Business of the House

George Howarth Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and the work he has been doing campaigning on behalf of pensioners more broadly and his work on the triple lock, as well as with respect to particular cohorts of individuals, both his constituents and more widely. The ombudsman’s investigation is ongoing, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on that, but I understand that it issued a statement on the timeline and the reasons for the delay. I will certainly make sure that it has heard what my hon. Friend has said today.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I note that the Leader of the House failed to respond to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) about the Government’s Rwanda policy. The right hon. Lady will be aware of reports that if, as seems likely, the Government are unable to find a legal way to take that policy forward, they are considering using the Falkland Islands as an alternative. Will she take this opportunity to either confirm or deny that the Falkland Islands is a possible alternative to Rwanda?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am very happy to knock that one on the head. It is not an alternative to Rwanda, and nor are various other places that have been mentioned, including the Orkney Islands. That would be definitely out, given the reliability of Scottish National party ferry services.

Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I rise to support the recommendations in the fifth report of the Privileges Committee on the conduct of Boris Johnson. They should be accepted in full, and they should be supported by all Members of this House who wish to uphold our democratic institutions and our system of parliamentary democracy itself. That is especially the case after the former Prime Minister’s disgraceful reaction to the draft report last weekend.

The Committee’s conclusions are very clearcut and they are unanimous. The Committee has concluded that the most senior member of the Government, a sitting Prime Minister, engaged in very serious contempt and wrongdoing, which is worthy of the very long suspension that was to be recommended as punishment. He leaves the House in disgrace, spewing Trump-like conspiracy theories and attacking the integrity of the parliamentary system he has done so much to bring into disrepute.

This report is not about so-called partygate, although the gravest civilian crisis since the second world war, which took 230,000 lives, is the sombre backdrop against which the Prime Minister’s wrongdoing took place; it is about Parliament’s requirement that Government Ministers tell the truth, so that they can be held to account for their actions. Parliamentary accountability lies at the heart of our democratic system.

Serious matters concerning Boris Johnson’s lack of ability to tell the truth were referred to the Committee for investigation by a unanimous decision of the whole House on 21 April 2022. That was when Boris Johnson was still the Prime Minister, and it is therefore safe to assume that he consented to this course of action. The Committee was then constituted—as is customary, as we have heard—with a Government majority, but chaired by an Opposition Member. In this case, it was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who is a distinguished and long-serving Member of this House. She is also a lawyer. There were no objections at that stage to any Member who was asked to serve on the Committee for the purpose of investigation. Had there been such an objection, the Government could have used their majority to change the personnel who had been asked to conduct the inquiry. They did not, and the membership of the Committee was agreed unanimously by the House.

Fourteen months of painstaking and forensic work later, the Committee has produced its excoriating verdict in the report we are debating today. It is a damning verdict, and one that I believe the whole House must not only note, but vote to accept. I will comment on the findings of the report later, but I first wish to make a few further observations about the importance of today’s proceedings.

Boris Johnson and his acolytes have engaged in a systematic attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Committee and its work for their own purposes. They claim it is unfair and biased against the former Prime Minister. They claim that the individuals are biased and that the procedure is biased, but anyone who has read the report and seen the painstaking way in which the Committee went about its investigation will know that this is false. As the Committee itself points out, comparisons between the inquisitorial nature of the Committee’s proceedings and those of an adversarial court of law are “fallacious”.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the way my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) dealt with the allegations against her of bias, as she explained earlier, and the reaction of Boris Johnson are in sharp contrast? Does that not just tell us everything we need to know about this report and the consequences of it?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. I also think we must commend the honour and steadfastness of all members of the Committee of Privileges who have been put under enormous pressure during this process. The House of Commons has its own rules and regulations, which it must police itself as the courts rightly have no jurisdiction over those. As the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) explained, the courts do not have jurisdiction over this Parliament, and that is to protect Parliament, and by extension our democracy, from being subverted or undermined by outside pressure from the powerful. To portray that inquisitorial procedure as inherently unfair is simply not credible.

Business of the House

George Howarth Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for his witty question. I shall certainly raise it with the relevant Department.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that an important principle of our constitutional arrangements is that of the mandate. Given that the Government’s mandate, derived from the last general election manifesto, has now been either abandoned or exhausted, is it not time that we had a general election?

[Penny Mordaunt]

When it would have been in this country’s interest to have a general election, when this Parliament was in paralysis due to Brexit before the 2019 general election, the hon. Gentleman’s party blocked it. I am not going to take any lessons from him on that front. We stood on a manifesto that we are delivering, but that work is not yet done, and we will continue to deliver the manifesto that gave us this sizeable majority.

Business of the House

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us some indication of whether he intends to lay a programme motion tomorrow? If he does, can he give us some indication as to what the terms of that motion will be?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The programme motion is already in the Table Office.

Sittings of the House (29 March)

George Howarth Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady has made her own points with conviction, but it is not a matter for the Chair.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In view of the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) a few moments ago and either the Attorney General’s unwillingness or inability to respond to him, would it be in order for my right hon. Friend or somebody else to put in an urgent question to be answered tonight so that we can get a proper answer to what are very important questions?

[Mr Speaker]

I think that matter is governed by Standing Orders, so the short answer to the right hon. Gentleman is no, that is not possible. It is perfectly possible for there to be urgent questions tomorrow. He may say that that is too late and that it does not fit with his timetable, but I am simply making the point that there is no bar to urgent questions on a Friday. Typically, if there are such, they would come on at 11 o’clock—there were three, in fact, last Friday, if memory serves me correctly—but obviously, urgent questions interrupt a debate without changing the time of the end of the debate. That is the factual position. The opportunity is there, but there is a time consequence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

In a point of order a few moments ago, Mr Speaker, I asked you whether there was any mechanism by way of an urgent question that we could get a response from the Attorney General to the point made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). It is important that we get an answer before we conclude this evening’s proceedings, because how we vote tomorrow could, as my right hon. Friend said, have an effect on any further delay that the European Commission might consider. Can we ask the Attorney General to make a statement on that during the course of this debate?

[Mr Speaker]

In so far as it is germane to the right hon. Gentleman’s view as to whether the sittings motion should pass, it is a reasonable point for him to raise. I can say only that the Attorney General can respond now, but I think it became clear in earlier exchanges that he was minded to address such matters tomorrow.

[Mr Howarth]

Not good enough.

[Mr Speaker]

If the right hon. Gentleman concludes that that is not good enough, that may inform his view of the sittings motion. I explained the situation on the sittings motion to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) and I say the same to the right hon. Gentleman, but I thank him for what he said.

Business of the House

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It was vital for the Government to listen carefully to the grave concerns that were expressed about the backstop. The Prime Minister has spent the best part of three hours assuring the House that she intends to go and seek reassurance about those important points, so that the House will then be able to support the deal which, in the Government’s opinion, will be in the best interests of the whole United Kingdom.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

This afternoon, the Prime Minister said that she had been heavily influenced by speeches that had been made in the debate. The difficulty is that there are many more Members who wish to speak and whose voices have not yet been heard. Does the Leader of the House not accept that that is very discourteous to those Members, and does she not accept that the habit of contempt seems to be becoming hardwired in the Government?

[Andrea Leadsom]

This is the opposite of contempt. This is a Prime Minister who is listening. Since the House returned from recess in October, she has spent more than 20 hours at the Dispatch Box, which is more than equivalent to a 30-minute session of Prime Minister’s Question Time on every day that the House has sat since then. She has listened carefully to concerns, and Members should appreciate the fact that she will now seek to address those concerns before returning to the House for that meaningful vote.

Business of the House

George Howarth Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. No one should ever have to sleep rough, and the Government are taking significant action. We are working to halve rough sleeping by 2022, and to end it completely by 2027. Some new measures include a £30 million fund for 2018-19, targeted at those local authorities that have high numbers of people sleeping rough. More than £600 million is available for use by local government to prevent homelessness, instead of just responding to it. Our new rough sleeping team is made up of homelessness experts who can provide ideas on what more can be done, and the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 takes a completely different approach to trying to eliminate this appalling problem.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Regulator of Social Housing’s regulatory notice that was issued yesterday to Knowsley Housing Trust, highlighting its failure to keep fire safety information up to date, thereby putting tenants at risk? Such a debate would give me the opportunity to urge those in senior executive and board positions in that organisation to take responsibility for their part in those failures, and to consider their positions.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that concerning issue. I had the great pleasure of campaigning for the seat of Knowsley South back in 2005, and I well remember some of the housing in Knowsley that could be liable to the risk of fire if not properly protected. He will know that the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies to all non-domestic premises and to those areas used in common in multi-occupied residential buildings. Under that order, the responsible person must undertake, and regularly review, the fire risk assessment and put in place adequate and appropriate fire precautions.

Scheduling of Parliamentary Business

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) made what could be termed a model maiden speech. She was robust when necessary, she was fluent, humorous and generous to her predecessors, and she stood up for what she sees as the vital interests of her constituency. I am sure we all look forward to hearing further contributions from her. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for securing this debate, because it is both timely and necessary.

During my time in the House, the role of Members of Parliament has been seen as either to support or to oppose the Government of the day. People do not always slavishly follow the Whip in the House, and rightly so on occasions. Occasionally, issues of conscience have to be decided—for example, on end-of-life decisions or stem cell research—and it is right and proper that free votes should be held on those. On other occasions—for example, on our relationship with the European Union—people’s views are perhaps too distinctive to be easily bracketed within the confines of party loyalty.

As we know, the outcome of the last general election changed the political arithmetic of this House. Until such time as we have a further general election, the potential power held by each of us, including the hon. Member for Angus, is greater than it has been in the many years that I have sat in this House. I have two questions on that point. Are we willing to use that power—in my case to bring about greater fairness and address injustices, some of which I will refer to shortly—and can we look not at what we have been in the past as a House, but at what we could become?

I will be brief, Mr Speaker, because I know you want us to stick to the issue at hand more closely, but I want to say a word about party allegiance and how it works in the context of the House. I have spent all my adult life in the Labour party, and I remain in it because I share its values on equality and social justice. That is not to say, however, that we as a party have a monopoly on virtue. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House share those values, at least to some degree. I have one further point of a political nature: because the Government have no majority, the usual argument about having a mandate for measures contained in the manifesto is weak to the point of irrelevance.

I also want to say a word about the right hon. and hon. Members from the Democratic Unionist party. Since entering into a supply and confidence arrangement with the Conservative party, they have, perhaps in some ways understandably, been heavily criticised in some quarters. However, that agreement does not cover every measure that the Government may bring forward. Knowing some of the DUP Members as I do, I am confident that on some issues we can achieve co-operation with them and, certainly on some of the issues that I feel strongly about, I think they will share a similar outlook. It is therefore not a given that on every occasion the Government can rely on their support.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South, the shadow Leader of the House, has already referred to the injustice of the women born in the 1950s and the age at which they are entitled to their state pension. Many of us, on both sides of the House—including, I suspect, Democratic Unionists—support the WASPI campaign. If we as a House are firm enough in our resolve on that subject, we could bring about a fair solution.

I also hope we can all agree that the growing inequality in our country is unfair and corrosive. Wherever we look, whether at access to housing, the life chances of young people or insecurity of employment, we see the stark reality of those consequences—reliance on food banks, growing homelessness and unacceptable regional disparities in income and support for public services. That also means that we need to take a more generous approach to public sector pay.

If the House can adapt to the new realities of our power and influence, we can try to resolve those problems. However, in order to realise that power and influence, we first need to take more control of our own procedures and achieve much greater agency in the legislative process. In my view, that means empowering Select Committees to produce White Papers and draft Bills, and giving the Procedure Committee and the Backbench Business Committee control over the programming and timing of private Members’ Bills. It would also mean that the Government were held accountable for some motions that were carried by the House with cross-party support. In other words, they should be bound by some decisions of this House in some circumstances.

Finally, I am sure that the Government will object to such changes in the way that we function on the grounds that the House does not take responsibility for the financial consequences of its decisions. However, the Government will have to put that argument on each occasion and Members of this House will have to assume responsibility for the decisions they take. In the recent past, the reputation and standing of politicians in western democracies, not least our own, have fallen alarmingly, the consequences of which we see in the rejection of long-standing political certainties. However, the arithmetic of this Parliament presents us with an opportunity to take our reputations, both collectively and individually, into our own hands. Do we have the confidence to realise what we could become? Surely we have a duty to at least try.

Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I will be brief. Unusually, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). We are perpetuating the myth that we as individual Back Benchers are legislators; other than in very rare cases, we are not. The reality is that if any Bill does not attract the veto of the hon. Gentleman or of anyone who cares to join him and does not have Government approval, it will most probably be procedurally talked out by a Minister standing at the Dispatch Box and making sure it does not pass. Unless and until we as a House decide we want to make this system work, it is a sham, and we are fooling the public into believing that Bills will be passed that never stand a snowball’s chance in hell of doing so.

Business of the House

George Howarth Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr George Howarth)]

I call—[Interruption.] I call Andrea Leadsom.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I fully understand that it is early days for all of us. Hopefully, you will bear with me as I make mistakes too.

May I welcome the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) to her place? I have always admired her enormously. It will be a great pleasure to work together, and I am sure that we will do that very well. I thank her for her kind tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), who is a fantastic colleague and who, I am sure, will be absolutely committed to his new role as Secretary of State for Justice.

The hon. Lady asked for time for a debate on carry-over regulations from the last Parliament. I will absolutely take that away and look into it. I am sure that it is in hand, but I will make sure that it is. She mentioned the appalling loss of life in recent weeks due to the deliberate and evil actions of terrible people who are either misguided or evil, and she was exactly right to raise that matter. Everybody across the House shares the horror at some of the actions that have been perpetrated against innocent citizens. She also mentioned the terrible fire at Grenfell Tower. I saw for myself what devastation it has caused. Our hearts go out to those poor, poor people. I hope that colleagues were reassured by what the Prime Minister had to say in her statement today, which is that we will leave no stone unturned in getting to the bottom of what has happened and in doing everything possible, including of course looking closely at building regulations, to see whether more can be done to ensure that such a thing never happens again.

The hon. Lady asked about resources for firefighters. We will of course review that situation. She will be aware that, fortunately in recent years, the number of fires and lives lost due to fires has reduced quite dramatically. The harrowing events at Grenfell Tower put a very different complexion on that and will require that we look again at those resources. I can assure her and all hon. Members that this Government will ensure that our emergency services have the resources that they need.

The hon. Lady asked about the Dilnot commission and the review of social care. She will be aware—as indeed are all hon. Members—that we have an ageing population. There will be more than 2 million over-75s within the next decade, which requires us to tackle this situation. We need to look holistically at how we can best balance the needs of an ageing population with the need to pay for what is becoming increasingly expensive.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the Queen’s Speech, which included our new industrial policy. I hope that she shares my excitement about some of the measures, which will see the UK leading the world in electric vehicle technology. Some of our commercial space flight programmes will be very exciting, creating new, well-paid, high-technology jobs. I will absolutely take away her requests about where we are on the Swansea bay tidal lagoon.

I wish to pay my own tribute to all those colleagues who did not win their seats this time. It is always a great sadness to say goodbye to so many good colleagues. It is also wonderful to have new blood coming into the House. I welcome all new colleagues right across the House. I am really looking forward to working with them and hearing their views. I ask them to please come and talk to me at any time. My office is just down the corridor.

Finally, as the hon. Lady said, the memorial to our dear colleague, Jo Cox, will be unveiled tomorrow, and all colleagues are very welcome to attend. I thank the hon. Lady for her opening remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr George Howarth)]

The unveiling is on Saturday. As the Leader of the House said, Mr Speaker will be glad to receive any applications.

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

May we have a debate in Government time about the ways in which society lotteries can increase the amount of money being channelled to local charities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr George Howarth)]

Order. As Members will know, the next debate is heavily subscribed, so I implore people to make a single point. If you find yourself about to use the word “and”, resist the temptation.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

May we have a debate in Government time on housing, especially on leaseholds and commonholds? The former Housing Minister, Gavin Barwell, who is now the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, wanted to reform LEASE, the Leasehold Advisory Service, paying attention to exploitation. It is time to do that with a debate on what the Government are going to do about Travellers. They have needs, but they do not solve them by coming into urban areas and camping on public parks.