Government Policy on the Proceedings of the House

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz]

I am sorry but I thought we were in politics. We are politicians, so that is what we would expect to do in here. In any event, it does not really matter; I will come on to whether a motion is binding. It is something we need to check. If the hon. Gentleman, who is very assiduous, checks “Erskine May”, he will see that on page 334 it says:

“Standing Order No 14 provides that on 20 days in each session proceedings on business chosen by the opposition parties shall have precedence over government business.”

These books on the Table are not window dressing: “Erskine May”, Standing Orders—they are there because they are the rules of the House, as interpreted by the very honourable Clerks. As you know, Mr Speaker, there have been numerous requests for the full allocation of Opposition days—you have heard me ask the Leader of the House for the dates at business questions—but they have not been forthcoming.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

I would be most grateful if the hon. Lady could advise the House where in “Erskine May” it says that Government Members have to vote in a Division.

[Valerie Vaz]

They are the rules and privileges of the House. I will find the reference. The intervention was clearly done to disrupt the debate. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to stop, and if you will allow me the time, Mr Speaker, I will look it up, or, alternatively, we can eat into the time of Back Benchers. He can decide. I am happy to look through it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Yes, but the suggested tuition fees amendment was not.

The subject of how we challenge statutory instruments is important in the light of our discussions on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. I sat through a lot of those discussions and Government Ministers tried to reassure me time and again—not that they were very reassuring—that we should not worry about processes through the negative procedure. They said that we should not worry about statutory instruments because if the will of the House was clear, the House would have the opportunity to review and rescind, and to ensure that statutory instruments that overstepped the mark would not be allowed on the statute book. However, what we see here is parliamentary jiggery-pokery.

[Jeremy Quin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

No. This parliamentary jiggery-pokery was used not only to ensure that the debate did not come in time to be able to withdraw the statutory instruments, but to prevent a vote in the House. Therefore, the will of the House seems less strong to members of the public. That is the reality of what happened.

If the Government had stood at the Dispatch Box that day and said, “We won’t be calling a vote because we agree on the two issues”, there would be no problem. The problem was that Government Members spent the whole day arguing against the content of the motions, but then did not vote on them. That is the concern. It is fine—in fact, I am more than happy—for the Government to change their mind after listening to our compelling arguments. I applaud them for that, but let us have a statement about how their mind has changed and, therefore, how policy has changed.

It is no good that members of the public are unclear about the position of this House and that people are left in limbo. They need to be able to hold their politicians to account. They need to be able to hold their Government to account, and the Opposition parties and Back Benchers need to be able to do that too. Therefore, I call upon Members of the Treasury Bench to stand up and make a statement about how and when they reflected on the motion passing unanimously, when they will bring forward the changes called for in both motions and the details of how they will do it.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), although I must put it to him, given his comment about our constituents needing to know where we stand, that when my constituents contact me they always know where I stand. He also put it that the public are unclear about the view of the House. In respect of the two resolutions we are discussing, the House approved the motions, so it is very clear where the House stood. It expressed its view.

It is a pleasure also to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I respect his—I see he is busy.

[Chris Bryant]

I can do two things at the same time.

[Jeremy Quin]

He has the better of me. I was genuinely being respectful to the hon. Gentleman, whom I know thinks and speaks passionately about the conventions of this place. I am a relatively new Member, but I regard its role in our national life as very important.

I would not have sought to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, had I not looked carefully into the underlying principles of the application made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). First and critically, as he made clear in his application and as was reiterated by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), Opposition day motions, if carried, are not and never have been binding de jure on the Government. The precedents are clear. Between 1918 and 2015, there were 120 defeats of Governments, most of them on substantive legislative matters on which the Chamber was exercising its core constitutional role of creating and amending the law of the land.

On those occasions, however, when the Government lost a vote on a Supply day, the constitutional position was equally clear. I greatly enjoyed reading one such occasion—the debate on the devaluation of the green pound held on 23 January 1978. I was especially delighted to hear the two contributions, made from a sedentary position, by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), who I am sorry is not in his place. One was:

“Leave the Common Market. That is the answer.”

The other one was:

“Get out of the Common Market. That is the answer.”—[Official Report, 23 January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 1071-73.]

He is nothing if not a beacon of consistency. The Labour Government having lost the vote, there was no suggestion in the closing remarks of either the Opposition spokesman or the Minister that the decision would be binding on the Government.

This to me is core to the issue. Clearly, the House can amend primary legislation, including, critically, money Bills, and pray against secondary legislation, debating such matters either in Government time or on Opposition days. What we are discussing here, however, is not an attempt by the Opposition to amend legislation, but the manner outside legislation whereby the Opposition examine and challenge Government policy. This, too, appears well established. The 1981 Select Committee on Procedure quoted, approvingly, an earlier Select Committee of 1966:

“The real nature of Supply Days was the opportunity provided to the Opposition to examine Government activities of their own choice”.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are Backbench Business debates in the House that change policy, such as the baby loss debate, the subject of which we are in theory due to debate later today—but which we might not debate because of this debate? Is it not right that policy can be changed without a vote? There is no requirement for a vote to change policy.

[Jeremy Quin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I will be brief so that we can get to that very important debate, which I know matters to many of our constituents. She is absolutely right that examining and challenging Government policy can lead, rightly, to a change in that policy. That is mirrored by the people who turn up to these debates. On the two Opposition days that particularly irked the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, two Secretaries of State, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a Minister of State came to the Dispatch Box, and the speakers were matched one for one on either side. I attended part of both debates and can confirm that the Opposition were certainly doing their best to challenge and examine Government policy, as is their right.

There are good reasons why those debates ended as they did, as was illustrated by my two right hon. Friends for forests, my right hon. Friends the Members for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), in their interventions. To imply that the whole process was fruitless because there was no physical Division at the end—a vote that we know would have been non-binding—belittles not only that debate but potentially the Backbench Business Committee debates, those in Westminster Hall and, to a lesser extent, the work done in Select Committees, where good contributions are made to the workings of the House and policy examined without Divisions being required.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Jeremy Quin]

I am glad that I now have the hon. Gentleman’s attention.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman has always had my attention. It has been not far off the unanimous view of the House for some time now that we would like legislation on circus animals. Several hon. Members have tried to advance it, including the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and, in the last Parliament, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), but on every occasion the Government systematically let the Backbench Business debate proceed and then had a vote on it, as if to suggest that something would then happen. When the House expresses a view, even if that is because the Government have refused to vote, I think that the Government should listen. Surely the hon. Gentleman must too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Quin]

The hon. Gentleman was very fortunate in his placing in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, so the solution to that problem may be in his own hands, although I understand that he believes that he will present more important business to the House, which I look forward to debating in due course. There are other means by which business can be debated, of which private Members’ Bills are but one.

In his application, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to the motion on Gurkha settlement. I appreciate that he did so in all sincerity, and the subject was also raised by the shadow Leader of the House. The fact that the debate took place eight years ago may be indicative of developments in Opposition day debates over that period. The Labour Government did amend their position following that debate, but my recollection, like that of the shadow Leader of the House, is that there was a great deal more to that issue than what was said during the debate. I recall, as, I am sure, will other Members, the single-handed pincer movement—if such a thing is possible—that was inflicted on the Minister, Phil Woolas, by Joanna Lumley, and the phenomenal way in which she prosecuted the issue.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Is not my hon. Friend’s case, in essence, that as long as the Government have the confidence of the House, when the House gives advice, it is for Ministers to decide how much of that advice to accept?

[Jeremy Quin]

It is undoubtedly the case that the Government should listen to the House and take the advice of the House, and must then decide themselves how to prosecute the business concerned, because they are accountable to the electorate and have that mandate.

The report of the Gurkha debate is intriguing. It was, I think, a unique case that arose eight years ago. The motion only got through this place because of—in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green)—

“brave members of the Labour Party”.—[Official Report, 29 April 2009; Vol. 491, c. 989.]

The brave members of the Labour party who supported the motion and defeated the Labour Government inevitably included the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and, obviously, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Leading the Ayes was the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Clearly Phil Woolas was a forgiving soul, as he subsequently nominated the right hon. Lady for the leadership of his party despite being a campaign manager for David Miliband, on the ground that “David wants to be inclusive”. I hope that moderate members of the Labour party will not get into the habit of nominating colleagues for the leadership of their party for the wrong reasons; who knows who they would end up with?

My view is that the Gurkha settlement debate was in a noble cause, far removed from the simple binary party-political debates in which the Opposition propose declamatory resolutions to spend taxpayers’ money without having the responsibility of funding those decisions. The Government must, of course, present Ministers to the House to defend and explain their policies, but on specific—and I mean specific—party-political issues, the Government believe that not trooping everyone through the division Lobbies is the right decision in the case of a non-binding, non-legislative resolution, and the Government must retain that right.