Proxy Voting and Presence of Babies in the Chamber and Westminster Hall
Debate between Karen Bradley and Thangam Debbonaire
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
This morning, the Procedure Committee published its first report of the new Session, concluding two inquiries: the first on extending eligibility for proxy voting to those with long-term medical conditions; and the second on the presence of babies in the Chamber and Westminster Hall. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for this opportunity to make a short statement to the House.
Our predecessor Committee did not consider the case for non-parental proxies in detail. When it came to our review at the beginning of this Parliament, we said we would consider the matter when pandemic proxies ended, if there was interest to justify a closer look. Pandemic proxies ended in July 2021 and we launched this inquiry on 23 September, to consider whether eligibility for proxy voting should be broadened.
To cut to the chase, I will quote directly from our report:
“the overwhelming balance of evidence that we heard was in favour of proxy voting being extended to include Members suffering from serious long-term illness or injury.”
The House will be aware that there have been several cases in the recent past of Members feeling compelled or being required to vote in person while seriously unwell, which risks bringing the House into disrepute. These events have led to increasing calls for proxy votes to be offered to Members suffering serious long-term illness, which would allow them to recover in their own home while still being able to exercise their vote.
However, discussions on a possible extension to the proxy voting system provoked concerns, principally on a Member’s right to privacy. I make it clear that Members who do not wish to use the proxy voting system can use pairing or, if appropriate, nodding through. We do not propose any changes to the mechanisms that are not procedural. Were the House to vote to extend the proxy voting scheme, it is essential that Members who favour a more private mechanism are able to access one.
It is also important to note that access to a proxy vote is not appropriate for every occurrence of ill health or injury. For this reason, we believe that any extension to the proxy voting scheme should not include provisions for short-term, non-serious medical conditions. In the case of non-serious illness that causes a short-term absence, Members should use existing informal mechanisms.
If the House were to endorse the principle of extending the scheme, it would be for the Government to bring forward changes to the Standing Orders. We believe that any extension should, in the first instance, take place as a pilot, the success of which the Committee would review.
The broad terms of a scheme issued under Mr Speaker’s authority should, in our view, include the following aspects. It should be available to Members who, as a result of serious long-term personal illness or injury, wish to vote by proxy. It should require medical evidence from a medical professional stating that the Member is physically unable to attend Divisions in the House. It should be recorded in the same way as a parental proxy, through a Speaker’s certificate recorded in Votes and Proceedings, stating that the Member has exercised their right under the Standing Order and giving the date and name of the nominated proxy, but not details of the medical condition. It should allow proxy voting cover for a finite time while giving Members the ability to renew if necessary. And it should decouple the issue of taking part in proceedings from the proxy vote. We understood and recognised the need for staying-in-touch days, and that some Members would wish to participate in proceedings while not being physically able to stay for the vote.
Now the Committee has published its conclusions and recommendations, it is for the House to decide whether the proxy voting system should be extended. We recommended that the Government schedule a debate before the summer recess to allow the House to debate and express a view on this issue, with a view to introducing a pilot in the autumn.
The question of whether Members should be able to bring babies into the Chamber and Westminster Hall was referred to the Committee by Mr Speaker in November 2021. The guidance to Members on this issue says:
“You may take babies or toddlers with you into the division lobby, and—if necessary to get to the division lobby—take them through the Chamber… You should not take your seat in the Chamber when accompanied by your child, nor stand at either end of the Chamber, between divisions.”
This guidance restates long-standing practice recognising that the Chamber, Westminster Hall and Standing Committees are not suitable environments for very young children.
Since 2018 there have been several occasions on which Members have, with the discretion of the Chair, with prior notice and without disruption to proceedings, brought babies into the Chamber and Westminster Hall, so that the Members can either attend or participate. This has contributed to some confusion and a gap between the House’s practice and the guidance intended to shape it. We found a general lack of awareness of the guidance among Members.
In general, we detected support for greater flexibility for new parents. We heard evidence expressing concern that the usual resources afforded to Members are not extended to nominated members of staff covering Members who are exercising a proxy vote. This should not be repeated, and we have called for meetings, calls and briefings available to Members of Parliament to be made available to nominated members of staff covering for Members exercising a proxy vote.
The long-standing practice of the House is that babies should not be present in the Chamber or Westminster Hall. We believe that Members should not bring babies into the Chamber, Westminster Hall or General Committees as they observe, initiate, speak or intervene in proceedings, and we believe this should remain the guidance. Chairs will and should retain a degree of de facto discretion, which should be exercised sparingly. The firm expectation should remain that Members do not participate in proceedings while caring for a baby, and that where it is required, in exceptional circumstances, to bring a baby into proceedings, it should be agreed in advance.
The Liaison Committee should consider how far Select Committee practice should mirror other settings and, if necessary, agree guidance covering both Members and witnesses.
Finally, the Procedure Committee is grateful to all hon. and right hon. Members, and others, who shared their views with us on both inquiries. I hope our report will be welcomed by the House, and that the House will soon have a chance to vote on these issues.
I commend this statement to the House.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Lady and the Procedure Committee for their excellent work. I welcome their recommendations and the clarity and sensitivity with which they handled these inquiries. It is particularly helpful to have clarity on proxy votes for Members with long-term illness, without a presumption that they will have to use a proxy vote, even if they do not wish to do so. Respect for privacy and good working conditions is important.
Has the right hon. Lady had an indication from the Leader of the House, who might spring to his feet shortly to give us the answer, on the possible timetable? She mentioned having a debate and a vote before the summer recess, and she mentioned the Liaison Committee considering Select Committee practice. Has she had any indication on the timetable, and would she like to say more on what she thinks is ideal?
Karen Bradley
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and her warm welcome for the report. The Committee considered these matters carefully; they are extremely sensitive. Members were not always willing to speak in public about these issues, because a lot of issues on social media and elsewhere made it difficult for them. This report reflects the views of the Committee and the views of the House that were expressed to us. As I have said, I would hope that we could have a debate and a vote on this before the summer recess, so that we could bring in a pilot scheme for proxy voting before the autumn, which we could start running in the autumn to see how it works. I do not think it would affect many Members; a very small number would wish to avail themselves of it. However, for those who would, it is important that they have it in place. The Leader of the House did indicate in his evidence that he was considering the options.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Karen Bradley and Thangam Debbonaire(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Given that we are not allowed to talk about what is in the Brexit sectoral analyses over the road at 100 Parliament Street, will the Secretary of State say what is not in them in relation to the creative industries?
Karen Bradley
I do not think there is anything that is not in there. The creative industries work with us, and these are sectoral analyses that set out the analysis we have made as Government, working with the industry. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady at Christmastime if she feels that she is missing something, and I hope that when Christmas comes it will provide everything she is looking for.
Digital Economy Bill
Debate between Karen Bradley and Thangam Debbonaire(7 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Thangam Debbonaire
I am getting nods from the Secretary of State, so I am glad that I have got that right.
The Bill could and should be a vehicle to boost the UK’s creative industries and the legal economy, and reduce the proliferation of illegal content online. I would like the Government to consider adding two things to the Bill. First, I ask the Secretary of State to consider making online providers who make music available on their sites legally liable to ensure that that music is legally available. This would mean that they would need either to obtain relevant licences or take active steps to prevent infringement, and could not take any advantage of the safe harbours provision in the e-commerce directive, which was written many years ago and no longer covers what we need today.
Secondly, I would like the Secretary of State to consider imposing a code of practice between online intermediaries and those who hold the rights to music in order to deal with piracy if voluntary talks fail. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, this is not just about music, and he mentioned films. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) referred to e-books. There are many art forms to which this could apply. I am taking music as an example, but it could do the lot.
Estimating the loss to the legal trade in music through piracy is difficult, but using data from Ofcom, there is evidence to suggest that the losses could be anything between £150 million and £300 million a year. Whatever the true scale of the figure, this is a significant loss to the UK economy, to music producers, and above all to the musicians and the artists who make the music.
Online copyright infringement is as serious as physical, off-line copyright infringement, as others have said in relation to online pornography or other aspects of the internet and the digital economy. It is as serious as that. One would not expect to walk into a shop and remove a CD without paying, walk into a club or a local live venue and not pay your door fee, or walk into an orchestral concert without a ticket. The two things are exactly the same.
I have often heard it said that the online world is impossible to regulate—that it is a sort of modern-day wild west. Well, as anyone who loves western movies as much as I do knows, the wild west was eventually tamed—sort of. The good guys do eventually win, usually, and the bad guys usually get taken out—they do in Morricone films, anyway. [Interruption.] Yes, with great music. It is not always the sheriff who is successful in asserting good over evil, and in the online world it does not necessarily have to be the law that intervenes and pursues prosecutions to make it work. Nevertheless, we do need that regulation. Music lovers themselves want to make sure their loved bands and artists are paid properly, and they know that they can be if they pay through legal download sites or through ad content. Musicians and the industry have done well out of an increase in digital music, some of it free to download or available on a subscription service.