Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 19th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 16, at end insert—

“(f) to require the Delivery Authority when allocating contracts for construction and related work to have regard for the company’s policies on corporate social responsibility, including those relating to the blacklisting of employees or potential employees from employment.”

Amendment 6, page 2, line 21, at end insert—

“(h) to undertake, and publish, an annual audit of the companies that have been awarded contracts for the Parliamentary building works, with a view to establishing their size and geographical location.”

Amendment 7, page 2, line 44, leave out “desirability of ensuring” and insert “need to ensure”.

This amendment requires the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body, in exercising its functions, to have regard to the need to ensure that educational and other facilities are provided for people visiting the Palace of Westminster (rather than requiring it to have regard to the desirability of ensuring that such facilities are provided).

Amendment 4, page 2, line 46, at end insert—

“(h) the need to ensure that economic benefits of the Parliamentary building works are delivered across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, in terms of contracts for works and in any other way the Sponsor Board considers appropriate.”

Amendment 5, page 2, line 46, at end insert—

“(h) the need to conserve and sustain the outstanding architectural, archaeological and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster, including the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site.”

Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 10, line 20, at end insert—

“( ) See also paragraph 7A, which makes provision about the appointment of the first external members.”

This amendment signposts the new paragraph 7A inserted by amendment 9 (which deals with the appointment of the first external members of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body).

Amendment 9, page 12, line 2, at end insert—

“Appointment of initial external members

7A (1) The person who, immediately before the commencement day, was the chair of the shadow Sponsor Body is to be treated as having been appointed on that day as the chair of the Sponsor Body in accordance with paragraph 2.

(2) Appointment by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) is to be treated as being for a term of 3 years.

(3) A person who, immediately before the commencement day—

(a) was a member of the shadow Sponsor Body (other than the chair), and

(b) was not a member of either House of Parliament,

is to be treated as having been appointed on that day as a member of the Sponsor Body in accordance with paragraph 3 (external members).

(4) Appointment by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) is to be treated as being for a term ending with the last day of the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which the shadow Sponsor Body was established.

(5) An appointment by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (3) ceases to have effect at the end of the period of 1 month beginning with the commencement day unless, before the end of that period, the appointment is confirmed by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(6) Paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 do not apply in relation to a member who is appointed by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (3).

(7) In this paragraph—

“the commencement day” means the day on which section 2(1) comes into force;

“the shadow Sponsor Body” means the body, established in July 2018 in connection with the restoration of the Palace of Westminster, which is known as the shadow Sponsor Body.”

This amendment provides for those who were external members of the shadow Sponsor Body immediately before clause 2 comes into force to be appointed as the first external members of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Tami]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need to keep to the Bill and the amendments. I know that a man of great stature like the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to lead the House where it is not supposed to go. I think that he was giving way to Mark Tami.

[Mark Tami]

To reinforce your point, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was about to say that we have had these arguments for ever and a day. We could have them again, but this debate is about the governance.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Hence I am sure Sir John will now go back to where he wanted to be.

[John Redwood]

I am very willing to do so. As I say, I welcome the principle that where works are conducted, there needs to be a proper audit. However, I go back to the intervention that I made at the start of the debate, when I said that any audit should also look at the policy, because I note that the legislation we are being asked to approve today makes it very clear that the policy has not been finalised. We are setting up authorities and bodies to sort out both the policy and the implementation, so I submit that the audit must apply to the policy as well as to the implementation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

My colleague and good friend is making a powerful speech. In describing the raid on the Scottish lottery budgets at the time of the Olympics, he is highlighting that what is happening here is another not very well disguised London subsidy from the pockets of Scottish taxpayers. This is why the Union is creaking. I say to Scottish Tory MPs who acquiesce in this: “You are not Unionists if you are doing this; you are submissionists. You should be making sure that Scotland gets its fair share of any subsidy that goes to London.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Come on—let’s stick to what the debate is about.

[Neil Gray]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought it was a perfectly reasonable intervention.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am the judge of that, not you, Mr Gray. Come on!

[Neil Gray]

Returning to the London Olympics, at the time, 4,200 Scottish companies registered their interest in providing services, while fewer than 200 actually secured any business. Most galling of all was that £135 million of legacy funding was made available for grassroots sport, but to be distributed by sports governing bodies south of the border. No extra funding was made available for Scottish sports governing bodies. There is no doubt that that experience left a bitter taste. We are not here to debate the London Olympics, but that is the last major infrastructure project similar in status to the restoration and renewal project, which is London-based, without full Barnett consequentials and with a similar delivery model—I will come back to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making the case that there is too much capital expenditure in London and the south-east on this project. I remind him of the massive expenditure on the two aircraft carriers built in Rosyth in southern Scotland, at enormous expense for the Union’s taxpayers, for the benefit of Scottish companies and Scottish labour.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have a debate on amendments and Members are meant to be speaking to those amendments. I am not going to let the debate drift wherever people decide they want it to drift to. We will now go back to Mr Neil Gray. We need to get back to where we should be.

[Neil Gray]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been referring to a relevant project, which was similar in status to the one under discussion today and one from which we should have learnt lessons. My colleagues and I have done our very best to be constructive in all our dealings on this issue, but there will come a point where we will have to ask for how long we can be ignored on an issue of fundamental importance to us, which is the fair share of resources. I fully expect this project to go beyond £10 billion, when all is said and done. If the project is Barnett-ised, that would mean a transfer just shy of £1 billion to Scotland. Right now, the Government are unwilling to contemplate not only some form of capital investment spin-off, but even a subtle instruction to the Sponsor Board to ensure contracts are secured across the UK. That is not acceptable and there must be a revision of that approach.

On the other amendments, we will support Labour’s amendment 1 on blacklisting companies. Amendment 5 is a little bit concerning for me. I understand the intention from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), but as I have said before this project will throw up irreconcilable conflicts which will make for very difficult decisions. One will be the conflict between access for members of the public versus heritage. Amendment 5, as well-intentioned as it may be, will make it far more difficult to make this place more accessible to disabled people. Besides, if this is just going to be a project to empty everything out and return it all back as it was but a bit cleaner, then what on earth is the point? The building contributes to the culture here, which is elitist, inaccessible and out of date, and that must change. We support amendment 6 as a way of improving the Bill, but it does not in itself satisfy our desire for greater emphasis to be placed on the Sponsor Board and the Delivery Authority to ensure the project has discernible UK-wide benefits.

In conclusion, I intend to press my cross-party amendment 4 to a Division to test the willingness of the Government to do more than just talk about this being a UK-wide project. We have seen what happens in the past: they are no such thing. We need concrete action to confirm that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton]

—and we should have part of that story—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It might be more helpful to the Chamber if the hon. Gentlemen had this discussion afterwards.

[Tim Loughton]

If the hon. Gentleman turned up to meetings of the all-party parliamentary archaeology group more often, we could have the discussion there.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It has nothing to do with what we are discussing, or listening to, in respect of the Bill.

[Tim Loughton]

That table is part of the heritage of this place. It is thought that it may have been broken up by Cromwell to symbolise the fact that the monarchy was over and the new rule had begun. It is a really important part of the Palace’s heritage, and I think that it should be brought back from the museum and displayed here, with a considered explanation of where its origins and historical significance may lie.

If we look at the façade of the whole Palace, we see, for instance, the inspiration that came from the Henry VII chapel in Westminster Abbey, going back to the late 15th and early 16th centuries.

It is remarkable that what I have described in those few vignettes has made this such an important building, and continues to contribute to its importance. People come here not just to see the building with all its wonderful statues, carvings and other features, but to see the living embodiment of a Parliament that is working and doing its daily business in this place. Much of what we discuss is relevant to what we can see in the basement, in the roof, in Westminster Hall or in the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft.

After detailed evidence sessions, the Joint Committee concluded that the Bill should

“recognise the significant heritage which the Palace of Westminster embodies.”

The Government welcomed that recommendation in principle, and said that they would look into it further; but alas, since then—as we heard earlier from my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman)—we have heard no new arguments for not listing heritage in the Bill.

I know that the Minister will argue that the considerations that I am trying to insert in the Bill are covered by planning law, and by the various agencies—English Heritage, as was, and others—which will have an input. However, things that have happened in the past have led to the neglect or destruction of major features in the House. I think it is crucial—and sensible—that when the Sponsor Body is carrying out all its other important functions, someone should be able to ask, “And how does that preserve, or promote, or make more accessible or available or better explain, the archaeological, historical and architectural importance of this building?” That is all I am asking. I do not think it unreasonable, and I think that many others, in another place, will advance a similar argument. Many of them have, perhaps, been in the Palace for many more centuries than I have, and will talk with more authority.

Interserve

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has said on two occasions that no Interserve employees would lose their jobs, but there has been an acknowledgement that five redundancy notices will be issued on Friday. I would suggest that those statements are incompatible. Can you advise me on how the Minister can correct the record about jobs being lost, and is there any other way in which Members can lobby the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure that those five employees are not served with a redundancy notice on Friday?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

The hon. Gentleman has resolved the matter by putting it on the record. I know that through his good offices, and given his background, he will not let the issue drop today. I am sure that he will find other methods to ensure that he continues to support the employees whose jobs may be at risk.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, proceedings on the Motion in the name of Jeremy Corbyn relating to the Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 62) may continue, though opposed, for 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of, and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) will not apply.—(Iain Stewart.)

Overseas Electors Bill: Money

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Money resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

Queen’s recommendation signified.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

May we return for a moment to my old friend Harry Shindler? He is 97 years old and has lived in Italy for much of his life, but he is stoically British. He fought at Anzio, where he watched his friends die, and has since sought to establish memorials to them, and he has been honoured for so doing. Furthermore, he is not one of the oldest members, but the oldest member of the Labour party. Can my hon. Friend suggest any reason why the Labour party would want to prevent that old man from voting?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need to stick to the money resolution, as you should know better than anyone, Sir Roger. I want to get on with this, so please can we deal with what is in hand? I do not expect the Minister to be driven off course.

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his question, but I will return to the finance matters in front of us.

I will explain why the amendment to the money resolution is unrealistic. The figure in the proposal, £10,000 per annum, is just 1% of the estimated cost of implementing the Bill. We have published a detailed impact assessment, which I am sure hon. Members will have read, and it outlines how much we expect the measures to cost. I am not backward in coming forward about the amount: we think it will cost £1 million per annum over 10 years. I will put that into context in a moment and explain why we think it is an appropriate figure.

If any Bill becomes law, it should be properly funded, so that is the starting point.

[Chloe Smith]

As I understand it—you might know this better than I do, Mr Deputy Speaker—it was 1912; it was over a century ago.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I think the hon. Gentleman actually knew the answer.

Strengthening the Union

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

I am going to do something that breaks with convention in this debate—I am going to say something positive about what is going on. I am not going to get into arguments about different areas of the UK, what is going wrong and who could be doing things better than the others. Let us just pause and look at exactly where we are at this moment in time.

I have to make a declaration: apparently, I am the only Parliamentary Private Secretary in history to have been PPS to the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Even I did not know that when it happened.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

And Lancashire!

[David Morris]

And Lancashire, and quite right, too, Mr Deputy Speaker; one great Lancastrian speaks to another.

So what have we done to make things even? Well, we have English votes for English laws, which went a long way to try to even out the big question—the West Lothian question. [Interruption.] It did. When we did that, we looked into the Barnett formula and idiosyncrasies that went with it. The Government have put £1.2 billion into Wales, boosting the Barnett formula by 5%, so for about every £100 spent in Wales about £120 is actually coming back into Wales. This has gone a long way to evening out the equilibrium of the economies.

If we think about that, we see that putting an extra 5% into the Barnett formula works out at £67 million over the next five years, which has to be welcomed. This has put Wales in a very positive position in terms of the Brexit problem of leaving the EU. The Government are extending to mid-Wales a growth deal similar to the city deal in Cardiff. That city deal is £615 million, which has been more money put into Wales than any other Government have ever done before. That has to be welcomed. If we are doing that in mid-Wales, imagine what is going to happen there. There is always a problem with transport in mid-Wales, but if we get the transport sorted out in that area, that will provide a boost—it is inevitable. If we get a spaceport there, which is something I will discuss when I get to the Scotland part of my speech, that will pay dividends for mid-Wales, because we have aerospace factories there—Airbus is there and just nearby. That is a huge contributor to that part of the economy in that area, so we must think of this in a positive way.

Turning to Scotland, I know I am probably going to upset the SNP, although I do not really want to do that because the whole tone of what I am trying to do is to be constructive. [Interruption.] I do not want to upset my own colleagues either, so please behave!

I have to make another declaration, as I am the chairman of the parliamentary space committee—there is such a thing. A lot of SNP Members are on it, along with a lot of Conservatives and a lot of Labour Members. The space industry is growing by 11% a year—it has done so year in, year out, all the way through the recession we have just been through. The industry is getting bigger and bigger. Within the next 10 years, space tourism will be a reality. Not so long ago, it was announced that we were going to be having horizontal take-offs from the south-west, but we are going to be having ballistic applications happening in Sutherland. What does that really mean? I do not want to stir up my SNP friends and make a political point, but if we have a spaceport in that area, that will change the economy; it will be a big game changer and a huge infrastructure programme. Although I really want you to stay with us, another problem we would have if Scotland did go independent is that it would contravene the ITAR—International Traffic in Arms Regulations—agreement. The Americans would not accept anything ballistic we put up there, so we would not be able to send satellites up from there or they would not put satellites up from that area. [Interruption.] That is true. If Members would like to look into it, they will find that is a valid point.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Morris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interjection. You are right: it has nothing to do with that; it is to do with trade. But I want you to stay with us. I do not want Scotland to go. As has been said, your rhetoric of leaving—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This is not about private chats. You have to speak through the Chair. I know there is great temptation among Members on both sides of the House to have a private debate, but the rest of us need to hear it and be part of it.

[David Morris]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am speaking collegiately.

Looking at where we are going to go with this, we must think of the opportunities that will be afforded to us if we all stay together. We are talking about investment of £2.5 million in an area that is crying out for it, and an estimated injection of £4 billion over the next five years. That cannot be bad.

When I was in the Northern Ireland Office with my hon. Friend the Minister, we had to set a budget. I hope that we will soon be back to having a full, devolved, operating Government there again—I would love to see that—but £410 million has been put into Northern Ireland, with £80 million for health and education, £30 million to support mental health, and £100 million for ongoing health matters.

We have to look after all parts of the UK, which is why it is imperative that the Union survives—from the top end in Scotland, to Northern Ireland, Wales and England. We are all one people and we should reflect that in our politics.

I do not agree with the SNP, but I do respect its policies, which are about leaving the rest of the UK. I do not want that to happen; I respect and understand that position, but I do not agree with it. As has been said, there is an anomaly in that the SNP wants Scotland to have its own sovereignty while remaining in the EU. There is a paradox there, because it is not possible to have sovereignty and give it away to Europe at the same time.

On that note, I will just say that we are all better and stronger together. I hope that toned things down a little—I am sure it did—but please just think about that.

Leaving the EU: Negotiations

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

Why her leader has flip-flopped.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I just remind Members that we cannot have both people standing at the same time. Please give way to each other. Minister, are you giving way to Christine Jardine again?

[Chloe Smith]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Can I suggest that we do up to 10 minutes, to try to give everybody equal time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

I thank the Liberal Democrats for introducing this debate, which is exceptionally timeous, not least because the wheels have well and truly come off the Brexit bus. We have a Government who have fallen apart, the clock is ticking, and it is clear that, having triggered article 50 without having any clear plan, they have absolutely no idea what comes next. That should trouble us all.

Whether we like it or not—and some of us might not like it very much—this Government are responsible for the most complex, far-reaching and important negotiations since the war, and their decisions, or lack of decisions and lack of coherence, will have an impact on every one of us: on jobs, on the economy, on opportunities for young people in the future. I may not like that, but it is a fact that each and every one of us needs to consider.

We saw yesterday two resignations in 24 hours. I disagreed with Mr Davis, who is not in his place, wholeheartedly, but he always treated me and colleagues with courtesy and I wish him the very best for the future. And as the Prime Minister said yesterday of Mr Johnson, of course we respect his passion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are not meant to use names.

[Stephen Gethins]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Brexiteers have had their whole careers to prepare, and then the former Ministers whom I have just mentioned had two years in the highest offices of state, with every resource of the UK Government at their disposal, to build on their years and years of so-called preparation, yet we are left in this complete mess. I do not blame the Minister present entirely for it, and indeed I do not blame the Prime Minister entirely, but those Brexiteers who got us into this mess and have done absolutely nothing to get us out of it again have shown gross irresponsibility and negligence. They bear huge responsibility for the situation in which we have been left. This is serious stuff.

I was very disappointed by the contribution of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), whom I respect enormously. There is no such thing as a “jobs-first Brexit.” Every single scenario that has been set out shows jobs being lost. Even the compromise we have put forward of staying in the single market and customs union is the least worst—not the best—option. I am sorry to say that if only the Labour party would step up to the mark, we would not be in the mess we are in today. Therefore, I say with great respect to Labour Members that Labour needs to step up to the plate a little more, because the UK as a whole finds itself in the most extraordinarily difficult situation. [Interruption.] I will happily give way to the shadow Minister if she has a point to make about a jobs-first Brexit. [Interruption.] No, I did not think so.

To throw some light on this matter, Rabobank has said that this situation could cost the UK economy £400 billion. The Fraser of Allander Institute says it could cost 80,000 jobs in Scotland alone and cost Scotland’s economy £12.7 billion, and the head of that respected economic think-tank said that it had only done the work for Scotland but, looking elsewhere, it would be even worse for other parts of the UK. It is startling that the Scottish Government did economic analysis and published it and those of us who have seen it know that although the Scottish and UK Governments might not agree on much in this process, their economic analysis agrees entirely on the devastation that will be wrought by this Government if they see through their plans. This must be one of the first times in history when a Government are actively, and proactively, pursuing a policy that they know will cost tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make the good point that we have one of the leading economies in the world. Leaving the European Union will be an opportunity for the United Kingdom to pursue a new path and trade policies that benefit us, and us exclusively. I agree entirely that we have a positive future outside the European Union. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Can we have a little quiet so that I can hear the questions and the answers?

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I am glad to hear what the Minister and the Secretary of State have said about the integrity of the United Kingdom. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reaffirm that whatever happens and whatever the effect of Brexit on Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom will remain together economically, politically and constitutionally?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that neither she nor any other Prime Minister would ever compromise the economic and constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. That means that Northern Ireland is very much a full part of the rest of the country, along with Scotland, Wales and England. There is no question whatsoever of having a border at the Irish sea—none whatsoever.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call Stephen Pound. [Interruption.]

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I think the House recognises that I am a beacon of stability in an ever-changing Opposition Northern Ireland team. Sadly, I am always the bridesmaid.

The European arrest warrant is vital to policing in Northern Ireland—we all accept that—and enables the Police Service of Northern Ireland to co-operate with colleagues in the south. Many have commented that no visible progress has been made on the replacement of the critical EU policing frameworks that enable vital cross-border co-operation. Will the Minister outline what discussions his Department has had with Home Office colleagues about this vital issue, and reassure not just the House but the people of Northern Ireland?

[Mr Vara]

It is good to see that the hon. Gentleman is still in his place and that there is some continuity in the shadow Northern Ireland team.

As far as the withdrawal agreement is concerned, a huge amount of progress has been made. The hon. Gentleman raises the very important issue of the European arrest warrant. The various Departments are all working together to ensure that we achieve the very best deal possible. Yes, the Northern Ireland Office is speaking with the Home Office to make sure that we get the very best deal in terms of protection and of the replacement framework that we will have when we leave the EU.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Mr Speaker is attending the funeral of the late Michael Martin, who was Speaker of this House and a true family man who was committed to his community in Glasgow. I know that the House wants to pass on its prayers and condolences to his wife, Mary, and family.

There is important business to come in Prime Minister’s questions and we want to hear from as many colleagues as possible. May I remind all Members, Front and Back Benchers, to ask succinct questions? I trust that the replies will be as pithy.

The Prime Minister was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

Q7. Does the Prime Minister think that it was the Labour party voting against the abolition of stamp duty for 69,000 first-time buyers, or the Labour party voting against 50,000 extra school children getting free school meals that convinced local voters in the elections last week to vote Conservative as the only party on their side? That is why the Conservatives retained control of Westminster and Wandsworth councils, and it is why they gained control in places such as Redditch, Basildon and Barnet.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the Labour party, but I am sure that she will be able to respond appropriately.

[The Prime Minister]

I can say to my hon. Friend that she is right about votes that took place in this House where the Opposition did vote against the abolition of stamp duty for those young first-time buyers, which is proving so helpful. Last Thursday, when millions of people across England went to the polls to vote for their local councils, we saw that the real winners were ordinary people. More people are now able to get the benefit of Conservative councillors who keep their council tax lower and provide good local services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the four fantastic new Conservative councillors—[Interruption.] Their election takes the control of Redditch Borough Council from the Labour party to the Conservative party—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] If her diary permits, I ask her to visit Redditch at the earliest possible opportunity to back our fantastic local campaign to unlock—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I call the Prime Minister. Let’s get on with it.

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the newly elected Conservative councillors. I gave a list of councils earlier where people had rejected Labour, like Barnet, Dudley and Peterborough. I can add Redditch to that list, and indeed other councils around the country. Many congratulations to her, to those councillors and to all the volunteers and activists who work so hard.

National Security and Russia

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We will have to go down to a six-minute limit on speeches to accommodate everybody.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Three weeks ago, Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were attacked in the heart of our country. All the evidence overwhelmingly points to the nerve agents coming from Russia, and most probably being administered on behalf of or on the orders of the Russian Government. Once again, despite the means, the motive and the express intention of the Russian President in the past, the only response to those attempted murders on the streets of England has essentially been a Russian, “It wasn’t me.”

That cannot come entirely as a surprise. We have seen it before. Twelve years ago, Alexander Litvinenko was killed with a chemical agent in one of our cities in Britain. Sir Robert Owen found in his inquiry:

“Taking full account of all the evidence and analysis available to me, I find that the FSB operation to kill Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin.”

Yet the Russian Government still deny any knowledge or involvement, and they parade those accused of direct involvement in the murder, including in fact one of their parliamentarians, on television. President Putin seems to believe that he can act with impunity whether with direct killings and attacks in our country, or less prominently through cyber-warfare and covert operations. The only thing that is not clear is whether he believes that Russia will not be found responsible, or if he just does not care.

The truth is that it is not only in the United Kingdom that Russia is posing a direct and immediate threat to security. During my time as an alternate Member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I have had the opportunity to speak to parliamentarians from countries around Europe who see the impact of Russian aggression and expansionism on their own nations. In 2008, there was the invasion of Georgia and the annexation of South Ossetia. In 2014, there was the invasion of Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea. During the past couple of decades, there has been the constant destabilising effect of the Russian state in Nagorno-Karabakh. Despite posing as an intermediary or arbiter, Russia’s impact has consistently been to try to keep the region as unstable as possible, because it has very much been in the interests of the Russian state to keep Armenia and Azerbaijan in a state of conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Today’s co-ordinated action is extremely welcome. As has been said, it is likely that it was not expected by the Russian Government—I am not sure it was entirely expected by all Members of this House—and that probably multiplies its effectiveness. It is precisely because we want to minimise the risk of armed military conflict that we must maximise the effectiveness of our diplomatic and security response.

It has been heartening to see such broad support from Members of all parties across the House, which is why what we heard from one Opposition Member about the attempted murders here in Britain is so disheartening. That Member, who is no longer in the Chamber, has described as enemies those who have chosen to speak in support of effective action—not those who have carried out the attempted murders, but Opposition Members who have dared to support a Conservative Prime Minister in standing up for British security, and for effective action to safeguard people in this country.

The many Opposition Members who have backed an effective response will sooner or later have to decide whether they trust their own leader—on the basis of the decisions he has taken and the instincts he has shown over the past few weeks—to manage Britain’s security by ever putting him into No. 10 Downing Street. If the first duty of the Government is to protect the security of this country, I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has demonstrated over and over again the fundamental strength of character that makes her so suitable for the role. I am not sure that the same can be said for the leader—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have to reduce the time limit to five minutes to get everybody in.

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

Select Committee statement

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

We now come to the Select Committee statement. Mr Bernard Jenkin will speak on his subject for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call Mr Bernard Jenkin to respond to those in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions, and should be brief. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.

Carillion and Public Sector Outsourcing

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (David Rutley)]

Well, let her ask you a question.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have the greatest respect for the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), but we do not normally have a Whip joining in. I am sure he will not be joining in again later. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) is giving way. Let him give way, and I am sure we can get on with the debate.

What I am bothered about is that a lot of people want to speak, so please let us not waste time attacking each other.

[Jon Trickett]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is not Question Time, and we are not the Government. This is a debate, and I am perfectly entitled to ask questions and to make points. Does the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) believe that companies with public contracts paid for by taxpayers’ money should pay tax in the United Kingdom, yes or no?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I preface my remarks by saying what a pleasure it is to see you back in the Chair? The Opposition spokesman has referred to the “excellent” PAC. I am its deputy Chair, but he will not let me intervene. How can the debate be fair if he will not let me intervene?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

The hon. Gentleman knows that, from chairmanships in many other areas, that is not a point of order. It is up to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) whether he wishes to give way, as we will later find out when other Members want to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

In the time available to me, I will make a couple of points that have not yet been fully brought out in this debate.

My first point is about the action and place of KPMG, Carillion’s auditors. Roughly 40% of Carillion’s balance sheet is intangible assets, largely made up of goodwill. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and I see fellow members in the Chamber; I hope we will get a chance to ask questions about why KPMG did not impair the goodwill on the balance sheet when it was fully aware of the group’s difficulties.

Indeed, many questions have been brought up on both sides of the House about using the private sector in outsourcing the delivery of public services in general. For what it is worth, it seems straightforward to me that using the private sector to provide public sector contracts works best when there is a proper market and competition in the service, so that we can get private sector dynamism and innovation—the things the Minister talked about in his speech. It also works best when the difference between a good service and a bad service, or between good performance and bad performance, can be fully measured on a quantifiable basis.

Will the Minister give a bit more detail on the Government’s view about the role of public and private sector interaction? It is incumbent on the Government to defend the principle of using private involvement to deliver services for the public, because the Opposition’s view is clear: they believe we should nationalise or renationalise everything. When we add up the £55 billion to nationalise energy, the £86 billion to nationalise water, the £5 billion to nationalise Royal Mail and the £30 billion to nationalise the private finance initiative, that is roughly the defence budget and the NHS budget combined—for ideological reasons alone.

I ask the Opposition these questions, if I am permitted to do so. Where is the evidence that nationalisation will mean that services are better or cheaper to run? Why would a state-run monopoly always inherently perform better than a competitive market in this instance? Why, indeed, is it better for the British taxpayer, rather than a private company, to take all the financial risk?

The Opposition claim that somehow the bad bankers and rich fat cats have got off scot-free. The shareholders have lost money, the bondholders have lost money, the bankers have lost money and the British taxpayer—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I call Louise Ellman.

[Bim Afolami]

The British taxpayer—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Mr Afolami, please let us not test the patience of the House. A lot of people want to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

That is right. The public will not fail to notice that the Labour party is under new management. We will build on the positives of the past, and discard the negatives. PFI, I am afraid, was a bad mistake that the Conservatives began under Major, and which we failed to stop. We will stop it this time, because when Jeremy Corbyn gets in and we have a socialist Government what will end is this—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It is one thing to test my patience but it is another to name Members. The hon. Gentleman cannot name the Leader of the Opposition. He can say “the next Prime Minister”, but he should not use his name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Municipal Journal has published an article today stating that Whitehall officials rushed out the provisional local government finance settlement before Christmas, knowing that the figures it was based on were wrong and that the information presented by Ministers to this House was incorrect. The Municipal Journal also reveals that the Valuation Office Agency notified the then Department of Communities and Local Government prior to the statement being made.

Given that 195 local authorities are now set to lose out, with Manchester City Council understood to be the biggest loser, can you advise me whether the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has indicated that he will make statement to the House about this debacle and apologise to Members for his Department’s knowingly having given the House incorrect information? If he has not given such an indication, what procedures may be utilised to bring Ministers to the House for questioning?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

There are two ways. First, the point is now on the record. Secondly, I know that there are other avenues that you will pursue personally, Mr Gwynne, and I am sure that the Opposition will pursue them as well. I am sure that that will bring a fruitful outcome, but in fairness to the Government, the point is now on the record and they can take it on board.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. My point of order is not as exciting. I just wanted to confirm that the motion we just dealt with was passed unanimously, in which case, have you received any indication from the Government about when the Public Accounts Committee will be provided with the relevant reports?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Once again, the point is now on the record. I think we can leave it there at this stage.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

00:30

Division 55

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 290

---

Labour: 241
Scottish National Party: 32
Liberal Democrat: 10
Plaid Cymru: 4
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 316

---

Conservative: 305
Democratic Unionist Party: 10
Independent: 1

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Under Standing Order No. 83D(4), I must now put the single stand part question.

Question put (single Question on successive provisions of the Bill), That clause 11 stand part of the Bill; and that schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.