Prorogation of Parliament

Debate between Catherine West and Paul Scully

Monday 9th September 2019 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 269157 and 237487 relating to the prorogation of Parliament.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I will read the wording of both petitions into the official record. The first petition is titled, “Do not prorogue Parliament”, and states:

“Parliament must not be prorogued or dissolved unless and until the Article 50 period has been sufficiently extended or the UK’s intention to withdraw from the EU has been cancelled.”

That petition received 1,721,119 signatures within a very short space of time. The second petition, which has already closed, is titled, “The Prime Minister should advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament”, and says:

“The Prime Minister should advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament suspending the current parliamentary session until 2nd April 2019”—

that is clearly out of date now—

“to prevent any attempts by parliamentarians to thwart Brexit on 29th March 2019. Preparations for no-deal/WTO will continue. The Prime Minister’s deal has been rejected. No further deal is available from the EU. Remaining in the EU is not an option. Extension or revocation of Article 50 is not an option. I believe the British people voted to leave with no mention of a deal and that WTO rules, to which Britain will default on 29th March 2019, are in Britain’s best interests. We may get a better deal after, but not until, we have left.”

As I said, the second petition is out of date; events were moving so quickly at the time that it was difficult to schedule a debate on it and to keep it topical. Naturally, with the Prorogation of Parliament upon us tonight, as I believe has been declared, it was deemed suitable to bring the two petitions together.

It is important that the Petitions Committee should always try to allow people to have their views aired. There is a reason why debates on petitions in Westminster Hall are some of the most read and watched debates: it is because we are talking about what people want us to talk about, rather than what we want to talk about. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the two coincide in this case. I have noticed that over the last three years we have wanted to talk about Brexit quite a lot; and because of the topicality of the issue, and because the Prime Minister has been clear that we will leave the EU by 31 October, come what may, people want to express their opinion, whether they want to stop no deal or stop Brexit in its entirety. It is important that we discuss that in the House of Commons.

There is a clear reason why Prorogation is a sensible idea. The Prime Minister was elected by members of the Conservative party, and people have asked what his domestic agenda will be. It is therefore right that we debate the wider domestic agenda, as well as Brexit, in this place. That can be done through a Queen’s Speech, in which the Prime Minister can set out clearly what he wants to do in the coming year, in a new Session of Parliament, to move the debate on, move Parliament on, and move the bandwidth of the media away from Brexit as we leave on 31 October.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I thank my London colleague for giving way. Does he believe that 100,000 votes from Tory party members is enough of a mandate for making such important decisions?

[Paul Scully]

I will come back to the question of mandate, because in about five hours the Prime Minister will ask Members to vote for a general election. We have all said that we do not want one at this time, because we want to get on with the job in hand, but at the moment, that is the best way not only to resolve the conundrum that we face in the lead-up to 31 October, but to move on and to show that there is a mandate for the domestic agenda.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Debate between Catherine West and Paul Scully

Monday 14th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good start to the debate. May I suggest that it has been wonderful how the Speaker has brought everyone together on this important issue and shown great sensitivity, together with Rose our chaplain, when it comes to how we as parliamentarians come to terms with something so dreadful?

[Paul Scully]

I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the Speaker. He has shown compassion at every point; many of us saw how powerfully and emotionally he spoke at the reception last week. The Speaker’s office was on to my office last week when there was talk of a possible announcement by the Prime Minister. He is really keeping a keen, close eye on developments. That is as it should be; none the less, it is an absolute testament that we should pay tribute to him.

There is no doubt that we need to do everything we can to build and retain trust with a community who feel left behind. Those of us who spent a few moments on Parliament Square just before the debate will have seen the raw feeling that is still there 11 months on—and we can absolutely understand why. There are so many unanswered questions and so many people still unhoused—an issue I will return to.

Last week, a resident described what had happened as a tragedy in three acts: being ignored during the refurbishment of the tower, the fire itself, and the sense of abandonment at certain times afterwards. The Minister and other members of the Government have updated the House on several occasions about what is being done to rehouse those who lost everything last June. I do not underestimate Ministers’ efforts and the work they are undertaking to allow survivors to rebuild their lives, but we need to ensure that the Government go as far as they can to assure residents that they will not simply kick the inquiry—or any part of it—into the long grass. I dare say that the Lakanal fire will be mentioned a good few times during the debate, but we cannot countenance any situation in which recommendations are filed in the “too difficult” drawer. There can be nothing too difficult to ensure that there is no repeat of the Grenfell fire.

While I was speaking to Grenfell residents, they naturally raised other issues of concern, which I am sure will be mentioned in this debate. I heard that some people were still unable to move into new homes. A number of reasons were given, but the one that struck me were the considerable delays in getting gas certification for the properties. We need to address that sort of bureaucracy in some way, shape or form, so that efforts can concentrate on the more complicated rehousing needs, while the higher duty of care as a social landlord is still being met. I used to be involved with residential properties, and I know that gas certification is a relatively straightforward process that should take days to organise, not weeks, so will the Minister update us on what is happening in that regard?

People living in tower blocks around the country will be following the Grenfell situation carefully. I have been in touch with my constituents many times over the last 11 months, especially those in Chaucer House and Balaam House—two tall, recently clad buildings in Sutton. I understand their fears, and I will continue to be in touch with them until we have all the assurances and the remedial work they need. I hope that the Minister will continue to keep us up to date with fire safety testing. Will he tell us whether the new Secretary of State will continue to evaluate both the merits of banning desktop studies entirely and Dame Judith Hackitt’s recommendation to restrict their use?