Parliamentary Partnership Assembly
Oliver Heald Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I will just take my mask off, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I say how I delighted I am that we have reached this point and that it is possible to have this motion before the House tonight? As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said, the treaty—the trade and co-operation agreement—is permissive. We do not have to set up a parliamentary assembly, but I very much hope that we will.
As for my interest in this, I was asked by the powers that be, including the Leader of the House, to lead on discussions with the House of Lords and our counterparts in the European Parliament on taking the proposals forward. I place on the record my thanks to the noble Lord Kinnoull, who has been leading for the Lords on this matter, for all his help in the discussions. I am glad that we managed to reach agreement so easily across the two Houses about the overall composition of the delegation in terms of the party balance and numbers, including between the Houses, so that this is a parliamentary delegation—albeit with a Commons majority, as this place would expect.
I started work on this project some time ago with an expectation that we might even be able to hold an inaugural meeting of the assembly before the summer recess. Unfortunately, however, sitting patterns in the European Parliament and our own, and internal processes that have to be gone through with so many groups in the European Parliament and parties here, meant that it was only in October that the European Parliament decided that it would establish a delegation and published the names. This is still awaiting ratification, so passing this motion tonight, followed by the motion in the Lords, will allow us to move forward so that we are ready once the European Parliament has completed its processes, which I believe is likely to happen on 12 December.
In some ways, it is disappointing that this has taken us such a long time, but that has enabled me and Lord Kinnoull to have useful discussions with Select Committee Chairs, in particular—I have appeared at the European Scrutiny Committee and the Liaison Committee to discuss how we might take this forward. The good work done by those Committees can feed into the work of the UK delegation and the UK delegation can feed back to the House and Committees on proceedings in the PPA. I look forward to seeing that develop further.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is in his place, I make it clear that neither the PPA nor the delegation to it will duplicate the work of any existing Committee of the House or existing delegations—for example, that to the Council of Europe. That is very much the view of the European Parliament’s Committees, too.
The role of the assembly is to exchange views on the partnership between the EU and the UK. It has powers to request information and to make recommendations to the partnership council, but it will meet probably twice a year, which is what happens with other similar bodies that the European Parliament has with other countries. It cannot be expected to do anything like the detailed scrutiny done by our specialised Committees here in Parliament.
I hope that Select Committee members will use the assembly as a platform to share their expertise more widely. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone that the European Scrutiny Committee has a lot of expertise to offer, although of course the exact composition of the delegation will be a matter for the usual channels.
Sir Oliver Heald
As my hon. Friend may know, there are a number of assemblies—the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the OSCE and so on—that follow a similar pattern whereby a written ministerial statement appoints the membership. However, I believe that the usual channels are very keen that the assembly should have geographical range and should take account of balance, equalities and so on. Personally, I think that if we wanted to go for something different, we would have to change the whole system that we operate in this Parliament for assemblies.
Mr Goodwill
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if we used the way that Select Committees select people, we could end up with no member from Northern Ireland, for example? That would not be acceptable, in my view.
Sir Oliver Heald
I certainly hope that our approach will mean that we have a very good range of geography, equalities and so on, which is difficult to achieve in any other way. The House may at some time decide to change how it sets up assemblies, but I think that that would take some time. I would like to see this assembly up and running.
The European Parliament’s other bilateral bodies normally meet over an afternoon and a morning, say, or possibly over a slightly longer period. It is customary for them to open with a state-of-play update from the co-chairs of the governance structure of the agreement in question, which in this case would mean the Partnership Council. I would expect that the assembly might hear from Vice-President Šefčovič and Lord Frost and then put questions to them; there might then be thematic debates on topical matters or discussions on emerging legislation from both sides, depending on what the delegations wanted. Plenaries often conclude with votes on resolutions, but that is not a template that has to be followed religiously.
If the House passes tonight’s motion, there will still be steps to take before the first full-scale meeting can take place. The delegation will have to be appointed, as the Leader of the House has explained and as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) and I have just discussed. The plenary’s practical and procedural workings will also need to be arranged. There are templates for that in other bilateral bodies of the European Parliament and we have some ideas of our own, but we expect to have a pattern of perhaps two meetings a year and to be able to reach agreement on how the body will work.
Lord Kinnoull and I have already had discussions with the devolved legislatures to ensure that they are kept up to speed, ahead of the bureau that will be deciding the agendas, and that they can have input into the process so that their views are known. It has been suggested that the interparliamentary forum used for Brexit might be reconstituted for that purpose so that the three legislatures could come together and talk to us ahead of the bureau. I would like the three legislatures to have observer status so that they could be at our meetings and have informal discussions—which are as important as the formal ones—about how the plenary works, but that is something that would need to be agreed with the European Parliament.
I hope that the House will agree that today’s motion is a positive step towards building a new relationship between this Parliament and the European Parliament, following Brexit. I look forward to the UK delegation being established and beginning its work.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I welcome the news that the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly will, hopefully, heave into view in the next few months. The aim is to create a working relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Parliament, to look at the impact of the trade and co-operation agreement, and to be able to make representations and recommendations to the Partnership Council to improve its implementation. That means that the make-up of the assembly will be critical in recognising and, indeed, trying to tackle the differentiated impact of Brexit across the four nations of the UK.
Will the Government not therefore accept the need to consider including representatives of the devolved Parliaments? We have already heard a discussion about how to secure the representation of not just one view but all the views from Northern Ireland. However, Scotland and Wales are also massively impacted by Brexit, and I welcomed the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), who did at least consider how that inclusion could be achieved.
Sir Oliver Heald
I certainly feel that there should be an inclusive approach, but the agreement refers to the membership of the assembly being from this Parliament and the European Parliament, so I think we would be talking about observer status.
Dr Whitford
Perhaps when the Leader of the House sums up the debate, he will explain to us what consultation has been carried out with the devolved Parliaments— particularly Northern Ireland, obviously, but, as I have said, Scotland and Wales have also been massively impacted by Brexit, and the impacts differ according to local economies, cultures and demographics. It is important that all those voices are gathered and represented.
The chair of the delegation will obviously be a very important figure, and, according to the documents, should be elected at the first meeting. It is vital that this is not a Government anointment of the kind that we have seen in some of the important Select Committees. We are talking about a parliamentary delegation, not an intergovernmental delegation.
A key role of the assembly will be trying to repair the relationship with our European neighbours, which is at rock bottom. The brinkmanship that we have seen over the last year, and repeated threats to the Northern Ireland protocol—a deal that the Prime Minister was quite happy to claim as his own personal breakthrough in the run-up to the 2019 election—have undermined trust. We often hear that with trust, many of the issues surrounding the protocol could be eased, but—with a German husband, and having watched German media and heard the views of Germans about what has happened here—I know that trust is now utterly absent when it comes to whether the UK will keep its word on anything in the future, which makes it likely that moving forward through the challenges of the next few years will be very difficult.
Unfortunately—particularly if meetings are only going to be six-monthly—what the assembly simply cannot replace are the myriad interactions, formal and informal, between officials, between experts, between Ministers and between Heads of State that used to happen when the UK was a member of the EU. They were able not just to influence policy but, often, to defuse tensions. It should not be forgotten that the interactions on neutral ground between John Major and Albert Reynolds made possible a relationship, indeed a warm friendship, that allowed the UK and Ireland to work together and reset the British-Irish relationship in the early 1990s.
As a Scottish MP, I will obviously be speaking up about the impact of Brexit in Scotland, which I see in my own constituency and my colleagues see throughout Scotland in all our sectors: in fishing, in farming, in the NHS, in social care and in tourism. It is important that we speak up for the majority of voters in Scotland, who frankly did not want Brexit and still do not want it. I look forward to a time when Scotland will return to the EU as a modern, independent country in its own right.
Mr Bone
My right hon. Friend makes a vital point, but I would take things down a slightly different path. I would re-establish the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union, which was a Committee of this House and could scrutinise our relationship with the European Union. It would have no MEPs on it and would be a Committee of this House. I think Lord Frost is doing a tremendous job, but it is right that a Committee in this House should scrutinise that job, not a committee made up with Members of the European Parliament.
Sir Oliver Heald
Of course, the European Parliament has set up a number of bilateral organisations with other countries. Some of them have arrangements whereby both delegations have to agree before a resolution can be passed. There is a vote of the whole body, but equally the support of both delegations is required; would my hon. Friend perhaps find that a helpful mitigation?
Business of the House
Oliver Heald Excerpts(4 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
As the hon. Member for Rhondda will remember, in the film “Passport to Pimlico” Pimlico was thought to have belonged to the Duke of Burgundy or some such, and therefore had become an independent state within the United Kingdom. Our separatist friend wants to do the same by insisting on passports to Scotland, and Mrs Sturgeon wishes to build a wall. [Interruption.] Unfortunately Mrs Sturgeon’s policy is not fictional. Many of us wish that it were and that the separatists were a bit more fictional, but they are not. They are here and they bang on about it constantly, but we are still one country and Scotland benefits enormously from being part of the United Kingdom.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see early-day motion 675, which is sponsored by me, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) and other hon. and right hon. Friends, and which is attracting all-party support? It calls for the Government to include in their general review of equality issues an assessment of whether to set up a national museum of black, Asian and minority ethnic history and culture, somewhat similar to the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington. Could we have a debate in Government time to set out the benefits of such a decision? [That this House recognises the important role played by the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington DC since it opened its doors to the public on 24 September 2016, documenting and enabling the study of the life, history and culture of African Americans; notes that it serves as a place of collaboration to work with many other museums and educational institutions that have explored and preserved this important history; asserts the national importance of the life, history and culture of Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in the UK and their global influences; believes that there should be a DCMS-sponsored national UK museum for the study of Black, Asian and minority ethnic history and culture on a similar scale and model to the Washington Museum; and calls on the Government, whilst reviewing inequalities’ issues generally, to make an assessment of the potential merits of such a national museum.]
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for highlighting his early-day motion to me in advance. He raises an interesting and important subject that is worthy of fuller debate. I am afraid that I am going to have to refer him to the Backbench Business Committee, when that is back up and running. With so much cross-party support, as he indicates, that may well be a topic that the Committee will smile favourably on in terms of granting a debate when there is more time available to it.
Business of the House
Oliver Heald Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
Rhondda always wants to chip in. We might have thought that, after a little peace and quiet over Christmas, Rhondda would have calmed down, but no such luck. Because there is so much business to be brought forward, and that will depend on the progress of business. That is a completely normal approach.
As for sitting Fridays, we have only just had the ballot, but of course we will bring those forward, and the motion, as soon as is practicable. On the machinery of Government changes, I got a little bit worried by a memo that said, “MOG changes”. I am not necessarily so keen on such changes; I am rather used to being the Mogg that I am. However, I can absolutely assure the right hon. Lady that any changes that are made will lead to consultation with the Opposition about any changes to Committees. It is hoped that the motion in relation to the sharing out of the Committees will be put on the Order Paper by the end of business today. That is not an absolute promise, but I understand that good progress has been made on coming to an agreement.
I am indeed grateful to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) for passing on a list of overhanging proposals from the Backbench Business Committee for debates. Whether there will be a lot of time for non-legislative business in the next few weeks, I am not absolutely certain, but it is useful to have that and to be aware of it.
The Budget date—giving people plenty of notice—is perfectly reasonable. I make announcements about the business for a week or possibly for two weeks; I do not intend to announce the business for March, so I think it would be unusual for me to be announcing that. I do hope that in this Session of Parliament my appearances at the Dispatch Box will be once a week to set out the business, rather than once or twice a day, which I think was beginning to pall on everybody in the House.
The IR35 review is extraordinarily important. It is a matter of concern to many of our constituents, and something that came up in the election on a number of occasions. It is important that it is done in such a way that people know what their tax affairs will be in April.
On the takeover of Cobham, the Government have to act within the legal parameters and the approach that we generally take to takeovers, and announcements must be made punctually. Sometimes when the House is in recess announcements still have to be made. Saying it was done just before Christmas is not a reasonable criticism, because business goes on.
May I share in the right hon. Lady’s condolences to Andrew Miller’s family? It is always sad when we lose a distinguished former Member of this House who has invariably been influential and important in the careers of existing Members.
There is indeed a statement coming on the Australian bushfires. I think all of us feel the deepest sympathy for the people of Australia, who for so many of us are kith and kin, and there is therefore always a particular concern with what is happening in Australia.
The Ukrainian plane crash is something that needs to be investigated thoroughly so that we find out what the cause was. Our concern is for the British citizens, but also for all the lives that were lost.
As always, I am so glad that once again the right hon. Lady reminds us about Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and of course all the other dual nationals who are held improperly, unlawfully by the Iranian regime. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Iranian Government on 6 January. The Government are doing everything that we can to secure her release and that of others, but the Government’s power, regrettably, is not unlimited in this area.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Leader of the House will be aware of the support in all parts of the House and in the country—with campaigners such as Battersea Dogs and Cats pressing hard—for the reintroduction of the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill, which was in the Queen’s Speech and was of course lost because of the general election. Can he pledge to introduce the Bill in the next two weeks, and if not, can he tell us what the timetable is for it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I can reassure my right hon. and learned Friend that the animal welfare Bill is a priority of this Government. It has not ceased to be a priority of this Government; there is a busy programme of legislation, but this Bill will remain within it.
Business of the House
Oliver Heald Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Westminster Hall will be sitting Monday hours on the Tuesday, alongside this Chamber.
I sincerely regret that, owing to the pressures of the very important business today, the hon. Gentleman has found it necessary, quite rightly, to move the date of the debate on Islamophobia. I just want to say again from the Dispatch Box that nobody should ever fear persecution of their faith. It is vital that we all stand together to reject those who seek to spread hatred and to divide us. I want to assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are doing everything they can to tackle hate and extremism.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for her comments about the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Act 2019. I notice that one or two of my co-sponsors are here in the Chamber, and I would like to thank them and Members in all parts for their support. During proceedings on the Bill, the Government consulted on increasing the sentence for offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to five years. Will legislation come forward in the week commencing 23 April, or shortly, so that that important measure can be introduced to protect all animals?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. and learned Friend raises a really important point. He will know, and will no doubt be proud of the fact, as all hon. Members should be, that animal welfare standards in the United Kingdom are rightly among the highest in the world. The Government have sought to do as much as they can to further protect animals, including through some of the measures to prevent illegal puppy trading and so on. The Government will always continue to do all they can to increase animal welfare standards, including by bringing in measures to increase the possibility of sentencing as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Points of Order
Oliver Heald Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to you for looking at the evidence—I think they call it VAR in football—but when you come back, would it be possible for the House authorities to have contacted the office of the Leader of the Opposition to make sure that he is present to hear your ruling?
Mr Speaker
Let us wait to see. If I have a ruling, it would be a great courtesy if the Leader of the Opposition were here, and I very much hope that he will be. I note what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said.
Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)
Oliver Heald Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Clarke
Well, perhaps the usual channels were more reliable in the past. We would get together and agree that the House has passed a resolution, but there are these problems, and we satisfy the Opposition that their political desires can be satisfied and they can get all the documents with the embarrassing political opinions of the Attorney General—though I do not think they will find much, because the Attorney General is pretty candid. He is a very sound Brexiteer. He and I do not agree on Europe in the slightest.
They can excise things such as security, which we have talked about. I do not know what is being excluded or held back, but it is likely to be comments on the negotiating position of the Commission, the strengths and weaknesses of the Government’s case and where there are risks. A great deal of a lawyer’s advice is, “This is my opinion, but the risks involved are this”. Some of these comments about other Governments, the Commission and so on it may well not be in the public interest to disclose. There are reasonable people on both sides of the House and on the Procedure Committee, and I would have thought that we should certainly consider where we are going.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Chris Bryant
In the debate that would transpire, I do not think that hon. Members would vote for such a motion. The hon. Gentleman asks me a hypothetical question, and we have been dealing with lots of hypotheticals. I have tried to search through history for a moment when the Government refused to abide by the will of the House when there was a Humble Address and I simply cannot find one. We should therefore deal with the actuality rather than the hypothetical. I say to Conservative Members that it is all very well when sitting on the Government Benches to say that the Government should have their way, but that does not normally serve the long-term interests of the nation, and in our current system, the Government have phenomenal power.
Sir Oliver Heald
The hon. Gentleman knows that our Committees often ask for papers and sometimes the response to such requests is to say that the documents are legally professionally privileged. In those circumstances, the House tends to use a bit of discretion and common sense and often an agreement is reached about exactly what is to be disclosed. Is not that what is needed here?
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.
English Votes on English Laws
Oliver Heald Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Indeed, I suspect that I am more grateful than his colleagues on the Treasury Bench are, because he has nailed one point very early on: this does constitute a veto. As a federalist, I have no problem with vetoes, but if they are to be part of our parliamentary procedure we have to be prepared to have them going in different directions. The veto now being anticipated for English Members of Parliament would not be available to Scottish Members of Parliament, because they are governed by the Sewell convention and legislative consent measures. That is only the subject of a convention; it is not a veto. That is what I mean when I say that the Government, by bringing their proposal forward in this manner, risk creating further anomalies. The anomaly is one not of detail, but of fundamental constitutional principle. Were the House to bring together its collective mind, I do not doubt that we could eventually find a solution. Perhaps we would reach a compromise that was a little messy, but it is something we could reach. However, we are not going to reach that in the one day that will be offered to us to debate the changes to the Standing Orders.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Is the right hon. Gentleman not ignoring history? Scotland has had special arrangements in this House since the Victorian period. From 1948 Bills could be dealt with by the Scottish Grand Committee, and that was expanded in the 1990s, as he knows very well, and eventually Scotland ended up with its own Parliament. He cannot stop some change on the basis that it is not the final change.
Mr Carmichael
I am by no means resistant to some change, and I will return to that point shortly. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the Scottish Grand Committee could debate Bills, but it could not vote on or amend them. That is how Grand Committees work. They are a perfectly sensible mechanism by which debate can be conducted by those who have the most direct interest, although they are perhaps a little redundant in this age of devolution, but they are by no means an attack on the fundamental principle that once we leave the Committee Rooms and enter this Chamber we are all equal and have the same right to participate in votes.
Chris Grayling
The distribution of grants will be part of this procedure. That, like all of this, was very clearly set out in our manifesto. I know that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland’s party has not always believed in sticking to manifesto commitments, but that is precisely what we are seeking to do. We think the proposal is important—it was clear for the country to see, and the country was able to debate it—and we are sticking to that promise.
Sir Oliver Heald
Does my right hon. Friend accept that what he is proposing is a measured response based on precedent? Over the years, we have made changes to Standing Orders to deal with Scottish Bills, for example, in the way he suggests. We have amended Standing Orders when changes have been needed over time. Is not what he is doing absolutely in the tradition of how the House of Commons deals with these matters?
Chris Grayling
That is absolutely right. Indeed, my hon. and learned Friend might like to know that those with long experience of the workings of this House, including Members of the other place who have worked in positions of authority in this one, are all united in the view that changing Standings Orders is the right way to proceed. As I made very clear in my statement last week, hon. Members may form a different view over the next 12 months. When we review these matters in 12 months’ time, I shall be very open to such views. I am very clear, however, that changing Standing Orders is the starting point.
Ms Eagle
In a minute. I am trying to respond to the point that has been put to me. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me a sentence or two, I promise I will give way. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) is right: devolution is a desirable process but it must be done properly if it is not to create resentment. I give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman who is eager, as always.
Sir Oliver Heald
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that rather pleasant tribute. Does she agree that this matter was raised during debates on the Scotland Bill? I spoke from the Dispatch Box where she now stands, and the issue of English votes for English laws was put forward at the time. Labour ignored it.
Ms Eagle
The devolution settlements for Wales and Scotland took time to develop and evolve, and—as I was in the middle of saying—there are clearly issues for England that we now need to consider. We consider that that issue should be properly dealt with as part of a constitutional convention that should be charged with examining how the United Kingdom is governed, in a much more profound and holistic way than the reckless and partisan fiasco with which we are currently presented. Instead, we have a Prime Minister who chose to exploit the bitterness and division created after the Scottish referendum for his own narrow electoral advantage, rather than attempt to heal the wounds that had opened up. We now have a Government who seem more interested in pursuing a partisan procedural fix than in showing any intention of keeping our Union together.
Ms Eagle
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has perhaps not read the manifesto on which Labour fought the election, but it said we wanted a constitutional convention. The time is right to have a much closer and more holistic look at what is happening in the House of Lords and in the devolved Parliaments to see where we have ended up. That is our current policy.
No previous changes to Standing Orders have contained such substantial constitutional change. I have already dealt with why this is a lamentable precedent.
Ms Eagle
I have already given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I want to get on, because many people wish to speak.
Previous changes to Standing Orders, which were nowhere near as radical as these, were introduced initially on a temporary basis, often at the suggestion of the Procedure Committee, and tested out before either being abandoned or made permanent. Many innovative changes to Standing Orders have been introduced on a temporary basis initially. For example, the changes introduced by the previous Labour Government allowing for debates in Westminster Hall were temporary and subject to renewal. So too were the changes introducing the programming of legislation and deferred Divisions. Yet the Government have not even asked the Procedure Committee to report on the changes it has sprung on the House. They have merely suggested that it should have a review into the new arrangements, but only after they have already been implemented.
It is usual for changes to procedures of the House to be approved by free votes, as they are House business not Government business. This was the case with House of Lords Reform; changes to the legislative process, including the introduction of public evidence for Committees; the programming of Bills; and the election of the Speaker. The EVEL proposals, however, are Government business and they are especially partisan because of their explicit inclusion in the Conservative manifesto.
Deregulation Bill
Oliver Heald Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
I was on my very last sentence. Normally, hon. Members are clamouring for me to stop, but I see that the hon. and learned Member is clamouring for me to continue.
Sir Oliver Heald
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in principle it is wrong for somebody to be sent to prison for not paying the licence fee?
Chris Bryant
I believe in the licence fee. I would like to see decriminalisation. If we can achieve decriminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee in a way that does not dismantle the rest of the licence fee, yes, I would agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. However, in order to do that, one cannot simply send forward to Her Majesty legislation which suggests that the Government can introduce that decriminalisation in a few weeks’ time. We have to carry the amendment as tabled, substantially agreeing with the House of Lords, while pretending to disagree. I am grateful that the hon. and learned Gentleman passionately agrees with me. He still has a beating socialist heart and will support the licence fee, as we shall.
Andrew Bridgen
Thank you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I much appreciate it. However, I point out to the House that those five noble Members represent more than the majority by which the amendment was carried in the other place.
Having read the Hansard record of the various speeches on the amendment in the upper House, as I am sure all hon. Members have, I found myself with a strong sense of déjà vu. There they were, all the same lines from the multimillion-pound BBC spin machine that we heard when I first proposed the amendment—horror stories about huge changes to the BBC if decriminalisation came in; losses of £200 million of revenue; the emotive closure of all local radio stations and TV stations; and so on. We have heard it all before. I remind hon. Members that there was support for my amendment from across the entire political spectrum in this House. It was signed by 149 right hon. and hon. Members and had the support of many in the Government who were unable to sign.
I draw the attention of the House to the comments of Baroness Corston, who was mentioned by the shadow Minister. She recognised the impact of delays to the implementation of the decriminalisation of non-payment of the TV licence. The longer that takes, the more people will go to prison and the more people will be criminalised. Every year of delay means that another 160,000 of our fellow citizens will be dragged up on criminal charges for non-payment of a £145.50 licence—in effect, a poll tax.
Baroness Corston said:
“I once met a woman who had been imprisoned for three months for failing to pay the £145.50 television licence fee and a £200 fine. If she could not afford the licence fee, surely she was not going to be able to afford a £200 fine as well. During those three months in prison she lost her tenancy and was unable to look after her children, who were taken into care. When she came out of prison, she was told that she could not have local authority accommodation for a family because she did not have her children with her, and when she went to social services she was told that she could not have her children back because she did not have family accommodation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 February 2014; Vol. 759, c. 800.]
That is truly shocking.
As I have previously stated in the House, around 50 people a year go to prison as a result of the legislation, a disproportionate number of whom are women—50%, whereas women make up only 4% of the prison population. However, speaker after speaker in the upper House, while noting the comments of Baroness Corston, decided that the spurious claims about a shortfall in BBC funding took precedence.
It is unfortunate that TV licensing enforcement in Scotland was not brought up in the debate in the other place. I would like to correct that and remind the House that the Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007 introduced a regime whereby an emphasis was placed on alternatives to prosecution, such as fiscal fines. The result was a fall in prosecutions from nearly 2,000 in 2006-07 to just 34 in 2012-13—a 98% reduction. If the BBC PR machine is to be believed, one would think that that would result in a significant fall in compliance with the licence fee. However, as Fergus Reid, the spokesperson for TV Licensing in Scotland, said in 2013:
“the average evasion rate remains at a low of just over five per cent, meaning almost 95 per cent of homes are correctly licensed.”
Sir Oliver Heald
Does my hon. Friend consider it disproportionate to imprison somebody for non-payment of a relatively small debt? Does he agree that this needs to be corrected, much as some of us love the licence fee?
Andrew Bridgen
Not only do the majority of Members of this House think that the measure is disproportionate; I honestly believe that the majority of people in the country think that it is disproportionate. When I first proposed my amendment and canvassed support for it across the House, it was clear that a large number of Members did not initially think that it was a criminal offence not to pay the TV licence fee. It is within our power to correct this. In England and Wales, more people are imprisoned each year for the non-payment of fines associated with TV licensing than are prosecuted for evasion in Scotland, with little, if any, difference in the evasion rate.
House of Commons Commission Bill
Oliver Heald Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I hope not to detain the House for long in considering a very short and, I think, widely supported Bill. The House is familiar with the background to the Bill, which arises from the report of the House of Commons Governance Committee, which was established following the halting of the recruitment process for a new Clerk of the House in September last year. The Committee’s report was fully debated in the House on 22 January. As I emphasised during that debate, the Chair and members of the Committee did an admirable job. Again, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), in particular, and to the members of the Committee from both sides of the House who worked with him, because they successfully reconciled a number of different views and presented the House with a coherent package that clearly, as shown in our debate in January, commands its confidence.
Most of the Committee’s recommendations are for the House to take forward in other ways and as a member of the House of Commons Commission I can assure the House that that is exactly what is happening. The Commission has published three updates so far on progress in implementing the recommendations and will continue to keep the House informed. A very small number of recommendations from the Governance Committee that relate to the Commission require legislative action, hence the need for this Bill.
The House of Commons Commission is established under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978. To meet the recommendations of the Governance Committee, the Bill has three core provisions, all of which take the form of amendments to the 1978 Act. First, the Bill increases the number of Back-Bench members of the Commission from three to four. That will allow for a wider range of views across the House to be represented and will reduce the likelihood of the Government inadvertently finding themselves with a majority on the Commission.
Secondly, the Bill provides for the appointment of two external members and two officials to the Commission. The appointment of these additional members is designed to provide a wider perspective to support the Commission’s work and to embed the closer integration between setting the strategic direction and the implementation of resulting policy decisions that the Committee called for. The evidence to the Governance Committee suggested that the link between the current Management Board, which is to become the Executive Committee, and the Commission needed to be strengthened. This amendment will provide for that to happen. As a start in that direction, the existing external members of the Management Board have been invited to attend meetings of the Commission and they have started doing so.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for finding the time to make this modest change. Can he update the House on whether it will be possible to have the Clerk and Director General in place at the beginning of the new Parliament so that these provisions can take effect immediately?
Mr Hague
It should certainly be possible to have the Clerk in place. The recruitment process is well under way and the period for applications closed last week, on 16 February, and an interview panel has been established. It is very much our intention on the Commission that a new Clerk of the House will be appointed before Dissolution. My hon. and learned Friend will recall that the Governance Committee recommended that the Clerk should be in place and in a position to be one of those determining the appointment of the Director General, so there is a sequence to this. The process of recruiting the Director General has also begun, but given that Dissolution is only 21 House of Commons days away, that will not be completed before Dissolution. It will be well advanced, however, and it will be up to the new Commission, early in the next Parliament, including the new Clerk, to complete the appointment of the new Director General.
Thirdly, the Bill adds to the functions of the Commission a specific requirement to set the strategic priorities and objectives for the services provided by the House Departments. It is important that the Commission is given this specific responsibility in view of the number of different bodies involved in the governance of the House. This amendment to the 1978 Act will place direct responsibility on the Commission to provide strategic leadership for the services provided by the Departments of the House. It will then be for the Commission to set priorities and the House administration to respond accordingly.
As a member of the Commission and, I think, like all other members of the Commission, I am very supportive of the changes proposed, which should make the governance of the House more representative, more transparent and more cohesive. We can say more about the individual provisions when we move into Committee, but I think they are straightforward and fully in line with the Governance Committee’s proposals. Indeed, we have worked with the Chair of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Blackburn, with the Opposition and with officials from across the House to ensure that the Bill is consistent with the Committee’s report. I am particularly grateful for the support of those on the Opposition Front Bench in taking this forward so rapidly.
It is my firm expectation that with the support of the House today the Bill can progress through both Houses before Dissolution so as to ensure that the new Parliament can benefit from the governance of the new Commission at the earliest possible stage. I commend the Bill to the House.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I start by repeating my thanks to the Leader of the House for finding time to bring this short Bill before the House. I know it is never easy at this point in the parliamentary cycle, but it is important that the newly composed Commission proposed by the Governance Committee can start work immediately after the general election, and the Bill will enable that to happen. We will have a new governance regime for the new Parliament—something that those of us who served on the Committee were keen to achieve.
I am glad that the proposals outlined in the report are being implemented following the debate on 22 January, particularly because there was such a warm welcome from all parts of the House for the report. The Bill will help to clarify the role of the Commission as the place where the decisions on what happens in our part of Parliament are made.
Our Committee found that many hon. Members feel disconnected from the administration of the House, and our proposals will change that. In the membership, first, the number of parliamentarians will rise, with the ex officio members supplemented by four rather than three Back Benchers. My understanding is that they will be elected—perhaps the Leader of the House can confirm that—but with party balance in mind, of course, so that we do not accidentally end up with one party predominant on the Commission. Secondly, the external members will bring to the Commission experience of business practice, both public sector and private, which I am sure will be welcome. Finally, having the management on the Commission—the Clerk of the House and the Director General—will mean that those who have to implement the decisions are part of the decision-making process, which should tighten things up considerably.
I think that those improvements will maintain the important presence of the political parties and the Speaker, but increase the influence of Back Benchers because of the fact of election. The portfolios that have been suggested—assuming that that proposal goes ahead—will ensure that not only the House Committees but other important interests are represented at the top and fully understood there. The presence of the Clerk and the Director General will connect up the whole system far better. Hopefully, the changes will strengthen the House of Commons Commission, make it more responsive to Members, closer to its administration and more in tune with best practice.
We heard evidence that the Commission should be strengthened because it sometimes lacks the authority and capability to provide consistent strategic direction, and it is less good at taking a long-term view or setting a strategic framework for the House as a whole, rather than in response to events. That is important and is, in a way, a structural issue. Administration and governance of the House should have a longer term perspective, but Members, by our nature, tend to concentrate on one Parliament at a time—very wisely and not unnaturally, I think, given that the electorate do the same thing—and this can lead to essential works being put off time after time. At some point, the nettle has to be grasped, and the upcoming restoration and renewal programme is an example of precisely that. The new strategic role for the Commission is a key step in providing for better long-term governance of the House.
This is a short Bill, so this will be a short speech. I just wanted to say that this was the first time in 40 years that Members had considered these issues. I pay tribute to the Chair and the Governance Committee membership at large, because we worked very hard on this. I shall be proud to see the Bill become law and our recommendations put into effect. I join in commending the Bill to the House.
Mr Straw
Not at all—least of all today.
Those of us who are now Hegel and Marx—at least a bit, in my case; I hope I do not offend the hon. Gentleman—can genuinely say that a dialectical process took place in the Committee, where there was thesis, antithesis and synthesis from a variety of sources. I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who was energetic in the Committee and was not going to let anything go, but out of that energy—sometimes it felt as though I had a terrier locked on my ankle!—we got a better report.
One of the things that emerged during our inquiry was the opacity of the current arrangements for running this place—the lack of connection between the Commission and everything else underneath. One key Committee, the Administration Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), was in some kind of limbo. It did not have executive powers, although everybody thought it had. It had to negotiate with others. It had a membership that was put there principally by the Whips. In my view, had it not been for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and two or three others almost exclusively had sat through the Committee over the past five years, it could not have operated at all. That was one indication of the opacity and less than optimal way in which these arrangements operated.
There were other such indications—for instance, the fact that the non-executive members who give advice to the administration of the House were on the Management Board, not on the Commission, which is a slightly eccentric way of doing these things. We had very good evidence, including from the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who represents a large chunk of Scotland. I may say parenthetically that he and I were having a conversation about the difficulty of getting to his constituency. As we know, he is Viscount—these days, Mr—Thurso. He was talking about the fact that he would get an aeroplane to Inverness and then would drive. I asked what would happen if he were to go by train. He said, “Well, I would get a sleeper to Inverness and then another train.” I asked, in my naiveté, “Which station?”, to which the right hon. Gentleman replied, “Thurso, of course.” It must be reassuring to have a station named after you.
To return to the Bill, the right hon. Member for that large chunk of Scotland has chaired the Finance Committee. He has also been a member of the Commission. That was a very good exemplar for us to build on.
There are many recommendations of the Committee that do not need legislation; these recommendations do, and I believe strongly that with these changes we will have an administration for future Parliaments that is better and more effective than it is at present.
On the question whether the four Back-Bench commissioners should be paid, Members must consider that in the next Parliament, and do so rapidly. I am clear that if at least two of those Members have executive responsibilities for chairing important Committees, they must receive the same kind of emoluments as any other Chairman; otherwise, given the amount of time that will have to be devoted to these positions and the fact that they will be much more public, as it were, within the firmament of the Commons, people of serious calibre will not be attracted to undertake them. We do not want these positions and the other two on the Commission for Back Benchers to be seen as some sort of consolation prize for those who have failed to be elected to the chairmanship of some apparently prestigious subject Select Committee. That is extremely important, and I hope the Whips will bear that in mind, not least when they come to the timetabling.
Sir Oliver Heald
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it depends to some extent what portfolios are given to the other two as to whether one would want to see these as paid positions? If, for example, one of those posts was to play an important role on the restoration and renewal project or to play a very active role with visitors to the House, it could be an onerous position that might require that.
Business of the House
Oliver Heald Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
I shall certainly inform my right hon. Friend that the hon. Gentleman has raised this question, and he may be able to have a word with him himself because a week on Monday, on 2 February, there will be DCLG questions, when the hon. Gentleman may be able to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair and raise this point.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend see whether there is an opportunity to debate radiotherapy so that I can make a plea on behalf of my constituents for a radiotherapy unit in the Lister hospital in Stevenage, rather than their having to travel miles to Northwood in Middlesex for their treatment? The Lister is getting lots of investment, but this extra item would be very good news indeed.
Mr Hague
My hon. and learned Friend has very successfully raised the matter on the Floor of the House by asking that question, and as always speaks up strongly for his constituents. There are regular opportunities to raise health matters on the Floor of the House, and I have no doubt he will continue to do so assiduously.