Business of the House

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House, although I was not looking to come in on this matter. The timing on this subject—in terms of where the power lies—is a matter for the Government. Ultimately, it is for the Leader of the House and others to make a judgment about what seems right and reasonable, in the light of the prospective legal action and of the view, just put, of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). The Chair would not seek to intercede.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

May I gently correct the Leader of the House? She described this as groundhog day, but as you will know, Mr Speaker, groundhog day is actually on 2 February. It is a superstition that if the groundhog emerges from its burrow and sees a shadow, then winter continues for a further six weeks. The Trade Bill and the customs Bill—the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill—emerged from their burrows in Committee on 1 February, well over six weeks ago, so even if we were working on the groundhog principle, we should have had them back on the Floor of the House by now. When are we going to see them?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I really enjoyed the film of that title, which was about the day repeating itself. [Interruption.] Yes, it probably was on video tape at the time.

In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s very clear question, a very complex negotiation is under way, as he will know, and at the same time there is a necessity to legislate. We look very carefully at all amendments that are brought forward, and we try to make sure that we do not get ahead of the negotiation or indeed of policy proposals coming from the Government. The timing is therefore very much subject to the overall consideration of the best way in which we can leave the European Union with a good deal for both the United Kingdom and for our EU friends and neighbours.

Business of the House

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 3rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point, and I am sure he will welcome the fact that this Government are committed to parity of esteem between mental and physical health. Spending on mental health has increased to a record £11.86 billion, with a further £1 billion on top of that by 2021. Nevertheless, he is right to say that we need to look at flexibility and access, and I can tell him that, by 2020, every patient arriving at A&E experiencing a mental health crisis will have access to psychiatric liaison, so that they can get to the right treatment as quickly as possible, which of course includes flexibility in timetabling.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

We had an excellent debate in Westminster Hall yesterday on the subject of plastics in our oceans. The one point on which there was unanimous agreement among the 17 Members who took part was that it was ridiculous for us to be debating the reduction of plastic waste when we ourselves were surrounded by the little plastic cups that we use in Westminster Hall and in Committee rooms. Surely, it must be possible for Members in Westminster Hall and on the Committee corridor to be given proper glasses. That would make us feel as though we were just as good as the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right to raise this issue. I can tell him that a number of Members decided to give up plastic for Lent, which was quite a challenge in this place, as he rightly suggests. Before Lent, they wrote to the Administration Committee asking it to look into eliminating single-use plastics, and it has committed to doing that. As I understand it, we are now using up existing supplies before moving to new arrangements, so I think progress is being made. I should also like to take this opportunity to point out that, later this year, we will publish a new resources and waste strategy setting out how we will work towards eliminating all avoidable plastic waste by 2050.

Tributes (Speaker Martin)

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Michael Martin was Speaker when I was first elected in 2001. As others have observed, he was capable of tremendous kindness—to his family, his friends, his constituents and Members from all parts of the House—throughout his time. I suspect that the last of these kindnesses might have been the most difficult to sustain, but throughout his time in the Chair, he never failed to do so.

We will all have our own memories of Michael’s warmth and kindness. I will always remember him going from the Speaker’s Chair to shake the hand of my late colleague Patsy Calton after she had taken the Oath following her re-election in 2005. At that time, Patsy was in the latter stages of her fight against cancer—she died a few weeks later—and Michael went from the Chair to her because she had taken the Oath in a wheelchair. That act of simple kindness and humanity summed him up as a man and as a Speaker. Yes, he maintained many traditions of the office, but those traditions were never allowed to get in the way of what mattered. If it was a choice between the traditions of the House and simple humanity, the traditions could quickly be dispensed with.

If someone did not already know it, they had only to spend a few seconds—or possibly a few syllables—in Michael Martin’s company to know that here was a Scotsman, and a Glaswegian at that. He was not the first person to occupy the Chair who spoke with a broad accent—the late George Thomas, the Viscount Tonypandy, springs readily to mind—but I am certain that no other occupant of the Speaker’s Chair ever had to endure the sniping and snobbery that Michael Martin had to, although if it bothered him, he never showed it. As a Glaswegian and a Scot, he was comfortable in his own skin. He was proud of his Scottish identity and his working-class Glaswegian roots, and if anybody did not like that, frankly it was their problem, not his.

Much of what has been said today has focused on the personality and character of the man—and understandably so. He served as a Member of this House for 30 years, occupying the Speaker’s Chair for nine. He has a legacy. We have spoken much in recent weeks about the modern convention of the Government requiring Parliament’s approval before launching military action. When doing so, we should remember Michael Martin’s role in establishing that convention. I will never forget the debates leading up to the invasion of Iraq—they were momentous parliamentary occasions. Tony Blair brought a motion to the House on which we could vote. The Opposition of the day were also in favour of the military action and duly tabled an amendment outlining their position. It was not, however, materially different from the Government’s motion, and in an act of constitutional probity, and also of political bravery—it was against the party from which he had come—Michael Martin selected instead a cross-party amendment putting the view that the case for war had not been proven. Yes, Tony Blair, to his credit, allowed Parliament a vote, but it was thanks to Michael Martin that we were given a meaningful choice.

Like you, Mr Speaker, I extend my sympathies to Mary, their children and their grandchildren, but we should do more than that. We should remind the Martin family that in this Palace of Westminster, because of the efforts of Michael Martin, their family will always be welcome among our parliamentary family.

Business of the House

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I, too, pay tribute to the Prime Minister’s dedication this afternoon—it was a remarkable performance—but, with respect, she did not answer all the questions put to her. In particular, I asked her why she was not following the precedent set by David Cameron in 2011 in respect of the intervention in Libya by granting the House a vote on an amendable motion. That is surely the precedent that should be followed. Why are the Government so resistant to it?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Prime Minister alluded to the 2016 written ministerial statement that set out the position in terms of the need to take urgent action for humanitarian relief. He might also be aware that the previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, has supported the action taken by the Prime Minister for the reasons given.

Treatment of House of Commons Staff

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The House Commission meets next Monday; I will be making that recommendation there, and the investigation will start as soon as possible.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I think it is a matter of common accord that the House is exceptionally well served by the Clerk staff, so I hope it goes without saying that these complaints require to be investigated with rigour, in a comprehensive way and independently. Mr Speaker, when you and I first entered the House, it was almost entirely self-regulating. The position today is very different, but that change has been piecemeal. What is now required is a proper comprehensive reconsideration of the question of parliamentary privilege and self-regulation. I welcome the short independent inquiry that the Leader of the House seeks to establish, but once that is done she should apply her mind to revisiting the work of the Joint Committee set up in 1998 to look at the question of the extent and definition of parliamentary privilege.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting observation, and I will certainly look into it.

Government Policy on the Proceedings of the House

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Government’s policy in relation to the proceedings of this House.

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing today’s debate to take place, and I thank hon. and right hon. Members from other parties who were in the Chamber yesterday to demonstrate the will of the House in the manner required under Standing Order No. 24. I should also like to acknowledge the role of Government business managers in extending our sitting hours today to accommodate this debate alongside the other business of the day.

We have already had two statements, an urgent question and a ten-minute rule motion, and there remains important business to follow, so I want to come as quickly as possible to the substance of the matter. But it is worth briefly reminding the House why this matter is considered to be both urgent and important, as required by Standing Order No. 24.

As I explained to the House yesterday, the House had its first day for Opposition motions on Wednesday 13 September, on which the two topics for debate were public sector pay and student tuition fees. Ministers and Back Benchers spoke vigorously in opposition to both motions, but when the questions were put, no voices were raised in opposition and both motions passed unanimously. The next day, the political commentator Paul Waugh—we would say his name slightly differently in Scotland—described the situation thus in the Huffington Post:

“Crucially, that meant there was no vote recorded other than unanimous approval, and no way to say how individual MPs voted.”

He went on:

“And this was no one-off. In a significant shift in the way the Government treats the Commons, Tory sources told me they have decided not to oppose any future Opposition Day motions. In other words, MPs can say whatever they like but as long as there’s a non-binding motion, the PM will tell her troops to give a collective ‘meh’. Government whips will instead focus on turning out the numbers for ‘votes that matter’, ie on legislation such as Brexit bills.”

That position, he later says,

“reduces all Opposition Days to mere debating society events, with no consequence.”

Mr Waugh is quite right in his assessment of the policy—if it is, in fact, Government policy. It was for that reason that I sought to raise the matter with the Leader of the House at business questions on 14 September. Her answer, I confess, was slightly less than reassuring:

“The right hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he reads in the press.”

That is good advice, and it is a lesson that we probably all learned some time ago, but it is something less than, or short of, the full-throated denial that one might have hoped for in the circumstances. The Leader of the House went on to make some comments about the debates that were not really relevant to the question, but she finished by saying:

“There is no question but that this Government continue to fully engage in Opposition day debates.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 997.]

The House needs to hear from the Leader of the House today what was meant by her words “fully engage”. Does she mean that the Government will do as their predecessors have done—engage in debate, agree where they agree, oppose where they do not and bring amendments where they wish to—or does she mean that the Government will, as Mr Waugh so memorably puts it, tell the troops to give this House “a collective ‘meh’”?

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a significant point about the importance of engaging in debates. Can he tell the House how many Liberal Democrats took part in the debate on the very important Finance Bill on 12 September? Could he confirm that it was none?

[Mr Carmichael]

I can see how this is going to proceed, and it will not be as I might have hoped. I had hoped we might raise the debate a little bit higher than that. The hon. and learned Lady is well aware that there are 12 Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament sitting in this Parliament, and if she cares to consult the record she will find that we play a full and constructive part in the proceedings of this House.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

To be fair, I can see that there is a decent turnout of Liberal Democrats today. However, in the important debate about the national health service to which the right hon. Gentleman specifically refers, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is their health spokesman, confirmed—I am quoting here from Hansard—that he was the “sole Liberal Democrat present” in the debate and felt it his “duty to intervene”. So in a debate in which the Government were fully engaged, only one Liberal Democrat could be bothered to turn up in Parliament.

[Mr Carmichael]

I can almost read the Whips’ brief that has gone round about the Opposition day debates—“Don’t make this about the Government, because this is not strong territory for the Government. Make it all about the Liberal Democrats or the opposition parties.” With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, whom I like and regard as a friend in many senses of the word, if not the political one, I am not going to play his game. Today’s debate is the Government’s opportunity to tell the House clearly and unambiguously how they intend to approach their business for the duration of this Parliament.

There is a further context to the Government’s approach on 14 September that the House should bear in mind. On Monday 11 September, they brought forward the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, including some quite remarkable Henry VIII powers, which many in this House and beyond see as a marginalisation of Parliament. On Tuesday 12 September, they brought to this House a motion to give themselves a majority on all Public Bill Committees, contrary to all previous practice in this House and the formula relied on for many years.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I have a lot of sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but he must not say that that applies to all Bill Committees, because he well knows that that is not the case if there are equal numbers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

Indeed, but the hon. Gentleman will be perfectly well aware that the House has for many years used a formula under which the Government would have been entitled at best to a balanced Committee, while in all other respects the majority would have been with the Opposition parties.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Stitched up.

[Mr Carmichael]

Indeed—stitched up, as the hon. Gentleman says.

The Government did that on 12 September on the basis that the confidence and supply agreement that they had struck with the Democratic Unionist party gave them a working majority in the House. Unfortunately, that working majority was not in evidence when it came to the Opposition day debates the next day.

It is worth noting in passing that the Opposition day debates on 13 September were the first to be held since Parliament reassembled after the general election—some 27 sitting days, to be exact. In 2015 the same gap was 13 sitting days, in 2010 it was 16 and in 2005 it was 12. We would have to go back to the early days of the Labour Government in 1997 to find a comparable figure, although I suggest that it is worth considering the nature and volume of legislation that was dealt with in the early days of that Parliament compared with what we have had since 8 June.

Our system relies on a delicate combination of checks and balances. The best Governments—and if ever there was a time in our country’s history when we needed the best possible Government, this is surely it—are those that are tested by Parliament, by the Opposition parties and by their own Back Benchers. Time and again, our system fails when the Government and the Opposition agree and arguments remain untested. How different might the debates on the case for going to war in Iraq in 2002 and 2003 have been if the then Opposition had been prepared to take a more questioning approach to Tony Blair’s case? I am sad to say that this Government, however, do not welcome scrutiny by Parliament, but rather seek to avoid it.

The issues before the House on 13 September were questions of substantial significance. If they are issues on which the Government do not command a majority in this House, then the Government should not get their way. The Prime Minister went to the country in June seeking a larger majority than the one she had, but the people of Britain denied her such a majority. However difficult that may make life for her and her colleagues, the verdict of the people on 8 June ought to be respected in this House. It is the job of all of us in this House to ensure that it is, and Opposition day debates are one important way in which that should be done. Occasionally, it is possible for the Government and the Opposition to agree on a motion and for it to be passed without a Division. Until now, there have been very few examples of a motion being disputed in debate, but still passing without a Division.

Very rarely, the Government of the day are defeated in a Division. In my time in the House, that was most memorably accomplished in 2009, when the rights of Gurkha soldiers who had served the Crown to settle in the UK was at issue. Matters came to a head on 29 April 2009, when on a motion from the Conservative party in opposition the then Labour Government were defeated. It is worth going back and reading the Hansard of that debate. It is apparent, even just reading the words on paper, that that debate meant something. That debate was more than just a debate; it was a vehicle for righting a wrong and a vehicle for change.

We have all heard it said over the years that Parliament has increasingly been marginalised by the Executive. A series of large majorities given to the Conservative and Labour parties has undoubtedly contributed to that process, but this Parliament should be different. Not because you or I say it should be different, Mr Speaker, but because the people of the United Kingdom at the ballot box on 8 June said that it should be different.

In one sense, the Government have done us a favour by bringing this issue to a head, because it forces us as a House to decide what our role in the future of this country is going to be. Is it to be an active participant, with a strong voice and a decisive say, or is it to be a supine bystander as the Government continue to do as they wish, regardless of their lack of a mandate and, as is increasingly obvious, their lack of authority.

I have been a member of many debating societies over the years. They have all been fine organisations that provided entertainment and mental stimulation in equal measure. I mean them therefore no disrespect when I say that I stood for Parliament believing I was doing something more significant than signing up for a debating society. The difference is that in Parliament—in this House —we can actually effect change. Whether we choose to do so is in our own hands.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I am grateful to you for calling me early in the debate, Mr Speaker. I will reciprocate what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said about me—I have been friendly with him, except perhaps in a political sense—but I think he rather overstates his case. Let me run through his argument. First, he describes a particular decision about two particular Opposition day debates, and suggests that that will be the Government’s practice going forward. The only evidence that he presents is a single tweet by a single political journalist, quoting unnamed sources about the Government’s behaviour going forward. It seems to me that the practice has been—it certainly was when I was Government Chief Whip—to consider what we do about Opposition day motions on a case-by-case basis.

[Mr Carmichael]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There have been only those two debates so far. It was for that reason that, at business questions on 14 September, I gave the Leader of the House the opportunity to refute what was in the Huffington Post article. Had she chosen to do so, we would not be here today.

[Mr Harper]

First, I do not think it is reasonable to expect my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to comment on every single newspaper report or tweet that comments about—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

Of course, it was technically the decision of this House to have the early election. The Prime Minister brought the motion before the House but— thanks to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which I had a little hand in—it was, of course, the decision of the House to have the election.

My point stands. There were three opportunities when the House could have voted down the regulations. The Opposition had the time and chose not to debate them. The point is that the regulations had already come into force when the House was faced with the debate on 13 September, so voting against them would have had no practical effect. It would have been a completely pointless exercise to have a vote that would have had no effect. It is not, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, the House being a talking shop. Procedures about when we have to vote on secondary legislation are set out in the statutory instruments legislation and the parent Acts; those time limits had expired. That is the Opposition’s fault because they had three opportunities in January when they could have used their time to debate the matter, but they chose not to do so.

[Mr Carmichael]

If, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, a vote is a nonsense, surely that is an argument for going ahead with it, not for avoiding it.

[Mr Harper]

No, no. I do not follow that at all. The point is that the vote would have had no practical effect because the regulations had already come into force and the time limit for revoking them had passed. That was the Opposition’s responsibility, not the Government’s.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will not give way to the hon. Lady again.

In addition to the Opposition day debates, there has already been an emergency debate on tuition fees, as well as Government statements, urgent questions from the Opposition and Westminster Hall debates on those subjects.

The Government take their duties in this House very seriously, but I am afraid that those Opposition day motions were meant for party political point scoring. Labour has form in promising everything but not delivering. The party misled students before the general election when the Leader of the Opposition said he would deal with student debt—a £100 billion commitment—only for his shadow Education Secretary to have to admit following the election that that was just an aspiration. Aspirations are not good enough; it is deeds that matter. It is only this Government—a Conservative Government—who can be trusted to deliver strong public services while sorting out the disastrous public finances left to us by Labour.

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will not.

Do the Opposition even understand why the country has £1.7 trillion of debt?

[Mr Carmichael]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way at last. What the House needs to hear from her is whether the votes on 13 September were one-offs, or if we should expect routinely and frequently to hear from the Government that, when they are going to lose a vote, they will simply avoid that by avoiding a Division

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Gentleman will obviously want to check his Twitter account for the answer to that one, since he checked it for the initial answer. The Government take these issues extremely serious. I am trying to explain why we chose not to vote on those political point scoring Opposition day motions.

To this day, I hear Labour suggesting that austerity is a choice or that we have deliberately increased public sector debt, but the fact is that in Labour’s last year in office, the Treasury spent £153 billion more than it received in taxes. The House will recall the note left by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) saying that there was no money left, which was a painfully honest statement from a Labour politician. In the seven years since, we have managed to reduce that overspend from £153 billion a year to £45 billion last year, but it is that annual overspend that increases debt, which now stands at £65,000 per household in this country. The only way to start tackling the debt is by first getting rid of the overspend. If we do not tackle it, it will be our children and grandchildren who will pay, but we do not hear Labour telling young people these truths.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

This debate purports to be about an important issue. It accuses the Government of the day of flouting the rules of Parliament and it is true that if that were the case, it would be fundamentally objectionable, because we live in a parliamentary democracy, where Parliament makes the laws that regulate our society, and the rule of law provides that no one is above the law, including parliamentarians. It is not the Conservative party that threatens the rule of law; it is the Labour party, because Labour members have, time and time again, stated that they would condone the flouting of our laws, passed in this Chamber. They would condone illegal strikes supported by the trade unions. It is the shadow Chancellor, not Members on the Government Benches, who has threatened the rule of law and our democracy.

This is a debate about procedure, but it is not just a debate about procedure; it is also a debate where the premise is flawed. There is an objection that the Government do not vote on Opposition days, but as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who applied for the debate, knows––having been part of the coalition Government that brought in Backbench Business debates—there is great value in debating important matters that affect the lives of our constituents without a binding vote or a commitment to take immediate action. Indeed, he is using a procedure in this debate, in this House today, which will have no substantive result other than the airing in public of this issue.

[Mr Carmichael]

The objection is not to the fact that the Government did not call the Division; it is that, not having called the Division, they do not then follow the will of the House; and indeed, that now it is apparently to be the Government policy to do so routinely. Does the hon. and learned Lady really not think that obnoxious?

[Lucy Frazer]

It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman says the Government did not follow the will of the House. In the debate on public sector pay, the Government said very clearly that they would be flexible on that. Since that debate, the Prison Service and the police have had a pay increase, so it is completely inaccurate to say that the Government are not listening to the will of the House.

This is the third debate on procedure in which I have taken part in in two years and I have learned that other parties seem to value form over substance. They seem to value debating procedure rather than the issues at stake. In the previous Parliament, I had the honour of sitting on the Investigatory Powers Public Bill Committee. In that Committee, we spent much time at the outset listening to arguments from Opposition Members that there was insufficient time to debate the issues. However, looking at the record of those proceedings I can see that on Second Reading, 53 Conservatives contributed as against 13 for Labour, and that on Report, there were 43 Conservative contributions, as against 13 from Labour.

When I knock on doors, not one voter suggests to me that we should spend more time in this House on procedural matters about past debates. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has brought a three-hour debate before this House at a time when there are many more important issues facing our country, such as Brexit—[Hon. Members: “He applied for it.”] He applied for it and Mr Speaker agreed to it. But the issues facing our country are Brexit, the economy, the NHS and education, issues that affect the daily lives of our constituents. It is those issues our constituents want us to discuss and not the procedure of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine]

I would agree with the hon. Gentleman were it not for the fact that what he was doing was party political game playing rather than listening to the Opposition. Surely the point of an Opposition day debate is that the Government listen to a view other than their own. That is the view of the electorate—they think that we are here to serve them, rather than to play games. If they had tuned in on the 13th, they would have seen a Government simply paying lip service to the question with no intention of taking anything on board or of allowing any credence to be given to the debate, lest it should challenge their established view.

[Mr Carmichael]

On that point, when the Government agree at least partially with an Opposition motion, it is open to them to table an amendment. They chose not to do so last month.

[Christine Jardine]

Indeed. Why should such behaviour encourage any kind of faith in the political process—“Yes, we’ll let you have your say, yes you can have a vote, but we won’t take any notice of what you say”? Where is the democracy, where is the scrutiny and where is the respect for those who elected us? They surely deserve better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

With the leave of the House, I shall say a few words. I would not often expect to say this, but it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). There was much in his speech with which I had little difficulty agreeing with. On the question of a business bureau for the House, again, that was in the Wright report. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman, however, that to proceed with that without looking at other areas of House procedure that require reform would not be sensible. There is a strong case for revisiting the remaining work to be done in respect of the Wright report.

[Chris Bryant]

Something suddenly springs to my mind. Was not the right hon. Gentleman the Lib Dem Chief Whip who prevented the parliamentary bureau from coming into force?

[Mr Carmichael]

Indeed, I was part of the Government then—I was the deputy Chief Whip at the time. That was a decision taken by Government as a whole. Of course I was part of that, as were other Ministers.

Others have said that this debate was unnecessary. On one view, I am not without sympathy for that opinion. The debate could have been avoided if the Leader of the House had given us a clear steer on Government policy when I raised this matter with her on 14 September at business questions. She could have denied that it was Government policy to avoid Divisions that they would lose and then to ignore the decision of the House on non-binding motions. She chose on 14 September not to do so. She was given the opportunity again today to deny that this was the Government’s policy. She chose again not to do so. If she wishes to intervene on me now to be clear, I will take her intervention.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think I have been clear. The Government look case by case, and voting is a matter for the House. What the right hon. Gentleman is looking for is an assurance that those on the Government Benches will always oppose Opposition—

[Mr Carmichael]

indicated dissent.

[Andrea Leadsom]

That is exactly what he is after, so that he can write his press releases. We will look, case by case, at Opposition motions and make decisions accordingly.

[Mr Carmichael]

I can assure the House that it has been some years since I wrote my own press releases. What I want is an assurance that where the House reaches a decision—this is the point that the hon. Member for Wellingborough made—that decision will be acted on and respected by the Government. We have had no assurance on that point for the third time today. The House will draw its own conclusion from that failure to deny.

From any Minister of the Crown, that would be regrettable. It pains me to say that, from the Leader of the House, who is supposed to be the House’s representative in Government, it is a dereliction of her duties. Those on the Treasury Bench can continue to avoid this issue if they wish, but if they do, it will keep coming back. Inevitably, because this is a democracy, the day will come when they are sitting on the Opposition Benches and somebody else is sitting where they are now. I fear that it is only then that they will understand the damage that they are doing to our House and our constitution now.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Government's policy in relation to the proceedings of this House.

[Mr Speaker]

We shall shortly be proceeding to the next business, and I am keenly anticipating that, in a matter only of moments, the Clerk will proceed to read the Orders of the Day. However, in order for us properly to proceed with that business, there is a requirement for the presence of relevant Ministers and shadow Ministers, and—for I am not casting aspersions—there is also a requirement for an occupant of the Chair, as the House will be sitting in Committee and the Speaker does not chair the proceedings in Committee, as Members will know. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) is gesticulating in a very gentle way from a sedentary position that the Minister is present on the Treasury Bench, and I am happy to acknowledge that. [Interruption.] The occupant of the Chair is here and I think others are also here. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Business of the House

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising what is a very important point in his usual way. Hurricane Irma, which sparks his question, is an unprecedented disaster, and it was absolutely right that the UK responded immediately to the needs of people affected. That was our primary focus, and it continues to be our priority. We are now looking at how the current overseas aid rules apply to such disasters.

So that all hon. Members are aware, the Prime Minister announced yesterday that a further £15 million of assistance for the overseas territories has been committed, on top of the £32 million already committed last week. We have already deployed more than 1,000 military personnel to the area and we have sent more than 40 tonnes of aid. There is no lack in the UK’s assistance for these people who have been devastated by this awful natural disaster.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

On Tuesday evening, the Leader of the House justified the changes to Standing Orders on the basis of the Government having, in her words, a “working majority.” That working majority was not much in evidence yesterday afternoon, when the Government sat on their hands on two motions. We now read that that is to be the Government’s approach to all Opposition day debates. Can she tell us whether that is the case? I remind her that, without Opposition day debates and the insistence of her party, the situation on Gurkha immigration status would never have been resolved. Does she really understand the danger of what she is doing to our parliamentary procedures?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he reads in the press. As I said to the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the subjects of yesterday’s two debates, public sector pay and tuition fees, are very serious issues that the Government have been looking at. We have provided information to the House, and we have had debates and comprehensive statements in this Chamber. The policies are very clear. These are very serious issues, and Government Members participated fully, matching the number of Opposition speakers—there were as many speakers as were permitted. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) was not even called because there was not enough time for his contribution to be heard. There is no question but that this Government continue to fully engage in Opposition day debates.

Nomination of Members to Committees

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

Scrutiny by the House is of vital importance—the hon. Lady makes a very good point—and it has long been established that the Opposition must have time to scrutinise Government business, but it is also well understood that the Government of the day must have a realistic opportunity of making progress with getting their business through the House. The motion that the House is being asked to agree guarantees that the party with a working majority is able to do exactly that.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The Leader of the House keeps referring to having a working majority. For the purposes of this Parliament, the Government have a working majority only for matters of confidence and supply. Matters of confidence and supply are not committed to Public Bill Committees; they are dealt with on the Floor of the House. In Committees, the Government should not have—because they do not have in this House—a working majority.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government do have a working majority on the Floor of the House, and as they are extensions of the Floor of this House, it is right that the Government must be able to have a realistic opportunity of getting their business through Committees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Lady knows that that is far above my pay grade. I do not think that secret deals have been done, but I do know this: the Government have commanded a majority in the House on the basis of the 17 votes connected with Government business.

I have been good-natured this evening, because I want the debate to be good-natured. I take being Chairman of the Procedure Committee incredibly seriously, and if at any time I felt that the Government were doing something untoward, I would hold them to account, as I have done time and again in the House. I say genuinely to Opposition Members that I really do not understand what the upset is.

[Mr Carmichael]

May I presume from what the Chairman of the Procedure Committee says that he will join us in the Lobby to support my amendment? If it were passed, the Government would of course still have a majority on the Selection Committee, but would just have to use it in accordance with the procedures of the House as they have always been accepted. Why is that objectionable?

[Mr Walker]

Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said is objectionable. I will not be joining him in the Lobby, but not because I find what he is proposing objectionable—I just happen to disagree with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I rise to speak to the amendment standing in my name and in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), as he is a man whom I hold in very high regard. I served with him in the coalition Government for five years as a Minister. Indeed, for part of that time, I sat beside him at the Cabinet table. Therefore, with substantial regret, I say that what he has just given us was not his finest contribution. What he described was some sort of parliamentary game-playing or sport. When he spoke about the functions of Opposition, he missed out the most important one. The most important job that we as Opposition Members of this Parliament have to do is scrutiny, which is why the composition of the Committees to which we commit Bills upstairs matters. That is why it is, in fact, a matter of quite fundamental principle.

I think that we might all acknowledge that, from time to time in this House, we indulge in a little bit of hyperbole, occasionally even straying into polemic. I think of some of the matters that the right hon. Gentleman and I opposed during the years of the Blair-Brown Government. One example is when they tried to extend detention without charge to 90 days. I remember also the passage of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. He and I and others described them then as constitutional outrages—it was a “power grab” and an “affront to democracy”. I may even on occasion have indulged in a small measure of hyperbole and rhetoric myself. [Hon. Members: “No!”] We all do it. I am reminded that when Paddy Ashdown was leader of my party, it was a joke popular among other parties—obviously not to me or the media at the time—that the message on his answering machine was, “Thank you for calling Paddy Ashdown. I am not able to take your call. Please leave your message after the high moral tone.” We have all done it, but the difficulty that is caused by relying on rhetoric and hyperbole is that it is difficult then to know what to say when we come across a proposal such as that which the Government bring to the House today. I can describe it as others have done as a “constitutional outrage”. I can say, as others have done, that it is an affront to democracy. However, to say that suggests that that is somehow just the same as those measures that we have previously described in those terms, but it is not. It is much worse. It is an obnoxious measure for which I know of no precedent in my time in the House.

In this country, we do not have a written constitution. We proceed much of the time according to the process of convention and principle, and so it is also for the ordering of our proceedings in this House. Here, too, we often rely on the process of convention and precedence. It is a delicate system of checks and balances. I am certainly not saying that it is one that is incapable of improvement. I have supported many improvements to it over the years, but we have to approach these matters in a rather more holistic manner than is being taken by the Government tonight. Once we start removing these checks and balances, we risk at least one of two things.

First, we can bring the machinery of Parliament to a grinding halt, and tonight the Government risk breaking our machinery beyond repair. The alternative prospect is that we raise the possibility of other parts of the system reacting in a way that is designed to compensate for our breaking of the checks and balances. It is known in this House, surely, that their lordships in the other place proceed on the basis of the Salisbury convention. They respect our right to be the superior Chamber because we have the democratic mandate from the voters. Now, if we are not going to demonstrate respect for the democratically reached decision of the voters, how can we expect their lordships at the other end of the building to do so?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Quite a number of peers, including Liberal Democrat peers, have questioned whether the Salisbury-Addison convention applies. Lib Dem peers have said that they do not feel bound by it as they had nothing to do with it when it was agreed in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

That is indeed the case. My party was not party to the discussions that resulted in the convention and have not felt themselves to be bound by it. But it remains the fact that it is something on which the majority within their lordships’ House have proceeded until this time, and which continues to be the case to this day.

It is a fundamental principle of this House that the composition of Committees should reflect the composition of the House. That means that if the Government have a majority in the House, they will have a majority in Committees. It goes beyond that. On matters where we decide things by way of a free vote and the matter then goes upstairs to a Public Bill Committee, the composition of that Committee reflects the vote of the House here. That is the most fundamental principle that we have, and I use these terms advisedly. It is not a convenience, nor something that is just here to be discarded when it becomes difficult or messy. It is absolutely fundamental to the way in which we do and have always done our business.

The Prime Minister went to the country. She asked for a bigger majority. She was denied it. She was returned as the largest party and that offered her a number of different options: she could have sought to govern as a minority; she could have entered into a coalition and got a majority that way; or she could have entered into a confidence and supply arrangement. She chose to take the latter approach. As a consequence, she has a majority on the Floor of the House for matters of confidence and supply. Matters of confidence and supply do not go upstairs to Public Bill Committees. They are dealt with on the Floor of this House. So it is simply wrong for the Leader of the House to assert—as she has done tonight along with others on the Treasury Bench and Government Benches—that the Government have a working majority. Beyond confidence and supply matters, they do not.

[Mr Harper]

I do not like disagreeing with the right hon. Gentleman, but he is just wrong. I have looked at the agreement. It does not just cover confidence and supply. This is rather pertinent given how much legislation there will be. It also covers matters pertaining to the country’s exit from the European Union and legislation pertaining to national security. So the agreement is much wider, and Brexit will be a big chunk of the legislative agenda of this Parliament.

[Mr Carmichael]

The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that constitutional matters such as the question of the future of our membership of the European Union are also dealt with on the Floor of the House, so although the agreement may go slightly further than that which is normally understood by the terms of confidence and supply, it is not a comprehensive deal that gives the Government a majority on the Floor of the House. If it were, the Democratic Unionists would not be on the Bench behind me; they would be on the other side of the House on the Government Benches.

There is no direct precedent for this. There has been talk in this debate about the position that pertained relating to the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979. The clear distinction—this is an important point, of which the House should not be ignorant—is that, on that occasion, when the country was asked to choose a Government, it chose a Labour Government by a very narrow majority. That Government started with a majority—something the present Government simply do not have. I do not like what the Harrison motion did. My party opposed it then, as we oppose this measure tonight, but let us not pretend that it is somehow the same thing.

That takes me back to my quarrel with the right hon. Member for West Dorset. Surely, in advancing a change as profound as this, there has to be something more substantial by way of argument to support it than, “They did it when they were in government.”

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

As the right hon. Gentleman says, we have had a long period of co-operation, and he was a fine Minister. However, did he not notice that my argument was actually that this proposal is necessary for the smooth conduct of business, subject to a clear check on the Floor of the House on Report? Does he not agree that, under those circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable for a Government to seek to govern the country smoothly?

[Mr Carmichael]

Of course it is reasonable for a Government to seek to govern the country smoothly, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to think that what happens in Committee is just some administrative inconvenience. It is not; it is much more fundamental than that. It is the job of this House—not just the Opposition—to hold the Government to account. That is why I say to right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side, many of whom I hold in high regard, and many of whom I regard as personal friends, that they know that what they are doing tonight is wrong. They also know that if it was being done to them, they would oppose it root and branch.

We know why the Treasury Bench—the payroll—will support this measure, but those on the Back Benches have a duty that is higher than their duty to their party: it is their duty to their constituents and to this House —their duty to democracy. I ask them to consider that duty before they go into the Lobby this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

No. I am taking a leaf out of the shadow Leader of the House’s book.

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Bone]

Of course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman misrepresents the case that is being made on this side of the House. We are not saying that this side of the House has a majority; we are saying that his side of the House does not.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. I was surprised that the official Opposition had not tabled an amendment to the motion, which I could have supported and I think he could have supported. I do not agree with his amendment because it simply removes part of the motion. A sensible amendment would have instructed the Selection Committee to ensure parity on all Public Bill Committees. What the Bill actually says is that if a Committee has an even number of Members, there will be parity. The simple answer would therefore be to ensure that all Committees had an even number of Members, but Labour did not table such an amendment.

[Mr Carmichael]

The effect of my amendment would be perfectly simple. It would allow the Government to have their majority on the Selection Committee but thereafter to use the rules that we have always used. Why does the hon. Gentleman think he should be allowed to change the rules simply because they do not suit him?

[Mr Bone]

That is somewhat unfair, Mr Speaker, because you know that that is not what I would do if I thought the House was being done down by the Executive. In fact, I would be the first one to complain about it. It seems to me that the result of the election means that we should have parity on Public Bill Committees, and that could have been achieved by a simple amendment, which I would have supported. That did not happen, however.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

This has been a very entertaining debate in many ways. It is quite germane because, although a lot of people around the country may not understand the niceties of statutory instruments, secondary legislation and the myriad different things we do in this place, they want us to govern efficiently in their name.

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Fysh]

I will not give way at the moment because we are short of time.

The reality is that if the Opposition were to succeed in gumming up the system completely using legislation that they do not agree with, we would not have time in this place for all the other ambitions that the people of this country have. That is why it is absolutely in their interests and the public interest for this motion to be passed this evening.

I want to say on behalf of the people of Yeovil— the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned the high moral tone of a previous MP for the area—that they have ambitions other than Brexit, but they also want the Brexit vote to be respected, rather than for the system to be gummed up. That, in short, is why I will vote for the motion.

Business of the House

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend raises a point that I think we have all read about in the newspapers and that would certainly be worthy of debate. I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate. A Back-Bench debate in the first instance would be very important.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

This week my postbag has been swollen by a large number of very well-written letters from the pupils of Whiteness Primary School in Shetland, who have been studying the topic of slavery, especially child slavery, across the world. Given that general debates seem now to be finding fashion with the business managers, will the Leader of the House make time available to discuss how we, as a country that meets the 0.7% overseas target, might do more to tackle this across the globe?

[Andrea Leadsom]

Of course, it was this Government who introduced an Act that seeks to stamp out human slavery. We take a world-leading role in stamping out modern slavery. The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we do commit to overseas development aid, which goes in great part to supporting efforts to stamp out human slavery. He raises an incredibly important point. I am certainly sympathetic to it and will raise it with the Chief Whip.

Strathclyde Review

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

There is always a case for modernisation in a parliamentary or constitutional process, and that should continue to be the case. None the less, the long-standing traditions of this House and of our constitutional arrangements provide a bedrock to how this country is governed and how this country works, which makes it admired around the world, and it should continue to be so.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am afraid that, yet again, when we need comprehensive review and reform, the Government are offering us piecemeal change. I deeply regret how this matter has been brought forward. The Leader of the House speaks of this as if it is something for the Government alone. It is not; this concerns Parliament as a whole. If change is to be required, it must be owned by Parliament as a whole. This matter was last dealt with in 2006 in a Joint Committee report on recommendations. The Leader of the House threatens to drive a coach and horses through that. If he is to achieve anything, he will need to reconstitute some sort of Joint Committee between this House and the other place; otherwise all his efforts will come to naught.

[Chris Grayling]

I am not trying to drive anything through this House. We are considering a report that has been produced by a senior and respected member of the House of Lords with an expert panel that is drawn from some of the most experienced past officials of this House—people who have great knowledge of parliamentary process. He has brought forward a series of recommendations for us to consider, which we will duly do. Those recommendations will be discussed again in this House when the Government make clear their own view about which option to take. It seems that that is an entirely right and proper way to do this.