Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Brake and Thomas Docherty

Thursday 5th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

First, I should perhaps correct the impression that the hon. Gentleman wants to give that this Parliament has not been busy. The 2010 to 2015 Parliament will sit for 734 days, which compares with the 718 in the 2005 to 2010 Parliament. Of course, for individual Bills there have been more Public Committee days or sittings than there were under the previous Government. I have heard what he has said about private Members’ Bills. I know that the Procedure Committee has some strong views about private Members’ Bills, and I suspect that we may have to return to the matter in the next Parliament.

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

The reality is that too many Bills have been leaving the House of Commons without adequate scrutiny and have to be salvaged in the other place. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has proposed a new stage for Commons scrutiny—the whole House scrutiny stage. Does the Deputy Leader of the House accept that we need to improve scrutiny in this place, rather than simply using the Lords to bail us out?

[Tom Brake]

I do, of course, accept that in this House we need scrutiny, but the Labour party is responsible for scrutiny and what we have seen in this Parliament is that far more Bills have finished early than was the case in the previous Parliament. I am afraid that is because the Opposition are not undertaking their job of scrutiny effectively.

Sittings in Westminster Hall

Debate between Tom Brake and Thomas Docherty

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[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

Debate between Tom Brake and Thomas Docherty

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.

House of Commons Commission Bill

Debate between Tom Brake and Thomas Docherty

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[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).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Brake and Thomas Docherty

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I am grateful for that point of clarification or information. When Departments want to respond promptly, they can do so. I have frequently quoted the ability of the Department of Health, for example, to respond to 99% of questions within the appropriate time scales, and I am now happy to be able to refer to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which has been able to respond to 100% of them within the appropriate time scales.

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

One of the Secretaries of State dragged to the Procedure Committee was from the Ministry of Justice, which provides one of the worst examples of Ministers dodging their responsibilities and parliamentary scrutiny. Under the current Lord Chancellor, fewer than one in five questions was answered on time in the last Session. That is because, as he has admitted, his own special advisers are vetting every answer. Do we not need more substance and less spin from Ministers?

[Tom Brake]

I am sure that the Ministry of Justice is not dodging its responsibilities. I do, however, think that there is a very strong case for that Ministry to improve its performance quite significantly. I will raise that issue with the Secretary of State.

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Tom Brake and Thomas Docherty

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

I, too, will be relatively brief. Amendment 9 relates to an issue we discussed in Committee. The Government gave a clear indication to the Committee that they recognised that it would be inappropriate to place wording in primary legislation on which they had not consulted the Electoral Commission. I hope that the Minister will confirm when he responds whether the Government have now consulted the Electoral Commission, as they undertook to do in Committee.

I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that, having had a hat trick of wins earlier this evening, we should not press our luck tonight. However, we are clear that we do not believe that it is appropriate to have wording in primary legislation that has not been agreed by the Electoral Commission. We will expect the other place to remove that wording if the Government are unable to satisfy this House that they have consulted the Electoral Commission.

Amendment 10 simply rewrites the wording set out in clause 9, as the hon. Member for Cambridge said, and I do not think that it requires further explanation. Amendments 11, 12 and 13 relate to a point that was made during our line-by-line consideration of the Bill. He is absolutely right that it is inappropriate to have ambiguity about what would happen if the Speaker was subject to a recall petition—not least for the benefit of the Speaker. We think that it is correct to state explicitly that the Chairman of Ways and Means or the Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means are the appropriate post-holders in the unlikely event that a recall petition affects the Speaker.

That point was raised with the Government informally, so we hope that the Minister has had a chance to consider it. His previous answer was that the Chair would be vacant because the Speaker would be serving a custodial sentence. However, we have just agreed by an overwhelming majority to make an amendment that will apply this to non-custodial sentences, so that argument no longer holds water. Also, if an MP received a very short sentence, they could be out of custody by the time the recall procedure was initiated.

This is purely a tidying-up exercise and we do not see the point in detaining the House. We are sure that the Minister will have reflected on our previous discussions and will agree to make these minor but necessary changes to the Bill.

[Tom Brake]

I intend to make a satisfyingly and commendably brief contribution: these amendments are not controversial.

Amendment 9 would remove from the Bill the wording of the petition signing sheet and the ability to amend it by regulations. This would be replaced by a power enabling the wording to be prescribed or amended by regulations following consultation with the Electoral Commission. The wording of the petition signing sheet currently appears in the Bill and can be amended through regulations. This aligns with the power that exists in the Representation of the People Act 1983 that allows for the ballot paper for UK parliamentary elections to be amended through regulations, although the form of the ballot paper itself appears in the Act.

Amendment 10 seeks to amend the wording to appear on the petition signing sheet by making it easier for the elector to understand that the MP will not lose his or her seat and a by-election will not be held if fewer than 10% of the registered electors in the constituency sign the petition. I remind hon. Members that this wording has been developed in conjunction with the Electoral Commission to ensure that it is balanced and fits with the commission’s guidance on referendum questions.

I can see the intention behind the amendments. The first amendment addresses concerns expressed in Committee that if any user testing takes place—I can confirm that we do intend to user-test the wording of the signing sheet—it might be clearer to remove the wording from the Bill and accept that the final form of words will appear in regulations. It is important that the wording is approved by Parliament, whether on the Floor of the House or in a delegated powers Committee. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that proper consultation should be part of the process of developing the wording. That is why we have worked on it with the Electoral Commission and are now looking to test it further to ensure that it is right. Either the power in clause 9 or that proposed in amendment 9 would allow the wording to be adapted or set should changes flow from the user testing. Amendment 10 demonstrates that there is no single way to word the signing sheet, and that is why we are committed to undertaking user testing. The views of the public will provide us with a clearer picture on where improvements can be made not only to the signing sheet but to the notice of petition.

As for the wording of the petition signing sheet, there is a specific purpose behind the use of the words,

“as a result of the petition.”

If the petition is successful, it is right that a by-election will be held. However, if the petition is unsuccessful, it is not necessarily the case that a by-election will not be held. A by-election could be held because the MP decided to resign his or her seat, or otherwise lost his or her seat. The use of the words,

“as a result of the petition”,

seeks to ensure that the public understand that the effect of an unsuccessful petition is not necessarily to prevent a by-election. The question for the House is whether the wording should be retained in the Bill or be replaced with a power to prescribe the wording in regulations. If the wording is to be retained, the question then is whether we accept the proposed amendment to clarify that a by-election will not be held or leave this to user testing.

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Tom Brake and Thomas Docherty

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

Again, the hon. Lady can draw parallels with other election processes and the avenues available for appeal regarding those who have voted in an election, if there is the possibility that fraud has taken place. She can look at how that process works in other elections.

[Thomas Docherty]

Perhaps I can be helpful to the Minister. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) raises an important point, and as I understand it—the Minister may wish to get inspiration on this—the Speaker is not challengeable under judicial review and parliamentary privilege—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Gyimah) is nodding away. Is it correct to say that the Member cannot challenge the Speaker’s decision, and that therefore the only opportunity for such a challenge is before the petition officer has informed the Speaker that the threshold has been met?

[Tom Brake]

I am happy to take helpful interventions from the hon. Gentleman—and indeed any inspiration, which may be forthcoming—and to address his particular point and seek clarification on whether he is right to say that once the process has reached the Speaker, no appeal can be invoked.

My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome made a helpful query about whether the Government have engaged with IPSA about the impact on an MP’s staff should their employer be successfully recalled and subsequently lose their seat in a by-election should they stand again. Fortunately, we still have time in which those discussions can take place—if they have not done so already—and I am sure we want to ensure that IPSA is aware of that possibility. We clearly want clarity for staff on the impact that any recall would have on their future employment, particularly during the petition process, and immediately afterwards during the by-election should the Member seek to stand. If the Member decides not to stand in that by-election, what terms and conditions would apply to their staff? On that point, in the absence of more detailed inspiration—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

Does the Minister agree that those discussions with IPSA must take place before the Bill becomes law, so that we do not have—as with most things to do with IPSA—a law of unintended consequences?

[Tom Brake]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is in everyone’s interest for those discussions to take place as soon as possible. As we are debating this issue and the profile of recall is increasing, staff who may—for whatever reason—feel that their MP might be vulnerable to recall might start to ask themselves questions about their future employment. In response to an earlier intervention from the hon. Gentleman, the Speaker does not determine that the threshold has been met. The giving of the petition officer’s notice has that effect, and it is therefore challengeable. Details will be set out in regulations, but once the by-election has been held it is clearly too late.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is conflating having an imprint and identifying campaign groups that are working together in concert to fight against an MP. Under the rules on expenditure and the £10,000 limit, if two organisations are working together with a common campaign plan to try to get people to sign a recall petition, they will have to account for their expenditure collectively within that £10,000 limit. They cannot accumulate their expenditure. However, as we know from other elections, it is sometimes difficult to identify whether two campaign organisations are working together to oppose a particular candidate or party, because they might structure their campaigns in a way that is not entirely transparent.

[Thomas Docherty]

May I take the Minister back to the point made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)? As I am sure the Minister recalls, political parties currently have to declare to the Electoral Commission any donation they receive above a certain value. Members of Parliament are in addition required to declare to the registrar of interests any donation we receive to our campaigns above a value of, I believe, £500.01. Will the Minister therefore clarify whether a donation to the campaign of the Member of Parliament who faces recall would have to be declared to the appropriate authorities? Would a donation above £1,000 to a political party that is an accredited campaigner have to be declared to the relevant Electoral Commission?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I need to respond to an earlier intervention from the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on imprints. The answer to her is that that will be set out in secondary legislation.

I also want to clarify the point I made in response to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on donations in Northern Ireland. It is a complex and important issue, and she has campaigned for greater transparency. To maintain public trust in the process of recall, it is essential that there is transparency in the funding of accredited campaigners. All donations of more than £500 will have to be reported by accredited campaigners, including the donor’s name. That includes donations from Northern Ireland residents to accredited campaigners. However, there is an exception when the accredited campaigner is a Northern Ireland registered party that is not a minor party, as these are regulated separately by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Under the Act, reportable donations to a Northern Ireland political party are currently not made public. In the specific case of recall, there will be anonymity for the donor. However, that is subject to changes that can be introduced under the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 to increase transparency on donations. I hope that that clarifies the issue for the hon. Lady and has picked up on the point about accredited campaigners having to report donations of more than £500 and the donor’s name.

Schedule 4 will deliver confidence that donations are appropriately controlled. The rules will prevent undue influence by wealthy or foreign donors over the outcome of recall petitions while allowing legitimate donations to be made. The definition of a relevant donation is consistent with wider electoral law. It is based on what counts as a donation to permitted participants at a referendum under the 2000 Act. The definition of permissible donor is based on the definition relating to donations to political parties. That will prevent the overseas funding of recall petition campaigns without preventing UK electors, organisations or companies from donating to campaigners of their choice.

Schedules 3 and 4 provide proportionate regulation of campaigners seeking to raise and spend money, and schedule 5 adds openness. To ensure transparency and compliance with the regulations, details of reportable expenditure and donations to an accredited campaigner must be submitted to the petition officer at the end of the recall process. Those submissions will be available for public scrutiny for a period of two years.

Schedule 5 sets out what is required in a recall petition return and is based on returns for permitted participants in referendums under the 2000 Act, although with appropriate modifications. Responsibility for the administration and conduct of the recall petition falls to the petition officer. That includes receiving and publishing accreditation notices and spending returns from accredited campaigners. The aim has never been to create a highly regulated process, but to ensure, as in a constituency election campaign, that spending and donations are transparent. The Electoral Commission will have a number of advisory, reporting and administrative roles that are similar, although with appropriate modifications, to those it exercises in elections more generally.

Clause 17 amends section 62 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006. The Act contains an order-making power to introduce controls on loans to candidates at elections, recognised third parties at national election campaigns and permitted participants in a referendum. No orders have yet been made under this section. The amendment made by the clause will extend the order-making power to accredited campaigners in relation to a recall petition. The Bill’s approach is consistent with wider electoral law and will deliver three objectives. First, it will not hinder individuals and groups who have an interest in participating in the petition process. Secondly, the system will prevent disproportionate levels of spending or donations being made in an attempt to influence unduly the outcome of the process. Thirdly, those who spend significant amounts on campaigning will be appropriately regulated and transparent about what they are spending and who is supporting them. I commend these clauses and schedules to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I entirely agree. There is merit in further discussion about that because, as the hon. Lady says, unlike in a general election, where there would be three or four competing parties each pursuing a different goal—trying, I would hope, to get their own person elected—in this case three out of four political parties might be pursuing one goal and able to spend £30,000, while the fourth party, the party of the incumbent, would be pursuing the other goal.

I urge the Government to have a careful think and to talk to Members across the House to see whether we can establish some rules. For example, I know that some hon. Members have suggested that rather than capping what each party could spend, we should cap the total spend on the two arguments—that is, for and against recall. I hope that Ministers will consider those arguments in the weeks ahead. We do not wish to detain the Committee; I know that Ministers are listening carefully—I am grateful to see some nods from the Treasury Bench. If the Minister assures me that he will undertake to meet the hon. Member for North Down to discuss her concerns and to meet the Opposition in the days ahead, I will not seek to divide the Committee on this issue.

[Tom Brake]

We have had a useful debate, identifying some areas where the Government could usefully do some more work on the Bill. As we have said on a number of occasions, the process that the Government want to follow with this Bill is one is that allows Members from all parts of the House to make suggestions.

Let me respond to the points made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). One thing that she omitted—I am sure she remembered it, but she did not refer to it—is that for the recall process to start, there has to be a trigger. It is not as if organisations are lining up to try to unseat her or anyone else, such as the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long); there is a trigger that starts the process. However, I agree with the hon. Member for North Down that once the process has started, some organisations will have more money to bring to bear on the campaign than she, or I or other individual Members may have.

The hon. Lady has raised a point, which was reflected in the points that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) made about how to ensure a level playing field in expenditure. I am happy to look at the point he made about whether it would be practical to have a total cap on the for and against campaigns. However, I am sure that experienced campaigners will be able to find their way around that approach—[Interruption.] Not my party, of course; I was thinking more of the Labour party. So it would not be a guarantee that one side could not outspend the other.

The anonymity of donations is an issue that the hon. Member for North Down and, indeed, other Northern Ireland Members raise on a regular basis. It would not be appropriate for me to put forward a solution in this Bill to an issue that has been ongoing for some time, but I hope she will acknowledge that at least some partial progress has been made on transparency—albeit perhaps not the full Monty that she would like to see us delivering. She knows much better than I do how complicated politics are in Northern Ireland and how difficult it is to find solutions that are accepted in all camps there.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife has approached this Bill in a consensual, engaging way. He highlighted the importance of having safeguards against collusion among different organisations. I accept that that is a significant issue, just as it was in relation to, for example, the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, where one of the biggest issues concerned the collective ability of third-party campaigners significantly to outspend others and the difficulties in identifying whether they were acting independently or as part of an organised campaign. Those concerns will also apply to this Bill; I acknowledge that. We need to be aware of the issue and ensure that as many safeguards as possible are put in place—which is why I have said that I would be happy to get back to him on his suggestion of capping both sides of the argument to ensure equality of arms in any recall petition campaign.

The hon. Gentleman raised a point about donations to political parties and the Member of Parliament. For clarity’s sake, let me put it on the record that donations to political parties will be declared and made public under the current legislation—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—rather than the Recall of MPs Bill. An MP who is an accredited campaigner will have to declare relevant donations in the same way as other accredited campaigners.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether I would be willing to meet the Opposition to discuss their concerns about the Bill. We met earlier this morning, and I am happy to meet him whenever appropriate, whenever he feels there is a significant issue he would like to raise. Indeed, if the hon. Member for North Down would like to meet to discuss some of her concerns, Ministers would be happy to do that and to accommodate her.

[Thomas Docherty]

I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer than necessary, but I wonder whether the Minister can clarify something about his very helpful answer about MPs’ declarations. As I understand it, a Member of Parliament who is fighting a recall petition has not yet vacated their seat, so am I right in thinking that they would have to declare any donation made to the fighting of the recall while they were still an MP, regardless of the outcome of the petition?

[Tom Brake]

As the hon. Gentleman often does, he has come back with a very detailed question, to which I will respond in writing, as I have to conclude the debate on this particular grouping of amendments. I hope what I said has been helpful in setting out the Government’s position. We have identified some further areas where more work needs to be done. I commend these provisions to the Committee.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 3 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Power to make further provision about conduct of a recall petition etc

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Lady has asked an excellent question. It is not for me to speak for the Government—yet—but I understand that during the recall petition phase, a Member of Parliament will still be a Member of Parliament. I trust that the Minister will nod his assent to that. If the petition is successful, the seat will be vacated, and the person concerned will no longer be a Member of Parliament during the period leading up to the by-election.

We need to know more details in regard to a number of issues. As I said earlier, it would be helpful to both Houses if the Government could at least produce draft regulations before the Bill goes to the Lords, if not before for the Report stage in the House of Commons. We think that there is plenty of room for potential abuse by campaigners, who, if not covered by PPERA, could make a series of unfounded allegations. We are concerned about the £500 limit, because a large number of individual constituents who had not supported an MP’s position on another issue could choose to spend £499. Although the petition itself had been called for on specific grounds of wrongdoing, it would then be possible for someone to say “My MP did not support my position on issue x or y.” There needs to be clear guidance not just on spending limits, but on what is written on the leaflets. We want Ministers to confirm that everyone will be covered by PPERA.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) made a valid point about the Speaker. I appreciate that we are not engaging in a broader debate on clause 19, but I think that there is scope for us to consider not just the question of who will appoint a Deputy Speaker, but the question of what will happen if the Speaker himself, or herself, is subject to recall in the future. The Government may say that if the Speaker were in prison, he or she would clearly be absent, but that might be for only one day. An expenses offence might be involved, if our proposed amendment is accepted on Report. We hope that the Government will consult Members on both sides of the House, and will consider clarifying the rules—either on Report or in the House of Lords—to ensure that if the Member of Parliament concerned is the Speaker, there will be a specific procedure enabling the Speaker to be recused from that process.

We have had a long and fulfilling debate, but I think that Ministers have plenty of homework to do. We would give them a C minus today, but they “could do better”. So far they have shown considerable attitude, if not aptitude, and we hope that when we return to the Bill on Report, their homework will be better.

[Tom Brake]

Let me respond briefly to the points that have been made.

The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) was rightly concerned about the possibility that a Member of Parliament could challenge the recall process. Regulations will set out the details of the way in which questioning about irregularities will take place, and the impact that irregularities may have on the outcome of the petition, but the courts will, in certain circumstances, be able to rule that the outcome of the petition is invalid. The hon. Lady may not feel that that is a substantial enough answer to her query, but I shall be happy to meet her if she wants to make further points or to be given further clarification.

My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) mentioned the limited number of designated places for signing, and the fact that they would be designated: in other words, people would have to go to specific signing points. As he probably realises, the purpose is to ensure that people cannot double-sign. If people could go to any of the four places, they might choose to move from one to another—

[Tom Brake]

It would, but that is why the Government want to designate a place of signature, as happens when people cast their votes in an election.

[Thomas Docherty]

Let me help out the hon. Gentleman, who does not usually need any help. According to my recollection, he was not disputing the issue of multiple signing. It was a question of who decided which petition station the constituent was assigned to, which is a slightly different issue.

[Tom Brake]

I may have misunderstood the point that my hon. Friend was making. I thought that he was questioning why someone would have to go to a designated signing point, as opposed to being able to go to all of them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Brake and Thomas Docherty

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman and I often see eye to eye on matters in this House but on that point I am in total agreement with him. The public and indeed Members of Parliament would consider it strange that for a very extended period during the summer we are not sitting and there were not opportunities to raise important matters in this place.

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

Is not the real problem that the two Houses are now completely out of sync with each other, with the House of Lords sitting until the end of July and not now coming back until mid-October? Will the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House speak to their counterparts about trying to realign the two Houses, thus not only saving money but improving parliamentary scrutiny?

[Tom Brake]

That is a valid point and I am certainly happy to follow it up. Often the Houses are not synchronised in terms of the progress of Bills in any case, but the hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. It is certainly worth seeing whether the timetables could be synchronised if that had a significant impact in reducing the costs of running Parliament.

Summer Adjournment

Debate between Tom Brake and Thomas Docherty

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government—or the international community—are failing in relation to Russia. I hope that it is possible to bring together the different players to ensure that action is taken, but we will have to wait and see what happens.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised a number of issues. I will, if I may, highlight world hepatitis day to which he wanted to draw attention. He also talked about hepatitis C, and the need for greater diagnosis and publicity. He is also a doughty campaigner on behalf of the fire service, and he raised a number of issues in that regard, as he does on a regular basis in pre-recess Adjournment debates and at other opportunities. He referred again to Hillingdon council. He is clearly an assiduous campaigner and will not let the council off the hook if he thinks that it is up to no good.

The hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who is in his place, talked about the important investment in schools and businesses in his constituency. Quite rightly, he highlighted the fact that, unfortunately, Rolls-Royce is having to retrench in his constituency, but I am sure that he will work with other community representatives to campaign on behalf of the aerospace industry to ensure that Pendle recovers from the loss. I commend him on the first and, I think, only use of the “long-term economic plan” phrase, which gives me an opportunity to say that the Government are building a stronger economy and a fairer society.

Finally, I echo the thanks of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) to long-serving members of staff—John Pullinger, Christine Gillie, James Robertson, Janet Rissen, Judith Welham, Amanda Waller, Chris Weeds and Clare Cowan—for all their efforts in the House in recent years.

[Thomas Docherty]

It was remiss of me not to mention this before. I mentioned Sir Barnett Cocks, who was the Clerk when Sir Robert first arrived. I am not sure whether the Minister is aware of this, but after Sir Barnett retired he published a book about Parliament. Does the Minister agree that it would be a good idea if the Clerk, in his newly acquired time, was able to bring out a publication on how Parliament works, and after that, perhaps one on cricket as well?

[Tom Brake]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Sir Robert may have heard his entreaty to produce such things, but I will also use this as an opportunity to thank Sir Robert on behalf of all Members. Members should consider the range of things in which Sir Robert has been involved. Let me name just a few. He was involved in implementing the Modernisation Committee’s reform of the legislative process; writing the “Shifting the Balance” report of the Liaison Committee, which was a major step in Select Committee innovation before the Wright Committee; proposing the idea that the Prime Minister should appear before the Liaison Committee; and writing the so-called 75-point plan in the options for Commons reform, which are gradually being worked through. On the more administrative side, he began to grapple with some of the biggest challenges that we face, such as the need to invest substantially in ensuring that this building is fit for purpose for members of staff, Members and peers in decades to come. Sir Robert will be sorely missed by all Members of the House, and I have personally enjoyed his friendly, informative and experienced advice in the years that I have been here.

With that, I will finish by thanking all the staff—the police, the Clerks, the Chief Clerk, Sir Robert, staff in the Tea Room and everyone who supports us to enable us to do the job that we do. Without them it would not be possible, and we would not get the enjoyment out of it that we do.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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

House of Commons Business

Debate between Tom Brake and Thomas Docherty

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

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

Some interesting and substantive contributions have been made to the debate this afternoon by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), the shadow Leader of the House, by my hon. Friend the. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) and for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), as well as interventions from several Members. I hope to comment on at least some of the more specific points.

I welcome the Opposition’s support for the process that has been outlined for e-petitions and the co-operation of the Procedure Committee and others in taking the matter forward with the Government. However, I regret that the hon. Member for Nottingham North appears reluctant to engage with his colleagues, including those who are members of the Government, on designing a system that meets the interests of both parties and, even more important, those of petitioners.

One of the main problems with having two petition systems, which the hon. Gentleman advocates, is the difficulty for petitioners in trying to identify which of the two they should use and, indeed, what happens when they request one thing through one route, which they also need to achieve through the other route. I will not engage with the detail of the amendment—that is for the Procedure Committee to consider in concert with others. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feed his ideas into that Committee.

The Government support some aspects of the amendment and, indeed, some things can already be done. For example, the provision that

“any hon. Member should be able to propose an e-petition for debate”

can already happen. That also applies to the provision that,

“the Backbench Business Committee should allocate time on Mondays in Westminster Hall for debates arising from e-petitions”.

There are, therefore, matters on which we agree. However, there are others, particularly the suggestion of setting up a completely separate e-petition site, that the Government do not support. However, as I said, this is a joint exercise and joint system, and further discussion with colleagues is required before trying to identify the detail.

The intention is to enable the House to hold the Government to account in responding to petitions, and to give it greater control over how they are treated and debated here. Given the nature of our debate, I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham North will not press the amendment. If the House agrees to the motion, the Leader of the House will be in a position to meet the Procedure Committee to begin discussions on the new system. We look forward to proposals emerging later in the year.

On programming, I am grateful for the support for the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. I note the thoughtful remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, based on his experience, and the comments about the effect of the new deadline and how the Chair will apply it. The new deadline of three days for amendments on Report will apply from the start of the next Session, and we look forward to the Procedure Committee’s review before the end of the Parliament.

On Standing Order No. 33, if the House agrees to the Standing Order changes, they will be in force for the debate on the Gracious Speech at the start of the next Session. Members will doubtless wish to reflect on how well they work after that debate.

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House posed a question on programming, about whether the Government would consider an earlier deadline of an extra day so that the House has a chance to see the Government’s thinking on Government amendments.

[Tom Brake]

The difficulty with that is that it would effectively create two classes of Members—one required to provide more and another required to provide less notice. That presents problems.

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to intervene about the couple of other points that were raised while I was temporarily out of the Chamber. He will be pleased to know that I got inspiration even while not within these Chamber walls. On defamation, the shadow Leader of the House called on the Government to support an amendment to the Deregulation Bill to repeal section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996. The Government have previously made it clear that they support the repeal and will act when a legislative opportunity arises. I am pleased to say that one such opportunity will arise next week.

The shadow Deputy Leader of the House made a point about e-petitions and privilege. That is a matter that the Procedure Committee could consider. There may be implications depending on the decisions reached—for example, on whether a petitions Committee considers all petitions, potentially accepting them as evidence. Once the system is designed, clarity on that will be important.

We have had a focused and concise debate on these House issues, and I hope that we are now in a position to move forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Brake and Thomas Docherty

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s question. Like other large Departments, the Ministry of Justice receives a very large number of questions, and given the complex nature of its business a thorough response can take time. However, I agree that in the case of his particular question, it is simply not good enough: there needs to be a response. I know that the Secretary of State for Justice will want to take on board the hon. Gentleman’s complaint, and that he will in future ensure that Members receive timely answers setting out the information they need.

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

I am very disappointed that the Deputy Leader of the House is not prepared to take up this case, and I hope that he will now promise to do so. The Procedure Committee’s report on the Government’s answering of written questions makes for very uncomfortable reading for many of his colleagues. Only the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had a greater deterioration in performance than the Ministry of Justice during the last Session. Further to the previous exchange, will he clarify whether the Ministry of Justice is covering up information or is just completely incompetent?

[Tom Brake]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the answer that I gave to the last question. We have taken up the issue and I have indicated strongly that the Secretary of State for Justice needs to ensure that there is a response. The Secretary of State for Justice does not have the worst performing Department. I am sure that it is a matter of the Department ensuring that a detailed response to the question is provided, rather than the cover-up that the hon. Gentleman implies.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Tom Brake and Thomas Docherty

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

That is a perceptive intervention with which I wholeheartedly agree. I bear lawyers no ill will, but it is correct that all that will happen is that some of the smaller third-party companies that might be caught and faced with this hefty bill will simply move that element of their business to the likes of DLA Piper or MHP Communications, which I will come on to.

The Deputy Leader of the House asked a genuine question when he said that surely companies would still wish to register through the APPC register or elsewhere. The answer to that genuine question is this: why would they when they are not required to and there is no commercial benefit in doing so? Having met the APPC on a couple of occasions—I was briefly a member of its board—I know that its huge concern is that its members will say, “We’re paying money already for regulation and red tape, so why would we choose to take on this second voluntary code when the Government themselves don’t think it’s necessary?”

[Tom Brake]

It was indeed a genuine question I asked, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has answered it. He asks why organisations would continue to maintain their entry on a voluntary register under what the Government propose, but of course those organisations have already entered a voluntary register, which they were not required to do.

[Thomas Docherty]

With your indulgence, Sir Roger, let me try to answer what I think is a genuine intervention from the Deputy Leader of the House. I was involved in the APPC back in 2008-09, when the previous Government effectively told the industry that it was drinking in the last chance saloon. In the previous Parliament, we had the Public Administration Committee report that, as I recall, recommended a statutory register if the industry did not improve public confidence and Parliament’s confidence in it. I made the point that those firms that are working in the correct manner and striving to improve their reputation would join a voluntary body, which they duly did, and the UK Public Affairs Council was set up to try to bring those things together. Regrettably, it was clear that the small number of dubious lobbying firms—dubious individuals, to be more accurate—would choose not to. Many of those who sign up to the voluntary register do so because they want to demonstrate that they are playing to the highest ethical standards and that there is bureaucracy and paperwork involved. It is not a case of chaps sitting around and signing off each other’s practices.

Firms also made the point that, when asked by potential clients whether they are a member of a register, they would simply say, “Well, we don’t do that activity.” In my three years as a consultant lobbyist—I understand that the Government do not accept my definition of a lobbyist—I do not recall once having a meeting with a permanent secretary or Minister, so my firm would have had no need to register. That is why I think that there is a real danger that those firms would say, “We don’t undertake that activity, so the Government and Parliament do not think we need to register,” and therefore the provisions will fall away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as ever—I can see why the good Scots of Corby made such an excellent choice last year—and very perceptive. It goes to the heart of the debate about the Government’s intention and what lobbying is. To be fair, the Minister and the Deputy Leader of the House have set out what they are trying to achieve. The first clause does exactly what they want it to do, which is capture only third-party lobbyists. As the Deputy Leader of the House has said, all they are interested in is a scandal that has never happened, and frankly is never going to happen, and so they do nothing to tackle all the scandals we have had. If I understand it correctly—the two Ministers are present, so they can correct me if I get this wrong—all they are interested in doing is ensuring that if a consultant lobbyist sits in a room with a Minister, that Minister, who one would hope is a fairly bright person, is left in no doubt that that person is a lobbyist, as if he could not have worked that out beforehand—

[Tom Brake]

And who they were lobbying for.

[Thomas Docherty]

Yes, but that does nothing to tackle what the rest of the Committee thinks are the real scandals, such as those we have seen even in the past three or four years: Fred Michel, Fijigate, Lords for hire, as exposed by The Sunday Times, MPs like cabs for hire—I could go on. None of those scandals would have been caught or stopped by the Bill.

[Tom Brake]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that some of the cases he just referred to would be covered by things like the MPs’ code of conduct and that we do not require a register of lobbyists to address some of those issues?

[Thomas Docherty]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to set out which of the scandals—MPs for hire, Fred Michel, Fijigate or whatever—are covered by the codes, I would be happy to hear him do so. The problem is that they are not. We have already heard some eloquent speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and others showing that that is not the case.

Wright Committee

Debate between Tom Brake and Thomas Docherty

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby, and to respond to this timely debate on the implementation of the Wright Committee’s outstanding recommendations.

We are in the third year of this Parliament, which provides an opportunity to reflect on the success of recent reforms and allows time to deliver further reform in this Parliament, where the case for such reform is made. Before addressing the points raised by Members, which relate to the outstanding recommendations, I would like briefly to reflect on what has been delivered, because there is a positive story to tell. The reform Committee made 50 recommendations in its report, and a majority have been implemented in full or require no further action—in other words, those cases where there was a statement of principle, for example. Specific achievements that directly relate to the recommendations include the election of Select Committee Chairs; the election of Deputy Speakers; the ability to debate substantive motions; the provision of Monday afternoons in Westminster Hall for debates on e-petitions, which I hope we are about to renew; the endorsement of September sittings; and, arguably the most important change, the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee.

In addition, I remind Members of the changes we have introduced for the scrutiny of legislation, which a few Members have suggested is wanting in some respects. Some of those changes were made in direct response to recommendations of the reform Committee. They include an increased number of multi-day report stages, so two days on Report is now common for major Bills, although I would not say that it was routine; the increased use of pre-legislative scrutiny, which Members welcome, with 17 sets of measures published in draft last session; and more time for scrutiny: most Public Bill Committees—nearly 80%—in the 2012-13 Session finished early. The changes also include successful pilots on public readings—for example, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 and the Children and Families Bill; and successful pilots of explanatory statements on amendments, and I welcome the fact that that will proceed. I wondered whether the Opposition’s initial reluctance was because they were not certain what their amendments were going to do, but given that they are going to support explanatory statements, that is clearly not the case.

[Thomas Docherty]

Our concern was about not only the official Opposition, but individual Members and minority parties, which do not have the resources. We are not as well served as the Deputy Leader of the House is by his excellent civil servants.

[Tom Brake]

I agree and I understand the point. It was just a cheap jibe, to which the hon. Gentleman responded. The changes also include the use of social media by Select Committees during inquiries and meetings.

Having put on record some of the substantial achievements, I shall respond to some of the points made in our debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) on securing the debate. I do not share his rather apocalyptic vision of our parliamentary democracy. He knows that Parliament and the Executive are not separate. I do not believe, as he seems to, that Government are dominating Parliament. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), might have been slightly offended by that suggestion, because it is widely recognised that her Committee has grasped a substantial proportion of what was previously Government time and on the back of that initiated a series of important debates, a third of which have taken place on days other than Thursday. They do not always take place on Thursdays, but as she commented, Thursday is a sitting day. Many of us spent many years campaigning to secure our positions in Parliament, so one would expect Members to be willing to work or stay on Thursdays to participate in debates that take place then.

I think the hon. Member for Nottingham North encouraged me to push reform, if not in government then certainly in a future Liberal Democrat manifesto. David Howarth, who is no longer a Member of Parliament, did a good job of pushing that agenda when he was here, and he continues to do so. I am sure we will want to return to this matter in a future manifesto. We have achieved a substantial amount. The hon. Gentleman threw down the gauntlet to me—as did other Members, including the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher)—over the creation of a House business committee, and I will throw down the gauntlet gently in his face, to mix my metaphors. The Government’s position is that if there were a House business committee proposal on the table it would have to pass certain tests, and some Members outlined what those tests should be. The Government should retain control of their legislative programme, and the committee should respect the remit of the Backbench Business Committee; it should take into account the views of all parts of the House; it should retain the flexibility to change the business at short notice in response to fast-moving events; and it should co-ordinate business with the House of Lords, to which I do not think any Member referred. If any Members came forward with such a proposal, I am sure that other Ministers and I would want to look at it carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Brake and Thomas Docherty

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

Yes, I would like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is the case, and we await the Committee’s report with great interest. Incidentally, Members still have an opportunity to contribute to that process. I am sure that we will then want to allow the House the opportunity to consider the matter in great detail.

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

I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in thanking you, Mr Speaker, for the leadership you have shown in recent weeks in helping to restore public confidence in Parliament after the public’s concerns about lobbyists and APPGs. The Administration Committee, which is so ably chaired by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), has recommended, as part of a range of measures, the scrapping of APPG passes. Will the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that the Government will not oppose those recommendations? On the broader concern about the transparency of APPGs and lobbyists, does he not now accept that all lobbyists must be covered by a register and a code of conduct?

[Tom Brake]

The Administration Committee makes sensible proposals, and I look forward to the House being able to come to a decision on them in due course. On lobbyists, the hon. Gentleman will have heard the debate that took place just a couple of days ago. The Government have made our position very clear: we will come forward with a third-party register of lobbyists.

Notices of Questions

Debate between Tom Brake and Thomas Docherty

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I will not detain the House for very long—obviously we are approaching the Prorogation. We very much welcome the spirit in which the Government have sensibly approached this issue, but as we are proroguing this afternoon, I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House can confirm that, given the breaking news on Leveson, the Government will set out their response at the first opportunity when we come back after the Gracious Speech.

[Tom Brake]

The House will of course have opportunities in the new Session to debate those issues.

Question put and agreed to.