Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) for what he has said and the Leader of the House for his reply. Paul Goggins was hugely respected and much loved across the House and what has been said today will offer some comfort and succour to his family. That is greatly appreciated.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
May we have a debate on how the honours list is determined? Mr Peter Smith, the Tour de France project co-ordinator for Leeds council, was awarded an MBE in the new year's honours list, which was, I am sure, well merited, but does that not go to show what a glaring omission it was that Gary Verity, who brought the Tour de France to Yorkshire, was ignored? In that debate we can perhaps show the strength of feeling in Yorkshire that Gary Verity should receive a knighthood for what he did, which I hope will be addressed as soon as possible. In any such debate, we could also perhaps discuss the merits of a knighthood for Geoffrey Boycott who, as the Leader of the House knows, is a rival to him as the greatest living Yorkshireman.
Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I say how happy I am to be able to join all those who have commended the House of Commons Governance Committee report, and urge my right hon. Friend to bring forward the debate as quickly as possible so that the findings can be implemented? I say that not least because I was the guy who came up with the idea of this Committee; I drafted the motion that was accepted by the House; and I was even the first to invite the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) to take on the role of Chairman—and he has done so most ably. Moreover, the report concurs with the evidence submitted by the Public Administration Select Committee.
Mr Speaker
Anybody would think that the matter was about the hon. Gentleman! If he wishes us to think that, it is Christmas time, and we are pleased for him.
Mr Hague
Indeed, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for having an idea that was taken up by the whole House. We look forward to taking up more of his ideas in the future—provided they are just as good as that one. The support he has given and the ideas he has supplied are a further illustration of the widespread support in the House for the work of this Committee and indeed for its findings, as I have no doubt we will discover when we come to debate it.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Because there had been no ministerial statements during the week, I attended this morning’s session of oral questions to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to try to establish the Government’s position on the United Nations climate change conference in Lima and the agreement that was reached on Sunday, as it has huge implications for the discussions that will be held in Paris next year. It worries me that the House has not discussed the United Kingdom’s position on the legal structure of the agreement. There has been no discussion about the deferred decisions on ensuring a flow of finance to developing countries, about where the burden for cutting greenhouse gas emissions should lie, or about the dropping of the requirement for countries to provide information about their “prospect reduction targets”. May we please have a debate in Government time, so that we can discuss those important issues?
Mr Hague
They are globally important issues. This morning, as my hon. Friend may know, a written statement was issued to update the House on the outcomes of the conference, and my ministerial colleagues from the Department of Energy and Climate Change were here to answer questions from Members, including topical questions. I am sure that there will be further opportunities to debate the issue before the meeting in Paris next year. Indeed, my hon. Friend may wish to create such an opportunity with the help of the Backbench Business Committee.
Mr Hague
As has already been said, the Government have a strong record on standing up for hard-working people. However, these pension issues are very important, and there will be opportunities to ask my colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions about them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is also open to him to press for a debate through all the normal means.
Mr Speaker
I hope to accommodate the remaining questioners, but may we please have brief questions, without preamble?
Rehman Chishti
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Local businesses in my constituency have contacted me expressing real concerns about the sale of illegal tobacco in Gillingham, which has previously been named as the capital of illicit cigarette sales. May we have an urgent debate on how the government are dealing with the problem around the country?
Mr Hague
As we are not currently having a debate about the issue, it is important for us all to get on with it, which is exactly what my hon. Friend is doing and encouraging in his constituency. We are creating dementia-friendly communities which will help to support those who live with dementia, and we are educating 1 million people so that they can become dementia friends. I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for that.
All of us in the Cabinet have been taught about the issue, and, to date, there are more than 600,000 dementia friends. This is another issue on which we should continue to work hard in the new year.
Mr Speaker
Order. In wishing all parliamentary colleagues, and everyone who works on the parliamentary estate, a merry Christmas and a happy 2015, I am minded to mention that there is one upcoming item on the agenda to which they can look forward with eager anticipation: on Tuesday 13 January in Speaker’s House we will be addressed, in the lecture series for 2015, on the subject of William Pitt by the Leader of the House. He is a very considerable authority on that matter.
Devolution (Implications for England)
John Bercow Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Command Paper on the implications of devolution for England, which the Government publish today. The House will recall that on 19 September my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the establishment of a commission, chaired by Lord Smith of Kelvin, to take forward the commitments to further devolution in Scotland made by all three UK pro-Union parties during the referendum campaign. On 27 November, after the publication of the Smith commission’s report, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced to the House that draft legislation to implement its recommendations would be prepared by 25 January, and presented in a Bill to Parliament following the general election. The Prime Minister also said that a new and fair settlement for Scotland must be accompanied by an equivalent settlement for all parts of the United Kingdom.
This is a fundamental issue of fairness for all the people of the United Kingdom. Just as the people of Scotland will have more power over their affairs, so it follows that the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland must have the opportunity to have a bigger say over theirs. The Wales Bill has completed its final stages in Parliament, and the Secretary of State for Wales is leading a cross-party process to move towards a fair and lasting devolution settlement for Wales. The Northern Ireland Secretary is hosting talks on a number of issues, including reforms to make the devolved institutions work more effectively. Depending on progress, in particular putting the Executive’s finances on a sustainable long-term footing, the Government stand ready to introduce legislation to devolve corporation tax, with a view to seeing it on the statute book during this Parliament.
Today’s Command Paper covers proposals on decentralisation within England and proposals on English votes on English laws. It sets out the position of each of the coalition parties, just as the Command Paper on Scotland did for three parties. We invited the Labour party to submit its own proposals for publication, but it declined to do so. The Secretary of State for Scotland has been able to work on a cross-party basis. The talks held by the Secretary of State for Wales have been on a cross-party basis. It is only on matters concerning England that the leadership of the Opposition are hostile to cross-party talks. However, the contribution to our thinking by leaders of local authorities, including those from the Labour party, has been welcome and constructive.
There has been a significant shift in where power resides in the United Kingdom in recent years. Since 2010, the Government have undertaken the most radical programme of decentralisation within England in a generation. In addition to the significant new powers for local communities, there are now five combined authorities, 15 directly elected local authority mayors, a metro mayor in London, and plans for a metro mayor to be elected for Greater Manchester in 2017. The regional growth fund, growth deals and growing places fund have been made available to all local areas. This summer, the Government set out plans to create a northern powerhouse and consulted on Northern Futures. Taken together with what we are doing on science and transport infrastructure, this Government have the most ambitious and substantial plan for the north of England of any Government in decades.
Both parties of the coalition wish to continue this major progress towards decentralisation of power in England, and their ideas are set out in the Command Paper. In the Command Paper, the Liberal Democrats call for a process of devolution on demand to be delivered through an English devolution-enabling Bill, under which areas would be able to demand powers from Westminster and Whitehall from a menu of options. This would include many powers devolved to the Welsh Assembly, although the exact powers available would be subject to cross-government confirmation, and the UK Government would retain a list of reserved powers. In order to claim powers, a given area would need to demonstrate that it met tests on geography, population, competence, local democratic mandate, a fair electoral system, and a transparent and accountable governance structure.
For our part, the Conservative party wishes in the next Parliament to continue with the empowerment of neighbourhoods and parishes in England, as well as seeing the type of arrangements being created for Greater Manchester agreed elsewhere. This includes a large further increase in neighbourhood planning, greater local accountability and use of direct democracy, such as local referendums on local issues. In addition, Conservatives want to work with local enterprise partnerships and councils to promote jobs and growth, to help local authorities join up different public services, and to work with local business to support jobs and improve quality of life locally. We strongly believe that localism must not be a way of imposing new taxation. We believe that the Westminster Parliament is and should remain the English law-making body.
Decentralisation within England cannot on its own create fairness for England as a whole on policies decided at the UK level but which apply only in England. On the crucial question of the implications for England of devolution in the rest of the UK, fairness for all the people of the UK now requires this issue to be addressed decisively.
Devolution to other parts of the United Kingdom has created the situation in which MPs representing constituencies outside England may vote on legislation that does not affect their constituents, while English MPs are not able to influence these policies in other nations where they are devolved. Both coalition parties believe that this so-called West Lothian question needs to be addressed and have put forward their proposals in the Command Paper.
The Liberal Democrat party believes—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear what the Leader of the House has to say about Liberal Democrat policy. We must hear it.
Mr Hague
At least the Liberal Democrat proposals are set out in the Command Paper, unlike any proposals from the Labour party.
The Liberal Democrat party believes that English MPs at Westminster should have a stronger voice and a veto over English-only issues. Their preferred method of addressing this would be for there to be votes for Westminster elections using the single transferable vote system. However, accepting that there is currently no cross-party consensus on this—which is certainly true—they instead propose that the composition of those serving on any new stage, such as a Grand Committee of English MPs, should reflect the votes of the electorate in England. The Liberal Democrats also believe that measures that unambiguously affect England only and are not devolved below the Westminster level should be subject to a new parliamentary stage before Third Reading or equivalent, composed of MPs proportionately representing the votes cast in England to allow them to scrutinise proposals and to employ a veto if they so wish.
The Conservative party believes that equalised constituency sizes remains necessary to fairness for all voters. We set out three options in the Command Paper for resolving the West Lothian question. All of them represent a stronger and more binding version of English votes for English laws than the work of the McKay commission, but all rest on the guiding principle set out by McKay, that
“decisions at the United Kingdom level with a separate and distinct effect for England (or for England-and-Wales) should normally be taken only with the consent of a majority of MPs for constituencies in England (or England-and-Wales).”
The first option, which was put forward by Lord Norton of Louth in 2000, is to reform consideration of Bills at all stages. All stages of legislation relating only to England, or only to England and Wales, would be determined by MPs from England or from England and Wales. The key advantage of this proposal is its simplicity and the absence of any need for any new stages in the legislative process.
The second option is to reform the amending stages of Bills, as proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) in 2008. Under this proposal all amending stages of legislation relating only to England, or only to England and Wales, would be determined by MPs from England and Wales. Committees would be in proportion to party strength in those countries. The key advantage of this proposal is that it allows MPs from England, or from England and Wales, to have the decisive say over the content of legislation while not excluding other MPs from other stages and not introducing any new stages to the legislative process.
The third and final option is to introduce a reformed Committee stage and legislative consent motion, providing an effective veto. Under this option, the Committee stage of legislation relating only to England, or only to England and Wales, would be considered only by MPs from those parts of the United Kingdom. Report stage would be taken as normal by all MPs. An English Grand Committee would then vote after Report, but prior to Third Reading, on a legislative consent motion. English, or English and Welsh, MPs would therefore be able to grant their consent or veto a Bill, or relevant parts of it. Such decisions would have the same status as those of the Scottish Parliament on devolved matters. The key advantage of this proposal is that it would give English, or English and Welsh, MPs a crucial say over the content of legislation and a secure veto over its passing while not excluding other MPs from its consideration in the full House of Commons.
The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats invite comment and views on all the options in the Command Paper—[Interruption.] We await the views of the Opposition. For hundreds of years, the constitutional arrangements of the UK have evolved successfully through taking account of the needs in each century and decade for the giving or withholding of consent. The pursuit of devolution in recent years has been based on the importance of establishing the consent of parts of the UK for the policies particular to them. The next stage of our constitutional evolution must involve that principle of consent being applied to all parts of the UK.
Whichever option is ultimately decided upon must be clear, decisive and effective in producing fairness for the whole United Kingdom. The Government encourage debate so that this matter can be fully considered and resolved for the long-term strength of the United Kingdom. It is an issue that too many people have avoided for too long, and that can no longer be put aside.
Mr Speaker
Order. A very large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I am keen to accommodate all of them if possible, but if I am to do so of the essence is brevity. I call Sir William Cash.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Where there are clearly devolved functions, Scottish and other MPs from devolved parts of the United Kingdom have no justification whatever to vote on exclusively English matters—and the voters get this. I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that this matter is dealt with in the near future by amendment of our Standing Orders as I proposed, and not by legislation—thereby avoiding interference by the courts. Will he do this?
Mr Speaker
Order. The Leader of the House has given very succinct replies, but we must have shorter questions; otherwise, some Members will not be able to ask their questions, and will be disenchanted. That will be perfectly avoidable if Members show a bit of consideration for each other.
Mr Hague
I will give even shorter answers, Mr Speaker. What we are talking about is not some veto over Scotland, but a potential veto over what is decided in England by English Members of Parliament. I hope that the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Mr Hood) will bear that in mind.
There is nothing about the Barnett formula in these proposals. That is a separate consideration. The commitment to the formula was made clear during the referendum campaign, and nothing in these proposals changes that debate and that commitment.
Wayne David
Good choice, Mr Speaker.
Following the Leader of the House’s previous answer, has he had any consultations at all with you, Mr Speaker, on possible options for deciding what is English-only legislation?
Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miss McIntosh
I slipped out to get a report, Mr Speaker, but I was here at the beginning.
Mr Speaker
We cannot have Members slipping out, but on this occasion we will accommodate the hon. Lady, who is an illustrious denizen of the House.
Miss McIntosh
The report is pertinent to my request, but I will take note and behave better in future, Mr Speaker.
Will my right hon. Friend find Government time to debate the recent annual report from the Government chief scientific adviser, “Innovation: managing risk, not avoiding it”, which concludes that, like thalidomide and asbestos, fracking could carry unforeseen risks? Such a profound allegation should be considered in Government time before any fracking applications are considered locally.
Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
Thousands of young carers in Norfolk are at risk of falling behind their peers at school. May we have a debate on how best to support the education of those children who care for family members at home, including perhaps through the extension of the pupil premium?
Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a very narrow statement. I know that, given the spirit and requirement of narrowness, hon. Members will comply.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Can the Leader of the House say how long this debate will be —what is the maximum length of the debate—and whether the House will then divide on whether to support or oppose the reduction in stamp duty?
Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
The right hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this, as any of us would in this House about our letters not being replied to. It is very important that public authorities reply to letters from Members of Parliament in a thorough and efficient way. He will have a further opportunity to raise this point, if he wishes, because there are questions to the Secretary of State for Health next Tuesday. He may be able to catch your eye again then, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Indeed he may. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) will be in his place.
Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Later today, the House will debate devolution and the Union. The debate takes place before the report of the Smith commission is published, and before the Cabinet Sub-Committee on English votes for English laws, which my right hon. Friend chairs, has completed its work. Does he agree that we really need a debate once we have both those documents, and will he use his best endeavours to secure one?
Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
May I tell my right hon. Friend that I am a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and that I was present at its meeting yesterday? I can confirm that there was only a slight administrative delay, as he has told the House, due to the length and complexity of the measure, not because there were any specific problems. Also, my understanding is that on at least one occasion in this Parliament the House has debated a statutory instrument before the Joint Committee did, and I seem to recall that it had Labour support.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that there was a request for a statement or debate somewhere in the interstices of the question and that we just did not find it.
Mr Hague
Indeed, my hon. Friend is right that there have been previous cases, including in this Parliament—for example, the debate on prevention and suppression of terrorism on 10 July last year. I am grateful for what he says about yesterday’s deliberations by the Committee, and we all hope that it will complete those deliberations next Tuesday.
Mr Hollobone
This morning my right hon. Friend has shown his appetite for reviving obscure parliamentary procedures by asking the House to vote on Monday on a measure that will not have completed its other Commons stages. Will he therefore revive the obscure parliamentary procedure of debating Opposition policy in dedicated Government time? Given the importance to our democracy of having a healthy Opposition, and as a reward for the refreshing honesty of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), who said that the public have
“no idea what our policies are”,
may we test the proposition that this House has identified Her Majesty’s Opposition’s alternative programme for government?
Bob Blackman
Yesterday I had the honour of captaining the House of Commons bridge team in our annual match against the other place. I am happy to report that we successfully retained the Jack Perry trophy with an outstanding victory. Sadly, I was the only sitting Member participating and I had to enlist a number of ex-MPs— former distinguished Members of this House—to join me. Even more sadly, UK Sport refuses to recognise bridge, chess and other mind sports as sports. May we have an early debate, in Government time, on ensuring that there is recognition of those mind sports, which are important for sporting purposes in schools and for older people, so that we can encourage participation in them?
Mr Speaker
I am sure the House is pleased to learn of the hon. Gentleman’s prowess and distinction at the bridge table. It is a prowess and distinction of which I was hitherto unaware, but I am now better informed.
Mr Hague
I was also unaware of it, Mr Speaker, and I congratulate my hon. Friend. To defeat the House of Lords at bridge is no small matter, although I do wonder how many former world champions he recruited to his team in the absence of any other Members of Parliament. I hope hon. Members will join him in future years so that the title can be retained. He makes an important point about the importance of games such as chess to the development of young people. I would certainly welcome a debate. I am not able to offer Government time for it, but I encourage my hon. Friend to pursue it in all the normal ways.
Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
I am glad that my hon. Friend is touring the pubs of his constituency while simultaneously fighting obesity—always a challenge, but he appears to be succeeding in both objectives. It is something I have often done, and I strongly recommend it to all Members, particularly as elections draw close. We have just had questions on food matters to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but it is wholly legitimate for my hon. Friend to seek to raise the matter in other ways on the Floor of the House.
Mr Speaker
I was hoping that we were going to hear about the Leader of the House’s judo and other exercise regimes, but there might be more of that anon—who knows?
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
May we have a debate on wildlife crime? The Leader of the House will know that two days ago Natural England published a report showing that of the 47 hen harriers that it has tagged with transmitters over the past seven years, only four are thought still to be alive. That shows that there are serious problems and I think that the House should debate them.
Points of Order
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your view on the role of the Leader of the House. Last week, I thought the Leader of the House assured me that there would be an opportunity to discuss the Ebola crisis in Africa. What can we do if the Leader of the House gives an assurance and then does not follow it through. Do you have a role in this, Mr Speaker?
Mr Speaker
I am not aware of any breach of undertaking. I respond cautiously because the hon. Gentleman presumably has a specific instance in mind. He recalls a commitment that he thinks was made, but I am not aware that there has been a breach. I would say two things. First, in my experience the Leader of the House—I have known the right hon. Gentleman for 20 years—has always been a person of his word who treats this House with the utmost respect. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has been here for 35 years, and if there is a feeling of unhappiness on his part, I am sure he can talk to the Leader of the House. As to whether I regularly talk to the Leader of the House, of course I do, and I am quite happy to have a chat with him about this. Because the hon. Gentleman has been here 35 years, as I say, I will allow him a follow-up, but we must then move on.
Mr Sheerman
It is the only one I could find in my office this morning. Someone from the Green campaign gave it to me, as you can see.
What ability do you have, Mr Speaker, if the Leader of the House makes a commitment at any time and does not follow it through? I asked last week about the Ebola crisis and feel passionately that we seem to be ignoring it in the House. I thought we had a commitment. Do you have a role in chasing the Leader of the House on this?
Mr Hague
Further to that point of order, it is a huge relief to hear that the hon. Gentleman was given the tie.
I do not have the record here, but I think I said last week that the Secretary of State for Health had made a statement the previous week about Ebola, that there would be further opportunities in the House and that the Government would keep the House updated. One of the things that the Prime Minister will discuss at the EU summit in the next couple of days is the response to Ebola. In his statement on Monday the Prime Minister will be expanding on the latest situation. I did not say that there would be a discussion of it this week, but there will be on Monday. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can look forward to that.
Mr Speaker
I simply say two things to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). First, the main recourse for a Member disappointed that a matter he or she judges to be urgent is not being aired in the House is of course to apply to me for permission to put an urgent question, 185 of which have, I think, been granted since June 2009. Secondly, although I have made it clear that I think the Leader of the House is absolutely a person of his word and of unimpeachable integrity, I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that if the Speaker were required to apply a sanction every time something said was not subsequently delivered upon, I would be an extraordinarily busy man.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I take the opportunity to apologise to the Leader of the House for suggesting during the business statement that he was wrong to say that the Government Chief Whip was gainfully employed? I understand that the Government Chief Whip and his dog Snowy have just become runners-up in the parliamentary dog of the year competition, so I withdraw the implication that he does not have much to do with his time.
Mr Speaker
That is a characteristically resourceful and ingenious use, and abuse, of the point of order procedure by the hon. Gentleman.
Perhaps we can now proceed to the first of the two debates scheduled to take place today under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. That first debate is on the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. To move the motion—wow, does he look excited about it—I call Sir Edward Leigh.