust you to elect MPs, councillors, police and crime commissioners and mayors, but we do not think you are up to the job of electing an upper House.”

We have heard a lot about how the Lords’ actions during the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill may have changed some Members’ opinions about the way in which the other place operates. I do not have any truck with that, just as I have no truck with people who have become converts to the House of Lords because of the way in which they have recently operated. Just because the Lords vote in a way on a particular occasion that suits someone’s political view does not negate the overall democratic deficit that its continued existence in its current form represents. Let us not allow the day-to-day decisions and the painfully slow incremental reform to cloud the big picture: the House of Lords belongs to a bygone era of privilege, establishment and a closed political world, when we are becoming a much more open society. The time has come to end this relic of an earlier age and bring our democracy into the 21st century.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is as ever a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I look forward to doing so again on Wednesday next week. I commend the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for opening the debate, and thank the 116 constituents of the centre of the universe that is Glasgow East who signed the petition. I left huge amounts of space in my notes for summing up the contributions made in the debate. Petitions debates in Westminster Hall are normally stuffed, and sometimes Members cannot get a seat. I am quite struck by how empty it is this afternoon. I am sure it is nothing to do with the fact that quite a lot of MPs are conscious that when they leave this place they can go and park their backsides on the red leather. Perhaps there is an issue of self-interest. I do not know; I am only speculating.

There is something rather ironic. I was saying to the staff in my constituency office that I will conclude this week with a visit to a care home in my constituency on Friday. I thought it was remarkable that I would be able to talk this afternoon about another care home—the House of Lords. Anyone who watched the programme “Meet the Lords” will have heard people talking about it as the most exclusive day care unit in central London. To say that the noble Lord Palmer, who took part in the documentary, is a bit of a character would be putting it mildly. He has a 110-room mansion and was complaining about how little pay he gets at just £300 a day tax-free.

I did not know anything of this Lord Palmer chap, so I thought, “I’ll go and look him up.” I thought it would be helpful for the House, because we do not get the opportunity to talk about this often.

“Adrian Bailie Nottage Palmer, 4th Baron Palmer…is an aristocrat and landowner in Scotland. Lord Palmer succeeded his uncle in the peerage in 1990, and is now one of the ninety hereditary peers elected to remain in the House of Lords after the passing of the House of Lords Act 1999; he sits as a crossbencher.”

I am sure he is a perfectly affable chap, and in “Meet the Lords” he certain seems like an eccentric individual. However, the point is that he has never been subject to election and sits in that place as a hereditary peer.

My position on this matter will come as no surprise, as a Scottish National party politician. I am happy to outline our position on the House of Lords. We think that it should be abolished. We have nothing to do with it—on that we are whiter than white. In our 50 years of continued parliamentary representation in this place we have never taken up a peerage despite being offered them. I am glad to say that we are not here to play the Westminster game. I am disappointed that other parties take part in it. What a shambles it is: the only larger legislature in the world is the Chinese National People’s Congress, with a total 2,987 seats. Our comrades in ermine along the corridor in the other place have 800. In comparing those numbers, we may note that China’s population is 1.4 billion, and it has 2,987 Members in the National People’s Congress. We, a country of just 66 million, have 800 of them stuffed into that absolute circus. It makes a mockery of the system.

I have spoken before, including in a Committee attended by the Minister, about my time working with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. When I do that work, I find it somewhat embarrassing, because to appear on behalf of an organisation with that name implies that this is a place of democracy. In fact, the Palace of Westminster is a place of limited democracy. A couple of weeks ago the Labour and Government Chief Whips had to issue notices to Members of the other place urging them not to fall asleep. What kind of message does that send out when I go from Westminster to Tunisia or Uganda to talk about the merits of democracy? What an embarrassment that such things happen here.

I commend to the House a wonderful book by the late Robin Cook, “Point of Departure”, in which I read a fantastic quote a number of years ago. Robin Cook wrestled with House of Lords reform. He said:

“At least we all agreed that the present half-reformed state of the Lords was unsupportable. Britain now shares with Lesotho the unenviable distinction of being the only two countries in which hereditary chieftains still retain the right to pass laws for the rest of the nation. As Foreign Secretary I had spoken in support of open government at a Europe-Africa Summit. I was rebuked by the President of an African country, which might generously be described as a guided democracy, who objected that he could not be blamed for failing to introduce full democracy after only fifty years of independence, when Britain had failed to get rid of the hereditary principle after 500 years of Parliament.”

It is remarkable. This guy is now dead and we still have hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Something else that makes a mockery of the system is the fact that we still have clerics legislating—the 26 bishops, or Lords Spiritual. The only other country that has clerics who legislate is Iran. I shall let it sink in that we are part of that.

The Minister, the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and I of course have a long-standing engagement on Wednesday mornings to consider a motion to adjourn the Committee on the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill. That Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), is intended to protect the House from the Government’s plans to cut the number of MPs from 650 to 600.

The Government talk a good game about cutting the cost of politics, yet they continue to stuff people into the House of Lords. We have Lords such as—I hesitate to use the word “noble”—Lord Hanningfield, who was caught in his routine of clocking in and clocking out, wandering into the Palace of Westminster for a couple of minutes, signing on and getting his £300 a day tax-free. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who has come up with the excellent idea of somehow changing the rules and being able to track how long Members of the House of Lords are actually in the building. It certainly seems that some of them walk in and walk back out only a couple of minutes later. At the moment we have no way of tracking that, which makes a mockery of the system.

I pride myself on the fact that I start every parliamentary week by going out in my constituency and door knocking. I did the same thing before I got my half-past 12 flight to London this afternoon. I was out in the Calvay area of my constituency, an area where there are certain amounts of deprivation. My constituents in Calvay look at that place, the House of Lords, and wonder how those folk represent them.

The information brought forward by the Electoral Reform Society shows that something like 85% of peers coalesce around this little south-eastern part of England. We do not have Members of the House of Lords who represent all parts of the United Kingdom and can bring their expertise. It seems to be people from this small corner. Where are our tenement Lords? Where are the apprentice Lords? Where are the Lords from a manual labour background? It seems to me—I say this with respect to the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell)—that it is all people from the professions of law and accountancy.

We then come to the issue of corruption, donors and cash for votes, whether that is the Democratic Unionist party in the House of Commons being bought off with £1 billion to go and vote with the Government, or the fact that in the past we have seen people offered peerages for donations to political parties. That also brings the place into disrepute.

There is also the question of rewards for failure. I think of the case of the constituency of Perth and North Perthshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) won his seat by, I think, 26 votes, defeating the Conservative candidate, a gentleman called Ian Duncan who was a Member of the European Parliament. My hon. Friend rightly took up his seat in the House of Commons, and does a very diligent job as Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee and shadow SNP Leader of the House of Commons.

His opponent, now Lord Duncan of Springbank, sits in the other place. Having received no votes—indeed, having been rejected at the ballot box just over a year ago—he was stuffed into the House of Lords. He was not just stuffed in there as someone to scrutinise legislation; he is now a Government Minister. We have a bizarre spectacle: of all the fine new Scottish Tory MPs, none was considered worthy to become the junior Scotland Office Minister. Instead it was left to Lord Duncan of Springbank, unelected, to fly the flag for the Scotland Office as a junior Minister.

We owe a duty of care to some of our colleagues in the House of Lords. I know that it is not the convention in this House to talk out of school and that it is a bit of an old boys’ club. However, I make no apology for saying that, on Tuesday 27 March, two or three of my hon. Friends and I were going out for a run after parliamentary business had concluded. The Lords were sitting late that night because they were considering the Nuclear Safeguards Bill. As my hon. Friends and I were getting our running gear on, we found an elderly gentleman lost in the Members’ Lobby in the House of Commons, where our cloakroom is. He was confused as to where he was. He did not know what day of the week it was. One thing we noticed was the little red and white pass he wore.

That gentleman did not realise that he was on completely the wrong side of the building. He did not know what day of the week it was, let alone what clause or schedule of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill was being considered. I understand that Governments of various colours, on a day when there is a tight vote, will try to get their people in here, but there is something incredibly serious about bringing somebody in here who does not have the mental faculties that they require to know not only what day of the week it is, but what kind of legislation they are scrutinising. That is the kind of thing that happens in here. I know it is uncomfortable for everybody in here to talk about, but we all know it happens—people are wheeled in here who do not know what day of the week it is but are somehow scrutinising legislation.

I make my final point with a degree of regret. I hold the hon. Member for City of Chester and his Labour colleagues in high esteem, but there is a challenge to the Labour party. The Labour party has talked in the past under the regime of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) about taking a principled approach to the House of Lords, but we now have these ermine comrades, the Lord Momentums. Recently, in the last round of appointments, the former general secretary of the British Labour party, Martha Osamor, was appointed to the House of Lords with another, Pauline Bryan. There is a challenge. If we are all serious about halting the shambles that is the House of Lords, we must all be signed up.

[Justin Madders]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the conditions of those appointments was that they would agree to vote for an abolition of the House of Lords if such a vote arose?

[David Linden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I think the Liberal Democrats had a similar position as well, but I am afraid that an appointment to the House of Lords is like a political drug. Once someone starts doing it, they will just keep going. The idea that somehow these political parties will be self-regulating on this question is not one I take very seriously.

The House of Lords makes a mockery of British democracy. We can come here and have a discussion about reform or abolition—the latter is certainly my preferred option—but in my view the sooner Scotland has nothing to do with the House of Lords and the Palace of Westminster, the better.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

The Minister will recall the point in my speech about Members of the House of Lords who perhaps do not still have all their faculties. The Government have spoken about provisions that have been put in place to allow people to retire; what provisions are in place to ensure that people in the House of Lords are actually still able to do their job?

[Chloe Smith]

I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I focus on the point that we are trying to bring about a culture of retirement. It is perhaps for a person to recognise for themselves if they are no longer able to do that role. I welcome the sensitive way in which the hon. Gentleman brought that topic up in the debate. It is an important matter, but to have a culture of retirement is a very sound starting point for being able to look at any such issues.

Going ahead from here, the Government are clear that we want to work constructively with hon. Members and peers—Members of both Houses—to look at pragmatic ideas for reducing the size of the House of Lords. That is why we welcome the work of the Lord Speaker’s Committee, chaired by Lord Burns. As hon. Members will be aware, in 2016 the House of Lords passed a motion that its size should be reduced and that there should be consideration of how to do that. The Lord Speaker therefore established the Committee to identify

“practical and politically viable options”

for reducing the size of the House that would not require primary legislation. This is about being able to get something done, which I hear hon. Members calling for today and, I think, quite wisely; we should look at those things that can be done simply and in a way that commands consensus.

The Committee went on to make recommendations for reducing the size of the House of Lords, and peers were clearly very supportive of those measures when they were debated in December last year. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has written to the Lord Speaker with an offer in good faith to continue the restraint that she has already shown in making appointments to that House. I place it on the record that even with the latest, small number of appointments—only 13—the House is smaller now than when she first took office. It is important for that fact to be clearly on the record. The Lord Speaker will consider the next steps by reconstituting the Committee, and the Government will be very happy to look at anything further that it has to say.

I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion to allow the representative of the Petitions Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), to have the final word in today’s debate, but first I return to the point that I think it is clear, from hon. Members’ contributions to the debate, which were very thoughtful and wide-ranging, as well as from many other sources, whether that be newspaper articles, public discourse or, of course, those members of the public who have come here today to be part of this petition—I again thank them for that—that there remains a range of views, of design options and of advantages and disadvantages that could be considered as part of this question, but there is not an obvious single way forward. Therefore, I simply reiterate the point that I made earlier. The Government are committed to ensuring that the House of Lords continues to fulfil its constitutional role as a revising and scrutinising chamber, but it must respect the primacy of the elected Chamber, which is the House of Commons. We stand ready to work with parliamentarians from both Chambers on measures that command consensus.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Resume your seat. No, no. Mr Blackford, resume your seat. No, no. Resume your seat. No, no. Resume your seat. [Interruption.] Order, order. The House will have heard very clearly—[Interruption.] Order, please. The House will have heard very clearly my acceptance that there can be a vote on this matter—

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Now!

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[David Linden]

Now!

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Linden, I say to you, and I say it in the kindest possible spirit: do not tell me what the procedures of this House are. I am telling you that there can be vote at the end of questions, and not now. I am not—

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Sixth sitting)

David Linden Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Committee do now adjourn.

I thank all hon. Members for attending this Committee sitting of the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill. Once again, I must express my extreme frustration at the Government for their refusal to follow basic parliamentary procedures and bring forward a money resolution. For all the talk of concern for parliamentary sovereignty, the Government have shown profound disrespect for the parliamentary process. This is an embarrassment to the UK Government, and their refusal to provide a sensible rationale for their actions shows that their aim in this matter is clearly undemocratic.

I want to make something clear: I disagree firmly with many Conservative policies, but have absolutely no hard feelings towards the Conservative electorate or their parliamentary representatives. I know from public debates and private conversations that the Bill has support from various Conservative Members of Parliament. The Second Reading of the Bill was passed unanimously, which is clear evidence of the broadly based support for sensible electoral updates. The issue is with the Executive and the blatantly undemocratic actions that they have taken.

I wish to have those critical discussions of the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill. That should be what we are here to do. However, we cannot engage in the discussions until the Government have complied with the basic parliamentary conventions. The Bill has received a Second Reading and requires a money resolution for its further progress.

I am not sympathetic to claims of financial irresponsibility. The Bill is designed to address widely held concerns about the make-up of our parliamentary democracy. Ideally, the Bill would be unnecessary, but unfortunately the previous Boundary Commission set out instructions that do not command support from the House. That said, if the House of Commons deems that the Bill would be an improper use of funds, that would be a valid result, but the Government have refused to table a money resolution and let Members exercise their judgment, as is their duty.

I hope that the Government will respect the will of the people of the UK and respect the parliamentary process, which they claim to hold dear. I will continue to press, through every avenue available to me, for progress on this matter. I thank everyone for their attention, although I must apologise that these important sittings have become a routine drain on parliamentary time and resources. I thank everyone again for their time. I hope to see everyone next week and that we will have the opportunity to make better use of our privilege to represent the people of the UK.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

What a pleasure it is to be back for the sixth episode of “I’m in a Public Bill Committee…Get Me Out of Here!” Once again, we come here for the charade that we are here to scrutinise legislation—legislation that was passed democratically on the Floor of the House of Commons last year. I have now passed my first-year anniversary in this place, and with every week that goes by, something new comes up to present me with the idea that Westminster is a place of limited democracy. Last night, we met for a whole 19 minutes to debate and scrutinise crucial amendments about devolution. That was one minute longer than the sitting of this Committee last week, when we sat for a whole 18 minutes to scrutinise the Bill. Of course, the absolute nonsense that—

[The Chair]

Order. Please keep to the motion, Mr Linden.

[David Linden]

Absolutely, Ms Dorries; thank you for your reminder to do that. I was reminded that Parliament is taking back control by leaving the European Union and that we will have all this parliamentary sovereignty. It led me to wonder what will happen if the Bill does not pass. The number of MPs will be reduced by 50, which will mean fewer MPs to scrutinise Government legislation.

However, I also remembered that there are people in the other House who will be able to hold the Government to account. They are the Bishop of Birmingham, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Carlisle, the Bishop of Chelmsford, the Bishop of Chester, the Bishop of Chichester, the Bishop of Coventry, the Bishop of Derby, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Ely, the Bishop of Leeds, the Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishop of Norwich, the Bishop of Oxford, the Bishop of Peterborough, the Bishop of Portsmouth—this looks very much like a stag do with the amount of guys here—the Bishop of Rochester, the Bishop of St Albans, the Bishop of Salisbury, the Bishop of Southwark, the Bishop of Winchester, the Bishop of Worcester, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Gloucester and the Bishop of Newcastle.

There is also Lord Agnew of Oulton, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom, the Earl of Arran, Lord Ashton of Hyde, Viscount Astor, Lord Astor of Hever, Earl Attlee, Lord Baker of Dorking, Lord Balfe, Lord Bamford, Lord Barker of Battle—

[The Chair]

Order. It is not appropriate to read from a list in Committee.

[David Linden]

But these are fine legislators.

[The Chair]

Please make a substantive contribution. Reading from a list is not allowed.

[David Linden]

This is not a list. These are some of our fantastic legislators. I could read it in a different order, not necessarily from a list; I could take names at random. There is a whole 800 or 900 of them—the House of Lords is practically the size of the National People’s Congress in China.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)]

GCSE maths. This is not about—

[David Linden]

At least we have heard something from the Minister. I feel gratified that I have managed to move the Minister to say something in Committee after her coming here week after week.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Lord Bishop of Chester. Is he aware that I was with the bishop on Sunday afternoon to open to the new community centre at St Mary’s church in Handbridge in Chester?

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Perhaps he might be able to tell us what happened that day and what the bishop said to him?

[Christian Matheson]

It was a fantastic occasion on which the community came together to dedicate the new church building, which will serve large parts of the community in Handbridge and the southern part of the city of Chester.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enlightening us about that.

[The Chair]

Mr Linden, as this is now a matter of public record, could you let me know whether those names on the list you are reading from support the Bill.

[David Linden]

That is a good question. Unfortunately, as a Member of the House of Commons, I have no opportunity to scrutinise lords, because they are, of course, unelected.

[Christian Matheson]

I suggest to my good friend the hon. Gentleman that we will not know whether their lordships support the Bill until it reaches them. A great way to test that would be for the Bill to complete its passage in this place and to move on to the other place, so that their lordships can have their say.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that powerful intervention. He reminds us that, until such a time that the Government have the balls to bring forward a money resolution and allow the Bill to be considered clause by clause, line by line by the Committee, we will not have the opportunity to send it to our comrades in ermine along the corridor for them to scrutinise. It may well be, as the hon. Gentleman said—

[The Chair]

Order. Are you aware that the motion that we are discussing today is to adjourn?

[David Linden]

I am. I have seen that motion, I think, five times now, because I have been here for about five weeks in a row. I am very familiar with it.

[The Chair]

Then perhaps you could explain why you are giving the speech that you are, because it is not to the motion.

[David Linden]

Because the motion itself, and the proceedings of the Committee, are an absolute charade.

[Christian Matheson]

What a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I will again make the announcement that I made to the Committee last week, which is that I have taken the place of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who I am very pleased to say is on maternity leave. I am sure that Committee members continue to send her and her husband all the best.

I will not make such a long speech as my good friend the hon. Member for Glasgow East, but I express my regret that we are in the same position as we have been in for the last five weeks. I have not, of course; I am only a fairly new addition to the Committee so I have not had to go through the proceedings and processes quite as tortuously, but it is a matter of regret that we are not able to debate the Bill in detail, because the Government still refuse to bring forward a money resolution. Indeed, there seems to be a distinct lack of interest on the Government Benches in the Committee. However, it is good to see the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean in his place. I understand he has been an assiduous attender, and I respect that. It is good to see him here taking the Bill seriously.

I do not want to detain the Committee too long on a fruitless exercise. I simply want to ask the Minister whether she will take back—or has already taken back—to ministerial colleagues a sense of Members’ frustration at the lack of progress. Will she explain that after a clear decision on Second Reading there is, certainly among the Opposition, anxiety, disappointment and—dare I say it—something approaching anger? There is a sense of a certain contempt in the way the Bill is not being dealt with.

I respect the Minister for taking one for the team in this respect: she has to go through the process, and this is not about the hon. Lady herself. She is very well thought of. It is about the Government as a whole not taking their responsibility to the House seriously. I ask the Minister to take back to her colleagues the idea that they cannot keep kicking the matter into the long grass forever, and that at some point the Bill will have to be debated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

It is about making a decision. The Government have made a decision that it is sensible to allow the boundary commissions to complete a review, which they have almost done, at considerable public expense. They have consulted not just Members of Parliament and political parties but thousands of members of the public, who have looked at the initial drafts. They listened, responded to that and have made amendments. The Government wish that process, which has taken place at considerable public expense, to conclude before they reflect on whether it is sensible to proceed with the hon. Gentleman’s Bill.

That is a perfectly sensible decision. I accept that he and his hon. Friends do not agree with that, but it is perfectly rational and defensible. That is why we have the motion to adjourn before us, and I think we will have such motions for considerable weeks until the boundary commissions have had a chance to report. It is a perfectly sensible decision, set out clearly by the Minister at earlier stages of the Committee.

[David Linden]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Harper]

No, I will conclude my remarks. Thank you for your indulgence, Ms Dorries.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with the (a) Scottish Government and (b) Prime Minister on the Scottish Parliament’s decision not to grant a legislative consent motion for the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

13. What recent discussions he has had with the (a) Scottish Government and (b) Prime Minister on the Scottish Parliament’s decision not to grant a legislative consent motion for the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

15. What recent discussions he has had with the (a) Scottish Government and (b) Prime Minister on the Scottish Parliament's decision not to grant a legislative consent motion for the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

I am not going to take any lectures on devolution from the SNP. Only today, Nicola Sturgeon has written, ahead of the SNP conference, that this weekend

“marks the start of a new chapter in Scotland’s road to independence”.

That does not sound very much like standing up for devolution to me.

[David Linden]

I have recently learned that the great saviour of the Tory party, and perhaps the next Prime Minister, Ruth Davidson, did not actually believe in the vow. Is it not the case that the chickens have come home to roost and that we are now seeing the anti-devolution party once again riding roughshod over Scotland?

[David Mundell]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman—the anti-devolution party is riding roughshod over Scotland, but it is the SNP. It does not back devolution; it only backs independence.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Fourth sitting)

David Linden Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Public Bill Committees

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I apologise, Chair, for being late; I have sprained my wrist. One of the issues about the size of constituencies is that one of the proposed constituencies under the new boundary review in Scotland would be the size of Cyprus. That is not practically possible. There is a wider point here, because when we lose all our Members of the European Parliament and Parliament takes back control, we will have fewer MPs to scrutinise all this legislation. Then, when they go back to their constituencies, they will have to try to get around by helicopter, given the size of the constituencies the Government are proposing.

[Cat Smith]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I wish him a speedy recovery with his arm, which looks very painful.

I think we are all largely in agreement that the boundary review is needed; that is not something I am arguing against. Updating boundaries is a vital part of the functioning of our electoral system. However, it has to proceed in a way that benefits our democracy and not just one political party. The political case presented by the Government for reducing the number of MPs from 650 to 600 is completely flawed. The Hansard Society found no rationale for the Government’s decision, noting that there was a “real concern” that the number had been,

“plucked from thin air—600 simply being a neat number.”

Cutting 50 MPs also presents a “crisis of scrutiny”, a concern raised by the Electoral Reform Society. The Government’s current plan, to reduce the number of MPs in Parliament without reducing the number of Ministers, will only increase the power of the Executive. That will make it more difficult for Back Benchers to challenge the Government, which in turn will reduce Parliament’s ability to hold the Government to account. As we are witnessing today, the Government fear challenge, loathe scrutiny and have no respect for Back Benchers.

The need for parliamentary scrutiny has never been greater as our nation prepares to leave the European Union. As the hon. Member for Glasgow East mentioned, to lose 50 MPs at the same time as taking back powers from Brussels risks leaving the UK Government struggling to keep up with the day-to-day requirements of legislation. In short, what seemed like a good idea in 2011 is very different in 2018, because so much has changed. As MPs’ workload looks set to rise—

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Third sitting)

David Linden Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 16th May 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Afzal Khan]

I beg to move, That the Committee do now adjourn.

I thank everyone for gathering here again. I will not make the same speech that I have already made twice. Despite my ongoing efforts since the last time we met, there is still no sign of a money resolution. The Government are making a mockery of the private Member’s Bill process, pursuing electoral interests over the interests of democracy.

The Procedure Committee has carried out a number of inquiries into the private Member’s Bill process and has consistently argued that the current system is insufficiently transparent, and that it is too easy for a small number of MPs or the Government to stop any Bills that they disagree with. This is a perfect example of such an abuse of process. I will continue to press the Government, and I propose that the Committee continues to meet on Wednesday mornings, to show that we are ready to debate and scrutinise the Bill in the open, as soon as the Government allow us to do so.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. It is of course the case that the Government have refused to table a money resolution, notwithstanding that the House gave the Bill its Second Reading and has delegated us to consider it in Committee. Previous Committee sittings have been rather short, which suggests that the Government have no interest in legislative scrutiny or in the Bill.

Given the contempt that the Government have shown towards the House, it will be helpful to remind them of some of its conventions. Members may wish to bear with me, because I intend to take some time to go through certain aspects of “Erskine May”. I hope that the Minister was not planning to leave the room in the next few minutes, because she will not be able to.

Page 535 of “Erskine May”, on proceedings on public Bills in the House of Commons, states:

“In the House of Commons, there are three ways in which a bill may be introduced…It may be brought in upon an order of the House…It may be presented without an order under the provisions of Standing Order No 57(1)…It may be brought in from the House of Lords.”

On Bills founded upon financial resolutions, it states:

“The procedure for the introduction of bills upon financial resolutions is now most commonly exemplified by Consolidated Fund Bills—”

as explained on pages 740 and 741 of “Erskine May”—

“which are founded upon Supply resolutions, and by Finance Bills and other taxing bills, which are founded upon Ways and Means resolutions.”

[The Chair]

Order. I remind the hon. Member that reading from a book is not permitted in Committee proceedings. He may summarise “Erskine May” and advise us of his counsel, but he must not read verbatim.

[David Linden]

Thank you, Mr Owen. I appreciate that clarification. I will come back to certain aspects of the rules. The substance of the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton is to make sure that Parliament has the ability to scrutinise legislation. Obviously, we are leaving the European Union, which means that huge swathes of legislation will be coming back to the House. The idea that we should reduce the number of Members in the House who are able to scrutinise that legislation simply beggars belief. We have not seen proposals from the Government to reduce the number of Members on the payroll vote—that is, Parliamentary Private Secretaries and, indeed, Ministers. The Government are showing contempt for the House. They should seriously consider tabling a money resolution, but I do not know whether the Minister is even paying attention at the moment.

On money resolutions, there certainly is precedent for the way in which the Government have, to be frank, been taking the mickey. I do not know what kind of respect the Government are showing this House by not tabling a money resolution. We regularly talk about Parliament taking back control, the will of Parliament and parliamentary sovereignty, yet even though the House voted for this Bill to proceed to Committee stage, we are not able to discuss it.

We can continue the charade of coming to this Committee twice a week, pretending that we are taking proposed legislation seriously and scrutinising it, but that makes a mockery of this place. If the Minister plans to simply sit there and diddle away on her phone and read her papers for the coming Cabinet Office questions—if that is how she wants to treat this House—that is her prerogative. Those of us who come here to treat Parliament with respect, however, who have been sent here to represent our constituents and the will of the people, will attend this Committee week in, week out, and we can go on for as long as she likes. If the Government do not table a money resolution, I will not hesitate to come back with much longer speeches—they might not be based on “Erskine May”—until such time as they do so.

[Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I just want to make a couple of points. As a new Member, I feel I have much to learn. I was really pleased to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow East reading from that book, because I found it really useful. I agree with all his comments. This seems a mockery of the process. When I speak to people in my constituency and tell them that, they agree.

Finally—I have made this point a number of times—I find it quite rude when hon. Members do not listen to what others are saying and sit looking at their phones or doing their papers when we should be dealing with the business at hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Afzal Khan]

A number of Members have made their point. The Government need to be much clearer. The will of the House is that we should debate this matter. Whatever arguments there are for the Bill, that is what needs to happen, not the withholding of a money resolution. The Minister does not wish to say anything now but maybe next week she can seek counsel from other senior Ministers and bring more clarity, so that at least we do not waste our time in coming here, and she can show some respect to Members.

[David Linden]

On a point of order, Mr Owen. This Committee has been set up by the House because a majority of hon. Members voted for it. What provisions and opportunities are available to hon. Members to put on the record that a Government Minister has come to this Committee and said absolutely nothing about a Bill that has been supported by the democratically elected House of Commons?

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (First sitting)

David Linden Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 9th May 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton for his remarks about his Bill. We all recognise that the review is much needed. It presents an opportunity for cross-party agreement on new boundaries.

I share my hon. Friend’s disappointment that a money resolution has not been forthcoming from the Government, because in December this House sent a strong message that we wanted the Bill to be considered in Committee. It passed its Second Reading by 229 votes to 44. I am sure that the Government would not want there to be a perception that not providing for a money resolution might be an attempt to sabotage a private Member’s Bill and, after all, the will of the House. They would not want it to be presented as an attempt to seek political advantage.

It is widely accepted that the boundary review in its current form would be a disaster for our democracy for various reasons, the most important of which would be the cutting of the number of MPs without a reduction in the number of Ministers. That would only increase the power of the Executive and make it more difficult for Back Benchers such as my hon. Friend to challenge the Government. However, as we have seen, there is no money resolution, and that sends a dangerous message. It concerns the respect that should be accorded to Back Benchers who have had success in the private Member’s Bill ballot, and their ability to bring forward measures for us to consider.

Constitutional changes should be dealt with fairly, and everyone should have a voice. Sadly, that is not happening this morning. I urge the Government to see to the matter of a money resolution at the earliest opportunity so that the Committee can get on with the vital work that we intend to do.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries.

The Scottish National party’s perspective on the Bill, in outline, is that we support it. We should like to amend it in one or two areas and, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton has explained, it is impossible for us to do so until the Government provide a money resolution. The Government regularly talk about Parliament taking back control. The Brexiteers in the Government talk about it. An hon. Member has now secured, through the ballot, the ability to introduce the Bill; the House voted fairly unanimously for it to go into Committee; and the Government are leaving it in political purgatory by not dealing with the money resolution.

I want to make it clear that the SNP will not accept a 10% cut in the number of Scotland’s MPs. We want to amend the Bill, but as we know, we can do that only after a money resolution. I do not want to spend endless weeks in a Committee talking shop. Parliament has spoken and it is up to the Government to respect that. If they do not, I think they will find that the consequences will be quite severe.

The situation brings us back to the fundamental point that Westminster is a place of limited democracy, which is exactly what the Government’s behaviour shows. That state of affairs should end immediately. There should be a money resolution, and we should get on with the job.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)]

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I will make an extremely brief contribution to this morning’s debate, and say simply that the Boundary Commission for England began the 2018 parliamentary boundary review in 2016. It is due to report its final recommendations later this year. The Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to continue with the boundary review and it would not, therefore, be appropriate to proceed with the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton at this time by providing it with a money resolution. The Government will keep the Bill under review, but we believe that it is right that the Boundary Commission be allowed to report its recommendations before careful consideration is given to how to proceed.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I say to the hon. Gentleman: enjoy it while it lasts, man.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

T7. I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Last year, I visited Tanzania, where we heard of the desire to get young girls into education. One of the major barriers is period poverty. What are the Government doing to help to solve that issue?

[The Minister for Africa (Harriett Baldwin)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that important issue. I can assure him that there are some 5,000 schools where the Girls’ Education Challenge is supporting many, many girls in their menstrual protection.