Devolution (Implications for England)

Hugh Bayley Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend puts it very well; there has to be that sense of justice, which is why this issue has to be resolved, but we do have to take great care with it. That is why we have presented a number of options for Members from all parts of the House to react to before all of us come to a final decision on how to proceed.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

May I remind the Leader of the House that the last time the Conservative party won 50% of the vote in England in a general election was in 1959 and the last time his party had a majority of English votes was in 1955, before most of us were born? The idea that a Conservative majority among MPs elected from England, which has been the case for most of that period, should determine English laws is simply his party putting party interest before the national interest, and that is why the Lib Dems do not support his proposal.

[Mr Hague]

On that basis, I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman supported the last Labour Government, who were elected in the whole of the UK with 36% of the vote. But he was always happy to vote for their measures and insist that they should be the Government.

All-party Parliamentary Groups

Hugh Bayley Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

I start by declaring that for a good long time—a decade or so—I was chair of the Africa all-party parliamentary group. Good and effective all-party groups—they are a mixed bag; some are extremely good and effective, others less so—can have a real influence on public policy. For instance, since the last election, when the Government introduced their defence and security review, the Africa all-party group put in a report that urged the Ministry of Defence to consider the possible security risks emanating from Africa. This was some time before the Libya campaign, but it led to the establishment within the MOD of a unit to look at the African dimension of security.

To give just one other example, under the previous Government, the group produced a report about British involvement in corruption in Africa. It led to the appointment by the Government of an anti-corruption tsar. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) held that job for a time, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) after the general election. It also led the Government, after a couple of false starts, to introduce a Bribery Bill, which went through with all-party support in the wash-up just before the last general election.

So all-party groups can have a purpose, but they are a mixed bag. Some are truly independent and use that independent voice to great effect. Others are less than entirely independent; they are a front for particular interests or lobbies, sometimes a pretty transparent front—which is a better option—and sometimes a not particularly transparent front. I agree with the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that there is a scandal to come about the way in which outside interests lobby in the House of Commons. I do not believe that the Lobbying Bill has addressed the problem properly, and I believe that the rotten tail of the all-party group spectrum provides inappropriate opportunities for outside interests to lobby in this place.

So I welcome the recommendations in the report. They move in the right direction, but to my mind they do not yet move far enough. For example, it suggests that each group should maintain a list of those Members of the two Houses who are active in their affairs, and that it should be available either because it is published or on request. It would be better if such lists were published, presumably on the all-party group’s website or the website of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. It helps transparency if the public understand which Members have a particular interest in an all-party group.

I want to raise just one matter that could be advanced under the recommendations in the report. They would permit the Commissioner for Standards to issue guidance or codes of practice. Guidance and stricter regulation is required in relation to the election of officers of all-party groups. Most all-party groups meet as a small band, and elections take place very well in an informal way, with no statutory returning officer or heavy procedures. I would not want to over-regulate the affairs of a majority of all-party groups, which work, because they have limited resources, in a fairly informal way. However, we have had some recent examples of highly contested elections. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) in her place. When there are highly partisan and contested elections for officerships of APPGs, the cross-party consensus that exists in most of these groups is undermined. Such a consensus enables groups to have the leverage and purchase on policy that they do.

I deeply regret the fact that there was a party political campaign to take over the chairmanship of the all-party group on human trafficking, which led to two ballots, the first of which resulted in a tie. Messages were sent through party channels—not through the Whips Office, I think—through an informal system of whipping on both sides of the House. Occasionally, there are political differences in all-party groups, which fail if they fracture along political lines. If a self-denying ordinance among Members does not prevent those groups from becoming, in a small number of cases, highly politicised, some form of regulation is necessary.

I spoke to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who campaigned to take over the all-party group on human trafficking, earlier today to warn him that I would mention his name in this debate. He told me that his campaign was entirely party political, which I find disturbing. It has happened on two or three other occasions. The chair of the all-party China group was ousted, I believe, as the result of a political campaign.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend referred to the all-party group on human trafficking and modern slavery and the election, with a record turnout, which I won and which—he is right—was fought on party grounds. I want to reassure the House that since then, the group has been able to involve Members from all parties working equally enthusiastically on an absolutely broad basis. His comments should not lead anyone to think that that all-party group operates in any way in a sectarian manner, because it does not.

[Hugh Bayley]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to put that on the record. It is something that I observe from the work the group does.

I should declare a personal interest: I lost the chair of the Africa all-party group because a band of people not from my political party, by a more considerable margin than is normal for our meetings, were organised—perhaps that is the way to put it—to turn up and vote for someone else who, in fact, leads the group extremely well. None of that caucus, which was organised on party grounds to come in and depose someone and elect someone else, had ever been to a meeting of the Africa all-party group, nor has any of them been to a meeting since. I would make the same statement in relation to the Africa group as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough made in relation to the all-party group on human trafficking. It runs extremely well under new leadership and I am content with it.

I believe, however, that the problem of highly contested elections reached a pinnacle of bad form in the recent election in March of this year for the all-party group on Russia. I was aware for several days beforehand that there was going to be an election. I was under the clear impression that the candidate from my party should be supported—a lot of messages went out trying to encourage people to turn up at that meeting and, equally, messages were sent out to members of another party to support an alternative candidate, who won the contest. One might just say that that is what happens in politics, but the conduct of that election would not pass muster if it was a public election. It would not be deemed remotely acceptable if it was a trade union ballot for industrial action. I turned up at the appropriate time in Committee Room 5, which seats 20 or 30 people at a pinch. There were 80 or 100 people in that room, packed shoulder to shoulder, and as many people outside in the corridor. The group’s officers, one from each party, had pre-printed ballot papers with the names of two candidates, although nominations were not sought until the meeting. As luck would have it, only two candidates were nominated, so the ballot papers were in order.

The two all-party group officers then started distributing the ballot papers to a sea of hands, pushing and shoving. There were no checks whatsoever on who took the papers—whether they were Members of either House or whether they took more than one paper. Indeed, I heard someone joking that they would have to go round with ballot papers again, although I saw no evidence of that. I heard people out in the corridors shouting, “Come here. It’s Room 5. Get in there!”, and asking Members to support their candidate.

I think that is a move in the wrong direction. I wrote to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to say that I felt it would be possible to introduce some form of procedure in such cases to improve the transparency and democracy of the elections—I copied the letter to the Chair of the Standards Committee. There is a rule that permits any Member of either House to join any all-party group, and that is extremely important, because we do not want all-party groups to be closed shops for particular groups of people.

[Thomas Docherty]

I know that my hon. Friend is moving rapidly to a conclusion and will not want to spend more time on this issue than he has to, but is he aware that, as the Standards Committee states in its report, the rule on 20 members is not about who is or is not a member of an APPG? Every Member of the two Houses is a member of an APPG and has equal voting rights.

[Hugh Bayley]

I have a couple more things to say, but I will say them quickly.

I believe that we need a system that enables elections to take place from those who have played an active role in a group. That is why publishing a list of members of a group would be a good thing. It should be perfectly in order for someone to put their name on the list up to, say, 24 hours before the election takes place. But the idea that people can turn up to a meeting by the dozen, take ballot papers that are not numbered and not have their names recorded when voting allows a misuse of procedure that should not be permitted.

I would warmly welcome the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards looking at this issue and, while ensuring that all-party groups remain open to all Members, allowing a better means of regulating such elections where there is a great deal of interest in them.

Business of the House (11 July)

Hugh Bayley Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

I cannot imagine why any right hon. or hon. Member of this House should ever have formed the impression that they were here beyond 10 pm purely because the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) wanted to speak. That is an outrageous suggestion and I would certainly not put it from this Dispatch Box.

This business motion is before us purely at the request of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee and the Chair of the Procedure Committee. They asked the Government whether we could arrange business, none of which is Government business, to accommodate the House’s wish to have the opportunity to debate very important matters, given the change in the arrangements that was made to accommodate the debate on the inquiry into bankers last week.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

The Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee did indeed make strong representations to the Government about the Back-Bench business that was lost last Thursday because of the Government’s business on the inquiry into banking, and asked them to ensure that that business was reinstated. Having heard what the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) said about the sittings motions and the private business, I would like clarification that the air ambulance debate selected by the Backbench Business Committee, which has support from many Members on both sides of the House, will get the two hours that the Government intended.

[Mr Heath]

The answer, very simply, is that it will if the motion is agreed to. The motion provides for the Procedure Committee’s reports to be debated properly; for the hon. Gentleman’s motion, which I know is of interest to many Members and those outside this House, to be debated properly; and for three hours to be given over to opposed private business. There is no detriment to the House whatsoever in acceding to the requests made to us and I am happy to assist.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House

Hugh Bayley Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I think that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who chairs the Home Affairs Committee, recently had a debate in the Chamber about diabetes, and some issues that my hon. Friend raises may have been raised then. I refer him to the public service announcement, made by the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, that there may be an opportunity before the House rises on Tuesday week to have a further debate about that important illness.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

Two days ago, when the Leader of the House announced today’s business, he was unable to assure me that the Back-Bench Business which had to be abandoned would be rescheduled, so I warmly welcome his decision after listening to representations from me and the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee to reschedule the air ambulance debate.

The right hon. Gentleman shows that he listens, and I share the view of other Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire Members that the decision to close the local children’s heart surgery unit is wrong. He has heard those representations, so will he return next week and during his response to business questions advise the House of a time, whether Government, Back-Bench or some other, when we can have that debate, which the House clearly wants and needs?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said in the earlier part of his question. Between now and next Thursday, I should like to touch base with the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, with the Opposition and with business managers to see whether there is any way in which we can respond to the very strong demand from Members on both sides for a debate about the recent decision on children’s services.

Business of the House

Hugh Bayley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The question of whether a speech would be in order would be a matter for you in the Chair, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend will be able to see the two motions which we hope to table today and which, in that event, will be on the Order Paper tomorrow. I am sure that, if he catches your eye on Thursday, he will be able to couch his speech in such a way as to remain in order.

I said that there will be debates at 5.15 pm; I meant votes.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

As a direct result of the announcement made by the Leader of the House, we will lose the opportunity on Thursday to debate a motion selected by the Backbench Business Committee about VAT and ambulance services. Can the Leader of the House tell me when time will be made available for that debate? Has he a date in mind, and how much time will be provided?

[Sir George Young]

I very much regret the inconvenience to the House and to Members who were planning to take part in Thursday’s debate on the two motions proposed by the Backbench Business Committee. I intend to find time for one of those two debates between now and the summer recess if possible. I hope to be able to say more on Thursday.

Business of the House

Hugh Bayley Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend might know that the Prime Minister recently made a speech in which he outlined the steps the Government are taking to remove red tape and bureaucracy so that nurses can devote more time to patient care. My hon. Friend’s suggestion is very much in line with the Government’s policy of enabling nurses to use their skills to drive up the quality of care in our hospitals.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

On Tuesday the Secretary of State for Defence announced that 4,100 servicemen and women will be made redundant. Why was an oral statement not made to the House so that we could question him on the implications of the decision? Will the Leader of the House ask him to publish before next week’s debate a statement on the implications for Yorkshire regiments, such as the Green Howards, and others in the Army’s key recruiting grounds in Yorkshire and the north-east of England?

[Sir George Young]

I believe that the announcement was made in an appropriate way in a written ministerial statement, a procedure for which I think we can find precedents. I will ensure that by the time we have the defence debate that I announced a few moments ago Defence Ministers will have the detailed information the hon. Gentleman has asked for and, if possible, will let him have it before the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hugh Bayley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I cannot give that guarantee any more than the previous Government, of whom the hon. Lady was a supporter, could give it. There will, for instance, be Bills that start in the Lords, where there is a different procedure, which means that they would not be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny in this House. However, it is our intention, wherever possible, to ensure that it happens. Inevitably, there is a slightly different position with an incoming Administration, when it is in no one’s interests for the House to do absolutely nothing for six months while we await Bills for pre-legislative scrutiny.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to improve access for hon. Members to Government Ministers and officials.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

The Government are committed to hon. Members having access to Ministers and, where appropriate, Government officials. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has recently taken up a number of cases with his ministerial colleagues where it was felt that meetings with Ministers were not forthcoming. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific concerns, my right hon. Friend and I will be happy to take them up on his behalf.

[Hugh Bayley]

I am grateful for that reply. I have never been admitted to a Government Department—at least, not since I was a Minister—without having a prior appointment, showing my parliamentary pass, and being accompanied by a pass-holding civil servant. How was Adam Werritty able to avoid those restrictions? Will the Government regularly publish details of all official meetings between Ministers and other people to reassure Parliament that access to Ministers is transparent and not partisan, and based on need and Government policy?

[Mr Heath]

The report from the Cabinet Secretary has been published, and changes in the ministerial code have been put in place. Clearly things happened in this instance that have been regretted and have resulted in changes, but I do not think we should have free access to Departments. It is very clear that that is also the Prime Minister’s view.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hugh Bayley Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend made similar points in the debate at the beginning of April, and again I hope that he has reaped the rewards. That debate was also an important opportunity to congratulate him on his then forthcoming nuptials, although I am not on top of them enough to know whether they have now occurred—[Laughter.]

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to support youth development in professional football clubs.

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

Why is it me who has to follow that answer from my hon. Friend? I am not on top of anything!

My Department’s priority is to continue to invest significant sums in grass-roots football—very important as it is—and between 2009 and 2013 we will invest £25.5 million via the Football Association’s whole sport plan and £47 million in the Football Foundation. This funding will help to strengthen youth development programmes.

[Hugh Bayley]

I am pleased that Sport England is spending £25 million on football youth development, but all the money goes to richer clubs in the Football League. None of it goes to the seven non-league clubs that have professional youth development programmes. In November the Minister advised me and colleagues from all parties representing the other, smaller clubs to raise the matter with Sport England and the Football Association. We have done so, but we are no further forward. Would the Minister be willing to meet a cross-party delegation of MPs representing constituencies covering those clubs to discuss the matter further?

[Hugh Robertson]

In theory, yes, of course I would. However, the important thing is that these funding decisions are made, very properly, by the sport’s national governing bodies. That was the central point of the whole sport plan: they are given a sum of money that is measured against a set of direct objectives, and it is up to those bodies to decide how to spend it. So in theory, yes, I am prepared to meet the hon. Gentleman, but I would need extraordinarily good evidence to try to contradict a professional judgment made by a sport about where best to spend its money to drive up participation.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

We take any concerns about gambling, particularly problem gambling, very seriously. When considered on an international basis, British levels of problem gambling are comparatively low, although there is obviously no room for complacency. I would of course be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and his constituents as necessary.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

T5. The current BBC experiment to have all the local radio stations in Yorkshire carrying the same programme at lunchtimes is not local, and we already have regional television. Does the Minister agree that the licence fee should be used for programming that would not otherwise be broadcast, and that that should include BBC local radio?

[Mr Vaizey]

Hon. Members have made their concerns very clear about reforms to local radio by the BBC, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s remarks will be heard. I am afraid I do not know the specifics of what is happening in Yorkshire. At the beginning of April, I made a very interesting visit to BBC Radio Norfolk in Norwich, and the working of a local news operation was a wonder to behold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, on 24 May 2010 the Government announced that in all but exceptional cases Ministers would no longer have dedicated cars and drivers. That is not to say that no cars are ever used—there are times when Ministers require the use of a car—but I think I can modestly say that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I set something of an example in that we hardly, if ever, use ministerial cars: we prefer to use our bikes or walk.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

If Members of Parliament base their staff in their constituencies they must pay rent, rates and telephone, heating, lighting and photocopying bills, but if they base their staff at the House of Commons, all those assets come as a free resource. Will the Deputy Leader of the House consult representatives of the other parties, and try to find a way in which to get rid of the perverse incentive to base staff in London, where they cost the public purse rather more?

[Mr Heath]

I am always happy to discuss such matters with anyone, but that is now a matter for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. It is certainly not a matter for Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hugh Bayley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I am sure that everybody here will understand that if I did reveal what I have asked to be in the Budget, I would be summarily flayed by people in the Treasury, for rather understandable reasons. What I can tell the hon. Lady is that we regard the building of skills in the tourism industry as of paramount importance. There is an acknowledged shortcoming in some parts of our tourism industry, but there is a huge opportunity to demonstrate to people—if we get it right—what a great career path the industry can offer.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

York’s museums and mediaeval buildings draw thousands of tourists to the city. Sadly, last year, York Minster and the national railway museum lost £6 million of Government grants. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) is coming to York tomorrow to encourage private sponsorship of our built heritage. I welcome him and wish him well, and I would like to know what plans the Government have to get more private sponsorship of our built heritage.

[John Penrose]

I understand that we have plans for £80 million of match funding to encourage just the kind of donations that the hon. Gentleman describes.

Business of the House

Hugh Bayley Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s interest in the matter, but I believe that that would run the risk of politicising judicial appointments. He may have seen the Government’s response to the report of, I believe, the Liaison Committee. We are perfectly prepared to broaden the range of appointments that require pre-appointment approval by Select Committees, but my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor stated before the Lords Constitution Committee on 19 January that he was against such an approach in the case of the Supreme Court because of the risk of politicising judicial appointments.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

This morning, the Yorkshire regional flood defence committee was told that the budget for capital works for flood protection would be reduced by 27%, as a result of which no new flood protection schemes will go ahead in Yorkshire for the foreseeable future. Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor said that flood protection money would be protected, so may we have an urgent debate to discuss a supplementary estimate to ensure that sufficient funding is made available in Yorkshire and elsewhere?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to raise his concerns this time next week, at Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions. The Government have had to make some difficult decisions on public expenditure because of the situation that we inherited.