Business of the House

Karl McCartney Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising a matter of concern to every Member in this House. Clearly, there is a massive catch-up job to be done, not just on the waiting lists that we are cracking through, but on ensuring that people are mentally well and dentally fit—all those things that they may have missed out on, particularly during the pandemic. I shall certainly make sure that the Health Secretary has heard her request.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

Good morning, Mr Speaker. May I take the opportunity to wish one and all a happy Christmas? Following the letter sent to the Prime Minister in November by the South Yorkshire police and crime commissioner urging the Government not to build any more so-called “smart motorways”, which were introduced in 2006 by the Labour party, and the detailed witness testimonies and the Select Committee on Transport reports on the same issue, may I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend the Leader of the House whether she will allow Government time for a debate on the future of smart motorways across the UK?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The next Transport questions are on 19 January, but, as that is a little time away, I will write to the Secretary of State to ask him to update my hon. Friend on the progress of analysing the safety data from the roll-out of smart motorways, and to keep him and his office informed.

Business of the House

Karl McCartney Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. The Government’s record has been to extend free school meals, and in times of particular challenge and hardship that has been further enhanced. I will make sure that both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Education hear what she has said and encourage them to update her.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

As a number of colleagues are sceptical about some of the Government’s net zero policies and proposals, and have read the Fair Fuel and Centre for Economics and Business Research report published on Tuesday and realised that we will not replace 35 million-plus internal combustion engine vehicles with electric ones by 2030 or even 2050, will my right hon. Friend allow a debate on the future of fossil fuels and the potential benefits for my constituents and the nation’s economy of synthetic fuel alternatives?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue. We are committed to net zero and the legally binding targets, but the Prime Minister has been clear that that cannot be done at the expense of business and growth, or of energy security. I am sure that he will hear much more about our plans to reach net zero while taking those issues into account in a way that has not been done before. I encourage him to apply for a debate on the matter.

Business of the House

Karl McCartney Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to ask the Secretary of State for International Trade at departmental questions. The UK has a great opportunity following Brexit to reach out, and that is what the Prime Minister is doing today in India. Some 11,000 jobs have been created by the trade deal and trade negotiations that he is talking to the Indian Government about today. There is a huge opportunity for the UK Government now that we are outside the EU, and the hon. Gentleman should celebrate and welcome that investment around the world.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend believe, as I do, that a debate would be useful to discuss the actions the Electoral Commission might take in directing all local councils to use simplified postal voting forms, which would be beneficial in ensuring fewer technically spoiled ballot papers and increase turnout figures at local elections across the country?

[Mark Spencer]

Such a debate would be very timely, given the upcoming local elections. We hope we will have Lords amendments to the Elections Bill next week, and there may be an opportunity for my hon. Friend to raise the matter directly with Ministers during that debate.

Business of the House

Karl McCartney Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady raises a point of fundamental importance. In this Chamber we have the shields of people such as Airey Neave and Ian Gow who were murdered by terrorists. We should remember and commemorate those who were killed and honour their memory; we should not honour and commemorate murders—people who are wicked and evil and deserve condemnation, not commemoration.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) [V]]

First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making many of us on the Conservative side of the House happy with his responses to the earlier question from the Scottish Member, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), who was certainly not very happy.

Many Members, like my right hon. Friend and me, will have received a vast amount of correspondence from those who are part of the ExcludedUK campaign group. Certainly in Lincoln’s case, these individuals are good people who have fallen through the cracks of Government support this year, so will my right hon. Friend make Government time available, perhaps with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor, to debate their situation and this critical issue?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises a point also raised by an hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Benches, and it is something that the House is concerned about. Throughout the crisis, the Government have made huge efforts to support the economy’s structures and maintain as many people’s livelihoods as possible in an exceptional crisis. There has been unprecedented support offered to businesses, the employed, the self-employed and the unemployed through the benefits system. Throughout this crisis, the Government have sought to protect people’s jobs and livelihoods and support businesses and public services across the United Kingdom. The Government have spent over £280 billion of taxpayers’ money to do so this year. Our package will remain the same as we move out of the national lockdown and into a tiering system, and we will continue to provide a comprehensive economic support package to support jobs and businesses. We have prioritised helping the greatest number of people as quickly as possible, but I do accept that there are some businesses that have not benefited and that is an exceptional difficulty for them.

Business of the House

Karl McCartney Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is because we won so many seats at the general election.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) [V]]

My right hon. and very sound Friend will recall that I recently asked him about the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the fact that it has treated Members departing from this place at different general elections differently and inequitably. I hope he agrees with me, despite IPSA’s letter, that it is wrong and should be righted. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that IPSA should not break employment laws, whether imposed by the EU or by our own lawmakers? Will he condemn the two-tier system that IPSA has decreed in respect of who can or cannot work for Members of Parliament? All Members in this place should be equal, but at present they are obviously not viewed as such by the establishment.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

IPSA is independent of Parliament and Government and has sole responsibility for setting and regulating MPs’ salaries, pensions, business costs and expenses. That decision was come to in the wake of the expenses scandal in 2009: it was thought that Members should not themselves be responsible for such issues. I will, of course, take up for any right hon. or hon. Member any concerns they have with IPSA, but the principle of independence is an important one, and therefore as Leader of the House I should not weigh in with heavy criticisms of an independent body.

House Business during the Pandemic

Karl McCartney Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Conduct of House business during the pandemic.

First, I would like to place on record my gratitude to Mr Speaker for allowing this debate. I am acutely aware that it is still not a full week since we last debated this issue, so I think it is worth reminding ourselves of the reasons why Mr Speaker was persuaded that it was appropriate to have this debate today.

Since the House divided, we have seen the practical outcome of the decision that was made to restore physical attendance to this House. We have seen Members queuing round the block, up the stairs, down the stairs, through Speaker’s Court and in just about every imaginable part of the parliamentary estate. It has not done any great service to the reputation of the House. It has, in fact, exposed us to ridicule around the world.

I note in passing that we have card readers installed in the Division Lobbies today, so it might be in order for me to congratulate the Leader of the House on having been wittingly or otherwise the midwife of electronic voting in this House. It is always interesting to speculate what one’s legacy might be at the end of one’s time in office, and I wonder whether that is one that the Leader of the House would have sought. In a world where irony has been destroyed, that would just be one small adjunct.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman that the sight of us all walking through here to vote was slightly ridiculous. Is he aware that screens were previously erected in the Lobbies, but they were removed before we returned last week? Does he think that that was because there are no TV cameras in the Lobbies?

[Mr Carmichael]

I am sorry, but I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question because I do not really understand it—from some of the exclamations I hear around me, I fear I am not alone. To answer his question, I was not aware of that, but I struggle to see the relevance of it.

We also saw the attendance of the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy at the Dispatch Box. Thankfully, we have now heard that his test for covid-19 was negative. I am sure that we were all grateful to hear that and wish him well. As I said when I made the application on Thursday last week, the outcome of the test was not the relevant issue. The sight of the right hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box, and the reaction to that among us all and among the watching public, should have been a wake-up call to the Leader of the House and to the Government. It is entirely regrettable that it was not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady complains that I have been speaking for 30 minutes. I have a very happy memory from shortly after I was elected to the House when she managed to speak for well over an hour, so I go back to the point I made to her earlier about pots and kettles.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I hear plenty of chuntering from the Opposition Benches, and I would like to point out that many of us on the Government Benches have not made any interventions. If we were to total it up so far, the Leader of the House has taken far more interventions from Opposition Members than Government Members. So less of it, yeah? Have an open mind, not an open mouth.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I reiterate the point that a debate is about interventions. It is how we test the argument of the Government.

Members of Parliament are no different from others who are unable to perform their jobs fully from home and are now returning to their workplaces. I understand that many Members will feel concerned about their particular circumstances, but they can be reassured by the significant changes made to make the parliamentary estate covid-19-secure. It is clear to anyone in Westminster that, while we have emerged from the initial stage of lockdown, we are by no means back to normal. That is why I made it clear before the Whitsun recess that I would work with the House authorities to explore ways in which those unable to come here can continue to contribute.

I have every sympathy with Members who feel that the constraints of the pandemic prevent them from being able to attend in Westminster. The work of scrutiny is so important that it is right that we have brought forward a motion to allow those affected to have their say during scrutiny proceedings, but I remain conscious of how important it is that Members who participate in the decision-making process of the House ought and need to do so in person. As we saw last week, the decision on whether to vote Aye or No is a public one, for which individual Members can often find themselves held to account. It is a decision that should only ever be taken after the kind of serious consideration and engagement which is only possible when all those concerned are in Westminster. By the time Members are asked to vote, Ministers want to have had the chance to talk through fully any specific concerns of individuals or groups. That remains my strong view.

I am grateful to the Procedure Committee for its willingness to support the Government’s desire to extend proxy voting. Last week, the House unanimously agreed to make this available to Members who are unable to attend at Westminster because they are at high risk from coronavirus because they are either clinically extremely vulnerable or clinically vulnerable. In making judgments of this kind, I have sought to balance the competing priorities of this place in a way that looks at Parliament as a whole. As I have maintained throughout, the Government are listening to Members across the House. I am—I hope this will please the hon. Member for Rhondda and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—giving thought to bringing forward a motion that extends proxy voting beyond what has already been agreed by the House, to include Members who are more widely affected by the pandemic.

Parliament must send a clear message to the country: we are getting on with our work as best we can during a period of great challenge, just like everyone else. That is the spirit in which I encourage all Members to view our proceedings during the pandemic. We recognise that there are difficulties, but we are showing leadership to the nation in persisting in our purpose. We are doing our duty in leading the way. Our constituents will not entertain the notion that we should ask parents to send their children back to school while we choose to remain at home.

Fortunately, that is not our approach. Rather than suffering the depredations of the muted hybrid Parliament, we are once again talking to each other in ways that were impossible when we were scattered to the four winds. Rather than wading through the treacle of the hybrid proceedings, which even the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said were far from perfect, we are once again fleet of foot and dancing a legislative quickstep.

I have enjoyed the formalised interventions in this speech just as much as I enjoy the informal interventions of Members putting their socially distanced heads around my door. Rather like the school swot secretly delighted by extra homework, I must confess that my appetite for the opportunity of today’s debate is very great, even though some may think—and some of my hon. Friends have indicated that they do think—that talking about ourselves under the current circumstances is a little self-indulgent. For there is more to our democracy than general elections. Between polling days, it is in Parliament where the interplay between Ministers and MPs comes alive. I am delighted that that interplay, as we see today, is being restored, allowing our Parliament to scrutinise legislation properly and to get on with its core business of delivering for the British people.

Hybrid Proceedings (Extension of Temporary Orders)

Karl McCartney Excerpts

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)]

I beg to move,

That the Orders of 21 April (Hybrid scrutiny proceedings (Temporary Orders)) and 22 April (Hybrid substantive proceedings (Temporary Orders) and Remote voting (Temporary Orders)) shall have effect until 20 May 2020.

The motion extends the decisions of the House on 21 and 22 April to allow the continuation of remote participation in proceedings of the House and remote voting until the Whitsun recess on 20 May. I shall not dwell on the detail of those motions, but rather use my time to explain, briefly, the reason for their extension.

The current arrangements have allowed scrutiny of the Government to continue and, remarkably, remote voting to be carried out for the first time today. The motion allows the House to agree a short extension to the current arrangements. The Government have been consistent in saying that the arrangements are temporary. As yesterday’s Command Paper set out, it is only right that Parliament has set a national example of how businesses can continue in these circumstances. We have done so admirably, thanks to the patience and commitment of both staff and Members, and will continue to do so until the Whitsun recess, but it is clear that soon Parliament must set an example for how we move back, gradually, to a fully functioning country again. Our constituents would expect nothing less.

Although we must move in step with public health guidance, it is vital that when we are asking other people to work and to go to their places of work if they cannot do so from home, we should not be the ones who are exempt from that. Indeed, we should be leading by example. It is my expectation that I will not have to renew the temporary Standing Orders again. I am grateful to the House for developing the temporary procedures, and for the immense amount of work by staff here to make the arrangements work. However, it is my belief that this House cannot be as effective in carrying out its constitutional duties without Members being present. Debates are inevitably stilted; they lack interventions. I cannot think of any previous occasion when I have spoken for so long without receiving any interventions. I begin to fear that I am boring the House, and I can think of no greater sin.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No, I am not allowed to give way under the current arrangements.

Debates are inevitably stilted and time is restricted by the understandable limits of the technology—although the people operating the technology have done a truly fantastic job in getting us to where we are. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I know that the feeling is shared across the House. All these factors restrict our ability to conduct effective scrutiny and to pass the volume of legislation required by the Government. I therefore think it essential that we move back to physical ways of working as quickly as possible.

I understand that some Members have concerns about how long we keep these measures in place, and that is why it is so important that we agree only a short extension. It is essential that we move back to physical proceedings as soon as practicable in order that this House can do what it does best: the cut and thrust of debate and the flexibility to hold the Government to account and to legislate on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom.

Business of the House

Karl McCartney Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

May I suggest that we run these questions until about quarter-past?

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will doubtless be aware, as will the Whips, you, Mr Speaker, and the Deputy Speakers, that, along with many longer-serving Members, the 2019 intake, from across the House, are having incredible problems with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Surely it is time for reform? This is groundhog day, and, 10 years on, what does IPSA cost the taxpayer each year compared with what the Fees Office cost to do the same tasks pre-2008-09?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is of course concerning to hear about any problems new Members are having with IPSA, but the House will appreciate that IPSA is independent of government. I am a member of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, so if my hon. Friend would like to write to me with his concerns, I would be happy to raise them on his behalf. I point out that we, as SCIPSA, are raising a number of points with IPSA, and the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) has brought a number of concerns from Opposition Members on these matters.

Business of the House

Karl McCartney Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Last summer, the Government announced a £3.6 billion town fund and identified 100 towns that were to benefit from it. I was disappointed that Ellesmere Port and Neston—

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

And Little Neston.

[Justin Madders]

I was disappointed that those towns, and Little Neston, were not on the list, so I began tabling written questions about the basis on which successful towns were selected. I got a list of criteria, and I asked for the data that underpinned it, only to be told this week that that information was not available because the policy was still being developed. That prompts the question: how could towns have been selected for a fund if the policy was still being developed? We need a clear and unambiguous statement from the relevant Minister about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is a doughty champion for his constituents and he is right to raise the issue of knife crime, which is troubling, particularly in London, as he rightly says. There will be Home Office questions on 10 February. The Government are going to take on 20,000 extra police and are encouraging more stop and search, which does seem to be very effective in reducing knife crime.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

We all in this House like to think that all Members are equal, but it would seem that some Members are more equal than others. I declare an interest. In 2017, more Government than Opposition Members lost our seats—there were 33 of us—and we received one week’s salary for each year of service. Mysteriously, just before the 2019 general election—at which more Opposition Members lost their seats—it was decided that each departing MP would receive two months’ salary. Does the Leader of the House believe in fairness?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is not a decision made by the Government. The House of Commons decided to allow an independent body—the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—to make the decision. My hon. Friend has made his representations. The House of Commons Commission has regular meetings with IPSA, and his point will be raised with it on his behalf.