Queen’s and Prince of Wales’s Consent

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to speak in support of 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). The proposals arise from the report of the Procedure Committee published in December 2014, which was itself the result of earlier work by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I am grateful to both Committees for their work. As was stated in response to the report of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in June 2014, Queen’s and Prince of Wales’s consent is a long-standing parliamentary requirement for certain Bills, so it is for Parliament to decide on these matters.

The Procedure Committee’s proposed changes are entirely sensible. They will increase transparency by noting under future business when a Bill requires consent, simplify the procedures by endorsing the practice of not requiring consent to be re-signified when a Bill is carried over between Sessions and increase consistency between Bills by ensuring that consent, when required, is always signified on Third Reading. The Government are happy to support these small and sensible tidying-up reforms. We will continue actively to co-operate with Parliament on its requirements in relation to the legislative process. I hope that the House will support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill: Allocation of Time

Tom Brake Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill–

Timetable

1.- (1) Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at this day’s sitting.

(2) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

(3) Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put

2. When the Bill has been read a second time—

(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;

(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

3.- (1) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

(2) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others) in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

6. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

7. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.

Consideration of Lords Amendments

8.- (1) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (1) shall thereupon be resumed.

9.- (1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.

(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith–

(a) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith–

(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(7) As soon as the House has–

(a) agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment; or

(b) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages

10.- (1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (1) shall thereupon be resumed.

11.- (1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 10.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair.

(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee

12.- (1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chair.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.

(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), the Chair shall-

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair but not yet decided, and

(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous

13. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.

14.- (1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

15. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.

16.- (1) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to re-commit the Bill.

(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

17.- (1) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.

(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

18. The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No.24 (Emergency debates) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.

19.- (1) This paragraph applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(2) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

20. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

21.- (1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at 7.00pm, 4.00pm or 2.00pm (as the case may be) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.

(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before the moment of interruption, for a period equal to the time elapsing between 7.00pm, 4.00pm or 2.00pm (as the case may be) and the conclusion of those proceedings.

The motion applies to the proceedings on the Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill. The motion timetables all stages of the Bill, guaranteeing six hours’ debate, with up to four hours on Second Reading and a further two hours for Committee and remaining stages.

This is a short, single-issue Bill that the Government have introduced in response to the recent decision by the Church of England to allow women to be consecrated as bishops. The provisions will fast-track female diocesan bishops in the House of Lords, as current legislation will otherwise mean it would be many years before female bishops could take seats on the Lords Spiritual Benches.

More will be said about the detail of the provisions and the necessity for this legislation when we come to debating the Bill itself. This is an important Bill, strongly supported by both the Government and the Church, and it has broad support across the House. It is a tightly focused Bill with only one substantive clause, and it is for that reason that the motion allocates six hours for debate. I commend the motion to the House.

Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill

Tom Brake Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2015 Commons Chamber

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

[Tom Brake]

This is a very short Bill, with just one substantive clause. As we have already heard, the Bill has a single purpose, which is to enable vacancies among the Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords to be filled as they arise by the most senior female bishop at the time, if there are any appointed at that point, in preference to the most senior male bishop. Male bishops would continue to become Members of the Lords if there were no qualifying female bishops at the time a vacancy arose. The seniority of a bishop is determined under clause 1(3) by reference to the date at which her election as a bishop of a diocese in England was confirmed. This reflects the way in which seniority is determined for the purposes of the Bishoprics Act 1878, which currently provides for bishops to become Members of the House of Lords.

For the avoidance of doubt, I should like briefly to clarify one point. In the Church of England, there are two types of bishop: diocesan bishops and suffragan—essentially assistant—bishops. Future diocesan bishops are often, but not always, given a suffragan appointment first. The Bill relates only to diocesan bishops in England as the Lords Spiritual are drawn only from among their ranks. As the Lords Spiritual are drawn from the diocesan bishops, the Bill will not immediately affect the first female suffragan bishops until and unless they are appointed to a diocese.

While the 1878 Act provides for 21 of the 26 Lords Spiritual to become Members of the House of Lords on the basis of seniority, a further five are automatically Members of the House of Lords on the basis of the see they occupy. These are the holders of the archbishoprics of Canterbury and York and the bishoprics of London, Durham and Winchester. Because the holders of those sees are automatically Members of the House of Lords, clause 1(5) effectively provides for vacancies among those senior ex officio sees to be excluded from these transitional arrangements. When a vacancy arises for one of those five sees, it could be filled by a woman or a man.

Clause 1(1)(a) will ensure that the provisions are time-limited and that they cease to have effect 10 years after the Bill comes into force. The special arrangements must last long enough to provide sufficient opportunities to appoint women as bishops and for female bishops to become Members of the House of Lords as vacancies among the Lords Spiritual arise. Nonetheless, this is rightly a short-term transitional measure that will last until such time as it has become routine for women, like men, to have been in office for several years. The point was made earlier that if representation has not reached the expected level, action could be taken to address that. If the Church is unhappy with the change at the end of the 10-year period, it could ask the Government to take action. I think the Government of the day would respond positively.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I am grateful to the Minister for taking up that point. Would it be sensible to build a review into the Bill, or at least assure the House that it is on the Government’s agenda, so that the legislation can be examined in good time to ensure that it can be extended or new mechanisms can be put in place?

[Tom Brake]

That is a matter for the Church and I am sure it will want to keep that under review. It will be able to see, through its own appointments process and the legislation, the impact on the number of women bishops and Lords Spiritual. If the Church feels in future that there is a need for the Government to take action, I am sure the Government would want to address that. As the years move by, I am sure that the pressure for equal representation will grow even more significantly, and that the Church and this place will have to respond to it effectively.

The Church believes that 10 years will be enough to ensure that the Bishops’ Bench in the Lords better reflects the gender diversity of bishops in the country, and to address the inherent inequality presented by the current system in the shorter term. After the end of the 10-year period—effectively at the start of the 2025 Parliament—the existing arrangements will resume.

[Sarah Newton]

I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer than is necessary, because I very much support the Bill, as does everybody who is left in Parliament this afternoon. However, I want to probe the Minister a little further on the time-limiting measures—on which we have just had a very useful exchange, through interventions, on Second Reading—and to make a helpful suggestion.

When Parliament was considering what more it could do to address the lack of gender equality in this place back in 2002, the Sex Discrimination (Election of Candidates) Bill was amended to enable political parties to take positive action to reduce inequality. The measure today seeks to do something similar. At that time, a sunset clause, which expired in 2015, was introduced. It was extended in the Equality Act 2010, so that political parties, should they so choose, could have the ability to take actions that in other ways would be considered to be positive discrimination. When the Minister draws the Committee stage to a conclusion, will he indicate whether, should it be necessary at the end of the 10-year sunset period and should the Church feel it desirable, Parliament could again consider the Bill and add an extension, just as the Equality Act 2010 extended the previous sunset clause to 2030?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

Clearly, as I stated earlier, this is a matter for senior clergy, including senior female clergy, to keep under review and to raise with Governments if they feel it has not been addressed within the 10 years. There could be many factors at play that make it impossible to meet any target if they or we were to set one at this point. As I said, therefore, this is a matter for the clergy to respond to. While I personally could make a commitment regarding what will happen in 2025, it would rather prejudge certain factors, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) knows, no Government can commit a future Government to any particular action. However, it is certainly something that future Governments would, I hope, want to consider positively if a further request were made and if, at the end of the 10 years, the representation of women bishops or Lords Spiritual had not been addressed in a way that the clergy and House of Commons thought appropriate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Commencement, extent and short title

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

[Tom Brake]

I warn Members that my comments on clause 2 will be even shorter than those on clause 1.

The clause covers commencement and territorial extent, and gives the short title of the Bill. It is a technical clause that provides that the Bill will come into force on the day Parliament first meets after the forthcoming general election. It extends to all parts of the United Kingdom as it relates to membership of the House of Lords and may be cited as “Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015”.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

House of Lords Reform

Tom Brake Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful, Mr Howarth, and I promise not to do it again.

On champagne, it seems that the House of Lords rejected the vulgar variety served in the House of Commons; according to a former Clerk,

“the Lords feared that the quality of champagne would not be as good if they chose a joint service”

with the House of Commons. That was reported to the House of Commons Governance Committee. The astonished Chair, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), said:

“Did you make that up?”

The former Clerk assured him that he did not.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that the champagne in the House of Lords is not free? It is paid for.

[Pete Wishart]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman clarified that: the champagne is not free—but by God it seems that our friends in the House of Lords certainly like to quaff a good number of bottles of it over the course of a year.

It would be wrong and remiss of me, however, to claim that the House of Lords was totally undemocratic. That is not the case and I would not like to mislead this House in that respect. The Lords do have elections, when the earls, the dukes, the ladies, the lords and the barons—the hereditary peers of the realm—get together and have one of their now regular by-elections to decide which among their number should continue to rule over us. It must be the weirdest constituency in the world—the most privileged and aristocratic electorate to be found anywhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on securing this debate on a familiar but none the less very important subject.

The Government believe that the second Chamber should be more representative of the British people. In a modern democracy, it is important that those who pass legislation should be chosen by those to whom it applies. As hon. Members know, in 2012 the Government introduced the House of Lords Reform Bill, in line with commitments in the Conservative and Liberal Democrat 2010 election manifestos and the coalition’s programme for government. That Bill would have made provision for a reformed House of 450 Members, 80% of whom would have been elected and 20% appointed by an independent statutory appointments commission, plus ministerial Members and 12 Church of England bishops.

The proposal was a compromise. Personally, I would have preferred a 100% elected Chamber, but that is not the point that we reached. The House voted by a majority of 338 for that Bill to receive a Second Reading—a clear endorsement of the principle of reforming the House of Lords. However, as Members will recall, the Bill had to be withdrawn following the lack of agreement over a programme motion that might have led to an unacceptable amount of time being devoted to debate on the changes.

More recently, some minor changes have been made to the House of Lords as a result of the Bill promoted by Lord Steel, which became the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 and made three changes to the terms of membership of the House of Lords. First, Members of the House of Lords can now formally and permanently retire; previously, a peer could effectively retire only by applying for leave of absence. Secondly, a peer who receives a custodial sentence of more than 12 months will now automatically cease to be a Member of the House of Lords, in line with the provision for Members of the House of Commons. Finally, a peer who does not attend during a Session will now cease to be a Member of the House of Lords.

Those were sensible housekeeping provisions on which there was a cross-party consensus, which is why it was possible to introduce them. Clearly, however, they are not a substitute for real and genuine reform of the Lords. The Government remain committed to the principle of comprehensive and democratic reform of the House of Lords even though it has not been possible to bring forward legislation on the matter during this Parliament.

[Mark Field]

I, too, deeply regret the lack of progress. I was among the majority of 338 on Second Reading of the 2012 reform Bill. Given that such reform is an ongoing commitment of the coalition Government, can the Minister explain why the Government have continued to appoint more Members of the House of Lords on the old basis since that defeat? Surely a strong signal of the Government’s intention would have been to put an absolute embargo on any further appointments to the House of Lords. Why has that not happened?

[Tom Brake]

That is not a decision that the Government took. It has not been possible to undertake the substantial reform that we wanted, so the Government have continued to appoint peers to ensure that the balance of peers and the parties that they represent is, broadly speaking, representative of that in the House of Commons.

I would like to pick up on some points that hon. Members have made. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire will be reassured to hear that he can call the other place the House of Lords. That is a minor change towards less deference, or at least greater clarity.

I get frustrated when hon. Members refer, as the hon. Gentleman did, to other major parties as “establishment” parties. The Scottish National party, which he represents, is very much an establishment party in Scotland; I am sure that some of his criticisms of the major parties here could be turned around and directed at him and his party in Scotland. I thank him for highlighting in his tweets what he was going to say in today’s debate. That gave us advance notice. Readers of Hansard will be able to judge for themselves whether the debate has been a good one, as he predicted it would be.

The hon. Gentleman said that only one peer had chosen to retire, but my understanding is that under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, five have chosen to retire. Before that, three peers retired under a voluntary retirement system. Earlier still—I am sure we agree that we would not particularly want to trumpet this—five peers retired because of the rules that required those who were not domiciled in the UK for tax purposes to retire. There have been some genuine retirements in addition to the one that he mentioned.

The hon. Gentleman referred, understandably, to the question of donors who have subsequently become peers. To return to my comment about his party being an establishment party, I am sure that the same degree of scrutiny is applied, for instance, to the relationship between the leader of the SNP and Brian Souter, and to the donations that the party receives through that route. Indeed, I hope that the relationship, and the two dozen meetings that took place, between Alex Salmond and Rupert Murdoch received the same degree of scrutiny as do donors here.

I commend the hon. Gentleman on his work for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy—something that I have done in the past—which is an essential organisation that provides support to parties outside the UK. I agree that it is difficult for him as a trustee, as it was for me, to explain to other countries around the world why we have the House of Lords. I understand the difficult position in which that puts him.

I agree with all the key principles that the hon. Gentleman set out. However, I understood him to say that he did not want the House of Lords to initiate any legislation. If that is his position, I hope that he has considered the fact that such a system would present some significant logistical issues for the House of Commons legislative programme. If all legislation was required to start in the House of Commons, either there would have to be much less legislation or Members of Parliament would have to work much longer on the legislative programme and spend a lot less time in their constituencies.

We all agree with the hon. Gentleman that we want a modern, democratic Chamber. Slightly lacking in his speech was the bit in between—the route map that will take us from our concerns about the present system to the creation of a modern, democratic Chamber. That is the difficulty that we all face. The solution proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) was a federal UK Parliament with four national Parliaments. That has the advantage of being a straightforward solution, but there are significant risks associated with it. For instance, the Scottish Government has led to more centralisation in Scotland, and I am concerned that the simple solution of an English Parliament might suck powers upwards into such a Parliament, which is the exact opposite of what I want to achieve.

[Stephen Twigg]

indicated assent.

[Tom Brake]

I believe that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) agrees. I would like to see genuine devolution to communities. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster that English votes for English laws, or proportional English votes for English laws, must move hand in hand with devolution. The knock-on effect on House of Lords reform must also be taken into account.

My hon. Friend had a pop at the Liberal Democrats for swelling the number of special advisers. On the cost of politics, I am sure he is aware that the number of ministerial limos is down. Ministers’ pay has been cut by 5%. Some Ministers—I do not know whether this was the case when the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby was Deputy Leader of the House—have unpaid ministerial roles. Successful attempts have been made to cut the cost of politics.

On the West Lothian question, we all agree that something has to be done, but the question is what is deliverable. There was agreement in party manifestos on the need for House of Lords reform, but when it came to doing it, it was not possible to get people to agree because although some, like me, were willing to make compromises, others were not.

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said that he believed the solution to the House of Lords question would have been for the Deputy Prime Minister to press a different programme motion. I assure him that that sort of thing was considered at the time; if it had been the solution, it would have been done. I hope that his karma does not suffer too much from being shanghaied by the feng shui of rearranging our constitutional settlement. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is not in his place, highlighted the need to reduce the number of people in the second Chamber, which is something that we all support.

This has been an interesting and instructive debate, which has engaged questions that go to the heart of our constitution. I am sure that the next Government will return to the matter alongside other key constitutional questions. I hope—as does, I believe, the majority of the House—that a degree of consensus sufficient to support real reform will, at last, be forthcoming.

Deregulation Bill: Carry-over Extension

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Deregulation Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by 67 days until 30 March 2015.

The Deregulation Bill, the Report stage of which in the other place is expected to begin shortly, was introduced in the House on 23 January 2014. As set out in Standing Order No. 80A, as a carry-over Bill it will fall if it does not receive Royal Assent within 12 months of its First Reading. That date is now approaching. Given the strong interest in and support for the Bill in both Houses, it is only right for us to guard against that, particularly in light of the emergency legislation that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has introduced following the Christmas break.

The motion is intended to ensure that the life of the Bill—an important Bill that has spent some time in both Houses already—will continue until the end of this Parliament. The Bill covers many policy areas and departmental remits, all with the shared goal of reducing or improving the regulatory burden on individuals, businesses and organisations, and as such has properly received a great deal of scrutiny in this House and in the other place.

I can confirm to the House that the motion in no way undermines the Government’s intention to secure Royal Assent prior to the Dissolution of Parliament. Indeed, the Bill constitutes one of the many measures that this Government have pursued relentlessly in order to restore Britain’s economic growth to one of the highest in the developed world, and it makes common-sense reductions to irrelevant and often outdated regulations. I commend the motion to the House.

Christmas Adjournment

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to respond, for what will be the last time in this Parliament, to the pre-recess Adjournment debate. Earlier, we heard that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has previously taken this debate, referred to Members who contributed to the debate as characters from different TV series. I would, perhaps, liken those sitting here today to characters we would all recognise from our local pub. There is the one who always bangs on about how immigrants take our jobs. There is the one who always goes on about medical problems. There is always one who only ever drinks orange juice. There are others who will insist on talking about birds at great length. Finally, there will be another who will always complain about their trains being late—that is me, incidentally.

This debate was, as always, opened very effectively by the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess). As usual, he ran through a large number of issues, and I will try to respond to at least some of them. I think he started by suggesting that, following the renovation works, we might never return to this place. He will be relieved to hear that I suspect his concerns in that respect are unfounded. He referred to the facilities being empty and the prices being too high, and then went through a long list of local issues, including scrap metal, energy prices and the world athletics—and I want to commend his schools, Southend high school for boys and Southend high school for girls, on qualifying to represent England at that event. He also referred to the Music Man project and to Councillor David Stanley, and then proceeded to plug that event. He did not tell us what the ticket prices would be, but he no doubt would have done so if time had allowed, as well as providing us with a link so that we could purchase tickets online. He also referred to the talent show that is being launched as part of the alternative city of culture events in 2017. I think that the House would like to be assured that he will be taking part in that talent show himself.

The hon. Gentleman referred to all-party parliamentary groups. Initially, he described them as “farcical”, but then went on to describe the very significant role that he plays in a number of APPGs. He rightly highlighted the fact that, following the significant loss suffered in the Philippines after the cyclone struck, the authorities there took the necessary action. That shows that, if countries take steps to deal with climate change, mitigation can have an effect, even if it is not always successful in reducing the amount of damage inflicted on the infrastructure of a country. He referred to Bahrain, and I will come back to that subject shortly. He also mentioned Iran.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) might want to talk to him, if he has not already done so, about the fire safety issue that he identified. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to something that Members on both sides of the House are concerned about—the issue relating to firefighters. He said that if a firefighter failed a fitness test through no fault of their own and did not qualify for ill-health retirement, they would be redeployed or receive an unreduced pension. That is a significant concession that is worth underlining.

[Lyn Brown]

May I say something to the right hon. Gentleman—very gently, as it is Christmas—about the repeated statement that firefighters in those circumstances will get redeployment or a full pension? If he reads the statutory instrument that was laid today, he will see that the Minister is going to ask the fire and rescue authorities to do that, but that there is no requirement for them to comply. We will not be doing anyone a service by continuing to repeat that there is to be a requirement for jobs and full pensions to be guaranteed.

[Tom Brake]

As I understand it, the situation will then be monitored to ensure that that happens.

The hon. Member for Southend West also referred to his own personal contribution to the work done by maternity wards, in that he has five children. I congratulate him on that. He mentioned the mental health manifesto. He also talked about the all-party parliamentary hepatology group. He started that point with a reference to the season of good will, then referred to obesity, hepatitis and alcohol misuse, which was a bit of a downer. He was making a serious point, however.

If I were to refer to all the other things that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in the debate, I would not have time to refer to anyone else. However, his most important subject was the one he raised at the end of his speech. It is a concern that he has raised repeatedly, and it relates to his local health service. I am sure that the Department of Health, his clinical commissioning group and the trust in his area will have heard his arguments loud and clear.

The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), who is no longer in his place, referred to the estuary airport. I agree with him that that project was never going to happen, because the airlines would not have wanted to pay for it or to pass on the costs to their passengers. He referred to the important role of London assembly members in holding Transport for London to account, and I would like to congratulate Caroline Pidgeon and Stephen Knight on the role that they play in the assembly in that respect. The hon. Gentleman supported the idea of Transport for London being more open to engaging transport users in the system, and I agree with him on that. He referred to local authority funding cuts, which other Members have also raised; that is clearly an issue. Labour Members have accepted that the deficit needs to be addressed, and that is one way of doing it. If they find it unacceptable, they must come up with a financial alternative, but I am afraid that none has been forthcoming.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) referred to Gatwick, where other aviation proposals have been made, raising concerns about some of the financial aspects and the projection of passenger number increases. If the intention is for an increase from 30 million to 90 million by 2050, clearly there will be a need for significant public transport investment in infrastructure around Gatwick.

The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) touched on the issue of local government and the tough financial settlement. She referred to the NHS pay rise, where people have been given a minimum of a 1% increase across the board, although I agree that that is not the full pay increase that some had been expecting. She referred to the need for more doctors and nurses. I am pleased to say that there are 9,000 more doctors and 3,000 more nurses. Perhaps more helpfully, she referred to John’s Campaign, which is about allowing carers to stay in hospital. I can confirm that, by means of an exchange of texts, the relevant Minister has confirmed that he would be happy to meet her and campaigners to discuss that issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who is not in his place, referred to the A303. Anyone who has gone to that part of the country will welcome the investment being made in that road. He referred to the need to accelerate the implementation of rural broadband, on which, again, we would all agree. He also referred to the Devon Freewheelers, talking about bikers who deliver body parts—he paused at that point and we all started to worry about what this meant, but it turned out to be about transplants. We should certainly support such charities. I believe he was calling for NHS funding, but often charities work because they are charitable enterprises. I am sure, however, that anything the Government can do to support them in terms of publicity and ensuring that they can operate effectively will be done.

The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) referred to hysteroscopy, as she did last year, and it was equally as uncomfortable for us listening to it as it was 12 months ago. I am pleased to hear that the Minister with responsibility for public health did respond to her, but clearly she has identified that there is an ongoing issue and so I will follow that up again and make sure that she gets a further response, which I hope will clarify that things have moved on and what further can be planned. She also raised the issue of pancreatic cancer, the silent cancer. More needs to be done to raise the profile of that, so that we have a better chance of early diagnosis. I commend her for drawing that to the House’s attention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) rightly drew attention to North Korea and the horrendous situation there. Anyone who is in any doubt about that can still go on to Google Earth to look at the concentration camps in North Korea. I commend to all Members “Escape from Camp 14” on Shin Dong-hyuk. I have read it and it sets out in the bleakest terms possible exactly the conditions political prisoners and others in North Korean camps are kept in.

The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) referred to the estuary airport. [Interruption.] He is not in his place. He then talked about a housing development of 5,000 homes and he did a very effective job of opposing those plans—it was as effective a job as he did when he was supporting them before he defected to the United Kingdom Independence party. It is Christmas—a time for caring, reflection, forgiveness and good will—and I know he is running a fundraising campaign whereby he is seeking £7.30 contributions from each and everyone to support his legal case against the Conservative party. I am not sure how many people will want to contribute to that appeal fund.

We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), who will be very relieved to hear that it is perfectly in order for schools within the national curriculum to discuss the 1812 to 1814 war. I will, if he wishes, set out afterwards precisely how that is possible. We have given teachers the flexibility to do that. Clearly I hope that many teachers will have listened to his pleas for them to pick up this issue and will respond accordingly.

We had a contribution from the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on the subject of the base in Bahrain. The Leader of the House responded to that point in some detail this morning, drawing on the knowledge he had gained from his previous role as Foreign Secretary. The hon. Gentleman and I have been lobbied by representatives about the human rights situation in Bahrain. Although the Foreign and Commonwealth Office thinks that some positive steps have been taken, it is clear that there are still areas that need to be addressed. In particular, more needs to be done on the accountability of police personnel and the investigation and sentencing of those alleged to have committed torture and mistreatment. There is a recognition that action needs to be taken.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to local authority funding and the private rented sector, which he does on a regular basis, and I commend him for that. He will be as disappointed as I was—indeed as almost everyone was in this House—that the Bill about revenge evictions put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) was talked out.

We then had a positive and informed contribution on the subject of trains and the reliability problems that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) faces on his service. I can commiserate with him on that matter, as the works at London Bridge at the moment are causing chaos on the Southern and Thameslink services, which frustrates me virtually every day of the week when I attempt to get into this place. I will refer to the Secretary of State for Transport his plea for faster electrification of the Felixstowe and Nuneaton line.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on again raising the case of Shaker Aamer, to which the Government accord high priority. He again called on the Prime Minister to raise the matter with President Obama, and I will ensure that that request is conveyed to him. The Prime Minister last raised the matter in June 2013, but there have been interventions since from the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. The hon. Gentlemen is right to continue to raise that particular issue.

I regret the forthcoming departure of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall). Having been on a Select Committee tour to Brazil and Venezuela with him, I can say that he is excessively good company and one of the friendliest, most considerate and courteous Members of this House. We will all miss him, as will the customers of his store. He also thanked the Whips Office, which is probably rather rare in this place.

The hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) talked about sight loss. I commend him for the work he is doing on that issue and draw to his attention the importance of ensuring that sight tests are available for people with learning disabilities, which is an issue I have taken up recently given the high level of prevalence of sight impairment within that group. He raised the matter of sight loss advisers and the need for expanding eye clinic liaison officers, and I will draw these point to the attention of the Department of Health.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) raised a number of issues, including that of his constituent, Lauren, and the runaround that he is getting from NHS England in relation to the services or support that will help her to deal with gastroparesis. As he has often done in this place, he referred to a number of issues to do with care, on which he is a real champion, and he referred to the two reports on residential care and home care. He asked me to pursue with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs the subject of agencies that pay less than the minimum wage to carers, and of course I will do that. He talked about the need to ensure that there was parity of esteem in relation to the millennium development goals and the role that the Department for International Development is playing. Finally, he referred to the short time frame for the renal consultation. As I understand it, that is necessary because the changes need to be implemented by 1 April next year, and it will be difficult to achieve that if the consultation period is extended. I am sure that he will follow that up with the Department of Health if he does not feel that that is satisfactory.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove referred to the A555, for which he has consistently campaigned along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) since 1997. Phase 2 might be his legacy, but that might be in the next Parliament. I am sure that he will be able to get his name attached to it in some shape or form and I hope that the money for that phase will be forthcoming. He raised the issue of fires in houses, which he could take up with the all-party parliamentary group, but I will ensure that it is drawn to the attention of the appropriate Minister as there is clearly a potentially significant issue that could affect not only that estate but many others around the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) is a regular attendee at these events and I welcome him again to this one. He referred to a number of significant events in his constituency and the need for a rapprochement between the electorate and Westminster. He also referred to English votes for English laws, which we need to move on quickly. However, I do not think we can rush it and there are issues that need to be considered alongside it, including the devolution of more power below the level of England and, in my view, the need for a constitutional convention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) raised a number of local issues and I commend him for his work in campaigning to improve the NHS in his area as well as the campaign he is running to ensure that his A and E is returned to a 24-hour-a-day service. I wish him well. He also referred to libraries, and I think we collectively support the network of libraries in our constituencies and will want to see them strengthened by the provision of the sorts of things recommended in the recent report, such as wi-fi provision, innovation and ensuring that they can operate as a network. My hon. Friend referred to other issues that affect many Members of Parliament, including nuisance telephone calls and copycat websites, which I think we can all do a lot to campaign against through our use of our own social media, for instance. He also referred to local councillors and I want to take this opportunity to commend them for their work.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) referred to the Recall of MPs Bill. I do not know whether he noticed that Lord Campbell-Savours was rather lacking in festive spirit when he described the changes that the hon. Gentleman had implemented as ones made by boys in short trousers in the shadow Cabinet. Perhaps he can take that up with Dale later.

The hon. Gentleman asked for a debate on foreign policy, which I shall certainly pass on to the Leader of the House, although I think that contrary to the impression that was given we are not a zombie Parliament. We have important business to transact and that might be a matter for the Backbench Business Committee. I thank the hon. Gentleman for thanking members of staff individually, some specifically for what they have achieved in the House.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you and wish you a merry Christmas. I wish all Members in the Chamber, the Clerks, the officers of the Serjeant at Arms, the staff who care for us here and our own staff a merry Christmas.

Let me finish where we started the debate with the final words of the hon. Member for Southend West. I thank the emergency services that will be looking after us over the Christmas period. I thank the ambulance service in St Helier, the fire service in Wallington, the police in Sutton and the NHS staff in all our hospitals, particularly at St Helier hospital. I know that they will be working over the Christmas break to keep us all healthy and safe, so merry Christmas to them all.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

May I also take this opportunity to say thank you to all right hon. and hon. Members? I wish them all the best for Christmas and a peaceful new year, as well as all the visitors of this House and the staff who keep this place going.

Finances of the House of Commons

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Commons Chamber

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

This debate has been slightly more entertaining that I had expected. I thought that, like a financial report, it was going to be quite dry, but we have had some entertaining illustrations of the activities that the different Committees are undertaking to realise savings.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in what has now become an annual debate on the House of Commons’ financial plan and draft estimates. In doing so, I should first mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). At the risk of making him blush under his beard, I join the tributes that have been paid to him and his Committee for the work that they do in scrutinising the financial management of the House and in advising the House of Commons Commission, which is ultimately responsible for running the House.

Like other Members, I wish to pay tribute to the staff of the House, who support the Committee, the Commission and the Members in the activities that they undertake. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) for the role that he plays. He quite rightly pointed out that the finances of this place are not always as they seem, or at least as the press would like to present them. He reflected on the fact that there was a time when the gift shop here was little more than a duty free, selling only whiskey and cigarettes. As someone who has been running a Christmas card competition for reception, year 1, year 2 and year 3 students for the past 17 years, I am pleased that there are now more gifts on offer, as whiskey and cigarettes are clearly not appropriate prizes.

My right hon. Friend also referred to the availability of tiles in the gift shop. I am currently decorating my bathroom at home, so I wish that I had known that earlier—although at £150 a shot, I suspect that we would have had to stick to IKEA as we had originally intended. He quite rightly pointed out—many Members will have seen this—that the House is being used for the first time for the filming of “Suffragette”. He also referred to the fact that the House is a highly rated tourist attraction. I regret to say that he did not mention that our debates in this place are part of that attraction. Perhaps this debate is one that people who have been to visit today will remember for years to come.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I hope that my right hon. Friend is not egging us on to think of charging people for going into the Public Gallery.

[Tom Brake]

I will leave that to my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross to address. Perhaps he will have had some thoughts on that.

Let me finish my comments on the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden. I certainly agree that our investment in this place needs not only to reflect its heritage status but to ensure that the Palace of Westminster is both accessible and visitor friendly in a way that it is not at the moment.

I wish to comment briefly on the comments made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I congratulate him on his triple-hatted role. I am familiar with the concept of wearing more than one hat. He highlighted the savings we have made from ending the production of leather-bound books of Hansard. That was an appropriate thing to do, especially as it was at the taxpayers’ expense.

On the reconstruction and renovation works that will be undertaken fairly soon, the hon. Gentleman is right that planning them appropriately is essential. I do not like to think of myself as a professional politician, although I am not sure at what point one becomes one and leaves behind one’s previous career. Before being elected to this place, I was a project manager in the IT industry. One thing that must be done before embarking on a project is to work out what one wants to achieve and get from it. Members asked whether our plans for the House included a TV studio. Clearly, we need to establish that well in advance of any renovation work, rather than considering it as an afterthought, as the costs would start to ramp up significantly.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the importance of diversity in staff, with which I entirely agree. He said that the House of Commons and the House of Lords should be actively considering bicameral services. It would be strange if we as a Government and Opposition called on local authorities to integrate their services to cut down costs if it were not something that we were prepared to consider in this place. I join him in praising the education centre.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the importance of senior managers getting the appropriate training, which I support. He concluded by referring to the e-petition system. I concur with his view that that is something that should not come at substantial extra cost. There may be a slight additional cost, as that inevitably happens in a transition period, but, fundamentally, we already have in place the technology and that should be the basis of the system. Any additional costs should be very limited. If, as part of the system, a petitions Committee is set up, it should not be an additional Committee but an alternative to one of the existing Committees in the House. I will not speculate on which, but that may be an appropriate way of dealing with any additional costs that might derive from having a petitions Committee.

It is right to recall the achievements of the House management in successfully delivering the savings programme, which saw a reduction in the administration estimate of 17% from £231 million in 2010-11 to £210 million in 2014-15. That reduction is in line with those that have been made right across Whitehall. Although that reduction has inevitably led to some changes, we have not seen any significant diminution in the services and support provided to Members of the House.

I welcome the fact that, although the saving programme has now come to an end, there is no sense of the job being done and now we can get back to normal. That would not reflect the reality of the financial situation, the need for further deficit reduction and the financial discipline in the wider public sector. The Committee’s report outlines the establishment of a continuous improvement approach being promoted by the Cabinet Office to ensure that the House continues to achieve value for money in the services it provides. I also welcome the bicameral nature of that approach. The potential for achieving savings by the two Houses working together should be fully explored.

The Committee notes improvements in financial discipline and internal control. Further improvements in financial performance will require a sharpening of managerial leadership skills right across the House. That is an area on which attention is rightly being paid, and it is a factor that might play into the current review of the governance of the House. I would also like to apologise on behalf of the Leader of the House for his being unable to attend this debate, which is for the same reason that the shadow Leader of the House is not here.

The House will also want to note the potential, outlined in the report, for further savings or income generation. The ICT strategy has not delivered the anticipated savings in 2014-15, and the expansion of commercial activities has not progressed at the pace originally envisaged. Those matters are being taken forward.

The House will also want to note the increase in resources that the Committee has agreed in respect of the budget for Select Committees, following a bid by the Liaison Committee. The extra £854,000 per annum from 2015-16 will enable Committees to have more staff and to commission more research. I think that is a good example of the core functions of the House being enhanced in a climate of overall savings being pursued.

With regard to the medium-term financial plan, we should be conscious of the need identified by the plan for a further £3 million to be found in each financial year from 2016-17 to 2018-19 and that there are major refurbishments in Norman Shaw North to be carried out. Beyond that, there are still decisions to be taken on the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, which will involve substantial expenditure however it is carried out.

Finally, turning to the Members estimate, hon. Members will note that the forecast expenditure is set to come down slightly, from £41 million in 2015-16 to £40 million in 2018-19, after the substantial exercise of providing new IT equipment for all MPs after the next election. The successful provision of IT and other resources for new MPs will go a long way towards giving them confidence in the management and governance of the House.

I conclude by again congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross on his Committee’s work, as set out in its report, and on the constructive way in which it continues to support the work of the Commission and the other administrative Committees of the House.

Education for Young People with Disabilities (UK Aid)

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am indeed playing a rather unusual role today, but it is refreshing to be taking part in a consensual debate, with cross-party agreement about what DFID does. I wish the same could have been said about our debates on the Bill that became the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, for which I was one of the responsible Ministers. The House’s consideration of the Recall of MPs Bill has also not involved the unanimous cross-party support demonstrated in this debate.

We heard about the background of the participants to the debate, which I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing. I was interested to hear about his past life as a teacher. Indeed, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) was also a teacher. I have not been a teacher, although both my parents were at some point in their working careers, so we are all in good company. Given that this is a cross-party, consensual debate, I would like to acknowledge the role that the Labour Government played in helping us to get to our current position in respect of international development, our spending on it and the prominent role we play on it internationally.

I do not think that I am going to be the next Clem Attlee, but those of us in this select group of Members of Parliament can play an important role in making sure the priority that successive Governments have placed on international development remains. There is an awful lot of pressure on the international development budget, and one prominent party—the UK Independence party—would, if it had its way and was represented in large numbers in this place, simply seek to do away with it, or at least a significant part of it, even though one can only imagine what impact that would have on things such as Ebola. I therefore welcome the fact that we are having a consensual debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on the role he plays as co-chair of the all-party group, which monitors these issues.

My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development is in Bangladesh on a departmental visit, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for International Development, is in Berlin at a conference on the Syrian refugee crisis. They have asked me to pass on their apologies for not being able to attend this important debate, but the issue is a particular priority for the Department, and my right hon. Friends will pay close attention to the debate and respond to any points that I do not have a chance to deal with. If I have any credentials at all in terms of my ability to respond to the debate, they will be that I was the Liberal Democrat international development spokesman for a number of years.

In the global context, disability continues, as we have heard, to be one of the primary causes of educational disadvantage and exclusion, creating the largest single group of girls and boys who remain out of school. Even in those countries close to achieving universal primary enrolment, children with disabilities continue to miss out on education and, as a consequence, on opportunities to access meaningful employment and a sustainable route out of poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion cited an example of a school with a ramp, but said that in practice, however, if any child managed to get into that school in a wheelchair, they would not physically be able to get into the classroom because of overcrowding. Anyone, including me, who has been on such visits abroad—in my case to Ghana—will know that a very basic school with little more than mud floors will not be an ideal environment for someone with a disability to access education.

What is positive is that all Members have probably been lobbied in the past few months by school children in their constituencies about the need to ensure that all young people, including those with a disability, go to school. I certainly have, and I congratulate St Mary’s in Carshalton, which joined the Send All My Friends to School campaign. The school asked me to go along and receive the cut-out figures the children had created of pupils and to send them off to the Prime Minister. I did that, and I am pleased that he responded to the pupils’ letters about that important campaign.

The challenges involved in ensuring that disabled children can learn are fourfold. First, responsibility for children with disabilities in the countries in which we work is divided across education, health and social protection, which often results in a focus on social welfare and special treatment, rather than on inclusion and equity. Secondly, there are often school-level barriers, including physical access, inflexible and inappropriate curriculums, inadequate teacher training—that has been mentioned frequently in the debate—and discriminatory attitudes that reinforce the marginalisation of children with disabilities. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion referred to that. It is not simply a question of providing accessible schools; it is also about changing the mentality of some of the people responsible for ensuring that children get to school and, once there, are fully involved in the educational process.

[Mr Mark Williams]

On the first of those points and the issue of cross-departmental responsibilities, and given the visits that my right hon. Friend has made to Ghana—hon. Members have no doubt visited other countries where this would apply—does he share my frustration that in the Government Departments of countries I have been to there is all too often a silo mentality, meaning that that the issue gets lost? Kind and generous words can be heard in health, social services and education Departments, but action on the ground is impeded by a failure to work together. I should be grateful for anything we can do to encourage countries to leave the silo mentality behind.

[Tom Brake]

I agree entirely, but even in a well-run Government such as ours, there is still always a risk that there will be a silo mentality and that Departments will not communicate with each other as would entirely befit them. There are ways for us to help, but we have not managed to perfect that even within UK borders.

The third of the four challenges is that we struggle to understand the extent of the problem, because of a lack of disaggregated data by sex, type of disability and level of functioning. That makes educational planning for inclusive learning extremely difficult. Linked to that, the evidence base on learning outcomes for inclusive education for children with disabilities focuses largely on high-income countries—particularly the US and UK—and there are challenges in identifying good-quality evidence from low and middle-income countries. Finally, there has been a lack of the political will and commitment needed to drive improvements in learning for children with disabilities, and that has limited the ability of Governments, donors and others to assess, monitor and address the situation of those children.

I am pleased to say that the UK is at the forefront of seeking to address those challenges. Through DFID’s work, the UK is committed to ensuring that all children are able to complete a full cycle of quality education, and we are increasingly focusing on the most marginalised as part of the “leave no one behind” agenda, which includes a special focus on children with disabilities. In September 2013, we made two public commitments: first, to ensure that all directly funded school construction is fully accessible; and, secondly, to work with partners to improve data on children with disabilities and special educational needs in and out of education. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), made the point that getting quality data is one of the keys. It is not possible to deal with a challenge without knowing the scale of it, and it is fair to say that at the moment we do not.

Across DFID’s global and country programmes we are supporting a range of activities to support access to education and learning for children with disabilities. Depending on the context, we are working through either partner Governments or local and international partners. In the majority of our programmes we support an inclusive approach to ensure that all children can be educated in mainstream schools. In our most mature and innovative programmes, such as Pakistan’s Punjab programme, we are looking at new partnerships with respect to children with learning disabilities. The Pakistan office is currently assessing the feasibility of implementing our school construction standards in the £104 million reconstruction and rehabilitation programme. Current projections indicate that 50,000 classrooms may be reconstructed or rehabilitated. That work is really about extending the present programme of ensuring that all new schools are fully accessible. DFID’s policy on accessible construction has since triggered similar commitments among other global partners, including UNICEF.

Often children can suffer many types of disadvantage. DFID’s girls’ education challenge, which targets the most marginalised girls, is funding disability-focused projects in Uganda, Kenya and Sierra Leone, totalling more than £9 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion referred to that and asked whether DFID would be able to create a disability education challenge fund. I suppose the answer is that the girls’ fund is clearly a new model, which has not been tried before, to ensure that 1 million of the most marginalised girls get the quality education that they deserve by 2016. As it is a new programme, its effectiveness will need to be assessed, and we perhaps need to get through that challenge before we embark on a new disability education challenge fund. However, I shall draw the proposal to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

My hon. Friend talked about disaggregated data. There is a critical gap with respect to evidence and data on disability prevalence, on which DFID is focusing. As he will know, the Government hosted an important conference jointly with the UN on 23 October to improve disability statistics. During the conference we committed to developing guidance on disability data disaggregation with the UN’s Washington group on disability statistics. We are certainly working towards the goal that my hon. Friend set out of ensuring that disaggregated data are available, and that we can identify where the key problems are and what is effective in ensuring that education reaches the most disadvantaged. To improve education-specific data, we are supporting UNESCO’s institute for statistics in regularly publishing education indicators disaggregated by specific population groups, including people with disabilities, and in developing new standards for school censuses and surveys related to marginalised populations.

As hon. Members know, the true benefits of education accrue only if children achieve good learning outcomes. Our recently published inclusive learning topic guide brings together for the first time evidence on what works in inclusive learning for children aged 3 to 12 years in low and middle-income countries. It focuses on the varied learning needs of children who either are not benefiting from the learning opportunities available to them, or do not have the opportunity to engage in learning at all, owing to their impairments and disabilities. It explores the role of inclusive approaches in contributing to inclusive societies and, ultimately, inclusive growth, and addresses some of the contested and debated issues around terminology, discrimination, and segregated and inclusive schooling. The topic guide supplements our guidance note on educating children with disabilities, and both resources are available freely to all policy makers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and the hon. Member for North West Durham asked what was being done to train staff in inclusion. DFID is rolling out training to its in-country staff on the inclusive learning topic guide. Once the framework has been developed, we will consider how we can continue to upskill our country staff. That is work in progress.

At the global level, we are working closely with the World Bank, the Global Partnership for Education, UNICEF, Australia, Germany, Sweden, the United States Agency for International Development and Norway to ensure that more countries eligible for GPE funds implement an inclusive approach to education, with a specific focus on children with disabilities. Our influencing efforts made disability a priority for the June replenishment of the GPE. Twelve countries pledged at that event to do more for children with disabilities, including Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Pakistan, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Zambia and Ghana.

My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is an unrelenting champion for children with disabilities and I know that she raises the issue at every opportunity, in every meeting, with ministerial counterparts when she travels to partner countries. I do not know, but I imagine that she has travelled to Nigeria recently. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion raised the issue of disability not being mentioned in the business case for the Nigeria education programme. I reassure him that the programme is in line with DFID’s three priorities in education: improving learning, focusing on girls and ensuring that the most marginalised can learn. DFID business cases are used primarily to assess the evidence on and financial basis of programmes, and do not contain all the detailed information on programme delivery. Disability will clearly be part of the programme.

The International Development Committee’s recent inquiry into DFID’s work on disability recognised that we are doing some impressive work already, but that more ambition would be transformational. DFID is committed to developing a framework to strengthen our work on disability further, and it will be published on 3 December—I think that my hon. Friend referred to the end of November.

My hon. Friend asked how the framework would be implemented. As he knows, we have made two public commitments: first, about accessible schooling; and, secondly, about improving disability data. Through the second commitment, we are working to develop disability-sensitive indicators, which currently do not exist, to measure progress on disability-sensitive education and inclusive learning. That is how we will be able to monitor that things are, in fact, working, and that this is not just fine words without matched fine action, to which the hon. Member for Wirral South referred.

I thank the hon. Lady for her support. I am sure that the teachers present will have given her top marks for her presentation, so I do not think she needed to worry about that. I hope I have answered most of her questions, but I might need to return to her point about whether DFID has the skills base to develop disability policy. If I do not get inspiration about that point, I will make sure that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary hears that that is a particular concern, and I am sure that she will want to respond directly. As my right hon. Friend makes disability issues a priority, however, I am sure that she would not want a situation in which there were not the necessary skills in her Department to deal with that critical issue.

As the 20th anniversary of the Salamanca framework for action passes, we must ensure that co-ordinated action from Governments, donors and other key stakeholders is able to secure better access to schooling and inclusive learning outcomes for disabled children, as well as wider benefits for inclusive societies. The economic and social costs of exclusion are high. Many low and middle-income economies suffer greater losses from maintaining large out-of-school populations than they would from increasing public spending to achieve universal primary enrolment. It is clear that enrolling all children in basic education is a productive and smart investment. The economic benefits of education are well established and the inclusive growth to which it can contribute is, by definition, grounded in societies that are open, equitable, tolerant and just.

As I have just received inspiration, I can say in response to the hon. Member for Wirral South that DFID has increased the specialist headquarters staff to two. We also have a secondee into the Australian Government, who are world leaders on disability policy. There has been some strengthening of the team but, none the less, my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may want to respond to that point in writing.

Recognising and valuing diversity within learning communities and welcoming all children into the classroom must be pivotal components in all learning strategies. Leaving no one behind at school and in wider society is essential not only to a sustainable approach to development and poverty eradication, but to the attainment of the freedoms, dignity, tolerance and respect that are fundamental to our common humanity.

Select Committee on Governance of the House

Tom Brake Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I am pleased to participate in this debate. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had intended to speak as Leader of the House and, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), on behalf of the Commission, but he has asked me to speak on his behalf and on behalf of the Commission.

The Commission met on Monday to discuss, among other matters, the recruitment process for the Clerk of the House. As Mr Speaker has clearly indicated, it is vital that Members have the opportunity to express their views on this important issue. The Commission therefore decided not take decisions relating to the recruitment of the Clerk or the governance of the House until it had the opportunity to hear the views of Members, both in this debate and through the many expressions of opinion that Mr Speaker has received.

As Members may know, the Commission recognises the need for a review of the governance of the House and, indeed, took a decision in April to begin such a review later this year. The views of Members on this House’s governance are clearly of paramount importance. It is therefore entirely proper for a Select Committee to undertake this work. Assuming that the House agrees to its establishment today, I am sure that the Commission will be happy to provide any information and practical support that the Committee may require. The Commission will be mindful of its overarching responsibility to ensure the proper governance of the House, and equally aware that the outcome of the process needs to be one in which the House can have confidence.

I now want to say a few words from a Government perspective. I am naturally keen to help the House resolve this matter—and it is squarely a House matter rather than one for Government—so I welcome the initiative shown by the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and others who have tabled the motion that we are considering this evening.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

As usual, the Deputy Leader of the House is making a powerful speech. On his point about the setting up of the Select Committee being a House matter, it has always been my understanding that members of the Executive do not vote on the creation of memberships of Select Committees. Has that now changed?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I will respond to it later.

It is in all our interests—Government, Opposition, Back Benchers and the House service as a whole—that this matter is resolved in a timely manner with due consideration. I do not seek in any way to pre-empt the work of the Committee, but there are certain principles that it will wish to bear in mind and issues that it will wish to to address. Let me flag up four. First, as Members, we expect to have access to the highest quality of advice. We rely heavily on the expert advice of the Clerk on matters of procedure and constitutional propriety. It goes without saying that the effective functioning of the House relies on the confidence of Members in its senior management and especially in the Clerk of the House as its principal procedural adviser.

Secondly, on a related point, it is vital that the Clerk is, and is seen to be, totally independent and not in any way dependent on the support of political parties or others. Advice must be dispensed without fear or favour. That is why the Clerk is appointed by the sovereign by letters patent and is not an employee of the Commission.

Thirdly, it is important that the House has a decision-making structure that is fit for the substantial challenges that we face, and is transparent. Members and the public must know who is accountable for decisions made.

Finally, any management structure must be cost-effective. Just as the Government have cut the cost of politics, the House has delivered substantial savings to the taxpayer since the last election, meeting its 17% savings target. Any new arrangements should support the efficient and cost-effective delivery of services to Members and to the public.

If the motion is agreed to, I hope that the Select Committee will be able to begin its work rapidly and conclude by the deadline. The Government will seek to ensure that the House has an opportunity to debate the Committee’s conclusions at an early opportunity, so that resulting appointments can be made as rapidly as possible.

In response to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), the election of Members to the Committee is a matter for the parties.

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

My right hon. Friend has not referred to the interim arrangements that are being put in place. I want an assurance that it is difficult for him to give, because he is not a member of the Commission, that the Commission will invest the Clerk Assistant with sufficient authority to do all the things that are required of the Clerk, of the kind that my right hon. Friend has described, and to delegate such of his functions as make it possible to carry out those roles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I can certainly assure him that the Commission will be following tonight’s debate very carefully and will, I am sure, want to act on it and on what he has suggested.

I have enjoyed hearing the views that Members have expressed so far, and I look forward to hearing the views of other Members in this debate and elsewhere.

Business of the House

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That at today’s sitting:

(1) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Secretary Patrick McLouglin relating to the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill not later than two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the Questions may be put after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply; and

(2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means may be entered upon at any hour, and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business; the business may be entered upon after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.

Last Thursday, during the business statement, the Leader of the House announced that the House would today consider motions relating to the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill, a motion to approve the draft Legislative Reform (Clinical Commissioning Groups) Order 2014, and then opposed private business. The business motion before the House helps to control these proceedings today.

The effect of passing the motion would be to allow two hours for the debate on both of the high speed rail Bill motions, which would be debated together. The clinical commissioning groups order motion is not included within the terms of the business motion as that motion will be subject to 90 minutes’ debate under Standing Orders. The business motion then allows up to three hours’ debate on the opposed private business, as well as allowing that business to start at any time.

The motions relating to the high speed rail Bill have been on remaining orders since last Tuesday. The first amends the carry-over motion agreed by the House in April relating to the application of the electronic deposit of documents in this Session. The second is an instruction to the Select Committee considering the Bill to give it powers to consider amendments to accommodate the requirements of certain landowners and occupiers, utility undertakers and changes to the design of the works authorised in the Bill, as specified in the motion. Two hours would seem adequate to discuss these very specific procedural motions relating to the Bill. The business of the House motion also allows the opposed private business to be proceeded with at any hour and to last for three hours.

I hope the House will agree that the business motion facilitates the business of the House in a sensible way and I commend the motion to the House.

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

I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that explanation of the business today. I am very grateful that he has explained why we have the business of the House in this order, but may I just say to him how grateful I am because today not only do I have an interest in HS2, but of course I have an interest in the opposed private business, which covers the film industry in Buckinghamshire. Therefore, I am very grateful for the reordering of the business today which enables me to cover both debates in one sitting?