Leasehold Reform

Debate between George Howarth and John Bercow

Thursday 11th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Howarth]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has just said that she would want to press ahead as soon as parliamentary time allows. I wonder whether you could confirm that the one thing this Parliament is not short of is time.

[Mr Speaker]

If it were for the Chair to decide, I would happily allocate time to all sorts of worthy purposes, but, sadly, the powers of the Speaker do not extend that far. If the right hon. Gentleman is bidding to increase my power, far be it for me to say no.

Sittings of the House (29 March)

Debate between George Howarth and John Bercow

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.

Antisemitism in Modern Society

Debate between George Howarth and John Bercow

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend, who invoked the national executive committee of the party, of which I am a member, like to give way?

[Mr Speaker]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to take the intervention, we will then hear the content of it. Does he wish to do so?

[Barry Gardiner]

I will, of course, take, as I said before, one final intervention.

No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

Debate between George Howarth and John Bercow

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who just demonstrated why the Prime Minister’s offer to reach out to every section of the House and every section of opinion on Brexit will not work. There is nothing that the Prime Minister could do, other than a hard Brexit, that the hon. Gentleman would accept. That encapsulates part of the problem that the Prime Minister has to deal with.

During the Prime Minister’s statement to the House on Monday, I said that the statement she had made did not alter the real problems she had: first, she has no majority; secondly, because she has no majority, she has no authority; and thirdly, because she has no authority, her Government are effectively of no use to the country as a whole. I did not quite use those words, but that was what it amounted to.

I have listened carefully to the Prime Minister in the intervening periods, and she has offered nothing that anyone can work with. Had she been in the mode she was in following last night’s vote two years or even 18 months ago, reaching out across the Chamber to different parties and different strands of opinion, it might have produced something different that would have been acceptable to the vast majority of people. Like many others, I voted for article 50 in the hope that we would come up with a Brexit that would meet the expectations and hopes of my constituents. The problem is that the Prime Minister’s deal did not do that. That is why we are now in this position.

There has been a lot of comment about historical precedents in Parliament and how long it has been since a Government were defeated by such a margin. I decided in a conversation I had last night that I would look for other historical precedents that did not relate to Parliament, but to treaties, deals or bilateral agreements. I came across the treaty of Tordesillas of 1494. Even the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) would probably struggle with that one. It was a treaty, effectively, between Spain and Portugal that tried to carve up the rest of Europe and decide who got which colonies. And guess what? The rest of Europe did not agree with it, and it eventually became defunct and was never implemented. I think the Prime Minister’s deal rather resembles that treaty.

The Prime Minister fought the last general election on the slogan that Britain needed a strong and stable Government. We have not had a strong and stable Government since the election, but, after last night’s events, it certainly is not strong, and, given all the speculation about what is going to happen over the next few weeks, it certainly is not stable. That is why this motion of no confidence is timely and necessary.

I want to take issue with something the Prime Minister said in her speech. I am sure she meant it sincerely, but it does not represent the reality of life on the ground and in my constituency. Justifying why the Government wanted to go on, she said she was fighting against poverty and inequality. It simply is not true. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition went through a long list of problems with policy and the delivery of public services to demonstrate why that was not true, and I will not repeat those. In my constituency—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I apologise for interrupting him. The Opposition are very considerably disadvantaged by the malfunction of the time-keeping facility. [Interruption.] Yes, I am well aware of that. [Interruption.] Order. There is no need for hon. Members to stand. It is very unsatisfactory. Unfortunately, as I said to the House—yesterday, I think—those who put it right cannot do so while the House is sitting, but it is disadvantageous. I can appeal to the Whips to try to keep Members informed, and in deference to the seniority of the right hon. Gentleman, and in the expectation that he is approaching his peroration, I will happily allow him a further sentence.

[Mr Howarth]

A further sentence?

[Mr Speaker]

I appreciate it is difficult, but Members do know the minute situation when they stand. They might not know the second situation, but they do know the minute situation.

[Mr Howarth]

Mr Speaker, you know I always try to satisfy the demands you place on me, and I will do so now.

The Prime Minister said the Government were fighting poverty and inequality. She might try telling that to the over 8,000 people in my constituency who had to resort to food banks last year. Some 3,000 of the parcels distributed were for children. Does that sound like a Government fighting poverty and inequality? I think not. The Government have run out of ideas and run out of time.

[Mr Speaker]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s co-operation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Howarth]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is the term “pillock” considered unparliamentary?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think that that word was used. I think the word was “paleo”. It is rather unfair that the point of order came when it did, and the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) should certainly have 10 seconds to finish his speech.

Military Action Overseas: Parliamentary Approval

Debate between George Howarth and John Bercow

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Howarth]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who I think is just saying what I said using different words. In so far as that is the argument that I am using, I accept what he is saying.

Before I move on to another matter, I want to say a further word about Russia. There is a view in some quarters that Russia is, if not benign, then a neutral force in all these matters—[Interruption.] I said on the part of some people. Although the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) is shaking her head, I would never have thought such of her. However, some people do genuinely and sincerely believe that. I spent 11 years as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee—I resigned because I thought that was long enough—and members of that Committee find out some things they cannot talk openly about. However, one thing I will say is that I have seen in real time how Russia tries repeatedly to interfere with the apparatus of state through cyber-attacks and even in terms of the confidentiality of products in the defence industry. Any idea that Russia is this friendly state that we can all rely on is frankly not borne out by the facts.

I want to conclude with a word about what the Prime Minister had to say earlier. First, she said that she came to the House at the first possible opportunity, but I ask the question: did she? Secondly, she referred to intelligence that cannot be shared with Parliament, and I will deal with each point separately.

Unlike the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), I accept that the convention that the Prime Minister has relied upon to justify what she did is appropriate. It says, basically, that

“parliament will be given the opportunity to debate the decision to commit troops to armed conflict and, except in emergency situations, that debate would take place before they are committed.”

I accept that there have to be exceptions, and any legislation or convention would have to allow for that fact. I would argue, however, that the Prime Minister could have recalled Parliament last week. We could have had a debate not about the intelligence that was involved, but about the open-source materials that she referred to, and this Parliament could, on the basis of a general resolution about humanitarian aims, have come to a conclusion, so I reject that assertion on the Prime Minister’s part.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Has the right hon. Gentleman completed his oration?

[Mr Howarth]

I have.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to him.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Debate between George Howarth and John Bercow

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I hope he will not take offence, but if he does, it is just too bad—[Laughter]—when I say that he has expressed, with his characteristic force and insistence, and no little eloquence, his opinion; however, there is not an automatic link between the two phenomena that he has described. There could be such a link, but it is not automatic. The hon. Gentleman’s mind has raced ahead.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am saving the right hon. Gentleman until last, because he is so senior.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Howarth]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You have been admirably clear about the obligation that rests with the Government to address the situation they now find themselves in. Even if that is not cutting a Minister’s salary for not responding, should there not be in our Standing Orders some provision whereby there can be a penalty for simply refusing to respond to the will of this House?

[Mr Speaker]

It is open to the House to look at its Standing Orders, and potentially to revise them, at any time; that is not for the Chair. I completely understand the sentiment the right hon. Gentleman has expressed, but I leave that to colleagues. I have tried to be absolutely fair on this matter: this motion does matter; it is important; it was passed. As a matter of fact, however, it is not binding. That is the situation.

I simply say to those who are concerned about a statement that there may be a statement tomorrow, and there are means by which people who want to procure a statement can seek to do so if none is proffered. That is just a statement of the facts. The Chair is not seeking to deliver any change tonight or make any commitment. It is not for me to do that. It is for sensible parliamentarians to talk to each other, to reflect on what has happened, to have a regard to the reputation of the institution, and to act accordingly. People are perfectly capable of understanding the significance of what I have said and of deciding, individually or collectively, how to respond, possibly as early as tomorrow.

Points of Order

Debate between George Howarth and John Bercow

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think I will command universal assent when I say that the Hansard writers are expert, professional public servants of unimpeachable integrity who would not be bettered in any part of the United Kingdom in any professional capacity. [Hon. Members: “ Hear, hear.”] Good. We are agreed on that.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, of which I have given you notice. As you are aware, I have been pursuing the matter of sex offences and police cautions over many months now, and on 23 April, in pursuit of that I tabled a question to the Justice Secretary, which unfortunately fell with prorogation. I then retabled it on 13 May. When by 4 June I had received no response, my office contacted the Ministry of Justice and was told that the question would be answered “shortly”. When there was still no answer by 13 June, my office again contacted the Ministry of Justice and was told that it was “awaiting clearance from special advisers.”

There are two points to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. The first one is, and I hope you will agree, that the delay that I have experienced in getting an answer to the question is unacceptable. Secondly, is it acceptable that special advisers, whatever their responsibilities, can be used as a means of delaying response to a written parliamentary question? If you can satisfy me on those two points, joy will be unconfined.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer to his twofold question is yes and no. I agree that it is unacceptable that he should have had to have waited for as long as he has done for substantive answers to his question, and secondly, it is not acceptable that anyone should be involved in a process of effectively delaying ministerial answers to hon. or right hon. Members.

The right hon. Gentleman and the House will appreciate that answers to parliamentary questions are not a matter for me directly, but I do deplore, in the most explicit terms, any failure to provide substantive answers in a timely manner. I also remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the Procedure Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), is monitoring departmental performance in this area. The right hon. Gentleman might wish to draw his particular unfortunate experience to the attention of the Committee. I hope that that is helpful and that the appetite for points of order has now been met.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between George Howarth and John Bercow

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I point out to the House that there is much interest, but it is only right that there should also be an opportunity for those on the Front Benches to set out their position? There is a balance to be struck. I am keen to accommodate everybody and I am in the hands of the House. Members need to help me to help them to help each other.

[Mr George Howarth]

Throughout this debate I have made a practice with my constituents of arguing that whatever our views we should express them with respect and sensitivity. In that context it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who made his case very well.

The speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) was a model of how to put that case in a balanced way and without causing offence while, at the same time, arriving at a conclusion. I congratulate her on doing so.

The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) refused to give way to me because my previous intervention, he claimed, had been “silly”. I must say that to be called silly by the hon. Gentleman, given the speech he made, brings to mind an expression involving pots and kettles. I do not believe that my intervention on the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) was in the least bit silly. If the argument is that a person can exercise religious conscience by teaching in any way, right across the spectrum, then it would be perfectly reasonable, were the get-out clause to be introduced, for a science teacher to teach creationism. I can think of a dozen more examples where that could apply.

The fact is that we have a national curriculum. We teach bodies of knowledge that are specified and known. There is the opportunity, certainly in faith schools—I am sure the Minister will confirm this later—to say, “This is the legal position on same-sex marriage, but the Church’s teaching is this.” It seems to me that the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Aldershot are covered by that statement, as I am sure will be confirmed. In fact, he was—unintentionally, I am sure—slightly disingenuous. He read out a statement from the Church of England indicating that a future Government could of course repeal that or change the regulations. That applies to all legislation. It could be argued that no legislation should be passed because it might be changed in future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Howarth and John Bercow

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I am afraid that I could not hear a single word from the right hon. Gentleman. Would he be kind enough to repeat his question?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is too much noise on both sides of the House. Let us hear the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr George Howarth]

I asked whether in any discussions the Minister has with the devolved Administration, he would emphasise that type 1 and type 2 diabetes are entirely different diseases and that any strategy needs to reflect that in how it deals with them.

Points of Order

Debate between George Howarth and John Bercow

Monday 14th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. My response is twofold. First, as a matter of general principle, I should make it clear that the accountability of a Minister to this House is not diluted or suspended by a Minister’s engagement with inquiries or other proceedings outside this House. When parliamentary questions to Ministers are tabled, those questions should receive substantive and timely answers. Secondly, if Ministers are providing written documents to an inquiry, it would be a courtesy to the House, and help with the discharge of its scrutiny function, if such documents were also provided to the House. I hope that is clear.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order and to your response, Mr Speaker. Before the House prorogued, I tabled four questions to the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and received replies to exactly the same effect as those that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) described: the Secretary of State said that he would submit the information that I sought to the Leveson inquiry. In view of the ruling that you have just given, should I retable those questions, or should the Secretary of State answer them?

[Mr Speaker]

I have made the position very clear. I would not presume to advise the right hon. Gentleman, who is well versed in the use of the Table Office and the facilities offered by the House. He is a persistent woodpecker, and he will make his own judgment on how to proceed in the matter. I hope that is helpful.

Points of Order

Debate between George Howarth and John Bercow

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There are a number of answers to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. First, I do not give procedural advice to Members from the Chair. Secondly—as one wag has just observed from a sedentary position—it is open to the hon. Gentleman to consult the Standing Orders, and he could probably do so to his advantage. Thirdly, my genuine and constructive advice to the hon. Gentleman is that he should consult the Table Office about the variety of parliamentary devices that could be available to him, and could enable him further and better to pursue the matter.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the serious allegations that were made in the revelations referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), should a Minister not come to the House and explain that those allegations against the Liverpool fans at Hillsborough are themselves scandalous?

[Mr Speaker]

I understand the very great strength of feeling on this matter, but I have ruled on the point of order. I respect the seniority and service of the right hon. Gentleman.

Points of Order

Debate between George Howarth and John Bercow

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Hon. Members have a date for their diaries, and it is clear that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is an exceptionally busy bee.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We will come to the right hon. Gentleman. We are saving him up and we will keep the best until last.

Recall of Elected Representatives (no. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Zac Goldsmith presented a Bill to permit voters to recall their elected representatives in specified circumstances; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 300).

[Mr George Howarth]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you assist the House by letting us know whether somebody has amended the number of hours in the day on Friday 27 April?

[Mr Speaker]

Not yet, but don’t encourage them—[Laughter.] I am glad that the House is in such an upbeat and buoyant mood.

Courts Service Estate

Debate between George Howarth and John Bercow

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As usual, there is much interest and little time, so brevity from Back-Bench and Front-Bench Members is vital if I am to accommodate the level of interest.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The Minister is well aware, not least from correspondence from me, that the data on which he based the Knowsley magistrates court decision were deeply flawed. He has not yet addressed that deeply flawed data. Why has he gone ahead with a proposal that he knows will not work? To make matters worse, why has he also decided that there will be no additional capacity in Liverpool by scrapping the capital investment programme? The Deputy Prime Minister refers to this as a progressive Government, but the past two days have proven that it is a wrecking-ball Government.

Business of the House (Thursday)

Debate between George Howarth and John Bercow

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Chair always seeks to ensure that there is a good opportunity at business questions for right hon. and hon. Members to raise issues of concern to them. I know the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to say now for how long business questions will run. That would be wholly unreasonable of him, and he is not an unreasonable man, but I note what he says, I bear it in mind and I will make what I hope is a reasonable judgment in the circumstances at the time.

[Mr George Howarth]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House, during the course of the debate, admonished my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for not tabling an amendment to the order, but I should just like to quote from “Erskine May”, page 675, on the section that deals with delegated legislation. It states:

“Though they may be moved as independent motions, motions which propose to treat delegated legislation, or other matters subject to proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, in a manner which would be outside the provisions of the parent statute, such as motions to refer instruments to select committees, or motions not to approve instruments or to approve them upon conditions, may not be moved in the House…as amendments to questions which arise in the normal way out of proceedings”—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Order. No, no. I am extremely grateful. He has had his say, and I am very grateful to him, but my concern is that he is confusing the statutory instrument for consideration tomorrow with the motion that we have been debating tonight. So, on the assumption that I am correct, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not dispute that I am, there is nothing further upon which I need to adjudicate—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Howarth]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

And that therefore is the end of his point of order.

[Mr Howarth]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I assume it is a different point of order.

[Mr Howarth]

Well, it is. I am very grateful, Mr Speaker, and of course I would not in any circumstances challenge any judgment that you made in this House. However, the quotation refers to proceedings, not necessarily to the instrument itself. If I am correct in that assumption, it may well be that the Leader of the House, who is an honourable man and would never knowingly mislead the House, may have been guilty of terminological inexactitude.

[Mr Speaker]

I think I am right in saying that the reference is to proceedings on an order, and if that be correct I stand by the proposition that I have just put to the House, which is that there is nothing further upon which I need to rule. But the right hon. Gentleman, although he has been here two decades or more, is, like we all are, on a learning curve, and, if in pursuit of those procedural matters he wishes to improve his knowledge, he can always consult the Clerks at the Table. He might find that a profitable exercise.