Business of the House

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry, but Opposition Members are persisting with a complete misapprehension. There is no basis for their questions; there is no need for any further statement. I have made it clear that the independence and credibility of the Public Accounts Committee is not compromised.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Given that, during the course of the Electoral Commission’s research into the excellent private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), which provides for holding a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union, the commission discovered that some people apparently do not even know that we are members of the EU, may we please have a debate on the effectiveness of our education system?

[Mr Lansley]

There are two things that I would say to my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. First, the national curriculum review has revised programmes of study to ensure that teaching is directed towards a core knowledge of citizenship, including how our society is governed. That, we hope, will help young people in the future. Secondly, and perhaps more immediately and practically, the passage of legislation that ensures that the people of this country have a referendum on our membership of the European Union will educate everybody about the character of our membership of the European Union—and, I might say, about its benefits.

Amendments to Bills (Explanatory Statements)

David Nuttall Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

There are essentially two issues before us this evening. The first is whether explanatory statements are a good thing or a bad thing. There is pretty much agreement on both sides of the argument that they are a good thing. The second and more difficult question is whether explanatory statements should be compulsory. My view is that they should not be compulsory. I think they are a good thing and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on the way that he opened this short debate. I thank, in his absence, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), who was the previous Chairman of the Committee.

Opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne made clear the view of the Committee that, having considered all the evidence, we felt that on balance a permissive regime was better than a mandatory one. I accept that the argument is very finely balanced. My own view is that, although it is easy for the Government to table explanatory notes, as they do in the case of a Bill, which is entirely right, it should not be made mandatory for a Back-Bench Member to do so. However, any Back Bencher who takes their amendment seriously and wants to persuade the House of its merits will want to table an explanatory note, but it may be that, for whatever reason, they do not wish to do so. They may prefer to inform Members of the merits of their amendment by circulating a letter to colleagues, circulating an e-mail, holding a briefing meeting or even establishing a website or tweeting about the amendment. They may have other ideas about how to do it. I do not think that they should be precluded from tabling an amendment just because they have not filed an explanatory statement.

I am conscious that it is late and Members have other engagements, but I wanted to place on the record my view on the matter. I support the substantive motion and oppose the amendment.

Business of the House

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the effect that decisions taken by one Government agency have on other Government Departments and on the public purse? Training for Travel in my constituency, which provides training for the travel industry, was days away from transferring its training providing business to another provider when the Skills Funding Agency told it that it was cancelling its training contract. The result is that that company is likely to fold, resulting in hundreds of thousands of pounds having to be paid out by other Government Departments in statutory redundancy and the like.

[Tom Brake]

The issue my hon. Friend raises is quite complex and I have a significantly complex reply that I could give him, but in the circumstances I think it would be better for me to ensure that he is written to. He might also want to raise the matter in Business, Innovation and Skills questions next week, if that is appropriate.

Business of the House

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend gives an impressive account of her constituency that not least demonstrates that this is not a recovery that is being generated in London and by financial services, but is happening across the country and is more broadly based, especially for manufacturing companies. The figures that she quotes from her constituency are very impressive and I am pleased to hear them.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

In April I asked for a statement on the case of Mr Haroon Aswat. Mr Aswat is wanted in the US as a co-conspirator of Abu Hamza, but the UK has been prevented from deporting him by the European Court of Human Rights. This week, the Court announced it will not even hear the Government’s appeal. It is no wonder that so many people think it is now time that we withdrew from the European convention. May we please now have a statement?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that we are disappointed by the panel’s decision not to refer the case to the Grand Chamber. The Home Secretary does not believe that extradition would breach Haroon Aswat’s human rights, and she will now consider what options are available in this case. I am sure the House will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this stage, but I know that the Home Secretary will keep the House informed.

Business of the House

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. I hope to be able to bring forward proposals on the basis of consensus. I welcome the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s report, which is published today. However, I do not share its view that petitions could fuel cynicism. I think it is demonstrable from the Hansard Society’s latest audit of political engagement that the public recognise that the House is debating the issues that matter to them more. The petitions process and the work of the Backbench Business Committee have been instrumental in making that happen. I note, for example, that of the 21 petitions that have reached the 100,000 signature threshold, 20 have either been debated or are scheduled for debate. We can do more and I have said that we can. I am sure we can do that not by transferring petitions to Parliament, with the Government standing back and leaving the process alone, but by engaging together so that the public can petition their Parliament while also seeking action and a response from their Government. I am sure we can work together to make that happen.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

In the light of the poll just published by the Bruges Group, which shows that 71% of those expressing a preference said that Britain would be better off being a member of the European Free Trade Association than remaining a member of the European Union, may we please have a debate on the potential benefits of becoming a member of EFTA?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that if we make progress and get the European Union (Referendum) Bill—which is currency before the House, but which the Labour party, not having voted against it on Second Reading, is now seeking to frustrate by filibustering in Committee, although I am sure Labour will not succeed in that—we will enable a debate not only in this House but in the country so that the people can make a decision. From my point of view, one of the instrumental questions in that debate will be about how the people of this country believe in free trade and see its advantages. That can be achieved, not least through a renegotiation of our membership of the European Union. As my old boss of many years ago, Lord Tebbit, said, he voted for a Common Market in 1975 and he would like to have one.

Business of the House

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot comment on the particular reasons for a decision made under the regional growth fund, but today the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), will be announcing additional allocations of resources to support the regional growth fund, which has had a positive impact and played a significant part in the creation of 1.3 million new private sector jobs since the last election. I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be better off applauding that in the first instance.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

In view of this week’s ludicrous decision by the European Court of Human Rights on whole-life sentences, may we have an urgent debate on the effect of the Court’s decisions on the confidence of the British public in our legal system, particularly our criminal legal system?

Business of the House

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I have found in business questions that hon. Members pay consistent and frequent attention to the development of skills. My colleagues have supported the doubling of apprenticeships that has taken place under this coalition Government and the introduction of traineeships to secure, as the Queen’s Speech set out, the expectation that all young people should be going into higher education, traineeships or apprenticeships, to ensure that we have appropriate skills at all levels for those going into the work force.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I suspect that when the House meets to consider private Members’ Bills for the first time this Session on Friday 5 July it will be rather fuller than it is sometimes on a Friday. Given the likely increased interest in private Members’ Bills, may we please have a statement on whether the Government will if necessary provide more time for their consideration, and clarification on whether, if the Backbench Business Committee were so to decide, the time made available to that Committee could be allocated for the consideration of private Members’ Bills?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend, who increasingly understands intimately the workings of the House, will recall that the time available for private Members’ Bills is established in Standing Orders. It might encourage him to recall that last year that time was sufficient for 10 private Members’ Bills to secure Royal Assent.

Business of the House

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

May we have a statement on the case of Mr Haroon Aswat? This man is a suspected terrorist who the British courts have decided must be deported, not to some war-torn failed state, but to the United States of America. Now the European Court of Human Rights has decided that it is apparently not safe to deport him to America. If America is not considered a safe and suitable destination for deportees, that raises the question: where on earth is considered safe and suitable?

[Mr Lansley]

The House will have heard what my hon. Friend has had to say. The Government are of course disappointed that the European Court of Human Rights found that extradition to America would breach Haroon Aswat’s human rights. That judgment does not become final for three months. My colleagues at the Home Office are considering as a matter of urgency all the legal options that are available. They include whether we request a referral of the case to the Court’s Grand Chamber. Given that, I hope the House will understand that I cannot comment further on the case at this time.

Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill (Joint Committee)

David Nuttall Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment (a), leave out the names at the end of the motion and insert

“That the membership of the Committee shall be nominated by the Committee of Selection under Standing Order No. 121 following elections within the parties using whatever democratic and transparent method they choose.”

The amendment stands in my name and those of quite a few of my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as that of at least one Opposition Member.

I must say that the opening remarks from the two Front Benches, otherwise known as the usual channels, caused me to feel that there was every good reason for us to change our present procedures. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House presented objections relating to both principle and practice. One of his points about practice was that it was important for us to be able to deal with Joint Committees very quickly. The decision to set up this Joint Committee was made in late November, but, some four months later, we still have not set it up. I detected no sense of urgency; perhaps, if I am wrong about that, my right hon. Friend will intervene.

I do not think that it was a convincing argument that if we were to elect the members of the Committee through our party groups, there would be an unacceptable delay. The delay that has taken place so far has been due to the Government, and no one else can be held responsible for it. Indeed, I have heard suggestions that the Government have always been rather keen on kicking this whole subject into the long grass, and that my amendment, which was not inspired by the Government, was just an extension of the long grass and meant that this whole issue and the appointment of the Joint Committee could be delayed further.

I do not buy into the notion that there is an issue to do with practical problems because of the question of speed, nor do I buy into the objections in principle. I am not suggesting we should change the standing orders and deal with all Joint Committees on the same basis. I am suggesting that this particular subject is unique—I think we can use that over-used word in this instance—because at present we find ourselves before an international court being told we have to change our law when this elected House of Commons has made it clear that we do not wish to change the law. This is not some run-of-the mill situation, therefore.

It is a unique situation, and it strikes me that it would have been much better for the Executive to have kept their hands well out of it. Whatever they do or do not do is going to be looked at by politicians in the rest of Europe. When the Lord Chancellor introduced the draft Bill, he conceded this was essentially a political issue as much as a legal issue. If the Government were able to say, “We put forward these three alternative proposals in a draft Bill; we then left it to the House of Commons, in its wisdom, to decide who should serve on a Joint Committee; and that Joint Committee took evidence and examined it and reached various conclusions”, the Government would be under no obligation to accept those conclusions. If a Joint Committee, however comprised, was to reach conclusions that were not in accordance with the evidence it received, that would bring the Joint Committee into disrepute.

I do not accept the principle put forward by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that it will be impossible to have a properly balanced Joint Committee if it is elected. I suggest quite the reverse: if a Committee is elected, its members are accountable to the people who elected them. If those elected Committee members do not participate in the Committee proceedings or if they reach perverse conclusions, they will find it very hard to get re-elected.

When we appoint members to Select Committees or our party groups, we will inevitably be electing mainly the enthusiasts. The Environmental Audit Committee has a lot more enthusiasts for what I would call “greenery” and an acceptance of climate change science than it has members who disagree with that, although I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) has latterly joined the Committee to try to introduce some balance.

Perhaps the example of that Committee gives the answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. If Members feel a Committee is becoming too homogenous and is not being objective in its assessments of the evidence before it, the remedy lies in the Members of this House choosing an alternative member of the Committee to introduce balance. I do not believe only the usual channels can introduce balance into this Committee; quite the reverse, in fact.

On the issue of whether some Members proposed to serve on the Committee have a prior view, we know that some of them do, as that was expressed in the vote in the House on this subject. Other Members put forward a motion to the Committee that decides on the allocation of time for Back-Bench business; they put their heads above the parapet, and we know whether or not they are serving on that Committee. The same point applies in respect of the matters before us today.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House says, not totally tongue-in-cheek, that it is open to us, as the House, to put forward amendments for alternatives. I am not criticising any Members of this Committee. My amendment is not designed to do that; it is designed to ensure that the decision on the membership of the Committee is made by the individual Back-Bench groups of the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition. Those groups can then elect the people they would like to see on the Joint Committee. It seems to me that that system would work perfectly well and would distance the Government effectively from any of the Committee’s work.

As the chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I can say that there is quite a lot of suspicion among the other 46 member countries that the UK Government are trying to ensure that nothing happens very quickly as they realise that the UK Parliament is totally at odds with the judges in the European Court of Human Rights on this issue. If the Lord Chancellor could have said to his counterparts in other countries that he had nothing to do with who was on the Committee, that the usual channels were not involved, that the Government left it to the Members of the House of Commons to choose their own Committee members and that the Government did not have to accept their findings but could merely see what they think, he would have had a better alibi. People looking in from outside might say that the motion is a fix by the usual channels.

I understand that the Select Committee on Justice undertook an informal bidding process, making representations to the effect that it wanted one of its number to serve on the Joint Committee. The Justice Committee is not the lead Select Committee on this matter—that is the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, of which I happen to be a member. The Justice Committee put forward a number of names that were considered by the usual channels, and one of those names was chosen and is among those in the motion.

That seems to me to be a totally non-transparent way of dealing with such issues and it is not appropriate that we should set a precedent whereby a Select Committee can start to lobby the Government covertly to have one of its members as a member of a Joint Committee when that Select Committee is not the lead Committee. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has taken evidence on this subject from the Deputy Prime Minister and others, and if we are to give somebody from a Select Committee a place, we have not necessary chosen the right one.

My point is that the process would be much better dealt with without the Government’s involvement and that is why I hope that Members will feel able to support my amendment—not necessarily by voting for it tonight, but by asking their Whips and colleagues whether the natural development of the Wright Committee reforms would be to introduce a further reform in this regard. That would mean that if we choose to set up a Joint Committee in the future we can do so quickly, knowing what the rules are and demonstrating that we are giving power to the Back Benches on such important issues. That is even more the case with pre-legislative scrutiny.

After the Government’s rough experience of setting up a pre-legislative scrutiny Committee on the reform of the other place, I should have thought that they might say that they would do better to draw their neck in and leave it to Members to choose the members of such Committees. They would then be free to decide whether to accept the recommendations, taking into account the extent to which those Members have responded positively or otherwise to the evidence put before them.

I have pleasure in moving the amendment and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity to speak about this important subject before we go on to other business before the House this evening.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I do not intend to delay the House for long, because I appreciate that there is other business that we need to get on to, but I wish to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and signed by me and several other hon. Members.

It seems reasonable to me that the membership of the Joint Committee, in so far as it is drawn from this House, should reflect the views of this House and, therefore, the views of the wider public, which is perhaps more important. As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) mentioned in her intervention, none of the Committee members chosen by the Committee of Selection is from Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales; they are drawn exclusively from England.

Fortunately, thanks to the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, we know exactly what this House’s view is on the matter, because on 10 February 2011 it held a debate on the subject. After a full and lengthy debate that lasted most of the day, 256 right hon. and hon. Members took part in the Division, with 234 voting in favour of maintaining the status quo and 22 voting in favour of changing it. Therefore, over 91% of the Members who voted supported the status quo, which I think very much represents the view across the country. It is therefore fair and reasonable that the country would expect any Committee of this House to reflect those views.

[Lady Hermon]

Would the hon. Gentleman be so kind as to put on the record whether the Government abstained or voted in that key vote last February?

[Mr Nuttall]

As far as I am aware—I do not have the voting record in front of me—no members of the Government took part in the Division. Either deliberately or by accident, the Government abstained; it was predominantly Back-Bench Members who took part. That is noteworthy, because it removed more than 100 Members from the vote, so I submit that the figure of 256 is probably relatively representative of the views of the House as a whole. Even if a larger number of Members had taken part, the result would still have reflected the 91.4% against 8.6%.

I want to make it absolutely clear for the record that I have no objection in principle to any of the Members being put forward by the Committee of Selection. Indeed, I have spoken with them privately and expressed my view that that is not why I support the amendment. Rather, what we know is that of the six Members who have been put forward through the Committee of Selection’s convoluted procedure—it is certainly not transparent—only two took part in the Division on 10 February 2011. One voted in favour of the status quo and not giving prisoners the right to vote and the other, who was acting as Teller—I think that is correct—voted in favour of changing the status quo.

We do not know what the views of the other four were, and that is where there is a problem. If the Government wanted balance on the Committee, that may not occur because the other four are all in favour of the argument or—I know not—are all against, in which case the Committee certainly would not be representative of the views of this House. Either way, there is a problem with the proposal before us. If it were indeed the Government’s view that there should be balance, then perhaps the logic of that argument would be for the six members of the Committee to have been drawn exclusively from those who showed an interest on that occasion back on 10 February 2011, and equally from those who voted for the motion and those who voted against it. Clearly, however, that is not what has happened.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) said, this is a unique situation. There are grounds for changing what has happened in the past. In response to the point that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made a few moments ago, the fact that not only the Chairman but other members of the Procedure Committee have signed and supported the amendment shows that there is a feeling within that Committee that it is sensible and demonstrates the right way forward. On that basis, I am pleased to support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Sittings of the House (22 March)

David Nuttall Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hollobone]

The hon. Gentleman mentions two parliamentary colleagues whom we all hold in extremely high esteem. He is quite right that they have been parliamentary champions in many respects. I have to say, however, that I am rather cross with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg)this evening, as he made an excellent speech but drew the wrong conclusions from his remarks.

If my constituents—and, I suspect, those of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty)—ever tune in to watch Parliament, they do so on two occasions: on a Wednesday at 12 o’clock to watch Prime Minister’s questions or to watch the Budget. The Opposition amendment basically conflates those two pivotal parliamentary events in the parliamentary year. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and I, in ploughing our lonely furrow and arguing that the House should rise on a Wednesday in the last Parliament, perhaps attempted the impossible in looking at the issue through the prism not of party politics but of Back-Bench opinion without any political colour applied to it. Although I welcome the amendment from Her Majesty’s official Opposition, I have to say that they have some cheek when it comes to the House rising on a Tuesday, as they were as guilty when they were in charge as are the present Government now. I would welcome an intervention by the official Opposition Front-Bench team to give us a commitment that if they ever return to office, they will pledge that the House will only ever rise on a Wednesday. I notice no stirrings on the Opposition Front Bench, which is hugely disappointing.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and I were, heaven forfend, ever to be in charge of these things, one of our first priorities would be—

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend think that once the House business committee is introduced, there may well be an opportunity for him to be in charge of these matters?

[Mr Hollobone]

Indeed. I do not want to be ruled out of order for being too hypothetical, but if there were a House business committee, I would hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) would be a member of it, if not its Chair; and if my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and I were in government, one of our first priorities would be to set up that committee and for my hon. Friend to be ennobled as its Chair. If we were in charge of these matters, we would put in place the necessary regulations for the House to rise always on a Wednesday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

I certainly feel the Government should give some ground on this issue, just out of generosity to the Members I have mentioned in the course of my remarks, because those Bills would be extremely worthy legislation, and given that the parliamentary timetable is not exactly chock-a-block at present, I think there is some room for manoeuvre for the Leader of the House.

My main contention, however, is that Wednesday is, rightly or wrongly, in many respects the most important day of the parliamentary week. I think it is a great shame that following the Budget—one of the pivotal events of the parliamentary year—the House and the country are to be denied the opportunity of holding the Prime Minister to account for the contents of that Budget a week after it has been delivered. Our parliamentary democracy is eroded as a result. I will support the Opposition amendment tonight, and I hope the Leader of the House takes my remarks in the spirit in which they are offered.

[Mr Nuttall]

I take a slightly different view. Considering what has happened with past Budgets, does my hon. Friend agree that a passage of four weeks before the Prime Minister is questioned on the Budget would give Members an opportunity to digest all the various opinions about that Budget and perhaps therefore ask more incisive questions than would be possible if they asked them immediately afterwards?

[Mr Hollobone]

As always, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. But those Members who spend that month going over the Budget papers in the way he suggests will have the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister about them at the first Prime Minister’s questions when the House returns, but there will be other Members who will want rather swifter answers on behalf of their constituents, within a week of the Budget. The timetable currently proposed by the Leader of the House denies them that opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

No, that is an outrageous slur; I just put it down to incompetence. On a more serious note, the abuse from the Whips has already started, and I am still in the Chamber, so when we get out of the Chamber there will be even more. That is a bad thing for this House.

Going to the heart of the matter, the real problem is that Prime Minister’s questions has gone down to one day a week on the Wednesday. If it were still two days a week on the Tuesday and the Thursday, it would not really matter what day the House rose on, because there would be an opportunity to scrutinise the Prime Minister close to the rising of the House.

There is a principle involved that is not just to do with this motion. I gently say to the shadow Leader of the House that she is being a little opportunist in making a political point rather than taking the politics out of it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) wanted to do. There is a strong argument for the House not rising for a recess on a Monday or a Tuesday other than in very exceptional cases. It should rise on a Wednesday or a Thursday, and then we would get rid of all these problems.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend said that it would not make any difference if there were Prime Minister’s questions on a Tuesday and a Thursday, but in fact it would make a difference in this case. If there were Prime Minister’s questions on the Tuesday, the Budget would follow immediately afterwards. If the House then rose on the Thursday, that would mean that it rose on Maundy Thursday. As my hon. Friend shares my views about the Christian religion, I am sure he agrees that that would not be a sensible idea.

[Mr Bone]

I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but the timing of the Budget is entirely at the discretion of the Executive. They have chosen to have it so late and that has caused all these problems.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) made an absolutely first-class speech, as always, but drew completely the wrong conclusions.