Business of the House
Jesse Norman Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
The business for the week commencing 6 January 2025 includes:
Monday 6 January—Debate on a motion on seizing frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine, followed by a general debate on backlogs in the NHS. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 7 January—Second Reading of the Crown Estate Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 8 January—Second Reading of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
Thursday 9 January—General debate on tackling violence against women and girls.
Friday 10 January—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 13 January will include:
Monday 13 January—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 14 January—Remaining stages of the Renters’ Rights Bill.
Wednesday 15 January—Remaining stages of the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill.
Thursday 16 January—Motion to approve the draft Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024, followed by business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee (unallotted time).
Friday 17 January—Private Members’ Bills.
As it is Christmas, Members may also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, following the House rising for the summer recess at the close of business on Tuesday 22 July, the House will return on Monday 1 September. The House will rise for the conference recess on Tuesday 16 September, and return on Monday 13 October.
Jesse Norman
Mr Speaker, may I associate myself very strongly with the remarks you have just made about hospices? You will recall that St Michael’s hospice was the topic of a recent discussion that we had at the Dispatch Box in business questions.
Mr Speaker, I must confess that I feel a slight degree of trepidation and nervousness, because at the weekend I received two massively welcome Christmas presents with the result of the Manchester derby and—dare I say it?—the defeat of Chorley by Hereford in a tough, hard- fought game at Edgar Street. I remain worried that I will need all of your legendary reserves of Christmas loving kindness in order to mention this.
This is the time of year when we think of friends and family, of our armed forces that keep us safe here and overseas, of those who care for others wherever they may be, and of the emergency services that protect us all the year round, but especially over the holiday period.
Mr Speaker, I think you will know that, in relation to this House, Parliament’s own record is not absolutely unblemished when it comes to Christmas. Fuelled by puritan hostility to public celebration and unseemly revelling, the Long Parliament—Parliament, no less—outlawed the celebration of Christmas in the 1640s. People naturally reacted, notably with the plum pudding riots in Canterbury in 1647, which began with a football game, but ended up with a brawl. How very different from the results at the weekend.
Perhaps the worst moment for this House was during the protectorate, when Parliament sat on Christmas day 1655, and Colonel John Desborough attempted to impose a decimation tax while many royalists were out sensibly celebrating the Christmas season. A punitive and partisan tax, and an unpopular, blundering Government up to various tricks and seeking to rush their business through the Commons while the House’s back was turned—how lucky we are that such a thing could never happen today.
However, my personal favourite is 1659, when the supply of French wines was temporarily cut off, creating absolute mayhem in London and other cities across the country. What to do? There could be only one answer: Members of Parliament should drink Herefordshire cider. It was every bit the equal of Burgundy and Bordeaux, as Roger Bosworth, my predecessor as MP for Hereford in the 1659 Parliament, insisted, and it was the ideal remedy for smoothing away troubles. Bosworth was a medical doctor, so he well knew the life-enhancing benefits of Herefordshire cider.
I think the lesson is clear: I doubt the plum pudding riots would have happened at all if the people of Canterbury had had Herefordshire cider to drink after the football. I only hope that the Chorley players were able to do the same after that hard-fought game on Saturday.
Mr Speaker, to you, to the Clerks and the House staff, and to all our colleagues across these Benches and in the other House, I wish a very merry and Herefordshire-filled Christmas and a happy new year.
Lucy Powell
Mr Speaker, I too would like to start by wishing you and everybody in the parliamentary community a very merry and restful Christmas. From the Doorkeepers to the cleaners, the police, the Clerks, Hansard and the Lobby, to the hairdressers and the gardeners, there are so many to thank. May I also take this opportunity to thank Katie from my private office who has led all the preparations for business questions for successive Leaders of the House over the last two years? She is leaving for pastures new and we will miss her greatly.
I will not join the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) in mentioning the derby match at the weekend if he does not mind, but as this is the last business questions of the year, let us reflect. It is out with the old and in with the new. I ended the last Parliament paying tribute to outgoing Members from that Parliament and we did lose some very big figures from this place, but come July we gained the biggest intake of new Members in modern history and it has been really energising to see so many enthusiastic, committed and talented new colleagues. They have all got to work so quickly, and many feel like old hands already. It has been a whirlwind for them and all of us arriving in Government and I think we all deserve a proper break over Christmas.
It has been not just a huge change for Parliament but a big change in Government too. It has been difficult, of course, as we face unprecedented challenges and a very difficult legacy. Trying to return Government to the service of ordinary working people, not vested interests, is a big task for us to undertake, but the oil tanker, as they say, has started to move. We are taking on the water bosses to end the scandal of bonuses over investment. We are for the first time ensuring our home-grown energy supplies meet our ambitious targets for clean energy by 2030. We are addressing the housing need and the housing crisis with bold action, bringing in new rights for workers and renters, and creating a transport system in service of passengers not profit. And we are restoring our health and education into world-class services with record levels of investment.
Many hon. Members will no doubt be in Santa’s—or perhaps I should say Mr Speaker’s—Christmas good books: colleagues who ask short topical questions; those who speak through the Chair and make sure they are in the Chamber for wind-ups; those who wear appropriate shoes; the judges of Purr Minister for crowning Mr Speaker’s cat, Attlee, the champion; and, of course, anyone mentioning Chorley or rugby league in a positive sense.
But there will perhaps be some who will not be getting a visit from Mr Speaker’s Santa this year: Ministers who do not make statements to Parliament first and instead go on the BBC; hecklers in Prime Minister’s questions; Members with pointless points of order; anyone who announces to the media their intention to secure an urgent question; those who cross in front of a Member as they are speaking; and, lest we forget, any Member drinking milk in the Chamber.
As I was, until July, the shadow Leader of the House, I might give the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire a little advice for these sessions, based on some of his previous appearances: if he does want me to answer questions, perhaps he could make them a little less long-winded; perhaps for next year, he might not want to contradict his own previous positions quite so often; and going into 2025, he might want to reflect a little more on why his party lost the election.
If you will forgive me, Mr Speaker, given that it is Christmas time, perhaps we can take one final opportunity to look at the Conservatives’ legacy: 12 hour A&E wait times; 11% inflation; 10 Lords defeats on Rwanda; 9 million inactive workers; 8,000 bus routes cancelled; 7 million people on waiting lists; six councils bankrupt; five Prime Ministers toppled; 4 million children in poverty; three broken pledges; two nurses’ strikes; and a Prime Minister at a lockdown party.
Business of the House
Jesse Norman Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
The business for the week commencing 16 December includes:
Monday 16 December—Second Reading of the Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 17 December—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill.
Wednesday 18 December—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords], followed by Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords].
Thursday 19 December—General debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the Christmas recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 19 December and return on Monday 6 January 2025.
The provisional business for the week commencing 6 January will include:
Monday 6 January—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Further business will be announced in the usual way.
Jesse Norman
What a marvellous time of year it is when I see the Christmas tree in New Palace Yard, and the trilling sounds of the parliamentary and Salvation Army choirs to boot. On a slightly more sober note, you will recall, Mr Speaker, that the story of this Government so far has been one of early scandal, a first reset and a delayed Budget, and now what we can expect to be a delayed spending review. We must hope that at some point the Government will get round to actually making policy.
I am afraid that this week has brought further confirmation of the disastrous effects of the November Budget. As Members will recall, the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicted at the time that the rise in national insurance would hit lower-wage and more labour-intensive parts of the economy hardest, and predicted that the Chancellor may need to raise taxes again soon. The Chancellor’s reaction, as she told the CBI, was:
“I’m really clear, I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes.”
We will see how long that promise lasts. Only this week, the Financial Times reported that hiring has fallen more sharply in the UK than in other major economies over the past year, including the US, France, Germany, Canada and Australia.
Luckily, however, we now have the Government’s new plan for change. I think the whole House should welcome the fact that the Government now have a plan, only 14 years and seven months after they first started in opposition, and that their plan is to change direction. I would describe the plan for change as a fine, fat Herefordshire beef cow that has been inadequately fed with the Reform party’s favourite anti-methane feed supplement, Bovaer: it is a beast full of nutrition, but with a certain amount of unnecessary flatulence. A lot of media commentators have had fun with the Government’s blizzard of to-do lists, including their six first steps, six milestones, five national missions and three foundations, but I am afraid that they have missed the Christmas spirit of the thing—all we need now are policy announcements on turtle doves and partridges in pear trees to complete their new initiatives advent calendar.
I jest, Mr Speaker. I come not to bury Caesar, but to praise him. I am not going to indulge in the easy mockery of the commentariat: on the contrary, I can report genuine signs of reality breaking through in the plan for change—something rarely seen in a document from this Government. The Prime Minister says:
“In 2010, the incoming government inherited public finances in desperate need of repair.”
He is absolutely right: public finances in 2010 were in desperate need of repair. He also says that we need
“a profound cultural shift away from a declinist mentality, which has become…comfortable with failure”,
and again, I think he is absolutely right. Finally, and most notably, he says that
“we cannot tax our way to prosperity or spend our way to better public services.”
Not only that, but the Government have sensibly dropped their commitment to 100% clean energy by 2030, as Conservative Members have called for, and as I specifically highlighted only a couple of weeks ago.
The plan for change is a revolutionary gospel indeed: honest about the poor performance of the previous Labour Government, realistic in not seeking to blame Governments for wider global events, seeking to adopt a longer-term approach and recognising the need to limit tax and spending. All we can hope now is that someone spreads this revolutionary gospel, in the Christmas spirit, to the rest of the Government.
But I also have various concerns about the plan for change that I would like to put to the House. It barely mentions the crucial short-term issue—and long-term issue—of defence, highlighted once again this week by events in Syria, or the vital long-term issue of social care, which all parties concede has been inadequately handled over the past 30 years. These are extraordinary omissions in what purports to be an inclusive, long-term reset for the Government.
There are more fundamental questions to be addressed, too. The idea of a mission is a fashionable one in policy circles, but it implies a total commitment to the goal. How will that be reconciled with the obligation of the civil service, and the Prime Minister’s new efficiency tsar, to demonstrate short-term value for money? How will all this be reconciled with the Government’s intense desire to campaign aggressively against those they see as their political enemies, rather than recruiting them soberly to a political consensus that could provide a sustainable basis for these missions? I would be very interested to know what the Leader of the House thinks on these issues, and how they will shape her approach to the conduct of future business in this House.
Business of the House
Jesse Norman Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
I shall. The business for the week commencing 9 December will include:
Monday 9 December—Remaining stages of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill.
Tuesday 10 December—Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill (day one).
Wednesday 11 December—Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill (day two).
Thursday 12 December—General debate on Lord Etherton’s independent review into the treatment of LGBT veterans, followed by debate on a motion on the performance of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 13 December—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 16 December will include:
Monday 16 December—Second Reading of the Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 17 December—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill.
Wednesday 18 December—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords], followed by Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords].
Thursday 19 December—General debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the Christmas recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 19 December and return on Monday 6 January 2025.
Jesse Norman
It is great to see that Christmas has come to the Palace of Westminster. I hope, Mr Speaker, that you enjoyed the Christmas fayre yesterday, and that you loaded up on goods from Frank’s Luxury Biscuits from Herefordshire just as heavily as I did—
Jesse Norman
And just in time for Small Business Saturday, too.
I understand that the Prime Minister will deliver a speech later today setting out his plan for change. I must say, I am delighted—I am sure we all are—to hear that the Government are at last adopting a plan and are trying to change. As we have so often noted at business questions, the Government’s first five months have been a festival—no, a carnival, a supermarket sweep, a fill-your-boots, all-you-can-eat blunder-fest—of delay and incompetence.
You, Mr Speaker, more than any Member of this House, will be aware that the effective functioning of Parliament rests on its ability to hold Ministers to account. That has been true since its origins in the 13th century, and arguably since even before that. As you will know, the practice of seeking reasons and explanations for official actions, be they the passage of Bills or the raising of taxation, is not some useful add-on or afterthought; it is absolutely foundational to the whole idea of Parliament as a deliberative assembly, so I am sure that you will understand my disappointment that the Leader of the House has been so persistently unwilling to answer, or even address, the simple questions that I have put to her in recent weeks.
On 14 November, I drew attention to the Government’s incompetence in combining at the same time three measures on national insurance and the minimum wage in a way that drastically raises the cost of hiring entry-level staff, and I asked for an assessment of the total impact of those measures. I am afraid that the Leader of the House’s response was to blame the previous Government, and to talk about employers who will pay no additional national insurance, a completely different group—quite irrelevant to the question asked. On 21 November, I again highlighted this problem, and got the same response: blame the last Government and change the subject. I also extended my concern about the Government’s incompetence to include their decision to bring the clean energy commitment forward from 2035 to 2030, and highlighted a vast array of public and official worries about whether this was either achievable or financially viable. In response, I am sorry to say, the Leader of the House again did not engage with either question, instead accusing me of political opportunism.
Last week, we saw the same thing once more. For the third time, I raised the question of Labour’s triple whammy in combining changes to national insurance rates and thresholds with changes to the minimum wage. This time, the Leader of the House did not simply duck the question and change the subject; she also gave me the benefit of a little homily on the duties of the Opposition. It is true that the duties of the Opposition are a topic on which, unlike the duties of Government, she has built up considerable expertise over more than a decade, but the real point is this: for a month now, I have been putting to the Leader of the House basic questions about the incompetence of this Government. Many different responses were open to her. She could have said, “I agree with you.” She could have said, “I don’t know,” “I will look into it,” “I will reply to you,” “I will ask a ministerial colleague to investigate and respond,” or “I will come back to the House with a proper account,” but on no occasion has she bothered to give any kind of proper answer at all.
Instead—and I fear the same will be true this week—the Leader of the House’s approach has been to change the subject and attack the previous Government, rather than defend the record of her Government, which is the whole point of these exchanges. Let us see what she says when she stands up shortly. If the Government had made a decent start, of course she might want to talk about that, but the truth is that the Government have made a dreadful start. They have been beset by petty scandals from the beginning; they have destroyed business confidence through a Budget that is visibly unravelling before our eyes, and only this week, they have lost a Cabinet Minister to new revelations about a criminal conviction for fraud. It is little wonder that the Prime Minister wants a reset.
The Leader of the House’s unwillingness to engage, and to recognise and respond to questions, is arguably more important than any aspect of policy, because it strikes at the heart of the very idea of our parliamentary democracy. It is a discourtesy—indeed, possibly even an insult—to you, Mr Speaker, to all our colleagues and their constituents, and to this House. It is made worse because the Leader of the House is responsible for parliamentary business and procedure, and should, one might think, set an example of openness. It is worse still for two further reasons: because she herself has so often called for transparency from Ministers, and because a failure to be accountable is itself a breach of the rules of this House, of the Nolan principles and of the ministerial code of conduct. That is quite a combination, so I ask her whether she plans to continue as she has done, or whether she will change this unfortunate habit and start to engage with the serious questions that I have been asking.
Lucy Powell
First, I put on record that Tuesday was International Day of Persons with Disabilities, and note that the House of Commons now has more disabled Members than ever before. I commend their contribution, and look forward to working with them through the Modernisation Committee, and with you, Mr Speaker, to make sure that this place and our politics are as accessible as they can be. As has been mentioned, this Saturday is Small Business Saturday, when we celebrate the heart of all our high streets. In these sessions, I like to hear about many of our constituents’ great cafés, and in particular their bars, especially when an invitation for me to visit follows.
I also put on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for the way proceedings were handled last Friday, and to all of those who took part in the debate on assisted dying, or were in the Chamber for it. That debate was respectful, considered and thoughtful. Whatever view we each took, it was a moment when huge attention was on us, and I thought our democracy and our Parliament showed itself at its best.
Members will see that there are lots of important issues and much important business in the run-up to Christmas. Two thirds of the Bills that we announced in our King’s Speech are now making their way through Parliament. The rail franchising Bill has received Royal Assent; the Renters’ Rights Bill has completed Committee; and our important Budget measures will soon be passed. We are fixing the foundations and getting on with the job. As has been noted, copies of the “Plan for Change” will be available in the Vote Office shortly, ahead of the statement later today.
It is another week, and another misjudged and confused contribution from the shadow Leader of the House. He really does need to work out what the Conservative strategy for opposition is. Is it to tell people across the country that they never had it so good as when the Conservatives were in office, or to learn from defeat and accept that they got things wrong? I gently advise them to listen to the voters, because acting as if they did nothing wrong and accepting no responsibility will not do them any good at all. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to take my advice, perhaps he should listen to his own, because he said that the Conservatives suffered from
“many disastrous recent failures of policy and leadership”,
and I agree. He said we inherited a “struggling” economy and “anaemic” growth; I agree with that, too. I also agreed with him when he was a champion of net zero, and when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, he was right to care about economic stability. I agreed with him; does he still agree with him? I am not quite sure.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about scrutiny of legislation and debate, but I gently remind him that we have had many debates on the Finance Bill, on the Budget, and the on the national insurance contributions Bill, which is coming back to the House next week and before Christmas. I must remind him yet again, I am afraid, that he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the national insurance contributions were raised not just on business but on workers; he said that was a thoroughly “Conservative thing to do.” He was also a Treasury Minister when the minimum wage was raised. He has had plenty of time to come to this House and explain why he thought that was okay then but not okay now.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the topic of the economy, but he failed to mention one of the big economic forecasts out this week, from the OECD, which shows that the UK is now forecast to be the fastest growing European economy in the G7 over the next three years. He did not mention that when he was talking about the economy. We have always been clear that growth only matters when ordinary people right around the country feel better off and see public services improve; that is the difference between our economic plans and his.
We have a plan for change; the Conservatives have yet to change—they are yet to learn their own lessons. We are laying out today how we will deliver our clear outcomes. The right hon. Gentleman might not like them, because the Conservatives failed on all their measures, which is why they lost the election. While he and the rest of his party shout from the sidelines and try to rewrite history, we are delivering the real change that the public voted for.
Business of the House
Jesse Norman Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
The business for the week commencing 2 December includes:
Monday 2 December—General debate on the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 2 report.
Tuesday 3 December—Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill.
Wednesday 4 December—Opposition day (4th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Thursday 5 December—Debate on a motion on detained British nationals abroad, followed by a general debate on improving public transport. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 6 December—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 9 December will include:
Monday 9 December—Remaining stages of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill.
Tuesday 10 December—Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill (day 1).
Wednesday 11 December—Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill (day 2).
Thursday 12 December—General debate on Lord Etherton’s independent review into the treatment of LGBT veterans, followed by a debate on a motion on the performance of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 13 December—The House will not be sitting.
Jesse Norman
I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in wishing a very happy Thanksgiving day to all our American friends and family, and a happy big birthday today to the Clerk: the Joe Root of the parliamentary estate. Huge thanks to him for his stylish and expert first century—half-century, I should say!
Mr Speaker, a man of your wide culture and extensive learning will doubtless be familiar with the film “Mad Max”. I am no expert, but the image that it conjures up of a desolate, chaotic landscape with wreckage strewn everywhere is the perfect metaphor for the Government’s recent Budget.
Let us take hospices, for example. In Herefordshire, we are blessed to have the extraordinary St Michael’s hospice. St Michael’s supports hundreds of in-patients a year with end of life care, and thousands more as out-patients and with visits in the community. It has a dedicated staff, assisted by some 800 volunteers. This is extraordinary. I shudder to think what it would cost the state to provide that kind and quality of care—certainly more than £20 million a year. What has this Labour Budget done to St Michael’s hospice? The changes to national insurance alone will cost the hospice an extra £250,000 next year, but that is only part of it. At the same time, the Budget has directly and indirectly pushed up the wage bill by a further £450,000. That is £700,000 annually in extra costs—a vast amount for an organisation that offers incredible care, and actually saves the NHS £20 million a year. Hospices in almost every constituency will be affected, and so are the interests of almost every colleague in this House.
This disastrous outcome was clearly never intended by the Treasury. It is another completely unnecessary blunder with potentially tragic consequences. As with GPs, pharmacies and mental health and social care charities, no compensation whatsoever has been offered for this tax raid. When will the Government publish a proper impact assessment and explain why none has been offered?
There is a direct link here to the issue of assisted dying. In the words of the Health Secretary, no less,
“I do not think that palliative care, end-of-life care in this country is in a condition yet where we are giving people the freedom to choose, without being coerced by the lack of support available.”
That care is now being deliberately worsened by his own Chancellor. Personally, I feel strongly pulled in both directions by both sides, but one thing no one can be in any doubt about is that the Government have no business trying to rush this legislation through the House by proxy. The text of the Bill was published barely two weeks prior to our vote tomorrow. No impact assessment or legal issues analysis have been published. Far from public debate preceding legislation, legislation has preceded debate. That is completely the wrong way around.
We can be perfectly clear about this. All Members of Parliament were recently sent a dossier by the promoter of the Bill entitled, “Your questions answered”. Unfortunately, far from answering key questions, the dossier fails even to touch on a whole series of important issues. Those include the Bill’s impact on the medical profession and the relationship between medical staff and patients, its impact on the provision and regulation of the different drugs and drug cocktails required, the record to date and protocols to be used in case an initial attempt at assisted dying fails, and what the inevitable for-profit industry exploiting the new law will look like and how we should feel about it.
As the senior judge Sir James Munby highlighted, there are a host of questions about involving the judiciary in the process and the balance of probabilities test for coercion. Most profoundly of all, there is the question of what choice and dignity actually mean in different contexts. None of those matters is even mentioned in the dossier purporting to give the answers. Whatever one feels about the issue of assisted dying itself—as I say, I feel very pulled in both directions—this absence of debate, especially with so many new Members in the House, is a matter of the gravest public concern. As the House well knows, the Government themselves are all over the place on the issue.
In asking for an assessment of the Bill’s likely impact on the NHS, the Health Secretary was doing exactly the right thing: preparing civil servants and clinicians for what could be a huge change and asking them to look at a crucial question that has not even been addressed, let alone properly answered. As for the Justice Secretary, she was attacked by none other than her own Labour predecessor Lord Falconer of Thoroton for imposing her views, but his lordship somehow missed that she was also making the argument that it was inappropriate in principle for the state to get involved in what many term “assisted suicide”. That too is yet another issue that has barely been discussed. I ask the right hon. Lady whether she shares my view that it is a tragedy that colleagues are being asked to vote without full and proper consideration of the vital issues I have mentioned.
Lucy Powell
I join the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating the Clerk of the House on his very special birthday. As someone recently on the other side of that same special birthday—obviously, I know I do not look it—I welcome him to the half-century club, and I hope his party is as good as mine was. We will leave that conversation for another day.
This week, we marked White Ribbon Day. I am proud that this Government have pledged to halve violence against women and girls. I am also proud to have announced the debate on Lord Etherton’s review of the treatment of LGBT veterans today. I am particularly pleased for my friend and Manchester resident Carl Austin-Behan, who, after years of decorated service in the RAF, was dismissed the day the RAF found out he was gay. He deserves recognition and much more, as do many others.
I know that the shadow Leader of the House is fairly new to opposition, like most of his colleagues, but I gently say to him that the idea of opposition is to oppose the Government, not his own record in government. Last week he attacked our plans to meet climate goals, yet when he was the Minister with responsibility for decarbonisation, he seemed to take a very different view, touring the studios to champion net zero. Here we are yet again: he is attacking our plans on national insurance contributions, but I checked the record and noticed that when his Government raised national insurance contributions—and not just on businesses but on workers —he was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at the time, and said in defence of the measure, from this very Dispatch Box:
“It is a profoundly Conservative thing to do”—[Official Report, 8 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 326.]
He seems to have been for it then but is against it now. I am not sure what his position is—I am quite confused about it.
May I say to the hospice that he mentioned, and to the many hospices like it, that we have made a record investment in the NHS? The hospice sector was left on its knees by the right hon. Gentleman’s Government. As he knows, the Health Secretary will soon come to the House to explain how the record allocation of resources that he has received will be distributed, including to the hospice sector.
The right hon. Gentleman raises the assisted dying issues that we will discuss tomorrow. I must say, I think it is regrettable that he has chosen this opportunity to raise those matters in such an unnecessarily political fashion. This issue generates very emotive responses on both sides, and I hope that tomorrow’s debate will be conducted in a respectful, considerate, non-partisan and non-political manner. He asks about time and scrutiny, which I have mentioned before. As Leader of the House, I am very confident that the Bill will undergo sufficient scrutiny and will have sufficient time for consideration.
As I have said before from the Dispatch Box, the Government will of course implement the will of the House, whatever it may be. And, as I have also said before, should the House choose to give the Bill its Second Reading, the Government will of course work with the Bill’s promoter to ensure that the Bill and the policy are workable, operable and implemented. That will mean working with the promoter on tidying up any measures where necessary. The Department of Health and Social Care is getting to work straightaway on what the Bill will mean in terms of implementation, assessment and the documentation that the right hon. Gentleman highlights. Should the House decline to give the Bill its Second Reading, then of course that work would not happen. As I have said before, after several weeks in Committee, the first opportunity for the Bill to return to the House will not be until the end of April—that is a considerable amount of time for the Government to do that work and consider the Bill further.
Business of the House
Jesse Norman Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
The business for the week commencing 25 November will include:
Monday 25 November—Second Reading of the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill.
Tuesday 26 November—Second Reading of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.
Wednesday 27 November—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Thursday 28 November—Debate on a motion on the international status of Taiwan, followed by a debate on a motion on freedom of religion in Pakistan. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 29 November—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 2 December includes:
Monday 2 December—General debate on the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 2 report.
Tuesday 3 December—Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill.
Wednesday 4 December—Opposition day (4th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 5 December—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 6 December—Private Members’ Bills.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I associate hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House with the comments made about Lord Prescott’s death.
I am delighted to hear that the House administration is aiming to win the National Autistic Society’s autism friendly award. I know that all colleagues will want to join me in wishing the House team good luck with that.
In last week’s episode of this long-running saga, I drew attention to the Government’s incompetence in having a Budget that managed to raise the rate of national insurance, lower the NI threshold and increase the minimum wage all at the same time. I described that as a “terrible blow” to the retail and hospitality sectors and asked if the Treasury would publish an assessment of the total effect of those measures before they came to the House. Well, I need hardly have bothered, because barely five days later, what did we find? A letter from Tesco, Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury’s, all the major supermarkets and many of the biggest names in the retail industry highlighting the Budget’s impact in forcing shop closures and job losses.
The sad truth is that there is nothing surprising here. It was completely obvious to everyone except the Government that this unplanned triple whammy was likely to have this effect. I ask the Leader of the House again: will we see an analysis of its effects when the Finance Bill comes to the House next week or alongside the forthcoming National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill?
Otherwise, I think we should turn our attention to energy. The Government have proclaimed their intention to make Britain a 100% clean energy producer by 2030. A couple of weeks ago, the new National Energy System Operator published a report on how that might be done. I must say that I am feeling a degree of embarrassment, as I had been under the impression that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero was a slightly clownish figure, unable to eat a bacon sandwich without causing an international incident and with a political style closely modelled on Wallace and Gromit, but actually I was quite wrong. In fact, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State may need to update his CV. I now realise that he is a heroic figure; the titan of transition.
In fact, I will go further. The Energy Secretary is a modern Clark Kent, whose slightly bumbling, comedic exterior is merely a disguise concealing a range of astonishing superpowers. Think of what he will have to achieve if the UK is, as he promises, to have entirely carbon-free energy in just over five years’ time. He will have to build twice as many pylons and cables in those five years as we have built in the last 10. He will have to get all the transmission infrastructure built on time and reshape the planning rules, or the taxpayer will be forced to pay for wind turbines that stand idle. Like the Greek god Aeolus, this great baron of breeze will need to ensure that the winds blow and contract as much offshore wind capacity in the next two years as in the last six combined. He will also need to ensure that the global price of carbon doubles or triples just to make the sums add up. That is before one considers the effects of unexpected inflation, skills shortages, dependency on foreign energy technologies and intermittency of supply. What could possibly go wrong?
Meanwhile, the Energy Secretary’s plans for small modular reactors have been delayed while he plunges ahead with his plans to cut off gas turbines and leave us dangerously reliant on expensive foreign energy imports. Those plans are not simply heroic; they are fanciful. They are magical thinking. What is worse, they are likely to be ruinously expensive both for the taxpayer and for the electricity user. It is little wonder that top business and union leaders have come together to describe them as “just not feasible” and “impossible”.
We have been here before with the three-day week of the 1970s, and the result was blackouts and energy rationing. Should we expect that again? This is the rub: power reveals. We are seeing not merely a lack of competence but an Energy Secretary who has still not made any statement on the NESO report that I mentioned. He is deliberately refusing to account for his actions to this House on this foundational matter, and he is holding the Commons in contempt. When can we expect a statement from the Energy Secretary on the NESO report? When will he be forced to come to the Dispatch Box to explain and defend this folly?
Lucy Powell
First of all, I join Mr Speaker and others in marking the sad loss of John Prescott. He was a true legend, and one of the best campaigners of our movement. He put climate change and real, meaningful levelling up at the top of the political agenda long before they were fashionable. He was groundbreaking and huge fun, and he will be greatly missed. We send our condolences to Pauline and the whole family. As Mr Speaker said, there will be an opportunity for tributes next week.
I am sure the whole House will also join me in marking Parliament Week, when we open our door on how we work in this place. Today is “Ask Her to Stand” day, when we encourage more women to seek elected office.
Let me take this opportunity to point the House to a motion that I have tabled today, which makes some important changes to proxy votes for Members. One of my priorities as Leader of the House is to make Parliament more family friendly. We have more women than ever in this place, and more parents of small children, those with caring responsibilities and disabled Members. We need to change the way that we do things to reflect the times. I have asked the Procedure Committee to continue its wider review of the proxy vote system, and the Modernisation Committee will consider these issues in due course. However, I have heard from Members that the current system has not met some immediate needs, so I am extending the childbirth, miscarriage or baby loss proxy provisions to explicitly cover complications during pregnancy or ongoing fertility treatment. Under this scheme, reasons for proxies remain confidential and are self-certified, requiring no onerous paperwork. I am making the default for all proxies seven months, and I hope the whole House will welcome that.
The right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) raised a number of issues, but I must say I am losing track of the Opposition’s arguments. They attack our Budget measures, yet they support all the investment. They do not like our decisions, yet they took many of the same ones in government. They duck the difficult issues, yet criticise us for dealing with them. Yes, we have had to make some big choices, but we stand by them because we are on the side of ordinary people, the NHS and public services. We are operating in the interests of economic stability, unlike his party. We will see the impact of the Budget over time, but the Conservatives really must decide whether they support the investment and the extra spending on our public services, or whether they do not want any of it and are against that support.
The right hon. Gentleman picks on the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, but there is not a more accomplished member of the Cabinet. He is driving forward his agenda. He is forthcoming to this House on many occasions, and every time he appears in this House, he wipes the floor with his opponent. Yet again, the Conservatives are on the wrong side of history. We have a very ambitious mission to become a clean energy superpower by 2030—one that we are driving forward. It is vital that we do that. That means taking on some of the inherent issues that they ducked: our infrastructure; the grid; our planning laws; getting the investment where it is needed, which we are announcing that all the time; unlocking new power supplies in nuclear, solar, hydrogen and elsewhere; and establishing Great British Energy, which is well under way, to ensure much needed homegrown production. Taken together, those measures will lower bills, create jobs, and give us the energy security that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government failed to give us.
Is not the truth that Opposition Members are becoming political opportunists? They spent years in government ducking the difficult decisions, leaving a huge black hole and a big mess for us to clean up. Public services were on their knees, strike action was costing £15 billion in lost productivity, pay deals were on Ministers’ desks with not a penny accounted for, and not a single penny was set aside for the compensation schemes. The reserves were spent three times over, and on their watch inflation was at 11%. Living standards fell for the first time in our history under the Conservatives. Now they want to have their cake and eat it at the same time. They want all the benefits from the Budget, but not the hard calls needed to pay for them. In a few short weeks, they have gone from the party of government to the party of protest.
Business of the House
Jesse Norman Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House present the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
The business for the week commencing 18 November includes:
Monday 18 November—Second Reading of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill.
Tuesday 19 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, followed by a general debate on the infected blood inquiry.
Wednesday 20 November—Second Reading of the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill.
Thursday 21 November—Debate on a motion on strategic lawsuits against public participation and freedom of speech, followed by a debate on a motion on International Men’s Day. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 22 November—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 25 November will include:
Monday 25 November—If necessary, consideration of Lords message, followed by Second Reading of the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill.
Tuesday 26 November—Second Reading of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.
Wednesday 27 November—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Thursday 28 November—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 29 November—Private Members’ Bills.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Leader of the House.
Jesse Norman
Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in wishing a very happy birthday today to His Majesty the King.
The last few days in global politics have been extraordinary, featuring one of the most incredible comebacks of modern times. It was wildly hard to predict, many people have panicked at the possible consequences, and some are still in a state of denial—but even so, I must say that I am delighted to have been appointed as shadow Leader of the House of Commons.
I pay tribute to my immediate predecessors: the Luke Skywalker of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and the great Obi-Wan Jedi sabre-wielding master—or mistress—of the Despatch Box herself, the former Member for Portsmouth North, Penny Mordaunt. As it was with the Galactic Empire, so it is with the Labour party. Recent events have reminded us of the truth of the ancient saying: power reveals.
So it is with this new Government. What have their first chaotic few months in office revealed? First, we know that they like to say one thing and do another. They talk about supporting working people, but the rise in national insurance will hit all working people. They talk about growth, but have imposed the largest tax rise for a generation, pushing up both interest rates and inflation. Only last week, we saw a reported 64% rise in companies filing for insolvency compared with the same week last year—and that is before all the red tape of the new Employment Rights Bill, which will make it harder than ever to give somebody a job and grow a business.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is so much sheer incompetence here. To take one example, the Government have raised employer national insurance, lowered the income threshold and increased the minimum wage, all at the same time. No one seems to have noticed that the combined effect of those measures is to raise the cost of hiring an entry-level employee not by 2% but by something closer to 12%. That is a terrible blow, especially to the retail and hospitality sector. I ask the Leader of the House: was that deliberate or just a mistake? Will she ask the Treasury to publish an assessment of the total impact of those three measures before any legislation comes to this House?
Secondly, we know that the Government are willing—even keen—to play the politics of division. They have favoured public sector workers over private sector ones. They have driven away entrepreneurs and business creators. As we have heard this morning, they have been punitive on rural areas. The rise in national insurance puts huge pressure on already struggling rural GPs, care homes, dentists, pharmacists and hospices. Mental health and disability charities have already expressed their deep concern. We heard from the Dispatch Box just now that the Government hear the concerns, but if they did understand them, why have they not done anything so far? Why did they not address those concerns in advance?
Meanwhile, the agricultural tax changes will afflict vastly more farming families than the Treasury estimates—families who work all hours, whatever the season, on very low margins. I can see the embarrassment written all over the faces of Government Members, many of whom represent rural areas for the first—and very likely now the last—time.
Thirdly, we know that the Government seem to have zero appetite to take on vested interests or reform our hugely pressured public services. They have shovelled out cash to their union friends, who have been delighted to stick to their fax machines and similarly ancient working practices. What have the Government got in return for all those millions? No commitments to make any efficiencies whatever. Nor do the Government seem much interested in legislation. They have not presented many Bills and the Bills so far have often included not carefully drafted law, but simply a vague and sweeping arrogation of new powers. This is what Governments do when they do not know what to do.
The Government are even hiding behind the very early presentation of a private Member’s Bill on assisted dying—one of the most sensitive and complex issues that we face. The Prime Minister himself promised Esther Rantzen in March that he would make time to debate these issues, but yesterday he refused the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) to give the Bill more time on Report. Will the Leader of the House now give that commitment?
The astonishing fact is that after 14 years in opposition, the Labour party came into office with almost no real plans. Instead, we have a Government who have already lost their way—a Government with no real sense of urgency, and no positive flavour or theme of any kind. I ask the Leader of the House this: we know what and who this Government are against, but what is this Government for?
Lucy Powell
I also wish His Majesty the King a very happy birthday.
This is Islamophobia awareness month—a chance for us all to come together to tackle all forms of religious and racial hatred. It is also transgender awareness week, which started yesterday, celebrating our trans heroes. It is a chance to remind ourselves that the trans community is one of the most abused, suffers high levels of mental health problems, and is more likely to be homeless or ostracised.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) on his big promotion to the shadow Cabinet. As I said last week, the Leader of the Opposition does indeed love a tryer, and the right hon. Gentleman’s many talents are at long last being recognised. I also warmly welcome the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) to his place in what I think is his first ever contribution to Business questions in his quite long parliamentary career. I have to say that there has been a slight upgrade in the jokes in comparison with those of some of his predecessors.
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is a biographer of Edmund Burke, who is seen as a founder of modern Conservatism and modern politics. As such I am very much looking forward to working with him on the Modernisation Committee and the agenda of modernising this Parliament. I cannot promise him that all our dealings will be quite that highbrow, because I am afraid his responsibilities bring other things with them, and he might find himself getting bogged down with the state of the toilets or complaints about the wi-fi, but I look forward to working with him.
May I take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill? Many colleagues have asked me about the process, and whether there will be sufficient time for further debate and scrutiny of this important Bill, so perhaps I may take this opportunity to explain further some of the issues around it. I know that people care deeply about this issue, and there are strongly held views on both sides. As such, it is a matter for Members to consider personally and freely. I know from the last debate on this issue held in the House that it can be the best of moments for Parliament, with considered, thoughtful and respectful debate. It is not a Government Bill. Similar issues such as legalising abortion and homosexuality have come about via private Member’s Bills in the past, and I believe that is the appropriate way to consider matters of conscience, with a free vote and a neutral Government position.
As the Bill will be the first item of business on 29 November, it is highly likely that the debate on Second Reading will last for the full five hours. That is comparable to proceedings on any other Bill—perhaps longer—and I am sure the House would want that to be the case. Should the House agree to its Second Reading, the Bill would then be considered in Committee, probably for several weeks. The whole House will also have further opportunities to debate and vote on those matters on Report and again on Third Reading, which will not be until April at the earliest.
The Government have a duty to ensure that any Bill that passes through Parliament is effective and can be enforced. That is why if any Bill is to be supported by the House, we would expect to work with the promoting Member to ensure that it is workable. This is a matter for the House to decide, and the Government will implement the will of the House, whatever it so chooses. I hope that will help Members when considering these issues.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about a number of Budget measures, but I am afraid the cat really was let out of the bag this week, because we finally learned that the Conservative party supports all the benefits that the Budget brings, but does not support any of the measures that will pay for them. We are now seeing a return to the magic money tree economics pursued by his predecessor Liz Truss.
We have had to make difficult choices to balance the books, so that there is no return to austerity and so that we can invest in the economy and renew our public services for the long run. I am afraid that the shadow Leader of the House is scaremongering with a number of the issues that he raises. He will know that more than half of employers will see no change at all or will pay no additional national insurance from this package. He failed to mention the important changes we are making to business rates, which will support many high street businesses. He might want to include that in his future calculations. Charities, GPs and other healthcare providers, as has just been said at the Dispatch Box by my hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care, have been put in an incredibly precarious position after 14 years of chronic under-investment and mismanagement by the Conservatives. We will do what we can, and further announcements will be made about the distribution of health funding.
I put on record that the NHS has received its single biggest increase in spending power for many years. Is that something that the shadow Leader of the House supports or rejects? I am not clear what his party’s position on the Budget is any more. We have had to make tough choices because of the poisoned chalice and inheritance left by his party. That was once described as a “struggling” economy and “anaemic” growth. Those are not my words, but his.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jesse Norman Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my view that since Channel 4 barely makes an operating profit, any future economic value is more likely to come from cutting broadcasting and production costs, and there may therefore be little public service role for it if it were to be so treated?
Mr Vaizey
I hope it is in order for me, Mr Speaker, to congratulate the hon. Lady on her recent marriage. She makes an extremely important point. I thought that Taylor Swift’s intervention was well made. As technology changes how we access and buy music, it is important that we put the rights of the creators at the forefront of our minds. This Department, particularly under this Secretary of State, will do everything that it can to preserve the intellectual property rights of creators and ensure that they are fairly remunerated.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
T5. On Saturday, I will have the colossal joy of sitting at Edgar Street and watching the first home game of Hereford football club—the new football club in my constituency. Will the sports Minister join me in congratulating the new club, the Hereford United Supporters Trust and all the fans who have got behind it? Does she share my view that more can be done to crack down on and improve the owners and directors test, which has signally failed so far and which needs to be improved if we are to improve governance in our grassroots football?
Tracey Crouch
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work that he has done in supporting Hereford United over the past few years. We will look into these issues in further detail, but he has to wait a few more weeks for the support strategy to be published.
English Votes on English Laws
Jesse Norman Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
I do, but the hon. Gentleman must surely accept that what is being proposed through changing Standing Orders is not an appropriate way of addressing it. As I have already said times without number, I fully accept that several anomalies have been created by devolution, starting in 1999, but the answer to that is not to trash our own procedures in this House.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Carmichael
No. If we are to take this to its logical conclusion—that is to say, to give a veto to the Scottish Parliament on areas that would currently be dealt with by the Sewel convention—then that will not be reclaimed by Standing Orders; it is the end of the supreme sovereignty of this House. That is why we need a sensible, more reasoned debate for which Standing Orders will always be inadequate.
Mr Carmichael
No, I am sorry—I have been generous with my time.
The logic is that we should be considering this, if it is to be considered at all, by virtue of primary legislation. I know that that brings concerns particularly to those on the Treasury Bench, and that the Leader of the House will say that it raises questions of justiciability and reviewability of decisions that would ultimately have to be taken by you, Mr Speaker.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful. Is there not a clear distinction between two things? The first is whether this should be introduced by means of Standing Orders, and the second is what procedure, or method of reflection, the House may go through in deciding how and whether to adopt it, and under what circumstances. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was drawing the House’s attention to the latter point and the apparent lack of a timetable for proper consultation on this issue.
Mr Carmichael
The two propositions are not mutually exclusive. There are elements that could be capable of remedy through Standing Orders if we were to have a proper debate. The Government’s proposal goes too far, too fast. In principle, other changes may be possible, as we discussed in government before the general election. I do not completely exclude the possibility of proceeding in that way, but going as far as the Government want to us to go, and within their timescale, brings with it an attendant level of risk that I would consider to be irresponsible in these circumstances.
The last Government discussed whether the proposal could be addressed in a single Bill. If there is a will in the House to consider how it could be done, that would be a much more sensible way of doing it. The Government are saying that we should do it for a year and that it should then be reviewed by the Procedure Committee. I hold that Committee in very high esteem, but the only thing that would happen under that process is an examination of how the system had worked. It would not put a dangerous genie back in the bottle after it had been let out. I think we all know that that is the political reality.
Personally, I am quite relaxed about the use of primary legislation and the justiciability of decisions then made by Mr Speaker. I do not think that anybody in this House should be making any decision that would not stand up to judicial scrutiny. However, if that is to be the block, let us have a proper debate, because it must be possible to use primary legislation to deal with that very point. Surely it is necessary to have a proper description of the boundaries of judicial review and any proscriptions. Frankly, this House has never undertaken such an exercise. Judicial review as a body of law has been allowed to grow like Topsy, led by the judiciary itself.
I am aware that I have already taken up quite a lot of time, albeit with interventions.
Today’s Business of the House
Jesse Norman Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just respond to the hon. Gentleman as follows? My strong sense, and I do take advice on these matters, is that what has been said is a matter of taste—[Interruption.] Order. If I felt the need of the advice of the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley),I would seek it, but I am seeking to respond to the point of order. It is a matter of taste; it is not language that I would use, and it is certainly not language that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) would use. I have responded to him, and I think that we should leave it there.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Progressives everywhere will surely welcome the possibility of a secret ballot throughout a Parliament, but is it not the case that this motion could not have been brought forward earlier without precisely a constraint on the potential freedom of Members to vote as they see fit?
Mr Hague
I agree with my hon. Friend that it can been seen in that light: the institution of a secret ballot would be an important strengthening—I will come on to this during the debate—of our parliamentary democracy. I noted earlier that there are Members, particularly Opposition Members, who feel constrained in expressing their views on this question, and indeed, have stayed silent during these exchanges. That is their right, but they do have a fear of expressing their views on this issue, as is very clear from this discussion.
Procedure of the House
Jesse Norman Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Gerald Howarth
Indeed—who is?
I must say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—whom I revere as well—that I feel very uncomfortable about the procedure that the Government have adopted, which has allowed only an hour for debate. I think that that is unfortunate, given that we are debating a House of Commons matter. However, I cannot vote with the Opposition, because, unlike my right hon. and hon. Friends, they have displayed a monolithic, partisan approach to this issue, which has demeaned them and, I am afraid, has done no credit to the House either.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I express my sadness and regret that you have not seen fit to call any other Members to speak in support of the motion? [Interruption.]