Business of the House

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

Indeed, my hon. Friend is entirely correct. The Government seem to make a lot of assumptions; it is part of their general instinct to railroad legislation through. Particularly for this piece of legislation, though, they are assuming that the House will have nothing much of any consequence to say about one of the most important issues in a generation: the fact that the UK will be withdrawing from the European Union. I suspect that Members will want to table very many amendments under the motion, should it be passed.

I say to the Leader of the House that it is massively regrettable that the Government are taking this approach. They could have taken a far more relaxed, open-palmed approach to dialogue and debate and listened to the issues raised by Members on both sides of the House. When amendments are tabled in the normal course of events, they can reflect on them and rebut them, if they so wish. Instead, they are taking an approach that speaks volumes of Ministers’ frailty and their fear of ordinary debate and discussion in the House of Commons.

Members have a lot to say about the Bill in question. I do not believe that we can ignore the outcome of the referendum, but withdrawing from the European Union will have phenomenal consequences, so the amendments we may wish to table have to cover all the issues surrounding the triggering of article 50. I understand that, in moving the motion, the Leader of the House is seeking to allow and afford Members the opportunity to table amendments in advance of the weekend and before Second Reading, but it would be regrettable if we were to lose that space between Second Reading and Committee for people to reflect on some very important things, one of which is the matter of the White Paper. The Prime Minister has conceded that we are going to have one, but as yet we still do not know when it is going to be published. If we had the White Paper today, it might help to inform the amendments that, in an hour’s time, we might be able to table.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. This is a very narrow motion about the tabling of amendments. The hon. Gentleman is now moving in the direction of White Papers. I will be very strict about keeping to the wording of the motion. If he comes back to that, I will allow him to continue, otherwise I will cut him short.

[Chris Leslie]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you are entirely right to focus on the narrow nature of this particular motion, but I believe that the motion should have made reference to the White Paper. Although it allows Members to table amendments before Second Reading, it does not necessarily mean that we can table amendments with the White Paper having been published. We are tabling amendments for discussion after Second Reading, when the White Paper that has been promised may not be available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I appreciate that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but this motion today, about the timing of the tabling of amendments, is a symptom of the Government’s strategy and approach to the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that the House spots that and recognises what is going on. This is the very first step in the compression of this process, where normally Members would have, for very good historic reasons that are long-established by convention, the right to listen to Ministers on Second Reading, reflect on those thoughts and then table amendments. What Ministers are intent on doing is ramming this Bill through the House of Commons without thinking of the consequences. They are giving Members the opportunity to table amendments now before we have even heard Government policy properly on Second Reading—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. This really is my last warning to the hon. Gentleman. He is talking about the Bill, which is coming up next week. That is not what we are debating here. This is entirely about the amendments that are being accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a Second time. It is a very, very narrow motion. If he keeps to that, he may continue, but he is really testing my patience.

[Chris Leslie]

I do appreciate that it is a very narrowly drafted motion. It does indeed say that, in respect of this particular Bill,

“notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.”

That in itself begs a number of questions. You may have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a queue has already formed beside your Chair of hon. Members who may wish to table amendments. I understand that if we wish to table amendments at the passing of this motion, we should approach the Table and hand them over to the Clerks. I suspect that there will be a great deal of demand for the Clerks’ time and attention. Indeed, one issue that I wish to raise—perhaps the Minister can respond to this—is to do with the pressure that will be on the Clerks over the coming days because of the demands of Members wanting to table amendments. [Interruption.] There is sympathy, I hear, from my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who is known for his close affinity with the Clerks and his appreciation of procedure. It is a serious point. The Second Reading debate is on Tuesday and Wednesday, and the Committee stage is the following week, ridiculously gagging Parliament in its ability to scrutinise the legislation properly, given that the Maastricht treaty had 23 days of consideration and the Lisbon treaty had 11 days.

With regard to the motion and the timings for tabling amendments—I hear your entreaties, Madam Deputy Speaker—I would like the Minister to consider whether there are any precedents for this sort of motion, for example when legislation relating to other EU treaty revisions was considered. Did we have this for the Maastricht treaty, the Amsterdam treaty, the Nice treaty or the Single European Act? Does the Minister have something to say about the timing of the White Paper that could inform our ability to table amendments?

I have managed to scribble down—not on velum, but on the paper available in my office—22 amendments that I think are appropriate for this legislation. Perhaps I have shot myself in the foot by catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I have missed my place in the queue that is forming by your Chair to table said amendments; that is the lot that I will have to live with by making these points about the motion.

I would also like to know whether the Procedure Committee has been consulted on the motion, because, as I understand it, this is a highly unusual change. It is not necessarily unwelcome, but it is symptomatic of the Government’s intention to override the procedures and conventions of the House that would normally allow us to reflect on something before tabling amendments.

It is important that Members of the House exercise their right to reflect on the consequences of this legislation. It is one of the most important decisions that we will make, certainly this year, definitely in this Parliament, and perhaps in my time in the House. I think all Members should think about amendments that might be pertinent to the legislation. Yes, the Bill might be narrowly drawn, as some have said—how could we possibly want to amend a Bill that is just one clause long?—but a short sentence can have a vast effect on public policy and on our constituents. It is our duty to think about the amendments that might be relevant and table them when the motion is passed. I hope that all hon. Members will think about their responsibilities.

It looks as though the Clerks are going to have a very busy weekend trying to ensure that the drafting of amendments is in order. Some people say that there are a lot of lawyers in the House—I am not a lawyer, but I know many who are—but we still sometimes need assistance in the phraseology and terminology of amendments.

The Minister should at least do us the courtesy of explaining why he has tabled the motion and set out the fact that this is the beginning of the concertinaing of the parliamentary consideration of the European Union withdrawal Bill. For him not to do so, and simply to stand and say, “I beg to move”, is yet another sign of the Government’s arrogance. Perhaps they have not properly reflected on the judgment of the Supreme Court, which insisted that Parliament has the duty to legislate on these matters and that it is not something for the Crown prerogative. It is for us to amend the Bill and ensure, if we have to table amendments before Second Reading, that we have those particular rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I fully appreciate that this is a very narrow motion, and I also will do my best to stick to the point, but I think the fact that it is so narrow is a point of principle in itself. When the public look on at this process they will want to have confidence in it, and people did not have confidence in the process in the run-up to the EU referendum.

In October 2012, power was conferred from the UK Government to the Scottish Government for Scotland to hold a referendum on Scottish independence, and power is now being conferred, as the Bill says, to the Prime Minister. It strikes me that there are two major differences between the two processes. There is a significant difference between what is happening now and the timescale when power was conferred to the Scottish Parliament before we had our referendum in 2014.

We went through a nearly two-year process of public engagement. We actually wrote things down. We had a White Paper—650 pages of a White Paper. I have it with me—this is what it looks like. The Minister is not paying attention; I wonder whether he read it. For the avoidance of doubt—for him and for any other member of the public—this is what a White Paper looks like. This is what putting blood, sweat and tears, and plans, into your constitutional future looks like—something that this Government have not bothered to do. The people of the United Kingdom deserve better. People in Scotland got the gold standard of referendum. They had a proper consultation process. In the run-up to the referendum in Scotland, over 90% of people registered to vote voluntarily, and over 80%—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Could the hon. Lady mention amendments? She might be coming on to that, but she is talking about the Scottish referendum—not even the EU referendum, let alone the Bill that is coming up next week. It is a very, very narrow motion. I appreciate that lots of Members wish to speak, but there is only so much that can be said about it, and the rest of the debate takes place next week.

[Hannah Bardell]

I absolutely take on board what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you know that—

[Neil Coyle]

The hon. Lady will be very much aware that 16 and 17-year-olds did have a vote in the Scottish referendum. Would she welcome amendments to this Bill to ensure that in future, across the UK, 16 and 17-year-olds are guaranteed a right to vote on any change to constitutional arrangements?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. This is not about any amendments, but a very specific motion. We are not amending the Bill now.

[Hannah Bardell]

I will seek to close shortly and keep away from the theoretical. However, these are the options that we are left with. I am a Member of Parliament who represents a Scottish constituency, and since we have arrived here we have sought to share the positive and constructive experiences that we had in Scotland during the referendum. Unfortunately, at every turn, on matters such as 16 and 17-year-olds, this Government have sought to ignore them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I call Neil Gray. [Hon. Members: “Peter Grant.”] I am so sorry. I call Peter Grant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

My recollection of the Act, apart from the fact that it was deeply flawed and that that is why we are now in this mess, is that it did not say that Parliament had to abide by the decision. It did not say that the decision was binding. It did not say anything about it. It just said that there would be a referendum. Perhaps the Government need time to draft an amendment to the Bill to make the European Union Referendum Act retrospectively binding.

If the Government intend this Bill to be binding, will they use the additional time that they have given themselves to correct what appear to me to be mistakes in the drafting? The Bill is being rushed through because there is a political—not a legal—imperative for article 50 to be triggered by 31 March, yet it does not require the Prime Minister to do anything by 31 March. It does not require her to do anything—it permits her to do something. Is one of the amendments being cued up now a Government amendment to correct that mistake?

Five days is not enough, although it is more than many Bills get, but the advice in the Government’s summary, which is 15 times longer than the Bill, is that its impact will be both clear and limited. Limited? It is the most important Bill that this House has ever considered. Given that it is so limited, why do the Government need to allow so much additional time for all the amendments—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that he is talking about the Bill, which is different from the motion that we are debating. If he gets back to the tabling of amendments, I would be grateful.

[Peter Grant]

I was referring not so much to the content of the Bill, but to its extent and limited impact and wondering why we needed so much additional time to table amendments.

I concur with a lot of what has been said. Generally, the public are not interested in procedure, the timing of amendments, what days of the week Bills are debated and so on. This time, it is important because the procedures of the House are clearly being used to get the result that the Government want.

Privileges

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I inform the House that the Speaker has not selected the amendments on the Order Paper.

Business of the House

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the most extraordinary things is that British Asians, who have had nothing whatever to do with the debates in recent weeks, should be singled out in this way. That is a sign of a streak of opinion in our society. I believe that we are as tolerant a society as any in the world, but we none the less have a core of people whose beliefs are disgraceful and whose actions are disgraceful, and when they act in the way that we have seen in recent weeks, there is absolutely no excuse for our police and our prosecuting authorities not to put them in court where they belong.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

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

English Votes for English Laws

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Antoinette Sandbach]

The last time we debated these matters in the House, the hon. Gentleman said very clearly—I believe that the Leader of the House quoted him—that we should trust the SNP not to vote on English matters. However, this week there was a statement about the changes to the Hunting Act 2004, which your leader in Scotland had identified as an English-only matter. The hon. Gentleman asked us to trust the SNP. How does that position stand now?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

The hon. Lady should speak through the Chair. She was directing her questions to me, when she wanted to address them to the hon. Gentleman.

[Pete Wishart]

I am almost grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I wondered how long I would be on my feet before someone mentioned the non-existent foxhunting debate, which was scheduled to happen but disappeared because the Government wanted to change the rules before they had the debate. What I said last week was that if something is in the Scottish interest, we will take an interest in it. We could not have garnered any more interest in foxhunting. I had hundreds if not thousands of requests from my constituents to come to the unitary UK Parliament to express their concerns on the issue. I make no apologies for saying that I would have voted proudly on that issue to represent my constituents’ interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. There are too many conservations going on besides the speaker, so let us keep them to a minimum. Members may intervene if they want to, but let us hear what Pete Wishart has to say.

[Pete Wishart]

As I said, I am in the Union-ending business. That is my job and that is what I believe in. Even I, however, could not conceive of a plan that would progress my vision against that of Conservative Members. Imagine what we have seen in the past few weeks: “Scotland stay with us. Scotland we love you. You are part of the family of nations. Don’t leave us! You are valued Members of this House.” What happens the minute we get to this place? We are given second-class status.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart McDonald]

I do not think the Scottish people are that out of step with what we are saying. Not only did they give us 50% of the vote at the recent election, but an opinion poll out yesterday has us on 56% ahead of next year’s Scottish Parliament elections, giving us not 69 seats, but 71. The people of Scotland sent us here with a clear mandate. English Members vetoed all the amendments we tabled. You really ought to understand the issue you are dealing with and the potential—this is why Labour Members are correct—this has to make us much more excluded from the Union.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

To be helpful, I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart McDonald) that “you” is directed at the Chair. He wants to speak to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), not to me.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman, who speaks as well as his colleague, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, did can huff and he can puff, but it changes nothing. What happened was that the people who were in the break-up of the Union business got the referendum that they asked for and thought they were going to blow the Union house down—and what happened? They lost.

Thinking back to that time, they made various promises. In February, their leader issued instructions to all those signed up to complete and utter obedience to her. SNP Members here said they would not vote on foxhunting, for example. Then they immediately do a U-turn. Last week, they were claiming to be a party of principle, and the website of the Scottish National party said that SNP Members would not vote on something such as foxhunting in England. [Interruption.] It was on the website just days ago, and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire knows it, yet it turned out differently.

I admire the political chutzpah of the SNP. Coming here with energy and spirit is doubtless what the Scottish people wanted. They wanted to have the flag shaken and they wanted to see SNP Members coming down here and being energetic. Well, they are being energetic, but what the Scottish people will not put up with is people who claim to be consistent and principled turning that principle on its head. The truth is that the Scottish people—[Interruption.] The hon. Members for Perth and North Perthshire and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is sitting behind him, might be in the break-up of the Union business, but it is not a very successful business, is it? We had the referendum—and they lost. [Interruption.] They can shout all they like, but the Scottish people will know—the truth will out, and the Scottish electorate are as smart as any in this country—that the consent of the English to matters that only affect the English is fair.

The Leader of the House was challenged to the effect that all this is coming a little too quickly, despite the fact that it was in the Conservative party manifesto, that it was promised it would be in 100 days, that the proposals came out much earlier in the year, that we have had months, years and decades to talk about the principles behind it, and that we have had the McKay commission. How did the arrogant Tory Minister respond? He said, “Fine, I will listen. Do you know what? If that is not long enough, we will have two days of debate, but we will not make them consecutive. We will put months between them. We will make sure that there is all the time anyone could want. We will debate on the first day on a general motion until 10 o’clock at night. We can go through all the issues and expose them one by one.”

I will tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, what will happen when the Scottish people listen to this debate. They will hear the hon. Member for Wallasey, who spoke for the Labour party, accusing us of being partisan—was it 10, 11 or 12 times that she said it? I lost count—for bringing in procedures that simply provide for the consent of those who represent the people on whom these proposals will impact. That is the situation.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire asked for more debate—and more debate came. He said that there could be Barnett consequentials and financial issues. As the Leader of the House said, even with the help of the Clerks, a Bill that so fundamentally changed the estimates could not be identified. Creative as ever, the right hon. Member for Gordon tried to find examples that might have implications for later years. That is why the Leader of the House has come forward with updated proposals today to look at ensuring that any time there is a consequential of that sort for Scotland, the principle is established that every Scottish Member of Parliament has a vote.

In common with his colleagues, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire has but a single thought—and only the cruel would say “if that”. That thought is to break up this Union. That is his only thought and it is why he stands there now. When he is corrected on a matter of fact, he does not pause. When I am corrected on a matter of fact that I have got wrong, I have doubt and fear about getting it wrong and want to make sure that I do not mislead the House. The hon. Gentleman has no such problem, because he is not involved in honest debate; he is involved in trying to break up this Union, mislead the Scottish people and make them feel that he has been turned into a second-class MP when he is nothing of the sort.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Most of the Back-Bench contributions have lasted almost half an hour. A large number of Members want to speak, so I ask Members to keep to about 10 minutes. I do not want to impose a time limit, especially not on the maiden speeches, so if speeches are kept to 10 minutes and interventions are kept to an absolute minimum, we will get there. I call Derek Thomas for his maiden speech.

English Votes on English Laws

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Commons Chamber

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

The Minister woefully misunderstands the essence of the West Lothian question. I say this as a close friend for 30 years of the former Member for West Lothian, Tam Dalyell. He has sat in my kitchen and we have discussed this ad nauseam. The essence of the West Lothian question is that if the Government introduce and continue to introduce multiple competences for the different Members in this House, that will end this House, cause confusion, create political chaos and end the Union. It is better, therefore, to have separate Parliaments with separate jurisdictions, whose Members are clear about what they do and the role they have with their constituents, or to have a unitary Parliament, which is what Tam Dalyell always wanted. The Government cannot have something in the middle—a dog’s breakfast. I put it to the Minister that simply saying—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please be seated? I think he would like to come to a question for the Leader of the House now.

[George Kerevan]

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the West Lothian question?

Select Committee on Governance of the House

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I support the setting up of the Committee, to establish a proper, fair and open recruitment process for the next Clerk of the House. I welcome Mr Speaker’s announcement of a modest pause in the process to allow the House to review the role, report to the Commission and reach a decision, so that we can start the recruitment process again from scratch. There are sound interim measures in place, which will last up to the general election, and it is important that they are not changed until the Committee has reported and the House has voted.

Originally, I came to this issue from a trade union perspective. I was concerned by the fact that the job that was advertised was for a procedural adviser and a chief executive, but that the chosen candidate was qualified only for part of the role—the administrative part. Had the advert been for a chief operating officer or a facilities manager, who knows how many hundreds of people from inside the House, from the civil service and from around the country might have applied? They did not, because they knew that they were not qualified as parliamentary procedural and constitutional advisers. I hope therefore that the Committee will work closely with our in-house trade union colleagues to make sure that we get this right.

This is not about being against modernisation or change; it is about introducing change in a fair way that has the support and agreement of everyone who is affected by it, which is everybody who works in this place. As Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, I have relied heavily on Clerks’ procedural knowledge, expertise and institutional memory. What Clerks do and how they do it may seem dry and old-fashioned, but it is important in ensuring that we all work to an agreed set of rules.

I am a feminist, and I would like nothing more than to see a woman take on one of the most senior positions in this country, but if the job is given to someone who is not qualified for it, it will strengthen the hand of people who think that women cannot succeed. They will say, “You see? They’re not up to it.” It will give the equalities agenda a bad name.

I wish the Committee every success and look forward to hearing all its recommendations.

House of Commons Business

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Allen]

It is bad for the reputation of the House, but it is the truth. It is useful to call a spade a spade and to call a Downing street petition a Downing street or Government petition. Let us keep it like that and people will see the response they get from Government and will, through the processes of the House and its individual Members, be able to do something through the House of Commons itself. We cannot change the law for people, but we can bring issues to the attention of the Government. We need that capability to keep the Government honest and to hold them to account when many people see that as the way forward.

The fundamental question is about the separation of powers. We ought to have that, as it would be quite useful and would develop a more pluralistic view of our politics. People might not share that view and might think that we can somehow collaborate beyond merely using the platform and technology that are already there—I am perfectly happy to use that platform and technology to save the House money, as we all want that, and I am prepared to compromise on that alone—but an e-petition site for Parliament should be run by Parliament, not the agency we are meant to be keeping under control and holding to account. It is a contradiction in terms that the very people we should be holding to account will be running our system. I hope that the Procedure Committee will be very clear about that as it considers the issue. We all want to be pally and we all want to have little chats with the Leader of the House, but at the end of the day we either have our own e-petitioning system or we have not. If we have not, let us concede that and admit it clearly.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

My only issue with my hon. Friend’s amendment is that I support the idea that a proposal should be developed by the Procedure Committee and cannot understand for the life of me why he does not submit what he has written in his amendment, much of which I agree with, to that inquiry, rather than tabling it for debate on the Floor of the House today. On that point, does he intend to press it to a vote?

[Mr Allen]

I can guarantee to my hon. Friend that I will make representations and, if I am allowed, I will give evidence to the Procedure Committee on the views held by many people in the House about the independence of the House’s institutions and agencies. I do not see Parliament as a sub-office of Government, a Government Department or an offshoot of Government. It is an independent institution that is legitimately and directly elected by the public, as are we all. The current Government and all Governments of the past cannot claim to be that.

The proposal in motion 3 smacks a little of a tidy-up job. The Government have said, “It is a little inconvenient to get all this stuff coming to No. 10 Downing street. We have to deal with it, so why don’t we push it over to the House of Commons and run the system for them? Then they can take the blame if we fail.” My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) knows more than anybody in this House that if a petition reaches the barrier of 100,000 signatures there is an expectation, which has been deliberately inflated by Government, that it has somehow earned and deserves a debate. It is a difficult to pin down where that idea came from, but it was put out there and that is the assumption. That is why in every newsroom—in The Sun, the Daily Mail and elsewhere—the idea is to reach that barrier of 100,000 signatures on a petition to put pressure on my hon. Friend to grant a debate. There are other ways in which that pressure can be seen and relieved rather than by perverting and twisting the honourable institution that is the petitioning of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Allen]

I agree, and I shall come on to the point about how we direct people to a better way of doing what they want to do. It is risky to give people the idea that by submitting a petition to the House of Commons they are making their demands, only for them not to be met. The Leader of the House said that would be a great advantage, as it would make people think that the process represents progress and is more inclusive, and it would encourage people to use the House of Commons. On the contrary, if we allow the idea to be out there that if a petition reaches 100,000 signatures it somehow deserves a debate, which those horrible people in the House of Commons are preventing, it will lift people only to drop them back down again. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire has some experience of that, but it will be as nothing compared with the expectation that could be built up if we operate the Government’s petitions process rather than having our own based on open and honest rules that do not try to deceive people into thinking that if they write in they will get a debate.

[Natascha Engel]

Perhaps my intervention was not clear. Does my hon. Friend agree, given the content of his amendment, that how the petitioning system works should more appropriately be a matter for the Procedure Committee in considering such proposals? Will he press his amendment to a vote or will he withdraw it?

[Mr Allen]

My hon. Friend is a very powerful person in the House, but she does not yet have the ability to respond to a debate and to accept or not accept the proposals in my amendment. I shall listen carefully to the Deputy Leader of the House’s response. When he accepts most—not all—of the points in the amendment, as he no doubt will, I am sure we will be able to reach an accommodation. Somebody has to stand up and say that the House of Commons is a separate institution. The Government cannot just walk in here and set up a petition system on our behalf when we are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) says, we have some excellent and expert people, who do not need to understand the software and the hardware to be in control of a petitioning system. We need to ensure that all those things are in place before we say that it sounds like a great idea to get together and run one petitioning system on behalf of two separate, distinct and independent bodies that are elements of our democracy.

Let me move on to the particulars of my amendment. First, on the subject of Parliament’s having its own site, let me repeat that I am happy for the technology to be shared if it means we can save a little money and can get on with what we are meant to do in Parliament. I would rather that than continuing this move towards Parliament as a theme park, where the sittings of the House get in the way of tourist trips and movies being filmed—the Chamber could have been hired out this afternoon to some Hollywood film company. If we can make a little bit of money by sharing the Government’s platform and technology and can have less of the theme park stuff, we should all be happy about that and could have a little more self-respect about being a legislature.

My second point, which was also touched on by the hon. Member for Broxbourne, concerns Members of this House and their role in the process. It should not be possible, willy-nilly, for a newsroom campaign to get a debate going in the House of Commons. “What are we going to do next week with our House of Commons, lads? Let’s get a few ideas, a few headlines, a cut-out in the newspaper and a debate next week—but on what?” As with the paper petition, the process should take place through a Member of Parliament: I have to stand up at the end of business and make a little speech to get a paper petition in the bag behind the Speaker’s Chair. I own that petition. That is the way to reinforce a representative democracy, rather than have stuff coming in, willy-nilly, from people who cannot sleep, have seen something on late-night TV at 3 am and have got up a petition to try to get a debate in the House of Commons.

I urge members of the public: “use your Member of Parliament. Convince your representative. Get them to put the subject that concerns you before the House.” To me, it is just as valid if one person contacts their Member of Parliament—I am thinking of the elderly lady who I met at the weekend who is trying to find an extra 40 quid so that she is not turfed out of her house because of the bedroom tax—as if somebody down in Wapping decides that we should have a debate on the increase in fuel duty, for example.

--- Later in debate ---

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I will speak today only on e-petitions and their future. I have put my name to the motion tabled by the Leader of the House and supported by the Chair of the Procedure Committee. I am very much looking forward to explaining to the Procedure Committee our experiences and some of the background to how the e-petitions system came about.

The way the system works now might not be perfect, but it is part of an evolution, and it is certainly a vast improvement on the system in place before, which was entirely passive. I fully understood the Government’s desire to have a petitions system in which something actually happens, in which something triggers a response so that people feel that their views are listened to.

I think that problems have arisen from the current e-petitions system because it was imposed on this place without any consultation or debate, and certainly without a vote. The intentions were good and it was in order to introduce something quickly, but I think that, as a result, certain things have not worked as well as they ought to have done.

I fully appreciate—although I did not realise that the numbers were so high—that 10 million people have signed an e-petition and that there are 10,000 e-petitions in total. I do not think that that equates to 10 million people who are happy with the process; it just means that 10 million have signed a petition. I will outline why I think the system as it stands is not working as well as it should be. I will write to the Procedure Committee about that and give oral evidence if it is taking it.

I do not think that we can have a hybrid system. We have had long discussions about that. It is perfectly all right to work collaboratively to create a better system, but the problem comes first and foremost from the fact that a person is petitioning the Government but the petition ends up in Parliament if the 100,000 threshold is reached. It might be that people are not clear about the distinction between Government and Parliament. As we heard in the previous conversations about privilege, it is absolutely up to us to make people understand what the difference is. Perhaps we could even use e-petitions, changing the idea of them being simply a way of influencing Government policy. We could be very explicit that this is about educating people about how this place works and making it a piece of public engagement so that every single person who puts their name to an e-petition learns something more about how this place works in order to influence it better. If that is our motivation behind e-petitions, we could put together a system that really works well.

I think that the threshold of 100,000 was chosen arbitrarily—picked out of the blue. It has actually worked out relatively well in terms of the number of e-petitions that reach 100,000 signatures, but that in itself does not mean that we should have a threshold at all. When e-petitions first came to the Backbench Business Committee, we went up to the Scottish Parliament to see its petitions system, and we were very impressed. That system was not perfect when it was first set up, but it has since evolved into something that works very well. They have a separate Committee to look at all petitions, and I urge the Procedure Committee to look at that.

I understand perfectly well that there are arguments for having an e-petitions committee, but I am worried that the process of petitioning Parliament by paper is withering on the vine because the e-petition system is seen as being sexier. It would be good if the Committee at least looked at that and at the pros and cons of having e-petitions and paper petitions together under one committee.

The Scottish system does not have a threshold and every petition is looked at, but only after it has gone through a gateway, so there is a person to whom someone can speak if they want an e-petition. We have had discussions about this. If, let us say, the House of Commons Information Office provided that gateway, someone could phone or e-mail Parliament, explain their aim and ask how best to achieve it. There may be a Select Committee inquiry at that very moment on that very issue and that person could be directed to it; it may be a matter that they should take up with their MP and they could be signposted to their MP and told when they hold surgeries; or it may be a local government matter.

Many e-petitions that are still live on the e-petitions website could be better dealt with elsewhere and should certainly not be sitting around waiting to reach 100,000 signatures before anyone looks at them. I welcome the fact that the Government will now respond after 10,000 signatures, but we should be much more proactive about what we do.

If something is appropriate for an e-petition, the wording could be worked on better. That is when someone’s expectations can be managed so that people do not feel that as soon as an e-petition reaches 100,000 signatures it triggers not just a debate and a vote, but an instant change in the law. The website makes it very clear that that is not what it triggers, but that is the public perception and that is what damages their perception of e-petitions. Their expectations are not managed properly, and I am delighted that the Procedure Committee is taking this on.

As we have many e-mail addresses of people who have signed e-petitions in the past, perhaps we could consider having e-consultation with them to find out what they would like to see. I do not know whether that would be possible, but it would be an interesting exercise. There is a lot of research out there, but perhaps we could commission some more to find out how satisfied people have been when they have signed e-petitions in the past.

I welcome the fact that the motion is giving us the opportunity to take e-petitions away from the Backbench Business Committee. We have been urging that for a long time. Our Committee is very narrow in its focus. We are a forum for Back Benchers, not for members of the public. Back Benchers bring to us issues that are raised in their constituencies and that concern them. We always hope that they chime with the interests of people outside, but we are a Committee for and of Back Benchers; we are not an e-petition committee.

I welcome the fact that the whole House will have the chance not just to submit ideas and suggestions for developing an e-petition system that works properly but that, when the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) has produced his report, there will be an opportunity to debate the matter and to come to a decision so that there is then a petition system that starts, is processed and finishes only in Parliament. The Government may set up their own system if they want to, but there must be a petition system for and by Parliament.

Business of the House

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although I do not necessarily endorse his views on my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who, along with other Members, has enabled us to assert with confidence that private Members’ Bills that secure the agreement of the House must jump a high bar, and rightly so. Making legislation should not be easy, although my recollection is that, subject to further debate next week in the House of Lords, five private Members’ Bills may have secured Royal Assent this Session.

We have had constructive debates with the Procedure Committee, and I would like the House to have the opportunity to debate further reforms to private Members’ Bills. As yet I do not have a time fixed for that, but I will take on board what my hon. Friend has said and consider when we can do that.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

As there is now no more time available for Back-Bench business before the end of the Session, will the Leader of the House allow me to make an announcement disguised as a question, to let the House know that the Backbench Business Committee has now closed its doors until after the Queen’s Speech when our successor Committee is elected? I thank all hon. Members who have served on the Committee, and all those who have used it and brought such interesting debates before the House. I have enjoyed the representations made.

[Mr Lansley]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady and endorse what she says. I am pleased that in this Session we have been able to allocate more time for debates determined by the Backbench Business Committee than the Standing Orders required, just as we provided three more days for Opposition day debates than is required by the Standing Orders. The Clerk’s letter to Mr Speaker made clear the scrutiny that this House is undertaking, and the Backbench Business Committee’s progress in this Session has demonstrated an essential part of that enhanced scrutiny.

Business of the House

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and his Committee for their work. I hope that next week’s debate will enable us to demonstrate that although we have a very successful system of e-petitions to Government, we do not have a mechanism by which members of the public can petition their Parliament. It is an essential and historic element of the work of this Parliament that it receive and consider petitions and grievances. Although the public have on occasion seen petitions to the Government website turn into debates in this House, strictly speaking the House has no ownership of the petition system itself. I hope we can, through that debate, initiate a process by which we can enable members of the public to feel that they are petitioning their Parliament and seeking its response, and action and response from Government at the same time.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

One problem with the e-petition system was that it has not so far been debated by the House, so I welcome next week’s debate. If the Procedure Committee is to do the work on the details of bringing forward a system, will the Leader of the House confirm that we can all work together to have those proposals debated and voted on as soon as possible by the whole House, so that a system can be in place as soon as the new Parliament starts?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady is right about that, and I want to work with the Procedure Committee and other stakeholders across the House to ensure that we have something that works for the House and for the public. When hon. Members work back from the simple fact that the petitions website will be taken down at Dissolution early next year and has to be with the new Parliament when it assembles—we hope to introduce it in its adapted and enhanced form—I hope they can see that we have to agree in principle what needs to be done by the summer recess.

Business of the House

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I am not as knowledgeable on the relationship of the film industry to Shropshire as I should be. That is interesting. He and other hon. Members might seek such a debate, either on the Adjournment or through the Backbench Business Committee. Certainly, there will be other places in this country that also have a lot to say about the film industry, but I hope that it would also be an opportunity to demonstrate what a success this country now is in terms of our film and creative industries, not only as evidenced by the success of the film “Gravity” at the Oscars, to which the British film industry contributed so much, but by so many successful films that are being made in this country with this Government’s support.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Both general debates and votes on Back-Bench motions have led to some notable shifts and changes in Government policy, such as the forcing of the Prime Minister to recall Parliament before going to war in Syria, compensating the victims of contaminated blood, taking action on payday lenders, and the Hillsborough inquiry. What, then, is the criteria that the Government use to take decisions on when to listen to Parliament and when just to ignore it?

[Mr Lansley]

The Government always listen to Parliament, and we are always very clear, often in the debates that take place, about our position. The hon. Lady instanced in a press release of her own that debates on contaminated blood, fisheries policies, high speed rail, metal theft and fuel prices have led to Government responses and changes of policy. She will no doubt have noted in yesterday’s Budget that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Government will refund VAT on fuel for air ambulances and inshore rescue boats. That, of course, follows a review established after an e-petition on the subject, which had more than 150,000 signatures, and a debate held through the Backbench Business Committee’s decision in the House in July 2012.