Lindsay Hoyle
Main Page: Lindsay Hoyle (Speaker - Chorley)Department Debates - View all Lindsay Hoyle's debates with the Leader of the House
(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberIt is great to see that Christmas has come to the Palace of Westminster. I hope, Mr Speaker, that you enjoyed the Christmas fayre yesterday, and that you loaded up on goods from Frank’s Luxury Biscuits from Herefordshire just as heavily as I did—
And just in time for Small Business Saturday, too.
I understand that the Prime Minister will deliver a speech later today setting out his plan for change. I must say, I am delighted—I am sure we all are—to hear that the Government are at last adopting a plan and are trying to change. As we have so often noted at business questions, the Government’s first five months have been a festival—no, a carnival, a supermarket sweep, a fill-your-boots, all-you-can-eat blunder-fest—of delay and incompetence.
You, Mr Speaker, more than any Member of this House, will be aware that the effective functioning of Parliament rests on its ability to hold Ministers to account. That has been true since its origins in the 13th century, and arguably since even before that. As you will know, the practice of seeking reasons and explanations for official actions, be they the passage of Bills or the raising of taxation, is not some useful add-on or afterthought; it is absolutely foundational to the whole idea of Parliament as a deliberative assembly, so I am sure that you will understand my disappointment that the Leader of the House has been so persistently unwilling to answer, or even address, the simple questions that I have put to her in recent weeks.
On 14 November, I drew attention to the Government’s incompetence in combining at the same time three measures on national insurance and the minimum wage in a way that drastically raises the cost of hiring entry-level staff, and I asked for an assessment of the total impact of those measures. I am afraid that the Leader of the House’s response was to blame the previous Government, and to talk about employers who will pay no additional national insurance, a completely different group—quite irrelevant to the question asked. On 21 November, I again highlighted this problem, and got the same response: blame the last Government and change the subject. I also extended my concern about the Government’s incompetence to include their decision to bring the clean energy commitment forward from 2035 to 2030, and highlighted a vast array of public and official worries about whether this was either achievable or financially viable. In response, I am sorry to say, the Leader of the House again did not engage with either question, instead accusing me of political opportunism.
Last week, we saw the same thing once more. For the third time, I raised the question of Labour’s triple whammy in combining changes to national insurance rates and thresholds with changes to the minimum wage. This time, the Leader of the House did not simply duck the question and change the subject; she also gave me the benefit of a little homily on the duties of the Opposition. It is true that the duties of the Opposition are a topic on which, unlike the duties of Government, she has built up considerable expertise over more than a decade, but the real point is this: for a month now, I have been putting to the Leader of the House basic questions about the incompetence of this Government. Many different responses were open to her. She could have said, “I agree with you.” She could have said, “I don’t know,” “I will look into it,” “I will reply to you,” “I will ask a ministerial colleague to investigate and respond,” or “I will come back to the House with a proper account,” but on no occasion has she bothered to give any kind of proper answer at all.
Instead—and I fear the same will be true this week—the Leader of the House’s approach has been to change the subject and attack the previous Government, rather than defend the record of her Government, which is the whole point of these exchanges. Let us see what she says when she stands up shortly. If the Government had made a decent start, of course she might want to talk about that, but the truth is that the Government have made a dreadful start. They have been beset by petty scandals from the beginning; they have destroyed business confidence through a Budget that is visibly unravelling before our eyes, and only this week, they have lost a Cabinet Minister to new revelations about a criminal conviction for fraud. It is little wonder that the Prime Minister wants a reset.
The Leader of the House’s unwillingness to engage, and to recognise and respond to questions, is arguably more important than any aspect of policy, because it strikes at the heart of the very idea of our parliamentary democracy. It is a discourtesy—indeed, possibly even an insult—to you, Mr Speaker, to all our colleagues and their constituents, and to this House. It is made worse because the Leader of the House is responsible for parliamentary business and procedure, and should, one might think, set an example of openness. It is worse still for two further reasons: because she herself has so often called for transparency from Ministers, and because a failure to be accountable is itself a breach of the rules of this House, of the Nolan principles and of the ministerial code of conduct. That is quite a combination, so I ask her whether she plans to continue as she has done, or whether she will change this unfortunate habit and start to engage with the serious questions that I have been asking.
I am really pleased and proud that this Government have brought back a strengthened Football Governance Bill; it is being considered in the House of Lords. The Conservatives supported it when they were in government, but I have to say that the behaviour of Conservative peers in the House of Lords does not suggest that the Conservatives are still in favour of it, because they have tabled hundreds of amendments to slow down progress of that important Bill. If they still care about putting fans back at the heart of our football, and making sure that we have a sustainable football industry in the future, perhaps they should tell their colleagues in the other place to pipe down.
Order. Can I say to the House that hopefully, with quick questions and short answers, we can get through? I want to make sure that we time the statement, which is important to the House, with the Prime Minister. I am aiming for about 10 past or quarter past 11. Let us have a good example from Jayne Kirkham.
I am really sorry to hear that. I understand that there will be no redundancies, but this is obviously a difficult time for the staff. I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the Minister to discuss it.
In addition to the business announced by the Leader of the House, next Thursday in Westminster Hall there will be debates on Disability History Month and the opportunities for floating offshore wind power in the Celtic sea. On Tuesday 17 December, with your permission, Mr Speaker, there will be a debate on the impact of Old Oak Common on rail services to the west and to Wales. There are opportunities for the two remaining debates in Westminster Hall on Thursday 19 December. I remind colleagues that the Committee is closely monitoring those people who sign applications and say they will speak in debates but then fail to turn up.
Yesterday, I met representatives of the Afghan community. This is another of those areas that has been neglected following the general election, with people in Afghanistan in fear of their lives because of the Taliban. Equally, the oppression of women in Afghanistan is outrageous and needs to be called out. There also seems to be a change of policy at the Home Office in respect of issuing visas to people fleeing Afghanistan. Can we have a statement on the Floor of the House on what policy the Government are following to help and assist these vulnerable people at a time of terrible trouble?