Devolution (Scotland Referendum)

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Tempting though it is, I shall not rehearse the arguments we heard again and again during the referendum campaign. Instead, I shall address the issues arising out of the vote on 18 September, bearing it in mind that a clear majority of the people of Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom, but not ignoring the 45% who took a different view, some of them, I have to concede, in my own constituency. Given the passion of the campaign—that is putting it politely; some of the events I observed in my constituency are perhaps best forgotten—I appeal to SNP Members to accept that the Scottish people have taken a clear decision to remain part of the UK. It is right that the House respects their decision.

It was accepted in the Edinburgh agreement, however, that there would be changes. I do not object to it; John Smith himself regarded devolution as an evolutionary process. It is right, therefore, as the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) observed, and given the approach to devolution, the setting up of the convention and so on—

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Devolution was not supposed to end at the front door of the Scottish Parliament; it was supposed to be passed down to local authorities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the worst decisions made by the Scottish Executive was the decision to freeze council tax, which meant that, for instance, disabled children did not receive the services that they should have received, and need?

[Mr Clarke]

I absolutely agree. Let me say, as a former president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, that I would never have agreed to the freezing of council tax. It meant that council services were cut, and, during the referendum campaign, it was used against those who were in favour of supporting this United Kingdom and was cited as a reason for voting yes. I should have liked to deal in some detail with the issue of disability, which my hon. Friend rightly mentioned, but I think that the House has heard from me on that issue before. I do not think that it was dealt with very well by the Scottish Government.

A vow was given to the Scottish people. That vow was clearly endorsed by the leaders of the various parties, and I am convinced that it will be kept. I am not sceptical. However—I say this with all candour, and with great respect to Government Members—if there is any suggestion that the vow will not be kept, they will put the future of the United Kingdom at risk. I know that that would delight the Scottish National party. That is why, for example, they have today made it clear that they welcome what are described as English votes for English laws.

I speak as one who fought for the United Kingdom, and fought for the right of this Parliament to remain, dealing with the powers that it has. Incidentally, every single one of the powers for the people of Scotland that were mentioned by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young)—who has now left the Chamber—was decided by this House. I ask my friends in the Scottish National party to understand that when we recognise, quite correctly, that there are implications for the rest of the United Kingdom, it should be remembered that we did what we did because we believe in this United Kingdom Parliament. In the days of the constitutional convention, discussions took place in Scotland—not for weeks, not for months, not for years, but for a very long time—during the preparations for the legislation that led to the Scottish Parliament.

For that reason—again, with great respect—I ask two things of Government Members. First, I ask them not to rush into conclusions on the basis of the results of recent elections. My own view of UKIP is that it will come and go. Some of the issues that influenced people in England to vote for UKIP were, I concede, also issues in my constituency. People there decided to vote yes because they were worried about Westminster. The perception of this Parliament is, to say the least, not good. That does not mean that it is our fault. A very small number of Members brought this place into disrepute, but, my heavens, was that not exploited in the referendum! It is no surprise that the White Paper referred again and again to the “Scottish Government” and “Westminster”.

Secondly, let me say this in particular to Government Members. I understand their right, their absolute right, to feel that they should bridge the gap between Westminster—this Parliament—and the people whom they represent, not least because I believe that the concerns that they express on behalf of their constituents are largely shared by mine.

Let me end by saying that last night I listened to a very interesting Adjournment debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner): he made an excellent case against increased ferry charges. However, he also chose to attack Scotland by saying that CalMac services were receiving grants that could not really be justified. Time does not allow me to go into detail, but the truth is that there is a big contrast between the Isle of Wight and here, and the many islands served by CalMac. There are many arguments for doing what we are doing. I believe that one of the biggest influences in the vote in Scotland, accepting the majority view, is that people were worried about Westminster, people were worried about poverty, and they expect us to respond to their concerns.

Business of the House

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I would never short-change the House, but I have announced the business up to and including 28 April, and that is as far as business can be announced at this stage.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the report from the university of Bristol about the high level of mortality among people with learning disabilities. Is he aware of the disappointment of those who attended the NHS conference on Friday about the lack of substance and clarity over funding? May we have that issue clarified, and have the kind of debate that has already happened in another place?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of Health to respond to the right hon. Gentleman about that, but from my recollection of when I was at that Department, our approach was to protect resources available for learning disabilities through local authorities. That made a big difference at a time when local authorities were otherwise having to make considerable reductions in spending.

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

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Allen]

Absolutely. The Electoral Commission comes before us quite a lot and it is pretty hard to get anything off the straight and narrow out of those people. They are impartial civil servants—it is like talking to the Boundary Commission or comparable public officials—who take their jobs seriously. It is impossible, even with the talents I have on my Committee, to lure them into the political domain, quite rightly. I urge hon. Members to read what the Electoral Commission said in evidence about the spot it has been put in by how the Government have rushed the Bill through. I shall make a couple of points on that in a moment.

It used to be a lobbying Bill, but now it is a lobbying Bill and some. It is the “and some” that causes the problems. However, as we discovered during yesterday’s debates, the lobbying provisions apply to Mencap and Save the Children. I had not realised their massive significance in general elections in Britain. I thought they were a helpful adjunct and were interesting, challenging and demanding, but I had not realised that they decided the outcome of general elections. This lobbying Bill, however, leaves out some of the biggest beasts in our political firmament. It does not catch the people who said, “It’s The Sun wot won it,” after a general election. It does not capture those people, such as Rupert Murdoch, who have massive influence. So, even on its own terms, before 27 July, this was an inadequate Bill. Instead of our being able to focus on that, however, clause 27 has been added. As I mentioned yesterday, it impacts on, and has managed to create a unity in, the voluntary and charitable sector that has been hitherto unseen. That, I think, is a perverse achievement by the Government.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making another excellent speech and has clearly done a splendid job. Was he as surprised as I was to look at the explanatory notes on the Bill, and particularly on clause 27, and see that Scotland is allocated a mere £35,400? Can he, with all his experience, tell me what I should say in my constituency if one third party wanted to campaign in favour of fox hunting and the other against it? For example, how could they employ people based on what seems to me to be a ridiculous amount?

[Mr Allen]

I do not want to get drawn into too many specific cases, but my right hon. Friend highlights one issue, which is, when two charities who wish to pursue their legitimate aims are at variance with each other, how do they not, in an election year—because it is known when the election will be; it is 602 days from today—launch legal action against each other? Such bodies can be a bit litigious. Will the League Against Cruel Sports allow the Countryside Alliance to get away with something that might just be embarrassing? Instead it will say, “Let’s see if we can nudge them into court; let’s tie ’em up a little bit.” Or is it possible—the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) is in his place—that the Countryside Alliance might even say to the League Against Cruel Sports, “You have stepped over the line here,” with such amounts of money as my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) referred to?

Then in comes the police force. Who will be the police force? It will be the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission will be pushed in between two contending charities to be the referee—to push those people apart. And do what else? If it is informed by one slightly malicious party that an infringement is going to take place, does it have to send its own people? Do they have to stop people getting on the platform? Do they take down the advertisements outside? What are we doing making the Electoral Commission the thought police of free speech in this country—a job it does not want and has not asked for, and was not even consulted about before it picked up the Bill at The Stationery Office? It was not even consulted about the proposed change to its role.

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

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Did my hon. Friend notice that when the Leader of the House spoke about trade unionism he absolutely refused to give way? Is that an indication of an attack on democracy? Many a democracy has failed after that very type of attack on the trade union movement. I am a member of the GMB. Does my hon. Friend agree that trade unionists are not obscure, abstract people? The people who have inundated me and other Members with correspondence are cleaners, teachers, engineers, bus drivers and firefighters, and they, in a democracy, are entitled to be heard.

[Ms Eagle]

I agree wholeheartedly.

Officials from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have been totally unable to explain the problem that this part of the Bill is designed to solve. During a belated consultation meeting with the TUC—it took place after the Bill had been published—BIS officials could cast no light on why part 3 exists at all. Nor were they able to explain the origin of these proposals beyond their oft-repeated mantra that the provisions contained in part 3

“came out of a high level meeting between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister”.

I think that revelation tells us all we need to know about the grubby, partisan nature of the measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

This truly is a rotten Bill with sinister and underhand objectives.

Let me begin by placing on record my past work with a range of charities, coalitions and trade unions in campaigning on domestic and international poverty. I certainly would have described myself as a lobbyist and a campaigner, and I am proud to have worked on those campaigns—in some instances with Members of Parliament in previous roles, such as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford).

I am still in contact with many former colleagues who are deeply concerned about the Bill. Moreover, I can safely say that I have received one of my largest ever postbags since becoming an MP, from constituents of all political persuasions and none. They are deeply critical of the Government’s attempt to muzzle civil society and close down democratic debate while failing to get to the heart of the lack of transparency and undue influence that are present in some parts of the lobbying sector. It is no wonder that #gagginglaw is trending on Twitter today.

At times, the campaigns that we all face can be challenging, frustrating and even, dare I say, irritating, but that is exactly as it should be. The power and vibrancy of civil society, trade unions and other coalitions of interests of ordinary people in this country are one of our greatest strengths.

In 2005 I was a campaigner with World Vision, one of the world’s leading Christian international development and relief organisations. Like so many other organisations, we had played a crucial role in the Make Poverty History campaign, and I truly believe that our work had an impact on the willingness of the United Kingdom Government, and other G8 Governments, to take crucial steps in cancelling debt and increasing our support for the world’s poorest countries. Later in 2005, I travelled to Malawi to speak at a gathering of campaigners from countries across southern and central Africa. I shared with them our experiences of that campaign here in the UK, and told them what we had achieved together. I explained that we had been able to secure cross-party support and consensus, given the focus of a general election that was taking place that year.

I recall that many of my colleagues at that conference, from countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zimbabwe and Kenya, were amazed not only by what we had achieved, but by how freely and openly people were able to debate and engage with others in Britain. They were amazed by the fact that ordinary civil society, churches and citizens’ groups had access to the highest levels of Government and Parliament, and by the fact that, while that access and openness might not be funded to the same extent as traditional big interests such as business, energy and defence companies, it was at least on a par with them in principle.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

I am very interested by what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he agree that the laudable achievement, or near-achievement, of the target of expenditure of 0.7% of gross national income on overseas aid would probably never have been possible without the pressure that was exerted by agencies such as Oxfam, which put their views by focusing on every candidate in every constituency?

[Stephen Doughty]

I entirely agree. That is exactly what happened, and, as I have said, it involved all parties. The campaigners from those other countries who did not benefit from the same open, democratic ways, and from the strengths of civil society, found it particularly striking. They shared with me their experiences of fighting for rights in places such as Zimbabwe. I am sorry to say this, but the Bill has a whiff of Zimbabwe about it. [Interruption.] It appears to be nothing more than a cynical and ill-thought-out attempt to clamp down on the challenge that is presented to all of us when we stand for Parliament.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and others, I served on the Joint Committee on the draft House of Lords Reform Bill and so have heard much evidence on the future of the House of Lords, but I want to refer later to the impact of all these proposals, and perhaps others, on the future of the House of Commons.

When I came into the Chamber this afternoon, I was of a mind—I still am—to support those on my Front Bench and vote for the Bill on Second Reading, but the more I see of the shenanigans on the Government Benches, including what has happened this afternoon on the programme motion, the more I wonder whether I am making the right decision.

What I do believe to be right, and my reason for serving on the Joint Committee, is that there is indeed a challenge and an opportunity for us to look at the House of Lords and come up with better ideas than have emerged thus far. I am comforted in that by “Erskine May”, and my interpretation of what he wrote is that if the Bill collapses, it is unlikely that a similar Bill will be accepted for a long time to come.

The Bill is imperfect. The alternative report, which I signed, indicated some of the difficulties, some of the arguments not addressed and some of the issues that should be put before this House. I came here today to support the Bill’s Second Reading, to support very strongly the referendum and to oppose a programme motion. Whatever else might be said today and whatever other changes might be made, that remains broadly my approach to the matter.

The alternative report to which I have referred was extremely helpful, and I am sorry that Members have not heard more about it. It mentioned, for example, the Scottish Constitutional Convention and its preparations for the Scottish Parliament. The convention called on the whole of civic society, including politicians, Churches, trade unions, community councils and many others, and on that basis of wide consultation we have the Scottish Parliament as it is today. Why, then, can we reasonably object to the referendum that these issues invite? Do we not trust the people? Time and again we are urged to listen to what people are saying, which I think is right. I hope that the alternative report helped to clarify matters. It did so to the extent that, on the advice of Lord Pannick and Lord Goldsmith—paragraph 227 of the report is the relevant part—reference to the Parliament Acts was included in the new Bill before us in an attempt to make greater sense of the matter.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend’s reference to Scottish devolution is particularly appropriate in relation to a referendum. The Deputy Prime Minister said earlier today that the case for House of Lords reform was so big that no referendum was needed, yet my right hon. Friend has correctly highlighted the fact that, despite the strength of support for devolution in Scotland, the referendum procedure was still used there. It was used not so much to endorse that change, but to embed it. With an unwritten constitution, it is that embedding of a change that I think is most important.

[Mr Clarke]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and one that is worthy of more consideration.

The Joint Committee sought to serve both Houses in our report, and we were a very mixed group, including independents, Conservatives and Lib Dems. I note that its Lib Dem members voted the whole way throughout the Committee’s considerations, which leads me to think that there might just be another agenda, and some of us have drawn attention to that this afternoon. A number of us signed the alternative report, including six Privy Counsellors and the Bishop of Leicester, the Convenor of the Lords Spiritual. He said that it was not enough simply to talk about bishops because we ought to be dealing with inter-faith matters. This is a diverse society. The House of Commons has not as yet reflected that, but if we get the opportunity to do so in the House of Lords, we ought to take it.

I complained yesterday in an intervention on the Deputy Prime Minister, to which he responded inadequately, that the Joint Committee did not even have the opportunity to consider costs. Even today the Government have been very reticent in the information they have given the House. They refer to the Bill, but it leaves most of the decisions to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. There are varying levels of respect for IPSA in this House, but whether that is the right way to go in these matters is worthy of more thought.

[Mrs Laing]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is simply wrong that the Joint Committee’s report and the alternative report have never been debated in this House and that the debate we are having right now is about the narrow confines of the Bill, rather than the whole issue of parliamentary reform, and does he agree that we need a constitutional convention?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady and respect her contribution to the Joint Committee. Like me, she signed the alternative report. I think that we were entitled, and that that House is entitled, to consider the validity of elected Members in both Houses. If the Government succeed in taking the Bill forward, I think that it would be naive in the extreme to think that we could have another largely elected House that would be prepared simply to accept what we have to offer without saying, “Look. We were elected as well.” In some cases its Members will be elected by millions of people, in contrast to the small number who might have elected some of us. So concerned were the Government about those small numbers in this place that, almost without a whimper, we are approaching a situation in which the number of Members elected democratically to this House will be reduced by 50—hardly a democratic way of dealing with modern Britain.

I believe that the legislation governing the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, or whatever follows it, should include codified mechanisms for conflict resolution. I do not believe that existing conventions are enough, as I think we can see in the United States of America. Despite its difficulties, the House of Representatives found that when things changed it was less important than it had thought it was, and that is something we ought to bear in mind.

We have an opportunity in both Houses. The challenge is there for us to ensure that democratic, representative government applies to every part of our legislature. However, the Joint Committee could not even have the advice of the Attorney-General—my heavens, if there are criticisms of us I would accept that one—but this House is entitled to that advice. I will end on this point: some people ask whether this is the right time, but my question is whether this is the right Bill. On the evidence I have seen so far, it is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

There can be little doubt that House of Lords reform is pretty low down people’s list of priorities, political or otherwise, but it is important to recognise that the reforms in the Bill, albeit that there is much in it that could be improved—that is an understatement—go right to the heart of how our democracy functions and how we conduct politics in this country.

With the public’s opinion of politicians still at rock bottom, this debate on reforming the second Chamber offers us a chance to present our political process in a new, more modern and transparent way, which will, hopefully, prove attractive to many people. As has been widely pointed out in the debate so far, all three of the main political parties broadly agree on the need for reform—an opportunity that, on balance, it is right for us to seize and make the most of. If we accept that it is important to make this change, we also need to take whatever time is required to make sure that we get it right.

I will focus the rest of my remarks on just three of the many important issues covered by the Bill. First is the question of whether the final reform package agreed by Parliament should be put to the public. Labour’s manifesto was clear on that: we stated that we would put reform proposals

“to the people in a referendum”.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

In Scotland, we had the convention, then an Act of Parliament was passed by this House and another place and then we had the referendum. Does my hon. Friend agree that that was the right way to deal with it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a complex Bill, but at its heart there is of course a simple principle that those who make the laws for the people should be elected by the people, and that is why I shall certainly support the Bill’s Second Reading.

That principle of election, if it is to be made as real and as complete as possible, also requires accountability, and that is why I have grave reservations about the proposals for 15-year terms with no possibility of re-election. I shall look for amendments to that as the Bill makes its way—eventually—through the House.

I also do not see why election requires 450 Members in the reformed upper House. At an earlier stage, it was suggested that 300 would be sufficient, but even that is on the high side. If the new House is to have Members with a revising role but no constituency responsibilities, it does not need anything like the suggested 450 Members, and, if the number of Members of a second House were lower, some of the cost objections that have been raised would be less powerful both in this House in debate and in a referendum.

I support the principle of election, so I also agree with Opposition colleagues who argue against reserved places for Church of England bishops. Many bishops who attend the Lords do offer an independent and critical voice, and it has challenged over-mighty Governments of all parties, but such a challenge should come from those whose authority to speak is derived from election, not from appointment. As many Members have pointed out, the additional objection is that, by giving a privileged place to leaders of one faith group, we discriminate against every other faith group, let alone against agnostics and atheists.

I am glad that the programme motion has been sent away for another day, because it limited, as is normal, not only the total number of days for debate, but the subject for debate on each day. So there were bound to have been occasions when, because of statements or whatever, and after Front Benchers’ speeches, perhaps only six, seven, eight, nine or 10 Back Benchers would have been able to join in the debate, and that would have been unacceptable on an issue about which so many Members have strong views.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Bill, in many cases and in many places, is opaque? For example, it does not indicate whether, in the other House that is going to emerge, Members will even be paid during the parliamentary recess. Given that so many questions are bound to be asked, it would be ridiculous to confine ourselves to a particular time limit.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Indeed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said, given that the Bill might end up in exactly the same format going through under the Parliament Act procedures, it is vital that we get it right first time while it is here. It would be ironic if a measure that is designed to improve scrutiny ended up restricting scrutiny here in this Chamber.

The programme motion has been taken away, but that does not necessarily mean that the Bill will not go through this place, although it will certainly take longer to do so. If it does not go through, that will not be because of actions on the part of Labour Members, as some Liberal Democrat Members have suggested; it will be because the Conservative side of the coalition has pulled the rug from under its Lib Dem partners, and the Lib Dems will have to draw their own conclusions about the future of the coalition.

I want to say a few words in support of the call for a referendum. I have not always been as enthusiastic as some colleagues about the case for referendums on almost any constitutional change, but it is now broadly accepted that any major constitutional change should be submitted for endorsement to those it affects. Having seen referendums approved for much less significant changes than this one, I cannot see any argument against a referendum ultimately being agreed to as part of a final requirement of endorsement by the people.

I suspect that the real argument as to why the Government—certainly the Liberal Democrats—are against a referendum is that they fear, particularly after the experience of the AV referendum, that they would lose it. I draw a different conclusion from that experience from that which some Liberal Democrats seem to have reached. I supported AV and campaigned for it. However, in the case of the AV referendum, hardly anyone who campaigned for AV really believed that it was the ideal solution, and they did not give it any enthusiastic support. That is the danger that will face the Government if and when this matter comes to a referendum. [Interruption.]

Business of the House

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the benefits throughout the country of our hosting the Olympics. A firm in my own constituency is making tents for some of the Olympic sites. There is not only the spin-off impact of the purchasing but, as she says, the money that is being distributed by Sport England via the national lottery to promote sporting organisations in all our constituencies. Only last week, I was at two events where cheques for £50,000 were handed out to clubs in North West Hampshire; that is part of the Olympic legacy.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Given the number of occasions on which the House has discussed the situation in Sudan, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was a great pity that it took George Clooney to remind the international community that the situation there is getting worse and worse, day by day? May we have another debate of the whole House so that the Prime Minister can explain what actions he has taken, including whether he raised the matter with President Obama during his recent visit to America?

[Sir George Young]

The right hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the problems in Sudan. I commend the publicity that was generated last week in the United States. I cannot promise a debate in the near future, with the House rising next Tuesday for the Easter recess, but the right hon. Gentleman might like to apply to you, Mr Speaker, for a debate in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment so that we can address this urgent matter when we return.

Business of the House

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I understand the concerns of voluntary organisations in my hon. Friend’s constituency about the decisions taken. At Monday’s questions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local government outlined a number of local authorities that had coped with the settlement without reducing grants to voluntary organisations. Indeed, I think he mentioned one that had increased its grants to voluntary organisations, so it can be done. I will raise with him the reserved powers to which my hon. Friend refers, and find out in what circumstances he might be invited to use them.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

On the ongoing discussions about the Government’s proposals on disability living allowance, may I invite the Leader of the House to consider the view expressed by the statutory body funded by the Department for Work and Pensions:

“We consider that the proposal to remove the mobility component from people in residential care should not go ahead. This measure will substantially reduce the independence of disabled people who are being cared for in residential accommodation, which goes against the stated aim of the reform of DLA to support disabled people to lead independent and active lives”.

That is a crucial intervention. May we have a debate as soon as possible?

[Sir George Young]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the consultation has just ended on the reform of DLA, and the Government propose gradually to replace DLA from 2013 with a personal independence payment. Work is continuing on the exact structure of that payment, but our intention is to maintain mobility for those who genuinely need it, and to ensure that people do not miss out on the change from one regime to another.

Business of the House

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend will welcome the provisions in the Localism Bill, which will give much greater weight to the views of local people than the present top-down arrangement. He raises a key issue about what happens before the Bill kicks in, and I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

In view of recent events in Sudan, most of them positive, but still in a challenging context, does the Leader of the House agree that there should be a debate on the Floor of the House so that the many Members who are interested in this very important issue can participate?

[Sir George Young]

I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says, which reinforces a remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) that there is an appetite in the House to debate the middle east. I would like to reflect on what he says and see whether we can find an appropriate opportunity for the House to share its views on these important issues.

Backbench Business Committee

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his robust support for the propositions before the House.

The Government have set out the dates of the 13 Fridays provided for in Standing Orders to allow consideration of private Members’ Bills. Amendment (a) to motion 11 would provide extra days for the consideration of such Bills in this Session. Private Members who have been successful in this year’s ballot will be advantaged by the fact that the longer Session allows for more time between the Fridays provided for consideration of their Bills on the Floor of the House. That will allow more time for Members to progress their Bills outside the Chamber, in Committee or the other place. I told my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), when we debated this matter in the last Session, that I would not

“commit any future Administration to an increase in the pro rata number”—[Official Report, 6 January 2010; Vol. 503, c. 228.]

of private Members’ Fridays in the first Session of this Parliament, and that, I am afraid, is what I will do.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to Fridays several times. As one who has been fortunate enough to steer two private Members’ Bills through both Houses, in very difficult circumstances and on Fridays, I would like to know whether we are stuck with Fridays? Are private Members not to be given the same rights as Government spokespersons?

[Sir George Young]

The Wright report recognised deep dissatisfaction with the current system for private Members’ Bills, which was last considered by the Procedure Committee in 2002-03, so I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s anxiety. My view is that the House might feel it is time, once again, to give this issue proper consideration. The Procedure Committee ought to consider it in one of its first inquiries and look at the procedures and scheduling in the round. That, rather than addressing concerns in a piecemeal way—as provided for in some of the amendments—is the right way to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I was about to say what a huge contribution the hon. Gentleman had made to the debate not just this evening, but over the past few years in which he has pressed the case for reform. That is appreciated. He, among others, has been making sure that we are true to our word on many of these subjects. We have already agreed that we will accept his amendment (a) to motion 4 on the issue of the 27 days. I will go further: having listened to what he and the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) said, we are prepared not to press forward this evening with the proposal for the introductory statement. We hear what they say, and we will accept the relevant amendment on that basis.

As far as the one-year election is concerned, that is a suggestion that puts the Back-Bench business committee into the hands of Back-Bench Members, making it accountable to them. It may be that Members do not want to have the committee in their hands; they may wish to have a one-off election and not review the matter, but it is right that the House has the decision. That is not a matter for the Government and Ministers; it is for the House to decide whether it believes that the proposal is a useful introduction. I am happy for the House to have its say on the matter.

To recap, we will not move motion 13. We will accept amendment (a) on 27 days tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North and the amendments on the introductory statement. Annual election is a matter for the House to decide. On private Members’ Bills, I hope we will make rapid progress in improving the situation. We need to address the representation of minorities as a matter of urgency. September sittings are, again, a matter for the House.

We have not in any way resiled from the spirit of the Wright Committee recommendations, but we cannot treat them as holy writ because, as in so much of holy writ, there are occasionally internal contradictions. There are competing pressures. The House would not thank us if we made sure that there were no end of general debates on the Floor of the House, but we had no time, for instance, for Report stage of important Bills. We have tried to be practical about it, and I hope we have succeeded in that intention.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

I very much welcome the tone of the Deputy Leader of the House and the progress that we have made tonight on private Members’ Bills, but given that some of the impediments have come not from here but from another place, can we assume that discussions are taking place?

[Mr Heath]

I am happy to give that assurance. We need to look at the matter in the round.

It has been a frustrating pathway to reform. Sometimes there has seemed to be little movement, but we have an opportunity this evening, and I am particularly pleased that so many new Members will have the opportunity to participate in the decision. Usually, when we talk about historic days in the House of Commons, the expression is overblown, but I genuinely believe that this evening is an opportunity to change the relationship between the Executive and the legislature. If right hon. and hon. Members believe in Parliament and in a strong legislature, if they believe that a strong Parliament leads to stronger government, they will support the proposals on the table this evening. I commend them to the House.