Business of the House

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful for my right hon. Friend’s question; she herself was such a distinguished Leader of the House. The issue is the technical problems one rather than the proxy one. The proxy vote would not necessarily have helped because it would have brought people to the House, we would have had Divisions, and that would not necessarily have solved the problem that we were trying to address. But there are measures in place for technical problems. A Member who is having difficulty voting on the Members’ hub will be able to text or email the relevant House office leaving a telephone number. House staff will immediately call the Member back on that number and, once they have performed the necessary checks and are satisfied that it is indeed the Member, arrange for the Member’s vote to be recorded.

More broadly, the changes that have been made to allow for the creation of a hybrid Parliament are strictly temporary and will last for only as long as a completely physical Parliament is impossible. Within that time, Mr Speaker, if you think that a Division is not working properly, you have the ability to stop the Division for it to be re-held at a later stage. In addition, people will always be able to check their vote because it is a public rather than a private vote.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

Fifty per cent. of bed and breakfasts do not pay business rates, the events industry often does not pay business rates either because it uses outside spaces, and language schools are excluded from the Government’s support for tourism. I have tried to raise this issue with Ministers directly in writing, but the Government have not reissued the document, “Government ministers and responsibilities”, which lists the private and direct contacts for Ministers, since 11 October 2019, and we are ending up getting generic responses from civil servants. Will the Leader of the House make sure that that document is reissued to us, either publicly or privately, so that we can directly contact Ministers and their private offices rather than just the Department?

Business of the House

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman has now asked that question, and I will ensure that it is passed to the relevant Minister for answer.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I have to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting): closing this place down early without putting in sufficient measures for online debate and questions is foolhardy at best. We have a system of named day questions, which already limits the number of questions we can ask, so that 60-question scenario cannot happen. Will the Leader of the House liaise with the parliamentary authorities so that named day questions can continue throughout the recess, so that at least we can have questions in public? Then the question is only asked once, rather than having numerous pieces of ministerial correspondence.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There is no limit on non-named day questions; it is only on named day questions that a limit applies. Select Committees will be able to carry on their work and do so remotely, so scrutiny is being continued.

Business of the House

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thought we were getting a ditch joke, to which I was going to say, “Ha-ha.”

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Why is the Leader of the House playing games with resolutions rather than taking up the Opposition’s offer to programme the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill properly?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

We have done both, but offering an election is not playing games but trusting the people. Her Majesty’s Government, the Conservative and Unionist party, trust the British people; the Opposition do not.

Business of the House

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is an opportunity for issues exactly like that to be raised, and I will always pass on Members’ comments and requests for statutory instruments to the relevant Secretary of State. Of course I will do that.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Today’s urgent question on the arms trade to Saudi Arabia indicates that there is a bigger issue here. Will the Government schedule a longer debate in Government time, and will the Leader of the House, in particular, consider turning the Committees on Arms Export Controls into a stand-alone Committee, which is in his gift?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Very few things are within my gift that specifically; I think that is in other people's gift as well. The issue was raised; there was an urgent question. The hon. Gentleman knows how to ask for Standing Order No. 24 debates and how to go to the Backbench Business Committee. However, the Government have announced their schedule of business for next week.

Business of the House

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am sorry to say that arranging meetings is not the job of the Leader the House. I am here to organise debates and to point people in the right direction for getting parliamentary responses—not, I am sorry to say, to be a diary secretary.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Leader of the House assure me that during Prorogation the Home Secretary will not lay a statutory instrument to make it illegal to enter Kurdish Syria and that we will continue to be able to support our allies in Kurdistan?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The rules relating to the laying of statutory instruments when the House is sitting are complicated and detailed, and without knowing the precise form of the statutory instrument I will not be able to give any guarantee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The condition seems to change, because the condition was that the legislation was passed.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

And enacted.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

And enacted; given Royal Assent. [Interruption.] Royal Assent is the point at which it is enacted—it is when it becomes an Act. If that is the law of the land, that will be the law of the land, and if Members think it through they will realise that the Government would not want an election after that law had taken effect and we had had to ask for an extension. The last thing this Government want to do is ask for an extension.

Business of the House

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The Government will always endeavour to table motions swiftly so that parliamentarians have sight of them. As I have said to a number of hon. Members, the motion tomorrow is about whether the House wishes to leave without a withdrawal agreement and political declaration on 29 March. Tomorrow evening, should the House decline to leave without a deal, I will then table a motion that sets out the Government’s proposal, but, as I have said, it will be amendable, so it will be for all Members to consider whether they prefer a different sort of extension. But very importantly, again, it will then be for the EU unanimously to agree to that extension proposal. To be very clear about that, there may well be conditions imposed that this House would not wish to accept, and we all need to be open-eyed about that fact.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Forgive me if I stress this point again, but this is of course a Government who have been found in contempt of Parliament, and when the Leader of the House is not fully clear on what the consequence of voting for no deal tomorrow is, it is worth pushing. Why will she not confirm to us that the Government will bring legislation, secondary or primary, to this House straight after no deal being voted down to ensure that the default is no longer leaving the European Union if no deal is achieved? That is all she needs to do. Why cannot she offer to come to the House with what the Government are proposing on Thursday? We understand how the system works, we understand that things are amendable, and we understand that it has all got to be agreed by the European Union—all we asking for is the Government’s proposal. If they are unable to provide proposals, maybe they are unfit to be in government.

[Andrea Leadsom]

As I have now said a number of times, we have come forward with the proposal that the Prime Minister set out two weeks ago that in the event that the meaningful vote is declined today, we will set out tomorrow a motion enabling the House to decline to leave the European Union without a deal and without a future political declaration, and should the House decline to leave the EU without a deal, then on the following day we will bring forward a motion asking the House whether it wishes to have a short extension. That is the process that the Prime Minister set out, and that is what we will be doing.

Speaker’s Statement

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, I will take the remaining points of order, but I do ask the House to consider the other business to which we need to proceed.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On a different note, and one for which I hope a point of order should be used, I seek your advice—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is not a moment for levity; I want to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I seek your advice, Mr Speaker, on how I could get clarification of the answer that I received from the Foreign Secretary in the Yemen statement. I said that the senior civil servant in the arms control unit had advised against sales and that Ministers had overturned that. The Foreign Secretary declared that that was not true. The Foreign Secretary and the International Trade Secretary both refused to attend the hearing of the Committees on Arms Export Controls this year and have both said that they will not attend next year. How can we get them to come before the CAEC to answer these questions?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman can request attendance. Insofar as he inquires about other recourse open to him, my advice to the hon. Gentleman, who is a resourceful individual, is that he should make the short journey from the Chamber to the Table Office to table questions on this matter. It may be that he will feel inclined to table more than one question. He may table several. He may do so on a repeated basis. There is no prohibition on repetition in the House of Commons.

Business of the House

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady will be aware that scheduling business is a matter for the Government and that the proposal for the rescheduling of the meaningful vote is therefore, under normal procedures, a matter for the Government. That is what we intend to fulfil.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Government have already been found in contempt of this House, and now they wish to be in contempt of the British people. I was due to speak later today, but I and my constituents will be denied that. When will the debate be rescheduled? Give us a date, or at least a timeframe; otherwise, based on past practice and without details, there is not much else that I can believe about the Leader of the House’s promises.

[Andrea Leadsom]

As I have said a number of times, we will resume the debate as soon as possible once the Prime Minister has sought the reassurances that the backstop will not be permanent, which the House has made it clear that it requires.

Business of the House

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, Scotland questions will take place next Wednesday, and I am sure that Ministers will be able to give him the answer then. However, I am also sure he will be delighted that four city region deals have already been arranged in Glasgow, Inverness and the Highlands, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh and south-east Scotland. So progress is being made, and the Government have shown their commitment to providing greater devolution so that local communities can make their own progress in the way that is most appropriate for them.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

This week The Guardian revealed that the Government are spending some of the £1.3 billion aid budget of the conflict, stability and security fund on promoting austerity with Saatchi and Saatchi in Tunisia. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact has said that the fund is badly managed, and the International Development Committee has asked for an immediate review of it. When will the Secretary of State for International Development come to the House and make a statement about how that review will take place?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am afraid I am not aware of the report that the hon. Gentleman has cited. I suggest he take it up either by means of a written question or directly with International Development Ministers, so that he can be given an answer that is to his satisfaction.

Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Afzal Khan]

Let me make some progress and then I will be happy to give way. Too weak to defeat my Bill on a vote, the Government are hiding behind a procedure that they know is wrong. The convention is also that money resolutions are brought forward in the order that Bills pass Second Reading. Members will have seen on today’s Order Paper that the Government have tabled a money resolution for a health and social care Bill. It is the second Bill the Government have leapfrogged over mine. The Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill was given a money resolution at the beginning of May, even though its promoter came out 13th in the ballot, whereas I came out third.

The only logic to when the Government are bringing forward a money resolution is: what will help them avoid challenge? We know many on the Government side are willing to vote against them on my Bill, both for principled reasons and because reducing the number of MPs will mean that some Conservatives will lose their seats—turkeys do not vote for Christmas. Based on the 2017 general election results, 34 Conservative MPs are set to have their seats abolished or to lose to Labour at the next election, with the list including six Cabinet Ministers and six other Ministers. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who is in charge of my Bill for the Government, is set to lose her seat to Labour if the current boundary proposals go ahead. The Government’s motives are clear: this is not about principles, but about electoral maths. This is not just happening with my Bill; money resolutions are part of a pattern of this weak Government abusing Parliament to avoid scrutiny and challenge.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the public will see that a money resolution delayed is actually democracy denied to this Chamber?

[Afzal Khan]

Last week, the Government made a statement on an Opposition day to crowd out debates on Grenfell and Brexit later in the day. The Government denied the Opposition prior sight of that statement, which ended up being a damning indictment of transport policy. The week before, the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs called out a Minister and officials for being “slippery” and for “playing games” with the Committee on the incredibly serious topic of Windrush. Looking back, some could say that the Government’s evidence to the Procedure Committee now looks slippery. Of course, we also have the ongoing scandal of the Government first refusing to vote and then refusing to act on Opposition day motions. In Grenfell, Brexit and Windrush, we are talking about the defining issues of our day, yet even on those, this weak Government are comfortable abusing parliamentary procedure to avoid scrutiny and challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I always listen very carefully to the views of my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that I must again draw all hon. Members’ attention to the fact that, as set out in “Erskine May”, it is for the Government of the day to initiate financial resolutions, of which this is one.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

rose—

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

Once the boundary commissions’ review has been completed, the Government will of course consider the recommendations very carefully, but that review is not yet completed so we must allow it to continue to its completion.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The Leader of the House’s constitutional duty is to be Parliament’s representative in the Cabinet. Parliament voted overwhelmingly to proceed with this Bill. What representations did she make in the Cabinet to defend the Bill and promote the money resolution that Parliament had voted for?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that, as I set out the start of my remarks, I am fully committed to taking into account all the views expressed across the House. I have done and will continue to do so at every possible opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. He makes his point very well. Clause 4 would require the boundary commissions to complete their reports, including in relation to the requirements in clauses 1 to 3, by 1 October 2020 and to report by 1 October every 10th year, rather than every five years, as provided for by the 2011 Act. Giving the boundary commissions 10 years will actually save costs.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Does that clause not mean that over time the Bill would save, not cost, the taxpayer money, that it is a case of spending a penny now to save a pound later and that therefore the arguments against a money resolution are null and defunct?

[Valerie Vaz]

I absolutely agree. It will actually save money in the long run.

Responding to me following the urgent question on Thursday 10 May, the Leader of the House said that

“it is right that we allow the Boundary Commission to report its recommendations before carefully considering how to proceed.”—[Official Report, 10 May 2018; Vol. 640, c. 894.]

However, the review is based on a flawed premise. We have had a referendum and we have had a general election, and as a result of our exit from the European Union we have lost further representation by our Members of the European Parliament. The workload of Members of Parliament has increased following local authority cuts and the cuts in advice services: for instance, my local citizens advice bureau has had to cut staff numbers. Members are now having to deal with more cases.

Responding to me during business questions last week, the Leader of the House said:

“The Boundary Commission review will cost taxpayers something in the order of £12 million, and it cannot be right that further money, to the tune of more than £5 million, be made available to a completely separate Bill when that work is under way.”—[Official Report, 17 May 2018; Vol. 641, c. 430.]

However, waiting for the review will cost more money. May I ask the Leader of the House what is the financial impact of waiting for the commission to report? I am sure she will agree that this is about democracy. What price democracy?

The Committee considering my hon. Friend’s Bill has met three times, but has not been able to consider a single clause of it. The Committee is due to meet again on Wednesday 23 May. Will the Leader of the House ensure and expedite the tabling of a money resolution that can be brought to the House? She mentioned that a money resolution for the Bill had been presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), but I had to raise the matter during business questions, and the Committee had to meet five times before the resolution was granted.

May I ask the Leader of the House again—she did not answer this during business questions—whether there will be a reduction in the number of Ministers? If not, we shall have an overpowering Executive who want to prevent scrutiny by cutting the number of MPs. It is not right for us to have such an overpowering Executive, and it is not right to reduce scrutiny of it.

Finally, let me ask a constitutional question. I do not want to upset people or make them afraid, but some constitutional theorists have suggested that there may be a personal prerogative whereby the monarch does not have to follow the Prime Minister’s advice. An example given during a lecture—perhaps the parliamentary private secretary to the Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), was also at that lecture: she might have been, in 2005—was the gerrymandering of constituencies in the interests of one party, and not in the interests of democracy.