Privileges Committee Special Report

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I have found the debate thus far more than interesting for a number of reasons. A great deal has been said and commented upon in terms of parliamentary procedure and respect for one another, both of which I absolutely support, but also in terms of some of the selective quotes in the report, which have been echoed today, and how they are ascribed to certain Members who have been named in the report. Some of it has been taken out of context, and I will reflect on that point. I do not think that it is healthy for this wonderful Parliament to end up making generalised assumptions and assertions about individuals based on the annex to the report. That is why I wanted to speak today.

Clearly, I am named in the annex and referenced in paragraph 14. As someone who has had claims made about their actions in the report, and who has been named and had judgments passed on their conduct both by the Committee and so far in the debate—totally inaccurate judgments, if I may say so—I think it is right that I get, at least, a right of reply. I am incredibly respectful of process, not just because I have served in Government, but because being a parliamentarian is the greatest honour we all have, and upholding our traditions, our democracy and parliamentary standards is absolutely right. However, although I appreciate that right hon. and hon. Members may disagree with me, including the Chair of the Committee, who is entitled to do so, I feel that the assertions and claims made in this special report are wrong and cannot be substantiated by the so-called evidence that has been produced and published.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Did my right hon. Friend collude in any way with any of the persons listed in the report, or with anyone else, to place pressure on the Committee?

[Priti Patel]

That comes back to the evidence and the point that I was about to make. The answer is: absolutely not. I just do not think it appropriate that, unless the evidence is provided and published, there is an absence of process by the Committee. I do not know if the annex is an exhaustive list of Members of this House—the Chair of the Committee is very welcome to respond to my comments—but it seems quite selective and exclusive. That is why it is important to have this debate and discussion.

[Allan Dorans]

On 16 March 2023, during an interview on GB News, the right hon. Lady said:

“the lack of accountability…I think there is a culture of collusion quite frankly involved here.”

Can I have some evidence of that please?

[Priti Patel]

I will come to that particular quote, so the hon. Gentleman will hear what I have to say then.

I come back to my point on whether the annex is conclusive. Should other individuals in the House have been included in it? On what basis were decisions made? At the outset I put it clearly on the record that it is wrong of Members to seek to place undue and improper pressure on any Members investigating matters at a Committee level. There are processes in place, and it is right that they should be respected. I believe that there is a case for looking at how the processes of this Committee can be clarified, and how the members of that Committee and the persons who are subject to inquiries are protected. From my experience of the handling of all this, I can say that to be named in a report having had no notification—no correspondence or anything of that nature—that I was being investigated for prior conduct—

[Thangam Debbonaire]

indicated dissent.

[Priti Patel]

The shadow Leader of the House shakes her head, but I just do not think that that is acceptable. We have heard great speeches on having respect for one another, and I agree completely. We must treat each other with civility: if we intend to name another Member in the Chamber, we let them know beforehand. That is an important part of the process.

We have heard about lobbying and collusion. As one who has served in government, as Home Secretary, I have been involved in all sorts of quasi-judicial policy and decision making on high-profile and complex issues, day in, day out, much of which was the subject of quite active lobbying by Opposition Members. We live in a democracy, and we should be able to have these discussions. All Ministers know that orchestrated campaigns and lobbying are absolutely day-to-day things that go on; that is part of a democracy—the values and safeguards of free speech and freedom of expression. A democracy recognises the value and the importance of challenging and questioning processes and decision making. That is one reason why we are all here as elected Members of Parliament: we do this on behalf of our country and our constituents, and because we have a democratic responsibility to do it.

In doing that, we raise uncomfortable questions all the time. That is what we do, day in, day out. To silence and cancel out the comments and voices of individuals carries great risk, and I am very worried about that. It causes me grave concern. That is why the decision on the motion must be taken carefully.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Lady is making a good case that we need to treat each other with respect. Is claiming that a Committee has been involved in collusion, as she did on GB News, part of that respect?

[Priti Patel]

indicated dissent.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Well, it is what is written here. Does the right hon. Lady deny that she said it?

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

It is important that there is due process, and it seems to me that the report does not deliver the guidance and the processes that would be helpful to the House when dealing with matters that have been considered by the Privileges Committee. That is because the report is not concerned with establishing or recommending new processes and protections, and we should not sit here pretending that it is. This report has been used by the Committee to criticise and censure individuals. The House should reflect on that in the light of my comments.

The House will set, in my view, a dangerous precedent if it approves a report that censures and passes judgment on Members of the House without granting due process—fair due process, I should add—to the Members it makes allegations about.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend knows that I was a member of the Committee. Along with every other member of the Committee, I was clear that there is no censure in the report. Will she clarify what she means by censure? That was certainly not what the Committee intended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

By that, I mean cancelling out views and opinions. That is totally different—

[Dame Angela Eagle]

indicated dissent.

[Priti Patel]

Would the hon. Lady like to intervene? She is very welcome to. She has spoken. With respect, she also asked for civility in the Chamber and in the way in which we engage with one another. Everyone has strong opinions and, with that, it is right and respectful that we listen to each other.

[Andy Carter]

rose—

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Priti Patel]

I will give way to my hon. Friend first and then I will come to the hon. Lady.

[Andy Carter]

I think every member of the Committee firmly believes that every Member of Parliament has the right to share their opinions in this House, but the 2019 House of Commons code for Members is very clear: Members must not lobby the Committee, or the Commissioner in a manner calculated to influence their consideration of issues related to conduct. The current Members’ code of conduct does not mention that the Privileges Committee should be included in that. This report suggests that that should be amended so that Members serving on the Privileges Committee are also afforded those rights. I do not want any Member of Parliament to be prevented from saying what they believe once a report is published, but not during the process of producing a report.

[Priti Patel]

With respect, I have heard what my hon. Friend has had to say, but if he had listened to what I have had to say, he would know that I am worried that this will set a dangerous precedent.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I was going to make a very similar point to the one that the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) has just made. Does the right hon. Member agree that this is not about criticising a report once it is published? It is about not trying to nobble it while it is going on.

[Priti Patel]

With all respect to the hon. Lady, in her remarks today, she used a range of phrases, which she scatter-gunned around the Chamber, in an accusatory way about what individuals have said or may not have said. She cannot apply that to all of us, so I think she should have been careful in some of the phrases that she used.

If I may, I will comment further about my concerns with the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) touched on an important point, about which Mr Speaker is also very clear—he is a strong proponent of the concept that important matters should come to the House first, before they are published in the media. As she pointed out regarding the publication of Committee reports, paragraphs 15.10 and 38.56 of “Erskine May” refer to the premature publication and disclosure of Committee proceedings as being in contempt. Cakeism is a phrase that has already been used this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg). We cannot have it both ways.

I recognise the Committee’s frustrations that the report was leaked, and I know that comments have been made when the Government did not come to the House before announcing things in the media. However, we have to be concerned that details contained in the special report were published by a particular newspaper at 7.20 pm on Wednesday 28 June, some 13 hours and 40 minutes before the special report was published, and before people named in its annex were informed.

Frankly, given how this has all been conducted—individuals were not contacted in advance and there was no right of reply—is the House not concerned that that newspaper, The Guardian, knew of the report’s contents before the rest of us did? Surely that should be a matter for investigation as well. If the Committee is so concerned with cases of contempt of the House, investigating how the report or its contents were leaked to The Guardian before it was published is something else that should feature in due process.

Would any members of the Committee or its Chair like to explain why that newspaper knew in advance, before the rest of us? What action is going to be taken? We have already heard talk about restoring parliamentary democracy and integrity to Parliament. Again, that would give confidence to Members that due process was being followed, but it would also give confidence to the public, who also expect standards across the board to be upheld.

We have a report from the Committee that names Members and peers, but it did not inform us in advance. We have discussed already the House’s rules on behaviour and courtesies. I personally think that Members should be given notice; that is respectful. During my time serving on the Front Bench, or on the Back Benches, as I am now, I hope that I have never offended a Member of this House by being so discourteous as to name them without informing them in advance. That is a good standard that we should all live up to.

Not only has there been a lack of courtesy shown to Members named in the report, but the absence of due process concerns me a lot. Until this was published, I and colleagues had no idea that we were being investigated, or that there were references to us as individuals in the annex in relation to the inquiry into Mr Johnson.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Priti Patel]

I did not see the Member appear at the start, but I will give way.

[Mr Perkins]

I have been here for all of the right hon. Lady’s speech and, over the 14 minutes of it,, I have been desperately hoping she was going to get to the point she really wants to raise. She does not disagree that she said the things that are in the report, but she thinks it is discourteous that she was not told in advance. She thinks other people may have said things that were missed out of the report. What is actually the main point of what, over the last 14 minutes, she has been saying?

[Priti Patel]

If the hon. Gentleman had the courtesy of listening, the point is actually due process. As he would know, if he had listened to my opening remarks, I also said that I was sure not everyone here would agree with what I was about to say, but affording the courtesy of debate in this House was exactly why we were here. If he does not want to hear what I am saying, he might actually want to leave the Chamber, rather than carrying on in this way. It is important in the debate to have a right of reply. Again, I appreciate that he and other Members will disagree with this, but I think it is right that the basics should be put on the public record. The country is watching. Well, some of the country is watching, if they are not watching Wimbledon right now, but this is an insight into how we engage in our business, and what right of reply Members do or do not have. Quite frankly, this will affect all Members; it is not just about supporting those today, because there will be others in the future and that is important.

Some of the language that has been used is important as well. I personally think that it simply cannot be right or fair for a Committee to make claims or assertions without giving notice in advance, or the chance to at least respond to allegations. I am going to go as far as to say, if I may, that I found some of this deeply secretive and I just do not think that Select Committees operate in this way; they really do not. I have had the great privilege of serving on a number of Select Committees and I think the way in which we conduct ourselves is very important.

I notice that the Leader of the House said that this is deeply unusual. It is all deeply unusual, and not just because of a lack of process. My office, supported by the House of Commons Library, undertook some research to see if there was any precedent for MPs being named, and effectively or potentially sanctioned or censured in a report by a Committee. [Interruption.] No, I am giving an example. I hear what the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) says, but I am just giving an example—colleagues might learn something from this, too. Even the Library said that it could not think of any Committee on Standards, Privileges Committee, or former Committees on Standards recommending anything of this nature without the opportunity for those named to make their case. Today is a chance at least to give that a bit of an airing and to make the case as well.

I will conclude my remarks. Again, in the light of what I have said thus far, there are so many issues here that I think will have wide implications for Parliament, if I may say so, and for Members of Parliament. I have touched on process. The evidence issue—the lack of evidence that the Committee has presented—has been touched on as well. Paragraph 14 makes serious allegations that I and other Members were part of a co-ordinated campaign of interfering with the work of the Privileges Committee, so one would expect those claims to be backed up with some serious volumes of evidence, but they are not. While the Committee may obviously disagree with Members, the fact that people can now freely express views about the inquiry is obviously part of living in a healthy democracy, with free speech and freedom of expression. However, the Committee has not explained in this report how the expression of an opinion or a view that some people shared could in itself undermine the work of the Committee or could be co-ordinated.

The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans), a member of the Committee, touched on my remarks quoted in the annex. Those remarks came from an interview on Budget day that covered a range of issues: the economy, taxation, the Budget, migration—lively issues that I think all Members in the House like to discuss. We also discussed Mr Johnson, and the activities of a Mrs Sue Gray and the Leader of the Opposition. It is not at all clear from the Committee’s report why it believes that a reference, in a lengthy interview covering multiple issues, to questions over transparency and accountability constitutes interference in its work, could be disturbing, or could be part of a co-ordinated campaign. Those are areas on which we should get clarity.

So far, the suggestions have been one-way; we have been told that we should go to the Committee if there are issues, but the Committee could have raised any issues with us. The Committee could have done that if it had any concern about comments I made. I am not someone who hides behind the sofa in Parliament; many colleagues will recognise that. I would welcome lively engagement, as I am sure other Members referenced in the annex would have done. I certainly would have welcomed the Committee contacting and engaging with me in good time. That is quite important. Frankly, I think the public will still reach their own conclusions about all this.

I appreciate that I have detained the House for a lengthy period—I thank hon. Members for listening—but given the tone of the accusations made, the contents of the annex, and the lack of a prior opportunity to respond, it is important that we have this discussion and that colleagues listen. I hope that the Committee will reflect on comments made about process. I really do not think that there is evidence to substantiate the claims that have been made and, if the motion is agreed to, there will be the ongoing matter for the House of what that means for MPs.

I might be boring for Britain right now, but I believe in transparency, accountability and due process, particularly having sat on the Front Bench; today we have also heard about holding Ministers to account. I believe in all that. Woe betide the Minister who misleads Parliament. Sometimes there is not enough scrutiny of the details of what Ministers say, and not enough challenges. That is why it is important that we have this debate about accountability, transparency, due process, and sometimes correcting the record. I believe, as do other hon. and right hon. Members, in transparency, freedom of speech and Members facing fair and due process when allegations are made about their actions. That should be dealt with properly. I urge Members to think about the impact that the report will have on our parliamentary democracy and our freedoms. I fundamentally believe that, without freedom of speech, there can be no democracy; it is something that we have to preserve, stand up for and respect in this House.

Lobbying

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the absence of a Bill to provide for a statutory register of lobbyists in the Queen’s Speech; expresses its concern at the damage which may be inflicted on the reputation of the House in the absence of statutory regulation; and calls on the Government to immediately begin cross-party negotiations with a view to introducing a Bill before the summer recess, which would provide for the creation of a register for all professional lobbyists, with a clear code of conduct which is backed by sanctions in the event of egregious breaches of the code.

Let me start by entirely accepting that lobbying is a normal part—in fact, an essential part—of an active democracy, and that includes commercial lobbying. However, it has been clear for some time that the professional sector of the industry needs to be properly regulated. The Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, said that lobbying is

“an issue that crosses party lines and has tainted our politics for too long”

and that it is

“an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money.”

We agree with him.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

rose—

[Jon Trickett]

I will give way, but not yet.

The subject of today’s debate could not be more important for the reputation of the House of Commons, for every single right hon. and hon. Member knows in their heart of hearts that the perceived integrity of politicians is at an all-time low. The Prime Minister’s prediction that lobbying was the

“next big scandal waiting to happen”

has sadly proved to be all too correct. [Interruption.] It may be one of the few things he did get right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) says. Knowing that this was going to happen, we ought to have moved rigorously and rapidly to ensure that our democracy emerged cleaner and with a higher reputation than it currently has.

If we can, we ought to handle these matters in a non-partisan manner. It is therefore with some regret that we raise lobbying reform on an Opposition day, which is usually a political knockabout. It is particularly disappointing because it appeared that a cross-party consensus had begun to emerge that something needed to be done. In fact, by the time the coalition agreement had been signed, all three main parties had agreed to legislation and to the creation of a statutory register, but that was more than three years ago. Unfortunately, all the Government have done since then is to have a long, slow consultation followed by a White Paper, and then another long, slow consultation.

When the reshuffle took place in September 2012, formal responsibility for lobbying reform had been totally removed from ministerial responsibilities. The Government simply forgot about lobbying reform.

General Matters

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who has enlightened us all and encouraged us to participate in volunteering, which is an important community activity.

I welcome the Deputy Leader of the House to his new position. I should like to use this debate to express my constituents’ concerns and to seek his advice and perhaps ministerial guidance on how to pursue the matters that they have raised. We have heard a lot about national campaigns today, but a big local campaign is under way in my constituency. I should like to draw to the Minister’s attention the way in which quality of life for my constituents—local residents in Tiptree, one of the largest villages in the country—has been undermined by the failure of our local authority to enforce planning conditions on the training round in Grange road, which is used by Colchester United football club.

The facility is used outside the hours agreed in the original planning consent for the site. The noise, disruption and foul language—that is what really upsets my constituents—are distressing for families living near the ground. They are forced to keep their windows closed and stop their children playing in the garden because of the noise and the bad language shouted out in the training ground. Residents feel, in an era of localism, that they have been let down and ignored by the council, which should support them and enforce planning arrangements, rather than, as my constituents believe, turn a blind eye to their concerns. Residents are up in arms and dissatisfied with the replies that they have received from the council in response to their complaints. That is such an important issue for my constituents that I pledged to raise it in the House, so I would welcome some guidance from the Deputy Leader of the House on the matter.

Let me turn to business matters. We British were once famously dubbed a nation of shopkeepers. Having grown up in a family of shopkeepers, I know how important local shops and retailing are in providing local jobs in our constituencies, in towns and villages across the country. However, over the past decade, our high streets up and down the country have struggled to provide jobs and many of the essential services that over time we have taken for granted and to act effectively as the hubs in the communities that they once were. That is why I welcome the work that the Government have done in creating a new vision for the future of our town centres.

In particular, I would like to use this opportunity to praise everyone in Witham town who was involved in putting together the two bids for Portas pilots that we submitted. They failed, but irrespective of that, my constituents who put in the hours on the bid did a tremendous job and made an incredible case for Witham. Interestingly enough, in yesterday’s debate, I highlighted the fact that parts of Essex have consistently been overlooked for infrastructure investment in this area and many others. I should like to make a plea to the Government and urge them to support the Witham town application to become a town team partner and secure the new funds that are available. If nothing else, we in Witham look forward to working with the Government and taking on board many of the innovative ideas that have been proposed in the Portas schemes and the new vision that is being introduced for town centre management.

The House has heard me say on a number of occasions that 83% of local jobs in my constituency are in small and medium-sized enterprises—a high figure compared with the national average of 68%. The House has also heard me say before that Essex is very much the county of entrepreneurs, playing a vital part in the national economy, but I should like to restate my long-standing concerns about bank lending to small business.

Small businesses are at the heart of my constituency and our local jobs market. I should like again to highlight the case of the chocolate maker Amelia Rope, my inspirational constituent, who, despite her international order book and sales in some of the world’s most famous shops, including Liberty and Selfridges, has continuously struggled to secure bank lending to invest and grow her business. Interestingly, despite the fact that I took her to meet the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills back in 2010, she maintained in an interview with the Evening Standard about three weeks ago that nobody is looking after people such as her, which is something I hear from many local businesses in my constituency. I urge the Government to reaffirm their focus on making bank lending a priority, so that these incredible entrepreneurs, who are risk takers, can do everything that they can to stimulate private sector growth, create jobs and get our economy back on track.

Also on the theme of business, as the summer ends, many home owners will be worried about rising energy costs and heating their homes. The Government should be congratulated on the focus that they are giving to tackling fuel poverty and encouraging customers to switch suppliers and find cheaper tariffs. However, more effort is needed to help small businesses with their energy costs. The Association of Convenience Stores is running a campaign for fair energy contracts for local shops, to help small businesses to get a better deal from their energy companies. At the moment, 27% of small shops have been hit with rather large charges for backdated bills, often as a result of energy companies asking them to pay for up to six years of energy, owing to incorrect billing in the first place, even when it was the fault of the supplier. That is simply not fair; nor is it right or proper, and it can land businesses with bills totalling thousands of pounds and threats of disconnection. About 36% of small shops have also been overcharged— I speak from experience on this, because my parents’ last business fell into precisely that category—and 31% have reported above-inflation rises in their energy tariffs.

I urge the Government to look closely at that campaign, in the light of the fact that our shops and small businesses are struggling. We do not have enough small shops on our high streets or in our villages, and they have their own challenges with cash flow. The campaign could bring about change, and it would send out a tremendously positive message if the Government were to take action to help small firms to keep their energy bills down and, importantly, to be treated much more fairly by some of the energy companies.

I have spoken before about Essex roads, and the matter that I want to touch on next is a constant issue for my constituents and for people in Kent. It involves the Dartford crossing. Next month, the crossing’s toll charges will rise by a third from £1.50 to £2 for a car, and the charges for commercial vehicles will go up from £2 to £2.50 for a two-axle light goods vehicle and to up to £5 for heavy goods vehicles. A lot of my constituents use the M25 and the Dartford crossing, and many of them are complaining about the increases and raising the question of fairness. Thousands of motorists rely on that crossing every day.

There are two issues: one is the price of using the crossing—as I have said, the toll charges are going up—and the other is that we have a major problem with traffic flows and jams, as recent correspondence with the Highways Agency has confirmed. The crossing is a vital economic link for businesses in my constituency and across the south-east. Records from the Highways Agency show that the crossing’s performance is questionable, with journey time reliability in the year to May 2012 being just 57% for southbound journeys and 60% for northbound ones. That is below the 83.5% national average for journey time reliability on our motorways.

People who use the crossing daily know of the paralysis, logjams and huge tailbacks. Over the past three years, there have been only six occasions northbound and one southbound on which the tolls have been suspended due to the severity of the traffic. It is a fact that traffic jams cause delays and have a cost to the economy. The economic costs of delays at the crossing are estimated by the Highways Agency to be £40 million, but the introduction of new technology to support free-flow charging arrangements is at least two years away. People in the south-east are paying more for a poor service.

I would welcome the Deputy Leader of the House’s thoughts on that matter, and I urge the Government to look again at the arrangements for charging at the crossing, as well as at their affect on the economy and at the costs that families and businesses are incurring. I look forward to his responding to the debate, and on behalf of my constituents I hope that the Government will take on board some of these issues in a positive way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the House that topical questions and answers are supposed, by convention, to be briefer.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

The thoughts of everyone in the Chamber will be with the families of the 96 victims of the Hillsborough disaster. Before I turn to the distressing report published by the Hillsborough independent panel yesterday, I want to place on the record my sincere thanks to everyone involved in the organisation of the London Olympics and Paralympics.

As has been said, 2012 will be remembered as the best ever summer in our sporting history. At the start of the Olympics, Lord Coe said:

“These games will bring out the best in us”,

and our athletes answered that call. They did so through not only what they achieved but how they achieved it. They are incredible role models and they did the country proud. But they are not alone. The success of the games was due to thousands of businesses and organisations—

[Maria Miller]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I would like very briefly to note yesterday’s panel report on the Hillsborough disaster and say that our thoughts are with the families.

[Priti Patel]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on coming to her new position and associate myself with her opening remarks.

Tourism supports 54,000 jobs in Essex and contributes more than £3 billion to our local economy. Will she join me in congratulating the tourism sector in Essex and attend the Visit Essex tourism conference on 14 November to see at first hand the excellent work done there and the contribution that these individuals make to our local economy?

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Olympics also played their part in Essex, which hosted the mountain biking competition, at Hadleigh farm. The Government will continue to do everything they can to support tourism in Essex, and I hope to come along and see it for myself in the not-too-distant future.

Business of the House

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I do not think anyone could say that we have not had adequate debate on the Health and Social Care Bill in recent weeks, and there will of course be a further opportunity when we consider Lords amendments to it. As the hon. Gentleman implied, this is for the Backbench Business Committee, and I quite understand why it took the view that the matter had already been debated adequately, and therefore chose other subjects. On this particular occasion, I am happy to endorse the decision of the Backbench Business Committee.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

From early April, owners of pleasure boats using red diesel, including those along the beautiful Essex coastline, will no longer be able to take their vessels outside UK waters owing to a new diktat from Europe. May we have a debate about the considerable practical and economic difficulties that these boat owners will face, so that we can listen to their concerns rather than simply comply with more regulation from Europe?

[Sir George Young]

This is a complex issue. My understanding is that the use of red diesel with full duty paid to propel pleasure craft is a UK procedure permitted within UK waters, and that it is not illegal to use red diesel outside UK waters. However, if a pleasure craft with red diesel is used outside UK waters, its owners need to be aware that it will be subject to national legislation, including any restrictions or prohibitions of the member state in whose territorial waters it is being used. That is perhaps an incentive to stay within UK territorial waters.

Business of the House

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I would welcome another debate on self-employment. We hope that the new enterprise allowance will help up to 40,000 unemployed people start up businesses by 2013. We all have a role to play in bringing home to our constituents the opportunities available for self-employment, which have been promoted by some of our initiatives.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

My constituent Mr Philip Wright has been persecuted by HMRC for more than 12 years over a test case involving construction workers and their contracted terms of employment. In light of the huge cost of this case for the taxpayer, can we have a debate on HMRC, and in particular, when it will stop harassing my constituent and bring the case to an end?

Business of the House

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful for what the hon. Lady said at the beginning about e-petitions, and for making it clear that she wants the new e-petitions website to be a successful way for people to trigger debates in Parliament. We were in fact delivering a coalition agreement in going ahead with the website, which is an improvement on the No. 10 website, in that it links into the democratic process instead of ending simply at No. 10.

I am conscious that over recent weeks and months we have not been able to allocate to the Backbench Business Committee as much time as the hon. Lady would like, but that is due in part to the way in which the legislative programme impacts on the parliamentary Session. I very much hope that in the weeks and months ahead it will be possible to allocate more time to the Backbench Business Committee, and to give it the headroom that it needs to accommodate debates about e-petitions.

Two e-petitions have so far gone through the threshold, and in one case, as my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House said in response to an oral question, the Government have responded. On Hillsborough, we have made all the papers available from the Cabinet Office to the independent panel, and we have made it clear that we have no objection to them going into the public domain, so it may be that on Hillsborough the petitioners have achieved what they wanted.

On the e-petition concerning riots, somebody may present themselves on Tuesday to the hon. Lady’s salon, and I hope that in due course it might then be possible to debate the other one that has gone through the threshold.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

In light of the strong interest in Parliament and from the public about all matters European, will my right hon. Friend consider making Government time available for a full debate about Europe and about the repatriation of powers to Britain?

[Sir George Young]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the debate, which I think she had yesterday in Westminster Hall, on precisely that subject. We did discuss at some length the European Union Bill, when there was extensive debate about the repatriation of powers, and there are fairly regular debates, thanks to the European Scrutiny Committee, on European-related issues. I cannot at this stage promise a full debate about the matters that she has raised, but I hope that the House will have an opportunity from time to time to listen to her views on Europe.

Business of the House

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman referred to the written ministerial statement. We are committed to delivering reform in our public services, and we want to improve efficiency and effectiveness in outcomes for victims, offenders and the wider community. On the question of whether the matter is dealt with in a written statement or an oral statement, I understand his point, but the Government must also have regard for the business of the House. Wednesday—yesterday—was an Opposition day with a lot of important business, and I am not sure what the reaction would have been if we had had yet another statement, compressing the business even further. We will of course always look at the balance between written and oral statements, but in this particular case I think we were right to do what we did.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House follow me in condemning the appalling bombings that took place in Mumbai yesterday, which resulted in 17 deaths? In particular, does he agree that at this very difficult time for India, this House and Britain should stand firm in its support of India?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The whole House will want to send its sympathy to the friends and relatives of those who lost their lives in these terrorist atrocities. The Foreign Office consular team is already in Mumbai providing consular support to any British nationals who may have been caught up in these events. We are working very closely with the Indian authorities, and we are committed to working with the Indian Government and our allies to combat the threat from terrorism in all its forms.

Business of the House

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue. I would welcome more information, if he is prepared to let me have it, on the exact instances in which my right hon. and hon. Friends have refused to meet hon. Members. I think that there is a convention that, unless there are strong legal reasons not to do so, Ministers should meet MPs. If he could give me an appropriate list, I would be more than happy to take it up with my colleagues and facilitate every appropriate meeting.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

In November, the United Kingdom will take over the chairmanship of the Council of Europe. In view of the persistent attacks that this body, including the European Court of Human Rights, has inflicted on this country, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that we will have a debate in Government time before November so that Members can debate and influence how we can reform that out-of-touch institution?

[Sir George Young]

I know that this is a matter of concern to my hon. Friend and other of my hon. Friends. Work is under way to agree UK objectives and priorities for our chairmanship of the Council of Europe. That includes consultation, as appropriate, with interested parties, and I will certainly feed into that consultation the issue that my hon. Friend has just raised.

Business of the House

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

Of course I understand the concern that the hon. Lady expresses on behalf of her constituents, and I will contact the OFT today to remind it of her concern and ask it for an urgent response.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Local communities in my constituency have been left devastated after the Planning Inspectorate imposed Traveller sites on various communities, based on the outdated planning policies of the previous Government. A Government consultation is taking place on the planning circulars. May we have a debate, so that Members can influence that consultation?