Business of the House

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about the issue of the last bank in town and access to financial services, which has come up in the Chamber many times, and he is quite right to raise it. Obviously, we recognise that the way people access financial services is changing, with more people going online and so on, but the industry’s access to banking standard requires banks to carry out a number of steps before they close any branches. Some are coming forward with innovative ways to deliver ongoing banking services, and of course the Post Office now delivers access to banking services, very often at more flexible times—for example, at weekends and so on—than a bank was previously able to offer. My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate to talk about the issues in Cleethorpes.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House has said that we should seek a cross-party consensus on the way forward, and I agree with her, which is why I wonder what thought she has given, in respect of her role, to the House voting on options in parallel, so that we can end the game-playing and move forward.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I completely understand the hon. Lady’s desire for many more varied options to be brought forward, and I hugely respect the hon. Lady and her views, but the House has already rejected a second referendum, a customs union, the meaningful vote and leaving without a deal. It is vital that the House comes forward with a proposal that it can support. What the House did support was an extension to article 50, and the Prime Minister is acting on that request and seeking to fulfil the will of the House. I am sure that if hon. Members feel there is a majority for another type of solution, they will come forward with those proposals.

Speaker’s Statement

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am a little taken aback by the inquiry from the right hon. Gentleman. I signalled to the hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) why I did not think any statement was required at that time. It is, of course, true that the House passed a motion on Thursday that specified a potential end date for an agreement to be reached. It specified that if an agreement was reached by that date, a particular extension to article 50—if memory serves me, to the end of June—would be requested of the Union. Why did I not say anything at that time? The motion that was passed was not in respect of the withdrawal agreement, and I could have had no way of knowing at that time whether revisions to the agreement or the accompanying declaration would be sought, let alone obtained.

I can be expected to rule only at the material time. If I had ruled—[Interruption.] I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because I know that he has a great sense of fair play. If I had ruled last week, I think I can say with complete confidence that there would have been people accusing me of being hasty and premature, and commending to me the idea of waiting. I thought that it was appropriate to reflect on the matter over a period of days, and I am saying what I am saying before the Government table a new proposition. It seems to me timely to say it now, rather than to wait several days, but to have done so several days ago did not seem to me to be warranted. I have made my best judgment in the interests of the House as an institution, and of its individual Members.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are obviously right that the House does not wish to vote on the same proposition over and again. Equally, I am sure that you will be aware of the fact that some hon. Members were interested in meaningful votes because at that time, they would be able to vote on amendments on matters that we have not yet considered. If the Government are unable to make any changes to their proposition, I seek your guidance on how we might secure opportunities for voting on those alternative propositions. I heard you talk about urgent questions, but of course, there is no vote on an urgent question or a statement, and a Standing Order No. 24 motion is in neutral terms. The Government have not been very generous recently in offering Opposition day debates either, so I seek your advice on how hon. Members might proceed.

[Mr Speaker]

Obviously, it would be helpful to the Opposition if Opposition days were supplied. That has not happened recently and I have no way of knowing whether the Leader of the House has it in mind to provide for Opposition days. I think that colleagues would think that it was a democratic and seemly thing to do to ensure that the principal Opposition party had the requisite allocation of days. So far as other business is concerned, the hon. Lady should look closely at the Standing Order No. 24 procedure. What she says about it is true, but I think that she should reflect upon the opportunities that the Standing Order No. 24 procedure presents, because the opportunities are fuller than has traditionally been acknowledged or taken advantage of by Members of the House of Commons.

Business of the House

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

As I understand it at the moment, the Business of the House motion, I think, is proposing a 7 o’clock finish. A 7 o’clock finish is proposed, though, as the Leader of the House says, that is an amendable proposition. If colleagues want to propose amendments to that, they can.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Surely if the House votes against no deal tomorrow and for an extension, the simple and straightforward way for the Government to facilitate this under the EU (Withdrawal) Act is to bring forward a statutory instrument, which is something that they could do in 24 hours.

[Andrea Leadsom]

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, I think, two weeks ago now, if the House votes for an extension, she will seek to agree that extension approved by the House with the EU and will bring forward the necessary legislation to change the exit date commensurate with that extension. But as she also said this evening, it is not within her gift, or within this Government’s gift, to insist on an extension. That will be a matter for agreement with the European Union and potentially subject to conditions imposed by it, but it would come back to this House, finally, to Parliament, and would need to be approved by Parliament.

Retirement of the Clerk of the House

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It was with no small amount of trepidation that I, as a new Member of this House and already somewhat daunted by the complexity of parliamentary procedure and protocol, discovered that the most senior Clerk was my constituent. I rise this afternoon to say thank you to Sir David Natzler for his dedicated service to Parliament over four decades, for the kindness and patience that he has shown to me, for his answers to questions from me and members of my team, and for taking the time in the early weeks after the 2015 election to knock on my office door to see how we were settling in. That unfailing kindness and approachability are the hallmarks of David’s service.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is describing David Natzler’s character extremely well. Does she agree that one thing about him that is so nice for Members—it has not always been the case—is that he does not treat them like nursery schoolchildren?

[Helen Hayes]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know how much David’s kind, patient and generous approach, as well as his intellect and immense knowledge, will be missed in this place, although I take some comfort from my recent discovery that the new Clerk of the House is also a resident of my constituency.

I am sure that David’s retirement from this place will not be the end of his working life and that there are many spheres in which he will continue to contribute. David has many interests, both in our local community in Dulwich and West Norwood and further afield, that he will pursue after 1 March. They include Dulwich Picture Gallery, local history and, as he mentioned to me recently, a compassionate concern for refugees living in our community. I look forward to seeing him progressing issues and projects in our local area and further afield; he will make an enormous impact in many different ways. I know how much David’s family, his wife Hilary and their children, will value having him around a bit more, and I wish David and his family all the very best for a long, happy and productive retirement.

Business of the House

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the Government have sought to improve the incomes of pensioners and those on fixed lower incomes. She will also be aware that questions to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will take place on Monday 11 February, and I suggest that she raises her point then.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), was unable to tell the Procedure Committee whether we would scrutinise 50 or 100 affirmative procedure statutory instruments. The front page of the Financial Times says that businesses are up in arms because the Government have failed to get the trade treaties through. And where is the Agriculture Bill? Its Committee stage ended before Christmas, and massive uncertainty is being created for farmers.

[Andrea Leadsom]

As I explained to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), we have laid more than 400 of the up to 600 statutory instruments that need to be delivered by 29 March, and we are confident that all of them will be completed by Brexit day.

The hon. Lady also asked about Brexit primary legislation. All the Bills that need Royal Assent by the date of our leaving the EU will achieve it, and the Bills that do not will achieve it within the timescales that are required for them. All those Bills continue their passage through both Houses, and I remain confident that we shall have passed all the necessary legislation by the date of leaving the EU.

Business of the House

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think my hon. Friend will find a lot of support for that from around the Chamber. In my constituency we have enormous problems with HGVs getting stuck together when they are trying to pass on a narrow country road. She will be aware that we have Transport questions in our first week back, on 10 January, and I encourage her to raise the issue directly with Ministers then.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

This morning on Radio 4, speaking about the prospect of a managed no deal, the Leader of the House used the words “in the event votes don’t take place”. Why?

[Andrea Leadsom]

What I meant was, in the event that such a vote was not passed by the House. Just to be clear, the vote will take place, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, in the week commencing 14 January.

Business of the House

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a bit of parliamentary pantomime. He knows full well that the Government often name tomorrow as the next date for deferring an Order of the Day. So after a First Reading, when naming a date for the Second Reading debate if it is not “Now” then it is “Tomorrow,” and then the Government decide. There is nothing unusual about that at all.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House knows that:

“Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day.”

Will it also be:

“To the last syllable of recorded time”?

[Andrea Leadsom]

As I have said to a number of hon. Members, we will bring the meaningful vote back to this House. There will be a further business motion that will be amendable, as soon as the Prime Minister has been able to seek the reassurances that will enable this House to support a motion that will be in the national interest. That is in the best interests of the whole United Kingdom, and it is vital that we get it right.

Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I think we need to start with why parliamentary privilege is so important, particularly those of us on the Government side, because there will come a time when we are not on the Government side, at which point the protections provided for us by parliamentary privilege are all the more important. Governments who run roughshod over parliamentary privilege when they are in government find that, when they are in opposition, their position is much harder to defend and uphold. When the Conservatives were in opposition, we disliked the streamlining of parliamentary procedures that made it easier for the then Government to get legislation through, because we found it harder to have the full debates and discussion that we wanted—the ability to discuss and sometimes even to delay things to which we were deeply opposed. That was a loss to us in opposition, even though it was a benefit once we were back in government.

My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council mocked the Humble Address procedure on the basis that it was ancient, but every morning when we come into this House and pass through security, we are exercising a right that dates back to 1340. Whether we have our pass on or not, we are entitled to come into this House and nobody is entitled to obstruct us. This is an important right because in times less benign than ours, people have wanted to obstruct Members coming into Parliament. We sit in a House where there is a very slim margin and it may be that, rushing back for a Division—perhaps a Division of confidence in the Government—somebody obstructs Members coming in. That would be a breach of our privilege and, though it is one of our most ancient privileges, it is actually a great safeguard of the proper democratic operation of this House.

We heard from the Treasury Bench and from other right hon. Members a very good argument for why the Humble Address should not have been passed in the first place, but today is the wrong day for that debate. That debate should have been held on 13 November and voted on, or not, according to whether or not it were the will of this House that the Humble Address go through. The tradition of Humble Addresses is very clear—that the Humble Address is followed. Now, that does not mean that this House is irresponsible in passing Humble Addresses. We have heard suggestions that we might seek information from the security services. This House has never passed a Humble Address of such an unwise kind.

Although I am not, dare I say, the greatest admirer of the socialists on the Opposition Benches, I accept that they are responsible enough not to wish to endanger the security of our nation, but that Parliament has the power does not mean that Parliament will exercise the power. Indeed, and importantly, this House constrains its right of free speech in relation to the sub judice issue. We have passed Standing Orders, and we give power to Mr Speaker, to stop hon. and right hon. Members breaching the sub judice rule in order to ensure that the system of justice in this country proceeds properly. Likewise, we are entitled to limit the means of Humble Addresses and the information that can be received from a Humble Address, but we did not do so before 13 November. Therefore, what happened on 13 November ought to be complied with, because if we simply say that motions of this House according to great antiquity and precedent can be ignored because the Government feel like it, what is this House here for? How are we protecting the rights of the people we represent? How are we able to seek redress of grievances?

The Humble Address may have been unwise. Indeed, had there been a Division on 13 November, I would have voted against revealing the Attorney General’s information and advice to the Government. I did not think that the Humble Address was well advised, but the Government decided to accept the motion. Having done so, it was not then up to the Government to say that it was not in the national interest to do so. I am afraid that is a classic confusion; the Government interest and the national interest are different things. The Government interest is a political interest, and the national interest is a higher interest. In my view, the national interest is better served by respecting the privileges of Parliament than the convenience of the Law Officers. Therefore, in the national interest—not the government interest—this legal advice ought to be produced because Parliament has said so.

This is clearly a right that this House has. Every Select Committee has the delegated right to send for persons and papers, and this is simply an exercise by the whole House of requiring that papers be produced. But the Government, with their majority—perhaps a majority they cannot always achieve, but at least with a technical majority thanks to our friends in the Democratic Unionist party—ought to be able to stop any papers being produced that they believe are too confidential. Indeed, it is still open to the Government to bring forward a motion suggesting that the previous motion be overturned; there is precedent for overturning a Humble Address and seeking to do the opposite. There is a proper process for the Government to follow if they do not want to release these papers, rather than sticking their feet in the mud and saying no.

Then we come to the motions before us today, and here I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I do not think that the motion before us actually works because it is too indistinct about who it is criticising—that is, it is criticising Ministers broadly, rather than the ones specifically concerned. The motion needed to be more specific about who it was objecting to and who it was holding in contempt, and indeed it ought to have used the rights of Parliament to inflict some punishment on the person who is deemed to be in contempt.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

If the hon. Gentleman feels as he has described, why did he not table an amendment to the motion in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), setting out what he thinks ought to have been done?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Because the Government have tabled an amendment that I feel I can support—[Interruption.] We are not in pantomime season quite yet. [Hon. Members: “Oh yes we are!”] All right, I give in on that one. I am defeated on that particular point, but not on the substantive one.

I am happy to support the Government’s amendment, because I think it is right that a Committee of this House look at the issue in broad terms. It may be right that the House wishes to take a self-denying ordinance on the extent of Humble Addresses. It may be that we would like to say specifically that they would be deemed disorderly, and therefore not tabled, if they related to matters concerning the security services or other types of information where there would be a broad consensus that those matters should not be brought forward. The ability to demand papers could require—dare I say it?—that the tax returns of Opposition Members be brought to the House—[Interruption.] Mine would be of so little interest that I cannot imagine it happening. That would be a clear abuse of the precedents that we have. So it may well be right that the Privileges Committee should consider broadly how Humble Addresses should be used to ensure that they are effective, because currently they ought to be effective and the Government ought to abide by them.

Business of the House (European Union (Withdrawal) Act)

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I, too, wish to thank the Government for listening to the Procedure Committee and the engagement they had with the Committee over how the debate should be conducted. On that, I have nothing further to add.

Members will recall that in June issues arose about how the House should proceed in the event of the Government motion being rejected. At that time, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister represented to me that if the motions to be considered thereafter were to be made amendable, it would in some way interfere with her ability to negotiate, which was why—having reflected on her view—I took the decision to vote against my own amendment when it came before the House. I listened to what she had to say to me. But the reality remains that we have an unsatisfactory procedure to resolve differences of opinion in the House if—and it is obviously an “if”—we come to a point at which the Government do not succeed in their motion.

The opportunity exists this afternoon to cure that anomaly. As was so rightly said by the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), it is contrary to all sensible practice and—I have to say—slightly disrespectful of the role of this House, that we should end up with a situation in which we have unamendable motions for consideration at a time when Parliament should be fully focused on trying to find the means to resolve outstanding issues. It is for that reason that I tabled this amendment, which would in simple terms cure that problem and provide reassurance, even before we start on these really important debates, that whatever the outcome next week, we would have a means of continuing the debate thereafter, if we needed to, in a way that must be in conformity with what any right-thinking Member of this House would think to be the proper procedure and process to adopt. For that reason, I am grateful to my many right hon. and hon. Friends who have indicated their support for the amendment, and to the many right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who have done likewise.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman came to the Procedure Committee, he proposed free-standing resolutions alongside the Government’s motion. Would he like to clarify now that his amendment is not proposing that process, and that it is proposing something that would be an expression of will rather than an expression of the opinion of the House?

[Mr Grieve]

I am very happy to do so. The hon. Lady might remember that when I came before the Procedure Committee on the main business in this motion, I tried to be as conciliatory as possible in finding a way through. I am delighted that the Government have accepted the first principle of having amendable motions. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that if we do not resolve this issue next week, there will be further amendable motions to be considered under the programme laid out in section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act.

Business of the House

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think the whole House will want to congratulate that group of young people on an amazing achievement. It is superb to see what communities and volunteers can do when they really set their minds to it. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to seek a Westminster Hall debate, so that Members can share the experiences of their young people and how they have really made a difference around the world.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

So far the Leader of the House has been somewhat vague and opaque in her remarks about the Procedure Committee report. The key recommendation was that the amendments should be debated and voted on before the main motion. Can she assure the House now that she and the new Brexit Secretary will table a business motion setting out a process enabling amendments to be debated and voted on first?

[Andrea Leadsom]

As I have said in response to a number of questions on the Procedure Committee’s report, I have seen it and I have looked at it very carefully. The Government are considering its recommendations. It will be for Parliament to decide—to debate and determine the procedure that will apply to the vote, including the number of amendments that can be voted on. But as the Procedure Committee report sets out, amendments threaten an orderly ratification, and that risks creating huge uncertainty for business, consumers and citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I would not recommend any such thing. What I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, consistent with what I have just said about the importance of lowering the temperature and taking time to reflect, is this. I understand and respect the seriousness and sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman, who has himself served with distinction as a Deputy Leader of the House. My point would be to let us wait to see what happens. In the words of the late Lord Whitelaw, “It is, on the whole, better to cross bridges only when you come to them.” I am sensitive, however, to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I think some of these concerns may play out in discussions to follow in the coming days. I hope that is fair and reasonable to people of all views.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you confirm that, when the Government bring forward a business motion, it is open to any Member of the House to table amendments to that business motion, on which the House will be able to take a view?

[Mr Speaker]

It is.