Business of the House

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is inevitably difficult for hospitality under the current circumstances. It is worth reminding people of what has been done already, with £400 billion of taxpayers’ money spent on dealing with covid and helping businesses with rate relief and a lower VAT rate. Obviously the Government are aware of what is happening. There was a statement made earlier and the Chancellor has said he will have meetings. As regards recalling Parliament, I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). Parliament is always recalled when there is a matter of sufficient seriousness to recall it, but forecasting what that will be is not always a successful effort.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I am delighted to be able to wish a very merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to everyone here. However, there are some people who will not be celebrating quite as much this Christmas as many of us would hope: taxi drivers. Those who are driving for Castle Cars in Tonbridge or Relyon in Edenbridge have already seen a dip in trade over the past few days, and I know that many of those running cab firms have also seen an impact on the wider use of their business. This is not just a matter for some incredibly hard-working small businesses; this is actually a very important matter, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree, for those of us with rural communities, because those taxis provide a much-needed service for getting many people to hospitals and to visit family and for keeping the community together. Could he look for time in the Government’s agenda to have a debate on this matter, because we not only have that pressure, but the pressure of the rise in interest rates, which he announced to the House? That will put an increased impetus on many to seek an income that will be chasing a higher cost of living.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think Disraeli called London taxi drivers “the gondoliers of London”, and I certainly take that view myself. They are fantastically hard-working and entrepreneurial, as are taxi drivers up and down the country. They are almost all individual small businesses. They work the hours that are required of them and they provide, as my hon. Friend says, a service that is absolutely essential. I encourage hon. and right hon. Members to support the taxi trade as far as they can. While I am at it, I encourage the Mayor of London to be nicer to London taxi drivers and not spend his whole time trying to make their lives more difficult by closing roads to them.

There are obviously difficulties at the moment with people cancelling things because of the pandemic, but I am confident that taxi drivers will be able to get through this. They have got back to work, and trade did pick up prior to the omicron variant coming through. We should thank them for what they do. As regards a debate, I think that will be more in the bailiwick of the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns).

Business Statement

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has been in touch with the justice Minister in Scotland, and I am grateful for the collaboration that there has been across all parties in the House. The other place obviously regulates its own business, but the urgency and the message coming from this House are very clear to its Members, and I therefore expect that they will handle this in a reasonable manner. Of course if they make amendments those will come back to this House in the normal way, but as there is cross-party agreement and the Opposition Front Bench has considerable influence in the other place, I anticipate that the business will be concluded swiftly in both Houses.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has made an important statement, and I welcome the fact that both my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have been present to hear it.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the difference that the Bill would make is to early release and not overall sentencing. Will he make time available for a debate on the law of treason, which dates back to 1351, a little before even his time? Perhaps we could find time in our calendar to update it as the Commonwealth of Australia did in 2018, and perhaps, in considering how to update it, he would like to read a rather interesting Policy Exchange report written in July last year and entitled “Aiding the Enemy”.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is very well versed in these matters and is aware of the danger that treason may present to a nation, but I hope I can give him some reassurance about what happens next. He rightly said that the Bill would only stop early release, but offenders will be subject to robust safeguards on release, which could include terrorism prevention and investigation measures or serious crime prevention orders, among other existing measures. So, even at the point of release, they will not be let out among an unsuspecting public, because our top priority is to keep the public safe.

My hon. Friend’s proposal for a debate on the Treason Act 1351 interests me, because I am always interested in historic Acts, and I quite like the fact that one of our most important Acts of Parliament dates back to the 1350s.

Tributes to the Speaker

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, I can see that you are saving the best till last. It is a huge pleasure to say thank you this afternoon. I wonder, though, whether when we bump into each other again in years to come, I will feel as I did that time I jumped off my bicycle and a man 6 feet taller than I looked at me and said, “Hello, sir. I notice you haven’t polished your shoes today.” It was the academy sergeant-major from Sandhurst and I was wearing trainers. He was pointing out what he knew then, which is that standards matter, and you have defended the standards in this House religiously. For that, I can only be extremely grateful.

Defending the rights of parliamentarians is not actually about defending 650 people who may or may not have an opinion on a subject. It is about defending the very principle of democracy in our country. It is about defending the very principles of freedom of thought, freedom of expression and individual liberty. And it is absolutely about defending the foundations of the economy and society that we have built with much care and many failures, but over many, many decades. For that, I am hugely grateful.

On a personal basis, if I may, there is another thing for which I would like to thank you. You have not only introduced us to a wonderful chaplain, who is here and to whom I pay huge personal thanks and tributes, but you have also introduced a new chaplain in Father Pat Browne. To have a Catholic chaplain in this House and to have a regular mass on a Wednesday afternoon is an act of extreme kindness to many of us in the Catholic community in this place, but it also reflects the fact that this House does not now legislate for the exclusion of one religion, does not now silence one form of worship and does not now reject the individual practice of so many people in these islands.

I know that you have been on a journey, Mr Speaker. Some people have spoken of your origins on one wing of the party, and your arrival at the seat in which you now find yourself—the defender of many liberties, which would have surprised others 20 or 30 years ago. Many of us have been on a journey. I see the Leader of the House sitting there on the Front Bench. When I used to sit next to him, he was a guardian of the purity of this House, but he has gone with the speed of a whippet from the purity of the Vestal Virgin to the Whore of Babylon deep in Executive power.

We have all been on various different journeys, Mr Speaker, and I am delighted that your journey has taken you to where you are now. I am personally grateful that the past four years, particularly the two in which I had the privilege of chairing the Foreign Affairs Committee, have been under your speakership. You have enabled those of us who are very new to this place to have a voice and, I hope, to represent some of the views that need speaking up for in our House. Even if we may sometimes chunter when criticised, almost certainly justifiably, that might give us cause to remember that your defence of this House means that sometimes we are in the wrong, too.

Business of the House

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

City airport is a fantastic airport—convenient to use and very well run—but I understand the concerns about the increasing number of flights from airports. The hon. Lady knows that there will be many opportunities to secure debates—Adjournment debates and Backbench Business debates—when Parliament returns in October.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need an urgent debate on planning? We have recently seen delays in various planning authorities—particularly the Planning Inspectorate—reviewing planning applications, which has led to the five-year lag in planning. That means that groups of applications that are not part of the planning process from the borough council are being put in, which particularly affects areas such as the monastery and the nunnery in West Malling.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am always concerned about anything that might affect a monastery. If we have a Queen’s Speech, obviously we will have the normal days of debate that follow, during which I am sure it will be possible to raise the important issue of planning.

Baby Leave for Members of Parliament

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention because, 100 years since the first woman sat in this place, it still feels for many of us as though we are operating in an 18th-century model of work, and that really needs to change.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I cannot be alone in being a man in this House whose partner has an extremely important job of her own. She sits as a supreme court judge in France, and that takes her away from home, so I have childcare responsibilities, too. Indeed, I have a one-year-old baby—funnily enough, she does not look after herself. When we are talking about equality, I absolutely understand the emphasis on women’s rights—of course I do—but this is actually a human right. It is about not men or women, but about anybody who has responsibility for caring for a child—or, indeed, for caring for an adult. If we are thinking about equality, we could be talking about someone with religious obligations that might keep them away for various reasons.

[Mrs Miller]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. It is important to recognise the way in which many family lives have changed over the years, and that was why it was important to frame the motion in terms of MPs or parents, not men and women. Any of us may have caring responsibilities; they are not now the sole preserve of one gender.

It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the extraordinary way in which the Whips department has evolved during my time in this place. When I remember some of my conversations with the Whips when I first arrived in 2005, I shudder a little, because they did not reflect my previous 20-year working life. As I look in particular at my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies), who is sitting on the Front Bench, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), both of whom were members of my Select Committee, I know that the Whips Office is in extraordinarily good hands.

We cannot leave this to chance. We need better rules to give people certainty about what they can expect. MPs have a duty to keep our democracy healthy. I do not believe that MPs can ever be treated as employees. Our role means that we will never really be subject to an Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority contract; our contract is with the people whom we represent, and they demonstrate their views each time there is an election.

We can modernise the culture of this place—for our employees, of course, for Members today, and for those who will come after us—so that it reflects the 21st century, not the 18th century, and to make it an attractive place for a more diverse range of people who will want to become Members of Parliament. Today is one small step to allow new parents some time away from this place so that they can cope with the demands of a new family member. The change is long overdue, but following this debate, we will need to press forward further with modernisation, particularly around scheduling in this place. The lack of consistency and certainty has been raised with me, because that makes us less productive and less able to balance our family life.

I respectfully disagree with people who think this change is wrong. The health of our democracy depends on the strength of the House of Commons, and we are strengthened if we are truly representative of the communities that make up this United Kingdom. Introducing baby leave for Members of Parliament who need and want it is just one small step in opening up membership of this place to more people, and in ensuring that fewer people choose to leave before their time because their life as an MP is incompatible with the responsibility of being a parent. I hope that the motion gets the full agreement of the House today and, above all, that the Procedure Committee looks at the matter swiftly so that Members with imminent arrivals can look forward to their births without a question as to how they will deal with their Whips.

Restoration and Renewal (Report of the Joint Committee)

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Well, we disagree, because I know what has happened over the last 10 years. Governments have repeatedly fought shy of bringing motions to the House. I have enormous respect for the Leader of the House. She has worked very hard on this, but as she said to me last week, it may be that somebody else is Leader of the House in future and that person might not be so keen on bringing anything to the House. My guess is that when we get closer to a general election, no Government will want to bring the matter back to the House. Therefore, much as I admire and respect her, I just do not think that her solution is the answer.

I want to say just a few other things. The first is about trying to stay in the building while the work is being done. I appeal to colleagues to think hard about that. We are talking about 10 times as much work happening on a daily basis as is happening now. That is 10 times as many people hammering, drilling, sanding down buildings, moving cabling, bringing in vast amounts of material and all the rest, and 10 times as many portakabins. Earlier today I was on the roof of Westminster Hall, looking at the work being done there. Because people have complained about the noise, the people there are only able to work at night, and guess what that has done to the budget? It has tripled it. When work was being done on the Royal Gallery, the House of Lords said, “We can’t hear ourselves think,” and so decided that the work could be done only at weekends and at night, and guess what? That added £1 million to the work. The truth of the matter is that if we try to stay, we will dramatically increase the cost of the work, and we will be going bananas.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Talking of which.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Does he agree that an emergency decant, should for example we discover something horrible in the woodshed—or rather, in the basement—or should something go wrong with clearing the asbestos, would massively increase the costs of us having to find alternative accommodation?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, which is why, incidentally, to those who say, “If we ever move out, they’ll never let us back,” I say, “Who is this magical ‘they’ who’s going to prevent us from coming back in?” The truth is that whether we choose to come back will always be a decision for Parliament. If future generations decide that things should be done differently, good luck to them, but we should not make a decision now that makes it impossible for us to protect this building, because—this is precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman made—the most certain way for us to be permanently excluded is to have a catastrophic failure in the building, such as a fire or a flood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Indeed.

After the great fire of 1834, there was the major refurbishment—in fact, it was largely a rebuilding of the Palace—that led to the place where we now sit. Buildings of this kind are always hard to maintain and will always require constant maintenance work. This is not a moment; it is a process. It will be an ongoing process whatever decision we take tonight. Let me make my case as quickly as I can—particularly given your advice, Mr Speaker.

I could make this case on cost grounds. Indeed the report produced by the Leader of the House is very honest about that. The report heavily qualifies the estimates therein. It says that there is significantly more work to be done by professionals before budgets can be set and the accounts therefore made certain. We are not absolutely certain what the costs of the decant would be, nor are we absolutely certain what the costs of staying here would be. But what I think we can say, from all of our experience and intuition, is that they are likely to be considerably greater than the provisional costs that we have now. Every building project I have ever known has run over budget and over time.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hayes]

No, I will not give way, as Mr Speaker has advised me not to, much as I adore my hon. Friend.

The best comparisons we can offer are Portcullis House and the building of the Scottish Parliament. When the Scottish Parliament was first envisaged, the cost was thought to be about £40 million—it cost £400 million. When Portcullis House was first envisaged, the cost was thought to be a fraction of the cost of the eventual outcome and it took years longer than anyone imagined. So do not be persuaded by any argument on costs because I would bet a pound to a penny that those cost estimates will be very way far off the mark when the final accounts are settled.

I could make the argument on the basis of tradition. It is true that traditions matter and this is the heart of our democracy. Imagine the headline that says, “MPs vote to leave Parliament”. What nonsense that is. And imagine what our constituents would think of us and how we would be diminished in their estimation, and rightly so.

So I could make the argument on the basis of tradition. We do tred in the footsteps of giants here. In Richmond House we would be stepping in the footsteps of Stephen Dorrell and Frank Dobson. Much as I admire them both, I do not think either would claim to be giants.

But I am not going to make those arguments. Instead I am going to make the argument on these sole grounds; it is the argument about people. It is about the hundreds of thousands of people who visit this Palace every year and are inspired and enthralled by it. Some of them will end up being Members, as I did after I came here as a schoolboy. It is about my constituents who visited the House today and sat in the Gallery and watched the proceedings of the House. Do they want to go to some alternative? Are they going to be excited and enthralled? Are they going to believe in our democracy when they visit Richmond House with its fantasy duplicate alternative Chamber? Surely not. That is not what people expect of us or of this place and it is vital that they can continue to come here to enjoy that experience.

There is another group of people who are voiceless in this debate: the staff who work in this place, the staff who have given, in many cases, 10, 20, 30 or 40 years’ experience. No one seriously believes that all of those will be accommodated in the new arrangements. We know what would happen. It would start with early retirement and then there would be voluntary redundancy, and then redundancy.

Business of the House

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point and if he would like to write to me, I shall be happy to take it up with the relevant Department separately. However, he may well want to raise it at the next oral questions opportunity.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I am pleased that the Leader of the House is in her place today, because she will understand better than almost anybody here the importance of buses for children to get to schools in Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells, having been educated in the wonderful town of Tonbridge herself. Sadly, the buses in my community and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) are struggling to get children to school on time and to get them home safely. Will the Leader of the House make time available so that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells and I could hear views from other Members and put pressure on those running the buses to serve our children better?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is right to say that so many communities—schoolchildren and many others—rely on bus services. When I was at Tonbridge girls grammar I used to cycle to school, so I can thoroughly recommend cycling. I occasionally used to take the train, but as I always managed to get the wrong one and end up in London instead of Tonbridge, it was not always a success—[Interruption.] Yes, possibly by design. I probably should have stuck with the bus service. My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. He will have heard what the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee had to say—it is open for business—and I am sure that would provide a perfect opportunity for my hon. Friend to raise the issue of local bus services.

Business of the House

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I certainly do not know anything about the renewable heat initiative, other than what I have read in the press. All Government Departments in the UK have a set of rules that govern how we respond to FOI requests. A definition is used in calculating disproportionate cost that applies right across the Government. In my experience, refining a request to make it more precise can often enable it to pass the test of not incurring disproportionate cost. If the hon. Gentleman would like to have a word with me, perhaps outside the Chamber later today, I will see whether there is anything I can do to assist him further.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House encourage the Government to give some time to talk about not only the economic value of our high streets but the culture that they bring? Business rates are being widely discussed at the moment, but it would be wrong to focus solely on the economic output of our high streets and not on the nature of the society that they create. Without their high streets, the towns that I represent—including Edenbridge, West Malling and Tonbridge—would simply be dormitories for London and lose the very essence that keep our county and our country so great.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. In a world where everyday lives and the nature of businesses are being transformed rapidly by digital technology and social change, it is important to find ways to enable our high streets to continue to thrive both economically and culturally, as my hon. Friend says, while adapting to the new challenges of this century. High streets that remain fossilised tend to fail. There are good examples from around the country of where local high street business communities have successfully adapted, and I hope that we can find mechanisms to disseminate that good practice.

Business of the House

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Of course the programme is being co-ordinated by the Home Office, and the Home Secretary will be here on Monday week taking questions. We are working closely with the UNHCR to bring to this country some of those vulnerable refugees to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers. The Home Secretary will be able to answer detailed questions about the state of those discussions when she is before the House in 10 days’ time.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

As we await a ministerial decision on increasing runway capacity in the south-east, may we have a debate on night flights? While a certain Boris from Uxbridge sleeps soundly in his bed at night, Anissia from Edenbridge, who sleeps in my bed, wakes me up regularly to complain about the flights. As we debate Gatwick and Heathrow, please may we consider carefully the effect of night flights on the communities underneath the flight paths?

[Chris Grayling]

I understand the concern. This issue is now subject to discussion in relation to the Airports Commission report. I have no doubt that the report, and the future of runway capacity in this country, will shortly be a matter for debate in the House when the Government respond to its recommendations, and I know that night flights will be part of that debate.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard]

I would rather press on, if my hon. Friend does not mind.

At this point in time, all MPs are equal. I can vote on everything the Leader of the House can vote on in this Chamber. If the proposals go through, from tonight onwards I will be denied the opportunity to vote on behalf of the people who elected me on matters that may affect them. That is wrong. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members do not believe it, look at proposed Standing Order No. 83N(4). It describes not just a process of creating an additional layer of consent, but a process of vetoing the opinions of some Members of this House. It says quite clearly that if the consent is not given, then the matter goes no further and the Bill “shall not pass”.

What is being described is a process that will work like this: a piece of proposed legislation will come before the House and in the middle of our proceedings there will come a point where the representatives of the people of Scotland will be asked to leave the room and take no further part in the discussion.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I will press on, I am afraid. I have already given way.

If, in the process of your discussion without us, you decide that the proposed legislation will not pass any further, we get no further say in the matter. That is exactly what is wrong with these proposals.

There is another point on which there has been much comment. Who decides whether a matter is of relevance to our constituents? It has been proposed that we have this invidious role for the Speaker, pushing him into what can only be a legal conundrum. I ask the Leader of the House: what happens if there is a disagreement? What happens if the people who elected me in Edinburgh believe that something is being discussed in this House that is relevant to them and they should have a right to vote on it? They will have no opportunity but to seek redress in the courts through the process of judicial review. Is that really the conundrum in which we wish to place the Speaker? I hope not.

As remarked upon, why should this apply only to Members of the House of Commons? I would love to see the House of Lords abolished, but it exists at the moment, and is it not remarkable that of all the constitutional imperfections in our system, we are discussing this one, rather than the fact that most Members of Parliament are not even elected in the first place? Conservative Members will say that those Members do not represent territorial or geographic interests. It is part of their collective self-delusion that they do. From the Marquess of Lothian to the Lords of Springburn, Bearsden and Glenscorrodale, they believe they represent the communities in which they operate, yet there is no suggestion that we limit their powers to debate and vote on legislation. Why just pick on us? The answer can only be: this is payback for the general election, when the SNP won convincingly in Scotland and the Conservative party won only 14% of the vote.

I know it is in your manifesto, but just because it is in your manifesto does not make it right—