Business of the House
Nicholas Brown Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
There were audible groans across the Chamber at that, because we all know of companies that do not enable all their customers to get access to the information they need. It is quite lazy. One thing the Government can do is ensure that we are increasing competition. Work that the Prime Minister commissioned while he was Chancellor is enabling that, and further competition is supported by many of the Bills we brought forward in this Session. I hope that Virgin Media has heard what has been said on the Floor of the House today and will reconsider its approach to communicating with their valuable customers.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Ind)
The report into the North East Ambulance Service is now in the public domain, and the Department for Health and Social Care has responded with what I understand to be an open letter. Given the seriousness of the matters inquired into, and the fact that the process was initiated by a whistleblower to a national newspaper, will there be an opportunity for the House to debate the report?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this serious matter, and I shall ensure that the Secretary of State has heard his request. I am sure that the House will want to focus on the matter, particularly those Members whose constituents are directly affected. The right hon. Gentleman obviously knows how to apply for a debate if he wants to, but I will make sure that the Department hears what he has said today.
Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster
Nicholas Brown Excerpts(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). When he and I first arrived in this place, Richmond House was being built. We had the pleasure of seeing it go up and contribute to the parliamentary landscape—the hanging gardens of Babylon, I think it was referred to at the time.
Since I have been sent back to take part in these events again, I find there is a collection of people who serve the public interest loyally, hard and well, and that the more we discuss it among ourselves, the closer we get to very similar conclusions. I will cut straight to the chase, Madam Deputy Speaker, so that other people can get into the debate. My views are very similar to those of the Leader of the House, and I have sympathy with the motion he has tabled. I also see a lot in both amendments. The Government do deserve chiding—let me put it nicely—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) did in a pretty gutsy way. The contents of the other amendment make points that, mostly, I agree with and think are probably the right way to go. It is possible that we are getting the worst of both worlds for ourselves: that we will have a political involvement that is not enough or does not satisfy us all, and still have sufficient specialist oversight and interest for there to be tensions between the two. I hope that that does not happen. The best way of avoiding that is to make sure that there is a climate of openness, rather than of caution or—I would even go as far as to say— concealment. It would be better to know that we had a shared problem up front rather than to be presented with it afterwards, particularly on the costings.
Not only have you served on the House of Commons Finance Committee, Dame Rosie, but you chaired it, so time after time, you will have had instances where you have been told at the end of a programme what the cost looks like. It might have been more helpful to know what the true costs looked like at the beginning of the programme. That has happened too often with the Commons Finance Committee for it to be endured. We must have a proper, realistic sense of what is going on, rather than an estimate that those who propose it hope will endure over time.
I am happy to report that the House of Lords has a similar Finance Committee to us—it has had it, I think, for five years—and that it had its first joint meeting with the Commons Finance Committee last week. It examined in some detail the Elizabeth Tower project, which has been the subject of some comment and high overspend. It went through that in some detail. Everything that we would expect to be said about lessons learned was said. We have heard it before. But this is my core point: this has to stick. Lessons have to be learned. Projections have to be realistic.
In two or perhaps three years’ time, we will face a decision about the cost of the decant and the substantial rise in public expenditure that will accompany the costs of running the new building, as well as the costs of continuing the work on the old one. I am still convinced that this is the correct way to proceed, if we can, but we have to know what we are in for. It seems that we should do our bit to look at what else we are spending money on, whether we are getting value for money, whether there are ways to bring the costs down and whether expenditure could be better managed over a longer period. We cannot demand that everything is treated as a priority and just say, “We want this project, but we also want that project.” We must try to get our house in order and do what we can to have the twin objectives that the Leader of the House spelled out. They are reasonable objectives, I think, to proceed on cautiously, learning the lessons of what has not gone terribly well before.
Also, we should pat ourselves on the back for things that have gone right. Everybody says how nice the Elizabeth Tower looks. The work on the Victoria Tower is proceeding at pace. The determination is to make sure that the masonry does not fall off on top of people. Unfortunately, the buildings continue to be corroded by acid rain and pollution, so we will never be without a maintenance programme. Eternal vigilance will have to be our watchword, certainly for the foreseeable future, on prosaic matters such as fires and damage. It is comforting to know that people can be got out, but we want to save the building as well, which is exactly where we started. I urge the proposers of the amendments not to push them to a vote at this time—I think their points have been well made—and to support the Leader of the House on the main motion.
Standards
Nicholas Brown Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
I am replying for the Opposition, Mr Speaker. Before I do so, however, may I say to you, Sir, that I want to identify myself with absolutely everything my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House said in tribute to you. You have been an outstanding Speaker, and you deserve the gratitude of us all. I know that to be praised by the Opposition Chief Whip will probably not help your standing with your colleagues, but let us face it—just between the two of us—it is probably too late to make amends. I can truthfully say, Mr Speaker, that nobody is going to miss you more than I am.
To turn to the matter at hand, this is a sad day for us and for me personally, because I am friends with the right hon. Member who is criticised. However, we accept the report, we accept the findings and we accept the recommendations in full. I want to say thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for chairing the hearings and to both commissioners who have conducted the investigation. I also want to thank the Committee, and particularly the lay members of the Committee. The introduction of the laity into affairs of this kind was controversial, but it seems to be working well. On behalf of my party, I certainly accept the report—and the obvious consequences —in full.
European Union (Withdrawal)
Nicholas Brown Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
For three long years, we have talked about, debated and voted repeatedly on Brexit in this House, and yet here we stand after three years not having reached any firm resolution. In supporting the motion before the House this evening, we would simply prolong even further the uncertainty that our country and our businesses are experiencing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) described in his excellent speech. We have a responsibility, having been elected in 2017 on manifestos to respect the referendum result, to do so, to stop prevaricating, to stop kicking the can down the road and, one way or another, to reach a definitive conclusion. The motion before the House does not do that. It simply prevaricates even further.
Some Opposition Members have been very clear about what they want, and I respect that. My neighbour, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) have both been clear previously and this evening that they would rather remain in the European Union and that they certainly do not want a no-deal exit. I disagree with that view, but at least they have clarity in expressing it. They also say that they do not want to leave with no deal, but those who adopt that view have only two choices: either to accept any deal that is offered up, no matter how bad, or to remain, and I do not think either of those options is acceptable. Remaining, when the country voted to leave and the main two parties were elected on manifestos to leave, is wholly unacceptable. There is only one sensible option, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst eloquently pointed out—
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question put accordingly.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Speaker
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
Points of Order
Nicholas Brown Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] I think the record will show—and I have the highest regard and affection for the hon. Gentleman—that I have listened to all the points of order. The only reason why I interrupt him at this point—I hope he will forgive my doing so—is that there was a factual error in his opening remarks. I am sure it was an inadvertent error, and I mean that most sincerely, but it was a factual error. He said that in recent months it had been noticed that there was a sticker in my car. That sticker on the subject of Brexit happens to be affixed to, or in the windscreen of, my wife’s car. [Laughter.] Yes, it is. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not suggest for one moment that a wife is somehow the property or chattel of her husband. She is entitled to her views. That sticker is not mine, and that is the end of it.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the House is now ready to move on. We have a long day ahead of us, and I beg to move that we proceed to the next business.
Mr Speaker
Well, that is not a motion that I can accept, but I would like to propose that we come now to the ten-minute rule motion. I call Mr Leo Docherty.
House of Commons (Administration) Bill
Nicholas Brown Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans.
Amendment 12 will be necessary should the Committee decide that clause 10 should not stand part of the Bill, as the Government intend to argue. The Clerks have advised that leaving out clause 10 would necessitate a change in title from the House of Commons (Administration) Bill to the House of Commons (Members’ Fund) Bill. Amendments 12, 13, 15 and 16 would amend the short and long titles to reflect that.
The Government oppose the inclusion of clause 10 because we believe that it is appropriate for the estimates to remain separate. It is currently the responsibility of the Government to lay the Members estimate before the House and of the Speaker to lay the Administration estimate before the House. The current division of responsibilities is appropriate and should remain.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
I would like, very briefly, to explore with the Minister why the Government hold the view that the two estimates should remain separate and that the Bill should not even be permissive on the subject of merging the two estimates. One estimate covers a maximum of £22 million of public expenditure in the context of £700 billion of expenditure. The Members estimate, for which the House is responsible, is something of an anomaly now. It is effectively residual following the setting up of IPSA. It is not possible for the sums spent to be increased by a decision, say, of the Commission or of any other House body because the pay and rations for MPs are now dealt with exclusively by IPSA.
Effectively, the Members estimate covers residual things such as Short money, which is wholly conditioned by a resolution of the House and not open to serious adjustment via any other mechanism, as well as the computers and stationery that Members use. I think that is just about it now. It is not an extensive budget head and there is not much scope for it to expand.
In an ideal and virtuous world, we would be looking at ways of merging these necessary expenditures with the main functions of IPSA. Certainly it seems odd that the Government are not even keeping the idea alive. Parliamentary vehicles such as this Bill do not come along very often. I fully accept that the Government are assisting with this one so I will not push my point too far. I wish the Bill well. The hon. Member for Mole Valley, who I will call my hon. Friend, has done well to get the Bill this far, and I appreciate the generally constructive approach that the Government are taking as, indeed, previous Governments did when they tried to get a similar measure through. I just think that the Government may have got it wrong on whether the estimates—not the monies—could be merged at some future point.
Such a merger could not take place before 2017 in any event. The Treasury would have to agree to it, as would the other parties, before anything like that could be done. The idea is that agreeing to it now would somehow commit the Treasury, but it is not as though anybody could do that. The Treasury would still have to consent. It seems to me a bit narrow of the Government—it clearly is the Government—to insist that that not be a route taken at some stage in the future. From a House of Commons point of view, it might be sensible to at least leave the option open and to leave legislative provision, perhaps making it clearer on Report that the Treasury would have to consent before anything such as this could be done.
In an ideal world, that is the approach we would take. There may be some Member resistance because of dissatisfaction with IPSA, but that would be about the functioning of IPSA rather than the merging of the estimates. The Minister was open enough to say that this was opposed, but she did not explain why. I would like to hear that explanation.
Sir Paul Beresford
I hope we can resolve this issue because, to be quite blunt, this is an opportunist clause put in for an opportune moment, and it looks to me as though—to use a colonial phrase—we were rumbled. I therefore support the Minister’s position, particularly as the clause is not related to the fund itself directly or the management of the fund.
On the assumption that it is appropriate to do so, I will speak briefly to amendment 11, which is to the schedule. This is a belt and braces amendment for the trustees, because it allows them to make arrangements under which a commercial institution could undertake the commitments or liabilities of the fund. That follows the thinking of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.
Mr Brown
I accept that the Minister has replied, and I will not push the point because, of course, I wish the Bill well and I take the point about the ambitions of the hon. Member for Mole Valley for the duration of this Committee.
I ask the Minister to ask her Department, and particularly the Treasury, to consider the possibility that on this point they may be mistaken and that the answer she has given to the Committee may not stand up to close scrutiny. When one looks at what the Members estimate actually covers, the amount of control that the Treasury, or indeed anybody else, could properly exercise over the very narrow individual budgetary heads to which I referred earlier, and that are covered by this part of the House’s estimates, is very narrowly drawn. The principal matters are the Short money, which is a matter for a resolution of the House, and nobody else can go beyond that—we decide it collectively. Traditionally, it has always been done by consent through the usual channels, and then by the Leader of the House and the Opposition spokesmen. It has been done by complete and harmonious agreement in the past, although I agree that that might not be what is happening now, but that does not alter the point that it will have to be decided on the Floor of the House.
The other items that are covered relate to the necessary computer assistance to Members, the postage system and some other administrative costs. It is now very narrowly drawn, because all those sorts of matters are properly dealt with by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The amount of actual control that the Treasury says it does not want to relinquish over either an independent public body, over which it should not be exercising any undue control at all, or the narrow items under this budgetary head is absolutely minimal. In that context, and perhaps with that awareness, I invite officials to think again. It is a pity that we are missing this opportunity, because parliamentary opportunities to address such detailed questions do not come along very often, I accept that such opportunities would not come along at all if the Government did not help, which is why I do not want to push the point any further. Will the Minister oblige me by having further discussions with officials on the narrow points of substance that lie underneath the estimate?
Dr Coffey
It goes without saying that of course I will share with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government any concerns raised by the Committee.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendment made: 13, in clause 8, page 4, line 22, leave out “(Administration)” and insert “Members’ Fund”.— (Dr Thérèse Coffey.)
The amendment is consequential on amendment 15. This provision of the Bill textually amends existing legislation so as to refer to the Bill. This Committee amendment secures that the textual amendment uses the new short title which results from amendment 15.
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Repeals and transitional provision
Amendment made: 8, in clause 9, page 4, line 36, leave out subsection (2).—(Mr Chope.)
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10 disagreed to.
Clause 11
Commencement
Amendments made: 9, in clause 11, page 5, line 12, leave out from “force” to end and insert
“at the end of the period of three months beginning with the day this Act receives Royal Assent.”.
Amendment 10, in clause 11, page 5, line 14, leave out subsection (2).—(Mr Chope.)
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Short title
Amendment made: 15, in clause 13, page 5, line 20, leave out “(Administration)” and insert “Members’ Fund”.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)
Without clause 10 (see amendment 14), the Bill will deal only with the House of Commons Members’ Fund. The amendment changes the short title of the Bill accordingly.
Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
House of Commons Members’ fund: Trustees’ powers and proceedings
Amendment made: 11, in schedule, page 6, line 8, at end insert—
“4A The trustees may enter into arrangements for the transfer (by sale or otherwise) of liabilities or commitments (which may include future liabilities or commitments) on such terms as the trustees may agree.”.—(Sir Paul Beresford.)
The amendment would allow the trustees to make arrangements under which an insurance company or other commercial institution would undertake to adopt liabilities or commitments of the Fund in return for one or more commuted payments.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title
Amendment made: 16, in title, line 2, leave out from “Fund” to end of line 3.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)
The amendment is consequential on amendment 14. The long title no longer needs to refer to the subject matter of clause 10.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Business of the House
Nicholas Brown Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
I wish my hon. Friend well with his debate on stone theft. We wait with interest to see whether the precedent set in the general election campaign will be followed by any of the Labour leadership candidates producing their own stone commitments.
The serious issue of planning affects many constituencies. The changes this Government have put in place are specifically designed to give greater power and authority to the local plan. I urge every council to move ahead as quickly as possible with the planning process, and I urge my hon. Friend to bring the matter to the attention of Ministers during Communities and Local Government questions in 10 days’ time.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
Is it still the Government’s intention to hold a debate in Government time on the renewal of the Trident platform, and is the right hon. Gentleman able to say something about the timing of such a debate?
Chris Grayling
I cannot give an indication yet about the timing of such a debate, but there will be, at an appropriate moment, a chance for this House to decide on the future of Trident. That is only right and proper, and this party and this Government are absolutely committed to it. I know there are some divisions of opinion in this House, but I hope that, on the two Front Benches at least, there is an absolute commitment to preserving our nuclear deterrent.
Devolution (Implications for England)
Nicholas Brown Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
There is of course a precedent for that in relation to Northern Ireland in the past. [Hon. Members: “And Scotland.”] My hon. Friend is talking about a reduction below a proportionate representation in this House of Commons, and that has not been done for Scotland, to correct the hon. Members opposite. There is a precedent for that, but I do not think it is the answer to this question. When it comes to decisions about peace or war and major issues of foreign policy or economic policy for the entire United Kingdom, I think it is very important that all parts of the United Kingdom should be able to share equally in that on the basis of equal constituency sizes, which is a matter we will have to return to.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
In the north-east of England, the right hon. Gentleman’s statement will sound like Tory votes for Tory laws. Without inviting him to repeat all the generalised superficial remarks contained in the Adonis report, could he say something to the House about regional policy?
Mr Hague
Yes, indeed. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, regional policy has been pushed forward very seriously by the whole approach to city deals, local enterprise partnerships and local growth deals, and parts of the north-east are already benefiting from that. Indeed, there are city deals involving Newcastle and Teesside. So there ought to be greater opportunity for that whoever is in government in the coming years. That opportunity, however, does not resolve the issue of law making, which requires us to address issues in this House.
Business of the House
Nicholas Brown Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
The total amount of time available is fixed, so if we give more to one Department, we have to take it away from another. We look carefully at the volume of questions to the various Departments—I promise my right hon. Friend that we do this rigorously—and we try to ensure that if a Department answers questions for less than an hour, it is because it has proportionately slightly fewer questions being asked of it.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House find time for the House to debate a report prepared in 2008 by senior police officers and said to have been given to Lord Leveson’s inquiry? It alleges sustained and persistent access to information contained on the police computer and other organisations’ databases that is supposed to be confidential but is in fact widely shared via improper methods. We understand that the report exists. Will the Leader of the House confirm that that is so? Will he find time for us to debate it and, before we do so, may we see it?
Mr Lansley
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that, without prior notice of his question, I have been unable to ask my colleagues about the issue that he has raised, and I do not know the answer to his question about whether such a report exists. However, he will have heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary speaking at the Dispatch Box recently, setting out measures to promote the integrity of the police. I will ask her to respond to the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he should take considerable reassurance from the wide range of measures that she announced and that are being taken forward. They involve not only inquiries but proposals relating to the College of Policing and the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
Business of the House
Nicholas Brown Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and take this belated opportunity to congratulate him personally on his knighthood. It is indeed our intention to publish in the very near future the White Paper and the progress report on the reform of funding. We plan to implement the recommendations of the Law Commission. I applaud my hon. Friend’s interest, and that of the group he co-chairs. We are determined to do more for carers and to drive up carers’ rights. I very much hope that when the White Paper is produced, he will be reassured by some of its proposals. As I said, we plan to bring it forward very shortly.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has announced the Second Reading of the coalition’s House of Lords Reform Bill, which gets two days’ debate. At the end of Tuesday’s debate, after the question that the Bill be read a Second time has been put, is it the Government’s intention immediately to hold the vote on any programme motion?
Sir George Young
Yes, that would be our proposition—a proposition that we have adhered to for all the legislation we have produced so far. Discussions continue through the usual channels about the content of the programme motion. I very much hope that the Opposition will enter into sensible and constructive discussions so that we can make good progress on this important piece of legislation.