Business of the House
Peter Bottomley Excerpts(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises a really important point. It is vital that we do everything we can to ensure that our older population are living in comfort. That is why the Government introduced the triple lock on the basic state pension. We have renewed that commitment, guaranteeing that pensions will rise for each year of this Parliament by the highest of average earnings growth, price inflation or 2.5%. That means that the basic state pension is now more than £1,450 a year higher than it was in 2010. This Government are determined to ensure that our older people have the right level of state support.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Following on from my right hon. Friend’s answer, when might we have a debate on early-day motion 2265?
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 552), dated 12 March 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18 March 2019, be annulled.]
Why are 500,000 British pensioners still denied increases 17 years after Judge Stanley Burnton declared that Government policy was not consistent or coherent? It seems time that we take our responsibilities to those pensioners as seriously as we take our responsibilities to others. Why do they get the increase in Jamaica but not Trinidad, in the United States but not Canada, and in the Philippines but not Indonesia? It is crazy.
Andrea Leadsom
I assume my hon. Friend is talking about overseas pensioners—he was not clear. I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can raise his question directly with Ministers. He will be aware that there have been different arrangements over many years. Of course, it is vital that we show fairness to pensioners overseas but also to those who are working hard in the United Kingdom to pay their taxes.
Business of the House
Peter Bottomley Excerpts(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Prime Minister has said that she is seeking agreement with an approach that the whole House can support as a way to ensure that we leave the European Union in very short order. However, if the talks that are under way now do not lead to a single, unified approach very soon, the Government will instead look to establish a consensus on a small number of clear options on the future relationship that could be put to the House in a series of votes.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Following the point made by the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), as the loan charge debate was concluded prematurely, is there a procedural question that might be considered by the Leader of the House, and perhaps by you, Mr Speaker, as to whether if House business collapses or ends earlier than expected, a proposed Government motion for business the following working day might be considered at the usual time? We anticipated Government motions and business coming forward late on Friday. It could not happen and I think we ought to have a procedure under which it could.
Andrea Leadsom
I am always keen to look very carefully at proposals made by hon. Members across the House and I will certainly take away my hon. Friend’s suggestion. However, what I have discussed with you, Mr Speaker, and my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is that we intend to bring the debate back for resumption. I hope that those who had already spoken in the debate would attend and those who were waiting to speak in it may have the opportunity to do so. Importantly, the Government and Opposition spokespeople will then be able to respond, hopefully giving some closure on that debate to the many people in the country who are very concerned about the matter.
Business of the House
Peter Bottomley Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Returning to the subject of how we will vote, will my right hon. Friend say, or might the Speaker be able to tell us, whether the voting papers will be available before we go into the Lobby to avoid a great big crowd and to avoid slowing down the voting procedure?
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am sure that Mr Speaker will want to say something about that at a later stage, but I believe that the House authorities, who have been extraordinarily assiduous in this and have gone way beyond their mere duty, will have not only provided for the relevant pieces of paper to be in the Lobbies at an early stage, but provided very large numbers of copies of the Order Paper, so that Members will be able very quickly to refer from the voting slips to the actual motion and nobody has any confusion about what they are voting for or against.
Business of the House
Peter Bottomley Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The principles that underlie the role of MPs were set out 250 years ago by Edmund Burke: not only to be accountable to and listen to our constituents, but to observe our own conscience and judgment. Those principles were seriously undermined last night by the Prime Minister, in one of the most contemptuous statements that I have ever heard—it is up against some stiff competition. May I ask the Leader of the House, again, whether she agrees with what the Prime Minister said last night?
Mr Speaker
Order. Let us grow up. Do grow up, for goodness’ sake. This is not a matter of party political hackery. Let us have some seriousness of purpose and mutual respect. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) is an experienced Member of the House. He has asked an honest question, to which I know the Leader of the House will honestly reply. For goodness’ sake, let us raise the level.
Speaker’s Statement
Peter Bottomley Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I wish to make a statement to the House. There has been much speculation over the past week about the possibility of the Government bringing before the House a motion on Brexit for another so-called meaningful vote under the statutory framework provided in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. On 13 March, however, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) asked on a point of order, at column 394, whether it would be proper for the Government to keep bringing the same deal back to the House ad infinitum. I replied that no ruling was necessary at that stage, but that one might be required at some point in the future. Subsequently Members on both sides of the House, and indeed on both sides of the Brexit argument, have expressed their concerns to me about the House being repeatedly asked to pronounce on the same fundamental proposition.
The 24th edition of “Erskine May” states on page 397:
“A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”
It goes on to state:
“Attempts have been made to evade this rule by raising again, with verbal alterations, the essential portions of motions which have been negatived. Whether the second motion is substantially the same as the first is finally a matter for the judgment of the Chair.”
This convention is very strong and of long standing, dating back to 2 April 1604. Last Thursday, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) quoted examples of occasions when the ruling had been reasserted by four different Speakers of this House, notably in 1864, 1870, 1882, 1891 and 1912. Each time, the Speaker of the day ruled that a motion could not be brought back because it had already been decided in that same Session of Parliament. Indeed, “Erskine May” makes reference to no fewer than 12 such rulings up to the year 1920.
One of the reasons why the rule has lasted so long is that it is a necessary rule to ensure the sensible use of the House’s time and proper respect for the decisions that it takes. Decisions of the House matter. They have weight. In many cases, they have direct effects not only here but on the lives of our constituents. Absence of Speaker intervention since 1920 is attributable not to the discontinuation of the convention but to general compliance with it; thus, as “Erskine May” notes, the Public Bill Office has often disallowed Bills on the ground that a Bill with the same or very similar long title cannot be presented again in the same Session.
So far as our present situation is concerned, let me summarise the chronology of events. The draft EU withdrawal agreement, giving effect to the deal between the Government and the EU, was published on 14 November and the agreement itself, together with the accompanying political declaration on the future relationship, received endorsement from the European Council on 25 November. The first scheduled debate on what I will hereafter refer to as “the deal” was due to take place on 11 December. However, on 10 December the vote was postponed after 164 speeches had already been made over three of the five days allotted for debate. That postponement was caused not by me or by the House, but by the Government. Indeed, I pointed out at the time that that was deeply discourteous to the House and I suggested that the permission of the House for that postponement should be sought. Regrettably, it was not.
Over five weeks later, following a further five-day debate, the first meaningful vote was held on 15 January, which the Government lost by a margin of 230 votes—the largest in parliamentary history. Subsequently, the second meaningful vote was expected to take place in February, but once again there was a postponement. It finally happened only last Tuesday, 12 March. The Government’s motion on the deal was again very heavily defeated.
In my judgment, that second meaningful vote motion did not fall foul of the convention about matters already having been decided during the same Session. This was because it could be credibly argued that it was a different proposition from that already rejected by the House on 15 January. It contained a number of legal changes which the Government considered to be binding and which had been agreed with the European Union after intensive discussions. Moreover, the Government’s second meaningful vote motion was accompanied by the publication of three new documents—two issued jointly with the EU and a unilateral declaration from the UK not objected to by the EU. In procedural terms, it was therefore quite proper that the debate and the second vote took place last week. The Government responded to its defeat, as they had promised to do, by scheduling debates about a no-deal Brexit and an extension of article 50 on 13 and 14 March respectively.
It has been strongly rumoured, although I have not received confirmation of this, that a third, and even possibly a fourth, meaningful vote motion will be attempted. Hence this statement, which is designed to signal what would be orderly and what would not. This is my conclusion: if the Government wish to bring forward a new proposition that is neither the same nor substantially the same as that disposed of by the House on 12 March, that would be entirely in order. What the Government cannot legitimately do is to resubmit to the House the same proposition or substantially the same proposition as that of last week, which was rejected by 149 votes. This ruling should not be regarded as my last word on the subject; it is simply meant to indicate the test which the Government must meet in order for me to rule that a third meaningful vote can legitimately be held in this parliamentary Session.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I make three points following your helpful statement?
First, at the beginning of it, you used “may” and not the word “must”. At the end, you used the word “must” and not the word “may”. Those are the first two points.
The third point is this: when Sir Ian Gilmour put forward a provision in effect for putting carpets and coffee in betting offices, the puritans objected, so the Bill was withdrawn. Shortly afterwards, a Bill on miscellaneous premises and miscellaneous provisions was passed because no one noticed that it was to do with coffee and carpets in betting shops.
Therefore, there are times when the title of a Bill has been changed. Perhaps if the long title of something that the Government proposed was changed, that might be accepted by the Chair, rather than it having to be ruled out.
Retirement of the Clerk of the House
Peter Bottomley Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
In the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), both of whom have served here longer than the Under Clerk, may I, as one who also came here in 1975, say that I think his title of Under Clerk of the Parliaments is one that should be remembered? His first predecessor in 1363 was paid £5 a year. If anyone looks at the 1824 Act about the Clerk of the Parliaments, who is up the other end of the building, they will see that it tends to defend all their emoluments, advantages and other ways of skimming off cash that are not allowed either on this side of the Palace of Westminster or, I hope, up there as well.
We must remember that in paying tribute to Sir David we are saying thank you also to all those who have worked with him. Not every Clerk can become the Under Clerk, but all of them work together seamlessly. That is partly down to leadership, but a lot of it relates to the community and to combined tradition and ethics.
We must also remember that, as the Under Clerk, Sir David is editor of “Erskine May” and if he is appointed to the House of Lords—I am not saying that he necessarily will be—I hope that he will last longer than Erskine May did. Sir Thomas Erskine May was dead seven days after he was appointed to the House of Lords—seven times longer than the shortest barony, which was that of Frederic Leighton, who lasted for only 24 hours—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) looks shocked, so I tell her to watch out if she ever gets sent up to the other place.
We must remember that, in the years leading up to his being Clerk of the House of Commons, Sir David went through many roles. If, like some of his ancestors, he lives to 100, that is another 35 years—rather a short time, given all the things he is capable of doing.
Let us hope that people recruited to the House service will look to those who have been Clerks and Assistant Clerks and say that serving the House, not as a civil servant, is as important as being elected to serve as a Member of Parliament. We look on him as one of ours, and I hope he looks on us as his friends.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved, nemine contradicente,
That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to Sir David Natzler KCB, on his retirement from the office of Clerk of the House, this House’s gratitude for his long and distinguished service, for his wise contribution to the development of the procedure of the House and to modernising its practices, for his leadership and thoughtfulness in the discharge of his duties as head of the House Service, and for the courteous and helpful advice always given to individual honourable Members.
Business of the House
Peter Bottomley Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an important point. She is absolutely right; this does require primary legislation. We will be looking carefully at how we can bring that forward as soon as possible. In the meantime we have Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions on Tuesday 20 November and she might want to raise the issue there.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I am glad my right hon. Friend told us about the women MPs of the world and the Youth Parliament, which has also been referred to. I was able to listen to a bit of the women MPs of the world debate and I was very pleased to see them contributing in this Chamber.
Early-day motion 1826 is on the Shaw report on deportation.
[That this House joins the Home Secretary in endorsing the recommendations of the Shaw Report on possible deportations of foreign nationals, especially when they last lived in their family’s country of residence when young.]
It is associated with two previous EDMs, Nos. 1591 and 1630, about Kweku Adoboli, together with the written questions that were tabled yesterday— questions 157 to 162, on page 19. Is it possible to have a debate on the Shaw report? Can Ministers, instead of saying “We don’t discuss individual cases,” actually say why someone has been deported to a country he last lived in when he was four, and what risk assessment was made of his being allowed to stay here?
May I briefly also mention early-day motion 1440 on fixed odds betting terminals from the summer?
[That this House welcomes the Government's decision to cut the stake on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals to £2; acknowledges that a £2 stake is now supported by parties across this House; notes that a reduced stake will greatly improve the lives of problem and at-risk gamblers, as well as their families and wider communities; further notes with concern that each day £5 million is lost on such machines; notes with equal concern that the stake is not due to be reduced until April 2020; and calls on the Government to implement this new reduced stake of £2 immediately, to prevent any further gambling related harm or possible loss of life.]
It has been well met by responses in the Commons and by the Government, and I thank the Government for that. We look forward to seeing it in the Finance (No. 3) Bill and to seeing progress to reduce the appalling losses, particularly for people who cannot afford the money they are betting.
Business of the House
Peter Bottomley Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I will be briefer than the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) in quickly raising two issues.
The first is the proposal—inappropriate in many people’s eyes—to collocate a learning centre with the holocaust memorial proposed for Victoria Tower gardens.
Can the Government publish a paper showing their comparison of the merits there with those of the Imperial War Museum and how the present proposal matches the specification in the national Holocaust Memorial Foundation specification of September 2015?
I shall speak briefly to a separate issue, but one that matters to one person and many watching. Kweku Adoboli is 38. He was last in Ghana aged 4, when his father, as a senior United Nations official, was expelled from some other place. Kweku, until he came here aged 11—he has been here continuously since then—lived in Israel, Syria and Iraq.
How is it public purpose that someone that age when he was last in Ghana should be expelled there as a consequence of the offence for which he was convicted?
Andrea Leadsom
On my hon. Friend’s last point, if he would like to write to me with the details, I could take it up with the Home Office or the Foreign Office, as appropriate. With regards to his first point, I think we are all very excited about the holocaust memorial. I understand that a consultation is going on at the moment in Church House, and he should make his views known there. Again, if he would like to write to me on that point, I can take it up.
Tributes (Speaker Martin)
Peter Bottomley Excerpts(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Michael Martin would have been an MP for nine years when his successor but two was born. It is worth noting that if had he remained in the Chair until now and then gone on for a few more years, he might have been Father of the House as well as Speaker. How he would have heard the nomination and dragged himself to the Chair I am not quite sure, but he probably would have found a way.
It is worth noting that some of the criticism of him was absurd. A quarter of a million pounds was thought to have been spent on Speaker’s Green, which was supposed to have been his garden. The fact that it is a bike rack and a goods yard for the rebuilding of the Palace shows how sometimes our journalists think that a story is too good to check. He put up with that with good nature, and it is worth noting that his reason for retiring from the speakership was the unity of the House.
He and I once had a conversation when he was Speaker about how it might be possible to have a debate in the House about the conduct and role of the Chair without that being an implied criticism of the Speaker. Perhaps you as his successor, Mr Speaker, might find a way for that to happen every two or three years, because there are many things that happen when a Speaker might like to get the sort of direction that Speaker Lowther claimed that he had when he had Charles I to deal with.
Sir Peter Bottomley
Speaker Lenthall—forgive me.
The Speaker whom I think had the problem with how the House dealt with expenses was Michael Martin’s predecessor. I have said this in the House before, so it will be no surprise. If his predecessor had backed up Elizabeth Filkin over the expenses rows involving a number of MPs, perhaps the standard of behaviour among some Members would not have fallen so low or become so widespread. I think that he, in effect, was carrying some of the consequences of what happened before him.
I am parliamentary warden of St Margaret’s Church in Parliament Square. I am glad to say that we have had inclusiveness in the Chair—I do not think you need to be socially mobile to get into the Speaker’s Chair, and being able to be there as someone who is Jewish, someone who is Christian (Methodist) such as George Thomas, or someone who is Christian (Roman Catholic) such as Michael Martin, is a sign of the inclusiveness of this place and something that I am proud of.
I am also proud that Michael Martin, when he was a Back Bencher—he continued doing this for a bit when he was Speaker—would come to the monthly communion services that are held at St Margaret’s, which are followed by a breakfast in Speaker’s House for which we are grateful, Mr Speaker. Having a Roman Catholic joining in with Christians of other denominations in a monthly service was an example of the inclusiveness that he showed by example, even if some of the prelates in his Church did not approve.
Business of the House
Peter Bottomley Excerpts(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
First, I commend the hon. Lady on her Bill, which really will seek to improve the quality and fitness of houses for human habitation. The Government are pleased to support it and, as I said to the House last week and the week before, the Government will bring forward money resolutions on a case-by-case basis, and we are working towards supporting her Bill.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
There were many police officers at the remarkable memorial service yesterday for Sean O’Callaghan, and many of the police deserve congratulations on their constant bravery on blue-light calls dealing with terrorism, road traffic crashes and many other things that are awful to take part in.
On early-day motion 1093, and linked to an article in this week’s Private Eye and the book “Behind The Blue Line: My Fight Against Racism and Discrimination in the Police”, may we have a debate in Government time on whether the Metropolitan police should ask for a similar inquiry to the one by Sir Richard Henriques into the allegations against Lord Bramall, Ted Heath and Leon Brittan?
[That this House calls for an inquiry into the investigations and prosecution decisions that preceded the acquittal of retired Metropolitan Police Sergeant Councillor Gurpal Virdi, to establish how there could be a trial without evidence from PC Markwick and PC Mady, how PC Makins could be a prosecution witness when his statement contradicted specific claims by the complainant, how the Crown Prosecution Service could have believed the false allegation of indecent assault with a collapsible baton a decade before they were introduced, and to establish why the Independent Police Complaints Commission referred Mr Virdi’s complaint to the Metropolitan Police Department of Professional Standards whose peculiar original investigation led to the false statements about Mr Virdi and to the unjustified prosecution.]
The good Asian police sergeant Gurpal Virdi was charged inappropriately and investigated badly, and I am reminded of many of the comments Matthew Scott made about Sir Richard’s report, including the
“jaw-dropping naivety, asinine stupidity and Clouseauesque incompetence in allowing themselves to be duped by a man who is plainly either a dishonest chancer or a loopy fantasist.”
These things matter and they matter to the police.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a serious matter, and I understand that the Crown Prosecution Service has previously provided him with a more detailed explanation of the decision-making in this case. The decision to prosecute Mr Virdi was made in accordance with the test set out in the code for crown prosecutors and he was subsequently acquitted by the jury after a full trial. Any decision on whether to prosecute a criminal matter is for the police and ultimately the CPS to take, but I urge my hon. Friend to raise this at the next Home Office questions just after the Easter recess.