Risk-based Exclusion
Karen Bradley Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I rise to speak as Chair of the Procedure Committee. We have looked at various iterations of risk-based exclusion since we were first presented with the Commission’s proposals in 2022. The decision of when exclusion should apply is not easy. Although I fully support the idea that we should have some form of risk-based exclusion, the point at which it is triggered is a matter for debate. Members on both sides will put forward very persuasive arguments, but I have to say that, based on the evidence heard by the Committee and the safeguards that will be put in place, I err towards the trigger being at charge, rather than arrest.
Charge is a public point, whereas arrest is not public. It is very difficult to see how Members of Parliament who are excluded but not publicly named could maintain their anonymity. People will see that they have a proxy vote, and they will therefore wonder whether they are on baby leave or long-term sick. It will become clear that the Member has been excluded from the precincts.
Charge is public—it is known and it is very clear that it has happened—and it is a very high bar. We have concerns, and there were concerns in the evidence given to the Committee, about when arrest might happen. I appreciate that we are talking about serious sexual and violent offences, and it is unlikely that an arrest would be made on a spurious, vexatious accusation, but it is possible. Across the United Kingdom, arrest can happen at different points, depending on the force and the legal system. Charge therefore makes it clear that there is a very serious allegation that warrants the matter being taken further.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I hear what the right hon. Lady is saying. How does she answer the charge that we in this place may be hypocrites—
Stella Creasy
We in this place may be inconsistent in our approach to these matters because, following the case of Wayne Couzens, we agreed that anybody from the police accused of serious misconduct should be removed from the parliamentary estate—that is accused, not even arrested. How do we square the circle that what we think is appropriate for the police is not appropriate for ourselves?
Dame Karen Bradley
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As I said, this is a balanced judgment; there is no right or wrong answer. I am persuaded by many arguments in favour of exclusion on “arrest on suspicion of”. However, on balance—given the job we do, the role we have and the potential for vexatious complaints—I feel that exclusion at the point of charge is right. I am not saying to the hon. Lady that we will not be accused of inconsistency; we very well might be accused of that—we regularly are.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Did the right hon. Lady’s Committee give any consideration to the fact that what constitutes a charge, and what that means in terms of procedure, is different in Scotland from what it is south of the border? In England it is the initiation of criminal proceedings; in Scotland that decision is taken at a later stage by the procurator fiscal.
Dame Karen Bradley
The right hon. Gentleman makes the point I referred to earlier: there are different points in the judicial process at which a charge or arrest is made in the different legal systems of the United Kingdom. We have three different legal systems and charges can be brought at different times.
This is a balanced judgment—there is no right or wrong answer—on the basis of what is being proposed: to remove the right of a Member of Parliament to attend the Palace of Westminster, which is an ancient right we have held for hundreds of years. We are proposing to introduce something unique and different. Based on the evidence we heard and the advice we received from the Clerks and others, exclusion on charge feels like about the right point to make that decision.
Sir Chris Bryant
Where this whole debate has gone completely wrong is by being obsessed with exclusion. It is actually about making a risk-based assessment of what needs to be done, in a certain set of circumstances, completely proportionate to the point and the severity of the crime being considered, to ensure that this place is safe. I really deprecate the fact that this is being called “risk-based exclusion”. I suspect we will be talking about very few people who might be excluded, but if there was a proper assessment of risk at arrest and proportionate measures were taken to ensure that everybody here was working safely, surely that would be the right way to move forward.
Dame Karen Bradley
I can never resist the hon. Gentleman, and that is why I will always give way to him. He makes a very good point. There may be a role for another process that does that, but for the exclusion process it feels that the right point is at charge.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend’s Committee considered the difference between whether the allegation or accusation related to a member of staff or another employee of the House, or to somebody completely unconnected. I could be persuaded that arrest might be enough for exclusion if the matter related to somebody who worked here, but if it was unrelated, and if there was no question of the Member not being given bail because risk was assumed to be low in general, then I would come to a different conclusion. That is another complication that I might ask for my right hon. Friend’s opinion about.
Dame Karen Bradley
That was not a matter the Committee considered, but my right hon. Friend makes a very good point. We need to think of this as a process and not an event, because things can change and develop. Today we are deciding whether to introduce into our Standing Orders a process for exclusion, but in future we may well decide that the measures did not go far enough and that we need another process. The Commission has taken years to look at the matter. I am glad we have got to the point where we are finally discussing it and we have the chance to vote on the proposals, but it is a process, not an event.
Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
If we decide to exclude at the point of charge, did my right hon. Friend’s Committee consider whether, instead of this entire procedure, a simple application by the House authorities to a magistrates court for conditions of bail would be more appropriate? That would cover not just this place, but any risk anywhere.
Dame Karen Bradley
We did not consider that point, but we did look at the interaction with the judicial process and concerns about the possibility that a clever barrister might use the fact that a risk-based assessment had been made as some form of defence around fair trial. I am not saying that would necessarily ever happen, but we considered that point and set it out in correspondence to Mr Speaker and the Leader of the House.
Sir Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend explain what weight was given by her Committee to the fact that, unlike other people who work in Westminster, excluding a Member of Parliament is not just the exclusion of one individual, but the exclusion of the representation of 80,000 other individuals? That is a very different position, both in effect and historically.
Dame Karen Bradley
My right hon. Friend’s point relates to the proxy vote. The measures allow for a proxy vote, as I will come to in a moment.
Members of the Committee expressed different views but, on balance, we decided, as set out in our correspondence, that charge is the right point for exclusion; we should not have proxy votes, as I will come to; and we were concerned about the make-up of the panel. The other place has decided that charge is the right point, but it does not have the panel, which was an area we considered. We were also concerned about interaction with ICGS. They are two different processes: ICGS does not involve the police, but the police could be looking at the same complaint. We were concerned about putting people off going to ICGS, where anonymity is crucial, if, at the same time, there was some sort of risk-based exclusion, because a point in the judicial process had been reached and the Member was excluded under the risk-based assessment.
As many right hon. and hon. Members have said, the exclusion would not cover the constituency. If anybody is a risk to the public in that way, then we should not stand by and allow them to continue to carry out constituency surgeries, or visit schools, nurseries, places where there are vulnerable people or people’s homes. If somebody is a risk, they should not be able to carry out their constituency work in the same way. The proposals before us do not cover that.
It is worth explaining why the Committee was nervous about the idea of giving a proxy vote to somebody who had been excluded on this basis. Members of the Committee see proxy votes as a privilege. The House has agreed that a proxy vote can be given to those on baby leave and those with long-term sickness, but a Member cannot be given a proxy vote for bereavement, a sick child or any other reason why they may not be able to attend this place. However, the proposals give a proxy vote to someone who has been excluded on the basis that they pose a risk by being in this building. That did not sit comfortably with many members of the Committee, so the Committee decided it would not support the proxy vote.
Sir David Davis
I apologise for intervening a second time, but I want to come back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox). He said, quite rightly, that constituents would be penalised by Members being excluded but one risk of providing a proxy vote is that it persuades people they are not being penalised. In practice, as we have seen with the post office scandal, being here and representing people is the important thing that is being stopped by these proposals.
Dame Karen Bradley
My right hon. Friend is right that excluding a representative’s voice from these Benches is a severe punishment for constituents.
I will make a final point in my role as chair of the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. BGIPU has agreed it will follow whatever is decided by this place on travel, so outbound delegations will not feature anybody who has been excluded on the basis of a decision taken by the panel. We will ensure that decision is upheld. I believe the other various parliamentary groups are looking at the same thing.
I realise you have indulged me, Madam Deputy Speaker, with the time I have taken. To conclude, on balance, I support what the Leader of the House has put forward and I will be voting in favour of that.
Sir Chris Bryant
It is perfectly possible to do that. I can imagine many different circumstances where somebody was arrested for a violent or sexual offence and the panel decided that they would not go down the route of exclusion. The Member would still be able to be present and take part in debates; it is just that certain other factors would be considered, such as saying, “You can’t go on foreign travel on behalf of the House, you can’t go on travel in the UK paid for by the House, you can’t participate in IPU delegations, you can’t use the bars, and we’re going to rearrange your offices.” All of those things could happen entirely without disrupting the Member’s ability to represent their constituents to the fullest possible degree. As I say, this is always about assessing the risk in the specific set of circumstances and mitigating those risks only in a proportionate way. In most cases, my suspicion is that exclusion would be disproportionate and therefore not necessary. That is why it is unfortunate that the motion has been couched in this way.
Dame Karen Bradley
I am slightly confused. The hon. Gentleman is making excellent points—they are all good things that we should consider—but the motion is specific in saying:
“The Panel will decide on appropriate measures to mitigate any risk, and such mitigation may include one or more of the following…exclusion from the Parliamentary estate…exclusion from domestic travel…and exclusion from foreign travel”.
It does not talk about exclusion from bars or changing offices. If it did and we were talking about how we might mitigate risk, we might all be in a different position.
Sir Chris Bryant
The motion does not preclude those things, either. In fact, the first report produced by a Committee was by the Standards Committee when we took evidence. Interestingly, we said:
“First, we propose that the power to exclude Members from the precincts should form only one part of a wider, formalised risk mitigation process. The evidence we heard from comparable bodies, including the police, suggests that interim suspension is normally a last resort.”
Indeed, we went on to say:
“The House Service could, for example, if it were thought necessary and appropriate”—
I would add “proportionate” to that—
“move the MP’s member of staff to an office shared with other staff, or allocate the MP an office which has a higher degree of visibility.”
Of course, all those things could happen perfectly easily without the motion and could happen now.
I have just a couple more points. On arrest or charge, I find it problematic to land just on charge. That is very late—much later than in any other comparable body in the public sector or the private sector in this country. It is not comparable with the law of the land in terms of what most employers would have to do to be a reasonable employer.
It is important that it is proportionate—that is, first, to the crime itself. That is already met by the motion in one sense, as these measures are about sexual or violent offences. The panel might also want to consider whether we are talking about one instance or several allegations. Secondly, has there been one arrest or two arrests? Has the Member been arrested under caution? We get to various other stages long before charge, such as police bail. Are we saying that we should not even consider these measures when somebody is on police bail? That seems odd to me. I would think that is us falling short of our duty.
The panel should also consider the individual’s co-operation. If the individual Member is being very co-operative, that suggests that we would not need to consider taking major further measures. Then—this point was made earlier—we should think about who the person is that we are talking about. If they are a member of staff working in this building, presumably one would want to assess that the risk was higher and therefore one would need to consider further mitigatory measures.
I have two final points—
Business of the House
Karen Bradley Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I have spoken to the leader of his party in Westminster regarding future Opposition day debates, and he knows that we will give more time to the SNP. I think SNP Members were badly treated and we will make that right. As I have explained, I also want to ensure that the Procedure Committee looks at what happened, because I do not want minority parties to receive more time on the Floor of this House and be in any doubt about how those debates will be conducted. I understand that Mr Speaker has written to the Procedure Committee to ask it to do a quick piece of work, and I will announce future Opposition-day debates for the SNP. I hope SNP Members will have confidence in what the Procedure Committee says.
The hon. Gentleman raised particular Budget measures. We have a balanced Budget—that is why the Chancellor made the decisions that he made. It is the Government’s Budget and the Government’s plan. It is rather cheeky of the hon. Gentleman to lecture us about use of public funds; I refer him to what I said earlier about the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. The SNP is legendary in this respect. Indeed, I had wrongly assumed that the appalling Willy Wonka experience in Glasgow had been laid on by the SNP, given its high-cost poor return, and the fact that the police were called. However, the presence of a bouncy castle put paid to that theory, given that bouncy castles have been banned by SNP local authorities on health and safety grounds.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The lives of people across north Staffordshire have been blighted for far too long by the stench coming off Walleys Quarry landfill site in Newcastle-under-Lyme. There is delight that the Environment Agency has now issued a suspension notice, so will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to our hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) for the work he has done on this incredibly important issue? Given that this issue affects communities up and down the country, including yours, Mr Speaker, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on landfill sites?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that important point. It is unacceptable that residents in Newcastle-under-Lyme have, for far too long, had to put up with the appalling smells emanating from that quarry, and she is right to pay tribute to our hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. He has raised the issue many times in this House and has been fighting for his constituents. I think he secured two Westminster Hall debates on the issue, and it is in very great part down to his efforts that it is being resolved.
Business of the House
Karen Bradley Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute and sending my sympathies to the families of Alistair Darling and Glenys Kinnock. I did not know Glenys Kinnock, but I did know Alistair a little, and we will miss his very dry sense of humour. I am sure that all our thoughts are with their friends and families. I also wish Mr Speaker a speedy recovery.
I will also take this opportunity to wish Jewish people around the world a happy Hanukkah. It is a festival of light overcoming darkness, and that is as relevant today as it was thousands of years ago. I know the celebrations will be more difficult this year for everyone, but I also know that Jewish people across this country will celebrate over these eight days as a symbol of Jewish pride. I am sure all in this place will want to wish everyone celebrating “Chag Hanukkah sameach.”
The hon. Lady raises the important matter of the infected blood scandal, and she is right: I was the Minister who set up the compensation scheme. I felt it important that it run concurrently with the inquiry, rather than having to wait until the inquiry reported and then set up that piece of work. Sir Robert Francis has done a very good job and the Minister for the Cabinet Office is now doing the heavy lifting on putting the scheme together. I have met with him on several occasions, and I know he is completely committed to that and is working hard on it. I point out to the hon. Lady that I could not have got the compensation scheme study established without the blessing of the Chancellor at the time. That person is now Prime Minister, and I know that he is committed to delivering on it.
I want to reassure all those who are infected and affected by the scandal that this Government have not only established an inquiry, after many decades of this injustice being done, but established a compensation study. We have done that for a reason, because we wish to deliver and bring justice to this group of people. We are the first Government to have done that and, if we can do that in short order, I think that would be something to be very proud of.
It is great to see the Labour party channelling the right of the Conservative party—channelling Mrs Thatcher recently on borders, on fiscal responsibility and on her crusade for workers, wealth creators, carers and protectors. Unfortunately, the party is simultaneously plotting to destroy all that she built and stood for. I knew Margaret Thatcher, and I can tell the hon. Lady that the Leader of the Opposition is no Margaret Thatcher. It will take rather more than a light perm, pearls and a handbag for him to pull off that look. He will need to get a backbone. He will need to get some principles. He will need to rethink the Labour party’s stance on our Rwanda policy and our border controls. He will need to rethink borrowing £28 billion more. He might also like to stand up for the public and support our minimum service levels agreements. He might like to reject the demands of the TUC, which wants to repeal all the reforms that Maggie brought in. He might like to call out the British Medical Association’s cruel plans to cancel operations and cancel Christmas for thousands of elderly people in care. He might like to call out the immoral ask of unions to transport workers, who will have to forgo pay over Christmas. In fairness, the great lady did say:
“You turn if you want to”,
and Labour’s leader has jolly well done so, several times on his leadership pledges and on almost every policy announced since he became leader. If she was the iron lady, he is the ironic man.
The hon. Lady asked about Rwanda. I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). He helped the Prime Minister reduce boat crossings by a third in the last year—more than any Minister and Prime Minister have achieved. We must ensure that our asylum and immigration systems are fit for purpose, and we must protect and control our borders—the public are right in their demand that we do so. The treaty and the legislation will enable us to operationalise the Rwanda policy. Will they be enough to do all we need to do? No, but we will have other tools as well. Will they help to give us more options and to deter people from making the terrible crossing across the channel? Yes, they will.
The Opposition have put forward no alternative plan. My question to them is: what is the objection? It cannot be a legal one, because the policy does not break international law, and nor does it blur the distinction between lawmakers and those who interpret the law. It cannot be a moral objection, because it is a moral crusade to use every tool that we have to end the trafficking of human beings. It cannot be a policy objection, because the Labour party has no alternative policy. It has voted against every single measure that we have introduced to protect our borders. It voted against the last Bill more than 70 times. Labour has fought us on ending free movement and the deportation of foreign criminals, and it has said it would take an additional 110,000 people per year from Europe. As I said, ironic.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Last night, the Labour-led administration at Staffordshire Moorlands District Council voted to increase council allowances by 44%, at a cost of £400,000 to council tax payers. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate about local authority spending and how we can make sure that council tax payers get value for money?
Penny Mordaunt
As my right hon. Friend asked her question, there were audible gasps across the Chamber. That is an incredible lack of local political leadership. Council tax payers in her district will be disappointed to hear that news. If she were to apply for a debate, I am sure that it would be well attended. I am sure that everyone would urge restraint and want to ensure the best value possible for people’s hard-earned cash.
Retirement of the Clerk of the House
Karen Bradley Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I rise to speak as Chair of the House of Commons Procedure Committee, and I wish to associate myself and my Committee with the remarks made so far. I know that we as a Committee agree wholeheartedly with the tributes that have been paid so far.
The Procedure Committee constituted itself on 2 March 2020, and at the end of our agenda, when we got to “Any other business”, somebody asked, “Do you think we should find out something about this coronavirus that people are talking about?” We agreed that we would invite Sir John to come to speak to the Committee privately the following Monday, and he was faced with a Committee of very enthusiastic MPs, all keen to hear about procedure and what we might do with this unknown thing called coronavirus—I see a fellow member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who was there at the time. We heard from Sir John terms such as “social distancing”, and he talked about our sitting, as one would expect from Sir John, “six feet” apart, not “two metres.” He talked about how he would transform this place so that we could continue to sit, and we would have to have spacing between Members and make sure there were lists of speakers. We sat there just astonished, because this was not something anyone on the Procedure Committee had expected we would be facing so soon after being constituted, but we did.
Only a few weeks later, this House went into hybrid form, and introduced new voting systems and new ways of working. It is to the credit of Sir John and you, Mr Speaker, that this Parliament continued to sit throughout the pandemic, because many others did not manage to do so. We continued to sit here, holding Ministers to account, scrutinising legislation and getting business done. That is a great credit to you and to Sir John.
As others have reflected, Sir John’s tenure had three of the great moments in this place—Brexit, the pandemic and the passing of Her Majesty the Queen—all of which he managed, as the chief executive of this place, with such aplomb, so courteously and so wisely. Of course, he was here for the change in culture in this place, and the grievance procedures that have been introduced would be enough for any Clerk’s tenure, never mind doing it in the background of all of the other great things that were happening.
I wish Sir John well. I know he will be fantastic in his new role at St Catherine’s College, Cambridge. I hope he does not have to deal with quite so many momentous activities during his time there and that he can enjoy his time as master. I wish his successor well, and again I hope we have a slightly less frenetic Parliament for him.
Privileges Committee Special Report
Karen Bradley Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Briefly, I commend the motion on this serious matter, the wording of which was put forward by the Committee of Privileges. As the special report sets out, the Committee is
“in practice the only mechanism…which the House can use to defend itself in the face of a Minister misleading it.”
Unfortunately, throughout the inquiry into Boris Johnson, the former Prime Minister and several of his close allies sought to discredit the Committee, the integrity of its members and the parliamentary process. Their actions did not affect the outcome of the inquiry—thank goodness—but that should not absolve those individuals of responsibility or scrutiny.
Senior politicians—one of them a Minister at the time, and others of them former Front Benchers—applied “unprecedented and co-ordinated pressure” on the Committee, as the report makes clear, and waged what can only be described as a campaign to disparage it. They took to Twitter, newspapers, radio and even their own TV shows to make their claims, and referred to the inquiry as a “witch hunt” and a “kangaroo court” not befitting a “banana republic”. Those are among the jaw-dropping comments listed in the annex to the report. Conservative Members might need to read the annex, because they do not seem familiar with some of those comments.
It is customary for the Privileges Committee to be chaired by a member of the Opposition, yet there were sustained efforts to undermine and question the impartiality of the Chair, who was appointed to the Committee by unanimous decision of the House. The pressure exerted on Conservative Committee members, who made up a majority of the Committee, was clearly intended to force their withdrawal or impede the conclusion of the inquiry.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The hon. Lady said it was customary for the Privileges Committee to be chaired by a member of the Opposition; actually, under Standing Orders, it has to be chaired by a member of the Opposition.
Deidre Brock
I thank the right hon. Lady for that clarification. I agree with her; she is quite right. The report also emphasises the significant personal impact that the campaign had on Members who were simply trying to perform their duties. They should not have been subject to such treatment.
It has hitherto been understood that Members should refrain from interfering in the work of the Privileges Committee, but that was ignored. Explicit protections are already in place for House of Commons standards cases involving alleged breaches of the code of conduct for MPs. When it comes to those cases, Members are prohibited from lobbying the Committee on Standards, the Independent Expert Panel or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. It seems evident from this episode that those safeguards should also be applied to privileges cases.
The claims that the changes would restrict Members’ free speech are misguided. Members already have the right to object, to vote and to raise conflicts of interest regarding Committee appointments, as well as to vote against or amend referral motions, to provide evidence, to comment on procedure and to publicly discuss the final report after its publication.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I rise to speak in my capacity as Chair of the Procedure Committee. I have to start by apologising to my Clerk, who wrote a detailed technical note about the procedures involved in this motion. All the technical points that my Clerk made have been made already, so I will not detain the House with them, but I thank her for the work she did.
Instead, I will make some general points about what we do in this place and how I hope we might be able to start behaving in a slightly different way. I will start by referring to the point about Committees. We cannot cover every issue on the Floor of this House, and that is why we depute Members to serve on Committees, whether Select Committees, House Committees such as the Procedure Committee, or Bill Committees. We ask those Members to spend their time—they do take up significant amounts of their time—scrutinising legislation and looking at issues that have been raised with them.
The members of the Standards and Privileges Committees have the most difficult jobs of effectively having to police the behaviour of their own colleagues. They have personal reasons often for not wishing to be part of that, but they do it because this House has asked them to do it. We should always remember that point: they are serving because the House has asked them to serve; they are not serving through choice, and they are doing a difficult job. I will come on to the point that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) made about policing ourselves, because there is a real danger if we do not take this matter seriously.
When it comes to Select Committees that report, there is absolutely nothing to stop any Member from criticising a report once it has been published. In fact, Governments usually criticise such reports substantially in their responses. Select Committees expect their reports to be scrutinised and examined, and they expect criticism of them—that is the very nature of our parliamentary debate and democracy. Nobody is saying that, once a report has been published, Members cannot criticise it. The important point is that there are ways in which we can interact with Committees while they are doing their work. Those are set out clearly in the report.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The substantive part of the motion, paragraph (b)—that the Committee should have the same protection as the Standards Committee—is uncontroversial. What has become clear is that the way in which Members feel they have been impugned without a say, which makes paragraph (a) of the motion controversial. It might be best if the Leader of the House were to withdraw the motion and re-table it with just paragraph (b). We might then avoid the argument and Division that we are going to have.
Karen Bradley
I served with my right hon. Friend in the Whips Office and have enormous respect for him. The Committee proposed the motion. We asked the Committee to do its work, and it proposed the motion. There is nothing unparliamentary about what it has put forward and there is nothing that is not procedurally accurate in what it has done. I for one will back my colleagues, because I would ask them to back me on a motion about a report that I had put forward as a Select Committee Chair, and I would hope that they would do so.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
As someone who has the privilege of serving on my right hon. Friend’s Procedure Committee, may I ask her whether she can recall a single occasion when the Procedure Committee has produced a report naming individuals without giving those individuals the opportunity first to present evidence? Is it not the problem that we have a report based not on evidence but on stuff that has been tweeted? As somebody who does not do tweets, I am ever more grateful that I do not.
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend is a very assiduous member of the Procedure Committee. He is right that we would report evidence for an inquiry only if it had been given to us by a Member in good faith and they knew it was going to be reported, but in this case we are not talking about that; we are talking about evidence produced in the report that is in the public domain. It has not been gathered in any other way. Of course, the motion is not the report; it is about giving the members of the Privileges Committee the same protections as members of the Standards Committee. It is difficult to argue against that.
Mark Jenkinson
I agree with the substantive point about the Privileges Committee being given the same protection as the Standards Committee, but you referred to evidence in the report, and I have been quite clear that that “evidence” was taken out of context in some cases—not least mine.
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend will have the opportunity to make that point during the debate. I would also pick him up on having made a slight technical error in what he said. He said “you”, which refers to Madam Deputy Speaker. I suggest that when we make an inadvertent technical error around our procedures, the most appropriate thing to do at that stage is to apologise and move on. That is the point here. Things have been said by some in the public domain that could have constituted criticism and an attempt to influence the Committee, and that is not allowed in our procedures.
There are ways in which Committees can be approached. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash)—my next-door neighbour—did exactly that on 22 July last year, when he tabled an early-day motion, signed by four other Members, in which he criticised the Committee and what it was doing. That was perfectly parliamentary. He was able to do that and did nothing wrong in tabling that early-day motion.
We cannot start on the slope of allowing Members to try to influence all sorts of Committees, be that the Procedure Committee, the Work and Pensions Committee, the Committee on Standards in Public Life or whatever. We have our procedures in place to enable Members to interact with Committees. They can make representations to Committees, they can vote on the membership of Committees, and they can vote on the motions and the terms of reference. That is all available, and then, when the report is published, they can say whatever they wish about that, because it is in the public domain. That is the technical difference.
Karen Bradley
I will allow one further intervention. I did say only one earlier, but I will allow my hon. Friend.
Dr Johnson
My right hon. Friend, with her expertise on the Procedure Committee, clearly has much more experience in procedures than I do. Could she help me? The Privileges Committee has produced interim information on how it was to proceed with the difficult task it had been given. There will be Members who wish to agree with that process and those who wish perhaps to agree with and criticise the process. She suggested that a Member could table an early-day motion. Are there other ways in which that can be done in Parliament? Most specifically, is she suggesting that the Committee cannot be criticised outside Parliament on Twitter and on social media?
Karen Bradley
What I am saying is that, as right hon. and hon. Members we have a duty to protect and work with our friends who are doing this difficult work. There are many ways in which Members can interact with a Committee as it carries out such work: they can make representations; they can probably raise points of order on the Floor of the House; they can table early-day motions and all manner of other motions—and they are parliamentary ways. They are not through the general media or Twitter or other ways.
Dr Johnson
Just to clarify, is my right hon. Friend saying that if asked in general by perhaps a journalist for one’s opinion on such things, one should not give an opinion because one should leave it to the parliamentary process?
Karen Bradley
Yes, absolutely—that is exactly the point. The Standards Committee and the Privileges Committee in particular have specific provisions in “Erskine May”, and the members of those Committees cannot answer back—they have no right to do so—so until a Committee has reported, it is not parliamentary to make such comments. I gently say that if this happened inadvertently because Members did not know—this is a very technical point—I am sure that an apology, saying just that there was no intention to influence the Committee, would be appreciated.
I turn to my final point, which, actually, the hon. Member for Wallasey started to make, which is about policing ourselves. I would very much like us to get back to having motions on House business going through on the nod. The moment we started to whip House business put us on a very slippery slope, because the House will make decisions and the House needs to support Members. I hope that we can go back to those things going through on the nod, with us trusting our colleagues to police us.
We did not do things well when it came to our expenses. We policed our own expenses, and look at what happened as a result of that. I strongly suggest that nobody in the House wants us to get to a position where an outside body, third parties and non-Members start to police us. If we want to continue policing ourselves, we need to have faith in the system we have, and we need to support those right hon. and hon. Members who are doing their very best to do their job.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate. I will try not to take too long or to repeat things that have already been said.
It is a great shame that the debate on the Privileges Committee’s fifth report, on Boris Johnson, became largely a debate about the integrity and standing of the Committee itself, rather than just the behaviour of Boris Johnson, which was the subject of the report. I can understand why many Members saw it as such, but it is important to establish in this debate that it is possible and legitimate to be in disagreement with some of the Committee’s conclusions, yet still respect and uphold the Committee’s authority and integrity. I say that because that is exactly the position I took in relation to that report. It must be legitimate to do that if the position is—as it is—that the Committee makes recommendations to the whole House, and the whole House then decides whether to accept them.
The report that we are debating today is entirely about the Privileges Committee’s authority and integrity, and about how that should be upheld. Just as criticism of the Committee’s conclusions can be perfectly legitimate, and just as it is not right to say that any criticism of it is an attack on its authority, so it is not right to say that all attacks on the Committee must be allowable as exercises of free speech. We recognise, do we not, that free speech is sometimes properly restricted in the interests of broader freedoms? That is exactly what we are considering here.
The Committee’s special report makes the strong point that there are legitimate opportunities for Members to oppose a referral of a matter to the Committee in the first place—as has been observed, in the case of Boris Johnson nobody did, not even Boris Johnson. The Committee is also right to say that criticism of its conclusions is perfectly valid, as is a decision not to support those conclusions. What is not valid is to attack or to seek to influence or undermine a Committee that this House has charged with an inquiry while that inquiry is ongoing.
Karen Bradley
My right hon. and learned Friend allows me to make a point that I have just considered as we have been debating. If this was a criminal trial, it would be sub judice and Members of Parliament would not be allowed to comment on it. Perhaps we should think of the Committee as something analogous to that—a quasi-judicial progress in which Members can complete their work without influence from other Members, while proper processes are still available for Members to make representations.
Sir Jeremy Wright
Yes, I understand entirely the point my right hon. Friend makes. But there are, of course, significant differences between the work done by the Committee and the work of a court. It comes back to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), which I enjoyed too much to interrupt. It seemed to me that the point he was making about Lord Hoffmann also bears some scrutiny in this respect. Courts are decision-making bodies. The Privileges Committee is not a decision-making body. The House of Commons as a whole is the decision-making body. There is therefore a difference between the way the Privileges Committee operates and the way in which a court operates. Where I do agree with my right hon. Friend is that it is important to the integrity of the Committee’s investigation that Members of this House, having delegating authority to that Committee to do the work, do not seek to derail it while it happens. That does not mean that they are not entitled to criticise any conclusions that the Committee may reach, and nor is it inappropriate, as I have done myself, for a Member not to agree with the conclusions the Committee has reached.
Standards
Karen Bradley Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
May I add my view, as Chair of the Procedure Committee? I feel that the amendments are absolutely fine, and we should be happy to see them passed tonight.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for her support for the amendments. We are hopefully saving ourselves some time, and efficiency is always great to see. It is important to point out, however, that if Members did object and wanted the Committee to look at this, they could oppose the amendments, which are obviously subject, potentially, to a vote tonight.
We support the work being undertaken to introduce measures to empower the standards system in Parliament, and I am committed to continuing conversations both within Government and with parliamentary colleagues to continue to introduce improvements proposed by the Committee on a cross-party basis. I assure the House that my door is always open and I am always willing to discuss these matters with all Members. I hope that the House will approve the proposed changes, and I commend them to the House.
Voting by Proxy (Amendment and Extension)
Karen Bradley Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Let me start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for finding time for the debate. It is very welcome that time is provided in the House for us to debate these matters properly. A habit had been developing of making such debates “nod or nothing”, which did not give Members an opportunity to have their say about the important matters which govern how we best represent our constituents.
As my right hon. Friend said in her opening remarks, proxy voting is a relatively new procedure for the House. It was initially introduced in 2018, but, as my right hon. Friend said, it was in May 2019 that that the pilot scheme for proxy voting during baby leave was introduced following a report from our predecessor Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker). The current Committee, which I now chair, reviewed the pilot scheme and produced a report in September 2020, making the baby leave scheme permanent.
During that process, we were acutely aware of calls to extend proxy voting to other areas, but we wanted to ensure that the review focused on the way in which the proxy scheme worked for those on baby leave—a very “known” event which is very public. People are very aware that their Members of Parliament, or their spouses, are having babies. I think that that has improved this place, and made it a much more welcoming environment for new parents.
At the time we issued our report in September 2020 we were in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic, and at that same time the House agreed that proxy voting should be extended for matters of illness or being unable to attend this place due to the coronavirus. At that point, it was a widely used measure. For very good reasons, Members were not expected to be in the Division Lobby. That was absolutely right, because it would not have been a safe place for them. A very difficult process of voting with social distancing was introduced, and it was quite right that proxy votes were available to pretty much anyone who wished to use them by the end of the pandemic. I think there was a point when only about 14 Members had not taken up a proxy vote.
I want to reassure any Members who are concerned that we are going to start down that route again that that is not what this scheme envisages. This will be a much more restrictive scheme which we do not envisage being used by more than a small number of Members at any one time. However, it was clear from all the evidence that we took that, for those Members who need it, the scheme will be the most valuable way to enable them to represent their constituents.
I see that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) is here, and I know she is going to contribute to the debate at some point. Hers was one of the most overwhelming pieces of evidence given to the Committee. She said that representing our constituents and being able to have our votes recorded was an incredibly important part of the democratic process, and that it cannot be right in a modern Parliament that wants to give open access to everybody if Members feel unable to do that or if they feel pressured to put their health in jeopardy in order to come into this place and vote.
I am pleased that the Government have tabled this motion. I want to make a point about confidentiality, because that is something that I am nervous about. I am not going to say that I am not concerned about it. We toyed with this issue on the Committee: how can we ensure that someone going through a deeply personal and private experience can have the confidentiality they need when taking up this scheme? It is clear that we have to ensure that there is transparency to constituents around voting, but that transparency could impact on people’s personal situations.
The first point is that nobody needs to take up the opportunity. If Members do not wish to take a proxy vote, they do not have to do so. I am pleased that pairing will still be available, even though it relies on trust and on the relations between the usual channels working. It is an important part of the way we conduct our business. For any Member who is away for just a short amount of time, pairing is a good way to deal with these matters. We heard evidence that if a Member was unable to attend for a few weeks, their constituents did not notice, but there was strong evidence that after a certain period of time, they did start to notice that their Member was not voting. It is a matter for each of us how we represent our constituents and what we are prepared to say in the public domain, but the evidence we received from the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and many others who had gone through or were going through long-term medical conditions was overwhelming: they said that the availability of this option, for those who wished to take it, was incredibly important. So I am pleased that that is going to be the case.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) asked about the consideration given by the Committee to eligibility—I feel like I am answering a statement here. We came to the view that a scheme should be designed to allow the Speaker the final say on the provision of medical evidence for someone needing to take time away from this place in order to get the treatment they need and have the best chance of recovery from whatever their condition may be. It should be noted that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority allows Members of Parliament an additional budget for staff if they are away for three months or more. I would have thought that is a very good example, as three months feels about the right amount of leave needed to qualify for a proxy. Clearly, it will be on a case-by-case basis. We did not want to dictate which conditions qualify and which do not, but we were keen to make sure there is flexibility for Mr Speaker.
The hon. Lady also asked about time for the review, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), who is a previous Chair of the Procedure Committee—I served under him—is right. I am slightly concerned about the timeframe for the review, because I would not want so few Members to take up these proxies that we do not have evidence on which to operate. The Leader of the House is extraordinarily pragmatic and helpful, and I am sure she will work with me if it is felt that the pilot needs to be extended slightly before the Committee reviews it. We will, of course, find time for whatever review is required.
Finally, we deliberately decoupled any parliamentary absence from the baby leave proxy when it was introduced, so that no new parent felt pressured to come to this place. They were allowed to have proper time with their newborn, in the way that all new parents should have, but we learned during coronavirus that there are many occasions when it is important for Members to be able to contribute to debates and then to exercise their vote via proxy, both for keeping in touch and for recovery. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford that being able to come in for a few days at a time, to be able to take part in debates while still receiving treatment, and still to be able to go home and recover, is incredibly important.
I finish by thanking the other members of the Procedure Committee and my fantastic Clerks, who worked incredibly hard on this report. Without them, we would not have had the superb report that is before the House today. I fully support the motion, and I hope the House will agree to it unanimously.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the SNP spokesperson, Deidre Brock.
Patrick Grady
Yes, my hon. Friend makes a good point. The Chamber is maybe not quite as full as it ought to be for a debate of this importance, but I am sure that other hon. Members, wherever they might be, are following our proceedings live—as no doubt are the many thousands of people tuning in to the live stream and to BBC coverage and so on. There are a lot of different ways now to engage with parliamentary proceedings, both for members of the public and for those of us who, for whatever length of time, are Members of Parliament.
We only have to look at the Scottish Parliament to see how, when it was first set up 20 years ago, it went out of its way to become that kind of modern exemplar, adopting fixed decision times and electronic voting. Similar systems are in place in devolved legislatures and, indeed, local council chambers across these islands. In Holyrood they have continued to use remote voting since the pandemic, which is of huge assistance to Members of the Scottish Parliament who have remote constituencies, caring responsibilities or other kinds of accessibility requirements.
If Parliament—any Parliament, including the future independent Parliament of Scotland—is to be inclusive and truly representative of our modern and diverse society, then participation for its elected Members must be as straightforward and as intelligible to the outside observer as possible. Proxy voting means that Members are not forced into an opaque pairing system or the nonsense of nodding through, which is essentially a proxy voting system but means that Members—I have experienced this as I have had to nod people through in the past—have to stay somewhere else on the estate but are excused from having to go through the Lobbies. That does not help people who have difficult conditions for which they should really be at home recuperating and regaining their strength. The extension of the scheme will allow constituents to be represented even when a Member is indisposed through no fault of their own.
Patrick Grady
I am happy to give way to the Chair of the Procedure Committee.
Karen Bradley
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is a valuable member of the Committee. I want to reassure him that many people who are not here are watching the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke), who is availing herself of the proxy vote for baby leave, has just texted me to say how pleased she is that the debate is happening and how much she wants the extension to go through, so there are Members observing who might not be in the Chamber.
Patrick Grady
I entirely agree. That exactly proves the point. Many Members are in their offices right now catching up on their constituency correspondence, but they will have the Chamber feed on and will be watching the debate out of the corner of their eye, if only just to find out when the Government will drop the Whip so they can all go home. That is exactly the point: we engage differently now. It does none of us a service when people see pictures of a full Commons talking about one thing and an empty Commons talking about another. That is not representative of how this job works. This point has already been made, but if we want people from more diverse communities, with broader life experience, and who want to raise a broader range of issues, we have to make the job as accessible as possible. That is what I think is happening today.
At this rate, we might manage to drag this House into the 21st century sometime around the start of the 22nd, but by then Scotland will be blazing its own trail as an independent country and, for us, Westminster will be merely a quaint historical curiosity.
The Treasurer of His Majesty's Household (Craig Whittaker)
I shall be brief. Like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I thank the Procedure Committee for its helpful report and recommendations. I also thank the Women and Equalities Committee and its Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), for their recommendations, which have really enhanced the other Committee’s report.
As was set out at the start of the debate, the Government welcome the step of implementing the pilot scheme, which will offer greater assistance to Members with serious long-term illness or injury. I am grateful to the Committee for indicating that it will review this change to the scheme, and I think it is important that the pilot should be implemented permanently only if the Committee can reassure the House that it has worked well.
I welcome the thoughtful debate that we have had today. It was wonderful to see and hear the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) here today and have her endorsement that we are finally starting to take disability and accessibility for Members seriously in this place. I know how hard she has campaigned, over a very long period, for these changes and I must say huge congratulations to her on a personal level as well.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), the shadow Leader of the House, asked three questions. The first was around maintaining the confidentiality of the individual Member. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) said, although proxy voting is designed to be a transparent and open process for constituents, we do have the nodding through and pairing process from our superb and excellent Whips’ Offices, which ensures discretion if preferred by the Member; and of course the Procedure Committee will consider confidentiality when it assesses the pilot scheme.
The hon. Member for Bristol West also asked about the threshold of injury or illness. That ties in with a question asked by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). This is a highly pragmatic scheme, for which the Speaker will have discretion. Mr Speaker will also publish updated guidance to the scheme in due course. I hope that answers that question.
Finally, the hon. Member for Bristol West asked about the assessment process for the pilot. My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands said that the process used during the pilot conducted in 2019—assessment by those who actually used the scheme—would be applied here too. If more time is needed because of lack of use of the scheme, it will be for the House to decide whether to allow more time for that pilot scheme. I think that covers most of the questions that were asked.
Karen Bradley
It is wonderful to see my hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box. Could I ask for his commitment that the Government will facilitate that vote to allow the pilot scheme to be carried forward, and allow the House to make that decision?
Craig Whittaker
The straightforward and right answer to that is yes. We will make sure that gets facilitated.
There is much more we can consider when looking at how we adapt some of our proceedings in the House to make them fit for the 21st century and—as the wonderful hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire said—make it a more modern environment for Members, as well as those who are not Members who come into this place. There is no question in my mind but that we need to continue to make progress, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will reflect carefully on the points made in today’s debate. I hope Members will support the motion, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That:
(1) this House
(a) believes that Members experiencing serious long-term illness or injury should be entitled, but not required, to discharge their responsibilities to vote in this House by proxy, under a pilot scheme issued by the Speaker and reviewed by the Procedure Committee;
(b) directs the Speaker to amend the scheme governing the operation of proxy voting in accordance with paragraphs 1-40 of the First Report of the Procedure Committee, HC 383, on Proxy voting and the presence of babies in the Chamber and Westminster Hall; and
(c) directs the Procedure Committee to review the operation of the temporary amendment to Standing Order No. 39A no later than 17 March 2023.
Ordered,
That,
(2) the following amendments to Standing Order No. 39A (Voting by proxy) be made:
(a) in paragraph 2, delete “absence from the precincts of the House for”;
(b) in paragraph 2, delete “childbirth or care of an infant or newly adopted child” and insert—
“(a) childbirth;
(b) care of an infant or newly adopted child; and
(c) complications relating to childbirth, miscarriage or baby loss”; and
(c) delete paragraph 7.
Ordered,
That,
(3) the following amendment to Standing Order No. 39A (Voting by proxy) be made, and have effect from 17 October until 30 April 2023: in paragraph (2) insert
“(d) serious long-term illness or injury”.
Business of the House
Karen Bradley Excerpts(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks to all who contributed to the mourning of our late Queen. I know that the House authorities are considering how Members can express their gratitude towards staff for what they have done, perhaps using the intranet, so that all staff can read how we feel and how proud we are of what they have done.
Our Prime Minister has recommitted us at the UN General Assembly and sent a message to the world that our resolve towards Ukraine will not waver, and that we will continue to lead the charge on combating Russian aggression. That includes the financial measures that we have pioneered and on which we have led others. That will continue, and there will be time for Members to raise this in the general debate today. I reassure the hon. Lady that I, the Chief Whip and others have ensured that the time we have rightly taken to mourn Her late Majesty does not slow down our legislative programme. We are confident that whether it is on the cost of living, on sanctions or on any other matter, there will be no real-world delay to the introduction of those measures.
The hon. Lady asked specifically about the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. We will bring that forward for First Reading on 11 October, and we will continue to push and speed up legislation, whether it is on growth or on the other measures that we are bringing to the Floor of the House.
I think all the four nations of our United Kingdom have shown over the last few weeks the strength that there is in unity. It has been the most tremendous event—a tremendous coming together and a tremendous welcoming of our new King, King Charles III. I am absolutely confident that public opinion and the strength of the United Kingdom will remain strong in all four nations of this United Kingdom.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to her new role and join her in the tributes that she paid to the staff and others in this place who made the lying in state such a special occasion. She was new to the job, and she acted with incredible dignity and grace throughout.
As Chair of the Procedure Committee, I extend to her a warm welcome to come in front of the Committee on many occasions during her tenure as Lord President of the Council. I thank her for announcing that the Procedure Committee’s report on proxy voting will be subject to a vote when we return from the conference recess. Can she confirm that there will be time for a debate on that motion, and will we revert to the traditional way of voting on these matters whereby this is a free vote and a matter for the House to decide?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for her kind remarks. I confirm that we have undertaken to allow a debate on that on 12 October—that is our plan. Clearly, that is a matter for the House and should be subject to a free vote.
Business of the House
Karen Bradley Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Spencer
I am not going to battle with you at the Dispatch Box, Mr Speaker, but should you write to me, of course we will lay that motion.
The hon. Lady talked about the International Trade Committee. I understand that the Secretary of State has agreed a new date on which to go back to the Committee. It has had that report to scrutinise for more than six months. By the time we finish the CRaG process, we will have had seven months of scrutiny on that matter and I think that is right.
The hon. Lady can spend her time here complaining and claiming that Labour has a plan, but the simple fact is that the Labour party does not have a plan for the United Kingdom. The Government are getting on with meeting the challenges and solving the problems that we face. We said that we would recruit over 20,000 more police officers, and we have already recruited 13,500. We are investing a huge amount of cash—£39 billion—in helping people with the challenges of the cost of living. We are leading internationally on Ukraine and making sure that we are seen to be leading. Only the US is beating us in the amount invested in supporting Ukraine. We are fighting with a global inflation spike and succeeding in helping people through this crisis, and the hon. Lady should support the Government in what we are trying to achieve, rather than just complain from the sidelines.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
In two weeks’ time I will be hosting my first in-person event since the pandemic, which is a pensioners fair to bring together those organisations and agencies that help to support and provide opportunities for the more mature constituents of the Staffordshire Moorlands. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on those community groups that help to provide such great support to more mature people, particularly in the light of the loneliness and social isolation that many of them suffer?
Mark Spencer
Of course I would be delighted to support my right hon. Friend in that, and I pay tribute to her and the work she does in her constituency to support pensioners and give them help and advice on how to engage with the Government. I also pay tribute to members across the House who hold such events, which are a great asset to our communities.
Business of the House
Karen Bradley Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
Mr Speaker, my verse gets worse and worse.
I thank the right hon. Lady for reminding us that it is the fourth anniversary of the death of PC Palmer, who died in the service of the House. We keep his soul and his family in our prayers. He is a model of public service, of courage and of the type of policing of which this country is so fortunate, in the general rule of things, to be a real example—of police who are of their community and for their community, and who, unarmed, face unknown risks. We continue to mourn and commemorate him.
The right hon. Lady asks when the new Parliament will be. That will, of course, be announced in the normal course of events, as she knows perfectly well. It is one of those things that she has to ask me and I have to give the same answer every week, and we will no doubt carry on doing that for some time. [Interruption.] There is a little bit of electronic interference coming in—I do not know where that is coming from.
The debate on Thursday the 25th will be an all-day debate. Obviously, that will be subject to statements and urgent questions, but other than that we will be debating this very important issue throughout the whole day. It is obviously right, as the right hon. Lady says, that it should be properly debated. The reason why it is important to extend the Coronavirus Act 2020 is that the furlough scheme will be going on for the whole of the six months. The basis for the furlough scheme is the Coronavirus Act, which provides for only six-month extensions, but that is something that it will be doing throughout that period. As other things wax and wane, the Government have already announced that one thing will continue during that period, so the Act is needed.
May I put in a word in defence of Dominic Cummings? He is an excellent public servant who has done a great deal for this country, and he worked with a pay cut when he was first appointed. He took £40,000 less than he was entitled to, and then his pay reverted to its normal level. I am not sure that many other people working in the public sector take that level of pay cut, and I think that shows his commitment to the public service. He did a great deal for this country, not least through his energetic and effective campaigning in the Brexit referendum, but also in providing energy for Her Majesty’s Government. He is an important figure. His evidence was interesting, though it was not evidence that one agrees with in its entirety. I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has done an absolutely fantastic job over the past year and is an example of how politicians ought to behave and, perhaps most importantly, to lead Departments.
As for an inquiry, as has been said by Professor Van-Tam, the time for that will be when the pandemic has ended. The worst thing to do now would be to interrupt the enormous amount of work being done in dealing with the pandemic by having an inquiry, but of course it will be looked into in due course.
Her Majesty’s Government will reply to the Procedure Committee in accordance with the Osmotherly rules, which, as is well known, is how replies are made. As I have said before on the Floor of the House, when we asked people to give consensus, to accept, that we had to have these extraordinary measures, it was on the basis that they were temporary. If it were to be the will of the House to adopt some things permanently, it may wish to do so, but we must go back to normal first and then decide what we wish to implement. Otherwise, we would have got the consensus by cheat, and I am not in favour of cheating.
As regards support for fishermen, there has been a £23 million exceptional fund provided immediately and £100 million for them to improve their fleets over coming years, so there is support for fishermen. Maintaining more access to our own waters is going to be a benefit, though I do not think I ever called it an Eldorado; I am not sure that that is a phrase I have used.
The Foreign Secretary’s comments were shockingly distorted by low-quality journalism. It is a cheat that journalists sometimes use of editing text or a recording. It was done to Roger Scruton by the New Statesman, and it has now been done to the Foreign Secretary. It is a very cheap level of journalism, and it is not a proper way to behave. He was absolutely clear that there are behaviours that mean we cannot trade with people—he said that—if only people had bothered not to clip the recording unfairly, improperly and, broadly, dishonestly. We should look at that type of poor-quality online journalism. It is not the sort of thing that would happen in The Times.
I have so much sympathy with what the right hon. Lady says every week about Nazanin, Anousheh and Luke Symons. They are being worked for by the Foreign Office in ways that it can; Luke Symons’s case is particularly difficult, obviously. The Prime Minister spoke to the President of Iran recently about Nazanin. There is no excuse for the Iranian Government holding her. She ought to be released. These trumped-up charges are improper and wrong, and they reflect on a regime that does not acknowledge the rule of law. We should make it clear that the fault lies with the Iranian Government, not with Her Majesty’s Government.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) [V]
I look forward to receiving my right hon. Friend’s response to my Committee’s report. Mr Speaker, I am sure that you have many constituents, as I do, who are looking forward to being able to get married. The news in the road map that they can get married from 12 April has brought joy to so many, but due to what I would describe as an anomaly in the guidelines, it appears that they could legally get married from 12 April in a gymnasium, a hairdresser or even walking down the aisle of a supermarket, but not in a dedicated wedding venue. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the important role that the wedding sector plays and how it has been devastated by covid, and will he use his good offices to encourage his ministerial colleagues to deal with this anomaly as soon as possible?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her question, which she raised in a point of order yesterday. I have the greatest sympathy for wedding organisers, including those in my constituency. It has been an incredibly difficult time for them—more difficult than for many other forms of business. However, the Government’s road map set out that at step 2, weddings, receptions and commemorative events will be able to take place with up to 15 guests in premises that are allowed to open—that is the clear point: premises that are allowed to open. This means that at step 2, no earlier than 12 April, weddings may take place in premises that are permitted to open or where a broader exemption applies, such as places of worship or hotel function suites. Wedding receptions can take place outdoors only, and there has been no change in that plan. The Paymaster General has committed to ensure that any further clarity that Public Health England can provide on this matter is put on the parliamentary intranet covid hub for all Members to see, and it may be debated on 25 March in accordance with all the other regulations, so I hope that my right hon Friend will raise it then.