Business of the House

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am so sorry to steal the hon. Lady’s thunder. I thought she might be pleased with that news, but she has another challenge for me. As I have said, and as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), said: at the very latest by 21 January.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

May we have a debate on Government Department response times? The Child Maintenance Service has been making me wait for an inordinate length of time in relation to the case of my Carmyle constituent, Jamie Cameron. The CMS overestimated his salary by £100,000 and I cannot deal with his case until it responds. When can we have a statement from the Government about the woeful state of the CMS?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am obviously not familiar with the specifics of the case the hon. Gentleman mentions. I suggest he seeks an Adjournment debate or asks a parliamentary question of Ministers to try to get information on his particular case.

Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am very grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, Mr Speaker. So far I think I am the newest Member to do so, so this is clearly the first time that I have witnessed a privilege motion coming before the House.

I want to reflect on how we have come to this position. I had to nip out for five or six minutes to attend a Delegated Legislation Committee upstairs this afternoon. Before that Committee began, Government Members were talking about the importance of the Humble Address and how the House must adhere to it. I had been reflecting on the fact that before that, I had been down here, and we find ourselves in the very sorry circumstances of our debating a privilege motion before the House. This is somewhat unprecedented for the vast majority of Members.

Since I entered the House in 2017, time after time, we have seen the Government ride roughshod over this Parliament. This is a Parliament that is meant to be taking back control, but it has been denied money resolutions, it is not adhering to Opposition day votes and it is not adhering to a binding motion of the House calling for the release of this legal advice. It might be uncomfortable for the Government to release that legal advice, but the reality is that the House has voted for that. Members claim regularly that Brexit is an opportunity for us to take back control. Well, I am afraid that Government Members cannot have their cake and eat it. If they are serious about the House taking back control and about adhering to the will of the House that was outlined in November when the original motion was passed, they should vote for the motion in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer).

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Publishing the legal advice on the Brexit Bill would be a “dangerous precedent”. Those are not my words, but the words of Mike Russell, MSP, who back in March was the Scottish National party’s Brexit Minister. He was talking about the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill. He refused to publish the legal advice because, he said, it would set a “dangerous precedent”.

[David Linden]

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether there was a motion in the Scottish Parliament advising Mike Russell that he had to do that?

[David T. C. Davies]

I am sorry; I did not quite catch that.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman was clearly too busy trying to plan how long he will speak this afternoon. Can he tell me, for the record, whether a motion was passed in the Scottish Parliament asking Mike Russell to do that?

[David T. C. Davies]

I am not an expert on the Scottish Parliament—[Laughter]—but I do know that the Scottish National party Minister was refusing to publish that advice. The hon. Gentleman laughs, but it was on the front page of The Scotsman back in March. Mike Russell refused to publish it because he said it was a dangerous precedent.

The fact of the matter is that Governments across the United Kingdom—Governments of all political parties, the SNP included—know that they must have the right to be able to obtain legal advice without that advice being published. Not just Governments but local authorities—even, dare I say, the House of Commons authorities—can get hold of legal advice, and it is very important that that advice remains confidential. If it does not, the danger is that at best it will become a political football, kicked around by members of all parties using the information to try to buttress the arguments that they wish to present, and at worst it will become a stick which can be used to beat our own Government by the Governments of other nations who may, during complex negotiations, have aims that differ very much from our own.

What the Government have been doing is not defending the information about Brexit, because we already know what the problem is. I am an ardent Brexiteer. I already knew that the problem would be over the backstop. None of the information that has come out since then—none of the information that was leaked, rather unhelpfully, over the weekend—has changed anything. We already knew that the problem was the backstop, and we will no doubt spend more than a few minutes debating that over the next couple of days. If anything, however, I have been reassured by what I have seen—reassured that the Government have at least been behaving honourably, because we have not learned a single thing from the leaks that came out over the weekend that we did not already know about. There has been no smoking gun, and no hidden information.

The principle is what the Government have been defending: the important principle that the information that they access remains confidential. It is not only SNP Members who are being inconsistent; so are Labour Members. They already have a Labour Government in Wales, and that Labour Government are not known for their approach to openness. I can certainly tell Opposition Members that I have submitted numerous freedom of information requests to the Welsh Labour Government that have not been properly dealt with, and I am pretty certain that they are not going to start publishing the information that they receive from their legal officers. Let me also say to my Liberal Democrat friends that there is not just a Labour Government in Cardiff; there is a Liberal Democrat Education Minister. Wonderful though she is, will she start publishing the information that she gets from her law officers when she decides to close down school sixth forms, as has happened in my own constituency? I would like to think that she might, but I doubt it very much, and I doubt whether the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) will be asking her to do so.

What I detect here is a whiff of inconsistency from Members opposite—a whiff of inconsistency from those who for years have accepted that Governments and public authorities have the right to independent, impartial, confidential legal advice, and who know perfectly well that if that advice is going to be offered up in public it will no longer be sought.

This is a not an attempt to get openness; this is yet another attempt to subvert the will of the people, who in a referendum in 2016 clearly voted to leave the EU, and that is why I will be supporting the Government amendment tonight.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I must be one of the few non-lawyers to contribute to this debate. However, I am a passionate believer that the conventions of how we as a Government conduct the business of government should be respected, and that these conventions we abide by are there for a reason. We must protect the integrity of the Law Officers in advising the Government. The ramifications of not doing so—the ramifications of publishing legal advice given to a Government—could be hugely damaging. I wonder whether when the other side are in government—as they surely will be one day—they will be as keen as they ask us to be to publish confidential legal advice.

Members are unlucky today, because I was considering withdrawing from this debate, but I did not feel that I could let the comments of the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) pass without remarking on the near-parody of the position SNP Members find themselves in in attaching their names to this motion. Let me take the House back to October 2012 when the then First Minister Alex Salmond was asked by Members of the Scottish Parliament to confirm whether he had sought legal advice over whether Scotland would continue to be a member of the European Union if it was to gain independence in 2014. Notwithstanding the fact that it transpired that thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money was spent to cover up the fact that no legal advice was actually sought, in answer to a question on this very topic to the BBC’s Andrew Neil, the former First Minister said:

“You know I can't give you the legal advice, or reveal the legal advice of law officers.”

[David Linden]

I hold the hon. Gentleman in very high regard, but he is missing the point here. There is a difference between being questioned by the BBC about legal advice and Parliament having a binding vote, which is why a contempt motion has been brought before the House today.

[Andrew Bowie]

I fully respect the hon. Gentleman as well, as he knows, but I put it back to him that the Scottish Government have through their actions shown themselves to be disrespectful of the Scottish Parliament on binding motions, for example on primary 1 testing or the named persons legislation or fracking, when the Scottish Government abstained, or possibly the offensive behaviour at football Act, all of which they decided were advisory motions that the Government did not have to abide by.

Business of the House

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 15th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend will be aware that there will be, as the Prime Minister said earlier, plenty of time for discussion and consideration of exactly what the deal looks like and of the advice given around it, and indeed for consideration of amendments that hon. Members want to bring forward. Clearly, once the deal with the EU has been agreed, Parliament will have a vote on the withdrawal agreement and the terms of our future partnership. Parliament will have the choice to accept or reject the deal. Of course if Parliament accepts the deal, we will introduce the EU withdrawal agreement Bill, which will implement it in domestic legislation, and if Parliament chooses to reject the deal, the Government will be unable to ratify the agreement. But to be clear, of course the motion will be amendable.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

On Saturday, my daughter Jessica, will be two months old and Saturday is also World Prematurity Day. My daughter was born very premature. At the moment, under UK law, fathers have to take their paternity leave within 56 days, but that is very difficult to do when their child is in a neonatal intensive care unit. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate so we can look at this issue and change the law for good?

[Andrea Leadsom]

First, may I say that Jessica is gorgeous? We all saw the tweets that the hon. Gentleman put out and congratulate him again; we are so pleased she is making good progress—that is great to hear. He raises an important point and I encourage him to raise it directly with Health Ministers on 27 November. I am sure they will be keen to support him.

Business of the House

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I have taken up this issue with Home Office colleagues. I believe that I asked the hon. Lady to write to me if she had a specific question that she wanted me to raise with them. It is Home Office questions on 29 October, so I encourage her to raise the issue directly with the Department then.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Can we have Government statement about payday lending and the role of the Financial Conduct Authority? A recent BBC piece told the story of Danny Cheetham, whose initial £100 loan spiralled to a debt of £19,000. Many constituents have written to me with concerns about this issue, so please can we have a statement from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury about the role of the FCA, which appears to be asleep at the wheel?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a cap was put on payday lending interest rates, although I would sympathise with him if he were to say that it is still too high; this is a genuine problem. The Government has done as much as possible to facilitate new entrants to the lending market. The Budget debate will be a good opportunity to raise this matter directly with Ministers, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to do so.

Proxy Voting

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

A Member of Parliament recently described to me how the phone rang in the labour ward when his wife was in labour a number of years ago, and it was not another lady or her husband seeking to come on to the ward, but the Government Whips Office asking how long he thought he would be. In this story as he recounted it—the Member of Parliament confessed that his memory of the event was somewhat hazy—the Whips Office rang a number of times in the course of the night, and I do not think the calls were pastoral checks on his wife’s progress. As the evening went on, he eventually ended up with what he described as “two hours of paternity leave”, before being summoned back for a “very important Bill Committee.” It will surprise no one to know that, according to his recollection, there was subsequently no vote in that Committee. We have come a long way since then, even in the Whips Office, although the sad fact is that if that story were repeated now, the Whips would nag Members on a mobile phone rather than the hospital phone—so perhaps we have not come that far.

Within the context of total support for everything that many Members have said about the necessity of introducing this specific change, I would like to raise some points. As has been said, although on the one hand we should introduce this measure as quickly as possible, we should also implement any changes in such a way that we do not need to revisit them. That is why I support a trial period, but we should not start to implement anything before we have a decent idea that it might work.

I am pleased that on the specific issue of parental leave we are talking about proxy voting rather than electronic voting or anything else. The process of an individual walking through the Lobby—or being nodded through in small number of cases—is something that we should fight to preserve at all costs. I came to this place expecting to think that we should abolish the voting Lobbies, have electronic voting and ditch the adversarial nature of the Chamber, but although we often produce far more heat than light, the nature of the physical process of walking through a Division Lobby with our peers is profoundly valuable. It also gives Members valuable time to lobby Ministers and try to get something done.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

rose—

[Matt Warman]

I was about to say that that is a reason for SNP Members to join us in the Government Lobby. I appreciate that Opposition Members walk through a different Lobby so they do not have that advantage, but even then the physical process of being together in the same room is a valuable opportunity to nobble people, whether they are in government or not—I know that Opposition Members have taken that opportunity on a number of occasions. It is unreasonable to suggest that simply moving to digital voting would solve more problems than it would create.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I want to start by paying tribute to the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), not only for the work that she has done on this but for the point that she made earlier about the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). One of the things I have been reflecting on this afternoon is the idea that because we are officeholders and Members of Parliament, we are different. Given what we saw yesterday, I think that members of the general public sometimes forget that although we are officeholders and Members of Parliament, we are also human beings. Far too often, that is lost from folks’ consciousness.

I rise to speak partly to back up some of what the hon. Member for Bury North (James Frith) said, and I also want to speak as a father. I had no intention of being here today. I have mentioned before in the House that I am an expectant father. My wife and I are expecting our second child, and her official due date is 21 October. However, this has been a complex pregnancy, as was the case with our now three-year-old son, and my wife has now been taken in for a C-section the day after tomorrow. So for me, proxy voting is incredibly personal. I know, now that we have been given the business of the House, that the Agriculture Bill will have its Second Reading in the first week back after the recess, but I will not be here to vote on that Bill.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend—and he is a friend—the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who is also my Chief Whip. I went to him at the beginning of this week and said to him, “Patrick, I won’t be able to be here in the first week back after the recess.” It will not be a simple case of my daughter being born and coming out of hospital. When my son was born, he ended up in intensive care for two weeks, followed by a week in the special care baby unit. Men normally get two weeks’ paternity leave, and on occasion such as those, they have to go straight back to work before their child has even come home, so I am grateful to my colleague for allowing me to be slipped that week.

I have sat through this afternoon’s debate feeling incredibly frustrated by the fact that this issue has been kicked into the long grass time after time. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) touched very nicely on the question of English votes for English laws. As a Scottish nationalist politician, I have views on that subject, but what we noticed when English votes for English laws were introduced was that the Government had no problem at all bringing forward the necessary changes to Standing Orders. We did not have to have countless debates on the general principles involved. When the Government decided that they wanted English votes for English laws, they came up with the changes to Standing Orders and put the measures in place. There were a hell of a lot of unintended consequences, but it was good enough for the Government to bring in those changes at that point, and I believe that it is good enough for them to bring forward proxy voting now.

Perhaps the reason that I am annoyed and a bit emotional today is that proxy voting will not help me on this occasion. There will be no proxy voting in place when I miss that first week back, and I will not be here to vote on the Agriculture Bill or on any other matters that come up that week. I say to the Leader of the House that there is consensus among Members of Parliament on this issue. There was consensus on 1 February this year. I sat in that debate knowing that we were expecting a baby later in the year, and I went home and told my wife that it looked as though we were going to get proxy voting. I knew fine well that my child would probably be in intensive care for two or three weeks. The reality is that if we had gone full term to 21 October, Parliament would have been back in session and I would have missed countless weeks here. At the time, I said to her, “It’s okay, we will have proxy voting.” It is sheer luck that we will be in recess for the vast majority of the time that I need to be away from here. My message to the Leader of the House today is crystal clear. There is a clear consensus in the House today: get on with it.

Business of the House

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman seeks a very specific answer to an issue around rail investment, but what I can say to him is that the UK Government really have focused on investing in Wales. They have abolished tolls on the River Severn; introduced city and growth deals, such as the Swansea Bay city deal; introduced fairer funding for Wales—[Interruption.] I totally understand, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are focused on improving jobs and growth right across Wales. That is our absolute focus.

With regard to the rail electrification, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear at the time that, rather than going through the enormous upheaval of rail electrification, we are investing in a new fleet of inter-city express trains that will significantly enhance the travel experience without the need for the disruption that would be caused by the electrification programme.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Can we have a debate in Government time on consumer rights? My Sandyhills constituent, John Morgan, lost his deposit on a sofa bought through House of Fraser just before it went into financial difficulties. He lost that money because it had not been passed on to the manufacturer. May we have a debate on consumer rights so that other Members can raise similar cases and we can get justice for our constituents?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I totally understand that it is incredibly frustrating for anyone when they have bought something in good faith but are then unable to get a refund because it was faulty or whatever. The hon. Gentleman might like to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can raise this specific issue on behalf of his constituent.

European Statutory Instruments Committee

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

Little did I realise that the motion on the European Statutory Instruments Committee would attract so much attention at this time of the evening. It was surely the main reason why we all trundled down to attend Parliament today.

I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, and as a member of the Procedure Committee, I can say that it was a great pleasure for me to take evidence from her, the shadow Leader of the House and many representatives from different parties. The proposal that the Procedure Committee came up with was extremely laudable, and I believe that it was welcomed as a cross-party amendment to the repeal Bill in Committee.

However, I am afraid that I must object to amendment (a), because it is politically correct codswallop. I am concerned about setting a precedent for quotas. As a Conservative, I have always opposed quotas. As a gay man, I ask why there is no mention of representation of LGBT Members. Why do Scottish National party Members not object to the lack of a requirement for regional representation? Why, dare I ask, is there no mention of the age profiles of Members? I do not see how somebody’s gender improves their ability to scrutinise secondary legislation. Although it is right that everybody should be encouraged, the amendment states

“at least seven shall be women”.

Why cannot there be a Committee that consists entirely of women? What would be wrong with that, if that was the will of the House and those Members wished to put themselves forward?

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Wragg]

Only because the hon. Gentleman was on the Procedure Committee.

[David Linden]

Are there any past examples of a Committee of the House of which all the members were men?

[Mr Wragg]

There may well be—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may be better furnished with the facts at this late hour than I am. As a member of the Education Committee, I am in the minority in many ways, because its membership is seven women and four men. Indeed, the Committee that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) chairs consists of eight women and three men.

Business of the House

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his assiduous efforts to ensure better banking that is fair to consumers and businesses—he has really fought hard on this topic—and I would certainly support the idea of a debate in this place. He might want to seek a Back-Bench debate, given that the issue is of great interest right across the House and that many Members have constituency cases of their own.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

May we have a debate in Government time about how long it takes Ministers to respond to letters? I wrote to the Home Office about my Easterhouse constituent, Mr Kasharfeh, eight months ago, and I have only just had a holding reply. Does the Leader of the House think that is really good enough?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sorry to hear about that delay. I am sure there is a reason for it. As he will know, there are standard turnaround times for Departments to respond to correspondence, but occasionally letters do go astray. We have Home Office questions on 16 July, but if he wants to write to me, I can chase it up for him.

Points of Order

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Many Members have mentioned the bumps and the time pressure. There will also be expectant fathers, so to speak, who are feeling the time pressure.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On that very theme, this is a picture of my daughter who will be born in the autumn, so I am particularly keen to see this measure put in place as soon as possible.

On a serious point, where is the Leader of the House? The Government have just unilaterally changed the business of the House this afternoon. I am the acting Whip for the Scottish National party today, and I found out by a rumour that this had happened. It is a gross discourtesy to the House, and the Leader of the House should have come to the Dispatch Box and made an announcement.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not expecting a baby any time soon, but I have great sympathy for my colleagues on both sides of the House and fathers who are expecting. Would it be helpful to reassure colleagues that this House stands firmly behind expectant mothers and mothers who take leave from the House that they are not in dereliction of their duty and that no female Member should be traduced in this way? Would it also be helpful to confirm that the pairing system is alive and well and working, so that even if this excellent recommendation is not passed into the Standing Orders, people who are expecting babies or have to take maternity or paternity leave will be paired by our Whips Offices?

Business of the House

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I cannot quite imagine the prospect of you, Mr Speaker, requiring hon. Members to stand on one leg, perhaps, or in other yoga positions in the Chamber in response to poor behaviour, but it would be quite amusing and I am sure the public would find it highly entertaining. My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. I know that many people find yoga incredibly relaxing and it is of great benefit to their general wellbeing. He may well want to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can promote it to Ministers.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

My Easterhouse constituent, Mr Tabogo, is currently in an immigration detention centre near Heathrow airport, with the idea of moving him back to Cameroon where he will face a military court. As a result of his being removed from Scotland, he does not have access to legal aid—a similar position to people in Northern Ireland. May we have a statement in Government time about this absolutely ridiculous situation?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman is raising, as he often does, a concerning constituency matter. I encourage him to take it up directly with Ministers, who seek to ensure that our immigration system is fair to those who want to come here and contribute to this country but is robust in dealing with those who are here illegally. If he wants me to take it up on his behalf, could he please write to me after business questions?