Progression of Bills through Parliament
John Hayes Excerpts(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart.
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), my colleague on the Petitions Committee, for introducing the debate on behalf of the Committee and the petitioner. I thank the more than 100,000 people who signed the e-petition. Whatever view Members take on the arguments advanced in the petition, the number of signatures demonstrates the strength of feeling on this issue and the importance of Parliament’s engaging seriously with those concerns. I also thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. We have heard thoughtful and strongly held views from across the House, reflecting both the significance of the legislation that prompted the petition and the wider constitutional questions now before us.
It is important to recognise that the petition arose from concerns about the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, a private member’s Bill. However, today’s debate ultimately is not about the merits of assisted dying; it is about parliamentary process. Specifically, it is about whether Parliament should change the way that it approaches legislation where a private Member’s Bill has secured support from MPs. The petition argues, in essence, that where a private Member’s Bill has support from MPs and the public, the Government should do everything within their power to ensure that it has sufficient time to complete all its parliamentary stages.
It is sometimes overlooked that that is not simply a request for more parliamentary time. It is effectively a request for a new constitutional principle: that where the concepts underlying a private Member’s Bill have secured sufficient public support and a Commons majority, the Government should take active steps to ensure the Bill’s passage despite significant unresolved issues. That would represent a significant departure from our existing constitutional arrangements, under which scrutiny, amendment and even failure remain possible outcomes of the legislative process. I do not believe that public support, however significant—particularly as measured by polls, rather than at the ballot box—can be a substitute for proper parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament’s role is not simply to facilitate legislation but to examine it, challenge it and improve it before it becomes law.
The petition also raises questions about the role of the House of Lords. It is important that we approach those questions accurately. Some have suggested that the Lords somehow acted improperly by failing to return the Bill Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill to the Commons. That assertion is not supported by the constitutional authorities.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I have not participated in the debate because I was not able to be here at the beginning, but I heard many of the speeches. In a number of them, it was suggested that the Bill received unusual levels of consideration. That is simply not so. Many of us have been in this House for a very long time and have seen legislation that has had pre-legislative scrutiny in both Houses, and independent reports commissioned on it, long before Second Reading. This Bill had none of that.
John Lamont
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s insight from his many years of experience in this place. We are not a unicameral system. As the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) stated in her powerful speech, Parliament consists of three separate parts: the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Crown. The House of Lords is independent and shares the task of making and shaping laws. The House of Lords Constitution Committee made it clear that it was constitutionally appropriate for the Lords to scrutinise, amend or reject the Bill, and the Hansard Society similarly confirmed that the Lords
“has the authority to reject, delay, or otherwise block”
legislation of its kind.
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but it is not for me, or for the Government, to tell the Lords how to conduct their affairs. It is not the Government’s job to pick up this Bill, after it has been through this first, stalled, failed, stage—
Business of the House
John Hayes Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Along with the stealthy silence of knives and the deadly danger of guns, crossbows, in the wrong hands, cost lives. As the Leader of the House will know, they cost the lives of Louise Hunt and her sister Hannah, who were murdered by such a weapon. I am delighted that the Government announced in March that they are going to ban the sale of new crossbows and license existing ones. That responded to calls that I and Members from across the House made following that awful event, but we have heard little more. All we have heard is that the Government will consult on the detailed arrangements. However, there is no detail on the timetable and nothing about means or method. Will the Leader of the House update the House, or will the appropriate Minister do so by means of a statement, so that we can be sure that there will be no hesitation, no obfuscation and no prevarication? Any of those things would cost still more lives.
Sir Alan Campbell
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no hesitation or prevarication, because the Government are committed to this. However, I gently say to him—again, having had some experience myself—that we can discuss these matters and all get to pretty much the same conclusion, but implementing that conclusion is often more difficult than many people think. We should not offer something that ultimately does not work. We need to make sure that such a measure has the effect that right hon. and hon. Members desire, so there is often a delay. However, I will draw his remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister, and see if we can get the update he seeks.
Business of the House
John Hayes Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you and the Leader of the House will be aware that all those who serve on the Treasury Bench are Ministers of the Crown. For that reason, from time immemorial, the Government have been described as HM Government—His Majesty’s Government—yet we now learn that that has changed, and that this Administration have decided to drop “HM Government” and replace it with “UK Government”. I do not know whether that is to pander to foreigners who do not understand our constitution or—more likely—to the doubt-fuelled, guilt-ridden bourgeois liberals who fill too much of our establishment. I believe that our traditions matter, because they underpin our shared sense of belonging, and I think the House as a whole probably agrees. This change has been made without consultation, without reference to the House and without discussion, so will the Leader of the House ensure that at the very least there is a statement, and better still a debate, on why this change was made under the radar?
Sir Alan Campbell
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in many regards, tradition does matter, but so does accuracy. For clarity, communications teams are advised to use “UK Government” rather than departmental names and logos for announcements, but that does not affect the use of the term “His Majesty’s Government”, which continues on all relevant official communications and records, as it should. The “UK Government” term has long been used in public-facing communications.
Business of the House
John Hayes Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an issue that affects not just his constituency but many others. I do agree on the Ofcom point. Once we get through this busy festive period—we thank postal workers throughout the country for their work—perhaps he should apply for a debate so that we can reflect on what has happened.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, to the Leader of the House and to my friends across the House. I also wish a merry Christmas to my constituent in Holbeach, Annette Bramley, although at this time she will be grieving the loss of her daughter Holly, who was brutally murdered by a worthless, wicked husband. We have just debated animal welfare, and this week we have talked about violence against women. This man tortured and brutally killed Holly’s pets before he killed her. So often that is the case: first come God’s creatures, then come men and women. Will the Leader of the House make a statement to support Annette’s campaign for a national register of animal cruelty? That would give some solace and hope to those many women and children—and men, by the way—who face domestic abuse.
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the early signs of abuse against partners, often women and girls, can be found in violence towards pets. He raises a very interesting point. As he knows, we are bringing forward the violence against women and girls strategy, which will be debated at some point. I invite him to raise this point at that moment, but I will certainly raise it with the relevant Secretary of State.
Business of the House
John Hayes Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
Tackling climate change is a priority for this Government. We are seizing the opportunities of the clean energy economy and will continue to bear down on reducing emissions in a way that does not just secure good jobs but lowers bills. My hon. Friend may wish to seek a Backbench Business debate, because these concerns are not confined to one side of the House, or he may wish to join us at the pre-recess Adjournment debate and make those points more fully.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
As the Leader of the House will know, I have long championed a cause supported by other Members of this House, notably the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey): nuclear test veterans. These were the young men who were sent to the other side of the world to witness the tests of Britain’s first nuclear weapons. In welcoming the engagement we have had with the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister for Veterans and People, may I press the Leader of the House for a meeting with the Prime Minister? It has been promised. They did meet Boris Johnson when he was Prime Minister. We have ongoing issues about access to their medical records. I understand that the meeting with the PM has been delayed. The PM has said he supports them. I simply want the Leader of the House to use his immense authority and power to make sure that meeting happens.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful for that overestimation of my influence and power. I will bring everything I have to bear to get the right hon. Gentleman the answer that he wants. The Prime Minister does care deeply about such matters. If a commitment has been made—and I do not doubt that it has—we will ensure that it is fulfilled.
Business of the House
John Hayes Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
That is a fair point. We owe a great debt to public servants, and it is important that they be treated fairly at work and in their tax matters. If my hon. Friend intends to speak in the Budget debate, he may want to raise this issue then.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Budgets are often about what is not in them, as well as what is; no doubt we will debate that later. A glaring omission from this Budget was a settlement for the women of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. We had a statement in which the Government, presumably fearful of the court case that they are about to lose, said that they would do more, but will the Leader of the House recognise that these women, whom the ombudsman has acknowledged were so badly treated, deserve better? Will he arrange for a statement on when there will be further Government action?
Sir Alan Campbell
As the Government acknowledged at the time, we do take this seriously, in the light of court judgments and everything else, so we will bring something forward at the earliest opportunity.
Business of the House
John Hayes Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. It was a truly tragic and shocking case, and the Government are committed to doing everything that we can to prevent similar incidents. We have introduced tighter controls on firearms licensing to keep people safe and help the police to apply the law consistently, and we will consult later this year on measures to strengthen controls on shotguns and to improve controls on the private sale of firearms. I am sure my hon. Friend will be keen to have a debate should it help that process.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
This is the first time I have seen the Leader of the House at the Dispatch Box in his new role, and I welcome him. He mentioned religious freedom. That freedom must not be allowed to conceal the malevolence of Sharia courts, which operate in places across our constituencies—there are around 85. Indeed, we are described as the western capital of Sharia law. Although they have no legitimate lawful authority, those courts are reinforcing all kinds of horrors, including discrimination against women and non-believers, polygamy and other such things. It is time that there is a debate on this issue in the House, for we need to shine a light on that malevolence. There can be only one law in this country: the law that applies to each of us and all of us.
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government and I agree absolutely with the point on which the right hon. Gentleman finished his question, because the rule of law is sovereign in this country. No other law takes precedence over that, and he is absolutely right in saying what should take precedence. Again, I am sure that many colleagues will at least share some of his concerns, and I am sure he will have support should he seek a debate.
Business of the House
John Hayes Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I commend the Leader of the House for her very full answers, but there are many Members standing and to get everyone in we will need very short questions and short answers, please.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
As short as possible, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Leader of the House will know that I have raised the issue of crossbows in this Chamber before. They are murderous devices in the wrong hands. In response, the Government have helpfully tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, yet I have still received no information, despite the Prime Minister’s promise that I would, about the response to the consultation. It is now well over a year old, yet we have heard nothing. May we have a statement to the House on the Government’s response to the consultation on crossbow ownership and sale as soon as possible please?
Lucy Powell
I will ensure the right hon. Gentleman gets an update on the consultation. He is right to say that we brought in amendments in the Committee stage of the Crime and Policing Bill. The Bill will come back after recess for its remaining stages, when some of these issues can be discussed. In the meantime, I will ensure he gets a full response on the consultation.
Business of the House
John Hayes Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear that “River City” is being decommissioned by the BBC. I know this will be of great concern to my hon. Friend’s constituents and those across Scotland. He is right to say that the BBC has a duty to represent, serve and reflect all the communities of the UK, including by making sure that there is Scottish content for Scottish audiences. I will ensure that he gets a thorough response from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, but I thank him for raising this very important matter.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
As a Minister, I was partly involved in the introduction of a Groceries Code Adjudicator. The aim of that supermarket ombudsman was to ensure a fair food chain, yet years later, farm-gate prices bear little relation to the prices that consumers pay, and farmers and growers still struggle to get a fair deal. The Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), has suggested that the powers of the ombudsman be increased. Can we have a debate about that in Government time? My farmers, growers and food firms in Lincolnshire deserve a fair deal. They deserve to be protected from these greedy corporate behemoths.
Lucy Powell
When I was a new MP in 2012, one of the first Public Bill Committees of which I was a member was the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill Committee; I am not sure if the right hon. Member was the Minister. I have followed the Groceries Code Adjudicator closely ever since, as I am sure he appreciates, and I often hear about it on “Farming Today” in the small hours, when I cannot sleep. I am well aware of the issues that he raises about making sure that our farmers continue to get a good deal and are not overshadowed and overburdened by the supermarkets, which may act in uncompetitive ways. He will know that the code needs updating; I will ensure that this House is kept fully abreast of all developments, and that he has input into it.
Business of the House
John Hayes Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. My hon. Friend can hear from the cheers across the House that this would make a very popular and important debate. It would be a reminder that our armed services have gone to many countries around the world in support of our allies over many years and sacrificed their lives, and we should always remember their bravery and their contribution.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I assume that the Leader of the House shares my constituents� alarm that a court found that a convicted drug dealer who was here illegally could not be deported because he was too �Westernised�; that prolific offenders, including domestic abusers, are, as I understand it, going to be offered anger management courses, rather than being incarcerated; and, most of all, that the new sentencing guidelines suggest that judges should look at felons� ethnicity and religion before sentencing. Will she allow a debate on criminal justice to enable us to expose the huge gulf between the liberal bourgeoisie�s prejudices and those of our constituents, who want people caught, captured, convicted and punished, regardless of whether they are black, brown, white or any other colour?
Lucy Powell
I think the right hon. Member is talking about deporting criminals when they should be deported. He will be aware, or should be aware, that nearly 3,000 foreign criminals have been deported since the election, which is an increase of more than 20% compared with situation under the last Government. However, he is right to point out that there are still gaps in that system, which is why we have brought in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. The Bill will strengthen powers to tackle illegal migration and the small boats, and enable the Government to pick up the pace even further on returning those who have no right to be here.