Business of the House (European Union (Withdrawal) Act)

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Grieve]

I am very happy to do so. The hon. Lady might remember that when I came before the Procedure Committee on the main business in this motion, I tried to be as conciliatory as possible in finding a way through. I am delighted that the Government have accepted the first principle of having amendable motions. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that if we do not resolve this issue next week, there will be further amendable motions to be considered under the programme laid out in section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Is my right hon. and learned Friend not attempting, in his amendment to the business of the House motion, effectively to amend primary legislation?

[Mr Grieve]

Most certainly not. We have just had in the past few hours an example of the assertion of parliamentary sovereignty, which I understand to be dear to many Members on this side of the House and elsewhere. I say to my hon. Friend that no statute may fetter in any way the procedure and processes that this House chooses to adopt. There is therefore no incompatibility whatsoever between this motion and any statute. Mr Speaker, I beg to move the amendment.

Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

It would have been interesting if the Government had made that argument, but they did not. They made no argument—they allowed the motion to go through. If they had said in the meantime, for example, yesterday afternoon, “We will provide the document that you want. We’ll give it to the Chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee, which has a majority of Conservative Members, and it can decide what should be in the public domain”, I think the House would have been content. That would have been a perfectly logical process to adopt, but the Government have not done that. Perhaps they will do it later today if they lose the motion—I do not know.

Let me consider the important substantive point. Can the House require the Law Officers to provide their legal advice to Parliament? It is important that Select Committees can require documents of all sorts of people outside Parliament, and it is difficult to enforce that if we cannot even require documents of Ministers. Yesterday, the Attorney General referred several times to “previous editions of ‘Erskine May’” to show that “the motion to return” is traditionally always

“confined to documents of public and official character.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 563.]

That was his argument for saying that “Erskine May” did not really allow for Law Officers to provide anything that was sought by the House, even though the current 24th edition does exactly that. He suggested that the 22nd or the 23rd edition had changed the rule and that we should return to a previous version.

Perhaps the Attorney General was referring to the 10th edition of “Erskine May”, which, as I am sure the hon. Member for North East Somerset knows, came out in 1893. In that, the traditional version of this doctrine, which I think the Attorney General meant, is laid out:

“The opinions of the law officers of the Crown, given for the guidance of ministers, in any question of diplomacy or state policy, being included in the class of confidential documents, have generally been withheld from Parliament.”

I think that the Attorney General believes that that should still be the case, although that has been superseded. Unfortunately for the Attorney General, “Erskine May” goes on to say:

“In 1858, however, this rule was, under peculiar and exceptional circumstances, departed from, and the opinions of the law officers of the Crown upon the case of the Cagliari, were laid before Parliament.”

I will not go into the instance—I know that hon. Members are saddened by that.

The point is that, when the House has required that the Law Officers provide the information, they have always done so. The Attorney General’s argument therefore does not stand.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

That also appears in the 17th edition of “Erskine May” from 1964, to which I will refer if Mr Speaker calls me. In the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, in the middle of 19th century, the Minister voluntarily gave that advice, which was not demanded by the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and to contribute to this debate. I am especially pleased to see the Attorney General in his seat, because I am going to refer to one or two of his remarks. I was concerned by what I heard from him yesterday. I was concerned that he was less than optimistic. He had a somewhat gloomy outlook on what might happen if the vote does not pass, a week today. I thought he could have been more full-throated and full of voice in defence of the prospects for our country. Further, concern was expressed from where I was sitting in the Chamber as to the length of his replies during the course of the debate yesterday. We have become used to short questions and short answers, but the reason for the length of his replies was that he was being asked for his legal opinion on several questions and he was giving a full and frank response to each and every one.

I have one further concern, which other Members on both sides have also expressed. It is that the motion that we debated on 13 November was not opposed. It seems to me that that was a mistake. It should have been opposed, and arguably, an amendment could or should have been tabled. Had that happened, and had the amendment been voted on, that might have solved the issue. In the event, however, there was no vote and there was no amendment—at least, there was none that was selected. However, the Attorney General is absolutely right not to disclose the legal advice. Where would it leave us if he did? Should he disclose Cabinet minutes? Should he disclose official secrets? Should he disclose any other legally privileged documents just because a Humble Address says that he should do so? My instinct would be to say no. Thankfully, we do not have to rely simply on my instincts.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) referenced “Erskine May”. He referred to the 10th edition from the late 19th century, but the relevant passage is still present in the 17th edition from 1964. As no one has quoted from it yet, and as it is absolutely pertinent, it is important that I do so now. It states:

“Returns may be moved for, either by order or address, relating to any public matter”,

and it goes on to qualify what is meant by a “public matter”, stating that the

“papers and correspondence sought from Government Departments should be of a public and official character and not private or confidential”,

and it quotes from an example of confidential papers that should not be disclosed. It further proceeds to say:

“The opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown given for the guidance of Ministers in any question of diplomacy or State policy being included in the class of confidential documents, have generally”—

I will come back to that word—

“been withheld from Parliament.”

We then come to the 1858 Cagliari case referred to by the hon. Member for Rhondda. I wish he were in his place—he really would enjoy this—because he is wrong. He said that that involved an order of Parliament, but it did not. Information was voluntarily disclosed, and I can quote from the Hansard—if anyone cares to reference it later, the passage is from column 178, which is towards the bottom on the right-hand side—for 15 March 1858:

“We have given directions that all the papers connected with the management of the Cagliari case by our predecessors should be prepared and laid with all reasonable despatch before Parliament. They are more voluminous than the House perhaps imagines; but no unnecessary delay will take place in their production. It is also my duty to state that, after great deliberation, while perfectly aware of the inconvenience which under ordinary circumstances would accrue by submitting to Parliament the opinions of the law officers of the Crown”—

I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman return to the Chamber; he may enjoy this exchange—

“we have arrived at the conclusion that in the peculiar and exceptional circumstances of the present case we ought to lay the opinions of the law officers of the Crown before the House.”—[Official Report, 15 March 1858; Vol. 149, c. 178.]

The information was voluntarily disclosed, and that is the key and distinguishing feature of the 1858 Cagliari case.

However—the Attorney General referred to this section in his response to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—the 17th edition of “Erskine May” states:

“However ample the power of each House to enforce the production of powers may be, a sufficient cause must be shown for the exercise of that power; and if considerations of public policy can be urged against a motion for the papers, it is either withdrawn, or otherwise dealt with according to the judgment of the House.”

Therefore, despite having been concerned in three respects by what the Attorney General said yesterday, I can say that he was precisely right to have stated that a public policy test could and should be applied in this case. The passage from “Erskine May” is crystal clear. If the hon. Member for Rhondda were in his place, he would say, “That is the 17th edition, not the 24th. Why has it fallen out of use?” Well, Humble Addresses had fallen out of use by the time of the most recent edition of “Erskine May” but that has changed.

I have no doubt that there will be fuller section in the next edition, but that does not mean that it is irrelevant or that the law has been superseded; it means that the Humble Address had fallen out of practice up to and until these extraordinary times following the general election of 2017. With you in the Chair, Mr Speaker, I am sure that there will be a footnote or extended passage on the increase in the usage of the Humble Address. That is not to say that the advice and guidance of “Erskine May,” whether from the 19th century or from the 17th edition of 1964, is otiose, useless, worthless or has been superseded; it has not. It is still relevant, and it is relevant to the debate today.

In any event, the Attorney General gave ample legal advice yesterday. He was crystal clear and he was frank on his concerns about the backstop, and he was absolutely right to say it is now no longer a question of legal precedent. It is now no longer a legal question; it is a political question for each Member of the House to debate and to vote on a week today.

Business of the House

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

What I can say to the hon. Lady is that there are lots of rumours about universal credit. The Government have listened very carefully to concerns and have continuously improved universal credit. The Government have increased advances to 100% of a full monthly payment so that those who need it can get access to that money on day one, scrapped the seven days’ waiting and introduced a two-week overlap of housing benefit payments—all of which Labour voted against. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced that we will increase the amount that someone can earn before their universal credit is reduced and we have given all self-employed people 12 months to get their business off the ground. So I do think that the Government have listened very carefully. Universal credit is significantly better than the legacy benefits it replaces. It makes it easier and better for people to get into work, which is better for them, for their families and for our economy.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Paragraph 56 of the Procedure Committee’s recent report recommends that a Business of the House motion is published five sitting days in advance of the debate on the meaningful vote, that a full day’s debate be allowed for that, and that that should take place no fewer than two days in advance of the meaningful vote. Can my right hon. Friend update the House on her response to that, given that if the debate on the meaningful vote is to start on 3 December, the Business of the House motion should have been published yesterday?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend raises a matter that is of great significance at the present time to the House. What I can say to him is that the Government’s goal is to secure certainty and clarity for the public after two years of negotiations. I have seen the Procedure Committee report and the Government are considering its recommendations carefully, although it will be for Parliament to debate and determine the procedure that will apply for the vote.

Business of the House

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady raises a very important point. She will be aware that since franchising began there has been £6 billion of private investment in our railways and that passenger numbers have doubled since 1997-98. We are spending almost £48 billion on maintenance, modernisation and renewal to deliver better journeys and fewer disruptions. It is the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that franchising is absolutely key to ensuring a better experience for rail passengers.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

May we have an urgent debate on the general data protection regulation? There has been some confusion about how it is to be implemented, not least among Members of Parliament and, importantly, our staff. This is so important, because it involves our constituents and their data. Will the Leader of the House update us, please?

Business of the House

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

NHS funding will be more than half a trillion pounds from 2015 to 2020. We have record funding for the NHS. We have record numbers of doctors and nurses and more midwives. Last year the NHS treated more people than ever before and the Commonwealth Fund has rated the NHS the No.1 health system in the world for the second time in a row. Record funding is available to the NHS. Where the hon. Lady has specific concerns, she should raise them with Ministers, but she should be in no doubt that the Government are committed to a successful NHS that protects our people, and that the people of this country benefit from the amazing work done by all our NHS staff.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming ID cards for Britain’s 2.5 million military veterans? They are a clear step in the right direction. Will she provide time for a debate on our veterans and the armed forces covenant?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is a strong supporter of veterans, and I commend him for his work as the treasurer of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces covenant. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, those who have served deserve recognition of the sacrifice that they have made throughout their lives, and we will continue to make sure that they get it. As part of the Government’s commitment, the veterans card will ensure that the public can recognise our heroes when they seek specific support such as health care, housing and services in the charitable sector.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I can give the hon. Lady that reassurance.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Leader of the House’s work on this matter and her statement this morning, but part of the difficulty, especially over the past few weeks, lies with discerning the difference between the serious cases that must, should and can be dealt with and the spurious, fictitious and plain wrong allegations that must be weeded out and that, quite frankly, detract from the other serious cases. I have two specific questions. First, the Leader of the House mentioned fairness, including fairness to Members. Is it not a matter of fairness and natural justice—this affects parties on both sides of the House—that a Member who has received an allegation against them should know the basis of the allegation? Secondly, does she agree that any grievance and complaints procedure must be truly independent of any one political party?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. For the sake of clarity, I have allowed the hon. Gentleman two questions on this occasion, but one question is sufficient on an occasion such as this.

Business of the House

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

First, I congratulate the hon. Lady on her work to raise this important issue and on being a champion for safer roads—she is absolutely right to do that. I will look into the point she raises about the delay to the report, and I will get back to her to let her know what we can do.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Last week in Westminster, there was the launch of the manifesto on strengthening families. The Leader of the House found time to attend, and I commend her for the work she has done in this area. Can she find time for a debate on strengthening families, particularly with an angle on the important link between prisoners and families? The odds of reoffending are 39% lower if people retain contact with their family while in prison. Perhaps she could also find time to commend Lord Farmer for his work in this area.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am delighted to commend Lord Farmer for his work on the relationship between prisoners and strengthening families. I was delighted to attend the launch of the families manifesto last week and to see the extensive number of Back-Bench Members who had put their names to it. I know my hon. Friend shares my passion for all children to have the best start in life, and he will be pleased to know that all Departments are committed to making progress, including the Department of Health, which has committed an additional £1.4 billion for mental health services for children and young people over this Parliament. I am proud to say that £365 million has been made available to provide specialist mental health services to mums before and after having their babies, and that is being led by NHS England. That will make a huge difference to families.

Scheduling of Parliamentary Business

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz]

That intervention deserves no response whatever; I am really sorry.

Wait for this: in the 2010-12 Session, extra days were provided for business. Once the 20 Opposition days provided for in the Standing Orders had been allocated, a further 14 unallotted days were provided. We need certainty. The Government have not provided for an Opposition day before the summer recess, making the earliest Opposition day in September 2017. This means a staggering eight months—nearly as long as it takes to have a baby—without a single Opposition day, denying vital scrutiny of Government business. As you know, Mr Speaker, the last Opposition day was on 25 January. At the same point into the parliamentary Session in 2010-12, the Opposition were granted three Opposition days, and five in the 2015 Session.

We need to be clear. At business questions last week, the Leader of the House said in response to a question—not to me, although I did ask—that a date was offered in September. I was not aware of this Opposition day, whether through the usual channels or the usual suspects, so we need to clarify what a Session is. It is now two years, but we would not expect one year’s worth of Opposition days to be allocated over those two years. Why is this important? Today is the 18th day that the new Parliament has been sitting. So far, legislation has been discussed only on four of those days for a total of just under 13 hours.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

The hon. Lady says that a Session should last one year. Why, then, were there only 20 days in the 1997-98 Session, which lasted 18 months? In 2001, there were only 20 days. In the 2005 Session, which lasted 18 months, there were also only 20 days.

[Valerie Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening. The Standing Orders state exactly what a Session is, and the Government have extended it.

Why is this important? Decisions have to be made on important matters that affect our country. So far, the Government have been pushed to give us an answer. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) had to table an amendment to the Queen’s Speech. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) had to secure an emergency debate on contaminated blood to set up an inquiry, to which the Government conceded only just before the start of the debate.

As is the usual convention, I have asked the Leader of the House several times for a debate on the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017, the Higher Education (Basic Amount) (England) Regulations 2016 No. 1205 and the Higher Education (Higher Amount) (England) Regulations 2016 No. 1026, which have been prayed against. Time was given on 19 April but, given the interruption of the election, no time has been offered for that debate. The failure of this Government to allow a debate and a vote on the regulations has created growing uncertainty for students starting university or continuing their studies in the coming academic year. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the regulations have not been enacted and that there will be no increase for students in September? Paragraph 5 of schedule 2 to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 states that for any increases in the higher amount of tuition fees, it would be necessary that

“each House of Parliament has passed a resolution”.

That has not been enacted yet, so have the Government sneaked this in under another Act and betrayed our young people?

This Government are just not working. There has been no justice for the 1950s women—an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) last week. My hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), have all raised this important issue, as have many Conservative Members.

We need a debate and a votable motion on the health service. There has been a 23% fall in nursing applications. As the shadow Health Secretary said today, more than 12,000 surgical procedures on children and young people were cancelled last year—an increase of 35%. GPs are now charging for visits; that is obviously an end to the national health service as we know it.

A decision has to be made on the Swansea tidal lagoon before the end of July. I have a letter here that has been signed by 107 Members from all parties, asking that the Hendry review is put into effect. I also raised that matter at business questions.

The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill has now been published, and a number of statutory instruments will flow from it. Clauses 7 to 9 of the Bill all state:

“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate”.

It is about Ministers having the power to do what they want. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union deflects this point. He said that if a statutory instrument is before the House, the House of Commons decided whether it debates it and votes on it. He said that that is in the call of the House of Commons and, patronisingly,

“it is what they call a statutory instrument which is, can be debated, can be voted on.”

Sorry, I cannot get his voice right.

The Secretary of State thinks that we should be debating. When was the last time the Leader of the House actually spoke to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union? The minority Government are not working.

Business of the House

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that his party supported the European Union Referendum Bill on putting the question to the people, and it supported the timetable for triggering article 50 by the end of March. This Bill is designed to ensure that those objectives are met.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Does the Leader of the House agree that there is in fact ample time to debate the article 50 Bill? We will have two days on Second Reading and three days in Committee to debate what will be a very narrow Bill. Can he confirm the precise sitting times on those days?

[Mr Lidington]

We will try to ensure that there is plenty of time, and that adequate protection is given against the risk of statements or urgent questions so that Members on both sides have the opportunity to debate these matters fully.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Whittingdale]

The Telford and Wrekin project is set to deliver superfast broadband access to 98% of homes and businesses by the end of phase 2 in 2017. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to press us to ensure that the few remaining constituents of hers who do not have such access obtain it. From this month, they will have a right to a basic broadband service of 2 megabits per second, and will be able to take advantage of the universal service obligation when it comes into effect.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

16. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but will he assure me that the pace of the roll-out will be increased so that businesses in my constituency, such as Excel Group in Wareham, can have fibre access?

[Mr Whittingdale]

We will achieve the 95% target by the end of 2017, when the contractual arrangements we have achieved will enable us to invest more in going beyond that. We will be putting in place the universal service obligation, which will benefit my hon. Friend’s constituents and those of all other Members.