Business of the House

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I can come to the aid of my right hon. Friend straight away because on Monday 21 October the continuation of debate on the Queen’s Speech will be dedicated to the national health service, and that would be the opportunity on which to raise this point. The point is an important one, and bringing it forward in debate is absolutely the right thing to do.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (LD)]

Could the Leader of the House please let us have an urgent debate on the serious issues facing shellfisheries? They are highly dependent on EU markets, and I am afraid that no-deal planning has been woefully inadequate. Mussel fishermen in my constituency still do not have guidance on how to export in the event of no deal after 31 October. Likewise, many crab fisheries have many—in some cases, all—of their pots in EU waters. Could we hear when we can debate this?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The debate on the economy on Tuesday would be an opportunity to discuss the economy of the sea as well as the economy more narrowly.

Points of Order

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wished to raise this matter. The new edition of “Erskine May” states in paragraph 2.12:

“By convention, the motion”

—the motion to which reference is being made is that for the issuing of a warrant for a new writ—

“is moved by the whip of the party which last held the seat.”

I emphasise that that is the starting premise in these matters. I am confident that the right hon. Gentleman is aware both of that convention and of the recourse open to him if there is what he considers—indeed, others might agree—an unreasonable delay in the Government Chief Whip moving the motion. The timing of the by-election, after the House agrees to the relevant motion, is a matter for statute law and those empowered under the relevant statute. It is not something on which I can pronounce, but I hope that the two parts of the right hon. Gentleman’s concern have been at least adequately addressed by my initial response.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has just clarified that there will be no opportunity to debate the motion on the summer Adjournment dates. This is an extremely grave matter. About 0.25% of the population will be selecting the next Prime Minister at a crucial time in our history. Is there anything you can do to make sure that the House has an opportunity, when other Members are here, to properly debate this issue and make sure that the next Prime Minister can be held to account by this House without there being an extended period of summer recess in the way?

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I completely understand his point. He will appreciate that the Palace of Westminster is in the state it is in precisely because Members have made those exact points for more than 150 years. The reality is that it is now costing us a fortune every single day—money is being spent by the taxpayer to patch and mend a building that is beyond patching and mending. Seizing this bull by the horns and doing something proactively about it is designed to give good value for taxpayers’ money, instead of what is happening now, which is spending more and more money to try to restore something while we sit here, which will be much more expensive to do.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Change UK)]

On the point about legacy value, would it not be better to have a Chamber that we could use for more constructive purposes? Rather than this adversarial approach, we could have a circular or semi-circular Chamber, with electronic voting facilities, so that we do not build in obsolescence, and we could then use it afterwards—for example, for citizens’ assemblies and other forums where we want to engage with the public.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I hope the hon. Lady will appreciate that the purpose of the Bill is merely to establish a Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, which will give the best value for money against a professionally run project that seeks to restore the Palace of Westminster. The shape of the decant Chamber and parliamentary procedures for voting can be discussed any day of the week. All Members are encouraged to feed in their ideas and suggestions to the northern estate programme, which is separate from what we are talking about today, and I encourage her to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Gray]

Yes, and that is a line from the report that the hon. Lady and I both helped to author, alongside the right hon. Member for Meriden. The devil will be in the detail as this project progresses. It will be important not only that the Government accept that fact—and that that is clear through the Bill’s progress—but that the Sponsor Body is attuned to it, so that we do not see the same mistakes again. If this project has any chance of gaining political and public support, it must be a genuinely UK-wide project, and that means that we should see discernible benefits across the UK. That was a topic that I and others on the scrutiny Committee were keen to explore. I have a possible solution that I have already discussed and that I hope the Government will take seriously.

[Dr Wollaston]

I apologise for being absent for part of this debate because I have been chairing a Select Committee. It is on that point that I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman’s advice. Does he agree that the public would be deeply shocked if we were seen to be building obsolescence into such an extraordinarily expensive project by not having the capacity for electronic voting posts in Select Committee Rooms on the northern estate redevelopment, so that at least, if this place got its act together with modern practices, we would not be interrupting repeatedly, and at length, Select Committee hearings by the way that we vote in this place?

[Neil Gray]

That is a very good point. It is clear from the hon. Lady’s intervention, among others, that the majority view—in this debate, certainly, and in others—has been that we cannot return to a Parliament that is identical to the one that we leave. There have to be changes made; there has to be progress. I hope that that will be borne out in the passage of this Bill and the discussions that follow.

My suggestion for how to make this more of a UK-wide project was contained in the pre-legislative scrutiny report. It was not apparent that the Leader of the House acknowledged it in her direct response, but I thank her for acknowledging it earlier and saying that she will consider it. Alongside a commitment from the Government to ensure that contractors and skills are procured from across the UK, as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) mentioned, there must be a greater discernible benefit for the nations and regions. I have already explained how London sucks in the majority of the limited capital spending that there is by Government. This project, when it begins, will clearly put incredible pressure on capital spending elsewhere in the UK, and so will compound London’s dominance in those terms.

My answer would be for a nations and regions capital fund to be established as part of the project. This would see money going to all corners of these isles to allow relevant authorities to progress capital projects, boosting economic growth and job creation locally and countering any negative impact from such a massive project going on in London. One way of doing that would be deciding on a percentage of the overall cost of the project and then allocating it to each nation and region on a proportionate basis.

I am approaching this issue constructively and offering ideas in good faith. I just hope that the Government will respond on the same basis.

Points of Order

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Liaison Committee, which consists of all the Select Committee Chairs, is the only Committee that can call the Prime Minister. She has said on several occasions this afternoon that she is willing to sit down with Members from across the House, but I regret to say that, despite repeated requests, the Liaison Committee has been unable to secure a date for a hearing with the Prime Minister. Could I please seek your advice, Sir?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady can do and has done. I thank the hon. Lady, the Chair of the Liaison Committee, for giving notice that she intended to raise this matter on a point of order with me. I appreciate that the Prime Minister’s diary will have been even busier than usual recently, but I am sure the Prime Minister recognises that her regular appearances before the Liaison Committee form an important part of her accountability to Parliament.

The hon. Lady asks how she can persuade the Prime Minister to confirm a date. I suggest that by raising the matter today, the hon. Lady may have helped to achieve that objective. If she is not immediately successful, I have no doubt that she will—following, perhaps, my repeated advice to colleagues—persist, persist and, if necessary, persist again until she accomplishes her objective. Those sessions matter. They are part of respect for, and the proper functioning of, the legislature.

Business of the House

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

The right hon. Gentleman is confirming that. I think that at Labour conferences compositing is a verb. There is an implicit assumption that, by gluing the motions together, we will automatically add up all the numbers and somehow magically majorities will pop out of them, but I just do not think that is very likely. I was looking at the various propositions, and I note that all of them received fewer votes in favour of them than the Cabinet’s withdrawal agreement received on 29 March. They all received fewer votes than the Brady amendment. None of them had a majority. Indeed, there was a majority against the motion in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, who is not here now, of 101, so it is more unpopular than the withdrawal agreement.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Ind)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, however, that if the Government were to Whip for their own withdrawal agreement and future framework, and to combine that with the undoubted support for putting that deal to the people, that would be the simplest way for the Prime Minister to get her deal through Parliament with an absolute guarantee of showing whether it was the will of the people?

[Mr Harper]

No, I fundamentally disagree, for this reason. I will give the hon. Lady a couple of examples. First, I suspect that there are many people—I do not know this, but it is my assumption—who supported the Cabinet’s withdrawal agreement and political declaration who, if we attached a referendum to it, would no longer support it, because those of us on the Conservative Benches made a commitment to implement the result of the referendum. Indeed, when the hon. Lady stood for election on these Benches, she made the same commitment, I believe. The public made a decision—it was a once-in-a-generation decision—to leave the European Union. That is what I want to deliver, and I promised not to have another referendum. If we added on a referendum, people who have currently supported the proposition would no longer support it. I for one will not vote for another referendum.

There is also something that I have spotted. It is no surprise to me that those who want to remain in the European Union want to have a binary choice between the Cabinet’s deal and remain, because they have spotted that the proposition put forward by the Government is very unpopular in opinion polls. They have also noticed that many people who campaigned for leave do not believe that it is really leaving, and they think that if that is the binary choice presented to the public, it will be the best opportunity to get remain. They do not want a referendum with a range of choices. For my part, the only referendum that would be even vaguely justifiable is one that accepted that the public had asked to leave and simply gave them the choices of how to leave. That might be defensible, but nothing else.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I note from the indicative votes on Monday that, again, the motion on a confirmatory vote was supported by fewer people than the Cabinet’s withdrawal agreement and did not achieve a majority.

[Dr Wollaston]

What the right hon. Gentleman seems to be confirming is that the withdrawal agreement and future framework does not represent the will of the people and is rather unpopular. In that circumstance, surely it would be better to check what the public support is, once we know what a known deal is. As he will know, if there were agreement to a confirmatory vote, a referendum would require an Act of Parliament, and during the passage of a referendum Bill it would be this House that determined what the questions would be. It would not be for us to set the question in advance of that; it would be open to debate.

[Mr Harper]

Indeed, but given that a number of Members of this House have made it quite clear that they do not want to deliver the result of the last referendum, I am not sure that a fair choice would be presented to the public or that they would be given the full range of options.

Let me conclude with a message for those on my Front Bench. I do not know where the discussions with the Leader of the Opposition are going to go, but all I would say is this. Having looked carefully at the indicative votes, I would issue a word of caution. If the Government end up trying to deliver a withdrawal agreement and political declaration that tries to deliver something that has been opposed by a significant majority of their own Members of Parliament—75% of Conservative MPs voted against a customs union and common market 2.0—it is not going to end well. I urge the Government, even at this stage, to reflect on that and perhaps change course.

Business of the House

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I thank the Leader of the House both for her opening statement and for her response to the shadow Leader of the House. I think the position is clear, but this is of course very important in relation to Brexit business, and the right hon. Lady has been, I think, most solicitous in trying to attend to the concerns of the House. Last night, I received notice of the draft business for next week, and I noted with dismay that the scheduled debate on an amendable motion had been removed and that we were in fact due to have a debate on Back-Bench business on Thursday the 14th. I confess that I was very alarmed by that. In so far as that has now been reversed, as in the statement that the Leader of the House has announced, and the debate on an amendable motion will take place, I am greatly heartened by that.

I just want to say to the House, because I think it is very important that there is clarity, that I hope the position reflects—I think it does—the commitments made in the Chamber. On 29 January, at column 671, the Prime Minister said:

“Furthermore, if we have not brought a revised deal back to this House by Wednesday 13 February, we will make a statement and, again, table an amendable motion for debate the next day.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 671.]

Two days later, at the business question, the Leader of the House—responding, I believe, to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan)—reiterated the position by saying:

“We will, of course, have the opportunity to enjoy the Prime Minister coming back for a second meaningful vote as soon as possible. Just to be clear, if we have not brought a revised deal back to this House by Wednesday 13 February, we will make a statement and again table an amendable motion for debate the next day.”—[Official Report, 31 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 975.]

As recently as yesterday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), deputising for the Prime Minister, said very specifically:

“She”—

the Prime Minister—

“said that the meaningful vote itself would be brought back as soon as possible, and if it were not possible to bring it back by the 13th, next Wednesday, the Government would then make a statement and table a motion for debate the next day.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 322.]

So I think we have the commitment that had previously been made, and I believe that it is the full intention of the Government to honour that commitment. But the dependability of statements made and commitments given, whatever people’s views on the merits of the issues, is absolutely critical if we are to retain or, where lost, to restore trust, so there can of course be no resiling from the commitment which I think is explicit and which has been made: no dubiety, no backsliding, no doubt. I think that is clear.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

It seems clear to me that we are simply not going to be able to get the primary and secondary legislation required through by 29 March. However, could we, as soon as time allows, have a debate on the operation of Home Office rules on TB certification and access to approved testing clinics? A young family in my constituency are facing imminently being torn apart because of entirely illogical and unreasonable application of these rules. Despite my constituent having had an X-ray and obtained a TB certificate, at her expense, at a UK hospital, she has been told that it will not count because it is not an approved centre, but the Home Office is telling her that there are no approved centres within the United Kingdom. To add further illogicality, if she returned to her home country of Canada to reapply, she would not need a TB certificate because it is more than six months since she was in a TB-prone country. I am very grateful to a Home Office team for agreeing to meet me to look at this case in detail. However, I do think that it raises a wider issue about applications and access to TB centres in the United Kingdom.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend raises a very concerning case on her constituent’s behalf, and I have great sympathy for her constituent in that situation. I understand that my hon. Friend has rightly written to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, asking her to look into the matter. I understand that my right hon. Friend is seeking an urgent clarification of the situation, and of course if I can be of any help, my hon. Friend can always write to me.

Bullying and Harassment: Cox Report

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Dame Laura Cox refers in her report to the Parliamentary Health and Wellbeing Service helping staff who have been subject to bullying and harassment, and she comments that the service is

“overworked, under resourced, under promoted and undervalued by the senior administration.”

Will my right hon. Friend meet Dr Madan, who heads up the service as the leading occupational physician? She has a unique insight into the culture and sees staff who might not feel confident to come forward.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I would be delighted to meet the head of the Parliamentary Health and Wellbeing Service. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the service has been overworked. As part of the new complaints and grievance procedure, resources will be made available, but nevertheless I would be very happy to meet the lady she mentions.

Privilege

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I put on record my thanks to all those who appear as witnesses before our Select Committees. Many of them do so knowing that they will face a considerable level of challenge, but they come prepared to put their case, on the public record. They do so because they know that to refuse to appear shows contempt not only for this House but, more importantly, for the public, because Select Committees carry out their work on the public’s behalf, and in almost every case the House delegates to us the ability to call for persons, papers and records. That is an extraordinarily important role that we have on behalf of the public.

I join my hon. Friend in condemning the action of Dominic Cummings and the way that he has behaved. It is a disgrace, frankly, and we should call it out. I also think that we need to reflect on what we now do when individuals refuse to appear. I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) that it is time now to take action. I speak in a personal capacity, because there is a difference of opinion over the pros and cons of taking this matter forward. I welcome the further inquiry of the Privileges Committee. There is a difference of opinion on the pitfalls of involving the courts, but, ultimately, the experience of other jurisdictions such as New Zealand and Australia, which have that final backstop, is that they have not had to use it. There is a case for saying that, where we do not have a final backstop, we will increasingly see examples of witnesses like Mr Cummings refusing to answer to the British people and to Parliament.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Lady also agree that if witnesses feel that they are not obliged or compelled to appear before a Select Committee, they could be bribed or intimidated into not attending? Someone might have an interest in a witnesses not attending, and bribe them or intimidate them.

[Dr Wollaston]

There is a danger that people will increasingly come under pressure to make the judgment that, by not appearing at all, the reputational damage will be less, so the hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. However, we have now come to a point where having the final backstop of a penalty—

[Dr Julian Lewis]

May I just say to my hon. Friend in her role as Chairman of the Liaison Committee that she was enormously helpful to the Defence Committee—as were other members of the Committee—in getting the senior official to agree to come, and in getting the Prime Minister to agree to his attending the Defence Committee? In the end, it was a very valuable session. I do not know Mr Cummings, but I support his cause, and he is in danger of doing grave damage to the cause that he and I both support because the effect of his refusal is far more damaging than anything that could happen at a hearing if he actually gave evidence. Finally, may I appeal to her to stop using the word “backstop”, which, at the moment, is not my favourite expression?

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that point. Yes, the point has been made before that someone may want to call for powers to be restored to Parliament, but actually not when it comes to themselves.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I was pleased to see this motion on the Order Paper today. I serve on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and we have often had to call witnesses before us who were perhaps not quite as enthusiastic about attending as they should have been. Does she agree that there is some deficiency in this, because the motion on the Order Paper merely asks Mr Cummings to appear before the Committee at a time and place? It does not ask him to appear and answer questions. Would it not have been better to make that specific, because, in theory, it is possible for Mr Cummings to appear but then not to answer any of the questions of the Committee?

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her point. Even in other jurisdictions where people can be compelled to appear, they are not compelled necessarily to answer a question. For Mr Cummings to have behaved in the way that he has is a grave contempt not only of this House but, more importantly, of the British people.

[Damian Collins]

For the benefit of the record, Alexander Nix came back to the Select Committee yesterday to give evidence. We were concerned that he had said things that were not consistent with the evidence we had received, and he came back to correct the record and to answer our questions. He was also under investigation by the Electoral Commission, the Information Commissioner and other agencies and other jurisdictions. He managed the process perfectly well, answering questions where he felt he could and giving guidance where he felt that there were things he could not answer—there were very few of those. Even with someone under investigation who has not yet been charged with an offence it is perfectly possible to conduct a successful hearing.

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point.

In closing, I pay tribute again to all those who do appear before our Committees and take the opportunity to thank all members of Select Committees for the work that they put in and all of our staff who do a magnificent job in supporting us. Thank you.

Baby Leave for Members of Parliament

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Miller]

The hon. Lady used to be a member of my Committee, and I have worked with her and know her well. She makes a point to which I will return, because although the motion is really important, we need to think about other aspects of this place if we are to make it work for everybody, regardless of their caring responsibilities. I will now try to make a great deal of progress, Madam Deputy Speaker, so that you do not have to remind me that we are short of time.

1 wholeheartedly support the motion in its own right, because a new addition to the family—a new baby or a newly adopted child—is a wonderful thing, but a huge change as well. When the rules and conventions of this place were established, women had no place here and men had little or no role in their children’s lives. The rules and conventions were not established on the basis of any research or facts, but reflected the way in which men lived their lives many years ago. Men’s lives have changed, and women’s lives have changed. Women can now become MPs and our lives have changed, but the demands of having a child have not changed. Allowing MPs to decide to take some time away from this place, without disenfranchising their electorate in the process, is an important step in its own right, and one that I fully support.

The proposal is, however, just one small step. I speak as the mum of three kids. When I entered the House, my youngest was three, and for me the transition was very easy. I had worked full time before, and I had the best childcare in the world—grandparents, who were there to look after my children—but not every Member of Parliament has that built in and not every Member of Parliament is as lucky as I was. That is why I believe this is just one small step.

This is one small step in a change to Parliament’s workplace culture that is long overdue. We recognise the importance of workplace culture for the people we represent, whether it is the culture at the BBC that has allowed women to be underpaid, or the culture in Hollywood and the entertainment industry that has allowed the likes of Harvey Weinstein to thrive and to abuse the people around them. When we scrutinise the effectiveness of laws, we often conclude that culture needs to change so that those laws work better. We have heard about the example of shared parental leave, which was introduced by the coalition Government, and about the right to request flexible working. They are all things that people want, but when we do the research, we find that the uptake is low, because the culture in the workplace has not changed to reflect changes in the law.

We have a duty not only to pass laws, but to influence culture. That is why it is so important that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is bringing forward a new disciplinary process on sexual harassment, and it is why we also need to show that culture change in relation to families is also important. This should apply not only to MPs with new children, but to MPs with a wide range of caring responsibilities, such as for older children, for older family members—I have such responsibilities—or, indeed, for disabled family members.

As we consider the motion—I hope we will agree it—I hope not only that we will take this small step, but that other steps will follow. I want to give the particular example of the importance of predictability in working life. Before I entered this place, I was a director of an advertising agency. It was a very difficult and challenging job, but I could do it, because I could determine how to make my working life work for me. It is very difficult to have such a level of predictability here, particularly in relation to votes. Following the motion, I advocate our looking at a voting hour to create more predictability in how this place works so that people with caring responsibilities can better work them around their overwhelmingly important responsibilities here.

To those who say that introducing baby leave is the thin end of the wedge, I have to say that they are right if that will mean that we can show compassion to a colleague who is fighting cancer, or to a colleague who has to attend the funeral of a close relative, rather than disenfranchising their constituents while they are being human beings. We need to make this change so that we can allow people to get the balance in their lives that, sadly, is so lacking at some points in the parliamentary calendar at the moment.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech and I absolutely support the motion. I agree with her in very much hoping that this is the thin end of the wedge, because on the centenary of the Representation of the People Act 1918, we must do more to fix the pipeline problem here so that we encourage more women at a younger age to think about putting themselves forward to become Members of Parliament.

[Mrs Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention because, 100 years since the first woman sat in this place, it still feels for many of us as though we are operating in an 18th-century model of work, and that really needs to change.

Business of the House

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises a concerning case, and I am sure Ministers would be happy to talk to him about it. If he would like to email me, I will be able to take it up on his behalf. What I would say is that this Government have been committed to helping those with disabilities to take control of their own care and to be able to be funded to meet their own needs. We have been committed to helping them to get into work, which for many people gives them the opportunity to contribute and to have the self-confidence that arises from being able to work within their capability to do so.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

On one of the busiest Saturdays in the run-up to Christmas in Totnes, local activists—including, sadly, the local Labour party—decided to parade with a real coffin and leave a large and carefully constructed model of a coffin at my constituency office. Does the Leader of the House feel, particularly in the light of the report on intimidation in public life that was published yesterday, that the line of decency was overstepped? There are real dangers in using the imagery of death and directing it against individuals to whip up hatred. Most importantly of all, this kind of thing deters really good candidates from applying for positions in public life.