Standing Orders (Public Business)
Alistair Carmichael Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
I studied the hon. Gentleman’s amendment carefully. There are two problems with it, or two reasons why our approach is right. First, it prejudges the length of the Session. We have not announced the length of the Session. Opposition Members will remember that the first Session of the last Parliament was two years long. Therefore, in some circumstances, his proposal would extend the trial period rather than reduce it. We do not know the date of the end of the Session, so it is difficult to commit to a pilot of that length.
Secondly, if the Session does finish next spring, we will not even, in my judgment, be able to test to the level recommended by the Procedure Committee, because not enough Bills to which these procedures apply would have been laid before the House. I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making but, with respect, I think the approach we have taken is better and I intend to stick to it.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday in the other place, Lord Butler of Brockwell described the process that he is outlining to the House as one whereby,
“We will jump over the cliff and grab a bush on the way down so that we can review our decision about whether we were right to do so”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 October 2015; Vol. 765, c. 750.]
Why is the Leader of the House so resistant to the proposal from the other place that we should have a Joint Committee of both Houses to establish the best way of moving forward and building a consensus?
Chris Grayling
I cannot agree to the message from the House of Lords or amendment (a), which was tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North—I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, as he knows, and for the House of Lords—and I invite the House not to do so. To do so would be to remove this process from the first Session of this Parliament. We would not be able to trial the measures until the second Session. That would be a direct contravention of our manifesto commitment to introduce the measure within the first 100 days. It would also invite the House of Lords to be directly involved in shaping the Standing Orders of this House—something that would require pretty extensive debate here before we did it. I think many Members would doubt that that was the right thing to do.
I do recognise the concerns in the other place about constitutional change. I have therefore written to the Chair of the Lords Constitution Committee in response to those concerns. I am grateful that the Committee has responded to say that it has agreed to undertake its own review of the impact of the proposals, including their effect on the House of Lords and their wider implications for the constitution as a whole. I hope that the work of that Committee and of the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee will complement each other, that they will work in partnership in this area and that they will make recommendations ahead of the review that I have committed to carry out next year. I hope that we will also receive work from the other Committees in that time.
I therefore ask the House to reject amendment (a) and graciously to decline the request from the Lords. However, I want to send the clear message to the Lords—indeed, I have already done so—that I want their input.
Mr Alistair Carmichael
On the point about justiciability, is the hon. Gentleman aware of the views of Lord Hope of Craighead, a former Lord President of the Court of Session and Justice of the Supreme Court, who addressed that very point in the other place last night and said that the procedures would be subject to judicial scrutiny?
Mr Walker
There are thousands of lawyers in this country, and they all have different views—that is how they earn a living. I am sure that Lord Hope’s views are sincerely held, but I disagree with them, as I am sure does my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who served with such distinction on the Committee. Is he seeking to intervene?
Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), who speaks with great experience.
One of the challenges of this debate is to understand where we are coming from and our different constituencies. Some of those who come from other parts of the UK fail to understand the strength of feeling on the doorsteps of England.
Mr Alistair Carmichael
If that is the case, surely the hon. Gentleman’s constituents deserve something better. What is being offered to his constituents today is something that could be turned back again by a future Government if they felt the need.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am grateful to take part in the third debate on this matter. What we are discussing today is the third version of the Government’s proposals, which, regrettably, are still inviting us to do the wrong thing, and have identified the wrong way in which to do it. I am resigned to the fact that the Government will not listen to me or to anyone else on the Opposition Benches. None the less, I say to the Deputy Leader of the House, who is in her place, that she might do well to listen to some of her own colleagues in the other place. She should consider the contributions that were made by Lord Lang of Monkton and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. What Lord Forsyth said goes to the heart of this matter:
“I really do think that constitutional change should carry consensus. If we proceed on the basis that we think it would be a good wheeze to make a constitutional change or that it might advantage one party or another, then other parties will do the same when they are in power. As a result, people will lose faith in the integrity of the institution and it will be greatly damaged.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 October 2015; Vol. 765, c. 759.]
I have been involved in active politics for more than 30 years, and it is the first time that I have ever quoted with approval the noble Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, but these are clearly extraordinary times. The Minister and all those on the Government Front Bench should listen with some care to what he and others who know about this are saying.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman says that we should listen. Let me say something that I have said before to him in this Chamber. The fact is that both of us greatly value the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but we must address the simple fact that my constituents in South Leicestershire have repeatedly told me both before and after the election that they want a greater say in their own affairs. This is about fairness.
Mr Carmichael
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that his constituents are absolutely entitled to that and they should get it. I just do not think that what the Government have brought forward today offers that. It does nothing to address the fact that the people of England are still served by a model of government that is outdated and highly centralised, with everything being controlled from Whitehall. These proposals do absolutely nothing to change that.
On the question of taxation and Barnett consequentials, Lord Forsyth said that the proposals risk driving a further wedge between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) is sincere when he says that he is committed to the continuation of that Union, so I invite him to take a pause, have a think and look at this matter in its totality. That is why the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) is so important.
The message from the Lords invites us to set up a Joint Committee. That is a sensible way to proceed. I do not understand the position of the Leader of the House. He says that it is wrong for us to consult the other place, but at the same time he has invited, and has had an acceptance from, the Chairman of the Constitution Committee in the House of Lords to be part of a review. Yet again the Government and the Leader of the House in particular are seeking to have their cake and eat it.
The Leader of the House had said that this was not about creating an English Parliament within the UK Parliament, but then today in answer to a question he said that it was in fact devolution for England. It is no such thing. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire is right that his constituents deserve to have the same benefits of devolution that mine have had since 1999.
I reiterate the concerns previously expressed about the position of the Speaker being brought on to the field of play, which will be difficult for the holder of that office at any given time and will be justiciable. Let me remind the House of exactly what Lord Hope of Craighead said last night. He needs better respect than has been given to him either by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee or the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).
Mr Carmichael
I have respect for the hon. Gentleman and am grateful for the extra time that he has given me, but he did not demonstrate the great respect that Lord Hope of Craighead deserves. Let me remind the House of what Lord Hope, a former justice in the Supreme Court and Lord President of the Court of Session for many years, said:
“I do not see how a Government can rely on legislation passed by this new procedure, which is subject to the risk of challenge in the courts, until the procedures have worked their way through the courts.”
He went on:
“The point is that so long as there is the risk of challenge, and the delay of waiting for the courts to resolve the issue, the legislation cannot be brought into effect, because of the risk of having to unravel everything if, by some mischance, it is declared to be invalid.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 October 2015; Vol. 765, c. 762.]
There must be an answer to that point before we go down the road that the Government invite us to take today.
I believe that England deserves better than this. If this is the major issue of the day, as Government Members have said, surely England deserves better than something that can be turned over in an afternoon by a future Government. If Members on the Government Benches genuinely want to empower their communities—I enjoin them to do so—they should do it in the way in which we were required to do it in Scotland and get together to build consensus and decide among themselves exactly what is required.
It seems to me that the Government have made these proposals in the way that they often do, on the basis that something has to be done. Those are the most dangerous words we will ever hear in Parliament and they normally precede something along the lines of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Something needs to be done, but that something should be better than this and I invite the House, when we divide today, at the very least to support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham North.
English Votes for English Laws
Alistair Carmichael Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
We intend that only very few Committees will be England-only; almost all will remain United Kingdom Committees, as now, as will almost all the statutory instrument Committees. It will be a matter for individual political parties whom they assign to Committees.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way; he is being generous with his time. May I help him out? In the past when this was discussed, it was suggested that it could be trialled, if it had to be trialled, on a single Bill. He tells the House that he has identified that Bill in the current programme. Instead of going forward with the full range of changes and all the infrastructure required for the Speaker’s Office, why does he not try it out on this one Bill? That would be a meaningful trial.
Chris Grayling
I am afraid I do not think that it would be a meaningful trial at all. We have a system that will apply to England-only Bills, to England and Wales-only Bills and to partial elements of Bills. It is important to try it out for a Session on things affected and then to have a review.
Mr Carmichael
It will not just apply to the single Bill; it will also apply to all the certified secondary legislation. It will require significant administrative infrastructure being put in place for the Speaker’s Office. If, after a year, we decide that this is not the way to go, what happens then?
Chris Grayling
I do not think we will decide after a year that we want to stop it altogether. We may decide to make changes to how it works or that things could be done differently, but I am not suggesting we would stop having any kind of a say for the English in 12 months. I am saying we will want to review how this works under the procedures of the House in 12 months and to take views from different sides on how it could, or whether it should, be different. I am not suggesting that in 12 months we should simply say, “Actually, we don’t think there should be fairness for the English at all.”
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, particularly to follow the maiden speech by the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas). In a debate that in many ways is about what it is to be part of the United Kingdom, it is fitting that the Member who represents the most southerly constituency in this House should be followed by the Member who represents the most northerly. The hon. Gentleman demonstrated a fine affection for his community, and I wish him well in his time here. I noted his description of himself as somebody who does “exactly what he is told”. I was Chief Whip for the Liberal Democrat party, which included his predecessor in the last Parliament, and nobody would ever have levelled that accusation at him. I hope that in time the hon. Gentleman will understand that sometimes the people who will tell him what to do will be those at home in St Ives, and on such occasions we must listen to those who are telling us what to do.
Let me start by accentuating a few positives. I join those who have commended the Leader of the House for turning today’s debate into a general debate. That is of enormous assistance to the House because it is already apparent from today’s proceedings and last week’s debate under Standing Order No. 24 that an enormous amount in these proposals still requires debate in the House.
I commend the shadow Leader of the House for seeking to proceed by building consensus. It seems to me that in neither of the debates so far have we heard anybody deny that there is a problem that requires a solution. In that context, it must surely be possible—if we are all acting in goodwill—to find a compromise and build a consensus that will allow us to go forward together. I am afraid, however, that we are not there yet, and the revised proposals from the Leader of the House bring us precious little closer to building that consensus than we were last week.
I commend the words of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) who spoke on behalf of the Scottish National party, and the House should listen in particular to two things that he said. First, he said that the Government are seeking to shoehorn an English Parliament into the United Kingdom House of Commons. That is a dangerous enterprise on which to embark, not least because it betrays a lot about the attitude of Government Members to this place. This cannot be regarded as a proxy English Parliament. If the people of England are to have a Parliament—I hope that they will have one, or some series of Parliaments or assemblies, or whatever—surely this should remain the United Kingdom Parliament and that principle should be inviolate.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was not in the business of saving the Union, and there will be little dissent about that. Let me tell the House—I hope it is accepted—that I am in the business of saving the Union, which is why I look on these proposals with genuine terror. These proposals and the language that they have already introduced to the debate are a genuine risk to the continuation of the United Kingdom. We have already heard in the debate today that it is “our issues and our votes” as opposed to “their issues and their votes”. That is the logical conclusion of a nationalist political analysis, but for a United Kingdom Parliament, it is a dangerous road down which to go.
Alberto Costa
Again, I make a similar point. My constituents in South Leicestershire repeatedly told me in the lead-up to the general election that they were unhappy with the status quo but that they did not want an English Parliament. They wanted simple fairness in the system. Will the right hon. Gentleman at least accept that these proposals go some way towards establishing fairness for the constituents of England?
Mr Carmichael
I will come to what the proposals do and what we can possibly do through the use of Standing Orders in a minute. As for this business that there is an unfairness but we only want to address it on our terms, the ship has sailed, I am afraid. We embarked on a process of devolution in 1999 that set up a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and, later, a Northern Ireland Assembly. More has been devolved to them and devolution has been good for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I want to see devolution for England, too, but it is about an awful lot more than simply what is on offer here.
The proposal is a curious beast that offers devolution within Parliament but not within the Executive. It does nothing to address the lack of proportionality in the representation of people in England and nothing about the virtual disfranchisement of 4 million people who voted for the UK Independence party, for whatever reason. It does nothing about the gross centralisation of power in England. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) should be talking to his constituents about all those things. If he does, in the same way as we did over a long time in Scotland, I think—
Mr Carmichael
I listened with courtesy to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) and I ask that he does the same for me.
If the hon. Member for South Leicestershire does the same as we did in Scotland to build consensus, his people will realise in time that what is being offered here is pretty small beer and that they deserve something better.
Alberto Costa
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. The truth is that he represents a constituency in Scotland, and I am also very familiar with the Scottish political environment, as he knows, but I represent a constituency in England and there is no appetite among my constituents for an English Parliament. I respect that his party has been a long-standing advocate of a federal United Kingdom, but these proposals merely go some way to meet the imbalance of Labour’s devolution and our devolved arrangements, which are clearly unbalanced and unfair. All that my constituents are seeking is a modicum of fairness, which is all that these policies establish.
Mr Carmichael
I do not doubt the good faith of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but essentially, if he stops and analyses it, he will realise that he is advancing an argument for English nationalism. The answer to Scottish nationalism is not English nationalism. In my view as a Liberal, it is federalism or Unionism, if he prefers to use different vocabulary. Ultimately, if he continues down this road, he risks putting a further stress on the Union. As the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire said quite candidly, from one point of view he could welcome the proposals because they advance the case for separating Scotland from the rest of England.
The hon. Member for South Leicestershire must realise that if we are to maintain and preserve the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom, proper constitutional reform across the whole of England is now absolutely necessary. As the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said from the Opposition Front Bench, we need a constitutional convention to build consensus, so that people in England can decide what they want. I do not know whether that will be an English Parliament, a series of assemblies or whatever else, but that debate has to be had.
I wish there were an easy way to build consensus, but there is not and I say to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire that, because of the sentiments he is hearing on the doorstep, that must be dealt with as a matter of urgency. For him to pretend to his constituents, as he apparently does, that this complex problem has a simple solution does nobody any favours and ultimately puts the Union of the United Kingdom at risk. This House risks tying itself up in knots by using Standing Orders to achieve a complex and sophisticated piece of constitutional architecture. As has been said, a Joint Committee would be a sensible way to build consensus.
My biggest concern as a Scottish MP is the way in which the proposal would affect spending decisions. I am afraid that the Leader of the House came dangerously close to indulging in sophistry when he said that they would be dealt with purely through estimates votes and that legislation would have no affect on that. I am struck by two things. First, it is long overdue that this House took a much more forensic approach towards estimates, because I think we are the only Parliament in the world that allows estimates to go through on the nod. Departmental budgets are approved with little scrutiny by the House. Secondly, any legislation passed this year will inevitably impact on estimates next year and the year after. The proposition that it is somehow possible to divorce spending from legislation does not stand up to scrutiny.
What are the people of England being offered by Conservative Members? Essentially, they are being told that they will have a veto on legislation, but that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Members will also be able to engage a veto on money and Ways and Means resolutions. This is a constitutional muddle, and that gives more force to the idea that we should be proceeding with more caution.
I reiterate the point I made in the previous debate that, if these vetoes are going to be in play, the Government need to look again at the operation of the Sewel convention and legislative consent motions for the Scottish Parliament. If English Members are to have a veto on legislation, Scotland ought to have one as well. There is still time to make that change—the Scotland Bill is still going through this House—and I hope that, when she replies, the Deputy Leader of the House will confirm that serious consideration is being given to it.
I am mindful of your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to raise one final point: the position Mr Speaker that will be put in if we proceed with the proposal. My concern should be shared by everyone in the House. I do not envy Mr Speaker the position in which he will find himself. He will require the wisdom of Solomon if he is to make the necessary adjudications, and he will certainly need a lot of legal advice, which I suppose would be one of the upsides of the process.
It would be useful to know the view of the Clerks, Parliamentary Counsel and Speaker’s Counsel before we proceed. It seems to me that a whole body of legal advice will be required, not just for primary legislation, but for secondary legislation. The issue of most concern, however, is that when Mr Speaker makes an adjudication on a controversial case—perhaps one on which there is some doubt about the financial consequences—he will be forbidden from giving his reasons for doing so. We already know what will happen. On the day when he makes an adjudication, the aggrieved party, the one that is disappointed, is always going to be bouncing up. There will be points of order, applications for Adjournment debates and all the rest of it. The Speaker will be in a position where he or she has no option other than just to say, “That is my ruling and I am not going to give you any reason for it.”
Sir William Cash
The idea of giving reasons for a Speaker certificate is simply absurd. If reasons were given, everything would be handed over to the courts. That would nullify completely the sovereignty of Parliament and its organisation of its own arrangements. I really do think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to take that into account.
Mr Carmichael
I do not think anybody should have anything to fear from justiciability. Essentially, we are getting to the point where it is inevitable that we will have a written constitution and that brings with it the concept of justiciability. Mature legislatures across the world have this and manage to cope with it. There are historical reasons why we in this House are so suspicious of it. For the Scottish Parliament, it is already a reality and it is something we manage to cope with remarkably well.
I am mindful of the fact that I have taken slightly longer, but these are issues of great significance. I appreciate the listening mode we have had from the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House, but we need more. We need proper consideration. They should take these proposals away, come back with a Green Paper and let the Select Committees do their job. Let us build a consensus, so that the legitimate grievances that have been spoken of are given a solution that they ultimately deserve. This is not it.
English Votes on English Laws
Alistair Carmichael Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the means by which the Government seeks to deliver the objectives outlined by the Leader of the House in his Statement on English Votes on English Laws.
I am exceptionally grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and to hon. Members throughout the House for the support that they have given me in bringing this matter to the Floor of the House today. It is a matter that is genuinely urgent, given the timescale that has been presented to the House by the Government, although it need not necessarily have been so. The urgency is of the Government’s own making. The matter had been under consideration already and would benefit from further mature consideration.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I would have liked to put in to speak in this debate, but I have to return at 2 o’clock to Committee to consider the Education and Adoption Bill, which I believe I would be barred from participating in under the terms of the Government’s proposals. Does not the depth of the proposals mean that we should have proper, thorough parliamentary scrutiny of these matters, rather than the proposals being railroaded through in this unconstitutional manner?
Mr Carmichael
I am not entirely sure whether the hon. Gentleman is right that he would be barred from that, certainly at this point, but I can see that that is the logic of where we eventually go, although I suspect that logic might be resisted by the Government and Opposition Whips Offices because I know from my own experience that getting people to serve on such Committees is not always easy. It will be interesting to see what influence the Government business managers bring to bear on that in the fullness of time.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Is there not a further reason why we would charge the Government with haste on this issue? Many of us on the Opposition Benches—a growing number, I hope—think the impact of the Scottish referendum will be to move this House to an English Parliament, with Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That ought to be at least part of the discussion, rather than being excluded from the discussion, as the Government have done.
Mr Carmichael
Rather than saying that that should be part of the discussion, I think it comes to the very heart of the discussion. I fully accept that the devolution process that was started in 1999 has created within the United Kingdom a number of anomalies. I entirely understand the concerns felt by right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies in England, in particular. In order to address these anomalies, we need mature considered measures, instead of replacing the existing anomalies with further anomalies, as I very much fear the Government are about to do.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Surely it is true to say that discussions about future devolutionary change can go on. What is proposed is a change in the Standing Orders simply to give a veto to the representatives of the people affected. That does not lead to an English Parliament or to English initiative; it finally brings a little justice into the system. It is based on what we had in our manifesto, and it should be proceeded with quickly.
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Indeed, I suspect that I am more grateful than his colleagues on the Treasury Bench are, because he has nailed one point very early on: this does constitute a veto. As a federalist, I have no problem with vetoes, but if they are to be part of our parliamentary procedure we have to be prepared to have them going in different directions. The veto now being anticipated for English Members of Parliament would not be available to Scottish Members of Parliament, because they are governed by the Sewell convention and legislative consent measures. That is only the subject of a convention; it is not a veto. That is what I mean when I say that the Government, by bringing their proposal forward in this manner, risk creating further anomalies. The anomaly is one not of detail, but of fundamental constitutional principle. Were the House to bring together its collective mind, I do not doubt that we could eventually find a solution. Perhaps we would reach a compromise that was a little messy, but it is something we could reach. However, we are not going to reach that in the one day that will be offered to us to debate the changes to the Standing Orders.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Is the right hon. Gentleman not ignoring history? Scotland has had special arrangements in this House since the Victorian period. From 1948 Bills could be dealt with by the Scottish Grand Committee, and that was expanded in the 1990s, as he knows very well, and eventually Scotland ended up with its own Parliament. He cannot stop some change on the basis that it is not the final change.
Mr Carmichael
I am by no means resistant to some change, and I will return to that point shortly. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the Scottish Grand Committee could debate Bills, but it could not vote on or amend them. That is how Grand Committees work. They are a perfectly sensible mechanism by which debate can be conducted by those who have the most direct interest, although they are perhaps a little redundant in this age of devolution, but they are by no means an attack on the fundamental principle that once we leave the Committee Rooms and enter this Chamber we are all equal and have the same right to participate in votes.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the biggest danger facing the Union is not Scottish nationalism, but English nationalism? If we fail to deal with English votes on English laws in a timely manner, as set out in our manifesto, which the people voted for, English nationalism will see off our Union.
Mr Carmichael
I absolutely agree 100% with the hon. Gentleman. The threat comes from English nationalism. However—it pains me to say this—that English nationalism is to be found on the Treasury Bench. The Leader of the House, when he came to the Dispatch Box last week, took great pains to say that he was speaking as a Conservative and Unionist. I hate to say it, but he has brought forward something that no Unionist should. It is perfectly understandable for people in England to identify a national interest in response to a mood of Scottish nationalism forming north of the border, but the answer is not to meet it with more nationalism. The answer, I suggest, is a proper federal structure across the whole United Kingdom.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, as an historian, you will know that the history of these islands is one of constitutional abnormalities. We are a nonsense, but somehow it works. It works because in this Chamber we are all equal, no matter where in the United Kingdom we come from. Therefore, to destroy that is nonsense.
Mr Carmichael
This is where I will try to make some progress. I have been generous in taking interventions so far.
As I said yesterday, I want today’s debate to focus on the means by which the Government are seeking to achieve English votes for English laws, rather than the principle of English votes for English laws itself. As I have said, I am not without sympathy for the principle. I think that ultimately the solution will be for the people of England to decide what they want their constitutional future to be. Are they to have an English Parliament? If so, they should have an English Parliament, and this is the United Kingdom Parliament. Are they to have a network of regional Assemblies or something of that sort? That is a decision for the people of England, not something that we should seek to shoehorn into our Standing Orders.
My concern about what is proposed is that it is the most modest of proposals. It does not deal with the over-centralisation of power in Whitehall that blights people in England. It does not deal with the lack of proportionality. It does not deal with the fact that there is only one UK Independence party MP for 4 million votes. Those issues are also a democratic affront that require urgent consideration by those on the Treasury Bench, yet they do not seem to be attended to by the determination to introduce changes to the Standing Orders before the House rises for the summer recess.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
What does the right hon. Gentleman say to my constituents who see the inherent unfairness of a situation in which he can vote on education matters affecting my constituency but I cannot vote on education matters affecting his? My constituents might quite rightly accuse him of wanting to have his porridge and eat it, and that is unfair to England.
Mr Carmichael
Hopefully that is the last time I take an intervention intended for a local press release. Had the hon. Gentleman been listening, he would have heard me say a number of times already that I completely understand that point and am sympathetic to it. It is an issue that needs to be resolved by the people of England and for the people of England, but not by trashing the Union and the United Kingdom Parliament, of which we are all Members. I do not know what the ultimate solution will be, but I wish the people of England every bit as much joy in that debate as we in Scotland have had over the past 50 years. It is a debate that they must now have if we are to remain part of this family of nations.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government, by ignoring Sir William McKay’s advice and proposing to give some MPs a veto, are creating a two-tier system of MPs and attempting to create a new Parliament by the backdoor?
Mr Carmichael
I am afraid that is exactly what is happening. The Government are trying to create an English Parliament within the United Kingdom Parliament, instead of doing the long and difficult thing that we had to do in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is a real threat to the United Kingdom if MPs from England regard this place as an English Parliament, rather than a United Kingdom Parliament. That used to be what it meant to be a Unionist. That is why I lay the charge at those on the Treasury Bench that they risk losing the right to call themselves Unionists.
Mr Carmichael
I am going to make some progress, because the range of voices heard in this debate should be as wide as possible and I want to allow as many Members as possible to make speeches.
The Government brought forward a number of supporting papers with the Leader of the House’s statement last week. They are helpful, in as much as they give some detail on the proposals, but they give no indication of what they are seeking to achieve and where this will ultimately take us. The question of the double majority was raised earlier by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). It does constitute a veto. If we are to have a double majority, that means, in effect, that we will have two tiers of MP. We cannot have a double majority without having two tiers of MP; it is illogical nonsense to insist otherwise. Once we have crossed that threshold—crossed the constitutional Rubicon—we have to wonder where it will ultimately take us.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Is it not the case that we already have a two-tier system of MPs in Parliament—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—in that some Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies refuse to take their seats and yet are paid allowances by this Government?
Mr Carmichael
I do not think that is quite the kind of two-tier system that Conservative Members were cheering. The right hon. Gentleman is correct in his analysis. An appropriate change could be made to Standing Orders for that, because it is perfectly—
Mr Carmichael
Forgive me—I really do need to make some progress, or nobody else is going to get to speak.
That would be an appropriate use of the way in which the Chamber responds to issues through Standing Orders. Matters of constitutional change, by convention—and rightly so—are taken on the Floor of this House at all stages, and likewise in the other place. They are given the fullest consideration because it is understood that they become exposed only with proper debate and scrutiny.
One of the novel aspects of the proposal that the Leader of the House laid before the House last week is the extension of these matters to Finance Bills. That opens up a whole range of questions that were not answered by him at the Dispatch Box or by the papers that he placed in the Vote Office. Finance Bills are, and have been for a long time, treated differently by this House. The fact that they are considered only by this House and not by the other place is the obvious difference, but there are also differences in the way in which they are introduced and considered in a mix of time spent here on the Floor of the House and in the Committee Room upstairs.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Are not Finance Bills a classic example of the way in which our unwritten constitution has developed? We trust Governments to be careful with it and to nurture it, whereas in this process we see a Government lighting the blue touch paper on the Union and not being careful with our unwritten constitution. Should not this House say, “Take care, take time, reflect”?
Mr Carmichael
That is exactly what I hope this debate will achieve, because I know that the concerns about the constitutionality and the process of this are shared by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Sir William Cash
I am exceedingly grateful. The problem with the proposition that the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward is that it ignores the fact that there are already two classes of functions that were passed by the United Kingdom Parliament, which created not two tiers of membership in this House but two functions as between the Scottish Parliament, with its devolved functions, and those in the United Kingdom, which have been left swinging in the wind. Does he not accept that?
Mr Carmichael
I do, but the hon. Gentleman must surely accept that what is being proposed through changing Standing Orders is not an appropriate way of addressing it. As I have already said times without number, I fully accept that several anomalies have been created by devolution, starting in 1999, but the answer to that is not to trash our own procedures in this House.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Carmichael
No; let me make a bit of progress because I want to stay on the question of Finance Bills.
Even with the measure of devolution of some taxes—I stress “some”—I would suggest that the setting of the Government budget as a whole is, again, treated differently from the passing of legislation in individual policy areas. Will the Leader of the House explain how his proposed new system is going to work for the consideration of estimates? For example, will estimates debates continue to be a vehicle for Select Committees, and how will that work when Select Committees draw their members from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which will be the case in this Parliament, as we can see from the Order Papers for today and and tomorrow?
This goes to the point that the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) made about serving on Committees. I do not doubt that the Committee concerned, with good will, and perhaps even a measure of discussion among the usual channels, could deal with this, but the anomaly has been created and as yet the Government have no answer to it. Where is this going to take us in future? How are Members of Parliament from areas of the country that exercise devolved powers going to interact with Select Committees? If the principle of veto is to be accepted, and if members of the Health Committee or the Education Committee, for example, are to be drawn only from England and Wales, I very much look forward to seeing how the Government are going to set up the Scottish Affairs and Northern Ireland Affairs Committees—good luck to them on that one.
If the principle of the veto is to work, it has to work both ways. For the Scottish Parliament, that means the end of the Sewel convention and the end of the conventional sense—the classic sense—of parliamentary sovereignty as it has been understood in this Chamber in the past, because if we give a veto to the Scottish Parliament on legislative consent motions, then that is the end of Dicey’s classic definition of sovereignty. I am not too unhappy about that—I am quite relaxed about it—but if the House is to undertake something of this sort, surely it requires more than the debate that we are being offered.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I think that the right hon. Gentleman misses the key point about this being done through Standing Orders, which is that Standing Orders can be suspended by the House in a specific instance or permanently, and that therefore the sovereignty of this House remains unaffected.
Mr Carmichael
No. If we are to take this to its logical conclusion—that is to say, to give a veto to the Scottish Parliament on areas that would currently be dealt with by the Sewel convention—then that will not be reclaimed by Standing Orders; it is the end of the supreme sovereignty of this House. That is why we need a sensible, more reasoned debate for which Standing Orders will always be inadequate.
Mr Carmichael
No, I am sorry—I have been generous with my time.
The logic is that we should be considering this, if it is to be considered at all, by virtue of primary legislation. I know that that brings concerns particularly to those on the Treasury Bench, and that the Leader of the House will say that it raises questions of justiciability and reviewability of decisions that would ultimately have to be taken by you, Mr Speaker.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful. Is there not a clear distinction between two things? The first is whether this should be introduced by means of Standing Orders, and the second is what procedure, or method of reflection, the House may go through in deciding how and whether to adopt it, and under what circumstances. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was drawing the House’s attention to the latter point and the apparent lack of a timetable for proper consultation on this issue.
Mr Carmichael
The two propositions are not mutually exclusive. There are elements that could be capable of remedy through Standing Orders if we were to have a proper debate. The Government’s proposal goes too far, too fast. In principle, other changes may be possible, as we discussed in government before the general election. I do not completely exclude the possibility of proceeding in that way, but going as far as the Government want to us to go, and within their timescale, brings with it an attendant level of risk that I would consider to be irresponsible in these circumstances.
The last Government discussed whether the proposal could be addressed in a single Bill. If there is a will in the House to consider how it could be done, that would be a much more sensible way of doing it. The Government are saying that we should do it for a year and that it should then be reviewed by the Procedure Committee. I hold that Committee in very high esteem, but the only thing that would happen under that process is an examination of how the system had worked. It would not put a dangerous genie back in the bottle after it had been let out. I think we all know that that is the political reality.
Personally, I am quite relaxed about the use of primary legislation and the justiciability of decisions then made by Mr Speaker. I do not think that anybody in this House should be making any decision that would not stand up to judicial scrutiny. However, if that is to be the block, let us have a proper debate, because it must be possible to use primary legislation to deal with that very point. Surely it is necessary to have a proper description of the boundaries of judicial review and any proscriptions. Frankly, this House has never undertaken such an exercise. Judicial review as a body of law has been allowed to grow like Topsy, led by the judiciary itself.
I am aware that I have already taken up quite a lot of time, albeit with interventions.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Does not the presence of so many Tory Members—they are considerably greater in number today than they have been for sittings on the Scotland Bill—and the amount of animated interventions they are making indicate the need for a very full and proper debate?
Mr Carmichael
I believe so. It also highlights the need for a debate that goes well beyond the walls of this Chamber. The debate needs to be conducted throughout the country and to take in not just the political parties, but the Churches, the trade unions and civic England in the widest possible sense.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Carmichael
No, I will not give way.
That was how we built the consensus in Scotland that then led to the creation of a Scottish Parliament. Ultimately, that is what the people of England are going to have to do. They are not entitled to use the United Kingdom Parliament as a proxy for an English Parliament.
That brings me to my final point. In Scotland last year we went through a painful process that ultimately led to the people of Scotland deciding to remain part of this United Kingdom. We did it on the basis that we are all equal participants in this Union. I made those arguments in good faith and I believed at the time that the Conservatives did so, too. It is difficult for them to sustain that proposition if they insist on proceeding in this way.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)
I am pleased to have a further opportunity to set out the Government’s plans for strengthening the Union by providing fairness for England.
At the centre of the plans I announced last Thursday is the concept of fairness for all four countries of our United Kingdom. Fairness requires that further devolution of powers to Scotland and Wales be accompanied by a louder voice for England at Westminster on English matters. If we are devolving tax rates to other countries of the United Kingdom—the House is currently legislating to do so—it is only fair that Members of Parliament in those constituencies affected by that change have the decisive say over any tax rates that apply in their constituencies. If Members of the Scottish Parliament are in future to decide a Scottish rate of income tax, is it actually unfair that English Members of Parliament, or English and Welsh MPs, or English, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs, have the decisive say over tax rates that affect their constituencies?
Mr Alistair Carmichael
Will the Leader of the House tell us, then, whether it is now Government policy to end the Sewel convention on legislative consent motions and to give the Scottish Parliament a veto when it does not consent?
Chris Grayling
Not at this moment, no. We have an established method of using legislative consent motions. It is not unreasonable that we should use that same device in this House when an English-only matter affects English-only constituencies. Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that he should resist the idea of a legislative consent motion approved by English Members of Parliament on matters that affect only their constituencies?
Chris Grayling
Let me cover some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, and I will then give way again.
The right hon. Gentleman’s first point was about two-tier MPs. He and other Members on the Opposition Benches are concerned that the proposals will create two tiers of MP or will impinge on the equal status of Members of Parliament. That is simply not right. All Members of Parliament are equal, and all of them will be able to continue to debate and vote on every piece of legislation passing through the House of Commons. It is simply incorrect to say that any Member of this House will be excluded from voting on or debating any piece of legislation. That is not what the reforms say: it is absolutely clear that everyone will be able to continue to participate.
Mr Alistair Carmichael
What, then, is the point of the right hon. Gentleman’s double majority?
Chris Grayling
The point is that if a measure affects wholly and exclusively English or English and Welsh Members of Parliament, they should have the decisive say on whether it is passed. Such a measure cannot be agreed without a majority of the United Kingdom Parliament, but nor can it be agreed without a majority of the MPs whose constituencies are affected by the change.
Mr Walker
It is for the hon. Gentleman to make that point. As I said, I want to keep out of the politics. I know that that is difficult for a Member of Parliament, but I will try my best.
I have briefly covered my concerns about Report, which I believe are shared by other colleagues I have spoken to.
Mr Alistair Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman talks about more time being available for Report. Would not the guarantee of that be a House business committee? Is that not the logical conclusion of where we are heading? In his many discussions with the Leader of the House, has he detected any enthusiasm from those on the Treasury Bench for that proposition?
Mr Walker
The right hon. Gentleman makes a wonderful intervention, because I am a huge fan of a House business committee, but he will recall that he was in the previous Cabinet, which did not bring forward such a committee. If the Government are minded to support one, they would obviously have my support in that ambition.
Mr Alistair Carmichael
First, may I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin John Docherty) on a truly magnificent maiden speech? He was unfortunate that his time was limited, but I am sure the House will hear more from him in the future.
If there were any doubt about the need for this debate, it has surely been dispelled by the way in which it has been conducted and by its content. Several issues have come to light. First, the Government are going to create two tiers of MP: that will be the inevitable consequence of their double majority. Secondly, English Members of Parliament will have a veto, but, according to the Leader of the House, a veto will not be afforded to the Scottish Parliament, because the Government insist on the continuation of the Sewel convention.
The most important issue, and that which causes most concern, is the politicisation of your role, Mr Speaker, because you will be put in the position of having to arbitrate on these questions and then not have to give any reasons for your decision. Surely that means that we will be left to speculate on the Chair’s reasons, and such speculation cannot be sensible or, indeed, healthy in a political forum. We will be excluded not from debate, but from decisions. That is no way to run a Parliament.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) said that she was acting on the resentment of her constituents. I do not doubt that that resentment is real, but I invite her to reflect on whether that is really the proper basis on which to proceed with changes of this sort. What she is supporting will merely reinforce that resentment, rather than address the underlying reasons for it.
I am not going to burst into song, but if I were I would turn to the late great Johnny Nash, who said:
“There are more questions than answers
And the more I find out, the less I know”.
I am afraid that that is where we are.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Question is going to be put anyway. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had finished his speech at any rate.
English Votes on English Laws
Alistair Carmichael Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
This is an important point; it is absolutely right and fundamental. Over the next two years, we shall see, for example, the creation of a Scottish rate of income tax—the power of the Scottish Parliament to set its own rate of income tax. Is it wrong that at the same time English MPs should have a right to say no if a UK Parliament imposes a tax that will apply only to English MPs’ constituents? I think they should have a say on that, and this proposal will do that.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
If there are not to be two tiers of MPs in this House after these changes, what on earth does it mean to have a double majority at Report stage? I have to say I think it is an outrage that the Government are seeking to drive ahead with a fundamental challenge to the constitutional integrity of this House as the Parliament of the UK through Standing Orders. If the Leader of the House really thinks these proposals will bear scrutiny, he should bring forward primary legislation for proper scrutiny both on the Floor of this House and in the other place. If he thinks he can do that, let him come ahead and do it.
Chris Grayling
Standing Orders can be amended and changed by hon. Members, but if it is the view of Members of this House that there should be primary legislation when we carry out the review in 12 months’ time, the right hon. Gentleman should bring that forward as a proposal.
Devolution (Scotland Referendum)
Alistair Carmichael Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
It is an enormous pleasure to conclude what has been one of the best debates on a range of constitutional issues that I have known in my time as a Member of Parliament. We have heard some quite remarkable contributions from all parts of our still United Kingdom. It is almost invidious to single out any, but let me do just that anyway at the risk of causing some offence.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) has just said, the contributions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore) and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) were quite outstanding for their thoughtfulness and their content.
In addition, I thought that the contributions from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the right hon. Members for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), and for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) all brought a great deal to the debate. Inevitably, this is a debate to which the House will be returning on a number of occasions in the weeks, months and possibly years to come.
The issues addressed in this debate, and the wider debate in the country, fall into three broad categories. I shall do my best to address all three in the time that is available. First, we must consider how to fulfil the joint commitment by all three party leaders to deliver more powers to the Scottish Parliament in the light of the referendum no vote.
Secondly, we must consider how to ensure that power is properly devolved and decentralised to the nations, communities and individuals who comprise our United Kingdom. Thirdly, separately but rightly, we must consider how we might answer the West Lothian question, which has come about as a consequence of devolving power to specific parts of the United Kingdom.
The spark for this wider debate was the referendum on Scottish independence, which was held last month. The referendum was underpinned by the Edinburgh agreement between the Scottish and UK Governments that empowered the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum. That agreement delivered its explicit intent: a referendum that was legal and fair in its conduct and decisive in its outcome.
The First Minister and his Deputy made it clear during the campaign that, in their view, the referendum was a once-in-a-generation event, and perhaps, as the First Minister said, a once-in-a-lifetime event. I am sure, therefore, that I am not the only Scot to be dismayed to see them now turn their back on the commitments made during the referendum. They have raised the prospect of another referendum in the near future, or perhaps even a unilateral declaration of independence if they again win a majority. That is foolish and dangerous talk from the point of view of Scotland’s business, Scotland’s economy and jobs for the people of Scotland. Unfortunately, that view was reflected again in the contribution of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). He described the referendum as a tremendous experience. He spoke with some passion about all the things that he loved about it. The only thing that he did not like was the outcome.
The nationalists need to confirm that they respect the result—the views of the people of Scotland—and that they will not be revisiting this issue again. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) wish to intervene? I will take his intervention.
Angus Robertson
I was wondering why the right hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said in my first intervention on the Leader of the House. I said that of course the Scottish National party respects the outcome of the election. Why is the Secretary of State pretending that he did not hear that?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman answered only half of my challenge. He was challenged to say that we will not have the Scottish nationalists wanting a second referendum. If he will meet that challenge, he can stand up and do it now.
Angus Robertson
For the record—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] For the record, is the Secretary of State for Scotland now acknowledging that the Scottish National party respects the outcome of the referendum and that that was said earlier in this Chamber? He said that it was not said. Will he correct what he just said a moment ago? Secondly, on the question of a referendum, there will only ever be a referendum in Scotland on Scottish independence if the electorate want it.
Mr Carmichael
Weasel words, Mr Speaker. I do not think we need to waste any more time listening to the contributions from that corner of the Chamber.
The vow made by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition during the referendum campaign is already being put into practice. The Smith commission was up and running on 19 September and yesterday I was pleased to publish the Command Paper more than two weeks ahead of the schedule outlined in the previously published timetable—evidence that the Government are delivering on the vow.
The process is not just about the parties. The referendum opened up civic engagement in Scotland across sectors, communities and organisations, and Lord Smith has made it clear that he wants to hear from all those groups to ensure that the recommendations he produces are informed by views from right across Scotland. This will be the first time in the development of Scotland’s constitutional future that all of its main parties are participating in a process to consider further devolution. That is a truly historic moment and one that I very much welcome.
Of course, as many Members have pointed out, it is England that has experienced the least devolution of power in recent years and that is something that needs to be addressed. A key problem in doing so is that there is no consensus in England on what further devolution might look like. If nothing else, that much must be clear from today’s debate. I say to our English colleagues that the people in Scotland debated this issue at length over a period of decades, and they now need to do the same. What would English devolution look like? We have heard suggestions that it should involve structures within the existing constitutional architecture and of regional assemblies. We have even heard suggestions of an English Parliament. Those ideas have all been promoted in the debate today, but it is clear that the position in England is not yet settled.
Mr Redwood
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Conservative party has been going on about this since the last century and that it has been our settled policy since the 2001 election? We have thought it through, we have written the papers, we have argued in the pamphlets and we now want justice for England.
Mr Carmichael
I enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution and understand the passion he brings to the debate, but I would gently say to him that simply having a settled position in the Conservative party is not the same thing as building consensus across the wider community.
We have, of course, heard some discussion of the West Lothian question or, as it has recently been styled, English votes for English laws. The first of the terms, in my view, is slightly outdated, and the second is rather simplistic. The welcome transfer of powers to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the London Assembly, and the prospect of further devolution still, has created not just an anomaly but a complex one. The challenge to those who pursue the quest for English votes for English laws is that they seek to devolve power within Parliament but not within the Executive. That brings a range of new problems and unsustainabilities of its own.
Mr Carmichael
I am sorry, but I am really up against it for time now.
The Liberal Democrats have been clear that in working with others to find consensus on such a solution we must not adopt a fix that creates more problems, anomalies or unfair advantages. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) has recently pointed out, devolution to every other part of the United Kingdom has been to Parliaments and Assemblies that were elected using proportional systems, in recognition that within the constituent parts of the United Kingdom we often find domination by one party or another. Accordingly, proportionality without the balance across the whole of the United Kingdom becomes more important.
It is a matter of profound regret that we learned today that the Labour party has indicated that it will not join the Government in seeking a fair solution to an outstanding problem and we urge it to reconsider genuinely and soon.
That brings me finally to the question of a constitutional convention, something on which I believe there is a way forward. If all parties take part in good faith, there should be no question of its being an exercise in putting material into the long grass.
It is worth remembering that four short weeks ago the future of our United Kingdom was at stake. The referendum was won decisively, and it is a positive outcome. Moving forward, we need a sustainable constitutional settlement that meets the wishes of the people of our nations and the clear commitments we have given them—
Sittings of the House (22 March)
Alistair Carmichael Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bone
I want to keep very closely to the subject of the motion, and I think that that is straying rather wide.
I feel exceptionally strongly about this issue and the fact that Parliament—[Interruption.] The Whips are already having a go at me from a sedentary position. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) asked why I was not here at the beginning of the debate. I have already explained that to the House. I am really annoyed by the attitude of the Whips in this place. That is what brings this House into disrepute. They do not care about Parliament; all they care about is getting Executive business through. They are shameful. I wish my private Member’s Bill had gone through, as that would have abolished them.
The Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36.)
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Speaker
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Draft Financial Services Bill (Joint Committee)
Alistair Carmichael Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jones
Without wanting to be diverted by my right hon. Friend, I certainly do agree with the hon. Gentleman about defence expenditure and the shambles that this Government are making of defence, but I shall not digress to that.
It is important that we get this right, so I do not think that having 1 December is right. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Committee will change the date if it wishes.
We must look at what is being put forward. The motion states that the Committee shall have five powers:
“to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to report from time to time; to appoint special advisers; and to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.”
I will go through each of those because they are relevant to the work of the Committee. On the power to send for persons, papers and records—
The Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Business of the House (Thursday)
Alistair Carmichael Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Speaker
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Points of Order
Alistair Carmichael Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
In a moment. Patience is a great virtue. I could not possibly miss the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The House will have noted your most helpful statement concerning the finding of the court that the election result in Oldham East and Saddleworth was void. Will you confirm, for the benefit of the House, that that means that there is currently no Member elected here to serve the people of Oldham East and Saddleworth? What assurance can you give the House and the people of that constituency that they will not be denied indefinitely, by untested legal proceedings, the representation to which they are entitled?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman, for whose point of order I am grateful, essentially raises two points. The answer to his first point is yes, as indicated in my statement when I referred to the need for Mr Woolas to vacate his seat from the date of the report, 5 November 2010. The answer to his second point is that of course I attach a premium, as I am sure the House as a whole will attach a premium, to a speedy resolution of the matter in the interests of Parliament, in the interests of Oldham East and Saddleworth constituency electorate, and in the interests of the country.
It is precisely because I attach such a premium that I thought it would help the House if I caused inquiries to be made of the administrative court as to the urgency with which a judicial review application would be treated. Therefore, I reiterate both for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and for all Members of the House that I did, indeed, cause such inquiries to be made, and I was advised that the administrative court judge has ordered an expedited hearing of the renewed application. He has done so precisely because he, too, considers it essential that the electorate of Oldham East and Saddleworth should know who is their Member of Parliament as soon as possible. I hope that is helpful to all with an interest in the matter.
Use of the Chamber (United Kingdom Youth Parliament)
Alistair Carmichael Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith,
That the Question be now put.