Today’s Business of the House

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I obviously disagree with the idea that it has come about from any grudges. Hon. Members on both sides of this House have asked for this debate to be held, and they are entitled to have a debate held. It is part of the job of the Leader of the House to do what is in the best interests of the House. I believe that the House resolving these issues before the end of the Parliament is in the interests of the House of Commons.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

The coalition agreement promised:

“A House Business Committee, to consider government business, will be established by the third year of the Parliament.”

Is the Leader of the House proud that instead of that, his legacy is continued Government control of the bulk of the parliamentary timetable to be exploited for partisan purposes as we see today?

[Mr Hague]

This Parliament has seen the greatest transfer of the parliamentary timetable from outside the Government’s control of any Parliament of modern times, with the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee as well as maintaining Opposition days. There has been historic reform, and I am sure that that trend will continue in the future. This Parliament has also seen the election of Select Committee Chairs by secret ballot, and that is now an important principle in this House. What we are discussing today is in line with that.

Points of Order

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) was shouting in my ear, so I did not hear the Secretary of State’s answer to my question—will councillors elected in Rotherham in 2011 be held to account at the ballot box in May, or is the Secretary of State extending their term by a year?

[Mr Speaker]

I appreciate that. I think the Secretary of State did give a clear answer, although I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is a perfectly reasonable question and I am sure the Secretary of State is happy to repeat his answer.

Christmas Adjournment

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who I am sure speaks for the whole House in her moving and compelling contribution.

The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) spoke about Transport for London, and the ridiculous plans of the Mayor of London and Transport for London which no one could do anything about. He gave two examples, one of which was a Thames estuary airport. I am pleased to say that we could do something about that, following a fantastic campaign, which the Airports Commission said generated more representations than any other. I was privileged to lead that campaign with people from the Hoo peninsula and elsewhere in my constituency, but also with people from across the country and beyond, so that on 2 September this year, the Thames estuary airport pie-in-the-sky proposal promoted by the Mayor of London was categorically ruled out.

Unfortunately, two days later, Medway council’s own planning committee attacked the Hoo peninsula with its own threat—a very serious threat—to build approximately 5,000 houses at Lodge hill, a bird sanctuary in my constituency. Two days after we had had the dreadful threat of the Thames estuary airport ruled out, we had this other one to deal with. Five days later, Medway council had to refer the application to the Secretary of State to consider whether it should be called in.

[Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Reckless]

No. [Interruption.] I said no.

The criteria used for planning application call-ins used to be called the Caborn criteria. Three of those criteria appear to be met very clearly by this application to the extent that a call-in is required. The first relates to conflicting with national policies on important matters, notably the protection of sites of special scientific interest—and, indeed, the whole integrity of our system of environmental protection.

The second relates to having significant effects beyond the immediate locality. It could even have an effect as far away as west Africa, where the nightingales that are the cause of this area becoming an SSSI spend the British winter. There could be an impact on Essex, because the planning committee of Medway council has, in its wisdom, accepted a proposal that the nightingales can be told to go to an alternative location somewhere in Essex. We do not have much in the way of detail, but this clearly suggests significant effects beyond the immediate locality. Perhaps most importantly, approving the proposal or failing to call it in and seeking to nod it through with a green light could have impacts on other SSSIs across the country.

The third criterion is where the development would give rise to substantial cross-border or national controversy. Having been at the centre of such controversy during the recent Rochester and Strood by-election, I can vouch for that.

On 25 September, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government recused himself from considering the application on the basis that he is a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Two days later, I recused myself from the Conservative party and was determined to fight a by-election partly on this issue. Since the Secretary of State recused himself, the matter has been considered by the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis). He wrote to me on 15 October, and I was glad to hear that no ministerial decision had been taken on whether the matter should be called in. He criticised what he described as my claim that such a decision had been taken.

Of course, that was not my claim. It was a claim made by the deputy leader of Medway council, Councillor Alan Jarrett, in a meeting of Conservative councillors. His statement was that it had apparently been communicated to him by the Government that the proposal would be green-lighted and would not be called in. That led to another councillor present at the meeting, Councillor Peter Rodberg, leaving the Conservative group and joining me in UKIP. He says—and this is borne out by another councillor who has spoken to me, and who remains a Conservative—that at the end of the meeting, after the councillors had been told that the Government would green-light the proposal, Councillor Peter Hicks, who represents Strood Rural, said that they should keep quiet about it until after the election.

It was a pleasure to learn from the Minister that he was dealing with the issue of the call-in properly. He clearly recognises that he is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, and—at least in terms of the time that he has already devoted to the issue and the correspondence that he has issued—he appears to be performing his duties with diligence. His most recent letter was written on 8 December to Councillor Rodney Chambers, the leader of Medway council. I understand that since this Government have been in office no more than a dozen applications have been called in each year, whereas under the last Government about 30 a year were called in, but I am not aware of any precedent for such a letter.

The Minister wrote asking for Medway council’s views, and in particular the views of the planning committee that had considered the application on 4 September, on a number of representations that had been received, including representations from the RSPB and Natural England. Unfortunately the Minister did not attach the representations that he said he had attached to the letter, and, as far as I know, they have not been published. The letter is peculiar, however. It is not clear whether Medway council’s views were being sought, or the views of the planning committee, or both, and it is not clear how any conflict between them should be resolved. The planning committee meeting was, of course, on the record, so the extent to which it has considered—or, one suspects, not considered—the matters that it should have considered should have been made clear either in its decision notice or in the record of that meeting. I therefore question the credibility and reliability of any ex post facto justifications that Medway council may now produce for its decision, and any statement in which it purports to have abided by the national planning policy framework.

Given that letter, given that at least three of the criteria for call-in were clearly met, and given the statement by the deputy leader of the council that the proposal would be green-lighted in the light of communications that he at least believed were taking place within the Government or among those who he thought could speak for them in respect of there not being a call-in, I think it is clear that the safest and, indeed, the only appropriate option is for the Government to call in the application, appoint an inspector, and give proper consideration to what is, in my view, an incredibly damaging application. This application would result in the pulling together of several villages into a single conglomeration, and would cause a site of special scientific interest to be almost completely built over, which would undermine the whole system of environmental protection in this country. It should now be considered by an inspector and then by the Secretary of State, and, hopefully, turned down as a result.

Devolution (Implications for England)

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I think I can reassure my right hon. Friend about that. None of these options involves additional tiers of government and we are very clear in the proposals we are putting forward on local government and decentralisation that this is working with existing authorities, giving them greater power and giving power at the neighbourhood level. So it does not involve adding to the tiers of government, nor is it intended to add to the expense to the taxpayer.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

Will the Leader of the House confirm that his policy remains indefinitely to spend £1,600 a year more on each Scottish constituent than our own, and that his party will do nothing about that unfairness?

[Mr Hague]

As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, this statement is not about the Barnett formula; it is about our constitutional arrangements. The position on the Barnett formula is well known, and as tax-raising powers are devolved to Scotland, of course the Barnett formula becomes less relevant over time, as is well understood.

Business of the House

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. When I was at my old university in Exeter recently, I saw the substantial facility that it has to provide additional support to those whose first language is not English. If I may, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science to respond to her on the point that she raises.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Why are the remaining stages of the Immigration Bill being delayed? It would surely make sense for the House to vote on whether to extend the immigration restrictions for Bulgaria and Romania in advance of their being lifted on 1 January.

[Mr Lansley]

I assure my hon. Friend that the Immigration Bill is not being delayed; it is simply that there is a lot of legislation before the House. In the future business before Christmas, I have announced progress on five Government Bills. Let me also explain to him that if there was a debate on the Immigration Bill in this House before Christmas, it would not necessarily have an impact on the timing of Royal Assent, because this is the first House that the Bill must pass through, not the second. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced important measures on this matter last week. I am therefore hopeful that regulations will be laid before the House shortly.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall very well that that Bill was the Government’s view and the Government’s policy, and the House agreed with that Government Bill. The issue is these Lords amendments, and as I told the House, the ministerial code explicitly allows for ministerial responsibility to be set aside in particular circumstances, and it has been set aside in relation to the debate and votes on this particular point.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Does the ministerial code not also say that Ministers must abide by the coalition agreement in the same way as they must abide by international law?

[Mr Lansley]

No, I am afraid that my hon. Friend is not correct in that respect. The coalition agreement is clearly a relevant issue, but it is not encapsulated in the ministerial code. The code is very clear—he will no doubt be familiar with it—and makes clear the requirements for Ministers to accept the obligations of ministerial collective responsibility save when it is explicitly set aside. I am simply making it clear that collective ministerial responsibility has been set aside in relation to this debate and for these purposes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

Well, Mr Speaker, that was a long time to be sitting down. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that I am on occasions wrong, but I endeavour never to be disingenuous. On this occasion I am not wrong either. One could equally argue that it was a partisan effort on the part of the Opposition to frustrate the intention of the House to bring equality and fairness into the franchise when the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 was passed. None the less, my point is simply that Parliament voted on that legislation, which has been enacted. That was done on the principle of equality and fairness and the Boundary Commission has proceeded on that basis. Not now proceeding with the review would leave all the inequalities in constituencies, between constituencies and between voters that go all the way back to February 2000.

[Mark Reckless]

My right hon. Friend says that he is not wrong, but he stated that the ministerial code contains no reference to the coalition agreement. Paragraph 1.2 states:

“The Ministerial Code should be read alongside the Coalition agreement”.

If that is the case, why is the Deputy Prime Minister being allowed to break it?

House of Lords Reform Bill

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Straw]

I entirely accept the hon. Lady’s point. In my written text, the word “wrong” is in inverted commas. Of course I accept what she says—that there is no wrong answer from the British people, and we have to respect the result of what they say.

The more I made the case against a referendum on the EU constitution, the less convinced I became by my own arguments; and, significantly, it was, among others, Liberal Democrat leaders who were most influential in causing me to change my mind. The Liberal Democrats were strongly in favour of the constitution, but argued that the measure was of such constitutional importance that it should be for the British people to decide. I then persuaded Tony Blair and the Cabinet that we must organise a referendum, and we would indeed have done so but for the fact that the French and the Dutch voted “no” before we could do it.

For reasons about which I wrote to you and the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Speaker, I could not be in the Chamber yesterday, but I have read the report of the speeches with great care. The Deputy Prime Minister made many points of considerable substance, but I have to say that on the referendum issue he was, at the very best, treading water. His argument against a referendum lacked both conviction and coherence. He talked about cost and about the distraction caused by a Scottish referendum, and he claimed that a referendum was unnecessary because all three parties had agreed on the principle of reform.

The Deputy Prime Minister knows that the £80 million cost of a referendum is a one-off which creates no continuing liability. That is what the contingency reserve is for. As for his point about the alleged distraction caused by the Scottish referendum, it is frankly absurd. The Scottish referendum has a different time scale, and will involve just one UK voter in 10. However, the Deputy Prime Minister was at his most disingenuous when he claimed that agreement between the Front Benches trumped the need for the British people to decide. It does not.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has accused the Deputy Prime Minister of being disingenuous, but he has also cited an instance in which, he says, he persuaded members of his Front Bench to change their minds and support a referendum. Is he telling our Front Benchers that they should do the same, but should then change their minds again and break their promise?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who is immensely versatile in his use of legitimate parliamentary language, that he might wish to reconsider his use of the word “disingenuous”? He has a very versatile vocabulary, and I feel sure that he can deploy another word.

Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

If the Opposition could push home an issue of confidence in an individual Minister, they would lay a motion to cut his salary, but they cannot and have not done so. We have heard three points from the Opposition. First, there is a memo—they have not actually quoted from it—in which the Secretary of State said that it would be totally wrong to get involved in a competition issue which must be decided at arm’s length. Secondly, they go on about the special adviser and argue that the Secretary of State has to take responsibility for him, including discipline, according to the ministerial code. Once the Secretary of State found out about the tone and volume of the special adviser’s communications, he required him to resign. Thirdly, we are left with some sort of generalised accusation that the Secretary of State was a bit too friendly with the lobbyist Frédéric Michel and had informal contact with him that he should not have had—an accusation made without taking into account the fact that the Secretary of State and Frédéric Michel were in the same hospital while their wives were giving birth in adjoining rooms.

I will focus the rest of my remarks—[Interruption.] Well, that is all there is from the Opposition. I will focus the rest of my remarks on a constitutional issue. It is the Prime Minister who determines confidence in his Ministers. He has confidence in his excellent Secretary of State, who has acted with integrity throughout the process. What the Opposition are trying to do with this abnegatory motion is suggest that, rather than the Prime Minister or this House being responsible, some independent adviser should take charge. The Opposition refer to the ministerial code as if it is a written constitution, and to Sir Alex Allan as if he is the Supreme Court. The previous Cabinet Secretary, Lord Butler, said of the ministerial code:

“Ministers are accountable to Parliament, not a piece of paper.”

It is very important to look at least briefly at how the ministerial code has developed, because since it was published in 1992 it has been given a great significance, as if it is somehow more than a guideline. It was published in 1992 because the then Cabinet Secretary, Lord Butler, as he admitted in 1995, agitated for its publication, and it has been used since as if somehow it should supplant the Prime Minister’s or Parliament’s responsibility. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) suggests that somehow Sir Alex Allan should look at this matter as if the Prime Minister had done something wrong and decide whether he should stay, which is a preposterous suggestion. The Prime Minister is responsible to this House and we are responsible to our electorate.

There is a rather wonderful history of the genesis of the ministerial code and how it developed—it is the only such book I am aware of—by a lady called Amy Baker. I will quote one small section to Members. Prime Minister Attlee took responsibility for every part of the code himself; all the drafts and changes were done specifically by him. Once he ceased to be Prime Minister, however, the Cabinet Secretary took charge of the document, and the reason for that, according to this history of the code, is that

“it would have defeated the original object of the document, if every Prime Minister had been allowed to ‘hijack’ the rulebook for there own purposes… Hankey,”

the first Cabinet Secretary,

“had drafted the very first guidelines in order to establish some continuity of procedure which would enable the Cabinet Office to organise business without being disrupted too much on a change of government.”

I disagree with that. It is for the Government to decide. The civil service are using these issues as a naked power grab. With Adam Werritty they used it to say that somehow Ministers have to be regulated by the civil service in taking external advice. Now they use this to suggest that somehow all special advisers should report to Sir Jeremy Heywood. No, it is Ministers who are in charge, not the civil service.

Backbench Business Committee

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

Exactly. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The debate was moved because the Government took the view that they had to get their Ministers and payroll involved in the vote, but I am not sure that that is the right approach for the Government to take. They should be quite prepared to say, “This is the view of Back Benchers, and we, the Government, will listen to the views of Back Benchers.” Back Benchers should vote on a substantive motion, and, if they agree on something that is not Government policy, the Government should not regard it as an issue of confidence in them; they should listen to what has been said. Up to now, one difficulty has been the Government’s interpretation of any motion by Back Benchers in Backbench Business Committee time as a potential attack on their integrity.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, since the debate and vote on holding a referendum on our membership of the EU, there has been some potential for change in the Government’s position? The Chancellor is talking about a vote on any reshaped relationship with the EU, and even yesterday we had a written ministerial statement entitled, “Post-EU Competitiveness Council”.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Such circumstances show that, although some of us may think that the Government do not listen enough, they certainly do sometimes, and we must be grateful for that. Indeed, we know that they have listened on prisoner voting. Then yesterday the Home Secretary came here and said that she wanted us to express a view on an important issue so that we could, in effect, try to influence the interpretation of the judges on article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

Again, I commend the Wright Committee report to the hon. Gentleman. He will find that he was simply wrong in some of the points that he made earlier about the Committee’s suggested structure for determining House business.

I move on to the last substantive point that needs to be made. The hon. Gentleman seemed to take exception to the fact that the Government had attempted to facilitate the Backbench Business Committee’s procedures for this week.

[Mark Reckless]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Heath]

No, not for the moment. Let me explain what the Government have been attempting to do.

It seems that there is some objection to the fact that the Government have tried to help the Backbench Business Committee by providing the debate that it would normally have scheduled this Thursday. We are committed to the Backbench Business Committee having time for Back-Bench debates at an average of once a week, although not necessarily every week consecutively, and we have kept up that average.

We felt it imperative that we reserved time this week for a Backbench Business Committee debate. Did we pluck a subject out of the air for that debate? No, of course we did not. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House asked the Chair-elect of the Committee, who of course was its previous Chair and so has some experience, what she felt would be an appropriate subject for debate this Thursday prior to the Committee being formally instituted. She undertook to consult the new Committee’s members-elect to see whether they had views, and she took into account the requests that had come forward. She suggested that we might provisionally propose that there be a motion on mental health, tabled by Back-Bench Members and in the name of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan).

The Government are now being criticised for providing at the earliest opportunity what members of the Backbench Business Committee wanted. We are told that we are wrong to have done that. I reject that criticism, which I think is frankly rather stupid. All that we have done throughout the process has been to say that we will do whatever we can to help the Committee in its work. Had the Committee been set up last night, it would have met today and agreed the subject for debate on Thursday. I have every confidence that the subject it would have chosen was the one that its members asked for. If the Government are to be criticised for helping the Committee and facilitating its setting-up at the earliest opportunity, I fail to understand what more we can do to assist Back-Bench Members. I believe that we have acted entirely properly.

[Mark Reckless]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Heath]

I think the debate has now covered all the topics that could conceivably be relevant to the motion, and I hope that the House will now have the opportunity to move swiftly to a conclusion.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I will raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Depending on the subject that is chosen for debate next Wednesday, which will presumably relate to Northern Ireland, the hon. Lady may have an opportunity to raise the matter then and get a response from him.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

I had understood that the January surplus was £7.8 billion, so I congratulate the Leader of the House on finding another £4 billion down the back of the sofa.

The Backbench Business Committee has been unable to allocate time for pre-European Council meetings, because it has limited time that is often changed at the last moment. Will the Leader of the House now reinstate those debates in Government time, or does he believe that the Standing Order No. 24 process is more appropriate?

[Sir George Young]

That would be to reverse the commitment that we made to implement in full the Wright recommendations, which involved putting in a pot a number of days, including those for the pre-EU Council debates, and transferring the pot over to the Backbench Business Committee. I would be most reluctant to take power away from the Committee in the way that my hon. Friend suggests by reducing its number of days.

On a more encouraging note, my hon. Friend may have heard the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) yesterday, with which I have a lot of sympathy. He suggested that at the beginning of each Session, we earmark a number of days that would be made available to the Committee at the appropriate time when an EU Council was imminent. If we go down that road, we may avoid the problems to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) refers.