Business of the House (13 May)
Christopher Chope Excerpts(5 days, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
We have, I think, another hour and three quarters, or a little longer, in which to debate this motion. The point I want to make at the outset is this: why are we wasting so much valuable sitting time because of the way the Order Paper is being arranged? Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who I hope will respond to this short debate, can explain to us how it comes about that we have the best part of two hours to debate this motion, yet the motion states that we have two hours maximum to debate a much more important motion on Monday. That motion is in the name of the Leader of the House and relates to the exclusion of MPs. We had, I think, four amendments tabled to the Finance Bill, but there are already eight amendments tabled to the motion for Monday, which shows that there is quite a lot of interest in it. Those amendments include one from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), who wishes us to go back to the situation that pertained in the original motion relating to the risk-based exclusion of MPs.
The original proposal was that Members could be excluded just on the grounds of suspicion. I tabled amendments against that proposal, together with colleagues, and it is to the credit of the Leader of the House that she has come back with a revised motion that makes it clear that exclusion would not begin to apply unless or until somebody had been charged with a violent or sexual offence.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As one of the colleagues who signed my hon. Friend’s suggested amendment, I found alarming the suggestion that an MP could be suspended on the basis of an allegation. It does not require much imagination to see certain circumstances in which an MP could be targeted by someone making a serious allegation with no factual underpinning whatsoever, and then having to be suspended. It is astonishing, frankly, that we could be put into such a situation on so flimsy a basis.
Sir Christopher Chope
I agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend, to whom I am grateful for supporting my amendments to the original motion. I am sure that it will be of concern to him that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) has tabled amendment (h) for debate on Monday, which would effectively take us back to the original motion by suggesting that, instead of having to be charged, a Member would only have to be arrested on suspicion of committing an offence in order to be excluded from this House.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
On the previous intervention, I do not know how many rape, sexual violence or violence arrests the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) have handled, but an arrest does not happen on the basis of “flimsy” allegations; it takes weeks. I just put that on the record, as someone who deals with this week in, week out. The idea that somebody gets arrested just on someone’s say-so is for the birds.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before we resume this debate, I point out that the motion before us is incredibly narrow. I fear that we may be having the debate that we will have on Monday, and we do not want that. This is just about the amount of time that will be allocated. The debate that we are sort of having now is really for Monday.
Sir Christopher Chope
I take that point absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think we have already had a taste, from the couple of interventions, of the fact that this is a controversial subject, for which two hours of debate on Monday is inadequate. The purpose of this debate is to decide whether we believe that a motion limiting debate on Monday to two hours is the right or wrong course, and I would suggest that it is the wrong course.
Sir Julian Lewis
While fully accepting your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, I must say in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) that I said nothing about somebody who had been arrested. The original wording to which I objected did not refer to someone having been arrested; it was simply about whether somebody had been accused of something. On the point about someone having been arrested, I might well agree with her interpretation; it would depend on factors such as the bail circumstances.
Sir Christopher Chope
One issue is that people can be arrested and not know whether they will be charged for months, if not years. During that period, they are in limbo and under suspicion, but are, under the principles of justice in this country, innocent until proven guilty. I think it is reasonable, if somebody is charged with an offence, that the matter is moved on, and that their identity is known. However, quite often, people may be arrested and their identity will not be known.
The point I am making is that this is a controversial subject. The new motion that the Leader of the House has brought before us is more in line with what is proposed in the other place, which probably has even more legal wisdom than this House. It decided in a similar debate that it would be wrong to exclude Members from the parliamentary estate on the basis of suspicion or mere arrest, and that a charge was needed. I submit that it is desirable to have consistent rules across the whole parliamentary estate, because people can move freely between the different parts of the estate, so if somebody in the other place is subject to a different regime from somebody in this place, that will create extraordinary anomalies.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
However many hours we spend debating this, is the fundamental problem not that the aim is to do this by motion, rather than by legislation, and that any exclusion of a Member except by a specific vote on that Member needs to be a legislative requirement for attendance of the House, not a mere motion?
Sir Christopher Chope
I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, that point could be made in Monday’s debate without the need to discuss the amendments to which I have been referring, but why are we placing a restriction of two hours on a debate on an issue of such fundamental importance? My right hon. Friend’s point is another reason why we should not support a two-hour restriction on Monday’s debate. I do not really understand why that limit is necessary, because Monday’s Order Paper looks very light, as indeed today’s Order Paper has been. At the moment, just a couple of motions have been tabled, dealing with regulations. Why is it proposed that everybody should again have an early night on Monday, and that we will arbitrarily impose upon ourselves a time limit for debating the important issue of risk-based exclusion?
It is quite a straightforward point. The Leader of the House has tabled the motion and is faced with a number of amendments, including one on a very controversial topic: the issue of whether we should contaminate the whole proxy voting system in this House by allowing somebody who has been charged with a sexual offence to benefit from proxy voting. Why should they be allowed to vote by proxy? What is the justification for that? If somebody is charged with a sexual offence, they would potentially have bail conditions or custody conditions imposed as a consequence, and provided that there are no bail conditions excluding that person from participating in the proceedings of the House, they should be able to continue that participation. Should that not be the natural consequence?
Instead, the motion tabled for Monday proposes that a person would be entitled to a proxy vote in those circumstances. The reason I say that is controversial is because it would contaminate the whole proxy voting system. At the moment, a person with a proxy vote is a person who has a condition—either a medical condition, or they are expecting a baby or are the father of a new baby, and so on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Gentleman’s speech is getting to the substance of Monday’s debate. This debate is simply about the business of the House motion before us; it is not about what we are going to be debating next week. Can we be absolutely clear about that? I know that Mr Evans has already made that clear, so I am just reinforcing the point that we need to discuss what is before us, not the substance of next week’s debate.
Sir Christopher Chope
Madam Deputy Speaker, I absolutely agree. My purpose in speaking to this motion today is to try to illustrate by example the scope of the motion that is down for debate on Monday, and why two hours, in my submission, is an inadequate amount of time in which to discuss such a motion.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
The motion before the House today suggests that Standing Order No. 41A, on deferred Divisions, shall not apply. I wonder whether my hon. Friend thinks it is wise to put before the House motions that randomly suspend Standing Orders, or whether it is not important to maintain the integrity of Standing Orders, which, Madam Deputy Speaker, is clearly a legitimate part of today’s motion.
Sir Christopher Chope
My right hon. Friend makes another very good point. We know that the Leader of the House—and he is a distinguished former Leader of the House—has two hats: they act as a member of the Government and on behalf of the Government, but they also defend the rights of Back Benchers to have issues such as this properly debated. That is why I express openly my disappointment that the Leader of the House has chosen to table a motion that would limit the amount of time for debate, instead of providing reasonable time for such a debate, which could be three hours. That would not be unusual, taking into account the complexity of the issues.
To give another example of the complexity of the issue, this has been debated in the House, at business questions, in Committees, and by the House of Commons Commission, for the best part of a year. Why has it taken so long for it to be debated in those forums? Because it is a complex and controversial subject. It just seems to me that such a controversial and complex subject demands more time than has so far been allocated.
However, there is no point in my repeating my points any more, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I certainly do not want to get myself in a position where I cannot be called in the substantive debate on Monday, but I certainly look forward to that debate.
Sir Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I will follow on from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who I thought made some fantastic points. However, I want to start by commending the Leader of the House for listening to the previous concerns and coming back with a revised motion. We are particularly grateful that she has been, as my hon. Friend said, a representative of the House. She has listened and come back, and I commend her for it.
None the less, I think my hon. Friend is absolutely right when he says that two hours is insufficient for this subject. This is not about the rights of Members of Parliament alone, although obviously it is to some extent. It is mainly about the rights of their constituents, who have a right to be represented in Parliament by the person they elected. The motion—I broadly support what is in it—is designed, in effect, to deliberately restrict the rights of those constituents to have their voice heard in Parliament. That is something that we in this House should interfere with only with great care, and certainly not on the back of a two-hour debate.
With a two-hour debate, by the time the Front Benchers have had a go, set out their stall and all of the rest of it, the time left for Back Benchers is limited. As anyone can see, the motion that has been tabled is quite extensive, with a number of different paragraphs, and eight amendments have been tabled, as my hon. Friend has said. If Front Benchers want to set out their views on the motion and address the amendments, how much time will Back Benchers get to speak? I suspect it will not be very long at all.
We are not really going to have time for a debate, but I think we saw earlier—through the exchanges of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch with my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips)—that there is quite a significant debate to be had, and people will have strong opinions on different sides of the argument. The whole point of being here is that we have a debate, and surely we can all see from this timetable that we are not going to have time for a proper debate. That cannot be right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch made this point about the business on Monday. I have no idea how long debate will last on the various regulations down for debate on Monday, on public procurement and agriculture, or how many urgent questions and statements there might be and all the rest of it, but it is not impossible to envisage that those debates will not last very long. We could be in the absurd situation where we have business on a Monday that is supposed to run until 10 o’clock but we rise early because the two-hour limit for this debate has been reached, with hours still to spare. Why on earth would we unnecessarily restrict the debate before the normal end of the sitting day? We should at least make it clear that we can go on until the normal end of the sitting day, if that comes later. Why can the motion not at least make clear that we could carry on until 10 o’clock?
Sir Christopher Chope
Will my hon. Friend emphasise that the debate scheduled for Monday is not any ordinary debate? It is a debate to change the Standing Orders of the House. As was pointed out to me by Enoch Powell when I was first on the Procedure Committee in 1984, in the absence of a written constitution, the Standing Orders of this House are our constitution. Are we really saying that we should change our constitution in a time-limited debate this coming Monday?
Sir Philip Davies
My hon. Friend makes a good point. In some respects, I am perhaps arguing against my own self-interests here, because the changes that the Leader of the House has made to the motion mean that I am broadly content with it. I would prefer to see certain minor changes that we could perhaps tweak out, but there are probably other Members who do not like the changes that have been instituted since the measure last appeared before the House. Their opportunity to speak against those changes will now be severely curtailed, and that is unfortunate to say the least.
I simply ask that the Leader of the House think again about this measure. We can all see that two hours is not an adequate amount of time. There is scope to have more time for this debate on something that is of great importance to the rights of Members of Parliament, but mainly to their constituents, who want to be represented in this House by the people they have elected and for that to be curtailed only where necessary. I hope that the Leader of the House will indicate that she will not move this motion today, withdraw it and think again.
Business of the House
Christopher Chope Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. She will know the options open to her to secure a debate on this matter. She will also be able to raise it directly with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on 18 March.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for withdrawing the motion scheduled for Monday, in response to the amendments that I tabled. Will she review the whole situation of risk-based exclusion, taking into account last night’s unanimous decision by the House of Lords to ensure that risk-based exclusion from the House of Lords is triggered only by someone having been charged with a sexual criminal offence that would lead to a sentence of imprisonment in excess of two years? We have one parliamentary estate, so would it not be ludicrous to have different exclusion rules for the House of Lords and the House of Commons?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. Although we might operate under different rules at each end of this Parliament, the principles should be the same. The House of Lords is very different from the House of Commons, so I am less concerned about our diverging in that respect. However, the principles and the outcome of the process need to be the same. Many Members—in particular learned Members—have raised concerns about some aspects of the scheme. I want the House of Commons Commission to bring the matter to the Floor of the House, even if it is not amended, when those matters and reassurances have been addressed. That is very important. People need to have trust and confidence in how that process will work.
Business of the House
Christopher Chope Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady should thank me. I have been giving her publicity that money cannot buy, and I think it is encouraging that we have generated such a following and such an interest in what goes on in the Chamber during business questions. Let me make it clear to the hon. Lady that I am not talking Scotland down. I am talking the Scottish National party down, because it has been an unmitigated disaster for Scotland. The stoicism of the Scottish people in dealing with their inept Government deserves great credit.
Each week the hon. Lady talks about our record on delivery and invites me to make the comparison with the Scottish Government. I shall try to do so this week without mentioning the appalling record of the SNP Government, and just invite people to contrast our record with theirs.
In the UK, we have the largest rail infrastructure investment since Victorian times. We have massive regeneration projects across the UK. More than 1,000 miles of major roads have been refurbished; compare that with the A9, please. We have 20 times as much offshore wind capacity as we had when we entered office. Eighteen million households have full-fibre broadband. How is the Scottish Government’s broadband rollout going? Then there are our hospitals, mental health facilities, 50 new surgical hubs, new nuclear power stations and record investments in home and flood defences, and in the coming financial year our research and development spend will be about £20 billion.
In 2010, the strategic defence and security review greenlit a couple of aircraft carriers and, six years later, one was commissioned. That complex 65,000-tonne warship was built through the carrier alliance, a wonderful example of the UK supply chain working together. After the same six-year timeframe, the SNP is still building a couple of ferries, which are £308 million over budget. For context, the overspend is three times the original budget, and I now understand that these pioneering green vessels will run on diesel.
The SNP Government have been an unmitigated disaster for Scotland. They have been found out. They are incapable and incorrigible, and now they are in trouble.
The hon. Lady’s final question is a matter for the House of Lords, not the House of Commons.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will be meeting in Strasbourg next week, which means that Members on the UK delegation will not be here for the tributes to Tony Lloyd. He was latterly an effective and diligent member of that Assembly, and I hope we will be able to pay our tributes in Strasbourg. We miss his charm and humanity. As a fellow Member who first entered this House in 1983, I had the privilege of knowing him for a very long time.
Will the Leader of the House initiate a debate on the effectiveness or otherwise of integrated care boards? The rationale for the boards was to deal with the interaction between health and social care and to reduce the incidence of bed-blocking. Last week we heard that no fewer than 353 hospital beds in Dorset are occupied by people who do not need them, at a cost of over £100,000 a day, let alone the opportunity cost of missed operations and so on. This is intolerable and shows that the system of integrated care is not working. Can we have a debate?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for putting on record his beautiful tribute to Tony Lloyd. It would be wonderful if such tributes could also be heard in Strasbourg.
My hon. Friend is right that it is vital that commissioners are held to account. Our NHS will not function properly without accountability and choice. The former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), undertook work on patient outcomes data and the quality of commissioning in each board and across the UK, which will help to drive accountability. Now that we have that data, I am sure it will make for a very interesting debate. My hon. Friend knows how to apply for a debate, and he may also wish to raise this matter with the Secretary of State on 23 January.
Business of the House
Christopher Chope Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about that situation. That should not be the case at all. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Home Office is providing individual surgery opportunities for Members of Parliament, either face to face or remotely, so that Members can chase up these issues. If he gives me the details, I would be very happy to do that immediately after this session. This business should not be held up getting in the person that it needs. As the House has had my undivided attention, I do not have the latest news on appointments, but I shall also ensure that the Minister for Immigration has heard his concerns.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at early-day motion 114?
[That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Dangerous Dogs (Designated Types) (England and Wales) Order 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 1164), dated 31 October 2023, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31 October 2023, be annulled.]
If so, is she impressed by the fact that the motion has the support of not only Conservative Members but quite a lot of Opposition Members, including the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)? The motion calls on the Government to bring forward a debate before the ban on XL bully-type dogs is implemented at the end of December. She will know that some 650,000 people across the country have already signed a petition against what the Government are proposing, because it is not only unfair but very vague. Many dog owners do not know whether their dogs will be included. This is most unsatisfactory legislation. Should it not be debated in this House before it is implemented?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for putting that on the record, and I think that is very helpful. He will know the motivation for bringing in the legislation, but of course we need to provide clarity and reassurance to pet owners. Given that the date of the next DEFRA questions has not been announced, I will write on his behalf to alert the Secretary of State to early-day motion 114 and to ensure he has heard what my hon. Friend has said.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for again affording the House the opportunity to send our thoughts, prayers and good wishes to everyone who has been affected by that appalling attack. Every week, he brings the attention of the House and the world to such events, which perhaps do not grab a lot of headlines. It is important that we send a clear message that we are focused on these issues and will do everything we can to ensure that everyone in the world is allowed to exercise their religious freedom. I thank him again for enabling us to do that this week following the appalling atrocity in the Philippines. I thank him also for the advert for the important debate this afternoon.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I can take only points of order that relate directly to the business statement. Is that the case?
Sir Christopher Chope
It is, Madam Deputy Speaker. In answering my question about early-day motion 114, the Leader of the House said that she would write to the DEFRA Minister about it. However, when the subject was debated on 27 November in Westminster Hall, I asked the DEFRA Minister whether he would facilitate a debate on the statutory instrument, saying that it is
“obviously of great concern to many Members of Parliament and even more so to our constituents, before it comes into force on 31 December”.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), responded:
“I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course he will be fully aware that it is for parliamentary business managers to arrange such debates, but I will certainly have a conversation with those business managers following this debate.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 223-24WH.]
I wonder whether that discussion ever took place. We are now in a situation where the Leader of the House says she relies on DEFRA to organise a debate, and a DEFRA Minister says it is for parliamentary business managers to organise. Who is in charge, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I think that was a slight extension of business questions rather than a point of order. Is the hon. Gentleman’s point of order that he wishes to know how to gain further clarification on the matter?
Business of the House
Christopher Chope Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s approval of that Bill. He will know that we are still committed to the other measures that were in our manifesto. We will just be doing them in other ways, such as fulfilling our commitment on primates through secondary legislation. He will not be surprised to hear me say that further business will be announced in the usual way, but it is good to know that he will be supporting the Government on these measures.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
When can we have a debate on the World Health Organisation’s pandemic preparedness treaty and the associated international health regulations? Does the Leader of the House realise that there is a lot of concern across the country that this treaty will result in a loss of personal liberty and a real challenge to our sovereignty as a Parliament?
Penny Mordaunt
I shall certainly make sure that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has heard my hon. Friend’s concerns on this matter. I know that many Members have an interest in pandemics, which do not respect borders. International co-operation is needed, but there will be concerns about how the World Health Organisation has responded to particular situations. I know the House will want to scrutinise such measures in detail.
Private Members’ Bills
Christopher Chope Excerpts(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I had understood that the Leader of the House was going to indicate that she is willing to accept the manuscript amendment. I would happily give way to her now to receive that confirmation, because it would enable me to keep my remarks much more brief than would otherwise be the case.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
I am happy to intervene. The Government are minded to accept my hon. Friend’s amendment. I will be happy to explain in closing the debate what we are going to do.
Sir Christopher Chope
That is very good news. I thank Mr Speaker for selecting the manuscript amendment.
It is a sad reflection that we are debating this motion, because on Thursday, when the Leader of the House gave the business for this week, she said:
“The business for the week commencing 18 September will be as follows”,
and the business for Monday 18 September was
“General debate on the UK automotive industry, followed by general debate on UK export performance.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2023; Vol. 737, c. 1016.]
There was no mention whatsoever of having a motion on the Order Paper relating to private Members’ Bills, and in particular to trying to introduce some rather novel processes. That is why I tabled the amendment, which had to be a manuscript amendment, and I am delighted that Mr Speaker selected it.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend has done a service to the House, because I suspect that the Government just did not like the idea of an independent-minded hon. Member being able to produce and debate 17 Bills. What is the harm of that? The fact is that these time-honoured processes are there for a purpose. They are designed to protect Back Benchers, who have very few other rights. From this saga, the Government should learn a lesson not to interfere with what we have always done in this House. These processes are designed to ensure that Back Benchers are given a voice.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he says. I would not be so harsh on the Government, because they have just indicated that they will accept my amendment, but the point he makes is that by deleting paragraphs (2) and (3) of the motion, the amendment will ensure that established practice and precedent continue to apply to the decision of the Government to provide another day this Session on which private Members’ Bills shall have precedence over Government business.
By the time of Prorogation, this Session will have lasted more than 18 months, and I do not think that to have one additional day for private Members’ Bills beyond the 13 normally allocated for a Session is particularly generous. The 2017-19 Session was similarly extended, and on 30 January 2019 the House agreed to three extra private Members’ Bill Fridays. That was done in the normal process, with all the people who had already put their Bills down for those days given precedence according to the rules.
The amendment would also ensure that normal rules for business remain, as set out in Standing Order No. 14(9), and that the long-standing rule of practice that a Bill set down for a specific day cannot then be brought back to an earlier date will be preserved and honoured. Indeed, that practice was applied in this very Session, to the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Bill, which was introduced initially on 20 July 2022 but was put back by the Member in charge to 17 March 2023. The Government then took a liking to the Bill and wanted to bring it forward, but it was not possible to do that so a No. 2 Bill had to be introduced. That is standard practice: if somebody has put their Bill too far down the Order Paper and they wish to bring a similar Bill forward, they can always issue a No. 2 Bill. That is why I am very pleased that the Government have decided to honour precedent and good practice and accept my amendment.
Business of the House
Christopher Chope Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I shall be happy to write to the Secretary of State for Education to raise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and the issues he speaks about. The next Education questions is on 23 October, so if he has not had a response from her office by then, he will be able to raise the matter directly with her then.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Can we have a debate or a statement before the House rises on Tuesday about the plight of thousands of residents who are adversely affected by RoyaleLife companies going into administration? Four of the 64 sites owned by RoyaleLife are in my constituency and my constituents living on those sites are finding that they have not got any of the basic services now. Rubbish is piling up. The administrators are not even ensuring that that is addressed. This is a really big threat to all those people who have invested their life savings in buying a park home. They are suffering, while they see that the proprietor and owner of that company was the second highest entry in this year’s The Sunday Times rich list.
Penny Mordaunt
I am shocked to hear about the situation that my hon. Friend’s constituents are having to endure. It sounds like an urgent one, so I shall raise it with the relevant Departments to see what advice they can provide to him about how to get it resolved. Pleas that I might make from this Dispatch Box for somebody to step up and take responsibility are likely, because of the situation, to fall on deaf ears, so I shall try to get him some advice about further steps he might take to ensure that the matter is resolved for his constituents.
Liaison Committee
Christopher Chope Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Since I objected to this motion going through on the nod the other night, I am surprised that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is moving it formally instead of trying to explain the background to this move. We have always had the system in this House that the Liaison Committee comprises those Members who have been appointed by the House to be Chairs of Select Committees, and those Chairs meet together to comprise the Liaison Committee.
The Liaison Committee is set up under Standing Order No. 145. An appointment was made in this Parliament by the former Member for Uxbridge, Boris Johnson, who as Prime Minister listened sympathetically to representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), saying that he had not been appointed successfully to be elected to a Select Committee, and would it not be wonderful to break with precedent and create a new post for somebody who was not already a Select Committee Chair, but who would become Chair of the Liaison Committee.
I have no objection to the decision that the former Prime Minister took in appointing my hon. Friend as Chair of the Liaison Committee, but I am concerned that now, with his having been appointed to that Committee, we are engaged in a bit of mission creep. Standing Order No. 145 specifies:
“A select committee shall be appointed, to be called the Liaison Committee”,
and its role shall be
“to consider general matters relating to the work of select committees, to give such advice relating to the work of select committees as may be sought by the House of Commons Commission, and to report to the House its choice of select committee reports to be debated on such days as may be appointed by the Speaker in pursuance of paragraph (15) of Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall).
The committee may also hear evidence from the Prime Minister on matters of public policy.”
We know that that is essentially the high-profile role of the Liaison Committee—to try to hold the Prime Minister to account. My hon. Friend, as Chair of that Committee, played a significant role in trying to hold the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, to account.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me. Is it right that we have a joint strategic Committee—I cannot remember its exact name, but if I had known this subject was coming up I would have looked it up—which I think is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett)? Surely strategic issues, and strategic security and so on, should be within the remit of that Committee under our current structure.
Sir Christopher Chope
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are not short of Committees in this House, and the purpose of Standing Order No. 145 was to set up a Liaison Committee—whether that is a useful exercise is for others to judge. It was approved and set up in the Standing Orders, but now, without vigilance on our part, we will find that that Liaison Committee is becoming almost like a Select Committee in its own right, and carrying out its own inquiries—inquiries that could be carried out by any of the other individual Select Committees. Now, in the motion on the Order Paper, it is seeking funding for the appointment of special advisers to facilitate its work. It seems to me that the case for this measure has not been made. I am sorry, as I said earlier, that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did not make the case at the beginning of this debate, instead of waiting to respond to the debate later.
Referring again to Standing Order No. 145, it states:
“The committee shall report its recommendations as to the allocation of time for consideration by the House of the estimates on any day or half day which may be allotted for that purpose; and upon a motion being made that the House do agree with any such report the question shall be put forthwith and, if that question is agreed to, the recommendations shall have effect as if they were orders of the House.
Proceedings in pursuance of this paragraph, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.”
Sub-paragraphs (4) to (6) of that Standing Order state:
“The committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House…and to report from time to time.
Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
The committee shall have power to appoint two sub-committees, one of which shall be a National Policy Statements sub-committee.”
The Standing Order then sets out what that sub-committee could be comprised of and what it would do. I am not aware of any such sub-committee on national policy statements having yet been appointed, but if I am wrong about that, I am sure I will be corrected by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The Liaison Committee also has the power to set up another sub-committee if it so wishes. Each sub-committee has requirements about a quorum and the fact that it needs to report minutes of evidence and so on.
It is clear from reading that Standing Order that the Liaison Committee has a limited remit. It is particularly designed to ensure that, because the Prime Minister does not answer and will not give evidence to other Select Committees, he comes along regularly to the Liaison Committee and he is held to account there.
That is all very well, so why have we ended up where we are today? On the Order Paper, the motion states:
“notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 145”—
the one to which I have been referring—
“the Liaison Committee shall have power to appoint specialist advisers”—
in the plural—
“in relation to its inquiry on Strategic thinking in Government.”
It may well be that there is a shortage of strategic thinking in government and that that inquiry into the shortage of strategic thinking is required, but I am surprised that that inquiry is being conducted by the Liaison Committee, when any of the other Select Committees would be able to inquire into that issue in relation to their remits.
The Liaison Committee has set up that inquiry on strategic thinking in government, and it wants to have special advisers appointed, and I imagine paid out of the public purse, to provide advice to the Committee, which is, as I emphasise, a Select Committee in name, but not by nature. This is an example of mission creep.
I had the privilege of speaking earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, who drew to my attention the press release issued by the Liaison Committee on 22 June this year. It states:
“The Liaison Committee is launching an inquiry into select committee scrutiny of strategic thinking across Whitehall.”
In other words, it is trying to find out whether Select Committees are up to the task of scrutinising strategic thinking across government. That would be fair enough, one might think. However, when one looks at the small print, the Chair’s comments and the terms of reference, one finds that, far from being an inquiry into Select Committee scrutiny of strategic thinking across Whitehall, this is an inquiry into strategic thinking across Whitehall—nothing to do with the Select Committees, for which the Liaison Committee has been specifically established.
John Spellar
The hon Gentleman is generous in giving way once again. I have been listening to him expand on that point. Would it not be more appropriate for such an inquiry to be conducted by the Public Accounts Committee, which has inevitably undertaken similar studies into thinking because of the resource consequences that arise from strategic thinking, or the lack thereof? Was that not the appropriate route?
Sir Christopher Chope
That, in my view, would be wholly appropriate. Why does the National Audit Office, which feeds into much of the Public Accounts Committee’s work, not get involved if it thinks that this is a big issue? Incidentally, today, the National Audit Office reported on the Government’s hospital building programme, and I found in the small print that Christchurch hospital is no longer part of the 40 hospitals being built—it has been withdrawn from the programme and will be added to a future programme. That is rightly criticised by the National Audit Office, and that is a current example of why we need proper scrutiny.
To return to what the Liaison Committee says it wants to do in this new inquiry, the Chair’s comments are:
“Major events such as Brexit, covid-19 and Ukraine demonstrate the need for long-term planning and delivery across multiple departments and across the duration of several Parliaments, as well as the importance of successful collaboration with our international partners. As the pace of events over recent years have shown, the Government needs to be more agile in its ambition—and it should also be coordinated across departments and sustainable over time.
Select committees provide a mirror to Government policy and practice. Their work has demonstrated the value of cross-party checks and balances on departmental strategic thinking. This inquiry by the Liaison Committee will consider how select committees can improve scrutiny of strategic thinking in government as the UK confronts the major questions we face in the near and longer-term future. Better scrutiny of strategic thinking by Parliament will contribute to better strategic thinking within Government.”
I am sorry that I was not able to précis that, Madam Deputy Speaker; that is one of the issues we have, as a Parliament and with the Government—there is too much verbosity in these sorts of announcements—but be that as it may.
I then looked at the terms of reference, expecting that they would be exclusively directed to strategic thinking in Select Committees and the Select Committee’s control over strategic thinking in government, but the call for evidence—Members and others are told that they must send in written evidence by Friday 15 September—states:
“The Committee is looking for evidence on: Examples of best practice of strategic thinking in Government, including: how well Government identifies strategic opportunities as well as strategic risks and threats; how effectively Government uses internal and external challenge; how feedback loops”—
whatever those are—
“are used to ensure that lessons from delivery are fully considered when developing future strategic plans;”
and
“how No. 10 and the Cabinet Office should best lead on these issues across government”.
That is one item. The second item is:
“What government should publish or explain about its overall strategic concept.”
John Spellar
Surely, the section that the hon. Gentleman has just read out—there may be more of it—is in the remit of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee?
Sir Christopher Chope
Absolutely. I do not know—perhaps we will find out later—the extent to which the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has been consulted on this and has agreed that, on Government strategic thinking, it will have its role usurped by the Liaison Committee. I am sure that all will be revealed in due course. If my hon. Friends want to intervene on these issues, I will be happy to take interventions.
The next item of the terms of reference is:
“What additional machinery of Government, knowledge and skills are necessary to support strategic thinking and effective strategy and delivery, both within individual departments, and across two or more departments, and how strategy and strategic thinking can be sustained by building consensus between the main parties”.
The fourth item on which evidence can be given is:
“Which governments around the world demonstrate best practice in strategic thinking”.
That is an opportunity for some overseas visits, no doubt, to go and see which Governments across the world are demonstrating best practice in strategic thinking.
The next item of the terms of reference—the sixth—contains the first reference to Select Committees:
“How Select Committees consider strategic questions, including any recent examples of scrutiny of Government strategic plans and/or their delivery; and elements of Government strategy- and delivery that are repeatedly identified by Select Committees as effective or as deficient”.
At least that item on which evidence is sought is relevant to the purported nature of the inquiry. The next item in the terms of reference is:
“The engagement of individual departments, and Whitehall as a whole, with Select Committees on strategic challenges, including through the provision of information necessary for effective scrutiny.”
The next one is:
“What additional resources”—
more taxpayer’s money is going into this, I can see—
“parliamentary procedure, knowledge and skills are necessary to support effective Select Committee scrutiny of strategic thinking and effective strategy-making, as well as monitoring implementation of any Government action in response”.
This is a great one:
“How other parliaments around the world are engaging with the strategic thinking of their respective governments.”
Well, what an inquiry. It could take years, could it not? Woe betide whoever is appointed a special adviser under the terms of the motion before us. They will need to be handsomely remunerated, will they not, for the time and effort they put into the inquiry? They will have a global remit.
I speak as a member of two Select Committees—the Procedure Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee. The Environmental Audit Committee is cross-cutting and looks at the effect of the Government’s environmental policies across a whole range of areas. The Liaison Committee seems to be creating a new cross- cutting Select Committee covering public administration, strategic thinking, oversees democracy and so on. I want to hear the justification for that, what the cost is likely to be and how this idea ever got a start. Was it discussed by the Liaison Committee? Did it agree those very wide terms of reference? Did it think through the implications? In supporting the motion, has the Leader of the House thought through exactly what that strategic thinking is all about?
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I apologise for not being in the Chamber for the start of the debate, but I have been listening to my hon. Friend carefully on the television.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
This is such an important debate and my hon. Friend is raising such an important point about the fundamentals of the Liaison Committee. Do I understand from what he is saying that the Committee would need to change its name if it takes on those responsibilities, because its job is simply liaison, not to go further than that?
Sir Christopher Chope
Absolutely. That is why I am worried about the mission creep. We have the Liaison Committee proposal set out in the press release to which I have been referring, but it bears little resemblance to the motion on the Order Paper, which states that
“the Liaison Committee shall have power to appoint specialist advisers in relation to its inquiry on Strategic thinking in Government.”
Its inquiry purports to be on the ability of Select Committees to scrutinise strategic thinking across Government, which is completely different. As anybody who has been listening to the terms of reference will know, it is not limited to strategic thinking across our Government, but restricted to strategic thinking across all Governments that are members of the United Nations. So it has an enormously wide remit.
I must say that I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, the Chair of the Committee, on his imagination and breadth of vision. He could have a job for life fulfilling this important role. But our job in questioning matters like this, which are put on the Order Paper and would otherwise go through on the nod, is to say, “Well, hang on a minute, what are we about? Have the members of the rest of the Select Committees thought about the implications, the costs and the dangerous precedent that is being set?” It is only in this Parliament that we got the exception to have a Chair of the Liaison Committee who is not already a Chair of another Select Committee, but how will the members of the Liaison Committee be able to give their time and devotion to this particular subject?
John Spellar
For example, I am a member of one of the Committees that very much deals with strategy and strategic thinking: the Defence Committee. I am not aware—I may have missed it—that there has been any reference to that Committee on whether it thinks this move is appropriate or not.
Sir Christopher Chope
Well, there we have it, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I see my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, the Chair of the Liaison Committee, at the Bar of the House. I do not know whether he intends to participate in this debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The hon. Gentleman ought to know that it is very difficult for the Member who has just come in to participate in the debate, when he has already been speaking for nearly 25 minutes. I had assumed that he had informed the hon. Member that he was going to refer to him.
Sir Christopher Chope
Madam Deputy Speaker, I was talking to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee earlier on today and he gave me—
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am not sure that quite counts as informing him that you were going to mention him in a debate, but I assume that that is what you are indicating.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am indicating that I am referring to him in the debate, because he indeed gave me the Liaison Committee terms of reference and the press release, including the quote from himself. Since he is the Chair of the Liaison Committee, I am rather surprised that he has not made himself available to participate in this debate, particularly given that it is all about a much more important role for that Committee, which he has the privilege of chairing. I had not realised, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I rose to my feet at the beginning of this debate, that my hon. Friend was not actually in his place. I now see that he is not in his place but at the Bar of the House. But because of what you said—the debate perhaps started earlier than he expected —he will not now be able to participate in it and will have to rely on the Leader of the House to put the case, which he would otherwise be able to put himself, as to why this proposal does not amount to an expensive and unnecessary mission creep on the part of the Liaison Committee.
It is, in my view, probably unique to this Parliament that we have a Chair of the Liaison Committee who is not already the Chair of another Committee. I wonder how the members of the Liaison Committee, all of whom are Chairs of other Committees, will physically be able to get to grips with the enormous subject of the quality of strategic thinking across the world, because that is what we are talking about.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
The House will know that I am second to none in my admiration for my hon. Friend, but I actually am a member of the Liaison Committee, and I think that—in drawing his comments to a close—he will, like me, welcome any progress in strategic thinking in Government, and particularly in this Government.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am all in favour of more strategic thinking, and I know that my hon. Friend is a great exemplar of it. He has deployed that talent over many years in the House, and continues so to do. But I am disappointed, in a sense, that in his intervention he did not address the issue of mission creep, and why this subject cannot be dealt with by the Public Administration Committee or by other Select Committees that have already been set up under the rules of the House. He did disclose to us that he is a member of the Liaison Committee, although he did not say how enthusiastic he is about being able to participate in the evidence gathering and the consideration of the evidence that is gathered in conjunction with this particular remit of setting out the inquiry on strategic thinking in Government.
It often happens that towards the end of a Parliament the Government are trying to think beyond the next general election, and perhaps, in proposing this motion, my hon. Friend the Chair of the Liaison Committee is thinking beyond this Parliament to the next. Perhaps he is thinking that the Liaison Committee in that Parliament may have some unfinished business in relation to its inquiry on strategic thinking, and that the specialist advisers will be champing at the bit, wanting their remuneration to be extended to an inquiry that will continue—dare one say, ad infinitum? Maybe; I do not know. But I think that something like this should not go through the House without Members having been alerted to its potential consequences and implications, which is why I have spoken about the motion in this way.
John Spellar
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is being very generous. According to his reading on the background of the Committee, does it intend to hold hearings and evidence sessions, and would that mean that all the Select Committee Chairs would have to attend weekly sessions in order to hear the evidence and then prepare the report?
Sir Christopher Chope
That is a very good point. The Committee is specifically calling for written evidence. Normally, when Select Committees call for written evidence and that evidence comes in, they decide that the most compelling evidence should probably be supplemented by oral evidence from those who have submitted the written evidence. It is, I presume, implicit in the fact that the Committee has invited written evidence that it will also receive oral evidence and will cross-examine, or question, some of the people who have submitted that written evidence, whether it be from Members of the Australian Parliament, the Canadian Parliament or the Hungarian Parliament. Who knows, but I imagine that they will be holding oral evidence sessions. As the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) implies, if an oral evidence session is not within the remit of the one of the specific Sub-Committees of the Liaison Committee, to which I referred earlier, there will be a need for a quorum and for people to be there paying close attention to the evidence.
Where are we going? This is essentially a new Select Committee that is being expanded to cover everybody else’s areas of responsibility so that it can have a grandiose role. It is not sufficient for it to be able to hold the Prime Minister to account and allocate questions to the Prime Minister among Liaison Committee members—now we are getting into the whole area not of the role of Select Committees in holding the Government to account on their strategic challenges, but of the strategic challenges in toto.
In summary, what I am really saying is that I despair. I despair that this proposal has reached the stage it has. I look forward to hearing an explanation from the Leader of the House about why she thinks this is a good move. I hope that she will be able to explain how our fears and concerns about dangerous precedents can be allayed. Strategic thinking is perhaps just the start of a takeover bid by the Liaison Committee of almost all the other subjects that are the remit of individual Select Committees at the moment. Who knows? In the absence of any contribution from the Chair of the Liaison Committee himself, we depend on the knowledge that the Leader of the House has gained from the briefing that she has no doubt received, as I did, from the Liaison Committee.
I am all in favour of strategic thinking and of scrutinising the Government’s strategic thinking, but I do not think that this is the right way forward.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I, through you, apologise for not having been present from the start of these proceedings? I was not expecting this business to be debated this evening; I should have been more alert, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has been, to the possibility that it would be.
I would not consider it appropriate to try to catch your eye to make a contribution to this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker—unless you deemed it appropriate.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker; I appreciate the courtesy being extended to me.
First, I should reiterate that there is support among all the Select Committee Chairs for the inquiry. Secondly, the issue is about the effectiveness of Select Committee scrutiny. Many Select Committees find it difficult to obtain information about long-term challenges facing this country, particularly if they are cross-departmental issues. The Select Committee’s inquiry will be concentrating on that. Thirdly, there is ample precedent for Liaison Committee inquiries into the effectiveness of the Select Committee system. That is what the Liaison Committee exists to do and it is firmly within its remit. We are confining ourselves to that.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am delighted to hear from my hon. Friend that the Liaison Committee will confine itself to that but, in that case, why are the terms of reference calling for written evidence by 15 September so widely set that they cover—I will not repeat all those points, Madam Deputy Speaker—which Governments around the world demonstrate best practice in strategic thinking? There are also references to strategic thinking about Select Committees—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I want to call the Leader of the House, so I do not want the hon. Gentleman to read out a list.
Privileges Committee Special Report
Christopher Chope Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karen Bradley
I served with my right hon. Friend in the Whips Office and have enormous respect for him. The Committee proposed the motion. We asked the Committee to do its work, and it proposed the motion. There is nothing unparliamentary about what it has put forward and there is nothing that is not procedurally accurate in what it has done. I for one will back my colleagues, because I would ask them to back me on a motion about a report that I had put forward as a Select Committee Chair, and I would hope that they would do so.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
As someone who has the privilege of serving on my right hon. Friend’s Procedure Committee, may I ask her whether she can recall a single occasion when the Procedure Committee has produced a report naming individuals without giving those individuals the opportunity first to present evidence? Is it not the problem that we have a report based not on evidence but on stuff that has been tweeted? As somebody who does not do tweets, I am ever more grateful that I do not.
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend is a very assiduous member of the Procedure Committee. He is right that we would report evidence for an inquiry only if it had been given to us by a Member in good faith and they knew it was going to be reported, but in this case we are not talking about that; we are talking about evidence produced in the report that is in the public domain. It has not been gathered in any other way. Of course, the motion is not the report; it is about giving the members of the Privileges Committee the same protections as members of the Standards Committee. It is difficult to argue against that.
Proxy Voting
Christopher Chope Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I very much support the motion and, as a member of the Procedure Committee, have been involved in some of the discussions of it.
One of the most important elements is that the amendment to the Standing Order is made only for the duration of this Parliament. My concern, which I expressed during the Committee’s discussions, is that it is fine when we have a Government with a large working majority —people will not be too fussed about issues such as whether somebody with a medical condition who is on the estate is also able to have a proxy vote—but if, after the next general election, the balance between the Government and the Opposition were much closer, or there were even a hung Parliament, I can see that difficulties might arise and the Members of the new Parliament might want more rigour written into the Standing Order than I think there is in the current version.
That is why it is important that the amendment is made only for the duration of this Parliament. I hope that, during the rest of this Parliament, there will be an attempt on both sides of the House to see whether we can introduce some rigour and consistency into the way in which people with medical conditions can access proxies and the circumstances in which they cannot.
The motion is also valuable because, by inference, it excludes any suggestion that people who are temporarily suspended from the House for conduct unbecoming should be able to creep back in through the proxy voting system. People who are absent from the House because of their own conduct, which is nothing to do with health or baby leave, should under no circumstances be able to exercise a proxy vote. The motion does not facilitate that; I think, by inference, it excludes it. As I said in an earlier debate, if we allow people who are excluded from the estate because of conduct unbecoming to have proxy votes, that will contaminate the whole process. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for not contaminating this amendment to the Standing Order.