Committee on Standards (Reports)

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron) and to pay tribute to his work and that of his Committee. I believe that both the motions before us, if agreed, will serve to increase confidence, inside and outside the House, in the regulatory system that we work under.

Let me deal first with the motion relating to the standards system in the House. I pay tribute not only to the Committee but to the sub-Committee, which did a lot of work on this. I particularly commend its lay members, who led the review, for the production of a thoughtful and balanced report. The report proves the value of including an outside perspective at the heart of our self-regulatory system. That, in itself, makes the case for broadening that outside perspective. These matters—the design and application of the standards system—are, of course, for the House collectively. The Government are fully supportive of the efforts of the Standards Committee and others to secure a system that is transparent, clear and effective. I believe that the motion is consistent with this objective.

The Government support the maintenance of an independent parliamentary commissioner for standards with the discretion to accept or reject a complaint for investigation, as she sees fit. It is right that a complete separation be maintained between the investigation of a complaint by the commissioner and the Committee’s role in considering her report and recommending any sanctions to the House. I am pleased that the Committee did not recommend a new adversarial procedure with lengthy and legalistic procedures. That would not have served the interests of the House or its Members, or improved its reputation in the eyes of the public.

The Committee’s most striking recommendation, as the right hon. Gentleman discussed, is the increase in the number of lay members from three to seven—the same as the number of MPs on the Committee. He told us how much of an asset it has been to have the services of the three lay members. Quite apart from the value they bring to the Committee from their differing backgrounds and experiences, their presence provides an effective answer to those who criticise the standards system on the grounds that it is Members judging each other. The achievement of a balance of external and internal members of the Committee will serve to provide it with a wider range of views and greater authority in this House, and, I hope, create greater confidence in the system outside this place.

It was notable that the lay members did not see the need to have a vote to be an effective presence on the Committee. The report explains that the

“existing position of the lay members is strong, contrary to some external portrayal.”

We have to be guided by the Committee on this point. It is difficult to imagine that it will want to publish reports with which its lay members disagree. However, the ability of lay members to record a contrary view is an important part of the present system that will be enhanced in the new one. Making lay members full members of the Committee would have introduced an element of legal uncertainty into its proceedings, as has been set out by the Procedure Committee and the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege.

The one recommendation directly for the Government relates to the scheduling of reports for debate. The Committee recommends that debates should take place within two months of the publication of reports. The Government have been very responsive in scheduling debates on the Committee’s reports on the conduct of individual Members. The conclusions of reports of this nature have always been brought before the House within a matter of days. I believe that any Government in the next Parliament will want to continue to bring forward substantive reports on the conduct of Members that require a decision of the House at the earliest available opportunity. I would certainly recommend that to my successor.

I am pleased that the Committee plans to take on a wider role in the promotion of ethical conduct of Members of Parliament, drawing on best professional practice and the experiences of other legislatures. The new lay members of the Committee, when appointed, will give this role added resonance. The House can look forward to the Committee’s role developing further in the new Parliament.

I turn briefly to the second motion, on the code of conduct for Members and the guide to the rules. I am very pleased to be able to bring this issue before the House before Dissolution. It is important that Members elected to the new Parliament be subject to a clear code of conduct that they can read as soon as they are elected, and that they have the benefit of a guide to the rules that is fully up to date. I am particularly pleased that by updating and improving the guide to the rules, we can implement the outstanding recommendations of the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption in so far as they relate to the House of Commons. The successful passage of the Government’s Recall of MPs Bill also meets its recommendations for disciplinary sanctions that are proportionate and dissuasive.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

On the code of conduct, the Leader of the House will be aware of the controversy in recent days about whether a Minister adequately explained having a second job. Does he feel that the Government now need to revisit the ministerial code of conduct so that Ministers, such as the Minister without Portfolio, have clearer guidance on what they should or should not declare?

[Mr Hague]

My immediate answer is no. Those rules are clear. The Minister concerned has said that he spoke in error, and I do not think there has been any suggestion that he broke the rules.

I believe that the updating of the guide to the rules is uncontroversial, and it should be supported by the House. The wording of the code of conduct has proved quite a difficult nut to crack during this Parliament. The debate in March 2012 revealed disquiet in some quarters of the House—let me put it that way—about how the code could be interpreted. That resulted in an amendment that, in the Committee’s view, led to a disconnect between the powers of the commissioner to investigate certain complaints and the provisions of the code.

As Leader of the House, I have been conscious of the need to secure a high degree of consensus on the code’s wording and interpretation before putting it before the House for a decision. That has taken a little more time than we all wished, but I hope and believe that we have got there in the end. The Members who have taken the time to do that have shown a good deal of forbearance, but that was the right approach. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Rother Valley for his perseverance in chairing his Committee on this matter, and to colleagues from across the House for their co-operation. That is why there has been a delay in holding this debate, but we have been able to have it before the end of the Parliament.

I hope and believe that this debate will illustrate consensus on the wording. The new code proposed by the Standards Committee strikes the right balance between respect for the private life of Members and our obligation to uphold the code in all aspects of our public lives. I hope that the code will command the confidence of the public. On that basis, I am very happy to support the motions.

House of Commons Commission Bill

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

Clause 1 deals with changes to the membership of the Commission. It amends the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, which established the Commission and defined its membership. The amendments set out in clause 1 extend the membership from the current six Members of Parliament to 11 members in total.

Under subsections (2) and (3), the new Commission will consist of seven parliamentary members, two external members and two official members. Subsection (4) provides that the external members, like other members, will be appointed by resolution of the House and that those members cannot come from Parliament itself—they must be genuinely external.

New subsection (2C) specifies that the official members are the Clerk and the Director General of the House of Commons, when the latter is appointed. The new post of Director General is not otherwise defined in statute, so the Bill provides, in new subsection (2C)(b), for the Commission to appoint an alternative official if the post is vacant or ceases to exist. That allows the Commission the freedom to change the name of that senior post at a future point without recourse to legislative change.

Subsection (5) provides a definition for members of staff of the House of Lords. There is no need to provide an equivalent definition for Commons staff because the term “staff in the House Departments” is already used in the 1978 Act.

Finally, subsection (6) gives effect to the schedule, which makes further provision about the membership and procedures of the Commission, which we will debate later. The clause and the accompanying schedule implement the legislative recommendations of the House of Commons Governance Committee regarding the membership of the Commission.

[Thomas Docherty]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. I will be extremely brief. We welcome this clause, which is a logical extension. I see no need to continue this debate any longer than necessary.

[Tom Brake]

Hear, hear to that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Functions of the Commission

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Tom Brake]

Clause 2 amends section 2 of the 1978 Act. It extends the role of the Commission to include the setting of strategic priorities and objectives for services provided by the House departments. That function is added to the Commission’s current statutory responsibilities for staff appointments, numbers, pay and pensions. This amendment to the 1978 Act implements in full a recommendation from the House of Commons Governance Committee and makes explicit in statute a role that the Commission otherwise fulfils by default. The precise way in which the Commission carries out that function is not prescribed in the Bill, in order to allow the Commission flexibility to decide the most appropriate way to discharge its responsibilities.

[Thomas Docherty]

Again, I will be as brief as possible. As I said on Second Reading—all that time ago—I am frankly astonished that we have gone 30-odd years without having a Commission set out that one of its core functions is from time to time to set out strategic priorities. I think that is a very obvious point that should be addressed. When external members are selected and the parliamentary parties choose their representatives, I hope that the parliamentary parties and the Commission will bear in mind the qualities that are needed. The Commission’s job is not to micro-manage the House service; it is to set strategic priorities. That is therefore a key requirement in external member appointments and the choice of members to serve for the parliamentary parties.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This has throughout been a matter for the House. The role of the Government has been to facilitate and support the House in reaching a decision and in making these changes. The House has demonstrated its support for the recommendations of the Governance Committee implemented by this Bill. The Bill is one strand—an important strand—of the package of measures that is currently being taken forward by the Commission and the House. I am sure that this package overall will help to bring the governance arrangements of the House up to date and deliver improvements for Members, staff and the public.

Once again, I thank everyone who has contributed to this work and strongly support it as Leader of the House. I commend the Bill to the House for its Third Reading.

[Thomas Docherty]

Again, I will be brief. I join the Leader of the House in thanking not just the Governance Committee and its staff but all the House service, including the secretary of the Commission, Mr Twigger, who is also the Clerk of the Finance and Services Committee, and Helen Wood, the Clerk of the Administration Committee, for all their work in taking this forward.

I am slightly disappointed by the Leader of the House. Those of us who have been watching the documentary series about the House of Commons will recall him saying that he once had a 24-hour speech prepared. Given the quickness with which we have moved through this, perhaps he could have been tempted to give us an excerpt from that speech. I think we still have four and half hours left if he wants to fill up the time.

[Mr Hague]

I have to say that while watching those programmes we have seen aspects of the hon. Gentleman himself that many of us never wish to see again. There are many things set out in them that are not to be brought on to the Floor of the House today.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful for that very helpful intervention.

As regards making good progress, it is absolutely crucial that the Finance and Services Committee and the Administration Committee move very quickly after the general election to fill the two posts on the Commission. I hope that the Committee of Selection will therefore make one of its early priorities finding time to establish at least initial versions of the Administration Committee and the Finance and Services Committee so that we can fulfil this process.

This has been a good and very consensual debate. We wish the Bill all the best in the other place.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Sittings in Westminster Hall

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I will follow the example set by the Chair of the Procedure Committee by being equally brief. We welcome the fact that the Government have found time to debate not just this but two other reports. We are disappointed, however, that time has not been found to debate the report on private Members’ Bills. I hope the Minister will tell us when we will debate the report, which suggests sensible, modernising steps that were agreed unanimously by the Committee, which also entered into a negotiation on them with the Government over an extended period.

I pay tribute to the Chair of the Committee, of which I am also a member. I am disappointed that the Government have not accepted the recommendation to switch Monday and Thursday sittings. I have always found the Leader of the House to be incredibly humorous, none more so than when he told the Committee that the Government were keen to preserve Thursday as a full day of business. Having attended many Thursday sittings, I am not sure that they are a fair reflection of all the business timetabled and I still believe it would be more helpful to colleagues for important Select Committee debates to take place on Monday afternoons and for e-petitions to be discussed on Thursdays.

In the spirit of going forward, however, we welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the other changes, particularly the useful innovation of one-hour debates. My recollection is that the proposal was for Opposition Front-Bench contributions to be very brief, but our position is that such debates would operate in the same way as a one-and-a-half-hour debate. Oppositions tend to have substantive policy—we certainly do—and it would be unfair to try to cram that into a few brief remarks.

I thank the Chair of the Committee for the way in which he set out the report and the Government for finding the time for the debate. I hope the motion can be agreed without dissent.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

I support the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and that of the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), relating to business in Westminster Hall.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on receiving his OBE at the Palace today, and I am grateful to him for returning to the Chamber. I know he has been keen for the House to consider and decide on the outstanding work of his Committee before Dissolution. I am pleased that we have been able to facilitate that this afternoon.

We will consider three of the outstanding reports of the Procedure Committee today, but there is further House business to attend to, including reports by the Procedure and the Standards and Privileges Committees, the Standing Order changes necessary to bring into effect the recommendations of the House of Commons Governance Committee report, and the House of Commons Commission Bill that we have just considered. I expect there to be further opportunities for the House to consider those issues before 30 March, and it is the Government’s intention to provide time for those outstanding reports—including the report on private Members’ Bills—that have been agreed, so that those issues on which there is a wide consensus can be resolved before the end of the Parliament. I stress the importance of there being a wide consensus.

[Thomas Docherty]

I have listened carefully to the Deputy Leader of the House’s choice of words. It is our view, with the best will in the world, that a wide consensus is not the same as a Government veto. If the Government do not like a substantive part of the report on private Members’ Bills, they should say so publicly, which, ironically enough, is one of the things that the report seeks to get them to do in relation to private Members’ Bills. The Government simply not wanting to table a motion is not an excuse for not debating the issue in the House. The House is supreme and it should decide, not the Government.

[Tom Brake]

I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. He has now made two forceful bids for that report to be debated. It is worth underlining, however, that the hon. Gentleman will be as aware as anyone of the range of views on the issue of private Members’ Bills and how the process could be improved, ameliorated or changed.

House of Commons Commission Bill

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I begin by offering the apologies of my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, who is out of the country today. The task of representing Her Majesty’s Opposition therefore falls to me this afternoon.

As the Leader of the House said, we support the Bill. We thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and his Committee for the work they put in and the speed with which they produced their report, which has allowed us to make these straightforward alterations ahead of schedule.

For those who are not familiar with Commons procedures, it is worth touching on the role of the Commission. The Commission is not like a Select Committee: it does not have the powers of a Select Committee or perform a scrutiny function; it does not summon witnesses or produce reports. That role is performed by the Finance and Services Committee—to become the Finance Committee—and the Administration Committee. The Commission is a governance body. Clause 2 states:

“The Commission must from time to time set strategic priorities and objectives in connection with services provided by the House Departments.”

As the House of Commons Governance Committee highlighted, one of the defects in recent years has been that the Commission did not necessarily understand its own role, and it certainly was not understood by the wider membership of the House and beyond, so we welcome not only the changes being made but the new provision which, for the first time, I think, sets out explicitly the role of the Commission to make strategic choices.

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

While the hon. Gentleman is talking about the responsibilities of the Commission and how it will work, may I ask whether it is still envisaged that the commissioners will be elected, and if so, will that be by the whole House or by the individual parties?

[Thomas Docherty]

I will come on to that shortly.

One of the major challenges facing Parliament when we—or perhaps our successors—return in May is the need in the next Parliament to make a decision on restoration and renewal. I pay tribute to the right hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) and for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) for their work on tackling the early stages of thinking on restoration and renewal. Restoration and renewal is not optional. We will have to spend money—taxpayers’ money—and Parliament must take huge decisions on the appropriate timetable for carrying out those works and how to ensure best value for taxpayers. The Commission will have a crucial role in providing leadership, so it is absolutely right that we ensure that it accurately reflects the views of the House. It is also important that the Commission has external members who will be able to provide strategic advice. It is no criticism of Members of this House, but not all of us have business experience or are used to grappling with some of the issues that the Commission will have to deal with.

The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) will understand that it is not for me to speak for other parties and their internal processes. He is probably slightly more familiar than I with how the Conservative parliamentary party operates. It is clear that two of the members will be the Chairs of the Administration and Finance Committees, so that is a matter for post-election arrangements. The question was asked during the debate on the Governance Committee’s report, so let me say clearly that the Opposition do not believe that the commissioners who are not Select Committee Chairs should be paid an additional sum to carry out this work, in part because we do not believe it is appropriate in the current climate and our constituents would not regard it as sensible, and in part because serving on the Commission should not be more onerous than being a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the European Scrutiny Committee or, indeed, the Finance and Administration Committees. What is important is getting people who come forward and are selected by their party because they have a particular interest or knowledge.

We welcome the progress made on the appointment of a Director General. The Leader of the House is right to say that it is necessary to complete that process after the election, but we do not see that as a significant obstacle to the Bill’s progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond briefly to two points made by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). I may have picked him up incorrectly. The Opposition do not think that the Commission members who are not Chairs of Select Committees should be elected by the whole House. It is a matter for the parties to elect them. If I can extend the principle of Select Committees, members of Select Committees are not elected by the whole House; they are elected by their parties. Their role on the Commission will be to represent, as the Leader of the House has already said, the views of those parties. As Members of Parliament, it would not be democratic for Labour Members to have a say on who represents the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats or the minority parties. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, the parliamentary Labour party position is that it would be for those individual parties.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the finance commissioner, for example, should be elected by the whole House, even if he is not saying that the commissioners without portfolio should be elected by the whole House?

[Thomas Docherty]

That is something that we will look at. My position is that the current arrangements for the Select Committee Chairs have worked well in this Parliament and they should continue in the next Parliament.

It is critical that there is no ambiguity about the position of the parliamentary Labour party. We do not believe that the other commissioners should be paid, because the work is no more onerous than being a member of the Finance and Services Committee or the Administration Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee, and they do not receive payment. My understanding is that the Commission meets once a month and it would be slightly strange if the only member of the Commission who was not receiving an additional payment ended up being the shadow Leader of the House, because the shadow Cabinet are not paid. The Commission itself does not have an onerous meeting schedule—

[John Thurso]

I quite understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, I just fundamentally disagree with it. It is not in the Bill, so we can leave it until later.

[Thomas Docherty]

Perhaps that is a sign of our democracy at work.

As I say, that is the position of the parliamentary Labour party. We are absolutely clear. We want to see more cost-saving measures. We welcome the steps that the Commission is taking in looking at the shared services. That was something that came out of the Governance Committee’s report. We are clear: my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and I have said on more than one occasion that it is absurd that we continue to have two catering operations and two research operations. We already have shared services. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has done a lot of work on this. In the next Parliament the goal should be to reduce the costs of our democracy, not to drive them up further.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

In responding to the Second Reading debate on behalf of the Government, I want to thank those right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part, particularly for their positive comments about the Bill. I am grateful for the support offered by members of the Governance Committee and the official Opposition. A number of Members have raised individual points, to which I will seek to respond.

First, I again thank the Opposition spokesman for setting out in his opening remarks the role of the Commission, from which we could all benefit—Members of Parliament and the wider public. He also set out his party’s position on the election of commissioners. I hope that he would agree that that is not a matter for the Bill. It therefore does not set out how the process should be carried out.

We then heard from the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), who stressed the importance of connecting the Commission with Members. I think that we all share his hope that the Commission will be more responsive, more in tune and more in keeping with best practice. I agree with his point about the Commission not always being good at providing direction. The specific function added by the Bill will provide greater clarity on the leadership of the House, and the new membership will ensure that the leadership is fully representative of Members and staff.

We then heard from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). Like all Members who have spoken, I would like to thank him once again for the key role he played in the House of Commons Governance Committee, and for his willingness to do something that has not been done for 40 years. I think that he put it very delicately when he said that there was perhaps a difference of emphasis on the issue of the leadership of the House—how very diplomatic of him. However, he went on to underline in slightly less diplomatic terms some of the less functional, or possibly even dysfunctional, aspects of the Commission.

The right hon. Gentleman touched on the issue of pay for commissioners. Clearly that is a matter for the House, rather than the Bill, but I am sure that those arrangements, whatever they might be in future, will take account of the public’s desire for the cost of politics not to go up—although I fully understand the point made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, which is that if all the commissioners are paid, the shadow Leader of the House would be left in a rather impecunious position, as the only member who would not receive a salary for the role.

[Thomas Docherty]

For the avoidance of doubt, that was not my main argument. The right hon. Gentleman said that there is a significant work load, and my point was that there was no suggestion that the shadow Leader of the House—I can say this because she is safely out of the country—is seeking to be paid. If the logic is based on the work load, I should point out that her work load is significantly higher than that of other commissioners.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, although I must say that it was not needed, because I had not suggested that the shadow Leader of the House had primed him to make a bid for additional funding for her post.

We then heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). With regard to his claim that he was named after the railway station, rather than the other way around, I say, “Nice try.” I am sure that is not entirely factual. I would like to thank him for the key role he plays on the Commission, which is important for all Members of Parliament, and he does it very effectively. We always enjoy listening to his responses to questions on the Commission, particularly on the subject of mice, on which he is an expert. He rightly underlined that the commissioners should have specific responsibilities. Renovation and restoration is one area where there is a very clear opening for someone to undertake or be involved in a very substantial piece of work.

My right hon. Friend also highlighted the fact that there is no enabling clause to bring together the Members estimate and the administration estimate. I accept that that is worth further consideration, but getting it right will require a little more time and we do not want to hold up the Bill by trying to pursue it. We have already touched on the subject of whether the extra members should be paid and the position that would leave the shadow Leader of the House in—although, she has not made a specific request for funding for her position.

Finally, we heard from the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst). I would like to thank him for the key role he has played on the Administration Committee. He, like a number of Members, stressed his hope that the new Commission will improve communications and coherence. That is one of the key messages that have come out of the debate.

This has been a short debate, which demonstrates that the modest provisions in the Bill have support from across the House. I will therefore detain the House no further and hope that the Bill can now make rapid progress. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Queen’s and Prince of Wales’s Consent

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I will be even briefer than I have been by my standard today; we have important business to discuss.

I thank the Procedure Committee for its work. It is right that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee offered no substantive evidence that requiring signification by a Privy Counsellor in person had delayed Bills—Governments have found enough ways to hold up Bills that they do not particularly like—and we therefore think this is a sensible way forward.

Petitions and e-petitions

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I am conscious that we have an important debate on mental health to follow, so I do not seek to delay the House unduly.

I begin by praising the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley). I think it was the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) who suggested to him that if we, as Parliament, got this right, it would be the most significant reform since the setting up of Select Committees in 1979 and that he would have left his mark in a positive way at the end of this Parliament. The Committee’s report will set us on that right track.

If I may pick up on the final point made by the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, I do not think it is contentious to highlight the issue of cost. That is something we have talked about already this afternoon. The Opposition are clear that this is not an additional Select Committee, as the Chairman himself stated. It has to be a replacement for one of the Select Committees. It is clearly not for us today to determine what the next Parliament does, but there are one or two Select Committees that are not Government scrutiny committees which could be looked at. On cost, which the Chairman highlighted so boldly, it is worth pointing out that a lot of those costs are already being met by the Government. The taxpayer pays for both and this would move the costs from the Cabinet Office to Parliament. When the Leader of the House responds, I hope he will confirm that the Government will seek to assist in mitigating those costs to Parliament as the new system is implemented.

The Procedure Committee rightly raised concerns about the misuse of e-petitions by campaigning organisations. We are absolutely clear, as has already been said, that genuine petitioning of Parliament is a constitutional right that goes back to the 17th century. This is not designed to be a mechanism to allow well-funded vested interest groups to seek to engineer debates. That is why it is absolutely appropriate that when an e-petition reaches the 100,000 threshold it still has to be considered by a Select Committee before it is granted time. We also think that the proposals for granting privilege are sensible. This is not, and should not be, a back-door mechanism for ingenious Members to try to attach privilege, having failed with other mechanisms to circumvent the courts.

I wish to make a few critiques of the current system, many of which, to be fair, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire has already highlighted. A couple of Sessions ago, the Procedure Committee published a report stating that the greatest challenge facing the electorate was the confusing nature of the e-petitions system. When the e-petitions website was established in 2010, it gave the erroneous impression that members of the public were influencing Parliament, but as he acknowledged, they were not; the e-petitions were influencing Government to ask Parliament to do something. It is absolutely right, therefore, that this be a joint system. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, has a different perspective—he would prefer separate systems—but we are clear that there should be a single system, not just for cost reasons but in order to provide members of the public with the opportunity to have greater influence over our democratic process. Such a system should make it clearer who is being petitioned—that, as the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, it is Parliament that is being petitioned, not the Executive branch.

I wish now to be positive about the success of the past four or five years. In that time, we have had some fantastic debates. One of the best was the Hillsborough debate one Monday afternoon, during which we heard powerful speeches from both sides of the House. That began with an e-petition—one of the earliest e-petitions. For that reason, and provided we enter into this in the correct spirit, I would like to see more of these powerful, public-led debates influencing our democracy. As my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House has said several times, we are clear that Parliament must do more to reconnect with our constituents, who ultimately are our bosses, and e-petitions are a useful tool for doing that.

There has been talk about the system in the Scottish Parliament, which, like the Government, the Procedure Committee visited. However, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is right to caution against taking a straight read across, given the scale of the system there. Members of Parliament must remain constituents’ key advocates—the e-petitions system should not replace that; it would not be possible to replicate the system in Scotland with 10 times the number of constituencies. Furthermore, the Scottish Parliament does not have the full range of issues to cover that the Westminster Parliament does, and therefore it is right that the Clerks service is there to support it.

We fully support the proposals—they are an excellent way forward—and we hope that they will be implemented to great acclaim in the next Parliament.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the Leader of the House, I should tell the House that I am aware that there is a problem with the annunciators. It can be confusing for Members if the information upon which we rely is wrong, and it has been consistently wrong, one way or another, all afternoon. Those who put these things right know about it, and work is being undertaken and it should be better soon.

House of Commons Governance

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow a thoughtful Burkean speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who kick-started the process that led up to the report from a hill top in his constituency. It was just over four and a half months ago that we debated his motion, which set up the Committee. I join him in congratulating the Chair and, indeed, the Committee on a first-class piece of work. It is appropriate that we should debate the report this week, when we are focusing on how Parliament has evolved over time.

I want to make a very brief contribution. The Governance Committee represents a new approach to the issue in the sense touched on by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), as the previous reviews have been led by people outside Parliament with no direct stake in the outcome—Ibbs, Braithwaite and Tebbit. This approach was intrinsically led by people in the thick of it. The previous reviews had no time pressures, but, as I said in the debate that established it, this review had a challenging deadline. The quality of the report shows that we should not underestimate the capacity of this House to tackle complex issues seriously, promptly and in a collegiate way.

I draw a parallel between this report and the report of the Wright Committee at the end of the last Parliament. A Select Committee was set up right at the end of that Parliament alongside the existing Select Committees that had a specific remit, reported promptly and produced a groundbreaking report charting the way forward and leading to long-term improvements to how this place works. The Straw report will join the Wright report in the history of how this place is reformed.

Part of the success of the Governance Committee was its size—eight—and there is a lesson there for other Select Committees whose effectiveness can be diminished by their size. They become too large to manage and the law of diminishing returns kicks in, in my view, somewhere above 10. I commend the members of the Committee for their attendance record, which was exemplary.

Before dealing with the substance of the report, I want to mention three matters briefly in passing. First, I have a minor quibble with paragraph 200, which says:

“One of the consequences of the reforms introduced by the Wright Committee is that there is no clear route by which House business reaches the floor of the House”.

In fact, the Wright Committee could not have been clearer. It states:

“Backbenchers should schedule backbench business. Ministers should give up their role in the scheduling of any business except that which is exclusively Ministerial business”.

To my knowledge, there has never been a problem about allocating time for Standards and Privileges or Procedure Committee reports. I welcome the rather tactful letter of the Leader of the House pointing out this minor error.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was here earlier today, but there was an exchange between the Leader of the House and me about timetabling, because a large number of reports await debate, some of which have been waiting for more than 18 months.

[Sir George Young]

None the less, the Wright Committee could not have been clearer. A certain number of days a year are allocated to the Backbench Business Committee specifically for the purpose of debating Select Committee reports. The Government, generously, have made additional time available over and above that which they had to, and that shows the generosity of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in going beyond what he had to do to facilitate debate.

Secondly, I very much support the proposal in paragraph 138 that we should make wider use of the Deputy Speakers. This is a good week in which to make the point, because looking at the number of commemorative events taking place, it is impossible for Mr Speaker to represent the House at all of them, and it would be absolutely right for the Deputy Speakers to do so in his place. Pressure will continue throughout the year. The Deputy Speakers, as I am sure you will agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, are experienced parliamentarians who have a mandate from the House and are an underused asset.

My third minor point touches on paragraph 144, which states:

“The overlap between F&S and Administration is unfortunate”.

It goes on to make the point that

“Finance can never be separated entirely from services”.

The Chairmen of both Committees are rightly praised for their work in this Parliament, but given that services and the money that pays for them can never be separated, I ask myself whether, in the longer term, we need to have two separate Committees of MPs, neither of which has an executive role, but both of which advise the Commission. That might be something to revisit.

The key question addressed by the report appears at the foot of paragraph 68, which states:

“Some Members argued that the Clerk…should be the senior post. Other Members argued for two separate posts…of equal status”.

Looking at the questions that the Committee asked, it was clear that both sides of the argument were held in the Committee. Skilful chairmanship and a willingness to compromise enabled the Committee to produce a unanimous report, for which the House is grateful.

The Committee’s proposals appear not in chapter 5, headed “Our proposals”, which contains three tentative suggestions, but in chapter 6. Eight words at the end of paragraph 156 encapsulate the skilful settlement negotiated by the Chair to achieve a unanimous report:

“The Director General would chair the Executive Committee.”

But on that Committee sits the Clerk, who is the line manager of the director general and the head of the House service. The Clerk remains the accounting officer, is responsible for providing strategic leadership to the service overall, but he is a junior partner on the executive committee responsible for doing this. The House of Commons Library says that the executive committee’s role

“is to lead the House of Commons Service by setting its strategic aims, priorities, values and standards, in accordance with the decisions of the House of Commons Commission; approving business and financial plans, ensuring controls, managing risk, monitoring performance and making corporate policy decisions.”

Those are key responsibilities. Chairing it will mean leading the discussion, achieving a consensus, and, at times, possibly taking a different view from the Clerk.

I do not say that that cannot work; there may be other examples where a subordinate chairs a committee on which his boss sits. But my eye was caught by that because it sits a little uneasily with the injunctions at the beginning of the report about clarity. Paragraph 8:

“Governance must start with clarity”.

Paragraph 9:

“Governance…must deliver clear decision-making”.

Paragraph 14:

“There is normally a single senior executive—a single head—who then delegates specific responsibilities further down the organisation.”

Paragraph 16:

“those who are accountable”—

the Clerk will remain accountable—

“must have the ability to manage that for which they are accountable, and therefore a single line of command, at executive level, is critically important.”

I understand why the Committee ended up where it did, and I am not saying that the proposal cannot work. Indeed, the report mentions other examples, such as the Olympic Delivery Authority. Key will be a determination to make it work. The fact that the Clerk will have a role to play in choosing the director general is very helpful. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire summed it up when he said that success will depend on harmony.

That is the only part of the report that one needs to keep an eye on, and I understand why we arrived at that decision. Subject to that, I think this is a brilliant piece of work and I am grateful to the Committee and the chair for producing it. I hope we can now build on it and move forward.

Christmas Adjournment

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Two hundred years ago Britain and the United States of America were at war, and had been for more than two years. Christmas Eve is the 200th anniversary of the signing of a peace treaty to end the north American war of 1812-14. Since then our two great countries have been friends and close allies, which has served us well through good as well as difficult times. However, as far as I can ascertain, the anniversary of the treaty of Ghent is not being commemorated either in the United Kingdom or in the United States.

Next year there will be huge commemorations to mark the 200th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, at which Napoleon was finally defeated, and every year we have Trafalgar day to mark the battle of Trafalgar in 1805. Two great battles that shaped European history are taught in our schools, so why has the north American war, which took place in the years between Trafalgar and Waterloo and which shaped British history and the history of north America, been airbrushed from the history that is taught to our children?

Had the United States won the 1812-14 war, there would not be a proud Commonwealth country called Canada today. Fortunately, our Canadian cousins recognise the huge importance of what was delivered by the treaty of Ghent, but successive British Governments and the education establishment—by omission—stand accused of dereliction of duty in ignoring it in the school history curriculum. It would be an insult to the memory of those who fought for Britain—British soldiers and sailors and the loyalist population living in British north America —if the British Parliament did not recognise the 200th anniversary, so in their honour I am doing what I can today to put on the official record that this important moment in our nation’s history has been raised in the House of Commons.

I can further report that on Monday evening this week, at my instigation, a commemorative dinner was held in the House of Lords hosted by Lord Clark of Windermere with two guest speakers from the US embassy, Brigadier General Dieter Bareihs, defence attaché of the US air force, and Elizabeth Dibble, deputy chief of mission. It was a modest event with just 20 people drawn from both Houses. We had toasts to Her Majesty the Queen and the President of the United States, and to UK-USA relations past, present and future. Thus the 200th anniversary was commemorated, with most admitting that they had not hitherto been aware of the war of 1812-14, and nor had I until last year when I stumbled across knowledge of it during a visit to Canada with the Colchester military wives choir, who sang at the Canadian international military tattoo, at which cameo scenes from battles of 1813 were staged between the main events.

This prompted me to hold an Adjournment debate on 25 June this year entitled “History Curriculum: North American War, 1812-14”. I have also pursued at education questions why this war does not feature in the history curriculum. I will not repeat today what I have put on the record previously, but instead I will concentrate on the signing of the peace treaty in what is today Belgium on Christmas eve 200 years ago. As ever, I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for its assistance, specifically Mr Paul Lester and Mr John Prince.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I intend to talk about this later, but is the hon. Gentleman aware of the excellent book by Andrew Lambert called “The Challenge”, which deals in particular with the naval element of the 1812-14 war, in which the Royal Navy sank the whole US navy?

[Sir Bob Russell]

I am not aware of that book, but I am aware of the equally wonderful book by the TV journalist Peter Snow about when British forces burnt down the White House and other aspects of the war of 1812-14.

Following the signing of the treaty of Ghent, it was ratified by the Government and signed by the King on 30 December—or perhaps by the Prince Regent; I have not been able to confirm which. The ratifications of the treaty were exchanged in Washington on 17 February 1815. Hansard, volume 30, columns 209-218, headed “Treaty of Peace with America”, records that the treaty, when fully ratified and exchanged, was presented to Parliament by Lord Castlereagh on 16 March 1815.

It is fascinating to read the proceedings, and to observe that the treaty was printed in full, broken down into 11 separate articles, with a preamble commencing as follows:

“His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, desirous of terminating the war which has unhappily subsisted between the two countries, and of restoring, upon principles of perfect reciprocity, peace, friendship, and good understanding between them, have for that purpose”—[Official Report, 16 March 1815; Vol. 30, c. 209-10.]—

and which continues with a list of the representatives of the two countries delegated to reach an agreement to end the war which had been declared by the USA on Britain in June 1812. Among the five Americans was John Quincy Adams; 11 years later, he become President of the United States.

We are currently commemorating the 100th anniversary of the first world war which started in August 1914. Some 100 years before, in August 1814, British forces, among them the East Essex Regiment, burnt down the White House. That was the last time that mainland USA had been invaded by a foreign power. We quite rightly commemorate the battle of Trafalgar in 1805 and the battle of Waterloo in 1815. Now, with the 200th anniversary of the peace treaty which brought to an end the north American war of 1812-14 between the United States of America and the United Kingdom, I urge the Government to prevail on those responsible for the history curriculum in our schools to include this war, which occurred in the same period as those two battles, and on the education establishment to give an explanation as to why it currently ignores it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise an issue of great importance to my constituents: the rail service between Chelmsford and Liverpool Street.

We have a problem with the railway because, by the historic nature of its original build, it is only one track up the line and one track down, and it is impossible to expand it to two tracks because of where the track was positioned in the first place. We are relieved that, in the next five years, Network Rail will be investing £149 million in improving the whole of the Great Eastern main line. In his autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer embraced the Great Eastern taskforce recommendations, which will see £476 million invested in improvements to the rail network.

However, in the short term, there is a problem. If one looks at the reliability figures over the past six months between April and the beginning of November, one sees that they have fluctuated each month, between 92.6% on a good day and as low as 87.5% on a bad day. Worryingly, Chelmsford station is, according to the Office of Rail Regulation, the second busiest station in the region. More than 8,500 people commute daily to London to work, so they are reliant on that service to get to and from work each day. Since late November, we have been seeing far too many disruptions to the line, which have caused severe problems for those who need to get to work or to travel to London or elsewhere along the network.

Sadly, one reason, which is not unique to the line, is the increased number of suicides that are occurring on our railways. It is a tragedy not only for those who commit suicide and their family and friends, but for society at large. It is, as Members will recognise, a difficult issue to overcome, but more needs to be done.

There are three top causes for the disruptions to our railways from 1 December to 15 December. First, 22% of the total delay is due to technical fleet delays, which basically means broken down rolling stock and engines. That has accounted for 23% of the rail cancellations. The second reason is what is known in the trade as possession overruns, which is a serious and totally unforgiveable issue. It is when Network Rail overruns on the engineering work it has been doing over the weekend. Of course, we all welcome the engineering work being done, because it shows investment in the track and overhead electrification cables to improve and enhance the service, but to my mind there is no excuse if, due to bad planning, it overruns into the rush hour on a Monday morning, causing catastrophic disruptions for commuters trying to get to work.

The third reason is track faults and broken rails, which account for 11% of total delay minutes and 9% of the total calculations. Those three categories alone caused 45% of the disruptions to the service in the first two weeks of December.

When we talk about broken-down trains, the company that gets most blame is Greater Anglia, which provides the service, but in most of the cases in this two-week period it was not Greater Anglia trains that were breaking down but freight trains, which then caused the back-ups and backlogs in the service. That is why I want far quicker action on electrification of the Felixstowe to Nuneaton line so that more freight trains can use that electrified service and will not have to come down through Chelmsford into London and around north-west London to go out again towards the midlands and the north of England.

I also want to see new trains for Greater Anglia routes or for whoever else gets the franchise to run the service in 2016. I am particularly pleased that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Transport have accepted that a commitment to new rolling stock and trains will be part of the franchise tender document published next year, before the award of a new franchise from 2016. We have now become one of the parts of the rail network with the oldest rolling stock. It is at least 30 years old and has all the problems that 30-year-old rolling stock suffers from, particularly with the reliability of the engines.

I am also keen that more should be done by Network Rail to put measures in place to ensure that when it plans its timetable for badly needed engineering work—considerable engineering work has gone on on the line for the past 10 to 15 years, with an upgrade of the track from Liverpool Street through to Chelmsford and north up to Colchester and the replacement and modernisation of the electrification cables—it must do so in such a way that when Monday morning dawns it has completed the work planned for that weekend and the rail network can get back to running a reliable and proper service for hard-pressed passengers who have to get to work. I have spoken to Network Rail and appreciate that it understands the problem and the need to get its timetables and programmes right, but it cannot simply talk about it. It must ensure that that actually happens.

Commuters, whether they are in Chelmsford or elsewhere, do not pay cheaply for the service they get. I accept that in the past when British Rail was a nationalised industry, successive Governments, Conservative or Labour, always had investment in the rail network as one of the first cuts at their disposal when getting into financial problems. It was a false economy at the time, and since privatisation successive Governments—to be fair, the previous Labour Government did this too—have played catch-up to provide the investment. In this control period, 2014 to 2019, £38.5 billion is being spent by Network Rail to upgrade our rail network, just as the previous Labour Government, in control period 4, invested billions of pounds. The only difference is that one of the main challenges for the rail network now involves greater electrification. In 13 years, the previous Government provided an extra 10 miles of electrification whereas this Government will provide 856 extra miles. The hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench, who I do not think has ever been a transport spokesman, is shaking his head, but I assure him that those figures are right.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Although I was not a transport spokesperson, I worked for Network Rail and I am a member of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association. I worked on a project to build a new electrified line that was 15 miles in length, so I am sorry that the former Transport Minister is not quite aware of all the facts.

[Mr Burns]

I am impressed by the hon. Gentleman’s qualifications, but I will tell him, and he can check the facts later—surprisingly, his own Front-Bench team have never questioned them—that under the Labour Government there were 10 extra miles of electrification in their 13 years. Under this coalition Government there are at present 856 extra miles—not replacing existing electrified line, but over and above, new electrification of our railways. Before Christmas if he has time or in the new year, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be able to check his facts and write back to me confirming the accuracy of my figures.

I think we have consensus now. On that happy note, I wish all the staff who work so diligently and hard on our behalf throughout the year a very happy Christmas, and Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish you a very happy Christmas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I shall be as brief as I can manage, so that the Deputy Leader of the House has enough time to respond fully to all Members who have spoken. It is a pleasure to respond briefly today. As far as I am aware, this will be our last pre-recess Adjournment debate before the end of this Parliament.

It has been a pleasure to shadow the Deputy Leader of the House over these past six months or so. We sparred a bit over the Deregulation Bill and the Recall of MPs Bill, but I hope he has a good Christmas and new year, and an opportunity to get along to Selhurst Park with his son and hopefully see some Palace victories over the new year period.

Let me now comment on a few of the points that have been made today. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) made a thoughtful speech about railways. He and I may disagree on whether the Labour Scottish Government’s expenditure should be included in the electrification figures, but he made some valid points about investment.

[Mr Simon Burns]

I assume from his generous comment that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I was talking in the context of England, and that my figures were therefore correct.

[Thomas Docherty]

I think—if I may say so gently—that the confusion may have been confounded when I referred to the Airdrie-Bathgate rail link and the right hon. Gentleman was unaware that that was in Scotland. Let me move on, however, to his useful remarks about suicides and attempted suicides at this time of year, particularly those involving railway lines. He and I will both know, because of our backgrounds, that not only are many of the very unhappy individuals who seek to throw themselves under trains unsuccessful, but horrific and life-changing injuries may result from their actions. I am sure that all Members would urge any constituent who faces such troubling times to contact organisations such as the Samaritans. I commend their work, and also that of Network Rail and the rail companies which have invested a great deal of time in recent years in trying to minimise the number of cases that occur.

The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) raised the issue of the 1812 war. He knows of my interest in that subject, and he was right to draw attention to the 200 years of close co-operation between our two nations. He was also right to point out that a third nation participated in that war. When we stand at the Dispatch Boxes, which rest on a table that was donated by our Commonwealth cousins in Canada, we are always grateful for their continued friendship.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) referred to Bahrain. He will not be surprised to learn that Opposition Front Benchers do not share his particular view of the decision to set up a base there, but he was right—as he was earlier today—to call on the Government to organise a debate about foreign policy and our defence posture in the new year, particularly as in 2015 we shall have a national security strategy from the new Government. We strongly support that call, and we hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will refer it to the Leader of the House for consideration.

As ever, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) made an impassioned and knowledgeable speech about the situation in North Korea. She has a tremendous track record in relation to the persecution of Christians, and—again, as ever—she made a hugely important contribution. I know that her work has the support of all Members.

The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) spoke in support of what I suppose could be called the bird communities in the United Kingdom. He is a champion of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and, as he knows, my researcher Sally Webber says that he is probably its biggest supporter in the House of Commons. The RSPB will certainly miss him, even if not all Back Benchers are entirely forgiving of his strong leadership during his time in the Whips Office.

I want to mention some of those who serve the House. Many Members on both sides of the Chamber have rightly thanked the House’s staff, and, on behalf of the Opposition, I too thank all those in all the Departments, particularly Hansard, the Doorkeepers, and those in Visitor Services. I also want to highlight a small group of individuals, some of whom have retired or are about to retire after decades of public service. I am grateful to the Clerk of the House for his assistance in the compiling of this list.

Roger Rankine worked at the House for nearly 27 years. He started as a joiner working in the outbuildings, before working his way up to become a higher technical officer. In that role, he covered the external works for state openings and has led the search team for that event. Roger is sports mad and an extremely keen golfer.

Rosalind Bolt retired at the end of October. She served for 21 years in the House. She started her career in the accounts payable team and finished as office manager in the web and intranet service. She knew many, many people across the parliamentary estate and was, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, widely respected. She was always quick to offer support and guidance to her colleagues and had a strong sense of the “right way” to interact with colleagues, stakeholders and suppliers.

Mel Barlex, whom I had the pleasure of working with in particular on restoration and renewal, stood down earlier this autumn as parliamentary director of estates. He turned a struggling organisation into a high-performing delivery team, providing maintenance, capital works and property services to both Houses.

Michael—Mick—Brown was a Doorkeeper who retired at the start of the summer recess. He had been here since 1990, and before that had served in the Royal Navy and is a Falklands veteran. Ian McDonald, a fellow Cumbrian, will be retiring this week. He worked here from December 2006 and before that served in the Metropolitan police. Sonia Mcintosh retired in October 2014 after some 30 years’ service in the House. Chris Ridley completed 37 years of public service, retiring at the end of October 2014. He worked in the civil service and the House of Commons over that period. Peter Thomas started in the catering services as a kitchen steward in 1990. He was the first person to come into work at the weekend for the lying in state of the Queen Mother.

Janice Spriggs retires today from the House of Commons catering service after 38 years of service. Janice joined as a waitress in the Members’ Dining Room before moving to the Harcourt Room, which is now, of course, the Churchill Dining Room, and then the Strangers’ Bar. She ran the 6th Floor 7 Milbank room until its closure. Latterly, she has worked on the Principal Floor managing the Strangers’ Dining Room. I know she will be fondly missed by many customers and colleagues.

Finally, Carol Hill, the heritage cleaning team manager, has retired after 15 years in the House. Her team is responsible for looking after the heritage areas in the Palace.

I, on behalf of the Opposition, want to wish all those public servants a very enjoyable retirement. I am sure they will all be trying to have a peaceful Christmas, and will perhaps even take a slice of Chorley cake to top off their Christmas lunch. Let me end by wishing you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all colleagues a very peaceful and merry Christmas, and a happy new year.

Business of the House

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

[The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)]

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 8 December—Second Reading of the Infrastructure Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 9 December—Consideration in Committee of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill (day 1).

Wednesday 10 December—Second Reading of the Stamp Duty Land Tax Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Wales Bill.

Thursday 11 December—General debate on the fishing industry, followed by general debate on Ukraine and UK relations with Russia. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 12 December—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 15 December will include:

Monday 15 December—Consideration in Committee of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill (day 2).

Tuesday 16 December—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill.

Wednesday 17 December—Opposition day (11th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 18 December—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 19 December—The House will not be sitting.

[Thomas Docherty]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. I hope he is not too disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) is unable to be here today—although we are disappointed every week by the continued absence of the Government Chief Whip.

This morning the Procedure Committee publishes its report on proposals for the introduction of the joint Parliament/Government e-petition system. Given that a number of Procedure Committee reports are now awaiting debate, may I press the Leader of the House to say when he will find the necessary time?

The House recently voted overwhelmingly on Second Reading in favour of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) to scrap the top-down reorganisation of the NHS. This Government have a tendency to fail to produce money resolutions for Bills they do not like, so will the Leader of the House confirm that the money resolution for this Bill will be brought to the House before Christmas—and, if not, why not?

The Leader will be aware of early-day motion 454, which has been signed by over 250 Members from across the House.

[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (England) Regulations 2014 (S.I., 2014, No. 2848), dated 23 October 2014, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28 October, be annulled.]

Firefighters’ pensions in England have been seriously mismanaged by the Government, and we will have another strike next week. We need a debate and a vote on the Floor of the House against the regulations, so will the Leader of the House provide us with one, and will he tell us when it will take place?

This week the Ministry of Defence’s annual report showed that more than £5.5 billion has been wasted in the last year alone owing to a catalogue of procurement disasters—which, of course, is nothing new for this Government. In 2010, the Government, having scrapped HMS Ark Royal, sold Britain’s Harrier jump jet fleet to the US Marine Corps. According to the US official who completed the purchase, the deal was

“like we’re buying a car with maybe 15,000 miles on it. These are very good platforms.”

Now, just four years later, after a pair of U-turns on the carrier’s design that have cost the British taxpayer £100 million, the Royal Navy has been forced to go cap in hand to the very same US Marines to ask them to fly off our carriers, so they will be flying our former Harriers from our carrier because our replacement aircraft will not be ready for another three years. The Defence Secretary has refused to come to this House to explain what has happened, so will the Leader of the House now ask him to do so, and will he also tell the House when we can expect the Second Reading of the armed forces Bill that we were anticipating next week?

Is the truth not that on every test this Government have set themselves they have failed? Last Friday, the Prime Minister gave his latest speech to end all speeches on Europe, yet within hours Home Office Ministers were dragged to this Chamber to explain why their “no ifs, no buts” solemn promise to slash net migration had been broken. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), in his ever-helpful manner, described the latest immigration figures as “catastrophic”. On the NHS, the Government promised no top-down reorganisation and then delivered one that cost £3 billion. On VAT, they promised no rises but then raised it to 20% and now will not rule out another rise. They promised a bigger Army but have sacked thousands of combat soldiers. Yesterday’s autumn statement proved comprehensively that this Government have failed every test and broken every promise they have ever made on the economy: they had a “five-year plan” to eliminate the deficit but their plan is now running four years behind schedule; they promised to bring down borrowing but they are going to borrow £12.5 billion more than they planned this year and next; and they promised that living standards would rise year on year, but their own figures reveal that those in full-time work are £2,000 a year worse off, while millionaires have seen their taxes fall. It is no wonder the Deputy Prime Minister felt the need to flee to Land’s End. He apparently said that he thought it would be a nice change to leave Westminster—I am sure his constituents will be glad to assist in May.

Instead of working to build a recovery that works for everyone in our country, this Government seem more concerned with smoke and mirrors, and with playing parliamentary games. This was a microwave statement—a reheating of leftover announcements that looks better than it tastes: on flooding, the Government just re-announced their announcement from last year; their roads announcement is a retread; and more than a third of their “new” NHS spending is old money being reallocated from within the Department of Health. To paraphrase a distinguished and retiring parliamentarian: its all right for them, some of them won’t be here in 30 or 40 weeks’ time.

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman was certainly right with his first sentence: we do miss the shadow Leader of the House. He was spot on with that comment, as she tends to be a little more entertaining. It is a shame because he can be very entertaining when he is not at the Dispatch Box, as he was in his wonderful interview on the World at One a few weeks ago, which bears revisiting. He said:

“The state that the Labour party is in right now is we are in a dreadful position.”

It is commendable honesty. That was only the beginning, because he went on to say that the Opposition have

“got to be honest about ourselves…The electorate looks at us and has no idea what our policies are.”—

[Interruption.] He says, “In Scotland.” So he is talking only about a large part of the Labour party. That is his defence. It is only the place where Labour has 40-odd Members of Parliament. He continued:

“We have a moribund party in Scotland that seems to think that infighting is more important than campaigning. And we have a membership that is ageing and inactive.”

There was something about his questions that was a little bit ageing and inactive.

Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman’s questions about the business of the House. On e-petitions, we look forward to the Procedure Committee’s report, which I believe is about to be published. I hope that we can ensure that in this Parliament, before the general election, we put in place a new system for e-petitions that will be helpful to the electorate, that will serve accountability and that will allow the House and the Government to run a system together. I look forward to that report and it will be important to debate it, but we cannot schedule such a debate until we have had the report.

I am not aware of any problem with the money resolution for the private Member’s Bill the hon. Gentleman mentioned. He will know that the Bill falls behind many other private Members’ Bills in the normal procedures for such Bills, but there is no issue at present with bringing forward a money resolution on it.

On early-day motion 454 and firefighters, the Opposition have now asked for a debate on this, but it was only in the past 24 hours or so that they did so. The regulations were laid on 28 October. The early-day motion was put down on 30 October. There have been three Opposition day debates since then, and it is only now that they ask for a debate. We will of course examine that request, but it has been made only in the past few hours. I must point out that Lord Hutton found the firefighters’ pension scheme to be the most expensive in the public sector and said that it has to be reformed to be sustainable. Members will need to bear that in mind.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Ministry of Defence budget. I should remind him that those of us who sat on the National Security Council in 2010 had to wrestle with a £38 billion black hole that had been left by the previous Government and an over-committal of the defence budget greater than the annual defence budget. The Ministry of Defence had to wrestle with that, but now, for the first time in many years, its books actually balance. It has also undertaken many important procurement programmes.

The hon. Gentleman asked about immigration while neglecting to mention the fact that the previous Government had a completely open door on immigration. Some 4 million people came to settle in the United Kingdom without any control or restriction, so we do not have to take any lessons on that.

The Second Reading of the armed forces Bill will take place, but we must ensure that yesterday’s announcement on stamp duty is enacted in law as soon as possible to give certainty to the housing market, so we have included it in next week’s business. None the less, we remain very committed to the armed forces Bill.

The hon. Gentleman managed to argue that the Government had failed every test on the economy. Given that the Government have cut the deficit by more than half, that employment has reached record levels, that inflation is low, that growth is strong, and that we have had such an excellent week for the economy, we are left wondering what the Labour party thinks the test for the economy is. Perhaps the test is whether we, like the previous Government, have bankrupted the country and left the public finances in an appalling state. That was the only test that was passed by the Labour Government.

I will finish by referring to one of the hon. Gentleman’s previous statements, which he made in a letter to Members and not on the “World at One.” He called for a statue of Tony Blair to be put in the Members’ Lobby as soon as possible. I am pleased that he did not revive that idea today, because the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) might reverse his decision to leave the House in order to prevent such a thing from happening. Of course the right hon. Gentleman could always lend the hon. Gentleman his doll model of Tony Blair in which he stuck pins for so long in place of a statue. But his economic record is not one we want to emulate. This Government are passing their economic test.

Devolution and the Union

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point very calmly and sensibly, but it seems to me that if we managed to work out how to determine questions such as these for the Scottish Parliament and to enable Scottish devolution to take place, it is not beyond the wit of man or woman to work out how we can redress the balance for England, while also ensuring that the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom have an equal voice. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want his words to be taken as suggesting that he does not believe in the principle of democratic equality. However, as he says, the implications of further Scottish devolution go well beyond England. I look forward to hearing the contributions from Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues, given their unique interests and special circumstances. I say, as an English MP, that their voices must be heard.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

What about London?

[Mr Raab]

I think the hon. Gentleman will find that London is part of England, and will, by definition, be considered.

I must refer briefly to the amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of the Labour party. The amendment, which was slipped on to the Order Paper at the last minute, strips out and opposes, in express terms—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

I agree with that but I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that after the next election, according to current opinion polls—indeed, going by stories in the Daily Record of all places—the complexion and make-up of this Parliament will be very changed.

[Thomas Docherty]

rose—

[Mr MacNeil]

I will make some progress and then I will give way—[Hon. Members: “Ahh!] My goodness. I have given way to two people. Labour Members, who are asleep during Labour speeches, wake up when the SNP speaks.

[Thomas Docherty]

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that on 14 September, four days before the referendum, Alex Salmond said, “This is a once-in-a-generation referendum”?

[Mr MacNeil]

No, I do not recall that—[Interruption.] I don’t! But again, that should be seen in the context of whether there is a new electoral mandate or other trigger points. It is quite simple and I explained it in response to the first intervention. The hon. Gentleman has delayed progress in the Chamber by making a fatuous intervention that I had already addressed. Let me get back on track and away from the hon. Gentleman’s diversions.

On the Barnett formula—I address the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) with this point—it must be remembered that London has the greatest per capita payment and highest Barnett spend, with Northern Ireland in second place. That, too, must be understood in context. When people talk about Barnett spending, they mean identifiable spending, which is about two thirds of the spending round pie. There is also non-identifiable spending such as defence, which is concentrated in the south of England. The UK Government seem unable to tell us where defence spending is spent—they used to, but it became a political hot potato. By contrast, the United States of America can list non-identifiable spending not only at state level but at county level, although it seems beyond the wit of the UK Government to identify down to that point.