Business of the House

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for an excellent question. It is vital that consumers have swift, effective routes through which to complain when things go wrong. People need to know where to go and to be clear about what they can expect. He is right that existing routes can be confusing, so I am sure that he is pleased, as I am, that on 18 February we published a consultation on strengthening consumer redress in the housing market. We are looking at options about how to ensure that people, whether tenants or owners, can have access to quick, easy and effective redress, including at whether a single housing ombudsman could simplify that access.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I would like to raise the issue of volunteer drivers who receive reimbursement for patient transport. The present UK taxation rules hit those with high mileage very hard indeed. In my constituency, people have to travel huge distances—well over 200 miles—to get a patient to hospital and back again. Does the Leader of the House agree it would be helpful to have a debate on this issue in this Chamber?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very particular issue, which I can well understand is a real concern to his constituents and others where there are long distances to travel. I suggest that he raises the subject in an Adjournment debate so that he can hear directly from a Minister what they can do for those who have to travel particularly long distances.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

No. This is just a matter of putting on the record what is a matter of fact. As I say around the country, behaviour at Prime Minister’s questions will change when the Whips on each side want it to change. It is as simple and incontrovertible as that. If they want it to change and they say it must change, it will; if they do not, it will not. I can deal with the manifestations: I do, and I will. Whoever glares at me or waves at me, I could not care less—I will do what is necessary. Others must face up to their responsibilities.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

May I most sincerely thank the Leader of the House for her statement? I acknowledge the work that has been put in by the working group, including by my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). I am delighted to hear that these policies will apply to constituency staff, some of whom work very far away from this place. How will this information be disseminated to those staff and will there be an opportunity for them to come to Westminster to be trained up?

[Andrea Leadsom]

First, I thank the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) for her absolute commitment to the success of the working group. She was also very diligent and very focused. I thought her outing on the “Today” programme this morning was brilliant and also rather funny. Colleagues will notice that there was a little sting in the tail.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether there will be outreach to constituency offices. I assure him that there will be.

Government Policy on the Proceedings of the House

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I would say to the new hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) that if he thinks this Government are bad in relation to Parliament, he should have seen the Blair Government. However, I have a hint that we may be friends, because I think he said something nasty about Whips, which is always a good sign for a new relationship.

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this Standing Order No. 24 debate, which is about Parliament versus Government. It is impossible for us as Back Benchers to get this issue debated, so I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for introducing it. Although there was a little party politics on the Opposition Benches, there were also some very good speeches about parliamentary sovereignty, and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said everything I would have said—which is worrying me and probably worrying him.

There were some arguments today that were just plain wrong. The argument that this time is taking up time we could be using to debate something else is nonsense. We can extend the parliamentary day, and we have extended it. We could have extended the parliamentary day by three hours today. The Government chose to introduce two statements today, which took up parliamentary time. So the argument is completely false.

There is nothing more important than discussing the sovereignty of Parliament and the rights of Parliament in relation to the Executive. The Executive control virtually everything, and legislation can, effectively, be brought forward only by the Government. We talk about private Members’ Bills, but if we pass a private Member’s Bill on Second Reading and the Government do not provide a money motion, it is completely stuffed. So everything is completely in the control of the Government.

The fact that the Backbench Business Committee was introduced—it came out of the Wright reforms, although its debates were supposed to be in prime time, not stuck on a Thursday—is a credit. However, I remember sitting next to the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, in the Tea Room and saying, “Isn’t it wonderful, Prime Minister, that we have a Backbench Business Committee and substantive motions the House can vote on?” He was having a cup of tea, and he spluttered it all over the place—he had not quite realised that point. However, there is no point having a substantive motion and having the will of the House expressed on a particular issue if the Government then choose not to take action. In my view, the Backbench Business Committee is the thing that has been ignored the most.

We have to come to a situation where, if the House expresses a view, a Minister must respond to that view in a statement. On the two debates that are being discussed, it does seem that the Government have changed policy subsequently, which is good, but would it not have been better if a Minister had come to the House and said, “As a result of that debate, we have thought about the issue, and this is what we propose to do”? I would like to suggest to the Leader of the House that it becomes a formula that if the House expresses a view, the Government should respond to it. That does not mean that they have to accept everything, but they should come to the Dispatch Box and say what they are doing on the issue.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I thought the day would never come when a newbie Lib Dem would agree with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), but I like the cut of his jib. I think there is something more dangerous here, and I will probably incur the wrath of the House by turning to the territory of the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), but in the place where I once served for 12 years, we had private Members’ debates of an evening, to which a Minister would reply and after which, to be honest—I have to be careful about parliamentary language—damn all happened. That was dangerous for democracy in Scotland because the general public started to lose faith in the purpose of that kind of debate, and when we lose that, we are in danger of losing something incredibly important.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful for that intervention, but may I give the new Liberal Democrat Member some advice? He should never agree with me if he wants to progress in his party.

Let me go back to another false argument that was used today. There was criticism of the Liberal Democrats for not being here for certain votes, and I have on occasion pointed that fact out in this Chamber. However, if we extend that to say that only people in this Chamber who know what the debate is about can go and vote, we would have quite a lot of different results in this House. It is not a bad idea.

A business of the House committee would solve a lot of these problems. That was proposed by Wright. It was supported; it was Government policy. Unfortunately, it was not Whips’ policy, and that is both lots of Whips. Many of the problems we have would be solved by having such a committee.

I am not sure whether anyone from the Government will be winding up the debate, but it would be useful to have a commitment from them on this matter. On an Opposition or a Backbench business day, if the House votes on something—we did vote; it is just that no one opposed the motion, so there was no recorded Division—that is the will of this House of Parliament and we should have a Government response.