Business of the House

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will have heard me say that although there were statistical errors, they will not have affected the surveillance and they will not have directly affected livestock businesses through costs and impacts. When the statisticians have identified and quantified the errors, there will be an opportunity for Ministers to provide information to the House about the nature of the error.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

May we have a statement from the Home Office to highlight the success of the National Crime Agency in cracking an international paedophile internet ring responsible for the online sex abuse of children living in poverty in the Philippines? Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to congratulate Northamptonshire police, who first uncovered the ring through a routine investigation of the then registered sex offender and now convicted paedophile Timothy Ford in his home in Kettering? Does that not show that sometimes diligent routine local police work can have important international repercussions?

Business of the House

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

This comes a short while after the sad death of Wyn Roberts, who was such a passionate advocate of the Welsh Language Act and the use of the Welsh language in services, which we have to ensure is maintained. I will raise the issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to ensure that the intentions of the Act are being seen through.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

May we have a debate on effective political representation? The Leader of the House will notice that, while we have the honourable presence of Members from minority parties in the Chamber, there are no Back-Bench Members from the Liberal Democrat party in their place. They apparently have no interest whatever in the future business of the House, and there were no Liberal Democrat Members present at the important debate in Westminster Hall on Romanian and Bulgarian immigration just before Christmas. Is it true that the Liberal Democrats have passed a new year’s resolution to take Thursdays off? Is it not clear that there is very little point in people voting for Liberal Democrats, because they do not turn up and represent them?

[Mr Lansley]

I hear what my hon. Friend has to say. I take an alternative construction, which is to say that Members of the Liberal Democrat party are, as part of this coalition Government, so content with the proposals for business, as brought forward by the Deputy Leader of the House and me, that they do not see any need to question them.

Business of the House

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady is of course right that the principle of transparency applies and is one that we seek to pursue. If I may, I will raise that issue with Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

On Tuesday night, the press were briefed about a welcome introduction of restrictions on certain benefits for immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania. Will the Leader of the House explain how this House has been informed of those restrictions, what the legislative mechanism is for their introduction, whether they include restrictions on tax credits and whether they will also apply to other EU member states?

[Mr Lansley]

The House was made aware by the fact that regulations to that effect were laid on Wednesday morning; they are subject to the negative procedure, so they can be brought into force. In that sense, they are available for the House to see, and if any hon. Member wishes to pray against them, they can be prayed against under the normal arrangements.

On my hon. Friend’s other points, I do not know that the regulations extend elsewhere or in any sense beyond this country, but the measures we have taken are informed by a great deal of work done by the Government to examine the benefit arrangements available to those who exercise their free movement rights inside the European Union. That work gives us confidence that we can introduce the proposed measures.

Business of the House

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a statement but, as the hon. Gentleman has raised an important and specific point, I will ask the Secretary of State for Energy to reply to him directly.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Small business Saturday was a big success in the borough of Kettering last week, when local people came out to support their local traders. Given that the beneficial effects of every £1 spent in the local economy are worth £1.76, I am sure that the Leader of the House, like me, is supporting the campaign by the Federation of Small Businesses to keep trade local. The aim is to encourage people to buy locally from now until Christmas. Will he ensure that, throughout 2014, we have regular opportunities to highlight the good work and endeavour of local small businesses and traders?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes. I believe that we in South Cambridgeshire shared my hon. Friend’s experience, and I am sure that was the case throughout the country. Of course we want to support local businesses, but so do many consumers who require locally produced, well-differentiated goods. Small businesses are the economic powerhouse of the future. We have 400,000 more of them now, and small business formation is at a record level. That presents a tremendous prospect, as long as we continue to give those businesses the support they require.

Business without Debate

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) for delaying his extended Adjournment debate, but given that he was expecting a half hour’s debate but can now have the best part of two hours and 15 minutes, I hope he will forgive me on this occasion. As somebody who no doubt has travelled a lot on the West Anglia rail line, he will be used to delays in any event.

I wished to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we have just had absolutely no explanation from the Deputy Leader of the House for why tomorrow’s sitting in Westminster Hall is to be changed. [Interruption.] The Chief Whip, who is just leaving, will be familiar with this argument, because we had this debate when he was Leader of the House. The Leader and Deputy Leader of the House are being too cavalier in simply excising three hours of parliamentary airtime. I take the view, and I hope other right hon. and hon. Members do as well, that the sittings in Westminster Hall are extremely important. If they were not, the House would not have decided to set them up in the first place. I am pretty sure that the Liaison Committee also regards them as important, because it regularly schedules important debates from the various Select Committees to be debated for up to three hours in Westminster Hall.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern for the Liaison Committee, but I can assure him that it wants to take cognizance of other events happening tomorrow adjoining Westminster Hall and that I have made provision for the debate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce), the Chairman of the International Development Committee, was going to introduce tomorrow to take place on another suitable occasion soon.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is acting with the best of intentions, but he was sitting in his place, as I was sitting in mine, when the Deputy Leader of the House rose simply to move this motion formally, without giving any explanation of the circumstances tomorrow whatsoever. I think the House deserves a better explanation. I understand that tomorrow there is an important celebration in the main Westminster Hall relating to the death of Nelson Mandela. No doubt, that will be a wonderful occasion, and it is right for the House to celebrate the great man’s life in that way, but we have been given no explanation for why the sitting in the small Westminster Hall tomorrow afternoon is to be cancelled. Is it to do with security, logistics, staffing? I do not know. I would welcome an intervention from the Deputy Leader of the House, if he wants to apprise the House of the reasons, but as far as I can tell no one in the Chamber knows why the sitting is to be cancelled.

I have no doubt that the Chairman of the Liaison Committee is acting in good faith, but scheduled on the Order Paper, as we speak, are two very important debates from the International Development Committee. I see in his place the esteemed Chairman of that Select Committee, who has been good enough to attend this afternoon, no doubt also anticipating an explanation from the Deputy Leader of the House for cancelling the sitting. These debates would have been on the subjects of global food security and violence against women and girls.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

Perhaps to help the hon. Gentleman let me explain that I was asked whether the Committee would agree to postpone tomorrow’s debates. It was not me who took the decision; my Committee took it. Our decision was that, in the circumstances, provided we were reassured that we would be able to conduct the debates in short order subsequently, we would agree to do so. We have already been offered dates for both debates in January.

[Mr Hollobone]

I have no doubt at all that the right hon. Gentleman, along with his Committee, has acted entirely in good faith. I put it to him, however, that his rescheduled debates will replace other debates, which will never see the light of day, because we are losing three hours of important parliamentary airtime—with no explanation to this House of why that is happening.

If on today’s Order Paper, along with this motion, a suggestion had been made—I guess it would have been another item rescheduling the sitting in Westminster Hall to another day—I could just about have lived with it. Why have we had no suggestion from the Deputy Leader of the House that the International Development Committee have its debate in Westminster Hall tomorrow morning, before the Nelson Mandela celebration takes place there? Why does today’s Order Paper not suggest that the International Development Committee has its important debates on Monday afternoon from 1.30 to 4.30 or from 4.30 to 7.30? Sittings in Westminster Hall take place on Monday afternoons so why, given the importance of these subjects and the reassurance of the Chairman of the International Development Committee that his debates would take place in short order, did the Deputy Leader of the House not make provision for these debates to take place on Monday?

I never had the privilege of meeting Nelson Mandela, but I am pretty sure that he was concerned about violence against women and girls. I am pretty sure, too, that he was also concerned about global food security. I am thus pretty sure that he would have wanted the British House of Commons to discuss those important items. I have a feeling that he would have been rather upset if his celebration—if I make the correct assumption—displaced three hours of important debates on those crucial subjects.

I do not think I am being unreasonable in saying that, in putting forward this motion tonight, in failing to provide us with an explanation for why the Westminster Hall sitting is not going to take place and in not putting forward an alternative time slot, the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House are not playing fair by this House. This is a matter I have raised previously. I regard debates in Westminster Hall as very important, and I am pretty sure that the House of Commons does, too. It is simply not good enough to come here at the end of today’s sitting to wipe out three hours of parliamentary airtime on important debates without first giving the House an explanation or secondly providing an alternative time and date for those debates to take place.

Business of the House (Today)

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). You will know, Mr Speaker, as the guardian of the Standing Orders in this place, how important they are to the effective running of House business. We had an interesting debate—I think it was on Monday last week—about the amendment of certain Standing Orders. I am not aware that the Government approached the Procedure Committee—or indeed any other Committee—with a view to amending Standing Order No. 20.

This issue crops up again and again with opposed private business. If the Government are not happy with the rule that allows us to debate these matters at 4 o’clock on any given afternoon, they need to make representations to the appropriate Committee to get the Standing Order permanently amended. Indeed, we would not even be having this debate at this time on this afternoon, were it not for one or two hon. Members objecting at the requisite point on previous evenings when this item was on the Order Paper and it was not possible to have debate like the one we are having this afternoon.

There must be very good reasons, laid down in “Erskine May” or other House publications, to explain why Standing Order No. 20 is in place. These Standing Orders are very difficult to make, and there must have been substantial debate about the merits and demerits of this Standing Order when it was drawn up. The House, in its wisdom, has decided that opposed private business should be debated between the hours of 4 pm and 7 pm on any given day, and I suggest that Members’ minds may be fresher at that time than later in the evening.

You will know, Mr Speaker, that some of this opposed private business is extremely arcane. Many fine points of detail are extracted by Members who are interested in scrutinising such legislation, and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is an exemplar in that regard. However, when he tries to do a service to the House by scrutinising such detailed legislation, what he is faced with, again and again, is criticism from other Members who resent having to debate such detailed items well into the evening, and well past the time at which they had expected to be able to go home.

The reason such legislation is not debated between 4 pm and 7 pm is that, on each occasion, the Executive try to fiddle with the Order Paper—fiddle with the agenda—so that it is not debated at the appropriate time. Some of us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and me, are fed up with that abuse of the parliamentary timetable, but, despite our best efforts to obtain a reasonable response from the Executive, we are not getting that reasonable response.

I suggest to the Executive that if they want to amend Standing Order No. 20, they should set about trying to get that done through the Procedure Committee. Until they do so, I do not see why the House must debate the order of opposed private business when it is clearly laid out in the Standing Orders of the House, which all of us should do our best to abide by.

[Mr Lansley]

With the leave of the House, Mr Speaker, I shall respond to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone).

As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, the House could have considered this matter on earlier occasions, but the motion was objected to on those occasions. If the House had approved it at an earlier stage, it would have been clear to Members who are interested in the opposed private business that it would be dealt with later in the day.

We are not seeking to amend Standing Order No. 20. We are asking the House, “notwithstanding Standing Order No. 20”, to fix the time of the business today, our purpose being to ensure that time is available for both the public business and the opposed private business. I make no apology to the House, or beyond, for the fact that we give priority to public business in this place. As it happens, however, there is more pressure on public business than usual today as a consequence of yesterday’s tributes to Nelson Mandela. Today’s urgent question and statement, and, indeed, the motion relating to terrorism, might otherwise have been taken yesterday.

This is a decision for the House, and the House is being invited, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 20, to ensure that there is sufficient time for the public business today, followed by the protected three hours for the private business.

[Mr Hollobone]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Lansley]

No.

Question put.

Amendment of Standing Orders

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Do not the facts paint a very different picture? In the first part of this Parliament, when the first Session ran for two years, there were not the requisite number of days for the Backbench Business Committee as there should have been. These assurances, I would suggest, are completely worthless.

[Mr Walker]

In an ideal world, the Standing Order would be amended to ensure—so that there was no wriggle room—that the additional days would be provided, but at this point I do not feel that the House is with me. This is an argument in gestation, and we need to allow it longer in the womb before it bursts forth in its full glory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her speech, which I am listening to closely. Let us say there were a change of Government, and a Labour Government decided to do the same thing and have an initial Session over two calendar years, the then Leader of the House and the then Chief Whip might not be as amenable as the current ones, and if so, without the change to the Standing Order, her words would ring very hollow indeed.

[Natascha Engel]

The hon. Gentleman was present when we produced our first provisional report, and all I would say is that one of our founding principles was that we should consider changing rules as and when we found a problem. There was not a problem in that first Session. However, if there is a problem in the future, I will personally lead the charge to ensure that we change the rules in order to accommodate and rectify it.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Lady, but there was a problem. She had to get up on her feet every week during questions to the Leader of the House and beg for the Backbench Business Committee to be given time. In the end, that begging worked, but there was a problem and it was only her active intervention that solved it.

[Natascha Engel]

I would say that I was assertively, or even aggressively, demanding rather than begging. The Government eventually realised that they had no option but to pro rata the days, because there would have been uproar if they had not done so.

That brings me to my next point. As has been said, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) mentioned his debate on assisted dying in his submission to the Procedure Committee. A full day of debate was allocated. It was considerably longer than an hour and a half, but it is true that there would have been another 20 minutes of debate and that votes would have taken place at the end of the day. However, that problem was identified only in retrospect, so even if we had had the power to timetable a business motion, it would not have happened on that day.

I am concerned that the proposal could have unintended consequences. One of the things that I have witnessed working really well in Back-Bench debates is that, at the moment, Back Benchers control their own time by having flexibility. We are therefore able to respond to events such as urgent questions, statements and whatever else might happen in the House on the day. Unlike in debates in Government time, it is extraordinary how Back Benchers are aware and respectful of any subsequent debates and of the number of Members who have put their name down to speak. When time limits are imposed, Members take less time in order to allow others into the debate and to shorten the debate in order to allow the following debate enough time to be heard. We all know that, if we started to timetable our debates, that would no longer happen. When debates are timetabled, we fill that time. We go to the limit of the time that is permitted. That would take away something from the Backbench Business Committee that is working extremely well and that makes Back-Bench debates flexible.

The proposals could make the situation worse, which is why I oppose them. At the same time, I welcome the spirit in which the report was written and in which the motions were tabled by the Procedure Committee. I take nothing away from any of that. I ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne to leave the door open so that, if I am wrong and there are problems of this nature in the future, we will be able to return to the Procedure Committee and ask it to table motions for us to help us out. I would appreciate that enormously. I am glad that he has said he will not press these matters to a vote today, because our two Committees work very well together to represent the best interests of the wide variety of Back Benchers in this House. I am therefore grateful that he has taken such a conciliatory attitude this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I congratulate the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), on the way in which he opened this debate, and the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), on the way in which she responded.

If any Members present are regretting this debate taking place, they have only themselves to blame, because the House in its order of 26 November said that this motion should be debated for 90 minutes at the close of play today. Members should have objected to that at the time if they disagreed. The Chairman of the Procedure Committee says that he will not press the motion to a vote, so does he intend to withdraw it rather than just concede defeat to the Government amendments?

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend has identified my own weaknesses in matters of procedure. My understanding is that I will allow the Government amendments to go forward unchallenged, because Mr Speaker’s intention was to put the amendments to the House. If I am wrong about that, I apologise, and my hon. Friend has exposed me as a charlatan and a fraud as Chairman of the Procedure Committee.

[Mr Hollobone]

I know for a certain fact that my hon. Friend is not a charlatan and a fraud.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer even to himself, who is by virtue an honourable Member, as a charlatan and a fraud?

[Mr Speaker]

It is not disorderly, but it is an example of unwarranted self-flagellation.

[Mr Hollobone]

I know for a certain fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne is not a charlatan and a fraud. I very much hope that he withdraws his motion, because then the Government amendments could not be passed.

[John Hemming]

The hon. Gentleman made the point just before accepting my intervention: if the motion is withdrawn, the Government amendments cannot be passed. However, then we would not have any changes at all. It is a question for the House as to whether the House divides; it is not a question for the Chairman of a particular Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

I strongly encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne to withdraw his motion at the appropriate point and to come back to this matter on another day.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

As I understand it, Mr Speaker, for a motion to be withdrawn, it requires the consent of the whole House, and one Member opposing it can stop that withdrawal taking place. It is too late for my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, to withdraw his motion.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman’s understanding is correct. The motion is now owned by the House, and withdrawal of it would require the assent of the House. It cannot be summarily withdrawn.

[Mr Hollobone]

In that case, I encourage my hon. Friend to seek the leave of the House to withdraw the motion. I gently say to him and to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire that if ever the Procedure Committee and the Backbench Business Committee come to the Floor of the House divided on an issue, they are effectively allowing the Executive to walk all over both of them, which is a great shame as far as the whole House is concerned.

I disagree with the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire about her worries over the 35 days. I simply do not trust the Executive, whoever they might be, to honour their commitment to give 35 days to the Backbench Business Committee. There might be all sorts of excuses that a re-elected coalition Government, a majority Conservative Government or indeed a Labour Government might give to the House about not sticking to that ruling. In a Session longer than a calendar year, it would be very tempting, especially for an incoming Government, to seek not to give a pro rata adjustment to the Backbench Business Committee’s allocation of time.

We have not spoken very much about the Select Committee statements motion, but I have some concerns about how it has been drafted. It says in paragraph (1)(a) of the proposed Standing Order that

“the Backbench Business Committee may determine that a statement will be made on the publication of a select committee report or announcement of an inquiry.”

It does not make it clear that the Committee would do that only in response to a request from the relevant Select Committee. As I read that proposed Standing Order, the Backbench Business Committee could force a Select Committee to make a statement on the publication of one of its reports. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Backbench Business Committee for all the reasons that the hon. Lady outlined about its not seeking to become more powerful than it should be, but the way that the motion is drafted would give the Backbench Business Committee the power to do that, although I am sure it is not requesting it.

In paragraph (4) of the Select Committee statements motion, it says, in relation to the time given to such a statement, that

“no question”—

on the statement—

“shall be taken after the end of any period specified by the Backbench Business Committee or the Liaison Committee in its determination.”

I do not agree with that, Mr Speaker. When we have statements on the Floor of the House from Ministers, you, through your wisdom, decide how long that statement should run, and you do that by seeing how many Members of the House are standing to ask questions. Sometimes those statement do not include all the Members who want to ask questions; sometimes they run for a very long time indeed. The point is that the allocation of time is not specified beforehand. It is in your wisdom and at your discretion how long a statement should last. If, under the proposed procedure, the Backbench Business Committee allows a statement on a Select Committee publication to take place, either in this Chamber or in Westminster Hall, it should be up to Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speaker or the Chairman in Westminster Hall to decide how long that statement should run depending on the level of interest in it shown by those Members who are standing to ask questions. I am disappointed in the rather sloppy wording of the Select Committee statements motion. The point about how long statements should run has been missed, and I am very worried that if we have an extended Session of Parliament the Government will not necessarily provide the pro rata entitlement to the Backbench Business Committee that this House would like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

I suspect that if I moved on to the question of the introduction of a House business Committee, Mr Speaker, you might begin to twitch and suggest that I was straying beyond the remit of the motions before us. I see absolutely no sign that the Government will fulfil their commitment, written into the coalition agreement, that after three years, a House business Committee would be established. Perhaps the Front Benchers could say today when they plan to table motions to do that.

It is worth reminding hon. Members that we in this House have no power to lay a motion before the House to change Standing Orders. We are entirely dependent on the Front Benchers’ beneficence in tabling motions to make such changes. That power was lost much more recently than people imagine; I cannot remember the exact date, but it was long after the beginning of the timetabling of business at the time of the Home Rule debates in the 19th century.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Indeed, item 21 in today’s Order Paper is a helpful list of adjournment dates for the House going all the way through to the end of 2014, but it is an item about which there is no debate allowed whatever. It has been put on the Order Paper by the Executive, and the House is not even allowed to debate it.

[Mr Jenkin]

I have some sympathy with the idea that we do not debate everything that is on the Order Paper, because there is so much on a modern Order Paper that we would be here 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, if we did. However, it should be for this House to decide what is debated and what is important. It should not be stitched up between the two Front-Bench teams, or laid down by the Government of the day. We respect and fully understand the principle that any Government must be able to obtain their business, but the ability to manipulate the Order Paper in their interests is surely not right for a modern Parliament in a modern democracy in which people expect more accountability and more debate on important matters.

Finally, I counsel my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, in whose name the motion stands, that he would be well within his rights to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. The Backbench Business Committee will continue to sit in public regardless of whether or not a Standing Order requires it to do so. This exercise has therefore become rather otiose, because of the Government’s amendments. If he begs to ask leave to withdraw the motion, I think that he will be making the point that the Government have made this exercise rather pointless.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I rise to support the motion on Select Committee statements and to offer our support to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), in relation to the amendments to the motion that was tabled by the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), which stand in the names of the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House.

I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Broxbourne for opening the debate and explaining his thinking behind the motion. He is a treasured Member of the House and a staunch defender of Back-Bench Members’ rights. He is deeply respected by all Members. On this occasion, however, I am afraid that, despite his erudite explanation of the rationale behind his amendments, we are unable to support them in their entirety, for reasons I will lay before the House shortly.

Before that, I want to acknowledge the Backbench Business Committee, an innovation that arose from the Wright Committee reforms, which has enjoyed a great deal of success since its initiation in 2010. That success has been in no small part due to the tireless work of its Chair and her open-minded approach to the selection of topics to be debated.

Another success of the Wright reforms has been the election of members of Select Committees and their Chairs. There is no doubt that the work of Select Committees has been given more credibility as a consequence of those reforms. How often now do we see the broadcast media giving priority to the coverage of Select Committee hearings? Who can doubt that the Public Accounts Committee, under the steely leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), is now seen as a really effective way of holding public services to account for the resources they spend on our behalf.

The changes to Standing Orders recommended in the motion are the next logical step in the process of improving the workings of the House and raising further the profile of the work of our Select Committees. There is no doubt that the present system of allowing Select Committee Chairs to make a statement to the House is cumbersome and that the proposed change to the Standing Orders will make it easier for Members of the House to draw out areas of interest in a Select Committee report by asking the relevant question, rather than by having to intervene. Interventions are good for the cut and thrust of a full-blooded debate, but in our view they are not the most appropriate mechanism for handling what is in effect a statement to the House by a Select Committee.

The proposed new Standing Order will also give the Backbench Business Committee discretion in allocating a specified period of time for a Select Committee statement. The same discretion will be made available to the Liaison Committee in relation to debates in Westminster Hall.

With regard to the amendments to the motion relating to Back-Bench business, we support the first change proposed by the hon. Member for Broxbourne, which would give the Backbench Business Committee the formal power to hear representations from Members of the House in public. My understanding is that that has become the norm. Indeed, I have been present when Members have made representations. I know, because I have seen it myself, that it really works, in the sense that it reflects entirely the slow but welcome progress to ever-greater transparency in this place. It would therefore be helpful to see that practice written into Standing Orders. However, we join the Chair of the Committee and the Leader of the House in opposing a formal writing into Standing Orders of the principle of extending the number of days made available for Back-Bench business when the parliamentary Session extends beyond the usual year. This did not prove to be an issue in the first Session of this Parliament, which went on for what seemed like an almost interminable two years. We agree that that is unlikely to occur again given the legislation on fixed-term Parliaments that is now on the statute book.

We disagree with the part of the motion that would give the Backbench Business Committee the power to table business motions governing Back-Bench business days. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee believes that it is important that it should not have the power to table programme motions. Back-Bench business days have always been more flexible and the time has generally been split on the day depending on the number of speakers for debates. This means that Members regulate themselves and almost always have respectful regard for subsequent debates. Her fear, as she clearly articulated, is that if the Committee were to start programming, debates would fill the space they are allocated rather than the space they need.

[Mr Hollobone]

Does the hon. Lady appreciate the dichotomy in her argument in that she is in favour of flexibility with regard to debates on the Floor of the House but not with regard to how long statements should run in Back-Bench time?

[Angela Smith]

The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee pointed out that for the greater part of the time Back-Bench business works on a consensual basis. I think she would want that spirit to be reflected in future arrangements rather than having written into Standing Orders a procedure that is unwieldy and may, in effect, start to distort the nature of the business that takes place on these days, which are typically sitting Thursdays.

We agree with this way of continuing Back-Bench business and encourage Members of the House to support the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee and the amendments. Of course, it is up to right hon. and hon. Members to make up their own minds on these changes, but I hope they can be guided by the Committee on these important matters. I am pleased that the Chair of the Procedure Committee has acquiesced in that view. On that basis, I hope that the House will agree to allow the amendments to stand.

Business of the House

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Those Ministers may even want to put a copy of that reply in the Library of the House.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

In April, the amount that someone can earn before paying income tax—the personal allowance—will rise to £10,000. Together with cumulative changes made since the coalition Government came to office, that will cut an individual’s income tax bill by £700 on average and take 3 million of our poorest people out of income tax altogether, including 4,025 people in the Kettering constituency. May we have a debate in Government time on personal income tax liability and the changes made since this Government came to power?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, of which people in his constituency will take positive note. Other constituencies have similar figures, and those changes in taxation are one reason why household disposable incomes are rising, which is important for people in tough times. On the opportunity to consider that further, I can say that it may well arise during questions following the Chancellor’s autumn statement next Thursday.

Business of the House

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware of provisional business for a debate in this House to consider Lords amendments to the Energy Bill, and that may afford him, and others, the opportunity to make such points. Through competition and better electricity market reform, the Government are setting out to ensure that the public have access to the lowest possible tariffs, and that we bring prices to the lowest point that is consistent through competition. At the same time, we must ensure that we fulfil our obligations on the reduction of carbon emissions and meet climate change objectives, but without—quite properly, I think, under the circumstances—loading those costs on to consumers. To meet those otherwise competing objectives, it is important that we help consumers to lower their energy bills and reduce energy consumption. As far as newspapers, and particularly that newspaper, are concerned, I tend to start at the back—I think I am not alone—as I enjoy the sports coverage rather more than I do the front.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

An independent civil service is a key cornerstone of the British constitutional system of government. My constituents—and, I suspect, a majority of the great British public—will be deeply troubled by suggestions that each Cabinet member will be allowed to appoint up to 10 political advisers to their office. Given that the number of special advisers is already too great, and their cost too high, may we have a statement from the Cabinet Office on those proposals, and a debate and vote in the House, so that they can be put to rest before they come into existence?

[Mr Lansley]

I realise it may be a little way off, but my hon. Friend may wish to raise that issue when my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General responds to questions in the House on 11 December. I do not agree that we have too many special advisers at the moment; we need special advisers for a number of reasons and they do an important job. The particular circumstances of coalition government inevitably give rise to an additional requirement, because it is important for both parties in the coalition to have access to independent and politically supportive advice. As part of the civil service reform plan we must understand that valuable and excellent as civil service support can be, civil servants do not have a monopoly on advice. Ministers should be able to draw on additional expert support and advice, and it is sometimes difficult for that to be achieved wholly by organisations outside Government. Sometimes the only way Ministers can get access to that further advice is by bringing experts into the Government, and that is part of the civil service reform plan.

Business of the House

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I hope and believe that there are common values on this issue throughout the House. It is something we have legislated on and we seek to pursue it in the public sector. The evidence today suggests that we have made more progress than appears generally to be the case in the private sector. The hon. Lady will recall that equal pay day in the private sector was 27 August. We have to make progress on the issue. If an opportunity arises for a debate, not least through the Backbench Business Committee, I for one would welcome it.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

May we have a full day’s debate in Government time on Britain’s rapidly increasing population? Official statistics suggest that Britain’s population will increase from 63.7 million today to 73.3 million in 2037 and that we will have to absorb another city the size of Greater London, which will put huge pressures on our public services, social cohesion, jobs and wages.

[Mr Lansley]

Those are interesting figures from the Office for National Statistics, although they are in the nature of a forecast, some aspects of which we can influence and some we cannot. For example, over roughly the past decade, this country’s birth rate has gone up by, I think, about 16%. There is a limit to what we can do. The increase in population is also a result of increased longevity. The combination of those two things will inevitably mean an increase in our population and we have to respond to that.

We must therefore ensure that we manage migration into this country better than has been done in the past. That is why we set ourselves the objective of bringing net migration down from a quarter of a million a year to the tens of thousands. We have made considerable progress and have reduced net migration by a third. We need to continue with that because of the simple fact that an increase in the total population creates pressure on resources.