Privilege

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of the Third Special Report of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee (HC 1115); and orders Mr Dominic Cummings to give an undertaking to the Committee, no later than 6pm on 11 June 2018, to appear before that Committee at a time on or before 20 June 2018.

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for allowing the motion to have precedence today. As we all know, the function of this House is not just to vote on and pass legislation, and to debate Bills and matters of public interest, but to hold Ministers to account. There can probably be no Parliament in the world that provides more consistent or closer scrutiny of Ministers’ work than the House of Commons, but it is the work of Select Committees to continue that scrutiny, and to question and hold Ministers to account. Indeed, plenty of Ministers have got themselves into trouble as a result of evidence they have given to Select Committees. The additional privilege of the Select Committees is not just to question members of the Government, but to call anyone whose role, position and power in society makes them a matter of interest and a subject of interest for our inquiries. The ability and power of the Committees to invite people to give evidence, and to issue a summons for them to appear to give evidence where necessary, is vital to the work of the Select Committees of this House.

Having checked with the Clerks of my Committee and with the House of Commons Library, I believe that this is the first time since 1920 that a motion of this kind has been put before the House. It has not been done lightly; in some ways, it is done with regret, because I wish we had not come to this point and that we could have reached a successful conclusion to the invitation we issued to Dominic Cummings before now.

It might be helpful to the House if I explain why we are in this position. In March, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee issued an initial invitation to Dominic Cummings to give evidence to us as part of our investigation into disinformation and fake news. I should say that we are not conducting an inquiry into the referendum. We are not seeking to invite people who worked on campaigns for the Brexit referendum to give evidence, or to scrutinise the details of those campaigns. We are conducting an inquiry, and an important part of it has been the use of data in the course of campaigning. During our investigations, other witnesses have come forward and made allegations about the work of Vote Leave; as Dominic Cummings was its communications director, he is the person most fit to speak about that. In many ways, what we are seeking to do is to extend a privilege that many Committees do extend to witnesses: when allegations are made about them or their organisation, they are given the ability to come before the Committee to refute those allegations and present alternative evidence. That is the opportunity we wish to give to Dominic Cummings, but we also believe it is the right of the Committee to have the opportunity to question him, based on evidence that we have already received.

We were unable to reach a satisfactory conclusion from the invitations we issued to Mr Cummings. As a result, we proceeded to issue a formal summons, which was passed by the Committee. Mr Cummings not only refused to accept that summons and to appear on the named day cited in it, but refused to consider alternative dates on which he might appear and to which the Committee might have agreed. He also made it clear in public remarks that he had no intention of ever coming to give evidence to this Committee and that he resented the way in which he had been treated. That left the Committee with no alternative but to seek to report this matter to the House, and to seek the support of the whole House of Commons—not just the Committee—for a motion ordering Mr Cummings to appear before us.

We felt that Mr Cummings had taken the view that appearing before a House of Commons Select Committee is not a matter for that Committee, but entirely at the discretion of the proposed witness, with it being up to him to set the time and date, even though that might be months after our inquiry has finished. Not only does that restrict our right and ability to question witnesses who have important information linked to our inquiries, but it fails to give us the opportunity to question people based on evidence that has been received and tabled against them.

Is our relationship with Mr Cummings uniquely bad? Have we treated him unkindly, whereas other Committees of the House may have treated him more favourably? He has even suggested he would be willing to come—at his discretion, and at some future point—to give evidence to another Committee.

Interestingly, Mr Cummings has given evidence to House of Commons Select Committees before. He gave evidence to the Treasury Committee in the last Parliament, and it is relevant to look at its report following the evidence he gave. That Committee took evidence from a number of parties and campaigns involved in the Brexit referendum, to analyse the arguments they were making. In chapter 7 of that Committee’s report, at paragraph 236, the Committee sets out the similar frustrations it had, even though Mr Cummings had agreed to be a witness. It stated:

“In their treatment of this Committee, neither Mr Elliott”—

also from Vote Leave—

“nor Mr Cummings, as individuals, have fulfilled Vote Leave’s commitment, made in their successful application to the Electoral Commission, to ‘create a valuable legacy for the UK’s democratic process’. Their conduct has been appalling. Mr Elliott’s and Mr Cummings’s expressed view that powers should be restored to Parliament sits ill with that conduct.”

The report goes on to state:

“It was the Committee’s preference to hear from both Vote Leave and Leave.eu in one sitting. In the end, it took three. If Mr Elliott and Mr Cummings consider that the Committee’s evidence-taking process has been protracted, uncomfortable or harmful to their cause, they have only themselves to blame.

The Committee notes that Mr Banks and Mr Tice”,

of Leave.eu,

“did not seek to attach conditions to their attendance.”

That is very similar to the experience we have had.

As a consequence of evidence we have received, we have also asked other people to give evidence to the Committee. We have asked Mr Banks and Mr Wigmore from Leave.eu to give evidence, and they have agreed to do so next week. We asked AggregateIQ, the tech company from Canada that Leave.eu used to work on its campaign, to give evidence and it has done so, even though the person giving evidence was a Canadian national who is based in Canada, and so was outside the jurisdiction of this Parliament and had no obligation to attend. Nevertheless, that person crossed an ocean to do so. Yesterday, the Committee took evidence from Alexander Nix of Cambridge Analytica, who was returning to give evidence to the Committee about links and relevant issues.

It therefore seems that we have a unique problem in requiring Dominic Cummings to come to give evidence to us. I do not believe, and neither do the members of my Committee, that that is an acceptable state of affairs. These are incredibly serious matters. There is a certain irony when someone who was the communications director of Vote Leave and ran a successful campaign to seek to restore powers to Parliament seemingly holds that institution in such contempt.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have issued his notice to Mr Cummings on the side of a bus, because he might then have seen it and come to Parliament.

[Damian Collins]

I will not go down that road or follow that bus. As I say, this is not necessarily directly about that campaign, but there is a certain irony when someone who campaigned to restore powers to Parliament is not willing to come to Parliament to give evidence before one of its Committees. This is someone who, in his campaign, was so critical—many would say rightly so—of European civil servants and bureaucrats exercising power remotely, unelected and unaccountable to any institutions. He held a very important position in this country during a very important campaign. We believe that we have important questions to put to him, but he declines to appear. He did suggest in his initial communications, after we invited him in March, that he might appear at some point later in July. He has subsequently said in his public statements that he will not appear until other investigations—those being conducted by the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner, in particular—have concluded.

There are rules that prevent Committees from calling witnesses, but those are normally restricted to matters before the courts. This matter is not sub judice. Mr Cummings has not been charged with any offence and he is not in proceedings before the courts. We sought guidance from the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner, given their ongoing inquiries, to ask whether our calling him to give evidence would in any way undermine the work of those investigations. They have said that it would not, and that they would welcome it if Mr Cummings gave evidence to the Select Committee, so there is no founded excuse there. Whatever he says, his decision not to come before us is one of his own making. It is a deliberate attempt to deny Parliament its right to question witnesses on matters of importance. That is why we have brought the motion before the House—to stand up for an important point of principle; and to support the work of the Select Committees and their inquiries across Parliament. We are seeking to maintain the right that we should have to call witnesses when we believe it is important to our work and in the public interest for them to give evidence before us.

Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) on securing this debate, and thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting time for us to debate this issue under the auspices of Standing Order No. 24. I am disappointed that it has had to come to an emergency debate, but let us be honest: it is the Government’s pig-headedness on this issue that has brought it to the fore. I say that as a member of the Public Bill Committee that is considering the boundaries Bill, which is in political purgatory.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), has shown nothing but utter contempt for the will of Parliament, which agreed unanimously to the Bill’s Second Reading. I must say to the Leader of the House that the spectacle of a Minister sitting in Committee doing her papers and saying nothing demeans her office and shows what little respect the Government have for Parliament. Far from Parliament taking back control, we see Ministers simply taking the proverbial. Rather than behaving like a humbled minority Government, Ministers are constantly riding roughshod over parliamentary democracy. They have simply not come to terms with losing their parliamentary majority. I say that humbly as someone whose party lost its majority in the Scottish Parliament in 2016.

The UK Government started by buying off the Democratic Unionist party but continued to give it Opposition Short money, and they continue with the charade of DUP Members sitting on the Opposition Benches. To my recollection, the only time the DUP has not voted with the Government was on the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, when the House unanimously passed a motion saying that the women of the 1950s generation should be looked after. The Government ignored that, and thereby continued to perpetrate an injustice against the 1950s WASPI women.

After setting up their grubby confidence and supply agreement with the DUP, the Government began to gerrymander Select Committees, after a lengthy delay in their being set up. The Procedure Committee, of which I am a member, has had to launch an inquiry into the establishment of Select Committees, because of the Government’s actions.

The Government have said that they will just abstain from or, indeed, ignore all Opposition day votes. Is it not remarkable that the Government chose to break that self-imposed convention only when it came to the motion on the release of data about the injustices perpetuated against the black faces of the Windrush generation? The first time the Government chose to take part in an Opposition day vote was to prevent that information from being published.

The real anger in this place today relates to the boundaries Bill, because Ministers want to reduce the number of MPs while they increase the payroll vote of trade envoys and Parliamentary Private Secretaries. Ministers want to reduce the number of MPs while they simultaneously stuff more people into the House of Lords. On Friday last week, when all eyes were on a royal wedding, Labour and the Tories quietly put out the news that they were ennobling another 12 peers on £300 a day. We have the grotesque sight of Corbynite Labour comrades donning the ermine while people in Glasgow are going hungry as a result of British Government austerity.

In recent months, the Government have filibustered debates on votes at 16 because—I do believe this—a clear majority of MPs in this House now supports votes at 16. The Government are too scared to put the issue to a vote. That is exactly what happened to the private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon). Now, we have the deeply worrying development of the Government withholding of money resolutions for Bills that they could not defeat on Second Reading. Rather than killing the Bill, the Government could at least give it a money resolution and allow it to be debated in Committee. That would allow Committee members to consider the Bill, clause by clause, and amend it if necessary. If at that stage the Government do not support the Bill, they can vote it down on Third Reading.

All these people in the House talk about Parliament taking back control, but I am not really seeing a huge amount of evidence. The Government are already running out of steam—so much so that one transport Bill has been carved into four separate Bills, simply to beef up the legislative programme. We have a Government who are running scared of Parliament, whether by not recalling Parliament to debate Syrian air strikes or in the form of a zombie Parliament with endless meaningless general debates, which make this place look more like a university debating society.

The reality is that Westminster is a place of limited democracy, and the British establishment has rapidly run out of steam. I say to the Leader of the House that Scotland can be governed differently and efficiently, with a fairer Parliament that has the powers of independence, and the powers to conduct the legislative process in a way that is respectful of not only its Members but the people we seek to represent. The sooner we are free from this, the better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will not give way again because time is short, much as I would like to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

The point of the constitutional differentiation—the separation of powers—is that, as long as the Government command the confidence of this House, they are the sole proposer of expenditure.

[David Linden]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will not give way again.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Of course we are sovereign, but we are sovereign in that we have the ability to dismiss the Government.

The separation of powers is very important. If we allowed the House to do all that the Government try to do, we would in effect not have an Executive. We would simply have Committees of the House trying to run the whole Government, which would be completely impractical and a novel constitutional experiment. For very good reasons, we have the Standing Orders we have. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) rightly said that we can change our Standing Orders—we can change Standing Orders Nos. 48, 49 and 50 so that money resolutions are not needed.

[David Linden]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have so little time—I apologise.

The House has decided not to change its Standing Orders because it recognises that the constitutional settlement works well. The British people give a mandate to the Government. That mandate is represented through this House. That Government then come to this House seeking to push through their agenda. The House holds them to account and supports or opposes their expenditures. We would be turning our constitutional settlement on its head if we decided that the powers of the Executive are to revert to the legislature. We are here to seek redress of grievance and to hold to account. We are not here to mimic, replace or take over the functions of the Government. Therefore, it is our role to say to Her Majesty’s Government: “You are right. You are preserving the constitution. You are following the constitutional norms.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) made a point about conventions. The one he mentioned is observed more in the breach than in the observance. It has been ignored on many occasions because it is not a rule of this House or of the constitution. That an application for expenditure lies with the Government is not only a rule of the constitution, but a cornerstone of it. Let us preserve our constitution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

This has been a wide-ranging debate. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan)—I congratulate him on introducing the debate—spoke about the reduction of the number of seats and directly about his private Member’s Bill bringing the number to 650, which has slightly muddied the waters when we look at money resolutions.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) put it better than I possibly could when he quoted the facts. There is a responsibility on the Government to put in place the checks and balances on how legislation comes forward. As has already been said, we are but weeks away from a boundary review decision being taken in this House. The Government’s position is not to dismiss out of hand the Bill of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, but to say that now is not the time to bring it forward, as we should wait until this decision has been made.

We are a very long way down the line. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act was first debated in 2011. I was elected in 2010, so it seems to have travelled through my eight years in this Parliament. Obviously, there is much doubt about whether the order will pass with the proposal to reduce the size of the House to 600 seats. It is a crying shame that, among all other things, we may still end up in a situation whereby we have such unequal seats.

Those who have done election monitoring with the OSCE will know from the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe that the maximum difference between seats should seldom exceed 10% and should never exceed 15%. Of course, we are in a situation whereby there are such differences. Let us look at two seats that I picked at random: Wirral West has an electorate of 55,995 and East Ham has an electorate of 83,827. That is a difference of 33%. This is not the time to debate the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton. Amending the legislation to review the situation every 10 years does not really sit with the point about updating the registers every five years, but I do not want to get too involved with actually debating the Bill.

[David Linden]

This is the first speech from the Conservative Benches that has actually touched on what is contained in the Bill. The whole reason that Opposition Members want the Bill to go to Committee is so that we can consider it clause by clause. At the moment, we do not have the power to do that because of the Government’s actions.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I say very gently to the hon. Gentleman: patience. Later this autumn, the House will vote on the proposal for 600 seats, as was laid down in statute when the review was pushed forward to 2018. There remains to be very significant work, which may or may not have to be done depending on the outcome of that result. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has intervened a couple of times to ask what happens if that proposal is voted down. I believe the point he is making is that it is laid down in statute that the number of seats has to be reduced to 600 so, even if it is voted down, what are we going to do?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I want to address most of my remarks to the motion before us. I will touch briefly on some of the points that have come up about the substance of the private Member’s Bill, but I will keep those remarks relatively tight, Madam Deputy Speaker, so as not to stray from the subject of the motion.

First, I want to pick up where my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) left off. He is absolutely right that the Government have the responsibility to bring forward money resolutions and to initiate the spending of money. If we think about it, there is a very good reason for that. In the case of Back Benchers bringing forward a private Member’s Bill under which they propose spending money on a popular cause, people will of course find that very welcome. Members of the public quite frequently like money being spent on good causes. However, if every private Member’s Bill spent a significant amount of money, although each individually might not have a huge impact, collectively they would do so.

That is one of the good reasons why the Government, when bringing forward Bills under their own programme, have to balance the individual measures not only in relation to the good that they do for the money that is spent, but, as my hon. Friend said, in relation to the ways and means—that is, the taxes that have to be levied to pay for those measures. It is therefore right that the Government initiate the spending of money and ask this House to assent to it. That important constitutional principle is worth maintaining.

[David Linden]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

Of course I give way to my fellow member of the Public Bill Committee.

[David Linden]

The right hon. Gentleman is speaking at length about the Government having to be careful about how they authorise spending of money and how that money is planned to be spent. Does he have the same feeling about the £1 billion that was bunged to the Democratic Unionist party after the general election?

[Mr Harper]

I have not really been speaking at length—I had only been speaking for about a minute when I generously gave way to the hon. Gentleman. The Government do have to spend public money wisely. As they said, spending money on the people—the people—of Northern Ireland, who had to suffer over many decades from the impact of terrorist violence and a divided society, is a perfectly proper spending of public money. I, for one, am very pleased that we have got to a situation where the public realm in Northern Ireland is much more peaceful and the communities are living much more closely together. Dealing with some of that legacy of the past is a very welcome and very proper thing for the Government to spend public money on.

Business of the House

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend has raised this issue with me directly. I have written to the Chairman of the Administration Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who has written back to him informing him of the decision that was taken by the Committee to change the opening hours. I absolutely agree about our great gratitude to the staff of the post office counter. I have put my right hon. Friend in contact with the Chairman of the Administration Committee, and I have urged the House authorities to make every effort to consult all Members, particularly through the regular House updates, so that they all have the opportunity to have input into any changes to important services in this place.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Not only am I a member of the Procedure Committee, which produced an excellent report on proxy voting and MPs’ baby leave, but my wife Roslyn is expecting our second child in the autumn. May I therefore ask when the Government will schedule time to debate the report? Is it likely that hon. Members on both sides of the House will have proxy voting in place after the summer?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman in advance—that is very exciting news—and I completely understand. A number of Members are expecting babies in the near future, so I will work at pace on this issue. He will appreciate that proxy voting has considerable constitutional implications and there are various factors to take into account, but I will be working on it as fast as I can.

Business of the House

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 3rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

This is, of course, an incredibly important health issue. The hon. Lady will be aware of the enormous advances in cancer care, both from a medical point of view, and with the Government’s commitment to the cancer drugs fund and to improving the speed of diagnosis and treatment of different cancers. She is highlighting a specific cancer, a subject that would lend itself very much to an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate, so that hon. Members who have similar constituency concerns can raise them.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

May we have a debate in Government time about how the Department for Work and Pensions treats people? My Shettleston constituent Ciara Steel was diagnosed with Asperger’s at 15 and a half, but now that she is over 16 she has been called back again for an assessment to check that she still has it. May we have a debate about this very serious issue?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am very sympathetic to the issue the hon. Gentleman raises. Of course, we look carefully at ensuring that checks on people who have ongoing conditions are not unnecessarily burdensome, but he raises an important specific point, which he might want to raise at Health questions.

Tributes (Speaker Martin)

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

One of the great honours that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) and I have is sharing the community of Carntyne, where many of my family come from and where many of them still live today. I had the pleasure of spending some time at the weekend with the Labour Councillor Frank McAveety, discussing some memories of Michael Martin and his days in Springburn Labour party—some of which cannot be repeated in this House, I am afraid.

I think there is something hugely inspiring about the fact that this is a guy who was a sheet metal worker in Glasgow and was raised to his position in the House of Commons. He did not come here and pull the ladder up behind him, and he made sure that apprenticeships were available. That is something that chimes with me, as a former modern apprentice.

Let me return to the subject of Carntyne and the members of my family who live there. Not all of them will have been Labour voters, or Scottish National party voters, and I still do not know how some of them voted. What is left with me, however, is the memory of my gran, who lived in Michael Martin’s constituency, saying—this was probably the greatest tribute that could be paid to someone by a wee old lady in Glasgow—“He was an awfully kind man.” I think that that is how we in the House should remember him.

[Mr Speaker]

I am exceedingly grateful to the Leader of the House, to the shadow Leader of the House, and to all Members who have spoken with warmth and sincerity of our sadly departed colleague. We remember Michael today, and we remember him, as Members have said, with affection and respect.

Business of the House

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

May we have an urgent statement from the Government urging people to get behind London marathon runners this weekend, of which I am one? Will the Leader of the House join me in praising the work of Glasgow EastEnd Community Carers and encourage generous Glaswegians to get right behind me and donate—and will she possibly donate herself?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is now known as Legs Linden—is that it? I encourage him to go for it; we are proud of him and all colleagues taking part in the London marathon, particularly for such a great cause. I encourage the hon. Gentleman’s charity in all it does to try to help people.

Business of the House

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there can always be a Division when the House does not agree on two different sides of an argument. We are now looking forward to an urgent debate on the question of Syria, the application for which will be made momentarily by the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern).

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The Leader of the House quite often tells us that Parliament is taking back control, so hon. Members can imagine my surprise when I sat in front of my TV set on Saturday and watched the Prime Minister in a wood-panelled room taking questions from journalists, rather than from Members of this House. But there is a wider point about the recall of Parliament. People have been calling regularly for the recall of Parliament over the past week, which only the Government can currently do. If the Leader of the House is serious about Parliament taking back control, will she support changes to the Standing Orders that would allow Members of the House—not just the Government—to recall Parliament and at least allow us to take back control?

[Andrea Leadsom]

As I have always made clear, I will always listen to sensible proposals about changes to procedure with recommendations from the Procedure Committee. It is right that we should take such issues seriously. The hon. Gentleman will, however, be aware of all the arguments that the Prime Minister has just made for taking action without recalling Parliament. That decision was entirely legitimate and justified.

Business of the House

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, I do—I rather like the idea. I am rather partial to a curry myself.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

May we have a statement from the Government on support for mortgage interest, which is due to change next month? My Sandyhills constituent, Eileen Flynn, has cancer and is receiving chemo at the moment. Serco is tasked with dispensing the loan, but it is not doing very well at that. Can we have a debate on this, and will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to look into Eileen’s case?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises a serious constituency case, and I am very sorry to hear about it. If he wants to write to me, I can take it up with the Department for Work and Pensions on his behalf. As for the general point about changing what are effectively donations or benefits into mortgage interest loans, he will appreciate that the important point from a policy perspective is the balance between value for taxpayers and support for those who are in need of help with their mortgage interest payments.

Business of the House

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I completely sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman says. It is vital that we provide support for people to get off drugs and out of the criminality that is often associated with them. I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate if he wants to discuss the specific issues in his constituency.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

May we have a Government statement on immigration guidance? My Mount Vernon constituent, Hisashi Kuboyama, is currently in limbo: he is trying to take his “Life in the UK” test, but the only way he can do that is if he gets his passport or biometrics card, which are being held by the Home Office. May we have a Government statement about the way the Home Office operates and how it hinders constituents?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important constituency issue, as he often does. I am happy to take it up with the Home Office on his behalf, if he would like me to do so. On his more general point about a Home Office statement, I encourage him to seek perhaps an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate to pick up the more general issue.

Business of the House

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituents on this great endeavour and wish them every success with it. The passion with which hon. Members across the House put forward ideas for reducing plastic waste shows that we as consumers as well as our constituents will be very keen to support such measures by retailers. He will be aware that the small retailers associations are now committed themselves to joining in the 5p charge for plastic bags, which will help, and I encourage all hon. Members to support their retailers who are doing so much to ensure we vote with our feet on this subject.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

May we have a debate in Government time about the practices of housing developers such as Persimmon? On Monday, I did a walkabout with Councillor Elaine Ballantyne on the Lowlands estate in the Baillieston area. Residents of that new-build estate have been promised a railway bridge, bus routes, play parks, a motorway spur; all these things were promised in the sales centre, but have not been delivered. May we therefore have a debate to hold these developers to account?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise those issues. We all have developments in our constituencies where there have been lots of promises, but then constituents are disappointed by the lack of action on them, and I am sure we all, as I do, write furious letters to developers asking them, “Where is this? Where is that? You promised the other.” So there is clearly an issue there. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to seek an Adjournment debate to deal with the specific issues in his constituency and commend him for raising this matter.