House of Lords Reform Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

It is not as though the Government were not already beset by problems and challenges on an awesome scale, as many Members have said. Economic growth is well below forecast, borrowing is still far too high and the unresolved and unresolvable euro crisis is probably leading us towards some kind of economic precipice. We are facing an economic emergency, as well as all the other challenges of government in a time of recession. This is the last moment for any Government to choose to pick a fight to alter any part of the constitution, when there is clearly no real consensus or common understanding of what needs to be done.

The debate so far can leave no one in any doubt that this is a massive constitutional change, but the Government have utterly failed to address the most fundamental questions about the upper House. What is the House of Lords for? Does it operate effectively as it is? Would the changes be likely to improve or impair its effectiveness? The answers are pretty straightforward. First, it is intended to be a revising Chamber, not a senate or a rival to the House of Commons. Secondly, as the Deputy Prime Minister has himself admitted on many occasions, the current Chamber is very effective. Thirdly, the changes seem to be intended to supplant expertise and experience with more party politics, which is hardly likely to improve the Chamber’s effectiveness.

The Bill addresses no evident crisis of the legitimacy of our constitution, yet it threatens to create a political crisis on top of an economic crisis. There is no public clamour for the change, and there are no crowds in Parliament square crying out their support. That is why the Government fear a referendum on the Bill, because the voters would certainly reject the idea of replacing the current effective, proven and appointed House with more elected politicians, appointed to lists by their respective parties on ludicrous 15-year terms.

So what is the Bill really about? The Deputy Prime Minister should be careful about accusing others of having ulterior motives, because what is his? The Bill is about power. It is about the Government remaining in office now and about the Liberal Democrats building a power base for when they are not in office. It is the product of a stitch-up, a deal between two coalition parties to stay in power. It is a bid permanently to shift the balance of power away from this House and towards a more legitimate House of Lords.

May I address the extraordinarily charming and eloquent speech given by the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband)? He said that the Bill’s opponents were trying to have it both ways, but it is its supporters who are trying to have it both ways. They cannot argue that an elected Lords would be more legitimate but in the same breath insist that the relationship between the two Houses would remain the same. The issue of primacy is just one of the fundamental issues that we will need to address before the Bill leaves this House.

That brings me to the continuing threat of a timetable motion. To timetable a constitutional measure under the current circumstances would be unconscionable. I say to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that the much quoted Winston Churchill would be heaving in his grave with fury and indignation at the mere suggestion. The timetable is a modern invention, only introduced in 1997. The guillotine used to be an absolute exception, and even then was never used on a constitutional issue.

The Bill has 60 clauses and 11 schedules containing a further 158 paragraphs. The Government’s withdrawn motion would have allowed 60 hours in Committee, which would have been taken up by Divisions, urgent questions, statements and points of order as well as debate. That would have left, perhaps, an average of half an hour for each clause, let alone the schedules. Primacy, powers, accountability, remuneration, costs, expenses, staffing support, IPSA, financial privilege, the scrutiny of regulations, elections, voting systems, eligibility, constituencies, the question of a referendum or not—how many other topics will there be to debate, or must we have the freedom to debate should we so choose?

Constitutional measures used to pass through the House before there were timetables. Both the Parliament Acts themselves passed through the House without a timetable or guillotine. No timetable should be imposed, because our ability to scrutinise legislation in full is just about the only real check or balance in our constitution to protect it from the tyranny of a simple Commons majority.

As it stands, we are being asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill that will invite the Government to fast-track a massive constitutional change, which will nevertheless distract us from the crisis that demands our attention, which may fundamentally change the character of the government of our country, which fails to address the most fundamental questions about the upper House, which represents gerrymandering of the constitution and is the product of a stitch-up to stay in power, for which no referendum is to be provided, and on which the Government are determined to curtail debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 39, page 21, line 23, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 35, page 21, line 23, leave out—

‘, so far as is reasonably practicable,’.

The amendment makes registration officers subject to the test of taking ‘all steps that are necessary’ under section 9A of the 1983 Act, in respect of their new duty: ‘securing that persons who are entitled to be registered in a register (and no others) are registered in it’.

Amendment 37, page 21, line 26, at end insert—

‘(4) In subsection (2), after paragraph (e), insert—

“(f) reporting to the police any suspicion he might have that an offence had been committed relevant to the integrity of registration and absent vote applications.”.’.

Amendment 40, page 21, line 26, at end insert—

‘(4) At the end of subsection (3) insert—

(4) If the Electoral Commission judges that registration officers have not taken all necessary steps as outlined in this section, the Electoral Commission shall have the power to intervene.”.’.

[Wayne David]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hoyle.

The Opposition have tabled the amendments because we are concerned about the schedule. Like the Electoral Commission, we are concerned about the watering down of the responsibilities of electoral registration officers. We think it is important that the Bill clearly defines the role of EROs in individual electoral registration and afterwards.

Amendment 37 seeks to redress what the Opposition see as a deficiency in the law—there is a lack of powers vested in EROs to detect and investigate electoral fraud, so allegations of offences under electoral law should be made to the police. That leaves a large gap in the powers of EROs. The amendment would, for the first time, place a duty on EROs to report to the police any suspicions that an offence might have been committed.

That is important. The Government have said time and again—incorrectly—that the Opposition are concerned about completeness and nothing else. We are concerned about completeness, but we are also concerned about the accuracy of electoral registers. The surest way to detect and act upon alleged fraud is for the individuals responsible for the administration of the process of registration to have a power vested in them—a duty upon them—to say that they are concerned about something. If they, as the experts, are concerned, they would have a duty to pass that information directly to the police, who would then act. We think, then, that the amendment addresses a gap in the current legislation and the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

I heard what the Minister said. I was not entirely convinced by his arguments, but there was some reassurance on some points, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I understand, Mr Williams, that you do not wish to move amendment 35.

[Mr Mark Williams]

indicated assent.

[The Chairman]

I call Wayne David.

[Wayne David]

As I indicated earlier, we feel that this is a very good amendment on an extremely important issue, so we would like to move it.

Amendment proposed: 35, page 21, line 23, leave out ‘, so far as is reasonably practicable,’.—(Wayne David.)

--- Later in debate ---

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

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

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Other voting offences—

‘In section 61 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (Other voting offences) after subsection (6) insert—

“(6AA) The Secretary of State shall introduce regulations by statutory instruments to facilitate actions by electoral registration officers, their agents and others, including candidates and their agents in elections, to—

(a) prevent, and

(b) detect the offences listed in subsections (1) to (6).”.’.

This Clause would enable action to be taken to prevent or deter other voting offences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ruane]

In a recent parliamentary question, I asked how many successful prosecutions of electoral fraud there are every year, and the answer came back, one or two, but 36% of the British public think that the situation is worse than that. Part of the reason for that disparity could be that MPs and Ministers stand up in the Chamber and on the news and say that electoral fraud is a terrible problem, but really it is not and there are very few cases. Yet the whole gist of the Bill—

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

In fairness, Mr Hemming, you have taken a lot of interventions, and we have to deal with other new clauses after this. You have already been speaking for 30 minutes, and I think you are in danger of being drawn into something you do not want to be drawn into. It may be helpful if you are not drawn into it, and I am sure that you are now coming to the end of your speech.

[John Hemming]

Paragraph 717 of the Mawrey judgment, which I quoted earlier, deals with the hon. Gentleman’s point. These are probing amendments. However, we do need systems to detect and prevent personation, and according to Mr Justice Mawrey, we do not have them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

On behalf of members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, who have taken part in various stages of the debate, I acknowledge the thanks that have been given to the Committee for the job that we have done. It is a good example of how to deal with legislation, and I hope that there will be many more such opportunities.

I am not sure that we will offer ourselves up for the next piece of constitutional legislation, however, because that might delay it even further, and if we spent several months on it, as we could, it would definitely be kicked into the long grass. Therefore, I can see why the Government may not be so keen to send it to the Committee, but in general such scrutiny is important, because it gives people the opportunity, in a much less stressed and antagonistic atmosphere, to go through the difficult bits of legislation and to get people in to explain what really would not work. We should do more of that.

As with many of these things, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. If not enough resources are put into the effort to carry out individual voter registration, it will be extremely difficult. We know how different various parts of the country are. We even know how different various parts of a city or a constituency are. In some parts of my constituency, one can go down a road of bungalows or other houses and find that virtually every household is registered; the only one that might not be is where somebody has only just moved in. In other places, it is almost frightening how few people are registered. In some cases, the household has been registered in the past but those people have moved away and the next lot of tenants have moved in.

There is no doubt that getting people registered is very challenging, especially if local authorities do not put the effort and resources into it because they themselves are not properly resourced. I see the benefit of ring-fencing in that respect. In a debate earlier today, I spoke about council tax and council tax benefit. Ring-fencing is not a bad thing—it can be very useful, and this might be an occasion when it would be. The differential resources and the different sorts of efforts that will be needed to keep registration up will be a crucial factor. It is important to give people the chance to vote. We have all encountered people on election day who suddenly discover that they cannot vote because they are not registered, although they wanted to do so and had been listening to all the coverage. We might say, “Ah, well, if people haven’t registered they probably won’t vote anyway, so it doesn’t matter”, but it does matter.

Registration is important in terms of changes to the size of constituencies as part of the difficult process of boundary changes. People will understand that there is a worry, particularly with differential registration, that the next round of boundary changes will be affected. I still hope that the Government will be prepared, even at this late stage, to reconsider the Select Committee’s recommendation on the next set of boundary changes.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On that matter, would it be in order for the Secretary of State to intervene and clarify the issue that has just been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham)?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order. It is up to the Secretary of State to do that if he wishes and John Whittingdale has the floor.

[Mr Whittingdale]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Once responsibility was passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he followed the advice that was given at every stage. Had the bid gone through as a result of his following the advice he was given, BSkyB would now have been subject to stronger safeguards against political interference than it is thanks to the fact that the bid did not go through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about “enormous seriousness”. I do not know what the public make of this, but we are voting on a matter to do with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is extremely honourable. This House has never voted on the insane levels of immigration or the death of our troops in Afghanistan. This is bonkers; it is student politics.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This is an Opposition day and it is not up to the hon. Gentleman or the House to decide the subject of the debate. It is up to the Opposition and the debate is on the Secretary of State.

[Paul Flynn]

A person who thought that the former Defence Secretary should have been referred to the independent adviser was Sir Philip Mawer, the independent adviser himself. He resigned because of that.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You have just made the point that the motion is about the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. With respect, the hon. Gentleman seems to be referring to a completely different subject.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I will decide what is in order and what is not. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advice and I am sure that the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is developing his points in order to come on to that subject.

[Paul Flynn]

The point is the ministerial code and how it has been degraded by this Government and this Prime Minister. In the last Parliament and in this Parliament, the Public Administration Committee has thought that there should be an independent adviser who has the right to decide what he wants to investigate. If the Prime Minister is alleged to have broken the ministerial code, who will advise the independent adviser to investigate him? That advice is a function of the Public Administration Committee. There was no investigation of a far less serious complaint about the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who failed to register an interest when he had a meal provided by a lobbyist on the excuse that that day he was eating with his private stomach, not his ministerial stomach. That was a matter for the ministerial code as it was a clear breach. The matter before us is the third breach that has taken place.

We should consider our position. We have just escaped from the screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal. Our standing in the country is no higher than it was two years ago and if the Prime Minister continues to ignore a major reform—which the ministerial code was—and use it to defend his own political position, we will sink further into the perception of sleaze as seen by the country.

[Paul Flynn]

I challenge anyone on the Government Benches to cite any example of anyone claiming that that incident should have been referred under the ministerial code. I have been interested in these matters for a good decade and there was no such claim. There was a case, and it was investigated. The ministerial code was used by the previous Labour Government. It has been abused three times by this Government when strong cases have come up.

We have another reform that has not been implemented by the Government. The Prime Minister made an impassioned plea on lobbying, saying that he was going to have a new lobbying code—because, as a former lobbyist, he understood it. We do not yet have a code. The one that has been put forward is lame and weak, and it would actually weaken the system. The Government have failed in their prime task—and the prime task of all us—which is to escape from the shame of the last two years, for which all of us were responsible. Many Members left the House, with their careers in ruins, and some suffered greatly, including many who were not guilty—collateral damage. I have just concluded a biography of one former Member who lost his life because of the effect of that scandal on his health.

The shame still lies on this House. The perception outside is that politics is debased and that we do not tell the truth or obey a moral code. I appeal to all Members not to see this as one of the usual tribal votes when we go into the Lobbies—[Interruption.] I cite the contributions that I made on the Public Administration Committee in this Parliament and the last, when I was as severe a critic of my own Government as I am of the excesses of this Government. This is a matter of honour for hon. Members here today.

I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on their position. This is not a question of winning a vote tonight—that does not matter. But it matters whether we stand up for the House of Commons reforms and whether we respect the reforms that have taken place. The ministerial code has been abused. Sir Alex Allan was put in place. The Committee examined him and questioned him, and unanimously—with a Conservative majority on the Committee—said that this man is not fit for this office. We communicated that to the Government and nothing was done. Elizabeth Filkin was regarded as a strong Rottweiler, and she was replaced by Sir Philip Mawer, who was regarded as not so strong, but he resigned because he was not called in to investigate what took place with Adam Werritty, which was a matter of great importance. Adam Werritty called himself an adviser, but he was paid by people outside and attended a ministerial meeting. What happened was absolution by resignation. He was allowed to resign before the country knew the full facts of what went on. What possibly happened was that his advice—his seat at the table—might have brought us closer to a war with Iran. I appeal to all hon. Members to treat this matter seriously—[Interruption.] If Members are not aware of this, it is because the investigation was carried out by Gus O’Donnell to get it over in a few days rather than having a full, legitimate investigation. That investigation was itself a breach of the ministerial code.

If we are to increase respect for ourselves in society, we have to subject every Minister to examination by someone who is genuinely independent. If the Prime Minister breaks the ministerial code, we need an independent investigator to decide, of his own volition, whether to investigate. Now we have a poodle who has been instructed by the Prime Minister—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are discussing the Secretary of State, but we are in danger of concentrating on former or present Prime Ministers. I know that the hon. Gentleman is—rightly—constructing an argument, but we need to get to the Secretary of State.

[Paul Flynn]

rose—

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is calling a right hon. Member a poodle parliamentary language?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It was not a named Member, but we should be careful with language because we are in danger of reheating the Chamber, and that is what we do not wish to do—because we all want to hear each other’s speeches.

[Paul Flynn]

I apologise to the harmless and beautiful dogs to which I referred for any offence caused by their association with the people involved.

Yesterday, three former special advisers to Conservative Ministers were asked whether it would have been possible, in their posts as special advisers, to communicate 500 times with anybody without their Minister knowing. They laughed. The Secretary of State’s excuse is implausible and no one can believe that what went on happened without the Minister’s consent or knowledge. This is where he falls. The Conservatives have forgotten the lesson of the Mellor scandal: a resignation delayed is a disgrace multiplied. The Minister will regret the fact that he did not resign and that he did not submit his own case to the independent adviser for examination. Hanging on in this way will not help his career. He has erred and he should go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Bryant, you hope to catch my eye, and I was thinking of calling you next. I am sure that you will want to share all your information with the House then, rather than wasting it on interventions.

[Mr Foster]

We and the Deputy Prime Minister are clear that questions need to be answered. It would have been better had the matter been addressed by the independent adviser, but that is not the system we currently have, which is the system that we would like to change. I want to make it clear, however, that this is not, as some have suggested, an issue of collective responsibility. There was not a collective decision on this. It is not part of the coalition agreement but was a decision taken solely by the Prime Minister, and in no way will our vote, or absence of votes tonight, preclude us from continuing to work with our coalition partners on the issues agreed in the coalition agreement and in sorting out the economic mess in which the previous Government have left us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

If the right hon. Gentleman will wait a moment and just let me finish—[Interruption.] If the Whip could just calm down—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Let us get back to a sensible debate and let us have a little more courtesy from the Front Benches on both sides.

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way again to the Secretary of State in a moment, but I just want to answer the point about providing information to Sky before it was available to this House. Yes, there are certain circumstances where that option is available to a Secretary of State, but not normally before the markets have opened, not when it can be used for commercial advantage for that organisation and not when people on the other side of the bid have been treated in a completely different way. That is why I think the Financial Services Authority may still want to investigate.

Whitsun Recess

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I want to reinforce the point that my hon. Friend is making about age. My constituency has the lowest age structure of any in the country, and yet it has some of the highest health needs. Under the system that he is describing, we would suffer.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before the hon. Gentleman gets back on his feet, I point out that he has been talking for almost 30 minutes. I am sure that he must be coming to the end. What he has said has been very fruitful for the House, but he needs to come to an end due to the lack of time and the need to get other people in.

[Graham Jones]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for that kind advice.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it was not advice.

[Graham Jones]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for those firm words.

The talk about shifting health funding concerns me because the GP surgeries in my constituency are all at the bottom of the performance league tables produced by the PCT, whereas those in the affluent areas score far better. All the deprived areas in Lancashire come at the bottom of those tables. I am therefore deeply concerned about the transfer of health funding.

I want to mention briefly my concern about Great Harwood health centre, because it has been transferred to PropCo. It was built under the LIFT initiative. On several occasions we have thought that it will happen and then that it will not happen. We are now at a stage where we think it will happen and £10 million has been set aside by the PCT. However, all that money is to subsumed into a Whitehall quango called PropCo, which will decide how it will be spent. I would appreciate a commitment from the Deputy Leader of the House on whether PropCo will carry through the decisions that have been agreed with local people and the PCT.

Finally, I will talk about individual voter registration. I did not get the opportunity to speak in the debate yesterday. I concur with the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) that there are issues with postal voting that need to be looked at. It seems that it is being used to drive up turnout. I do not believe that anything wholly illegal has happened, but I do believe that it has been used to drive up turnout and win elections. Will the Deputy Leader of the House acknowledge that the Conservative party in Hyndburn is currently under investigation for proxy voting fraud? That is unacceptable. The legislation that his Government are bringing forward should look at that element, and not just at individual voter registration. With that encouragement, I will close my comments.

Business of the House

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Come and join this side, then.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Bryant, please, can we just calm down a little? Both sides get irritated and no one wants to see anyone irritated. Can we offer the hon. Lady our congratulations as well?

[Natascha Engel]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I thank the Leader of the House for the announcement of the pre-recess Adjournment debate next Thursday. Had the Backbench Business Committee been in existence at that point, I am sure we would have looked at scheduling a pre-recess Adjournment debate on that day, given that the previous pre-recess Adjournment debate was on assisted suicide. I am therefore grateful to the Leader of the House for doing that.

I pay tribute to the outgoing members of the Backbench Business Committee: the hon. Members for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), for Shipley (Philip Davies) and, especially, for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). Without them, the Committee would not be what it is today, and I am sad to see them leave, but I welcome the hon. Members for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)—and indeed the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), who is the greatest champion in the House of the pre-recess Adjournment debate, so next week’s will be a fitting start for him. Given that the Committee is still entirely English in composition, I hope that by the end of the Session we can look at having membership from the minority parties in order that we can become a UK Backbench Business Committee instead of being solely English.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

A lot of Members want to catch my eye and I want to call them all, so speedy questions and shorter answers are required.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I am sure that I am not alone in having a significant amount of constituency casework concerning the family courts system and the failings that my constituents find in dealing with that service. Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate to reassure my constituents that all that can be done is being done to reform that system?

Charging for Access to Parliament

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I have to bring in a time limit of six minutes owing to the number of Members who wish to speak. The arguments have already been well rehearsed and I am sure that people will only want to add to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Thurso]

I will.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) that he is up against the clock, and that when he gives way he is not getting any extra time?

[Jake Berry]

How can we be talking about charging people for tours of Big Ben when we still have people who work in the House occupying grace and favour mansions at the taxpayer’s expense?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Berry]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you give me some guidance as to a remedy? The hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. I referred to the Chairman of the Commission.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is a point of clarification and it has been well made.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful for that point of clarification. I thought the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) had referred to the Administration Committee, so I apologise to him for that. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden will also be most relieved that that has been cleared up.

The coalition Government said that 17% should be the average saving across public spending. That is why the Commission—rightly or wrongly—set that target. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, know that my view is that it is wrong, but if we are to meet that target, some difficult decisions have to be made.

Let us also be clear that the proposals are not about profiteering. This is not about making money, but simply about recouping the costs of running the tours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have to reduce the speaking limit to five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me say that there are six Members who want to speak. I was aiming to finish at about 2.15 pm, so if people can try not to intervene, that would be helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Berry]

But that is completely different. Government is for 365 days a year and 24/7; Parliament is having an early recess to enable Members to avoid the Olympics, so surely those who work in Parliament will not be here.

We are not talking about a Big Brother-style eviction; we are simply talking about the possibility of those with grace and favour apartments, including the Chairman of the Commission, the Speaker of the House of Commons, giving them up for the period of the Olympics. Speaker’s House would, of course, command the biggest premium. I suggest that we could charge £20,000 a night for it, perhaps more, and that simply making it available during the Olympics could save half a million pounds.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we are in danger of losing out on the Clock Tower by discussing the renting of the Speaker’s apartments. We are getting a little wide of the mark.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend think that the price would be enhanced if the Deputy Speakers were present to attend the visitors?

[Jake Berry]

Well, I cannot speak for—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I assure that the House that that would not be the case.

[Jake Berry]

All joking aside, it is true that we must save money, but I suspect that charging our constituents to go up the Clock Tower is in the easy pile. When we start talking about the things that are in the difficult pile—such as Speaker’s House, the grace and favour apartments of the Clerk and the Serjeant at Arms, and the crèche—we do not hear so many voices.

It is important for us to establish what we are here for. I think that we are here to speak up for our constituents, and to ensure that they continue to have free access to this building that they lease to us for five years at a time. If we want to save money, let us look at ourselves. Let us look in the difficult pile. Let us work out where the money can be saved without our charging people for access to Big Ben.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am delighted that the hon. Members for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) have put it on the record that they will look at this matter again. If decisions are made that do not accord with what has been stated in this debate, however, what recourse might we have to bring the matter back before Parliament?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) has given his word, and I am sure that he is a man of his word and that we do not need to bring that into question today.

[Robert Halfon]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I should have said in my opening remarks that I am a member of the British Horological Institute, but I also want to put on record my gratitude to the representative of the Commission, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), for listening to Members and agreeing to drop the Big Ben charges.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I think the hon. Gentleman made the first point in the debate, and the second point is not a point of order.

Sittings of the House (20 and 23 March)

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

As announced yesterday, the three amendments in the name of Mr Philip Hollobone have been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment (a), after ‘(1)’, insert

‘there shall be a sitting in Westminster Hall on Monday 19 March between half-past nine o’clock and two o’clock;’

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Amendment (b), at end add

‘, and there shall be a sitting in Westminster Hall between half-past nine o’clock and two o’clock.’.

Amendment (c), at end add

‘and, notwithstanding the decision of the House of 21 February, on Wednesday 28 March.’.

[Mr Hollobone]

I give notice that I shall endeavour to press amendments (a) and (c) to a Division, so the Whips can get on their BlackBerrys and signal the troops that their presence in the Chamber will be required later. I do so more in disappointment than anger because I thought that the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House were bigger men than this. On this occasion, much against their normal form, they have shown a lack of imagination and a lack of innovation. Although they do a tremendous job for this House, it is at times like this that we gently need to remind them that they are the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, and that they are here to represent the interests of Back Benchers as well as those of Her Majesty’s Government. On occasions such as this, there is a simple solution to ensure that the accountability of Government is maintained.

The Government motion proposes

“no sitting in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 20 March”.

The reason for that is entirely understandable. Her Majesty the Queen is coming to Westminster Hall on that day to celebrate her diamond jubilee, so it is entirely appropriate that normal sittings in Westminster Hall should be cancelled for that day. No one has any argument with that. What the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House should have proposed, however, is the rescheduling of that lost parliamentary time at some other point in the parliamentary calendar, because effectively some of our precious parliamentary air time is disappearing. My amendment (a), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—to whom I must say a huge thank you—suggests that that air time should be replaced on the previous day, Monday 19 March, while amendment (b) suggests Friday 23 March as an alternative.

Westminster Hall is an important part of parliamentary procedure. The Leader of the House and his deputy have previously told the House that they support it and feel that it does a valuable job, and evidence from the Table Office supports that. The hard-working, diligent, capable, lovely, kind people in the Table Office have told me that they receive an average of some 60 to 70 applications a week for Westminster Hall time from Back Benchers, that there can be as many as 150, and that the number never falls below 40. What better evidence could there be of the popularity of Westminster Hall among Members? Effectively, however, the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House are denying Back Benchers the opportunity of a day’s debate there.

General matters

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making the case eloquently for the links between good transport infrastructure and economic development, but does he agree that direct train services are pivotal to that? Sometimes London does not realise that direct services—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. That is far too long an intervention. May I just say to Members that time is tight? I want to get everybody in, but time is very tight indeed. If people are going to give way, they should remember that the extra minute will come off somebody else’s time. Please let us try to ensure that we get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I must reduce the speaking time to four minutes so that all Members have a chance to speak.

Business of the House

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Thomas Docherty.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I am grateful to be called in this—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I can assure those waiting to speak that the hon. Gentleman did give notice that he would be speaking, so if we can just hold our water. I will be coming to Sir Alan next.

[Thomas Docherty]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I hope to keep my remarks relatively brief.

This short debate is obviously a consequence of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which was recently passed, and is an example of why, rather than hastily charging through such legislation and fixing it in this piecemeal way after the event, it might have been more appropriate to work through all the consequences of that change. I hope the Deputy Leader of the House will reflect on what happens when proper pre-legislative scrutiny of such a major Act does not take place.

I have the greatest respect for the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight). I have the privilege of serving under his leadership—I joined the Committee in the summer—and he has been an excellent Chairman. I do not at all doubt the sincerity of his words today and his genuine conviction that due diligence has been shown on this important, if slightly technical issue, but I hope he will not mind if I show some dissent in that regard. When I asked the Clerk of our Committee on Monday whether it was possible to get copies of the transcript of the informal private hearing that the right hon. Gentleman convened in the spring, the Clerk made it clear that although I, as a member of the Committee, could see it, other Members of the House could not. With the greatest respect to the Chairman, that is an unsatisfactory basis on which to change the Standing Orders of this House. If not all Members of this House are able to read the deliberations of the august Procedure Committee, how can our colleagues simply take our word for it?

I do not object in principle to what the Government are suggesting. Like many Government initiatives, it appears on the surface to be a reasonable suggestion. However, as we have discovered repeatedly over the past 18 months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Knight]

I remind the hon. Gentleman and ask him to reflect on the fact that not one single member of the Procedure Committee, including the Labour members, asked for any sessions on this issue to be held in public. I say to him seriously that if, having put to the House that this is a technical alteration to accommodate the Government’s wish to change when the House prorogues, the Government were to use this as a lever or mechanism to reduce the House’s scrutiny of its business, there would be one hell of a row which many Government Members as well as Opposition Members would join, saying that the Government had misled the House and would have to retract what they were doing. The hon. Gentleman’s fears do not therefore amount to very much, because the Committee has proceeded with this measure on the basis on which it was introduced to the House today: that it is a technical change. If it became something else, there would be one hell of a—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Come on—this is a speech! You have already made one; we do not need a second speech, Mr Knight, do we?

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I have to tell him that the consequences of having an informal hearing were not in my view explained, and the Liaison Committee might wish to look at this issue in future.

I am conscious that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) wants to speak, so I will sit down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I think the hon. Gentleman is making a valiant effort to bring some substance to his objections to the proposals, but he is not succeeding. At various times he accused me of being nonchalant. I hope that I am not nonchalant. Simply that something is technical does not imply nonchalance. Flying a jet liner is a technical business, but one should certainly not be nonchalant about doing so. As I said, we have thought through the consequences.

The hon. Gentleman said that we are massively increasing carry-over, but we are not. We are specifically and precisely dealing with the consequences for Finance Bills of the change to sessional periods. He said—at least, I think I heard him say—that having longer to scrutinise a Finance Bill made it more difficult to scrutinise it effectively. I am not sure that that is always the position of Her Majesty’s Opposition.

To deal specifically with his questions, the hon. Gentleman asked why should not the Finance Bill start in the new Session. The answer is: for the very obvious reason that if it did, the time available to the House to debate and scrutinise the Bill would be reduced. That cannot be right. He asked whether paragraphs (3) and (4) of Standing Order No. 80A apply to Finance Bills. Had he read the explanatory memorandum, he would have seen stated therein that those paragraphs will apply to Finance Bills.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the provisions of paragraphs (12) to (14) of Standing Order No. 80A apply. Yes, the Standing Order will prevent a Finance Bill from being carried over more than once, as is stated in the explanatory memorandum. However, I have to say that if we had a Government whose Finance Bill was carried over between three Sessions, they would no longer be a Government, because they would not be a functioning Government. They would be a dead Government if they were unable to get their Finance Bill through in three Sessions of Parliament. I think we can safely assume that those circumstances will not apply.

On supply, the hon. Gentleman asked why the cut-off of 5 August under Standing Order No. 54 is being removed without being replaced. The timetable requirements for estimates procedures do continue and are set out in Standing Order No. 55. He asked why the first cut-off for supply is changing from a date in February to a date in March. That change does not affect the spring deadline. The February date was the cut-off for the winter supplementary estimates, which will no longer be published.

Despite the hon. Gentleman’s valiant efforts to try to find a cause on which he could unite his party against these very modest and sensible proposals, he has failed to establish any case for doing so. I commend the orders to the House and I hope that the House will be able to agree them without opposition.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

First, we have to accept the result of any vote this evening, but if the motion goes through the order will be made shortly, and the hon. Gentleman should know that that really does mean shortly; it will be not one of those that lasts several months.

I reconfirm for the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) that the Government propose to increase contributions to the ministerial scheme, with staged increases being applied from 1 April 2012, and that we will consult on the proposal, as required by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. For the avoidance of doubt, I should point out that I do not receive a ministerial salary or pension, so I will not be affected—[Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Wallasey says, I do the job for nothing—for my love of the job. I am glad that that is appreciated—[Interruption.] She does, too.

On that note of happy consensus, I hope the House will agree the motion and pass the matter to the independent body with the very clear indication that, no, we do not expect to be treated differently simply because we are Members of this House and have the opportunity to express our opinions here in the Chamber.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Does Mr Chope wish to move his amendment?

[Mr Chope]

With the leave of the House, I will not seek to move my amendment, because the Government have said that they agree with everything that I and the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) have said, so it seems sensible to move on to the next business as soon as possible.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion say Aye—[Hon. Members: “Aye”]—to the contrary No—

[Bob Russell]

Not content.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Ayes have it, the Ayes have it.

Resolved,

That this House reasserts its view that the salaries, pensions and expenses scheme for hon. Members ought to be determined independently of this House; accordingly invites the Leader of the House to make an order commencing those provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 which transfer responsibility for the 5 pensions of hon. Members to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA); supports the approach to public service pension reform set out in the Final Report of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission chaired by Lord Hutton of Furness; believes that IPSA should introduce, by 2015, a new pension scheme for hon. Members which is informed by the Commission’s findings and their 10 subsequent application to other public service pension schemes; recognises the case for an increase in pension contributions made in Lord Hutton’s interim report; and accordingly invites IPSA to increase contribution rates for hon. Members from 1 April 2012 in line with changes in pension contribution rates for other public service schemes.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We now come to the important Back-Bench business on the Hillsborough disaster.